United States Department of the Interior 


BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


Jarbidge Field Office 


2536 Kimberly Road 


Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 


Jarbidge Proposed Resource Management Plan 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Clarification Letter 

Dear Interested Citizen: 

The purpose of this letter is to clarify the relationship between the Jarbidge Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) revision and (1) the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Idaho Southwestern Montana 

Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for managing Greater Sage-Grouse (ldaho/SW 

Montana RMPA), and (2) the 2005 Jarbidge Stipulated Settlement Agreement. 

The Jarbidge RMP Revision Process 

BLM began the process of revising the existing Jarbidge RMP (1987) in January 2006 with the 

publication of the Notice of Intent to Prepare the Jarbidge RMP Revision in the Federal Register. The 

Jarbidge RMP planning process focused on updating management actions for all resources in the field 

office. As such, the Jarbidge Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (PRMP/FEIS) provides the proposed action for integrated management of all resources in 

the planning area. 

The National Sage-grouse Planning Strategy and RMP Amendment Process 

After BLM Idaho began the Jarbidge RMP revision process, a national strategy for sage-grouse 

management was initiated through issuance ofBLM's Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-044. 

That 1M provided direction to all of the planning efforts across the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(sage-grouse) to consider all applicable conservation measures when revising or amending Resource 

Management Plans in sage-grouse habitat. The 1M also directed that BLM consider the measures set 

forth in "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" (NTT Report) (Dec., 

2011). The national planning strategy responded to an increasing national concern over the future of 

the sage-grouse and its habitat, including the US Fish & Wildlife's March 2010 finding that the sagegrouse was "warranted but precluded" for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

As part of the national planning strategy, the BLM is in the process of developing the ldaho/SW 

Montana RMP A EIS which will consider sage-grouse conservation measures for all RMPs in Idaho 

and southwest Montana, including an alternative that included the conservation measures from the 

NTT Report. Specifically, the ldaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS considers incorporating appropriate 

sage-grouse conservation measures into RMPs for twelve BLM field offices in Idaho and southwestern 

Montana, including approximately 1.3 million acres of public lands in a portion of the Jarbidge Field 

Office in Idaho. The Draft Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS, issued on November 1, 2013, proposed 

amending the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. BLM Nevada is also preparing a Nevada/Northeastern California 
2 

considering RMP-level sage-grouse conservation measures for all RMPs in Nevada. The Jarbidge 

Field Office is included in the decision area for these two amendments.

The Relationship between the Two Processes With Respect to the Jarbidge Field Office

The Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS and the NV/NE California RMPA EIS are components of the 

national planning strategy described above. The record of decision (ROD) for the Idaho/SW Montana 

RMPA is expected to amend up to 29 BLM and Forest Service land use plans, including the a portion 

of the lands within the Jarbidge Field Office that are within the State of Idaho. The ROD for the 

NV/NE California RMPA will amend up to 21 BLM and Forest Service land use plans, including a 

portion of the lands within the Jarbidge Field Office that are within the state of Nevada. 

The specific dates for completion of the RODs for the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA, the NV/NE 

California RMPA, and the Jarbidge RMP revision are unknown. At the completion of these planning 

efforts (the RMPAs and the Jarbidge plan revision), the BLM’s goal is to have a land use plan for the 

Jarbidge planning area that includes the following: (1) sage-grouse specific conservation measures 

that help to alleviate threats to sage-grouse in the Jarbidge Field Office, and (2) updated management 

actions and goals for other resources and uses in the Jarbidge Field Office that will guide BLM 

management of the public lands in the Field Office. 

Because BLM is already considering and analyzing the conservation measures from the NTT Report in 

the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA, which includes the Jarbidge RMP planning area, it is unnecessary to 

duplicate that effort in this PRMP/FEIS. The Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS is also considering other 

alternatives, including an alternative submitted by Idaho Governor Butch Otter. The BLM determined 

that it would be unnecessary and unreasonable to include alternatives that are being considered in the 

Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS in the Jarbidge PRMP/FEIS. The BLM expects that the Jarbidge RMP 

revision ROD will post-date the sage-grouse RMPA RODs, in order to provide consistent management 

direction throughout the life of the Jarbidge RMP revision. 

Grazing Range of Alternatives and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement

In September 2005, BLM entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA) with Western 

Watersheds Project (WWP) and livestock grazing operators to settle ongoing litigation tied to livestock 

grazing and grazing permit renewals for 28 grazing allotments located within the Jarbidge Field Office

(WWP v. Ellis et al. (Case No. CV-04-181-S-BLW) (D. Idaho)). In the SSA, the BLM agreed to 

embark on an RMP revision to the Jarbidge RMP to address livestock grazing throughout the field 

office rather than a more targeted analysis of grazing on the 28 allotments. The SSA provides that in 

developing the revised RMP “BLM will consider no grazing and other alternatives. BLM will retain 

full authority to determine which alternatives are to be analyzed in detail, consistent with law; 

however, BLM will analyze in detail at least one alternative in the EIS addressing significantly reduced 

grazing levels in those areas demonstrating livestock-related conflicts with other multiple use values.” 

A no grazing alternative was considered in this planning effort, but eliminated from detailed study 

because a) it did not meet the purpose and need for this RMP, and b) no issues or conflicts that would 

require the complete elimination of any uses, including grazing, within the planning area for its 

resolution were identified (see Chapter 2, Section 2.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study). 
3 

Consistent with the requirements in the SSA, the BLM analyzed in detail significantly reduced grazing 

alternatives. Alternative V analyzes the impacts of reducing forage allocated to livestock grazing (in 

animal unit months) by 78% relative to the No Action Alternative. Alternatives IV-A and IV-B reduce 

the forage available to livestock grazing, relative to the No Action Alternative, as much as 60%. 

Sincerely, 

~?t.~fr-_ Timothy M. Murphy 


Acting Idaho State Director