Resource Management Planning

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 1600

[LLWO210000.L1610000]

RIN 1004-AE39

Resource Management Planning

AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend existing regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The proposed rule would enable the BLM to more readily address landscape-scale resource issues, such as wildfire, habitat connectivity, or the demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources and to respond more effectively to environmental and social changes. The proposed rule would further emphasize the role of science in the planning process and the importance of evaluating the resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at the onset of planning. The proposed rule would affirm the important role of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public during the planning process, and would enhance opportunities for public involvement and transparency during the preparation of resource management plans. Finally, the proposed rule would make revisions to clarify existing text and use plain language to improve the readability of the planning regulations.

DATES:

Please submit comments on or before April 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Mail:

Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE39.

Personal or messenger delivery:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003.

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions at this Web site.

You may submit comments on the proposed collection of information by fax or electronic mail as follows:

Fax:

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, 202-395-5806.

Electronic mail:

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov

.

Please indicate “Attention: OMB Control Number 1004-XXXX,” regardless of the method used. If you submit comments on the proposed collection of information please provide the BLM with a copy of your comments at one of the addresses shown above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leah Baker, Branch Chief (Acting), Planning and NEPA, at 202-912-7282, for information relating to the BLM's national planning program or the substance of this proposed rule. For information on procedural matters or the rulemaking process, you may contact Charles Yudson at 202-912-7437. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, to contact these individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

The BLM initiated this rulemaking as part of a broader effort known as “Planning 2.0” to improve the land use planning procedures required by FLPMA. The BLM follows these procedures to prepare and amend resource management plans that guide future BLM decisions on the public lands. Planning 2.0 responds to a 2011 BLM strategic review that identified challenges and opportunities for the BLM and to recent Executive and Secretarial direction that encourages science-based decision-making; landscape-scale management approaches; adaptive management techniques to manage for uncertainty; and active coordination and collaboration with partners and stakeholders. In this proposed rule, the BLM proposes targeted changes to the existing planning regulations in 43 CFR subparts 1601 and 1610 and explains the rationale.

Background

In 2011, the BLM released a strategic plan titled “Winning the Challenges of the Future: A Roadmap for Success in 2016” (the Roadmap). This plan identified several challenges for the BLM in managing the public lands consistent with its statutory direction “that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law” (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)). Management of the public lands in the 21st century is made more complex by increasing population growth and urbanization in the West, diversifying use activities on the public lands, demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources, increasing conflicts between resource uses and conservation objectives, and landscape-scale resource issues such as climate change or wildfire. The Roadmap also identified new opportunities for the BLM due to the broad availability of Internet access and rapid acceleration in technologies as well as heightened expectations for services on the part of those who use and enjoy the public lands. Given these challenges and opportunities, the Roadmap called for a more “nimble” approach to planning that is responsive to a rapidly changing environment and conditions.

In addition, recent Presidential and Secretarial policies and strategic direction emphasize the value in applying landscape-scale management approaches to address climate change, wildfire, energy development, habitat conservation, restoration, and mitigation of impacts on Federal lands. The BLM has developed strategies and tools to support this approach by advancing the role of science in public lands management, standardizing data gathering, developing landscape assessments, requiring monitoring and evaluation to guide adaptive management strategies, and advancing the use of geospatial data and technology.

Through Planning 2.0, the BLM aims to improve the land use planning process in order to apply this policy and strategic direction and to complement related efforts within the BLM. Further, the Planning 2.0 initiative aims to incorporate lessons-learned and best practices developed over the last ten to fifteen years of resource management planning and respond to public sentiment that the planning process is, at times, cumbersome and slow to complete. Specifically, Planning 2.0 seeks to achieve three goals: (1) Improve the BLM's ability to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner; (2) provide meaningful opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to be involved in the development of BLM resource management plans; and (3) improve the BLM's ability to address landscape-scale resource issues and to apply landscape-scale management approaches. The Planning 2.0 initiative includes this proposed rule and a forthcoming revision of the BLM

Land Use Planning Handbook

(H-1601-1).

Planning 2.0 is informed, in part, by public input. In May 2014, the BLM

announced Planning 2.0, created a Web site (

www.blm.gov/plan2

), issued a press release, and requested public input on ways to improve the land use planning process. The BLM held two facilitated public listening sessions that were available through a live broadcast of the event over the Internet (livestream) in the fall of 2014. The BLM also conducted external outreach to partners and internal outreach to staff. The

Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary Report

(2015) summarizes written comments received by the BLM from over 6,000 groups and individuals.

Statutory and Regulatory Authority

Section 202 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712) directs the Secretary of the Interior to “develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)) and outlines requirements for developing and revising land use plans. In particular, section 202(f) (43 U.S.C. 1712(f)) directs the Secretary of the Interior, by regulation, to “establish procedures . . . to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.” The BLM first developed land use planning regulations in 1979 (44 FR 46386, August 7, 1979). The BLM made significant revisions to the regulations in 1983 (48 FR 20364, May 5, 1983) and revised them again in 2005 (70 FR 14561, March 23, 2005).

Overview of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule would revise two subparts of the existing regulations, 43 CFR subparts 1601 (Planning) and 1610 (Resource Management Planning). Proposed changes in subpart 1601 would revise the purpose, objective, responsibilities, definitions, and principles sections. Proposed changes in subpart 1610 would describe the general framework for resource management planning, including the components of a resource management plan; update the public notification and public comment provisions; establish an assessment to determine and describe baseline conditions that would occur before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan; establish new opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process; clarify plan approval and protest procedures; strengthen the monitoring and evaluation requirements; modify the amendment and maintenance provisions; update the provisions for designating areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs); and make other clarifying edits. These revisions are discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis of this preamble. In both subparts, we propose changes to improve readability and understanding of the planning regulations to support effective collaboration and public involvement during the planning process.

Responsibilities and Plan Boundaries

The proposed rule would explain the responsibilities for preparing or amending a resource management plan to acknowledge that planning areas may extend beyond traditional BLM administrative boundaries such as Field Offices or States. References to the “Field Manager” would be replaced with the “responsible official,” as the BLM official responsible for preparing and amending a resource management plan. References to the “State Director” would be replaced with the “deciding official,” as the BLM official responsible for supervisory review, including plan approval.

The proposed rule would make the BLM Director responsible for determining the deciding official and the planning area for resource management plans and for plan amendments that cross State boundaries. For plan amendments that do not cross State boundaries, the deciding official would be responsible for determining the planning area.

Plan Components

Under the existing and proposed regulations, a resource management plan provides management direction that guides future management decisions within a planning area. The proposed rule would explain this function in greater detail by distinguishing between the components of a resource management plan that provide planning-level management direction (“plan components”) and “implementation strategies” that would guide future actions consistent with the management direction in the plan (“implementation strategies”). As proposed, plan components would include goals, objectives, designations, resource use determinations, monitoring standards, and, where appropriate, lands identified as available for disposal from BLM administration under section 203 of FLPMA. Implementation strategies would describe potential actions the BLM may take in the future in order to achieve the goals and objectives, as well as procedures for monitoring and evaluating the resource management plan implementation. Implementation strategies would be developed during the planning process but are not plan components in and of themselves.

Under the proposed rule, plan components would be changed through plan amendment or revision procedures where the BLM determined that monitoring and evaluation findings, new high quality information, new or revised policy, a proposed action, or other relevant changes in circumstances warranted a substantive change to management direction. A plan component may be adjusted through maintenance to correct a typographical or mapping error, or to reflect minor changes in mapping or data. Implementation strategies as proposed could be updated at any time without triggering a plan amendment, but would conform with the plan components and would be made available for public review at least 30 days before they can be implemented.

Planning Assessment

The proposed rule would add a new planning assessment requirement before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan or a plan amendment for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared (EIS-level amendments). The planning assessment is intended to assist the BLM and the public in understanding the current baseline in regards to resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions in the planning area. During the planning assessment, the BLM would describe these conditions and current management. The BLM would also identify the role of the public lands in addressing landscape-scale resource issues or in supporting national, regional, or local policies, strategies, or plans. The planning assessment would inform the preparation of the resource management plan or EIS-level amendments.

The planning assessment process would include the BLM arranging for relevant data and information to be gathered, identifying relevant plans or strategies for consideration, providing opportunities for other agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to provide existing data, information, plans, or strategies for consideration in the planning assessment, and identifying relevant public views concerning resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic conditions of the planning area. The proposed rule would require that the BLM use high quality information (including the best available scientific information) to inform the planning process; any

information submitted for consideration would be required to meet standards for high quality information. As part of the proposed planning assessment, the BLM would evaluate the data and information gathered to assess conditions in the planning area. This information would be summarized in a report made available for public review and, to the extent practical, non-sensitive geospatial information would be made available to the public on the BLM's Web site.

Public Involvement

The proposed rule would use the term “public involvement” instead of “public participation” to be more consistent with the terms used in FLPMA. The proposed rule also would restructure the public involvement provisions in section 1610.2 to indicate more clearly where in the land use planning process the BLM would provide for public notice, public review, or public comment. In the proposed rule, the BLM would make new commitments to announce public involvement opportunities in planning on the BLM Web site and by posting a notice at the BLM offices located within the planning area. The BLM would also notify individuals or groups that ask to receive notice of public involvement opportunities relating to a planning effort by written or electronic means, such as email correspondence.

The proposed rule would add new public involvement opportunities. First, the proposed planning assessment would include an opportunity for other Federal agencies, State and local government, Indian tribes, and the public to provide data or information or to suggest policies, strategies, guidance or plans to inform the BLM planning process and would require the BLM to identify public views in relation to resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic conditions. Second, the proposed rule would require that BLM offices make the preliminary resource management alternatives, the rationale for alternatives, and the basis for the impacts analysis available for public review in advance of issuing the draft resource management plan and draft EIS. Public review of the preliminary alternatives prior to issuance of the draft resource management plan and draft EIS would enable the public to raise any concerns with the BLM before the BLM conducts the impacts analysis of the management plan alternatives.

Integration With National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements

The proposed rule would address several procedural requirements for plan amendments to improve consistency and integration with NEPA procedures. Specifically, the proposed rule would require the publication of a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a plan amendment to align with the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations; and the public comment period on a draft plan amendment to align with the CEQ regulations and guidance regarding public comment on draft EISs. The proposed rule would change the requirements for selecting a preferred alternative to align more closely with the requirements of the Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA implementation regulations.

Protests

The proposed rule would clarify the protest procedures to provide more detailed information on what constitutes a valid protest issue and for consistency with the proposed terminology for plan components. The BLM would provide a new opportunity for the public to submit protests electronically through methods specified for each resource management plan or plan amendment. The proposed rule would clarify that proposed resource management plans (including plan revisions) and plan amendments are subject to protest. The proposed rule would provide the opportunity for a party that previously participated in the preparation of a resource management plan or plan amendment to identify why a plan component is believed to be inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public lands, or the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and regulations before the final decision to approve the plan. The proposed rule would clarify that the focus of a protest is to identify and remedy inconsistency with Federal laws and regulations or the purposes, policies, and programs of such laws and regulations.

Transition From the Existing Planning Process

The proposed rule would address the transition from the existing planning regulations to those that result from this proposal, including resource management plans currently in preparation.

I. Public Comment Procedures

You may submit comments on this proposed rule by mail, personal or messenger delivery, or electronic mail.

Mail:

Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, 1004-AE39.

Personal or messenger delivery:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003.

Electronic mail:

You may access and comment on the proposed rule at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see

ADDRESSES

).

Written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. When possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposed rule that the comment is addressing.

The BLM need not consider or include in the Administrative Record for the final rule, comments that it receives after the close of the comment period (see

DATES

) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see

ADDRESSES

).

Comments, including names and street addresses, will be available for public review at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003 during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. They also will be available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions at this Web site.

You may submit comments on the proposed collection of information by fax or electronic mail as follows:

Fax:

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, 202-395-5806.

Electronic mail: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov

.

Please indicate “Attention: OMB Control Number 1004-XXX,” regardless of the method used. If you submit comments on the proposed collection of information, please provide the BLM with a copy of your comments at one of the addresses shown above.

Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information

in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment for the BLM to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

II. Background

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million acres of land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM's mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under the mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. In Fiscal Year 2014, the BLM generated $5.2 billion in receipts from public lands.

Statutory and Regulatory Authority

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, is the BLM ”organic act” that establishes the agency's mission to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple-use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law. Through FLPMA, the BLM is directed to manage the public lands in a manner which recognizes the nation's need for natural resources from the public lands, provides for outdoor recreation and other human uses, provides habitat for fish and wildlife, preserves and protects certain public lands in their natural condition, and protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values. The BLM develops goals and objectives to guide management through the land use planning process under section 202 of FLPMA.

Section 202(a) of FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior, with public involvement, to “develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands.” Among other provisions, section 202(c) of FLPMA requires the Secretary, in developing and revising land use plans: To use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; to use an interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; to give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs; to use the inventory of public lands, resources and other values, to the extent it is available; to consider both present and potential uses of public lands; to consider the relative scarcity of values; to weigh long-term benefits against short term benefits; to provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws; and to coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies, Indian tribes, and the States and local governments.

Section 202(f) of FLPMA directs the Secretary to provide for public involvement and to establish procedures by regulation “to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.” Under FLPMA, the Secretary administers the public lands through the BLM.

The BLM issued regulations establishing a land use planning system for BLM-managed public lands, as prescribed in FLPMA, in 1979 (44 FR 46386). These regulations established the term “resource management plan” (RMP) for the land use plans mandated by FLPMA, to replace the then-existing “management framework plans.” The BLM revised these regulations in 1983 to clarify the planning process and “eliminate burdensome, outdated, and unneeded provisions” (48 FR 20364). These regulations were amended again in 2005 (70 FR 14561) to make clear the role of cooperating agencies in the land use planning process and to emphasize the importance of working with Federal and State agencies and local and tribal governments through cooperating agency relationships in developing, amending, and revising the BLM's resource management plans.

The BLM's Existing Land Use Planning Process

The BLM planning process is a collaborative process, which involves Federal agencies, Indian tribes, State and local governments, and the public at various steps, while retaining decision-making authority within the BLM. Cooperating agencies play an important role in the development of resource management plans. Early in the planning process, the BLM invites eligible governmental entities to serve as cooperating agencies, and the BLM is committed to collaborating with cooperating agencies during several steps of the process. Resource management plans are generally established based on a BLM Field Office or District Office boundary and prepared by an interdisciplinary team under the direction of a BLM field or district manager. The BLM State Directors provide oversight and guidance to the field or district managers and the BLM State Directors approve the resource management plan. The BLM Director provides high-level guidance and renders a decision on any public protests of the proposed plan, and when necessary, inconsistencies with State and local plans that are raised by the Governor through a consistency review process.

As outlined in 43 CFR subparts 1601 and 1610, the steps of the planning process are fully integrated with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

1

The planning process begins with public notice and formal invitation for the public to assist the BLM in the identification of planning issues, concurrent and integrated with the NEPA scoping process. Planning issues are defined in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) as “disputes or controversies about existing and potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related management practices.”

1

Council on Environmental quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations require Federal agencies, “to the fullest extent possible,” to “[i]ntegrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively” 40 CFR 1500.2(c).

Next, the BLM develops criteria to guide the development of the resource management plan. The planning criteria ensure that the resource management plan is tailored to the planning issues and that the BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analyses. The BLM summarizes the planning issues and planning criteria in a scoping report, which is made available to the public. The BLM continues to refine the planning issues and the planning criteria throughout the development of the draft resource management plan.

To aid in the planning process, the BLM arranges for the collection or assembly of data and information, which are then analyzed to determine the ability of the resources to respond to the planning issues as well as any management opportunities. The resulting “analysis of the management situation” provides the basis for the BLM's development of a range of reasonable alternatives and analysis of the environmental impacts of these alternatives, as required by the NEPA. The BLM presents the range of alternatives in a single integrated draft resource management plan and draft EIS and identifies its preferred alternative.

The BLM then makes the draft resource management plan and draft EIS available to the public for a 90-day comment period. At the close of this period, the BLM evaluates the comments received and prepares a proposed resource management plan and final EIS, including responses to any substantive public comments received on the draft resource management plan and draft EIS.

The BLM provides the proposed resource management plan and final EIS to the Governor(s) of any State(s) the plan falls within for a 60-day consistency review period. During this period, the Governor may identify any inconsistencies between State and local plans and the proposed resource management plan. This step, including the process of resolving identified inconsistencies, ensures that BLM has satisfied the FLPMA section 202(a)(9) requirement that the BLM keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans and assist in resolving, to the extent practical and consistent with Federal law, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans. Concurrent with the Governor's consistency review, the BLM provides a 30-day period during which members of the public who have an interest that may be adversely affected by the approval of the proposed resource management plan and who participated in the planning process may protest approval of the proposed resource management plan. The BLM Director renders a decision on any protest, which serves as the final decision of the DOI, and is not subject to an administrative appeal.

Following approval of the resource management plan, the BLM conducts monitoring and evaluation at intervals established in the plan to assess the need for maintenance, revision, or amendment of the plan. Maintenance is provided as needed to address minor changes in data. An amendment or plan revision is initiated in response to monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances, or a proposed action that would not be in conformance with the approved resource management plan. The BLM undertakes a resource management plan revision when monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, and changes in circumstances affect the entire plan or major portions of the plan.

The proposed rule would maintain the general process for developing, revising, amending, and maintaining a resource management plan, as described, while proposing specific changes to improve the process in a number of ways.

Why the BLM Is Proposing Changes to the Land Use Planning Process

The proposed rule would respond to needs identified by the BLM and related Presidential and Secretarial direction. In 2011, the BLM released a strategic plan titled “Winning the Challenges of the Future: A Roadmap for Success in 2016” (the Roadmap). This document highlighted the increasing complexity the BLM faces in managing for multiple-use and sustained yield on the public lands. Population growth and urbanization in the West, a diversifying portfolio of use activities, demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and the proliferation of landscape-scale environmental change agents such as climate change, wildfire, or invasive species create challenges that require that the BLM develop new strategies and approaches to effectively manage the public lands. Simultaneously, the rapid acceleration in technologies such as the Internet, telecommunications, and analytical tools, including geospatial tools, have brought new opportunities combined with new expectations for services to be provided by land management agencies. Given the foundational nature of land use planning, a process that establishes direction for future management activities on the public lands, the Roadmap recognized the need for the BLM's resource management plans to address these challenges and respond to emerging opportunities. The Roadmap also recognized the importance of an efficient planning process, one that can effectively integrate new information and new technologies as they become available in order to keep resource management attuned to changing conditions on the ground and newly available information.

Specifically, the Roadmap set the following goal for the BLM to accomplish by the year 2016: “Adopt a proactive and nimble approach to planning that allows us to work collaboratively with partners at different scales to produce highly useful decisions that adapt to the rapidly changing environment and conditions” (page 10). Following the publication of the Roadmap, the BLM chartered a team of BLM managers and planning staff to assess the current status of the BLM's resource management plans and develop recommendations to improve the process for developing resource management plans. The proposed rule, in part, would implement the recommendations for achieving the goals set forth in the Roadmap.

Related Executive and Secretarial Direction

In addition, the proposed rule would respond to and advance direction set forth in several Executive or Secretarial Orders and related policies and strategies. This direction demonstrates an increasing emphasis within the DOI, and the Federal Government, on the use of science-based, collaborative, landscape-scale approaches to natural resource management. Recent Presidential and Secretarial direction provided to DOI bureaus and agencies emphasize the importance of this approach for resource management planning.

Effective collaboration is a central theme in recent Presidential and Secretarial directives, beginning with the President's 2009 Open Government Directive (M-10-06). This directive describes the three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration as the cornerstone of an open government by promoting accountability to the public, sharing of information, and partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across all levels of government, and between the government and private institutions. In 2012, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the CEQ issued the “Memorandum on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution.” This memorandum directs Federal departments and agencies to ensure they effectively explore opportunities for up-front collaboration in their planning and decision-making processes to address different perspectives and potential conflicts and thereby promote improved outcomes, including fewer appeals and less litigation.

Multiple directives related to climate change also emphasize the importance of collaboration, science, adaptive management, and the need for landscape-scale approaches to resource management. “Secretarial Order 3289—Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” issued on September 14, 2009, and amended on February 22, 2010, directs DOI bureaus and agencies to work together, with other Federal, State, tribal and local governments, and private landowners, to develop landscape-level strategies for understanding and responding to climate change impacts. The Departmental Manual chapter on climate change policy (523 DM 1), issued on December 20, 2012, similarly directs DOI bureaus and agencies to “promote landscape-scale, ecosystem-based management approaches to

enhance the resilience and sustainability of linked human and natural systems.” “The Department of the Interior Climate Change Adaptation Plan for 2014” (Climate Change Adaptation Plan), provides guidance for implementing 523 DM 1 and “Executive Order No. 13653—Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” (78 FR 66819). The Climate Change Adaptation Plan directs the DOI bureaus and agencies to strengthen existing landscape level planning efforts; use well-defined and established approaches for managing through uncertainty, such as adaptive management; and maintain key ecosystem services, among other important directives. This plan also identifies several guiding principles, including the use of the best available social, physical, and natural science to increase understanding of climate change impacts and active coordination and collaboration with stakeholders.

Likewise, recent directives associated with renewable energy development and mitigation practices emphasize the importance of a collaborative, landscape-scale approach. “Secretarial Order 3285—Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior,” issued on March 11, 2009, and amended on February 22, 2010, identified renewable energy production, development, and delivery as one of the Department's highest priorities and called on bureaus and agencies to carry out this priority by collaborating with one another and with governmental and tribal partners, local communities, and private landowners. In particular, this Order highlighted the need to identify and prioritize specific locations that are well-suited to large-scale renewable energy production as well as the electric transmission infrastructure and transmission corridors needed to deliver the energy produced.

A landscape-scale approach to planning is integral to realizing renewable energy development, in addition to other priorities on Federal lands. “Secretarial Order 3330—Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” issued on October 31, 2013, called for the development of a DOI-wide mitigation strategy, which would use a landscape-scale approach to identify and facilitate investments in key conservation priorities in a region. The April 2014 report, “A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of The Department of the Interior,” provides direction to implement such an approach. And the Departmental Manual was revised in October 2015, to include direction to all bureaus and agencies for implementation of this approach to resource management (600 DM 6).

The Presidential Memorandum “Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment,” issued in November 2015, affirmed the importance of applying a landscape-scale approach by directing agencies that “[l]arge-scale plans and analysis should inform the identification of areas where development may be most appropriate, where high natural resource values result in the best locations for protection and restoration, or where natural resource values are irreplaceable” (80 FR 68743).

Finally, “Secretarial Order 3336—Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration,” issued on January 5, 2015, directs DOI bureaus and agencies to use landscape-scale approaches to address fire prevention, management, and restoration in the Great Basin; and to establish protocols for monitoring the effectiveness of fuels management, post-fire, and long-term restoration treatments and a strategy for adaptive management to modify management practices or improve land treatments when necessary.

Collectively, these directives identify the importance of science-based decision-making; landscape-scale management approaches; adaptive management techniques to manage for uncertainty; and active coordination and collaboration with partners and stakeholders. The BLM believes that changes to the resource management planning process will assist in effectively implementing these directives.

The Planning 2.0 Initiative

Together, the Roadmap and the recent policy and strategic direction described in this preamble informed the BLM's decision to revise its resource management planning process. The BLM's Planning 2.0 initiative responds to this opportunity. Through Planning 2.0, the BLM seeks to improve the resource management planning process, including the development, amendment, and maintenance of resource management plans. The BLM has developed three targeted goals to guide the Planning 2.0 initiative:

Goal 1: Improve the BLM's ability to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner.

This goal addresses the need for land use plans that support effective management when faced with environmental uncertainty, incomplete information, or changing conditions. It is imperative that resource management plans provide clear management direction to guide future management activities on the public lands, while facilitating the use of adaptive, science-based approaches to respond to change when necessary and appropriate. Encompassed in this goal is the need for an efficient planning process so that changes to a resource management plan, when needed, are timely and responsive to the relevant issues.

2

2

An efficient land use planning process under FLPMA advances direction in CEQ NEPA regulations and guidance for seeking efficiencies in the NEPA process.

See, e.g.,

40 CFR 1500.2(b) and (c) and 1500.5; Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies from Nancy H. Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, “Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act” (Mar. 6, 2012),

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/improving_nepa_efficiencies_06mar2012.pdf.

Goal 2: Provide meaningful opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to be involved in the development of BLM resource management plans.

This goal highlights the importance of strong public involvement in the planning process to reduce conflict and disputes over public lands management and develop durable resource management plans. Through the Planning 2.0 initiative, the BLM seeks to establish earlier and more frequent opportunities for public involvement in the planning process and to provide for effective coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, tribes, and stakeholders. At the same time, Planning 2.0 affirms the BLM's commitments to collaborating with cooperating agencies, and coordinating with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes throughout the planning process. Planning 2.0 also affirms the BLM's commitment to working with Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) throughout the planning process (see existing 43 CFR 1610.3-1(g)).

Goal 3: Improve the BLM's ability to address landscape-scale resource issues and to apply landscape-scale management approaches.

This goal addresses the need for landscape-scale management approaches to address resource issues that cross traditional administrative boundaries. The BLM manages a diverse range of natural resources, which occur at an equally diverse range of geographic scales, and collaborates with a diversity of partners, stakeholders and communities, who work at different scales. For these reasons, the BLM planning process must be able to consider issues and

opportunities at multiple scales and across traditional management boundaries.

To achieve these three goals, the BLM is proposing to amend specific provisions of the land use planning regulations (43 CFR part 1600). The proposed regulatory revisions are the subject of this rule. Separately, the BLM also is revising the Land Use Planning Handbook to provide detailed guidance to implement these regulations. We have taken a coordinated approach to ensure that these two efforts mutually support the achievement of the Planning 2.0 goals and provide consistent requirements and guidance for developing and amending resource management plans.

Related BLM Initiatives

In recent years, the BLM has taken several steps toward the goals identified in the “Related Executive and Secretarial Direction” section of this preamble, including tools to aid science-based decision-making; landscape-scale management approaches; the use of adaptive management techniques to manage for uncertainty; and active coordination and collaboration with partners and stakeholders. These steps include crafting new policies and strategies and introducing innovative data and information technology tools. The Planning 2.0 initiative supports the implementation of these other important BLM efforts, and is mutually supported by these other efforts. Here we describe several other BLM efforts and how they relate to the goals of Planning 2.0, even though they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

In partnership with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and other Federal agencies, the BLM has worked to develop Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) in the western United States.

3

Each REA synthesizes the best available information about resource conditions and trends within an ecoregion and highlights areas of high ecological value, as well as areas that have high energy development potential and relatively low ecological value, which could be well-suited for siting future energy development. In addition, REAs establish landscape-scale baseline ecological data to help gauge the effect and effectiveness of future management activities. The REAs are an important step in support of adaptive, landscape-scale management approaches,

4

and they provide necessary data and information to support the Planning 2.0 goal to address landscape-scale resource issues and to apply landscape-scale management approaches.

3

The LCCs are a network of 22 public-private partnerships launched under Secretarial Order 3289 to improve the integration of science and management to address climate change and other landscape-scale issues. See

http://lccnetwork.org/about.

Information about the REAs is available at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

4

See BLM

Information Bulletin No. 2012-058, “The Bureau of Land Management's Landscape Approach for Managing the Public Lands” (Apr. 3, 2012), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_information/2012/IB_2012-058.html.

In 2013, the BLM issued the “Draft—Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS)-1794” as interim guidance, which promotes consideration of mitigation within a broader regional context and development of mitigation strategies. Mitigation strategies identify, evaluate, and communicate potential mitigation needs and mitigation measures in a geographic area. Under this draft guidance, the BLM has worked collaboratively with partners to develop regional mitigation strategies in several key areas while also developing guidance consistent with Secretarial Order 3330. This guidance, which provides for a landscape-scale approach to mitigation, is consistent with the Planning 2.0 goal to apply landscape-scale management approaches. The Planning 2.0 initiative will support effective implementation of the regional mitigation policy by ensuring that resource management plans, like mitigation, are grounded in sound science, applied at a broader regional context, and that the mitigation hierarchy process is applied in the development and implementation of a resource management plan.

The BLM is implementing its “Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy” (2011), which was developed to standardize data collection and retrieval so information is comparable over time and can be readily accessed and shared. The AIM Strategy provides a process for the BLM to collect quantitative information on the status, condition, trend, amount, location, and spatial pattern of renewable resources on the nation's public lands. The BLM strategy, “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy” (2015), outlines goals and an action plan for integrating science into multiple-use land management decisions in a consistent manner. Both strategies improve the BLM's ability to employ science-based decision-making and apply adaptive management techniques using standardized monitoring data that can be analyzed and applied at multiple scales. These steps are essential to achieving the Planning 2.0 goals.

In addition, the BLM is implementing its “Geospatial Services Strategic Plan” (GSSP) (2008), which will provide the high-quality mapping products needed to develop and support adaptive, landscape-scale management approaches. The GSSP establishes a governance model for the management of BLM's geospatial information and institutes a structure to coordinate the use of geospatial technology within the BLM. The GSSP also addresses data management, data acquisitions, data standards, and the establishment of corporate data themes. Geospatial transformation is essential for achieving all three Planning 2.0 goals. In addition to supporting science-based, landscape-scale, adaptive management approaches, advances in geospatial technology support the use of new and innovative methods for public involvement. For example, the development and deployment of BLM's ePlanning platform, an online national register for land use planning and NEPA documents, provides a dynamic and interactive link between text, such as land use plans, and the supporting geospatial data. The ePlanning platform enables the BLM to make documents and maps available to the public via the Internet for review and comment and provides a searchable register for NEPA and land use planning projects (

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do

). The BLM is transitioning to the ePlanning platform for all land use planning and NEPA documents and expects that ePlanning will be deployed throughout the BLM by 2017.

Finally, the BLM is strengthening its commitment to partnerships and cooperating agencies. The BLM's “National Strategy and Implementation Plan to Support and Enhance Partnerships, 2014-2018” (2014), highlights the importance of partnerships to achieving the BLM's mission, and creates a national framework for improved coordination in support of partnerships across the BLM. The updated BLM publication,

A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners

(2012), reaffirmed the BLM's commitment to working with Federal, State, local, and tribal government partners. The Planning 2.0 goal of providing new and enhanced opportunities for collaborative planning will build on these foundational efforts.

Initial Public Involvement in Planning 2.0

The BLM has conducted public outreach and engagement activities as a part of the Planning 2.0 initiative. This outreach is consistent with section 2(c) of “Executive Order 13563—Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3822), which encourages agencies to seek the views of those who are likely to be affected by a rulemaking before issuing a proposed rule. The outreach for the overall Planning 2.0 initiative includes the proposed rule and a forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook. The BLM launched the Planning 2.0 initiative in May 2014 by seeking public input on how the land use planning process could be improved. The BLM developed a Web site for the initiative (

www.blm.gov/plan2

) and issued a national press release with information on how to provide input to the agency. The BLM held public listening sessions in Denver, Colorado (October 1, 2014) and in Sacramento, California (October 7, 2014). Both meetings were led by a third-party facilitator and were available to remote participants through a live broadcast of the event over the Internet (livestream). The goals of these meetings were to share information about the Planning 2.0 initiative with interested members of the public, to provide a forum for dialogue about the initiative, and to receive input from the public on how best to achieve the goals of the initiative. Summary notes from these meetings and recorded livestream video are available on the Planning 2.0 Web site (

www.blm.gov/plan2

).

The BLM has conducted external outreach to BLM partners and internal outreach to BLM staff in State, District, and Field Offices. External outreach included multiple briefings provided to the Federal Advisory Committee Act chartered RACs; a briefing for State Governor representatives coordinated through the Western Governors Association; a briefing for State Fish and Wildlife Agency representatives coordinated through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; multiple briefings for other Federal agencies; a webinar for interested local government representatives coordinated through the National Association of Counties; and meetings with other interested parties upon request.

Public Response to Planning 2.0 During Early Engagement

Since May 2014, over 6,000 groups and individuals submitted written comments for BLM's consideration. This information was summarized into a written report and made available on the Planning 2.0 Web site on February 3, 2015. The input received through written submissions and the public listening sessions covered a broad range of topics and opinions, which are summarized in this preamble and described in more detail in the “Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary Report” (2015). The summary report is available on the Planning 2.0 Web site (

www.blm.gov/plan2

). The BLM has worked to consider this information and to find an appropriate balance between different needs and perspectives in the development of the proposed rule.

A large number of comments focused on how to integrate adaptive management into resource management plans. While nearly all comments supported the goal of “a more dynamic and efficient planning process,” many commenters were concerned that resource management plans could become so “dynamic” that they become meaningless. Many comments suggested that the BLM establish achievable and measurable objectives to guide future decisions, as well as indicators and thresholds for resource condition in resource management plans. While some commenters believed that the BLM should have the ability to increase or reduce resource protections established in the resource management plan if site-specific conditions warrant, many commenters were concerned that such an adaptive management approach might allow activities that otherwise conflict with the other resource management plan goals and objectives.

Some commenters suggested that efficiencies could be gained by developing standardized decision language, prohibiting overlapping designations, and working with partners to avoid duplication of efforts. Commenters requested that the BLM improve data collection and management by including non-BLM data sources in resource management plans; providing better public access to BLM data; establishing standards for monitoring in resource management plans; designating timeframes to modify management based on monitoring results; and identifying enforceable actions if monitoring does not occur.

Public comments affirmed the value of public participation as essential to the success of any land use plan. Several commenters expressed the need for broad, comprehensive stakeholder participation and requested that the BLM conduct strategic and targeted outreach at the onset of all planning efforts to reach stakeholders. Commenters also encouraged the BLM to collaborate with other Federal agencies, which often manage adjacent lands, and to conduct outreach to Indian tribes.

Numerous commenters suggested two new opportunities for public involvement in the planning process. Outreach before initiating the NEPA scoping process could be used to identify preliminary stakeholders and management issues, solicit input about resource data needed for resource management plan development, and encourage stakeholders to contribute inventory information. Additionally, a public review of preliminary management alternatives could occur between public scoping and the publication of the draft resource management plan and draft EIS to help BLM refine the range of alternatives to address public concern.

The BLM also received comments on different ways to effectively engage the public. Several commenters requested that the BLM leverage Web-, tele-, and video-conference technology to reach a larger audience while also providing meaningful involvement opportunities for members of the public without technological access. Commenters also described a broad range of best practices for public participation and encouraged the BLM to implement these practices in the planning process.

Several commenters proposed instituting a landscape level planning process in which the BLM would evaluate public lands, establish priority areas for conservation and priority areas for development, set desired conditions at the ecoregional level, and then allocate allowable uses and make special designations at the field office level. Conversely, some commenters questioned the utility of landscape level planning. It is important to many stakeholders that resource management plans provide specific, local context, and clearly articulate for local users how the BLM will manage public lands close to them. Some commenters were concerned that it would be shortsighted for the BLM to limit development only to those priority areas identified in an ecoregional plan, as future technological advances could make new unforeseeable areas appropriate for development.

Many comments urged the BLM to integrate the DOI mitigation policy, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior” (Secretarial Order 3330), into the land use planning process. Public comments also stated that effective landscape planning should be fully integrated with the NEPA process and provide clear direction for considering State and private lands. At the same time, commenters cautioned that the

BLM should ensure that landscape level planning does not result in time-consuming analysis that overlaps the NEPA analysis that already occurs during a resource management plan revision.

In addition to input on how to meet Planning 2.0 goals, many public comments contained recommendations on how the BLM should address specific resources, uses, and special designations in resource management plans. These comments are summarized in the “Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary Report” (2015), available on the Planning 2.0 Web site (

www.blm.gov/plan2

).

Why the Proposed Rule Is Necessary To Achieve the Goals of Planning 2.0

As part of the Planning 2.0 initiative, the BLM proposes revising specific provisions of the land use planning regulations (43 CFR part 1600). The BLM is also revising the Land Use Planning Handbook. After careful consideration, the BLM believes that such an approach would most effectively advance the goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative by ensuring that the land use planning regulations and the Land Use Planning Handbook provide clear and consistent direction leading to improved stewardship of the public lands and resources. In the following paragraphs we explain how the proposed changes to the planning regulations would serve the overall goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative.

Under the proposed rule, the BLM would distinguish between the planning-level management direction that guides all future management decisions (plan components) and the information that may be included with a resource management plan that describes how the BLM intends to implement future actions consistent with the planning-level management direction (implementation strategies). This distinction is essential for applying a landscape-scale management approach, which requires consideration of a broader regional context when developing planning-level management direction. Such consideration is difficult to achieve when planning-level management direction is integrated with detailed information about implementing future actions. This distinction would also facilitate the use of adaptive-management approaches when developing future actions consistent with the management direction in the resource management plan.

The proposed changes would emphasize that land use planning is grounded in high quality information, including the best available scientific information, and that the future actions taken consistent with a resource management plan should be based on the high quality information at the time the action is proposed.

The proposed changes would also emphasize the importance of assessing resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at multiple scales and before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan, in order to apply science-based decision-making and inform management decisions at appropriate scales.

The proposed changes would add new opportunities for collaboration in the land use planning process and emphasize the importance of early public involvement in order to engage different perspectives and ensure planning is responsive to public needs and values. Proposed changes would promote increased communication with and transparency to the public by providing for the use of electronic communications and information technology, in addition to traditional methods of communication. The BLM believes that enhanced collaboration would promote a more efficient planning process and improved outcomes by ensuring that diverse viewpoints are considered early and often. In particular, the BLM anticipates that considering diverse viewpoints early in the planning process, when they can help inform the development of the resource management plan and supporting NEPA analysis, would help the BLM avoid the need to re-start the planning process or supplement the NEPA analysis based on issues raised later in the process after considerable work has been completed. At the same time, the proposed rule would eliminate some

Federal Register

notice requirements and shorten the minimum requirement for the length of public comment periods for draft resource management plans and draft EIS-level amendments to balance the need for an efficient planning process with additional time for new public involvement opportunities and also to promote consistency and integration with the requirements of NEPA. Consistency between overlapping regulatory requirements (such as the requirements of the BLM planning regulations, the DOI NEPA implementation regulations, and the CEQ NEPA regulations) would help to make these requirements less confusing to stakeholders.

In revisions to both subpart 1601 and 1610, the BLM proposes to update existing text to reflect current style guidelines and to use plain language, consistent with the “Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing” (63 FR 31885), which directs Federal Agencies to consider rewriting existing regulations in plain language if the opportunity is available. These changes would facilitate improved readability and understanding of the planning regulations, which would support effective collaboration during the planning process.

Summary of Proposed Changes

(1) Amend the responsibilities section with the addition of the new terms “responsible official” and “deciding official.”

(2) Provide for BLM Director determination of the deciding official and the planning area for resource management plans and for plan amendments that cross State boundaries, and deciding official determination of the planning area for all other plan amendments.

(3) Distinguish between “plan components” (

i.e.,

planning-level management direction) and “implementation strategies” which assist in implementing future actions consistent with the plan components.

(4) Require specific and measurable plan objectives to improve implementation, monitoring and evaluation, transparency, and accountability.

(5) Add new public involvement opportunities during the early steps of the planning process, including an opportunity to provide data and other information to inform the planning process and public review of preliminary resource management alternatives, the rationale for alternatives, and the procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used in the effects analysis (“basis for analysis”).

(6) Add new commitments to transparency (

e.g.,

making preliminary alternatives and the rationale for those alternatives available to the public, posting resource management plans online, making protests available to the public, notifying the public before updates are made to an implementation strategy or to plan components through plan maintenance, and making plan evaluations available to the public).

(7) Add a new requirement for an assessment of resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions which will be made available to the public and provide important baseline information before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan or a plan amendment

for which an EIS will be prepared to inform the amendment.

(8) Remove the requirement to publish a NOI in the

Federal Register

for amendments that require preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) for consistency with NEPA requirements and to facilitate an efficient amendment process.

(9) Reduce the minimum public comment period for draft EIS-level plan amendments from 90 days to 45 days for consistency with NEPA requirements and to facilitate an efficient amendment process. Reduce the minimum public comment period for draft resource management plans from 90 days to 60 days to allow for the addition of new early opportunities for public involvement (

e.g.,

public review of preliminary alternatives) while still maintaining an efficient process.

(10) Replace the requirement that the BLM identify a single preferred alternative in a draft resource management plan and draft EIS with a new requirement that the BLM identify “one or more” preferred alternatives for more consistency with DOI NEPA implementation regulations that apply to draft EISs (43 CFR 46.425(a)).

(11) Affirm the legal requirements for consistency with the land use plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes for consistency with FLPMA and improved clarity.

(12) Amend the protest section to clarify what constitutes a valid protest and the requirements for submitting a protest.

(13) Amend the resource management plan maintenance section to clarify the limitations of its use and to provide transparency to the public when changes are made through plan maintenance.

(14) Amend the ACEC provisions for improved clarity.

(15) Replace the requirement to publish a notice in the

Federal Register

listing each proposed ACEC with a requirement to notify the public of each proposed ACEC.

(16) Remove the requirement to provide a 60 day public comment period on the draft resource management plan or plan amendment when an ACEC is involved for better integration of ACEC consideration into the overall planning process and consistency with NEPA requirements.

(17) Clarify the specific requirements of the Governor's consistency review and provide the BLM Director discretion to notify the public of his or her decision by means other than the

Federal Register

.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed Changes

The proposed rule would revise part 1600, including subparts 1601 (Planning) and 1610 (Resource Management Planning). Proposed revisions in subpart 1601 would update and introduce new definitions and revise the purpose, objective, responsibilities, environmental impact statement policy, and principles sections.

Proposed subpart 1610 would be reorganized to improve readability. The proposed revisions would describe guidance and general requirements, and resource management plan components; update the public involvement provisions; establish an assessment of baseline conditions in the planning area before the BLM initiates the preparation of a resource management plan and EIS-level amendments; revise the steps in the planning process to increase transparency and add new opportunities for public involvement; clarify resource management plan approval and protest procedures; modify the monitoring and evaluation, amendment, and maintenance provisions; update the provisions for designating ACECs; and make clarifying edits.

The following paragraphs present a section-by-section analysis of key proposed changes under each subpart compared to the current regulations.

Subpart 1601—Planning

The BLM would make several style changes throughout both subparts, such as replacing the Bureau of Land Management with the acronym “BLM” and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with the acronym “FLPMA,” for improved readability. We would replace the word “title” with “part” throughout both subparts for consistency with current style guidelines. We also would replace the word “shall” with “will” throughout both subparts for improved readability, unless otherwise noted. We would replace “plan” with “resource management plan,” where appropriate, and “amendment” with “plan amendment” throughout both subparts to improve consistency and precision in use of terminology.

Finally, we propose to remove most references to resource management plan “revisions” throughout both subparts. Revisions would be included in the definition of a resource management plan (see proposed § 1601.0-5) and must comply with all of the requirements of these regulations for preparing and approving a resource management plan (see proposed § 1610.6-8). Differentiating between the preparation of a new resource management plan and the revision of a resource management plan is unnecessary and confusing. For example, if the BLM revises portions of more than one existing resource management plan, it is unclear whether the resulting resource management plan would be considered a new resource management plan or a revised resource management plan. Under the proposed and existing regulations, there is no substantive difference between a resource management plan and a resource management plan revision, therefore both would be considered a “resource management plan.”

Section 1601.0-1 Purpose

The only proposed changes to this section are to introduce the acronym “BLM,” which is used throughout the part and to remove the words “and revision” for the reasons previously described. There would be no substantive change to this section.

Section 1601.0-2 Objective

The BLM proposes to revise the stated objectives of resource management planning to reflect FLPMA and remove vague or inaccurate language. In the first sentence, we propose to remove the phrase “maximize resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures.” The term “maximize resource values” is vague and therefore inappropriate in regulations and a “rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures” is an objective of developing planning regulations, but not an objective of resource management planning.

Proposed changes to this section would also replace the phrase “concept of multiple use management” in the first sentence of this section with the phrase “principles of multiple use and sustained yield on public lands unless otherwise provided by law.” This change is consistent with FLPMA, which directs the BLM to “use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield” in the development and revision of land use plans (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(1)). The proposed change also acknowledges that in some situations the BLM must use and observe the principles of other legal authorities. For instance, national monuments established under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) must use and observe the principles specific to their establishment. The word “appropriate” would be removed from before “Federal agencies” in the first sentence. This

word is unnecessary, as any Federal agency may participate in the BLM's planning process; the BLM does not make a determination on which agencies may or may not be appropriate. We propose to specify that an objective of resource management planning is to ensure participation by the public, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies “in the development of resource management plans.” There would be no change in existing practice or policy from these proposed changes.

The BLM proposes to add an additional objective of resource management planning to the regulations, which is to “ensure that the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide for outdoor recreation and human use, and which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands.” This proposed change would incorporate language from FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8) and (a)(12)) to identify in the planning regulations the general management objectives that apply to the public lands and therefore apply to all resource management plans. While this is a change in the regulations, it would simply affirm statutory direction and not change existing practice or policy.

We propose to remove the final sentence in this section, “resource management plans are designed to guide and control future management actions and development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses.” This sentence does not accurately describe the objectives of resource management planning; rather it describes the function of a resource management plan. Under the proposed rule, elements of the removed sentence would be revised and incorporated into the proposed definition for “plan components” (for more information, see the discussion on “plan components” at the preamble for proposed § 1601.0-5).

Section 1601.0-3 Authority

The BLM proposes this section, which is identical to that in the existing regulations.

Section 1601.0-4 Responsibilities

The BLM proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this section to use active voice, stating “[t]he Secretary and the Director provide national level policy and procedure guidance for planning.” There would be no change in the meaning of this sentence or in the associated responsibilities. In the second sentence, we propose to establish a new responsibility for the BLM Director to determine the deciding official (a proposed new term defined in § 1601.0-5) and the planning area for resource management plans and for plan amendments that cross State boundaries. This is a change from existing regulations, where the deciding official is the State Director and the default planning area is a field office area, unless otherwise authorized by the State Director (see existing § 1610.1(b)). Although the BLM is able to establish a different planning area under existing regulations, the proposed rule would align with the BLM's intent to no longer rely on the field office area as the default resource management plan boundary and specify that the BLM Director is the appropriate employee to determine the deciding official and the planning area for resource management plans and plan amendments that cross State boundaries.

In making these changes, the BLM acknowledges that conservation, resource management, development activities, or other priorities such as landscape-scale mitigation may benefit from planning area boundaries that cross traditional BLM administrative boundaries and may require greater coordination of land use planning across BLM States and national level programs.

In paragraph (b) of this section, the BLM proposes to replace references to “State Directors” with “deciding officials” and to use active voice by stating “deciding officials provide quality control” instead of existing language which states that “State Directors will provide quality control” to improve readability. There would be minimal changes in the responsibilities associated with this role in the planning process. Although the BLM expects that BLM State Directors would continue to be the deciding official for resource management plans located within their BLM State boundaries (or an equivalent BLM Official should the boundaries of administrative oversight change in the future), in some situations a different deciding official may be appropriate. For example, a single BLM State Director could be the deciding official for a resource management plan or plan amendment that crosses State boundaries, and this would be determined by the BLM Director (see paragraph (a) of this section).

Deciding officials would be responsible for “quality control and supervisory review, including approval, for the preparation and amendment of resource management plans and related [EISs] or [EAs].” Proposed changes would clarify that deciding officials are responsible for quality control and supervisory review of plan amendments, in addition to resource management plans. These proposed changes are consistent with current practice and policy.

We propose to specify that deciding officials would determine the planning area for plan amendments that do not cross State boundaries, consistent with current practice and policy. The BLM requests public comment on the proposed responsibilities for the determination of the planning area for plan amendments. In particular, the BLM requests public comment on whether a different distinction than “crossing State boundaries” should be used to differentiate between amendments where the Director would determine the planning area and amendments where the deciding official would determine the planning area.

We propose to remove the requirement that deciding officials “provide additional guidance, as necessary, for use by Field Managers.” This language is unnecessary in the regulations. Deciding officials may provide guidance, as described in proposed § 1610.1-1, but this is only one of their many responsibilities during the planning process that are all encompassed by “supervisory review.” It is unnecessary and inappropriate to identify the provision of guidance as a unique responsibility. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy by removing “guidance” from the responsibilities section.

We also propose to remove the requirement that deciding officials “file draft and final [EISs].” This language is unnecessary and redundant with the requirement that deciding officials provide supervisory review for “related [EISs]” which would include supervisory review of filing the documents. Current BLM practice is for the deciding official to delegate the responsibility of filing EISs or EAs. The proposed change would be consistent with current practice.

Proposed changes in paragraph (c) of this section would replace references to “Field Managers” with “responsible officials” (a proposed new term defined in § 1601.0-5) and provide that responsible officials would prepare resource management plans and plan amendments, and related EISs and EAs. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed definitions in 1601.0-5, the term “responsible official” is adapted

from the term used in the DOI NEPA regulations (see 43 CFR 46.30). There would be no change in the responsibilities associated with this role, but the new term would provide the BLM with more flexibility to prepare or amend resource management plans at levels other than a field office.

The proposed changes are intended to facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries. For instance, if the planning area for a resource management plan or plan amendment is larger than the BLM Field Office administrative boundary in order to address a landscape-scale resource issue, the BLM Field Manager may not be the most appropriate BLM employee to prepare the resource management plan or plan amendment. These changes are consistent with current practices used by the BLM. There are several examples where a BLM District Manager is the responsible official for the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan, such as the resource management plan currently under preparation for the Carson City District in Nevada.

We propose to include the preparation of related “EAs” as a responsibility of responsible officials. The proposed change would fix an existing inconsistency in the regulations. Responsible officials prepare plan amendments and either an EIS or an EA could be prepared to inform the plan amendment. Responsible officials would therefore be responsible for the preparation of a related EA, in addition to related EISs. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from this addition.

We propose to remove the final sentence of paragraph (c) of this section, which requires that “State Directors must approve these documents.” Under the proposed rule, deciding officials would approve these documents, as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.

Section 1601.0-5 Definitions

The BLM proposes to add the definitions of fourteen new terms: Deciding official, High quality information, Implementation strategies, Indian tribe, Mitigation, Plan amendment, Plan components, Plan maintenance, Plan revision, Planning area, Planning assessment, Planning issue, Responsible official, and Sustained yield. The BLM proposes to also revise the existing definitions of: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or ACEC, Conformity or conformance, Cooperating agency, Local government, Officially approved and adopted resource-related (land use) plans, and Resource management plan. The BLM proposes to remove the definitions of: Consistent, Eligible cooperating agency, Field Manager, Guidance, and Resource area or field office. The following paragraphs describe the proposed changes to these definitions and the rationale for each. This analysis does not discuss the definitions of terms that are proposed without amendment.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or ACEC.

We propose to move the last sentence of this definition (“[t]he identification of a potential ACEC shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public lands.”) to the ACEC provisions in § 1610.8-2(b). The proposed change would make the definition of an ACEC in this section more consistent with FLPMA. This sentence is not part of the definition of an ACEC provided in FLPMA and it establishes policy for a potential ACEC; it should therefore be located in the policy provisions governing ACECs. The sentence is most appropriately placed following the description of the criteria for identifying a potential ACEC (§ 1610.8-2(b)). This proposed change would not be a change in practice or policy.

Conformity or conformance.

The proposed changes to this section would replace the word “shall” with “will,” remove language that an action “shall be specifically provided for in the plan” and replace the phrase “terms, conditions, and decisions” with “plan components” of the approved resource management plan in the definition of conformity or conformance. These proposed changes would be consistent with proposed changes to § 1610.1-2, which refer to plan components instead of “terms, conditions, and decisions.” The proposed changes reflect that plan components provide the planning-level management direction that guides all future management actions, thus a proposed action must be consistent with the planning-level management direction. Proposed changes also reflect the fact that although specific actions may be identified in implementation strategies, these strategies are not considered a component of the resource management plan and must also be clearly consistent with the plan components.

The proposed rule would provide a more precise definition of conformance, which would assist the BLM and the public in identifying whether a proposed action is in conformance with an approved resource management plan. The proposed rule would also remove the words “plan amendment” from the end of the definition. These words are not necessary; an approved plan amendment is encompassed by an approved resource management plan (

i.e.,

following approval the plan amendment amends the resource management plan).

Consistent.

The proposed rule would remove the definition of the term consistent. This definition is unnecessary as this is commonly used terminology.

Eligible cooperating agency.

We propose removing this definition and revising the definition of “cooperating agency” to cite the definition of “eligible governmental entity” in the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(a)). The DOI definition was promulgated after the BLM Planning regulations were last amended in 2005. No change in meaning or practice is intended; the BLM merely seeks to make the planning regulations consistent with the DOI NEPA regulations.

Cooperating agency.

In defining “cooperating agency” for resource management planning purposes, the BLM proposes to modify the existing definition in the planning regulations for improved consistency with the DOI NEPA implementing regulations (43 CFR 46.225(a)) and to clarify existing language. This will make clear that while cooperating agencies are defined under the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, cooperating agencies have unique roles in the BLM land use planning and NEPA processes and that the BLM defines cooperating agencies in the same way for both processes. Specifically, this section modifies the existing definition in the planning regulations by adding a reference to the definition of “eligible governmental entity” from the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(a)) and by clarifying that a cooperating agency agrees to participate in the development of an “environmental impact statement or environmental assessment” under NEPA and in the planning process. We propose to delete “written” in the first sentence of this section, because a Federal cooperating agency—unlike State, local, or tribal governments—need not enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other written agreement to confirm its status under DOI NEPA regulations (see proposed § 1610.3-1(b)(2)).

We also propose to add the words “appropriate” and “scope of their expertise” to the last sentence to indicate that cooperating agencies will participate in the planning process as feasible and “appropriate,” given the “scope of their expertise” and constraints of their resources. The added language would reinforce the fact

that cooperating agencies have a broad range of expertise and their participation in the planning process should be appropriate to their particular area of expertise. The BLM intends no change from current practice or policy with these proposed changes.

Deciding official.

This proposed new definition refers to the BLM official who is delegated the authority to approve a resource management plan or plan amendment. As discussed throughout this preamble, it replaces the term “State Director” throughout the planning regulations in order to facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries.

Field manager.

We propose to remove this definition, because we propose to replace references to the Field Manager with “responsible official” or “the BLM” throughout. This change is intended to facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries.

Guidance.

We propose to remove the definition of guidance, because we believe a definition for the term “guidance” is no longer necessary in the planning regulations. Internal BLM guidance must be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, so further restrictions in the definitions section of these regulations is not necessary or appropriate. The removal of unnecessary definitions or language improves readability of the regulations. This proposed change would not be a change in practice or policy.

High quality information.

We propose to add this new definition to describe new terminology introduced into proposed §§ 1610.1-1(c) and 1610.4(b). High quality information would be defined as “any representation of knowledge such as facts or data, including the best available scientific information, which is accurate, reliable, and unbiased, is not compromised through corruption or falsification, and is useful to its intended users” (for more information, see the discussion on high quality information at the preamble for proposed § 1610.1-1(c)).

Implementation strategies.

We propose to add this new definition to describe new terminology introduced into proposed § 1610.1-3. As proposed, implementation strategies would be strategies that assist in implementing future actions consistent with the plan components. As explained in the preamble for proposed § 1610.1-3, implementation strategies would not be considered a component of the approved resource management plan; rather these optional strategies would be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of a resource management plan to assist in the future implementation of the resource management plan or be developed subsequently, but consistent, with the plan components.

Indian tribe.

We propose to add this new definition of Indian tribe for consistency with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). The planning regulations were promulgated prior to this Act and this new definition would clarify the use of this term. As proposed, the term Indian tribe would refer to federally recognized Indian tribes. This proposed change would not be a change in practice or policy.

In connection with this change, we propose to delete the words “federally recognized” from five locations where the existing regulations refer to “federally recognized Indian tribes.” These references were added under the 2005 revision to the regulations (70 FR 14561), but other existing references to Indian tribes were not amended at that time. Consequently, the existing regulations are inconsistent in their use of terminology. The references to “federally recognized” Indian tribes would no longer be necessary as a result of the proposed definition, which includes only federally recognized Indian tribes. The five references are identified and clarified in the corresponding sections of this preamble.

It is important to note that the proposed rule would not affect government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes during the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan. The proposed rule also would not affect implementation of the “Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations” (2012). The BLM would continue to conduct government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes and would also continue to consult with ANCSA corporations during the preparation and amendment of resource management plans, consistent with DOI policy.

Local government.

We propose to replace the existing language for “regulation authority” with “regulatory authority” for improved readability. No change in meaning is intended by this proposal.

Mitigation.

We propose to add this new definition of mitigation to explain that mitigation includes the sequence of avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for remaining unavoidable impacts. This sequence is commonly referred to as the “mitigation hierarchy.” By including this proposed definition in the planning regulations, the BLM acknowledges that this sequence also applies to the planning process. For example, during the preparation of resource management plans, the BLM first and foremost applies the principle of avoidance through the identification of planning issues and the formulation of alternatives that are guided by the planning issues (

i.e.,

identifying potential impacts and developing alternatives that avoid those potential impacts). During the preparation of a resource management plan, the BLM also identifies mitigation standards, which help to guide the future application of the principles of minimization and then compensation (for more information, see the discussion on mitigation standards at the preamble for proposed § 1610.1-2(a)(2)). The proposed language is consistent with the Departmental Manual chapter on “Implementing Mitigation at the Landscape-scale” (600 DM 6).

Officially approved and adopted land use plans.

We propose to replace the phrase “resource related plans” with “land use plans” in this definition and throughout both subparts. The existing terminology of “resource related plans” is vague and it is unclear what constitutes a resource related plan. The proposed terminology of “land use plans” is consistent with section 202 of FLPMA. We also propose to remove the words “policies, programs, and processes” from the definition of officially approved and adopted land use plans. The existing definition is inconsistent with § 1610.3-2, which distinguishes between “officially approved or adopted resource related plans” in existing § 1610.3-2(a) and “officially approved or adopted resource related policies and programs” in existing § 1610.3-2(b), rather than combining them, such as in the existing definition.

This proposed change would mean that the requirements of § 1610.3-2(a) would apply to the “land use plans” of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, but would not apply to the “policies, programs, and processes.” There would be no regulatory requirements for consistency with the “policies, programs, and processes” of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. This proposed change is consistent with section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. For more information, see the discussion on consistency requirements at the preamble for proposed § 1610.3-2.

Plan amendment.

This proposed new definition would clarify that a plan amendment could either be an amendment to an approved resource management plan or a management framework plan. A management framework plan is a land use plan that was prepared and approved prior to FLPMA. In either case, the BLM would be required to follow the same amendment procedures, as described in this part.

Plan components.

This proposed new definition identifies plan components as the elements of a resource management plan with which future management actions will be consistent. Although other items could be prepared in conjunction with a resource management plan, such as implementation strategies, they would not be considered a component of the resource management plan (for more information, see the discussions on plan components and implementation strategies in the preamble for proposed §§ 1610.1-2 and 1610.1-3).

Plan maintenance.

This proposed new definition would describe plan maintenance as minor changes to an approved resource management plan to correct typographical or mapping errors or reflect minor changes in mapping or data. For example, the BLM might maintain a plan by updating maps in the plan to correct a mistake in the location of a fence line. The BLM also might update maps in the plan to reflect minor changes in data, such as the location of a river that has migrated over time. The proposed language is consistent with existing § 1610.5-4 and proposed § 1610.6-5.

Plan revision.

The BLM proposes to include a new definition for plan revisions, as a revision of an approved resource management plan or major portions of the resource management plan. We propose to clarify in this definition that the phrase “preparation or development of a resource management plan,” which is used throughout the proposed planning regulations, includes plan revisions. The proposed language would improve understanding that the revision of a resource management plan follows the same procedures as the preparation of a new resource management plan (see proposed § 1610.6-7).

Planning area.

This proposed new definition would describe the geographic area for the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan and would replace the existing definition for “resource area or field office.” We would replace the terms “resource area” or “field office” with “planning area” throughout the proposed rule. The proposed change is consistent with the terminology the BLM currently uses to describe the geographic area for which resource management plans are prepared (see page 14 of BLM Handbook H-1601-1). Proposed § 1601.0-4 provides revised direction for determination of planning area boundaries. This proposed change would not be a change in practice or policy.

Planning assessment.

This proposed new definition would describe an evaluation of relevant resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions in the planning area, which is developed to describe the current status of lands and resources in the planning area, project demand for those resources, and to assess how these demands can be met consistent with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandate. The assessment will inform the preparation and, as appropriate, the implementation of a resource management plan or revision. Section 1610.4 of this preamble describes the proposed planning assessment step in the planning process, including opportunities for collaboration and public involvement. The planning assessment may also be used during the implementation of a resource management plan. For example, the BLM could use information from a planning assessment to evaluate whether a future proposed action conforms with an objective in the approved resource management plan related to the protection of a sensitive resource and could supplement that information with down-scaled information specific to the project area being considered. The BLM could also use information from a planning assessment to inform the preparation of a travel management plan.

Planning issue.

This proposed new definition would identify planning issues as disputes, controversies, or opportunities related to resource management. For example, a planning issue might identify a potential dispute over resource management, such as a popular recreation area that coincides with important cultural sites, habitat, or another multiple use. A planning issue might also identify a potential opportunity, such as an opportunity to control the spread of invasive species through resource management. The proposed new definition would be consistent with current practice and policy.

Public lands.

We propose to replace Bureau of Land Management with BLM and to split the existing definition into two sentences for improved readability. These proposed changes would not be a change in practice or policy.

Resource area or field office.

We propose to remove this definition, because the resource area or field office no longer would be the “default” planning area. We would replace the terms “resource area” or “field office” with “planning area” throughout the proposed rule.

Resource Management Plan.

We propose to simplify the existing definition to say a resource management plan is “a land use plan as described under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, including plan revisions.” Much of the existing language, and a more in depth discussion of what constitutes a resource management plan would be moved to §§ 1610.1-2 and 1610.1-3. “Plan components” and “implementation strategies” described in proposed § 1610.1 would replace the elements generally established in a resource management plan under the existing definition in § 1601.0-5(n). As discussed in § 1610.1 of the preamble, these proposed changes aim to clarify that a resource management plan is a landscape-focused document that guides future management activities. They also aim to distinguish the land use planning-level components of a resource management plan (

i.e.,

plan components) from supporting documents that assist in implementing future actions consistent with the resource management plan (

i.e.,

implementation strategies).

Proposed language would clarify that the term “resource management plan” includes plan revisions. The proposed change would improve understanding that the revision of a resource management plan follows the same procedures as the preparation of a new resource management plan (see proposed § 1610.6-7).

We propose to revise existing language at the end of this definition to read “approval of a resource management plan is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations.” The decision to approve a resource management plan is therefore not an approval of future actions within the planning area that require subsequent plans (such as a mining plan of operations), process steps (such as site-specific NEPA-analysis), or decisions (such as the decision to approve the action based on the site-specific NEPA analysis).

Responsible official.

This proposed new term would replace the term “Field

Manager” throughout the planning regulations, acknowledging that the BLM employee authorized to prepare a resource management plan or plan amendment may not always be the Field Manager due to the need to plan across traditional BLM administrative boundaries. The proposed term is based on the definition of “Responsible official” in the DOI NEPA implementing regulations, “the bureau employee who is delegated the authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action and is responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA” (43 CFR 46.30). This proposed term, as modified, would only be applicable to the BLM land use planning process; no change to the DOI NEPA implementing regulations is intended. However, note that in the DOI NEPA regulations, the responsible official has the authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action and is responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA. We propose to divide these responsibilities between the deciding official and the responsible official for purposes of the planning rule. Under the proposed rule, the responsible official would prepare the resource management plan or plan amendment and related EISs and EAs, and the deciding official would approve the resource management plan.

Sustained yield.

This proposed new definition comes from section 103(h) of FLPMA. We propose adding it because the planning regulations already include the statutory definition of multiple use and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield guide the BLM's development and revision of land use plans under section 202(c)(1) of FLPMA absent other applicable law. These regulatory definitions are useful because they are referenced throughout the existing and proposed regulations.

Section 1601.0-6 Environmental Impact Statement Policy

We propose to replace the word “plan” with “resource management plan” and to replace the word “shall” with “will” throughout this section, for the reasons previously described.

Section 1601.0-7 Scope

The BLM proposes this section, which is identical to that in the existing regulations.

Section 1601.0-8 Principles

In the first sentence of this section, we propose edits to replace “shall” with “will” for the reasons previously described, and “the Federal Land Policy and Management act of 1976” with FLPMA. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from these proposed changes.

The second sentence of this section would be revised to state that the BLM will consider the impacts of resource management plans on resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions at appropriate scales, rather than just on “local economies.” This broader range of conditions would include the consideration of impacts to local economies, in addition to the impacts on other conditions. The revised language more accurately describes current practice when considering impacts and would provide useful information for the deciding official. It is also important that these impacts be considered at appropriate scales. For example, it is important that the deciding official is aware of the socioeconomic impacts of a resource of national significance found within the planning area, such as the Federal Helium Reserve, which the BLM administers near Amarillo, Texas. The new language is consistent with the Planning 2.0 goals of addressing landscape-scale resource issues.

Finally, we propose edits to use active voice in the last sentence of this section and to require that the BLM consider the impacts of resource management plans on adjacent or nearby Federal and non-Federal lands, as well as the uses of adjacent or nearby Federal and non-Federal lands. The new language is consistent with the Planning 2.0 goals of addressing landscape-scale resource issues and would facilitate coordination and collaboration with adjacent Federal land managers and landowners, as appropriate.

Subpart 1610—Resource Management Planning

Section 1610.1 Resource Management Planning Framework

We propose to change the heading of § 1610.1 by replacing the word guidance with framework. The broader heading would reflect the entire section as revised.

Many of the provisions of existing § 1610.1 would be found in §§ 1610.1-1, 1610.1-2, and 1610.1-3 of the proposed rule. Those sections are discussed in greater detail as follows.

Section 1610.1-1 Guidance and General Requirements

Proposed § 1610.1-1 would address the development of guidance for resource management planning and general requirements for the preparation and amendment of resource management plans.

Proposed § 1610.1-1(a) contains provisions of existing § 1610.1(a). This section would still refer to planning guidance, but we propose to replace references to “State Director” with “deciding official” and references to “Field Manager” with “responsible official.” These changes are consistent with changes made throughout this proposed rule to facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries. We propose to specify that the word “plan” refers to a “resource management plan.”

Proposed § 1610.1-1(a)(1) contains provisions of existing § 1610.1(a)(1), which explains that guidance may include “Policy established through Presidential, Secretarial, Director, or deciding official approved documents, so long as such policy is consistent with the Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.” We propose to remove existing language limiting this guidance to “National level policy” to also include policy developed at the deciding official level as another type of guidance that may be developed to help the responsible official prepare a resource management plan. We also propose to remove existing language that provides examples of policy, such as “appropriately developed resource management commitments.” These examples are unnecessary in the regulations and do not adequately cover the broad range of policy examples that could be included as guidance. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from the proposed changes to this section. Rather, the proposed changes are intended to improve readability and reaffirm that the BLM may only develop or apply policy that is consistent with Federal laws and regulations.

Proposed § 1610.1-1(a)(2) contains most of the provisions found in existing § 1610.1(a)(2) with some revisions. We propose to remove existing § 1610.1(a)(3). This section would no longer be necessary because guidance developed at the deciding official level would be incorporated into proposed § 1610.1-1(a)(1). The proposed changes would remove existing requirements for the State Director to reconsider inappropriate guidance during the planning process. This language is vague and confusing, as it does not define what it means for guidance to be “inappropriate.” The BLM must comply with the requirements of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands and therefore guidance developed to inform the preparation of a resource management plan must also comply with Federal laws and regulations applicable to the public lands.

We propose to remove existing § 1610.1(b), which states “a resource management plan shall be prepared and maintained on a resource or field office area basis, unless the State Director authorizes a more appropriate area.” This language is no longer necessary because proposed § 1601.0-4 describes the responsibilities for determining future planning areas. For more information, see the discussion on the determination of planning areas at the preamble for proposed § 1601.0-4.

Proposed § 1610.1-1(b) would contain the provisions of existing § 1610.1(c). The proposed section would make several style changes: Changing “shall” to “will”, and abbreviating “Bureau of Land Management” to “BLM” in the last sentence. The first sentence would be revised to read “the BLM will use a systematic interdisciplinary approach in the preparation and amendment of resource management plans to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, ecological, social, economic, and other sciences.” The proposed language is consistent with section 202(c)(2) of FLPMA and would highlight the objective of using an interdisciplinary approach, as described in FLPMA, as well as the importance of integrated consideration of sciences in the planning process.

In the second sentence of proposed § 1610.1-1(b), we propose to replace the word “disciplines” with “expertise,” to reflect that BLM staff may have expertise outside of their formal discipline, and an “interdisciplinary approach” should be based on expertise, not formal disciplines. This proposed change is consistent with current practice. We propose to add the word “resource” before values, to clearly identify what type of values this sentence applies to and to specify that “the expertise of the preparers will be appropriate to . . . the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, or other applicable law.” No change in meaning, practice, or policy is intended by these proposed changes.

Finally, we propose to replace “Field Manager” with “responsible official” in the last sentence of proposed § 1610.1-1(b). This change would be consistent with other changes in terminology in this proposed rule.

Proposed § 1610.1-1(c) would state that the BLM will use high quality information to inform the preparation, amendment, and maintenance of resource management plans. High quality information includes the best available scientific information, but the requirement extends to other information as well. For example, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (TEK) refers to the knowledge specific to a location acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds and thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. Under the proposed rule, TEK would be considered a type of high quality information that could inform the preparation, amendment, and maintenance of resource management plans, so long as the TEK is relevant to the planning effort and documented using methodologies designed to maintain accuracy and reliability, and to avoid bias, corruption, or falsification, such as ethnographic research methods.

As the BLM considers what constitutes high quality information for purposes of the planning process, the BLM is mindful of its obligations under the Information Quality Act, section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, H.R. 5658), and implementing guidelines of OMB,

5

DOI,

6

and the BLM for “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”

7

The descriptions of objectivity, integrity, and utility provided in the BLM guidelines, as well as the principle of using the “best available” information, are particularly instructive with regard to information considered and shared with the public during resource management planning. In the planning process, the BLM also adheres to NEPA requirements for using “high quality” information and “[a]ccurate scientific analysis” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)), and for ensuring the “professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in [EISs]” (40 CFR 1502.24).

5

Office of Management and Budget, “OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication,” (67 FR 8452).

6

U.S. Department of the Interior, “Information Quality Guidelines Pursuant To Section 515 Of The Treasury And General Government Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2001,”

http://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/upload/515Guides.pdf.

7

Bureau of Land Management, “Information Quality Guidelines—Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Bureau of Land Management,”

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/national/national_page.Par.7549.File.dat/guidelines.pdf.

In addition, the BLM intends that the March 2015 publication, “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy,” will inform a responsible official's consideration of high quality information. This publication describes several principles and practices that pertain to the identification and consideration of high quality information in resource management planning. They include: Using the best available scientific knowledge relevant to a problem or decision, including peer-reviewed literature where it exists; acknowledging, describing, and documenting assumptions and uncertainties; and using quantitative data when it exists, together with professional scientific expertise from within and outside the BLM.

8

Moreover, all BLM employees are subject to the DOI scientific integrity policy in the Departmental Manual (305 DM 3, Dec. 16, 2014) when they use scientific information for DOI policy, management, or regulatory decisions. This policy states: “Scientific information considered in Departmental decision-making must be robust, of the highest quality, and the result of as rigorous a set of scientific processes as can be achieved. Most importantly, the information must be trustworthy.” (305 DM 3, section 3.4).

8

The implementation strategy is available at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/advancing_science.html.

Together, these requirements, policies, and strategies relating to high quality information, including scientific information, will guide responsible officials as they consider information for planning purposes. The BLM anticipates that including the BLM's commitment to using high quality information in the planning regulations, and operating consistent with Departmental policy on scientific integrity and BLM's strategy for advancing science, would result in greater consistency in how BLM field, district, and State offices identify and use information, including scientific information, throughout the land use planning process. The proposed change would simply reaffirm current practice and policy.

Section 1610.1-2 Plan Components

Proposed § 1610.1-2 would describe the components of a resource management plan. The existing definition of “resource management plan” lists eight elements that a plan “generally establishes” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)). The proposed rule would revise these elements and divide them into “plan components” and “implementation strategies” (see proposed § 1610.1-3). The plan components would provide planning-level direction with which future management activities and decisions must be consistent (

i.e.,

planning-level management direction). Implementation strategies would provide more detailed

information to guide how the BLM intends to implement future actions consistent with the planning-level management direction.

Proposed § 1610.1-2 describes the following six “plan components” which every resource management plan will include: Goals, objectives, designations, resource use determinations, monitoring and evaluation standards, and certain lands identified as available for disposal, as applicable. Plan components provide planning-level management direction and would therefore only be changed through plan amendments or revisions under proposed new § 1610.1-2(c), although typographical and mapping errors, or minor changes in mapping or data associated with a plan component could continue to be updated through plan maintenance, consistent with current BLM policy and practice (see proposed § 1610.6-4). The approval of plan components would be subject to protest procedures (see proposed § 1610.6-2).

This proposed distinction between plan components and implementation strategies would facilitate the preparation of landscape-minded resource management plans. The proposed rule would more clearly distinguish between the planning-level management direction reflected in the plan components of an approved resource management plan and related implementation strategies, which facilitate the implementation of future actions consistent with the plan components, but would not be considered a component of the resource management plan. By doing so, the proposed rule would enable the BLM to provide planning-level management direction through the development of plan components, while using adaptive approaches to implement future actions under the plan. It would also provide consistency throughout the BLM in how plans are structured. The following paragraphs discuss plan components in detail.

The six proposed plan components are based on the first four elements and the eighth element described in the existing definition of a resource management plan (see existing §§ 1601.0-5(n)(1) through 1601.0-5(n)(4) and 1601.0-5(n)(8)). Under the proposed rule, these elements would be called plan components and each component would be provided a distinct name and a precise definition to facilitate understanding and consistent implementation.

Proposed §§ 1610.1-2(a)(1) and 1610.1-2(a)(2) describe the first two types of plan components—goals and objectives.

The

goals

of a resource management plan would be broad statements of desired outcomes addressing resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic characteristics within a planning area or a portion of the planning area. The BLM would direct the management of the land and resources within the planning area toward the goals. This plan component would replace “resource condition goals” described in existing § 1601.0-5(n)(3). We propose to remove the words “resource condition” as goals may address other characteristics within a planning area as well. The BLM intends no change from existing practice; rather, the proposed change would improve consistency and the proposed rule would match current practice.

Second, the

objectives

would replace the “resource condition . . . objectives” described in existing § 1601.0-5(n)(3) and would represent concise statements of desired resource conditions that guide progress toward one or more goals. The proposed rule would establish a new requirement that objectives must be specific and measurable and should have established time-frames for achievement. This would improve the BLM's ability to evaluate whether the objectives are being met and to track progress towards their achievement. Since future resource management actions would be required to conform to the plan components, including the objectives (see the definition of “conformity or conformance” in proposed § 1601.0-5); the proposed requirement for measurable objectives would assist the BLM when determining if a proposed action is in conformance with the resource management plan objectives. For example, if the NEPA analysis revealed that a proposed action would prohibit the achievement of an objective, the proposed action would not be in conformance with the resource management plan.

Measurable objectives would be defined using the most appropriate scale of measurement for that objective. For example, an objective to manage an area as visual resource class one, two, or three is based on an ordinal scale of measurement. An ordinal scale ranks categories in order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), but there is no relative degree of difference between the categories. In contrast, an objective related to managing for a specific proportion of vegetation cover (

e.g.,

total acreage) is based on a ratio scale of measurement. A ratio scale has a fixed zero value and allows the comparison of differences of values.

To the extent practical, objectives should identify standards to mitigate undesirable effects to resource conditions and should provide integrated consideration of resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic factors (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2)). The proposed changes would support implementation of the BLM mitigation policy through the development of standards to be used for mitigating undesirable effects to resource conditions. For example, an objective might identify a mitigation standard for no net loss to a sensitive species would provide a standard to guide future authorizations in avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for any unavoidable remaining impacts to the sensitive species. The proposed changes would also support the use of adaptive management where appropriate, as a measurable objective could identify a threshold that triggers a response, such as the initiation of a plan amendment. If such a threshold were identified as part of a measurable objective, the BLM would use the monitoring and evaluation process to determine whether the threshold had been met (see the discussion on monitoring and evaluation at the preamble for proposed § 1610.6-4).

Although both goals and objectives are currently described in the definition of a resource management plan as an element that is “generally” included (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)), the proposed rule would explicitly require the inclusion of goals and objectives; this proposed change is consistent with current BLM policy established in the existing Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed rule would also provide clarity on the definition of the terms, which would improve understanding and consistency in implementation.

Proposed § 1610.1-2(b) would describe four additional plan components that are developed either to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource management plan, or to comply with applicable legal requirements or policies, consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield or other applicable law, such as national monuments established under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433), which must use and observe the principles specific to their establishment. These four plan components include designations, resource use determinations, monitoring and evaluation standards, and lands identified as available for disposal, as applicable. These plan components would also provide planning-level management direction while supporting

achievement of the goals and objectives of the resource management plan.

Paragraph (b)(1) of this section describes “

designations,

” which would replace the existing element of a resource management plan described as “land areas for . . . designation, including ACEC designation” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)(1)). Designations, as proposed, would identify areas of public land where management is directed toward one or more priority resource values or uses. A designation would highlight these areas to clearly communicate the BLM's intention to prioritize these resource values or uses when developing management direction or making future management decisions in the area. Designations would include both “planning designations” which are identified through the BLM land use planning process and “non-discretionary designations” which are identified by the President, Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to other legal authorities.

Planning designations would be identified through the BLM land use planning process in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the plan or to comply with applicable legal requirements or policies. An example of existing designations or allocations that would become planning designations that could be identified in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the plan is a research natural area, a special recreation management area, a backcountry conservation area, a wildlife corridor area, or a solar energy zone. An example of a planning designation that would be identified in order to comply with applicable legal requirements or policies is an ACEC. The BLM intends to develop a list of planning designations available for use during the planning process as part of the forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook. It is not, however, the BLM's intention that all public lands would be included in a planning designation; rather, the proposed rule and the forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook would clarify that this is an existing planning tool that is available during the planning process to highlight and prioritize unique or special areas that require management that is different from surrounding lands.

Non-discretionary designations, in contrast, are identified by the President, Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to other legal authorities. For instance, Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress has the exclusive authority to designate or change the boundaries of wilderness areas. The BLM and other Federal land management agencies manage wilderness areas consistent with Congressional direction. The BLM manages National Conservation Areas (NCA) and similarly designated lands such as Cooperative Management and Protection Areas, Outstanding Natural Areas, and one Forest Reserve (the Headwaters Forest Reserve in northern California) pursuant to Congressional direction.

Non-discretionary designations made by the Secretary of the Interior, Congress, or the President are not established or amended through the BLM land use planning process. These non-discretionary designations would, however, be identified in a resource management plan, and management direction for the designation, including plan components, would be developed, consistent with the over-arching direction provided in the proclamation, legislation, or order through which the non-discretionary designation was established.

There would be no substantive change in the proposed rule, other than identifying designations as a plan component and specifying that planning designations can be applied either to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource management plan or to comply with legal requirements or policies. Further, the proposed rule would clarify the difference between a designation and other plan components, such as a resource use determination. The BLM believes that differentiating between resource use determinations and designations in the regulations would help to improve general understanding of terminology.

Resource use determinations

are another type of proposed plan component and would replace several existing elements of a resource management plan, including “land areas for limited, restricted, or exclusive use,” “allowable resource uses,” and “program constraints,” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)). A resource use determination would identify areas of public lands or mineral estate where specific uses are excluded, restricted, or allowed in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource management plan or applicable legal requirements or policies. In contrast to designations, which indicate where one or more resources or uses is prioritized over other resources or uses, resource use determinations identify where a use is excluded, restricted, or allowed, but do not identify a priority for one or more multiple-uses. Examples of resource use determinations include: areas identified as available or unavailable for livestock grazing, open or closed to mineral leasing, or open to mineral leasing subject to standard terms and conditions or major or moderate constraints, or open, limited, or closed to Off-Highway-Vehicle use. In most circumstances, a resource use determination indicating that a use is allowed, or allowed with restrictions in an area, would not represent a final decision allowing future use authorizations in the area, rather it would indicate that future authorizations for the activities would be in conformance with the resource management plan and may be considered for approval following site-specific NEPA analysis.

The proposed rule would provide a more precise characterization of land use allowances, exclusions, and restrictions than the existing definition of a resource management plan. This proposed change would improve understanding and consistency in implementation, as well as consistent use of terminology. The BLM intends no substantive change in practice associated with this new terminology; however, under the proposed rule there would be changes in how the various parts of a resource management plan are categorized.

For example, under this proposed rule, some common “management actions” described in resource management plans prepared under the existing planning regulations would be classified as “resource use determinations,” such as any explicit restrictions to an allowed use at the land use planning level. For example, mineral lease stipulations such as No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use would be considered resource use determinations, as these constraints represent restrictions to an allowed use that are explicitly required at the land use planning level. This is important because resource use determinations would be changed only through plan amendments or revisions. This proposed change would not represent a change in current practice under the existing regulations, as planning-level restrictions to an allowed use are currently subject to protest procedures and may be changed only through plan amendments. Rather, the proposed change would ensure that restrictions to an allowed use, using current planning terminology, are classified as a resource use determination under the proposed new definitions.

In addition, under the proposed descriptions of planning designations and resource use determinations, the BLM affirms that both planning designations and resource use

determinations may be defined explicitly by geographic boundaries, or implicitly by describing the specific conditions or criteria under which a resource or use would be prioritized, or a use would be excluded, restricted, or allowed. In situations where a criteria-based approach is used, the BLM would develop maps showing where the criteria apply based on current data and conditions. These options for defining planning designations and resource use determinations are consistent with current practice and do not represent a change from existing policy, though it would represent a change in terminology.

For example, under the existing planning regulations, the BLM applied both approaches when developing the “Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments and Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” (Western Solar Energy Plan). The Western Solar Energy Plan developed a list of areas where utility-scale solar energy development was prohibited. Some of these areas were defined by explicit geographic boundaries, such as lands in the Ivanpah Valley in California and Nevada. Others were defined by the presence of a specific land use designation in an applicable land use plan (

e.g.,

ACECs) or the presence of a specific resource or condition (

e.g.,

designated or proposed critical habitat for ESA-listed species). The geographic boundaries for these areas will change over time as land use plans are revised or amended and new information on resource conditions is developed. For the purposes of the Western Solar Energy Plan and its associated NEPA analysis, the BLM mapped and estimated the acreage for all exclusion areas based on best available information; however, those maps will be updated over time. Through the proposed description of planning designations and resource use determinations, the BLM affirms that an explicit geographic-based approach or an implicit criteria-based approach would both continue to be acceptable for defining a planning designation or a resource use determination.

Monitoring and evaluation standards

are another type of plan component. These standards would replace the existing element of a resource management plan entitled “Intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the effectiveness of the plan and the need for amendment or revision” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)(8)). As proposed, monitoring and evaluation standards would include “indicators and intervals for monitoring and evaluation to determine whether the objectives are being met or there is relevant new information that may warrant amendment or revision of the resource management plan.” Indicators and intervals for monitoring would be tied directly to the quantifiable objectives to clearly indicate how each objective would be measured (

i.e.,

the indicator) and how often it would be measured (

i.e.,

the interval). Intervals for evaluating the resource management plan would identify the frequency for evaluating the resource management plan in its entirety to determine whether a plan amendment or revision is warranted.

Lands identified as available for disposal from BLM administration under section 203 of FLPMA would constitute the final type of plan component and would replace the existing element of a resource management plan described as “land areas . . . for transfer from Bureau of Land Management Administration” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)(1)). Section 203 of FLPMA provides for the sale of tracts of public land where the Secretary (implemented by the BLM under delegated authority) determines through the land use planning process that the sale meets specified criteria. The proposed rule would specify that lands identified as available for disposal under section 203 of FLPMA would be considered a plan component, however disposal of lands may not be applicable to every resource management plan. For example, it is unlikely that a resource management plan developed for a national monument or national conservation area would identify lands as available for disposal. As a plan component, identification of lands as available for disposal would only be changed through amendment or revision, consistent with current BLM policy.

The BLM requests public comment on the proposed plan components. In particular, the BLM requests public comment on the distinction between planning designations, which identify areas where specific resources or uses would be prioritized, and resource use determinations, which identify areas where specific uses would be excluded, restricted, or allowed, and whether these two components should be combined into a single plan component. For example, resource use determinations could be revised to be a type of planning designation.

Section 1610.1-3 Implementation Strategies

Proposed § 1610.1-3 describes other types of information, called implementation strategies, that may be developed in conjunction with a resource management plan and included as an appendix to the resource management plan, but do not represent planning level management direction and are not considered components of the resource management plan. Implementation strategies provide examples of how the BLM intends to implement future actions consistent with the planning-level management direction. For example, an implementation strategy might describe an integrated pest management strategy to address invasive species, including potential actions the BLM may take such as active removal of invasive species, and the methods BLM may use to take these actions. This strategy would be designed to achieve a measurable objective, such as a desired plant community composition.

Implementation strategies provide examples of how the BLM might achieve the resource management plan objectives, but in any particular resource management plan they would not provide an exhaustive list of every future action the BLM might take to achieve the resource management plan's objectives. Nor do they represent a commitment or a decision to implement the potential actions described in the implementation strategy. A future implementation decision occurs after adoption of a plan. As a result, future actions associated with, or incorporating an implementation strategy, would not occur until the implementation stage and would therefore require site-specific NEPA analysis and compliance with other relevant laws before a final decision is made and any action is taken.

Unlike the plan components, implementation strategies could be updated at any time to incorporate new information and such updates do not require a plan amendment or plan maintenance (for more information see the discussion at the preamble for paragraph (c) of this section).

Proposed § 1610.1-3 would describe two types of implementation strategies: Management measures and monitoring procedures. The proposed rule affirms that the development of other types of implementation strategies may occur through future policy and guidance, as is currently the case.

Management measures

would replace several existing elements of a resource management plan, including “general

management practices needed to achieve the above items,” “support action, including such measures as resource protection, access development, realty action, cadastral survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the above,” “need for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans,” and “general implementation sequences, where carrying out a planned action is dependent upon prior accomplishment of another planned action” (see existing § 1601.0-5(n)). As proposed, management measures would identify one or more potential actions the BLM may take or require of permitted activities in order to achieve the resource management plan goals and objectives.

Under this proposed rule, management measures could include resource management practices, best management practices, standard operating procedures, the preparation of more detailed and specific plans, or other measures as appropriate. Management measures developed in conjunction with a resource management plan would not be an exhaustive catalog of possible approaches, but would only describe future actions that the BLM may take, consistent with the plan components. Specific examples of management measures include the application of vegetation treatments to improve wildlife habitat or reduce fuel-loading for wildfire prevention; re-vegetation to achieve restoration objectives; or identification of the need to prepare a travel management plan for a particular area.

As proposed, the BLM would update a list of management measures, as needed, to reflect new information such as changes in resource conditions or a BLM determination that the management measure is not effective in achieving the goals and objectives of the resource management plan based on the results of monitoring and evaluation. The proposed rule would facilitate the use of adaptive approaches for implementation and improve the BLM's ability to respond to and incorporate new information. At the same time, a particular management measure, if and when implemented, would support progress toward the measureable objectives of the resource management plan and must be implemented consistent with all plan components, thus changes made to the list of management measures would be constrained by the parameters of the measurable plan objectives and other plan components. For example, if a management measure described the BLM's intent to implement habitat improvements through vegetation manipulation in an area in order to achieve a vegetation related plan objective, and the results of monitoring and evaluation indicated over time that habitat improvements were resulting in a negative impact on vegetation objectives, the BLM could update the list of management measures to remove or update the ineffective methods. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted before any management measure was implemented.

Management measures, as the rule proposes, might be included with a resource management plan, and would be either examples of, or likely approaches that, indicate to the public how the BLM intends to implement future actions consistent with the plan, but the approval of a resource management plan does not represent a final decision for a management measure nor does it constrain BLM's discretion to develop management measures to apply to future implementation decisions. The final decision for a future action associated with a management measure would occur at the implementation stage and would require site-specific NEPA analysis. Any changes made to the list of management measures described in a resource management plan would be made available for public review at least 30 days prior to their implementation.

In addition, the BLM would provide for any public involvement required by NEPA before authorizing the implementation of site-specific actions. For example, preparation of an EA, or documenting reliance on a categorical exclusion (if available), or determination of NEPA adequacy before authorizing implementation of a vegetation management treatment to improve wildlife habitat; or the preparation of an EIS before authorizing a right-of-way application that incorporated best management practices identified in the resource management plan.

Although management measures would represent a new term and category in the planning regulations, the types of actions that would be included as management measures and the process for updating that information would be consistent with current BLM practice and interpretation of the existing planning regulations. For example, the BLM often provides a list of best management practices associated with permitted activities as an appendix to the resource management plan. The proposed changes would provide clarification in the regulations and improve consistency in implementation across the BLM.

Monitoring procedures would also be a type of implementation strategy under proposed § 1610.1-3(a)(2). Monitoring procedures would describe methods for monitoring the resource management plan, consistent with the monitoring standards (see proposed § 1610.1-2(b)(3)). Under the proposed rule, these procedures would be updated as new information becomes available—either as monitoring technology develops, for instance, or more is known about the resource being monitored. For example, advances in remote sensing and geospatial technologies have provided more accurate and cost effective methods to monitor vegetation and wildlife activity in recent years and will likely continue to improve in the future; under the proposed rule these advances in technology could be incorporated into revised monitoring procedures. For a detailed discussion of monitoring and evaluation, see the preamble for § 1610.6-4.

Proposed § 1610.1-3(b) would state that implementation strategies are not a plan component but are intended to assist the BLM in implementing the plan components. The proposed language affirms that an implementation strategy does not provide planning-level management direction and is therefore not a component of the resource management plan; implementation strategies must, however, be in conformance with the resource management plan. Nonetheless, the BLM intends that implementation strategies would be included as appendices to the resource management plan and made available for public review in conjunction with the publication of the proposed resource management plan (see proposed § 1610.5-5).

Proposed § 1610.1-3(c) would explain that implementation strategies could be updated at any time in the future in response to new information and these updates would not require a plan amendment or the formal public involvement and interagency coordination process described in proposed §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3. This is because implementation strategies are not plan components. Rather, they are simply provided as background information to help the public have a better understanding of what a future site specific implementation action might look like. It is important to note that implementation strategies, and future updates to implementation strategies, would be subject to the high quality information requirement described in proposed § 1610.1-1(c). The BLM would be required to make any changes to implementation

strategies available for public review at least 30 days prior to their implementation, unless notification is provided through site-specific NEPA, to provide transparency to the public.

The BLM requests public comments on the proposed distinction between plan components and implementation strategies. In particular, the BLM requests public comments on the procedures for updating implementation strategies, including the need for, timing and potential scope of public involvement.

Section 1610.2 Public Involvement

In the heading of this section and throughout the planning regulations, the BLM proposes to replace the term “public participation” with “public involvement” to be more consistent with FLPMA. The BLM intends no change in practice or meaning from this proposed revision. Public involvement is central to the BLM land use planning process under FLPMA. Section 202(a) directs the Secretary, “with public involvement” and consistent with FLPMA, to “develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. . . .” Section 202(f) requires that the Secretary “allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures . . . to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.” Section 103(d) of FLPMA broadly defines the term “public involvement” as “the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance.”

The BLM interprets this definition as encompassing notice by varied means, including by making a planning document available electronically (

e.g.,

on the BLM Web site), providing direct notice to individuals or groups that have asked to receive notice about public involvement opportunities (

e.g.,

by electronic means such as email or by U.S. mail), or publishing general notice for the public (

e.g.,

in a local newspaper or in the

Federal Register

). We propose to revise § 1610.2 to indicate more clearly the points in the planning process when the BLM would provide notice through one or more of these means.

In addition, the BLM proposes to distinguish in the regulations between making a document “available for public review” and specifically requesting public comments. Where the BLM makes documents available for public review, the BLM believes it is important for the public to have an opportunity to see the BLM's progress. The public is welcome to bring any questions or concerns to the BLM's attention based on public review and the BLM will consider their input. In these circumstances, however, the BLM is not requesting comments and does not provide a time-period for submission of comments or anticipate formally summarizing or responding to any public comments received. This is not a change from existing practice, but would clarify the BLM's intent when we use this terminology.

In contrast, where the BLM “requests written comments,” the BLM will provide a minimum of 30 days for response (see proposed § 1610.2-2(a)). As appropriate, the BLM also summarizes and responds to substantive comments. For example, the BLM summarizes public comments raised during scoping, develops planning issues based on the comments, and issues a scoping report. Similarly, the BLM summarizes and responds to substantive public comments submitted on a draft resource management plan and draft EIS.

In some situations, the BLM may request written comments, but would not provide a written response. For example, the BLM may request public comment on a draft EA-level amendment without issuing a written response. Again, this is not a change from existing practice, but would clarify to the public the BLM's intent when we use this terminology.

We propose to restructure § 1610.2 to clearly indicate the different aspects of public involvement in the land use planning process. General provisions are followed by specific sections, including: Public notice; public comment periods; and availability of the resource management plan. The following table and paragraphs explain the specific proposed changes to § 1610.2 and the supporting rationale. They also request public comments on specific provisions.

Table 1—Comparison of Public Involvement Opportunities in Existing vs. Proposed Regulations

Step in planning process for the preparation of a resource

management plan or an

EIS-level amendment

Level of public involvement

Existing regulations

Proposed regulations

Planning assessment

1610.1: The planning assessment would be a new requirement under the proposed rule, and therefore is not applicable to the existing regulations

1610.4: The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public views in relation to the planning area, which may include public meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in a report, which would be made available for public review. The BLM could waive the requirement to conduct a planning assessment for minor EIS-level amendments or if an existing planning assessment is determined to be adequate.

Identification of planning issues

1610.2(c) and 1610.4-1: The BLM publishes a NOI in the

Federal Register

and publishes a notice in appropriate local media

The public is provided a minimum of 30-days to comment

1610.2-1(f) and 1610.5-1: Same as existing regulations.

Development of planning criteria

1610.4-2: Proposed planning criteria are published in a NOI in the

Federal Register

and made available for public comment through the scoping period and comment on the draft resource management plan

1610.5-2 and 1610.5-3: Planning criteria would no longer be required under the proposed rule. Instead, the BLM would describe the rationale for the differences between alternatives as well as the basis for analysis. Preliminary versions of both would be made available for public review prior to the publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment.

Inventory data and information collection

1610.4-3: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public views in relation to the planning area, which may include public meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in a report, which would be made available for public review.

Analysis of the management situation

1610.4-4: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public views in relation to the planning area, which may include public meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in a report, which would be made available for public review.

Formulation of resource management alternatives

1610.4-5: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.5-2: The preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for alternatives would be made available for public review before publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment.

Estimation of effects of alternatives

1610.4-6: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.5-3: The preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used when estimating the effects of alternatives would be made available for public review before publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment.

Preparation of the draft resource management plan and selection of preferred alternatives

1610.4-7: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.5-4: Same as existing regulations.

Publication of the draft resource management plan

1610.2(e): The BLM requests public comment on the draft resource management plan and draft EIS and provides 90 calendar days for response

1610.2-2: When requesting written comments on a draft resource management plan and draft EIS, the BLM would notify the public and provide at least 60 calendar days for response.

When requesting written comments on an EIS-level amendment, the BLM would notify the public and provide at least 45 calendar days for response.

Selection of the proposed resource management plan and preparation of implementation strategies

1610.4-8: The BLM publishes the proposed resource management plan and final EIS

1610.5-5: The BLM would publish the proposed resource management plan or plan amendment and final EIS and also would publish any implementation strategies. The BLM expects that the implementation strategies would be included as appendices to the proposed resource management plan.

Protest

1610.5-2: The BLM provides 30 calendar days for the public to protest plan approval. The public must submit a hard-copy of the protest to the BLM

1610.6-2: The BLM would still provide 30 calendar days for the public to protest plan approval, but the proposed rule would describe more specific requirements on what constitutes a valid protest and allow for dismissal of any protest that does not meet these requirements. The public may submit a hard-copy or an electronic-copy of the protest to the BLM.

Resource management plan approval

1610.5-1: The BLM must provide public notice and opportunity for comment on any significant change made to the proposed plan before approval of the plan

1610.6-1: If the BLM intends to select an alternative that is substantially different than the proposed resource management plan or plan amendment, the BLM would notify the public and request written comments on the change before approval of the resource management plan or plan amendment. The BLM would notify the public when a resource management plan or plan amendment has been approved.

Monitoring and evaluation

1610.4-9: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.6-4: The BLM would document the evaluation of the resource management plan in a report made available for public review.

Plan maintenance

1610.5-4: No opportunities for public involvement are provided at this step

1610.5-4: When changes are made to an approved resource management plan through plan maintenance, the BLM would notify the public and make the changes available for public review at least 30 days prior to their implementation.

Proposed § 1610.2(a) remains relatively unchanged from existing regulations and would state that the BLM will provide the public with opportunities to become meaningfully involved in and comment on the preparation and amendment of resource management plans. We propose removing references to “related

guidance” in order to focus this provision on the preparation and amendment of resource management plans. During the planning process, the public may submit comments on “related guidance” to the BLM, but the BLM does not provide a separate and distinct comment period for related guidance. For example, the public may comment on related guidance during scoping or as a comment on the draft resource management plan and draft EIS and the BLM would consider this comment. This is not a change in existing practice or policy, but would provide clarity to the public on opportunities for comment.

We also propose to remove language on giving “early notice of planning activities” from this section. This language is vague and unnecessary because proposed § 1610.2-1(e) would carry forward the existing requirement that the BLM notify the public at least 15 days before any public involvement activities. The BLM would provide further advance notice beyond the 15-day requirement to the extent possible, consistent with current practice.

Proposed § 1610.2(a) would also carry forward the existing requirement that public involvement in the planning process conform to the requirements of NEPA and its associated implementing regulations. The word “shall” would be replaced with “will” and the paragraph would be revised to use active voice for improved readability.

Existing § 1610.2(b) requires the BLM to publish a planning schedule early in each fiscal year in order to advise the public of the status of each plan being prepared or scheduled to start during the year, the major planning actions expected during the fiscal year, and the projected new planning starts for the next three fiscal years. The BLM proposes to revise this requirement. Proposed § 1610.2(c) would replace existing § 1610.2(b) and would require the BLM to post the status of each resource management plan in process of preparation or scheduled to be started on the BLM's Web site before the close of each fiscal year. The BLM often does not know its budget, priorities, or on-the-ground needs several years in advance; in recent years the BLM has operated under a continuing resolution to the budget for several months into the fiscal year, and is therefore unable to accurately predict a planning schedule with the specificity required in existing regulations.

The BLM's current practice is to post a planning schedule for resource management plans currently under preparation or approved to initiate preparation of a resource management plan on the national BLM planning Web site when this information is available. The proposed change would give the BLM flexibility in communicating its planning schedule, including by posting the schedule electronically, and would be consistent with current practice. It would also reflect the fact that budgetary constraints and the need to address new and emerging resource issues make it difficult to accurately predict a planning schedule beyond the current fiscal year.

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section would not include the related requirement for requesting public comments on the projected new planning starts so that comments can b

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.