Resource Management Planning

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 1600

[Docket ID: BLM-2016-0002; LLWO210000.17X.L16100000.PN0000]

RIN 1004-AE39

Resource Management Planning

AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is amending its 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 final rule affirms the important role of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public during the planning process and enhances opportunities for public involvement and transparency during the preparation of resource management plans. The final rule will enable the BLM to more readily address resource issues at a variety of scales, such as wildfire, wildlife habitat, appropriate development, or the demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and to respond more effectively to change. The final rule emphasizes the role of using high quality information, including the best available scientific information, in the planning process; and the importance of evaluating the resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at the onset of planning. Finally, the final rule makes revisions to clarify existing text and to improve the readability of the planning regulations.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on January 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leah Baker, Division Chief for Decision Support, 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, Management Analyst for the Office of Regulatory Affairs, at 202-912-7437. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to contact these individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Land use planning forms the basis of, and is essential to, everything that the Bureau of Land Management does in caring for America's public lands. Congress has directed that these lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, and has required the BLM to do that through land use planning with public involvement. It has been over thirty years since the BLM last issued regulations to implement this important mission.

Concerns have been raised for some time by State and local governments, resource users, and others, that the planning process has become too slow and too unresponsive to the public. This final rule is the result of a multi-year effort to address those concerns and to implement best practices developed over time. It ensures that the process going forward will maximize transparency and public involvement, honor the partnership with other governmental entities, be more efficient, based on best available information, and adaptable to changing conditions.

Background

The BLM manages ten percent of the land in the United States and 30 percent of the nation's minerals. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1712, the BLM is required to develop land use plans in partnership with State, local, and tribal governments, as well as the public, to manage these diverse public lands and resources in accordance with the BLM's multiple-use and sustained yield mission. BLM land use plans, called “resource management plans,” establish goals and objectives to guide future land and resource management actions implemented by the BLM.

Pressures are increasing on BLM-administered lands and land managers to better balance often competing and increasingly conflicting uses of the public lands. The BLM and its stakeholders, including State and local governments, are experiencing an increased number of practical challenges, including unexpected delays, higher expenses, and expanded legal challenges in managing these lands. Resource issues, such as invasive species, wildfire, energy production and transmission, and wildlife conservation, cross traditional administrative and jurisdictional boundaries, making current planning less efficient and more costly to implement.

State, local, and tribal government officials and representatives of diverse stakeholder groups have expressed concern about the current process, stating that they often feel disconnected from the BLM's resource management planning process. The process has been described as one characterized by long waiting periods punctuated by short periods in which stakeholders have to digest and respond to large volumes of information. This can be exacerbated by the need to supplement draft plans that have been in progress for years when new issues are identified or additional information is required late in the planning process. Delays in BLM planning efforts increasingly consume BLM staff capacity and resources that could otherwise be spent addressing critical resource management priorities. They also cause frustration among stakeholders and partners who depend on the BLM's ability to develop and implement resource management plans and management decisions in a timely manner.

The BLM began work towards this rule in May 2014 through a range of outreach efforts seeking public input into how the land use planning process could be improved. At that time, 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 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 inquiry to staff. The

Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary Report,

issued in 2015, summarizes written comments received through these processes from over 6,000 groups and individuals. The agency also conducted extensive outreach to State, local, and tribal governments, along with various Federal Advisory Committee Act-chartered Resource Advisory Councils (RACs). In developing the proposed rule, the BLM considered the information received during this initial outreach initiative and worked to find an appropriate balance between different needs and perspectives.

The proposed rule was published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9674) and was available for public comment for over 100 days, including a 90 day formal comment period, after requests for extensions were granted. During that time the BLM hosted a variety of public outreach events and briefings for a wide range of interested parties and conducted government-to-government consultation with all federally recognized Indian tribes with which the Bureau normally consults regarding land use planning.

The BLM received 3,354 public comments on the proposed rule, which are available for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking portal (

http://www.regulations.gov

) by entering Docket ID: BLM-2016-0002 in the “Search” bar.

Overview of the Final Rule

The final rule reflects this outreach effort, including careful consideration of the many comments and recommendations received since the publication of the proposed rule. The final rule does not radically change the existing process, but rather improves that process based on public input and knowledge gained from best practices developed over many years.

First, the final rule responds to concerns that, at times, the process can be cumbersome, slow to complete, and not adequately transparent or responsive to State, local, tribal or general public input. These concerns are addressed by increasing public access at earlier stages in the process, including public input on the scope of the resource management plan. The unique partnerships between States, local governments and Indian tribes are honored and enhanced. The new requirement for upfront information-gathering and public involvement should strengthen the planning process by better reflecting resource conditions, issues, and concerns within the planning area. Gathering this information up front should help reduce the need for supplementation later in the planning process, which is often the cause for long delays under the current rule, leading to added cost and concern that the resulting decisions are no longer relevant.

The final rule makes resource management plans better able to deal with modern pressures on the public lands and to adapt to changes to conditions on the land. This will be done in part by gathering high quality information, including the best available scientific information, from all relevant sources to inform land management, and by retaining flexibility to plan at the appropriate scale to deal with changing resource issues.

The final rule revises two subparts of the existing regulations, 43 CFR subparts 1601 (Planning) and 1610 (Resource Management Planning). Changes in subpart 1601 clarify certain aspects of the general purpose, objective, responsibilities, definitions, and principles sections. Subpart 1610 describes the general framework for resource management planning. In this subpart, the final rule creates new opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including during a “planning assessment” to determine baseline conditions before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan. The final rule fully aligns with FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and clarifies the provisions for the special relationship and involvement of cooperating agencies, coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, and consistency with other plans; establishes a requirement to initiate tribal consultation during the preparation and amendment of resource management plans; establishes a requirement for the use of “high quality information”; clarifies existing flexibility to determine the scope of the planning areas to reflect the realities of resource management on the ground; updates plan approval, protest, and implementation procedures; affirms the statutory requirements for designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs); and makes other clarifying edits. These revisions are described in detail in the section-by-section discussion of this preamble, and are briefly summarized below. In both subparts, the final rule also makes non-substantive changes to improve readability and understanding of the planning regulations.

Public Involvement

The final rule provides several new opportunities for public involvement early in the planning process. During the planning assessment interested participants will be able to submit data and other information, such as existing resource-related plans or strategies, and the BLM will work with governmental partners, stakeholders, and the public to better understand public views in relation to the resource management plan and the preliminary planning area. At a slightly later stage, the BLM will make preliminary resource management alternatives and their rationale, as well as the procedures, assumptions, and indicators for the effects analysis, available for public review. This will enable the public to raise any concerns before the BLM begins analyzing the effects of alternatives and preparing a draft resource management plan. We believe these new steps will improve the effectiveness and timeliness of land use plans, improve the ability of the BLM to work with other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments and others concerned about issues in a given planning area to develop a resource management plan that is responsive to the issues, and reduce the need for supplemental analyses and data gathering, as concerns and potential conflicts will be more likely to surface earlier in the planning process.

The final rule also restructures the public involvement provisions to clarify where in the land use planning process the BLM will provide for public notice, public review, or public comment, and establishes new requirements for notification and availability of documents. The final rule lengthens the public comment period on draft resource management plans from 90 to 100 days while reducing the comment period for draft EIS-level amendments from 90 to 60 days, to reflect the fact that draft resource management plans tend to be larger in scope than amendments. The final rule also changes the requirements for selecting a preferred alternative to align more closely with the requirements of the Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA implementation regulations.

Special Relationship With Indian Tribes and Other Governmental Entities

The final rule reflects the importance of government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes during resource management planning by establishing a new regulatory requirement for the BLM to initiate consultation during the preparation and amendment of resource management plans. The final rule also clarifies and affirms existing provisions regarding the special partnership with cooperating agencies; the coordination of planning efforts with other Federal agencies, and State, tribal and local governments; and the efforts to maximize consistency with other governmental plans.

Specifically, the final rule retains current provisions regarding participation by eligible governmental entities in the special status of “cooperating agency” in the planning process. Cooperating agencies are provided the opportunity to work closely with the BLM throughout the planning process to identify issues that should be addressed, collect or analyze data, develop or evaluate alternatives, and review preliminary documents not otherwise publicly available. This unique partnership is available by statute only to governmental entities, and helps the BLM develop a land use plan that is responsive to the needs and concerns of local communities.

In addition, the final rule reiterates and confirms current practice that the BLM will coordinate with all governmental entities, consistent with FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)), to assure that the BLM considers their plans,

policies, and management programs that are germane in the development of resource management plans. It also confirms the existing important practice, as required by FLPMA, of working to minimize and resolve inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans.

Planning Assessment

The final rule establishes a new upfront planning assessment which will be prepared prior to initiating resource management plans, as well as generally for plan amendments for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared (EIS-level amendments). This step will provide an opportunity for the BLM, State, tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to work together to better understand the existing conditions in the planning area, and is likely to surface issues and concerns that will help inform the types of data and information necessary to the planning process.

During this step, the BLM will invite eligible State, tribal, and local government entities to participate as cooperating agencies and will coordinate with them regarding inventory of the public lands and alignment with their resource-related plans, policies, and management programs. Gathering relevant data and information is an important part of the assessment and will improve understanding of key resource issues and conditions and other issues in the planning area. The results of the planning assessment will be summarized in a report made available to other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, stakeholders, and the public, as will as much of the geospatial information as possible.

Planning Framework

The final rule will focus resource management plans on the achievement of desired outcomes and specific resource conditions. Under the final rule, the BLM will use high quality information of various types and sources, including the best available scientific information, to identify desired characteristics within the planning area (

i.e.,

the goals) and specific and measurable resource conditions which guide progress toward the achievement of goals (

i.e.,

the objectives). By identifying these clear targets for management, the BLM will more readily be able to apply adaptive management principles and respond to change over time.

In addition to the goals and objectives, the final rule identifies other plan components which provide planning level management direction. These include designations, which highlight priority resource values and resource uses; resource use determinations, which identify allowances, exclusions, and restrictions to use; monitoring and evaluation standards, which provide a feedback mechanism during plan implementation; and, where appropriate, lands identified as available for disposal from BLM administration. These plan components may only be changed through a plan amendment, except to correct a typographical or mapping error, or to reflect minor changes in mapping or data.

Plan Boundaries and Responsibilities

The final rule reflects a flexible process for the BLM to collaborate with other Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to identify the geographic area to be considered in the resource management plan, so as to best address all relevant resource issues. Under the final rule, the BLM will work with all interested parties to identify a preliminary planning area, taking into consideration any management concerns, including those identified through monitoring and evaluation; relevant landscapes based on these management concerns; resource-related plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes; and any other relevant information. Other Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the public will be provided an opportunity to review and provide input on the preliminary planning area, before it is formalized in a notice of intent (NOI).

When a preliminary planning area does not cross State boundaries, which is likely to be the more common situation, the State Director will typically be the deciding official in finalizing the plan. If a planning area does cross State boundaries, the BLM Director will select the appropriate deciding official, usually from among the State Directors involved, and determine the final planning area. In all situations, the deciding official will select the appropriate responsible official for preparing the resource management plan or plan amendment.

Protests

The final rule revises the protest procedures to provide more detailed information on what constitutes a valid protest issue. In addition, the rule provides an opportunity for the public to submit protests electronically through methods specified for each resource management plan or plan amendment, and clarifies that proposed resource management plans (including plan revisions) and plan amendments are subject to protest.

As a general matter, the final rule clarifies that the focus of a protest is to identify and remedy inconsistency with Federal laws and regulations or the purposes, policies, and programs implementing such laws and regulations. It provides that a party that previously participated in the preparation of a plan or plan amendment may file a protest 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 implementing such laws and regulations before the final decision to approve the plan.

Transition From the Existing Planning Process

The final rule addresses the transition from the existing planning regulations to those that result from this final rule. For any ongoing resource management planning efforts that were formally initiated prior to the effective date of this final rule, the planners may choose to complete the planning process using either the existing regulations or these final regulations. This ensures that the ongoing resources already invested in the planning process by other Federal agencies, State, tribal and local governments, stakeholders, the public, and the BLM will be maintained and respected. The final rule is effective on January 11, 2017.

I. Background

The 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 2015, $88 billion in economic output was generated from activities associated with BLM-managed lands.

1

1

U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Report FY 2015.

https://www.doi.gov/ppa/economic_analysis.

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.” Section 202(c) of FLPMA provides that the Secretary, in developing and revising land use plans, shall: Use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; use an interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs; use the inventory of public lands, resources and other values, to the extent it is available; consider both present and potential uses of public lands; consider the relative scarcity of values; weigh long-term benefits against short term benefits; provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws; and coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies, Indian tribes, and States and local governments.

Section 202(f) of FLPMA provides that the Secretary shall provide for public involvement and 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. Throughout the planning process, the BLM coordinates with other Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and State and local governments to ensure that BLM considers non-BLM government plans that are germane in the development of resource management plans and assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans. In addition, government entities that have either relevant jurisdiction by law or special expertise are invited to participate as cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies work with the BLM during the planning process to identify issues that should be addressed, to collect and analyze data, develop and evaluate alternatives, and review preliminary documents.

Traditionally, 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. Generally, 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 a Governor through a consistency review process. The Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, the BLM Director, or other BLM officials may provide oversight and approval for resource management plans of national importance.

As outlined in 43 CFR subparts 1601 and 1610, the steps of the planning process are fully integrated with the requirements of NEPA.

2

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 current 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.”

2

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 are intended to 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 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 minimum 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 and identifies any known inconsistences between State and local plans and the proposed resource management plan. During this period, the Governor may identify any additional inconsistencies and recommendations to remedy inconsistencies. This step, in addition to the ongoing coordination with State and local governments, supports implementation of the FLPMA 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 (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). 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 reflect 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, or changes in circumstances affect the entire plan or major portions of the plan.

The final rule includes this general process for developing, revising, amending, and maintaining a resource management plan, as described, while making specific changes to improve the process in a number of ways.

Why the BLM Is Revising the Land Use Planning Process

The final rule responds to needs identified by the BLM, State, local and tribal governments, the public, 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 challenges 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, and invasive species create challenges that require the BLM to 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 to improve the land use planning process. 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 final rule, in part, implements the recommendations for achieving the goals set forth in the Roadmap.

Related Executive and Secretarial Direction

In addition, the final rule responds to and advances 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 landscape-scale, science-based, collaborative 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 with 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 effectively managing the public lands consistent with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. “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 will 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. 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 activities, and long-term restoration treatments and a strategy for adaptive management to modify management practices or improve land treatments when necessary.

Collectively, these directives emphasize the importance of landscape-scale, science-based management, including active coordination and collaboration with partners and stakeholders. The BLM believes that changes to the resource management planning process included in this rule 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 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 resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic 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.

3

3

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 meaningful 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 with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. At the same time, Planning 2.0 affirms the BLM's commitments to collaborating with cooperating agencies and working with RACs throughout the planning process (see existing § 1610.3-1(g)).

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

This goal addresses the need for landscape-scale approaches to resource management in order to effectively manage public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield and to address resource issues which occur at a range of geographic scales. A landscape-scale approach is a structured and analytical process that guides resource management decisions at multiple geographic scales in order to consider multiple overlapping landscapes and to achieve multiple social, environmental, and economic goals. 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 amending specific provisions of the land use planning regulations (43 CFR

part 1600). These regulatory revisions are the subject of this final 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 achieving 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 approaches to resource management; 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.

4

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,

5

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

4

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.

5

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 approaches to resource management. 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 geographic scales. These steps are important to achieving the Planning 2.0 goals.

In addition, the BLM is implementing its “Geospatial Services Strategic Plan” (GSSP) (2008), which is providing the high-quality mapping products needed to develop and support adaptive, landscape-scale approaches to resource management. 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 important for achieving all three Planning 2.0 goals. In addition to supporting science-based, landscape-scale, adaptive approaches to resource management, 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.

6

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

6

See

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

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 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 will build on these foundational efforts.

Initial Public Involvement in Planning 2.0

The BLM conducted initial 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, January 21, 2011), which encourages agencies to seek the views of those who are likely to be affected by a rulemaking before issuing a proposed rule. The initial outreach for the overall Planning 2.0 initiative included outreach to inform the development of the proposed rule as well as 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 BLM Web site.

The BLM 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

Between May 2014 and February 2015, 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 BLM Web site. The BLM worked to consider this information and to find an appropriate balance between different needs and perspectives in the development of the proposed and final rule.

A large number of comments focused on how to integrate adaptive management into resource management plans. While nearly all comments supported the initial 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 conditions 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 the identification of planning issues and the publication of the draft resource management plan and draft EIS to help BLM refine the range of alternatives to address public concerns.

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 BLM Web site.

Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule

The BLM published the proposed rule in the

Federal Register

on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9674) for a 60-day comment period ending on April 25, 2016. In response to public requests for an extension, the BLM extended the comment period for an additional 30 days on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23666). The extended comment period closed on May 25, 2016.

During the comment period, the BLM hosted a variety of public outreach activities. The BLM held a public webinar (March 21, 2016) as well as a public meeting in Denver, CO (March 25, 2016) to provide an overview of the proposed rule and answer questions from the public. The public meeting was available to remote participants through livestream. In response to public interest in additional outreach activities, the BLM held a second public webinar (April 13, 2016) focused on frequently asked questions related to the proposed rule. All webinars and meetings were led by a third-party facilitator. Summary notes and recordings of all three events are available on the BLM Web site. In addition, the BLM provided an email address (

blm_wo_plan2@blm.gov

) at the close of each event for members of the public to send follow-up questions.

The BLM also conducted external outreach to several stakeholder organizations or committees regarding the proposed rule. External outreach included briefings provided to the BLM's Federal Advisory Committee Act chartered RACs; a briefing for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; a webinar for interested local government representatives coordinated through the National Association of Counties; and meetings with other interested parties upon request.

The BLM received 3,354 comment letters, which are available for viewing on the

regulations.gov

Web site by entering Docket ID: BLM-2016-0002 in the “Search” bar.

Tribal Consultation on the Proposed Rule

The BLM initiated government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes with which the Bureau normally consults regarding land use planning. Each BLM State Office sent a letter notifying Indian tribes located within the jurisdictional boundary of the BLM State Office and with which the BLM State Office normally consults on proposed rules and requesting government-to-government consultation. Additionally, each BLM State Office sent a follow-up notification and request for consultation, however, the format for follow-up requests varied across BLM State Offices. Formats included telephone calls, letters, or in-person conversations at previously scheduled meetings.

To facilitate understanding of the proposed rule, the BLM held a webinar for interested Indian tribes on May 4, 2016. The webinar provided an overview of the proposed changes, discussion on topics of interest to tribal participants, and an opportunity for questions. In addition, in person meetings were held with all tribes that accepted the BLM's request for government-to-government consultation and requested a meeting with the BLM. This final rule is informed by input received from tribes during government-to-government consultation. Responses to tribal comments are addressed in the “section-by-section discussion” and “response to public comments” sections of this final rule.

How the Final Rule Achieves the Goals of Planning 2.0

As part of the Planning 2.0 initiative, the final rule amends specific provisions of the land use planning regulations (43 CFR part 1600). In the following paragraphs we explain how the changes to the land use planning regulations will serve the overall goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative.

The final rule identifies and defines the components of a resource management plan. These “plan components” provide the planning-level management direction that guides all future management decisions without specifically prescribing future decisions. Such an approach is important for implementing adaptive resource management as it establishes firm goals and objectives and provides for the use of public lands, while also providing flexibility to incorporate site-specific information, where appropriate, and respond to changing circumstances and new information.

The final rule requires that, when preparing or amending resource management plans, the BLM must use high quality information, including the best available scientific information. The final rule also emphasizes the importance of assessing resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at relevant spatial scales and before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan, in order to apply science-based decision-making and inform management decisions at multiple scales.

The final rule will add new opportunities for meaningful public involvement 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. Final changes will 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 public involvement will 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, will help the BLM avoid or minimize 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 final rule expands the minimum requirement for the length of public comment periods for draft resource management plans to reflect the value placed on this step by members of the public, as indicated through public comment, and shortens the minimum requirement for the length of public comment periods for draft EIS-level amendments to reflect the fact that targeted amendments may be narrow in scope and scale and allow for a more efficient process in these situations.

In revisions to both subpart 1601 and 1610, the BLM updates some 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, June 10, 1998), which directs Federal Agencies to consider rewriting existing regulations in plain

language if the opportunity is available. These changes will facilitate improved readability and understanding of the planning regulations, which will support effective collaboration during the planning process.

Summary of Changes

The BLM received 3,354 comments on the proposed rule, which are available for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking portal (

http://www.regulations.gov

) (search Docket ID: BLM-2016-0002). The BLM has reviewed all public comments, and has made changes, as appropriate, to the final rule based on those comments and internal review. Those changes are described in detail in the “section-by-section discussion” of this final rule. In addition, the “response to public comments” in this final rule provides a summary of issues raised most frequently in public comments and the BLM's response. A table comparing the proposed rule to the final rule and a more comprehensive account of public comments and detailed responses to these comments are available to the public on the BLM Web site (

www.blm.gov/plan2

) and are included as a supporting document in the docket for this rulemaking on

regulations.gov.

II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes to the Existing Planning Rule and Revisions From the Proposed Planning Rule

The following discussion describes the final rule provisions, substantial changes from the existing rule and revisions from the proposed rule, and the rationale for these changes. The final rule revises part 1600, including subparts 1601 (Planning) and 1610 (Resource Management Planning). Revisions in subpart 1601 update and introduce new definitions and revise the purpose, objective, responsibilities, environmental impact statement policy, and principles sections.

Subpart 1610 is reorganized to improve readability. Revisions describe guidance and general requirements, and resource management plan components; update the public involvement provisions; update the provisions regarding coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes; establish a requirement in these regulations for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes; establish an assessment of baseline conditions in the planning area before the BLM initiates the preparation of a resource management plan and most 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.

Subpart 1601—Planning

The final rule adopts several style changes throughout both subparts, consistent with the proposed rule, 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. The rule replaces the word “title” with “part” throughout both subparts for consistency with current style guidelines. We 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.

One proposed style change is not adopted in the final rule. The proposed rule would have replaced the word “shall” with “will” throughout both subparts for improved readability; in response to public comment this proposed change is not adopted in the final rule. Rather, the final rule retains the word “shall,” throughout the rule unless specifically noted in the discussion for a particular section. In some instances the word “will” occurs in existing regulations or was included in proposed new provisions, and in these instances the final rule replaces “will” with “shall,” throughout unless specifically noted in the discussion for a particular section, for consistent use of terminology throughout both subparts. There is no change in meaning from these revisions.

Finally, the final rule removes most references to resource management plan “revisions” throughout both subparts, consistent with the proposed rule. Revisions are included in the definition of a resource management plan (see final § 1601.0-5) and must comply with all of the requirements of these regulations for preparing and approving a resource management plan (see final § 1610.6-7). 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 existing, proposed and final regulations, there is no substantive difference between a resource management plan and the revision of a resource management plan, therefore both will be considered a “resource management plan.”

Section 1601.0-1 Purpose

The final rule adopts the proposed changes to this section to introduce the acronym “BLM,” which is used throughout the part, and to remove the words “and revision” for the reasons previously described. There is no change from current practice or policy resulting from these revisions.

In addition, the final rule adds new language specifying that the process established by the regulations be “consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law.” This addition responds to a public comment requesting the BLM to include “multiple use and sustained yield” in this section, as well as general public comments asserting that the proposed rule would not adequately promote the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The final rule reflects the requirements of FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1701 (a)(7)), which states that “management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law” and that “in the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall . . . use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(1).)

The BLM added the phrase “unless otherwise specified by law” in the final rule to be consistent with the language in FLPMA which makes it clear that in some situations certain BLM lands must be managed in compliance with other legal authorities which in some instances supersede the management direction in FLPMA to manage on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield (see 43 U.S.C. 1732(a)). For instance, national monuments established under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) must be managed for the care and management of the monument objects in accordance with the terms in the proclamation establishing the specific national monument. This new language in the final rule is not a change in practice or policy, as the BLM currently manages on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.

Section 1601.0-2 Objective

The final rule revises the stated objectives of resource management planning to reflect the requirements of FLPMA and remove vague or inaccurate language. In the first sentence of this section, the final rule adopts the proposal 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. Further, FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, rather than to “maximize resource values.” FLPMA defines multiple use, in part, as “the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people” as well as “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1702(c).) This language provides a more precise explanation of how the BLM should consider resource values during the planning process and reaffirms statutory direction to manage on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law. The second half of the removed language describes a “rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures,” which describes the purpose of developing planning regulations, but not an objective of resource management planning.

In the first sentence of this section, the proposed rule would have replaced the phrase “promote the concept of multiple use management” with the phrase “promote the principles of multiple use and sustained yield on public lands, unless otherwise provided by law.” The final rule revises this phrase to read “manage public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law.” This change is consistent with FLPMA, which, as discussed above, directs the BLM to “use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield” in the development and revision of land use plans (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(1)) and requires that “management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7) and 43 U.S.C. 1732(a).) The final rule responds to public comments that the proposed language to “promote” the principles of multiple use and sustained yield may be perceived as a weaker requirement than “managing on the basis” of multiple use and sustained yield, as stated in FLPMA. This was not the intent of the proposed language, thus this change was made in the final rule.

The final rule replaces existing and proposed language which states that an objective of resource management planning is to “ensure participation by the public” with “provide for meaningful public involvement by the public.” This change responds to public comment that the BLM proposed to replace “public participation” with “public involvement” in other sections for consistency with FLPMA and should use the same terminology in this section. The change also responds to a public comment that FLPMA does not require the BLM to ensure or guarantee public participation; rather, FLPMA requires the BLM to provide “opportunity for participation by affected citizens.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1702(d).) The final rule provides opportunities for meaningful public involvement, but does not require that the public participate in these opportunities.

This section of the proposed rule would also have specified that such participation occurs “in the development of resource management plans.” The final rule revises this language to read “in the preparation and amendment” of resource management plans to clarify that it applies in both situations. There will be no change in existing practice or policy from these final changes.

Finally, the word “appropriate” is removed from before “Federal agencies” in the first sentence of this section. This word is unnecessary, as any interested Federal agency may participate in public involvement opportunities during the BLM's planning process; the BLM does not make a determination on which agencies may or may not be appropriate.

The BLM proposed to add additional language to this section, stating that the BLM would “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 revision incorporates 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.

The final rule adopts the proposed additional language with revisions in response to public comment. The final rule is revised to read “which recognizes the Nation's need for renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to, domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands.” The final rule includes the phrase “renewable and non-renewable resources” to clarify that a wide-range of renewable and non-renewable resources are considered during resource management planning, including, but not limited to, those specifically identified in FLPMA.

Several public comments requested additional resources be identified in this section, such as “electric energy and production.” Although the objectives section cannot reasonably list all resources, the BLM affirms through this added language that a wide-range of renewable and non-renewable resources need to be considered in order to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, including renewable and non-renewable energy sources, among others.

The final rule adopts the proposed change 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 final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, elements of the removed sentence are revised and incorporated into the definition for “plan components” (for more information on “plan components,” see the preamble discussion of § 1601.0-5).

Section 1601.0-3 Authority

The final rule adopts this section, which is identical to that in the existing and proposed regulations.

Section 1601.0-4 Responsibilities

The final rule revises 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,” consistent with the proposed rule. There is no change in the meaning of this sentence or in the associated responsibilities from existing regulations.

In the second sentence of § 1601.0-4(a), the BLM proposed to establish a new responsibility for the BLM Director to determine the deciding official (a new term defined in § 1601.0-5) and the planning area for resource management plans and for plan amendments that cross State boundaries. This proposed change would have represented 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)). In response to public comment, the final rule revises this paragraph to state that the BLM Director will determine the deciding official and the planning area when a resource management plan crosses State boundaries and when a plan amendment crosses State boundaries. When resource management plans or plan amendments do not cross State boundaries, the deciding official will be the BLM State Director with jurisdiction over the planning area, unless otherwise determined by the BLM Director.

Several public comments expressed the belief that the proposed rule was vague by not indicating which BLM official would normally be selected as the deciding official and such vagueness would place a burden on the public and other governmental entities because they would not know with whom to communicate or coordinate regarding the resource management plan. Further, public comments expressed concern that the deciding official might not have familiarity with the planning area. In response to these comments, revisions from the proposed to final rule specify that the default deciding official will be the BLM State Director when a resource management plan or plan amendment does not cross State boundaries, unless otherwise determined by the Director. In the situation that a resource management plan or plan amendment crosses State boundaries, the BLM Director will select a deciding official for the planning effort, as is currently the case.

The final rule also adds “unless otherwise determined by the Director” to the second sentence of § 1601.0-4(a), to reiterate that the BLM Director may exercise the authority to determine the deciding official. The Secretary of the Interior, as the administrator of the public lands, has the discretion to delegate the authority to approve resource management plans and plan amendments as he or she finds appropriate, thus this change is not a change in practice or policy from the existing rule. FLPMA provides the Secretary of the Interior the authority and responsibility to develop resource management plans; the planning regulations may not remove or restrict this statutory authority. (See 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(5).) Under existing regulations there are several examples where the Secretary has approved a resource management plan or plan amendment of national importance, or where a plan or plan amendment has been approved by a BLM official other than a BLM State Director. For example, in 2012 under existing regulations, the Resource Management Plan Amendments and Record of Decision for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States was approved by former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In 2016, the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision and the Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision were both approved by the BLM's Deputy Director. In these situations, the relevant BLM State Directors were actively involved in the preparation of the resource management plan or plan amendment, but were not the deciding official that approved the resource management plan or plan amendment. The final rule affirms this existing authority.

Section 1601.0-4 also addresses the determination of the planning area. Section 1601.0-4(a) of the final rule specifies that when a resource management plan or plan amendment crosses State boundaries the BLM Director will determine the planning area. Section 1601.0-4(b) specifies that when the resource management plan or plan amendment does not cross State boundaries, the deciding official will determine the planning area.

The BLM received several comments that raised concerns about the BLM Director determining future planning areas. Several comments stated that the BLM Director would be too far removed to be adequately aware of resources, issues, and management concerns important to local stakeholders and that the BLM Director would not have time to make planning area determinations, which would result in delays. Comments also raised concerns that the BLM Director would determine planning areas without public involvement. In response to public comments, the final rule establishes an intermediate approach between the existing and proposed regulations by providing that the BLM Director will determine the planning area when it crosses State boundaries, and the deciding official (by default a BLM State Director) will determine the planning area when the planning area does not cross State boundaries. Also, in response to these comments, the final rule includes new language in the provisions for the planning assessment (see final § 1610.4). This new language describes how the BLM will identify the need to cross State boundaries, and therefore identify the appropriate BLM official to determine the planning area. Section 1610.4(a) describes the process for selecting a preliminary planning area boundary, including an opportunity for public review (see the preamble to § 1610.4(a) for more information on this process). In situations where, through the process described in § 1610.4(a), the need is identified for resource management plans to cross State boundaries in order to address relevant management concerns, the BLM Director determines the final planning area and selects the appropriate deciding official.

Although under current regulations the BLM is able to establish a different planning area than the default field office boundary, the final rule affirms that the BLM no longer intends to rely on the field office area as the default resource management plan boundary. The BLM acknowledges that in some situations the relevant management concerns may require planning area boundaries that cross traditional BLM administrative boundaries.

The final rule adopts the proposed changes to § 1601.0-4(b) by stating “deciding officials provide quality control” instead of existing language which states that “State Directors will provide quality control.” Under the final rule, the deciding official will have the responsibilities that the State Director has under the existing rule. Deciding officials will be responsible for “quality control and supervisory review, including approval, for the preparation and amendment of resource management plans and related [EISs] or [EAs].” Changes clarify that deciding officials are responsible for quality control and supervisory review of plan amendments and resource management plans, which is consistent with current practice and policy.

Paragraph (b) of this section includes a new responsibility for the deciding official to determine the responsible

official for each resource management plan or plan amendment. The proposed rule did not specify how a responsible official would be selected and this revision clarifies this process. For the reasons previously described, paragraph (b) of this section also specifies that deciding officials determine the planning area for resource management plans and plan amendments that do not cross State boundaries. Although this represents a change in the regulations, the deciding official will generally be a BLM State Director when a resource management plan or plan amendment does not cross State boundaries (see paragraph (a) of this section); therefore, this change is generally consistent with current practice and policy.

The final rule adopts the proposed change to remove the requirement that deciding officials “provide additional guidance, as necessary, for use by Field Managers.” 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 in these regulations. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy by removing “guidance” from the responsibilities section.

The final rule also adopts the proposed change 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 will include supervisory review of filing the documents. Current BLM practice is for the State Director to delegate the responsibility of filing EISs or EAs, thus this change is consistent with current practice.

In paragraph (c) of this section, the final rule adopts the proposed changes to replace references to “Field Managers” with “responsible officials” (a proposed new term defined in § 1601.0-5) and provide that responsible officials will prepare resource management plans and plan amendments, and related EISs and EAs. As discussed in the preamble to the 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 is no change in the responsibilities associated with this role in the planning process, but the new term makes it clear to the public that the BLM has the flexibility under its regulations to prepare or amend resource management plans at levels other than a field office.

Changes to this section 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 management concern that crosses administrative boundaries, the BLM Field Manager may not be the most appropriate BLM employee to prepare the resource management plan or plan amendment. These revisions are consistent with current practice permitted by the existing regulations. For example, the BLM District Manager is the responsible official for the preparation of the Carson City, Nevada resource management plan, which is currently under development and includes more than one BLM field office.

The final rule adopts the proposed change to include the preparation of related “EAs” (in addition to EISs) as a responsibility of responsible officials. This change fixes 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. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from this addition.

The final rule removes the last sentence of paragraph (c) of this section, consistent with the proposed rule, which required that “State Directors must approve these documents.” Under the final rule, deciding officials will approve these documents, as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.

Section 1601.0-5 Definitions

The final rule adds several new terms and definitions to this section. The final rule adopts, without revision, the proposed definitions of eight of these new terms: High quality information, Indian tribe, mitigation, plan revision, planning area, planning issue, responsible official, and sustained yield. The final rule revises the proposed definitions of five of these new terms: Deciding official, plan amendment, plan components, plan maintenance, and planning assessment. The final rule does not adopt the proposal to add the term implementation strategies.

Additionally, the BLM proposed to revise several existing definitions. The final rule adopts the proposed definition for the term areas of critical environmental concern or ACEC. The final rule further revises the other existing definitions that were proposed for revisions: Conformity or conformance, cooperating agency, local government, officially approved and adopted (land use) plans, and resource management plan.

The final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, removes the definitions of: Eligible cooperating agency, Field Manager, guidance, and resource area or field office. The final rule does not adopt, however, the proposal to remove the definition for “consistent” and instead revises the existing definition and rephrases the term as “consistent with officially approved and adopted plans.” The following paragraphs describe the changes to these definitions and the rationale for each. This discussion does not discuss the definitions of terms that are included in the final rule without amendment from existing regulations.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or ACEC.

The final rule moves 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), consistent with the proposed rule. This change makes 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; rather, it describes the effect of the identification of such an area. The sentence is therefore most appropriately placed following the description of the criteria for identifying a potential ACEC (see § 1610.8-2(b)). This change is not a change in practice or policy.

Conformity or conformance.

The final rule adopts the proposals to 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 changes are consistent with changes to § 1610.1-2, which refer to plan components instead of “terms, conditions, and decisions.” The changes reflect that plan components provide the planning-level management direction that guides all future management actions and with which those future actions must be consistent.

The final rule provides a more precise definition of conformance, which will assist the BLM and the public in identifying whether a proposed action is in conformance with an approved resource management plan. The final rule also removes the words “plan amendment” from the end of the definition, as proposed. 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).

Finally, the final rule adds a reference to “see § 1610.6-3,” which is the corresponding policy provision related to conformance. This change between the proposed and final rule improves readability of the planning regulations by directing readers to related sections and does not represent a change in the meaning of the definition.

Consistent with officially approved and adopted plans.

The BLM proposed to remove the definition of the term “consistent” because this is commonly used terminology. Several comments expressed concern over the proposed removal of the definition of consistency. In response to public comment, the final rule includes a revised term and definition.

The term “consistent” is replaced with “consistent with officially approved and adopted plans.” This change is necessary because the word “consistent” is used in the regulations in multiple contexts. For example, in final § 1610.3-3 the term “consistent” is used in the context of consistency with the officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. The definition of conformance, however, uses the word “consistent” in a different context that does not align with the definition for consistent in the existing regulations. The final rule uses a more precise term to avoid confusion regarding when this definition applies.

The definition of “consistent with officially approved and adopted plans” also varies from the existing definition of “consistent” in several ways. The final rule replaces “adhere to” with “are compatible with” in regards to the terms, conditions, and decisions of officially approved and adopted plans. This is an important distinction because the phrase “adhere to” could be misinterpreted to mean that BLM plans must use the exact terms, conditions, and decisions described in the plans of other governmental entities as plan components. These terms, conditions, and decisions, however, may not use the same terminology as resource management plans or reflect the requirements of plan components (see § 1610.1-2), may be smaller in scope or scale than a resource management plan, or may not provide integrated consideration of resources, for example. In these situations, a plan component might vary from the terms, conditions, and decisions of the officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes while still maintaining compatibility with these terms, conditions, and decisions. The final rule affirms that such variance is acceptable, so long as the plan components are compatible with the terms, conditions, and decisions in the officially approved and adopted plan, subject to the qualifications of § 1610.3.

The final rule also replaces “officially approved and adopted resource-related plans” with “officially approved and adopted plans” for consistent use in terminology throughout. Please see the preamble to the definition for “officially approved and adopted plans” in this section for a more detailed explanation of this change.

The final rule includes the phrase “to the maximum extent the BLM finds consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies and programs implementing such laws and regulations” for consistency with final § 1610.3-3(a).

Finally, the final rule removes the existing phrase “or in their absence, with policies and programs” from this definition. This change is consistent with the removal of existing § 1610.3-2(b) and helps to distinguish between FLPMA requirements for coordination and for consistency.

FLPMA requires that the BLM “coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located . . . by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9).) Coordination is addressed in final § 1610.3-2, which the final rule revises to address coordination on policies and programs (see §§ 1610.3-2(a)(1) and (2)). FLPMA also requires that resource management plans “shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent [the Secretary] finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.” (See 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9).) This FLPMA requirement does not include “policies and programs,” rather it limits consistency to “State and local plans” while the broader coordination requirements include the consideration of policies and programs. The final rule aligns the BLM regulations with FLPMA by requiring that the BLM coordinate with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes on all types of plans, policies, management programs, and inventory that are germane to the development of resource management plans, in order to assure that consideration is given to all of these documents and information during the planning process. The consistency requirements, however, only apply to “officially approved and adopted plans,” as provided by FLPMA. The final rule represents a change from the existing regulations, but more closely aligns the BLM regulations with the requirements of FLPMA.

Eligible cooperating agency.

The final rule adopts the proposal to remove this definition and revise 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 proposed to modify the existing definition in the planning regulations for improved consistency with the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(a)) and to clarify existing language. Proposed changes were intended to make clear that while cooperating agencies are defined under the CEQ NEPA 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. The final rule adopts the first two sentences of this definition, but does not adopt the third and final sentence of the proposed definition.

The final rule includes a reference to the definition of “eligible governmental entity” from the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(a)) and clarifies 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. The final rule removes “written” from the first sentence of this definition, 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)), although this is typically recommended for other Federal agencies.

In response to public comment, the final rule removes the final sentence of the existing and proposed definitions.

The BLM proposed 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. This sentence is not necessary or appropriate in the definition for a cooperating agency as it does not describe the meaning of the term, nor does it address eligibility to participate as a cooperating agency, as defined in 43 CFR 46.225(a).

Deciding official.

The final rule adopts the proposed new definition of deciding official, with only minor edits. This 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, when appropriate.

The final rule adds a reference to “see § 1601.0-4,” which is the corresponding policy provision related to conformance. This change between the proposed and final rule improves readability of the planning regulations by directing readers to related sections and does not represent a change in the meaning of the definition.

Field Manager.

The final rule adopts the proposal to remove this definition. The final rule replaces references to the Field Manager with “responsible official” or “the BLM” throughout, as proposed. This change is intended to facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries, when appropriate.

Guidance.

The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the definition of guidance. Internal BLM guidance must be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, so the term is not necessary in the regulations and further restrictions in the definitions section of these regulations is not necessary or appropriate. The removal of this unnecessary definition also improves readability of the regulations. This change is not a change in practice or policy.

High quality information.

The final rule adopts the proposal to add this new definition to describe new terminology introduced into proposed §§ 1610.1-1(c) and 1610.4(b). High quality information is 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, please see the preamble to § 1610.1-1(c).

Implementation strategies.

The final rule does not adopt the proposal to add this new definition. This definition is no longer necessary as the term “implementation strategy” is not included in the final rule in response to public comment. For more information, please see the preamble to § 1610.1-3.

Indian tribe.

The final rule adopts the proposal to add a new definition of Indian tribe for consistency with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130). The existing planning regulations were promulgated prior to this Act and this new definition clarifies the use of this term. Consistent with the proposed rule, the term Indian tribe refers to federally recognized Indian tribes in the final rule. This change is not a change in practice or policy.

In connection with this change, the final rule removes the words “federally recognized” from five locations where the existing regulations refer to “federally recognized Indian tribes,” as proposed. 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 are no longer necessary as a result of the revised definition, which includes only federally recognized Indian tribes. The five references are identified and clarified in the corresponding sections of this preamble.

Several public comments recommended including Tribal Historic Preservation Officers in sections referencing cooperation and coordination with Indian tribes. We have not adopted this recommendation since Tribal Historic Preservation Officers are part of tribal governments and therefore already encompassed by this definition.

It is important to note that the final rule does not affect government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes during the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan and the final rule includes a statement of this requirement in section 1610.2-1(a). The final rule also does not affect implementation of the “Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations” (2012). The BLM will continue to conduct government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes and will also continue to consult with ANCSA corporations during the preparation and amendment of resource management plans, consistent with DOI policy.

Landscape.

In response to public comment, the final rule includes a definition for the term “landscape.” This term is not found in the existing or proposed regulations, but was used throughout the preamble to the proposed rule, including in the discussion of the overarching goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative. The term “landscape” is added to § 1610.4(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule, which requires that the BLM consider “relevant landscapes” when identifying a preliminary planning area, and therefore a definition is warranted. The final rule defines a landscape as “an area of land encompassing an interacting mosaic of ecosystems and human systems characterized by a set of common management concerns. The landscape is not defined by the size of the area, but rather by the interacting elements that are relevant and meaningful in a management context.” This definition aligns with the definition of a landscape adopted by DOI in the Departmental Manual on implementing mitigation at the landscape-scale (600 DM 6 6.4(D)). Please see the preamble discussion of § 1610.4(a)(1)(ii) for information about the BLM's use of this term.

Mitigation.

The final rule adopts the proposal 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 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 § 1610.1-2(a)(2)). The definition is consistent with the Departmental Manual chapter on

“Implementing Mitigation at the Landscape-scale” (600 DM 6).

Multiple use.

The final rule includes the definition of multiple use with no changes from the existing and proposed rule. This definition is a direct quote of the definition in FLPMA.

Officially approved and adopted plans.

The BLM proposed to replace the phrase “resource related plans” with “land use plans” in this definition and throughout both subparts. Several public comments stated that requiring consistency with “land use plans” would limit the scope of plans that the BLM would consider during the revision or amendment of resource management plans, and may leave out relevant plans that are specific to resources and uses such as water, weeds, dust control, and travel management. In response to public comments, the final rule instead replaces “resource related plans” with “plans,” and defines an “officially approved and adopted plan” as a “resource-related plan.”

The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the words “policies, programs, and processes” from the definition of officially approved and adopted plans. The existing definition is inconsistent with existing § 1610.3-2 (final § 1610.3-3), 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.

These changes mean that the consistency requirements of final § 1610.3-3(a) applies to the “resource-related plans” of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, but is not required for their “policies, programs, and processes.” This change is consistent with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). For more information, please see the discussion on the definition for “consistent with officially approved and adopted plans” at the preamble for this section and the discussion on consistency requirements at the preamble for § 1610.3-3.

The final rule includes two revisions to this definition that were not included in the proposed rule. This definition includes the word “tribal” to clarify that the plans of Indian tribes are prepared pursuant to and in accordance with authorization provided by “tribal” constitutions, legislation, or charters. The final rule also removes the word “State” from the phrase “which have the force and effect of [State] law.” This change is intended to clarify that tribal constitutions, legislation, and charters have the force and effect of tribal law, not State law. These revisions were not addressed in the proposed rule, however, they do not result in a change to the meaning of this definition; rather, they fix an internal inconsistency in the definition.

Plan amendment.

The final rule adopts the proposed new term “plan amendment,” with minor edits to the definition. The final definition clarifies 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 will be required to follow the same amendment procedures, as described in this part.

In response to public comment, the final rule specifies that a plan amendment means an amendment to an approved resource management plan or management framework plan “to change one or more plan components.” This added language does not change the meaning of the proposed definition; rather it provides a more precise description that amendments are required to change one or more plan components.

Plan components.

The final rule adopts the proposed new term “plan component,” with minor edits to the definition. This new definition identifies plan components as the elements of a resource management plan with which future management actions shall be consistent. Although other items could be prepared in conjunction with a resource management plan, such as a travel management plan, they are not considered a component of the resource management plan (for more information, see the discussions on plan components in the preamble for § 1610.1-2).

For improved clarity, the final rule identifies the six different types of plan components and adds a reference to § 1610.1-2, where plan components are described in more detail. These changes between the proposed and final rule provide clarity, but do not represent a change in the meaning of the definition.

Plan maintenance.

The final rule adopts the proposed new term “plan maintenance,” with minor edits to the definition. Some comments expressed that the term “minor changes” was ambiguous and requested the BLM define this term. In response to public comment, we remove the word “minor” from the phrase “minor change(s) to an approved resource management plan.” The phrase “minor changes” is unnecessary here. The final definition more clearly describes plan maintenance as 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 fixing a misspelled word or 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 final rule retains the term “minor changes” when referring to changes in mapping or data because this term is necessary here, as not all changes in mapping or data would be considered plan maintenance. The BLM interprets this term, consistent with its use in existing § 1610.5-4, to mean a change that is small in both scope and scale, and will not alter or modify a plan component. The final language regarding “minor changes in mapping or data” is consistent with the maintenance section of the existing regulations (§ 1610.5-4), proposed rule (§ 1610.6-5), and final rule (§ 1610.6-5).

Changes between the proposed and final rule are intended to clarify that any corrections of typographical or mapping errors or changes reflecting minor changes in mapping or data are considered plan maintenance. For the purposes of this rule, a minor change in mapping or data is one that does not result in a substantial change to the scope of one or more plan components and must be considered within the context of any given resource management plan. For example, if a plan component designates a river corridor as a riparian protection area, and the riparian zone moves slightly from year-to-year based on normal hydrological processes, the movement of the riparian protection area would not be considered a substantial change in the scope of the planning designation.

Plan revision.

The final rule adopts the proposed definition for plan revisions, as a revision of an approved resource management plan or major portions of the resource management plan. The final rule clarifies 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 added language improves understanding that the revision of a resource management plan follows the same procedures as the preparation of a new resource management plan (see final § 1610.6-7).

Planning area.

The final rule adopts the new definition “planning area,” as

proposed. This definition describes the geographic area for the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan and replaces the existing definition for “resource area or field office.” The final rule replaces the terms “resource area” or “field office” with “planning area” throughout the proposed rule. This 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). The final rule provides revised direction for determination of planning area boundaries in §§ 1601.0-4 and 1610.4(a). This change is not a change in practice or policy.

Planning assessment.

The final rule adopts the proposed new term “planning assessment,” with minor edits to the definition. This new definition describes 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.

Changes to this definition between the proposed and final rule add a reference to the planning assessment section of the final rule (§ 1610.4) for improved readability of the regulations. The BLM intends no change in the meaning of this definition from this change.

Planning issue.

The final rule adopts the proposed new definition for “planning issue” without amendment. This new definition identifies 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 new definition is consistent with current practice and policy.

Public.

We proposed to retain the existing definition for “public.” In response to public comment, the final rule revises the existing definition to clarify that the “public” also includes officials of other Federal agencies. For example, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency are welcome to participate in BLM's planning process, including attending public meetings, submitting written comments, or any other opportunities for public involvement. This revision does not represent a change from existing practice or policy.

Public involvement.

In response to public comment, the final rule includes a new definition for public involvement stating that public involvement means “the opportunity for participation by the public in decision making and planning with respect to the public lands.” This definition is based on the FLPMA definition of public involvement (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(d)). However, this definition is slightly broader than the FLPMA definition in that it includes all members of the “public,” as defined in these regulations, and not just affected citizens. The BLM believes that it is appropriate to provide opportunities for participation to any “affected or interested individuals” and not just affected citizens. For example, non-citizens that reside near public lands may be affected by a resource management plan, and therefore it is appropriate for these non-citizens to participate in opportunities for public involvement. By providing for opportunities for participation in public involvement activities by citizens, FLPMA does not preclude participation by non-citizens.

Public lands.

The final rule adopts the proposal to replace Bureau of Land Management with BLM and to split the existing definition into two sentences for improved readability. These changes are not a change in practice or policy.

Resource area or field office.

The final rule adopts the proposal to remove this definition, because the resource area or field office no longer will be the “default” planning area. The final rule replaces the terms “resource area” or “field office” with “planning area” throughout the final rule, as proposed.

Resource Management Plan.

The final rule adopts the proposal to simplify the existing definition of a resource management plan with minor revisions, providing that a resource management plan is “a land use plan as described under section 202 of the FLPMA, including plan revisions.” Much of the existing language, and a more in depth discussion of what constitutes a resource management plan, is moved to final § 1610.1-2. “Plan components” described in final § 1610.1-2 replace some of the elements generally established in a resource management plan under the existing definition in § 1601.0-5(n), and some of these elements will be removed. As discussed in the preamble for § 1610.1, these changes aim to clarify that a resource management plan is a planning-level 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 future actions that are taken during the implementation of the resource management plans.

The final rule clarifies that the term “resource management plan” includes plan revisions, consistent with the proposed rule. This change improves 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).

The final rule adopts the proposal 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 a future action based on the site-specific NEPA analysis).

Responsible official.

The final rule adopts the proposed definition for “responsible official” without amendment. This new term replaces 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, when appropriate. The term is based on the definition of “Responsible official” in the DOI NEPA 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 term, as modified, is only applicable to the BLM land use planning process; no change to the DOI NEPA 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. The final rule divides these responsibilities between the deciding official and the responsible official for purposes of this planning rule. Under the final rule, the responsible official prepares the resource management plan or plan amendment and related EISs and EAs, and the deciding official approves the resource management plan.

State and local government.

The final rule replaces the proposed term “local government” with “State and local government,” and revises the definition to include the State. The revised definition describes “the State, any political subdivision of the State, and any general purpose unit of local government with resource planning, resource management, zoning, or land use regulatory authority.” This change broadens the existing and proposed definitions of “local government” to include the State, but there is no change in the meaning of either the “State” or “local government.” This change improves readability of the regulations as the phrase “State and local government” is used throughout this part.

The final rule adopts the proposal to replace the existing language for “regulation authority” with “regulatory authority” for improved readability. No change in meaning is intended by this revision.

Several public comments recommended including State Historic Preservation Officers in sections referencing cooperation and coordination with State governments. We have not made this change since State Historic Preservation Officers are part of State governments, and therefore are already encompassed by this definition.

Sustained yield.

The final rule adopts the proposed new definition of “sustained yield.” This new definition comes from the FLPMA definition (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(h)). This definition is added 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. This definition is useful because this term is referenced throughout the existing, proposed, and final regulations.

Section 1601.0-6 Environmental Impact Statement Policy

The final rule replaces the existing word “plan” with “resource management plan” throughout this section and replaces the first sentence of this section, which states that the approval of a resource management plan is a major Federal action, with a requirement that the BLM will prepare an EIS when preparing a resource management plan. This change is intended to provide clarity on this existing requirement; the BLM intends no change in practice or policy.

The BLM did not receive public comments specific to this section.

Section 1601.0-7 Scope

The final rule adopts this section, which is identical to that in the existing and proposed regulations. The BLM did not receive public comments specific to this section.

Section 1601.0-8 Principles

The first sentence of this section requires that the “development, approval, maintenance, amendment, and revision of resource management plans shall provide for public involvement and shall be consistent with the principles described in section 202 of FLPMA.” Several public comments requested the final rule restate one or more of the principles described in this section of FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712). The final rule is not revised in response to these public comments because this provision requires the BLM to be consistent with all of the principles described in this section of FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712), although they are not individually listed. In this sentence, the final rule uses the word “shall” instead of “will” and replaces “the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976” with “FLPMA,” for the reasons previously described. Existing regulations state that “. . . plans will provide . . .” and “. . . shall be consistent,” while the proposed rule used “will” in both places. Under this final rule, the BLM uses “shall” in both places in this sentence. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from this change.

Under existing regulations, this section requires the BLM to consider “. . . the impact on local economies and uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands and on non-public land surface over federally-owned mineral interests. . . .” The proposed rule rephrased this requirement for active voice and expanded it to include the consideration of “. . . resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at appropriate scales.”

In response to public comment, the final rule replaces the word “appropriate” with “relevant” to clarify that the BLM will consider scales that the agency has reason to believe are relevant to the decision. This broader range of potential impacts includes the consideration of impacts to local economies, in addition to impacts at other scales and on other conditions. The final language more accurately describes current practice to consider impacts of resource management plans at relevant scales, which provides important information for the deciding official. 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 revised language is also consistent with the Planning 2.0 goal of addressing landscape-scale resource issues, which may occur at a range of different geographic scales.

We wish to clarify that consideration of the impacts of a resource management plan on local conditions, including local economies, is a relevant scale. At this time, the BLM cannot contemplate a situation where a resource management plan would not impact local conditions within the planning area; therefore the BLM will continue to consider impacts on local economies under the final rule. The intent of these revisions is to assure that BLM considers other relevant scales, in addition to local scales.

The proposed and final regulations do not prescribe additional weight of consideration to any scale or condition when rendering a decision. Rather, the BLM believes it is appropriate for a deciding official to consider all relevant scales and information before rendering a decision.

The last sentence of this section contains the requirement 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 final rule expands the requirement in existing regulations to include

consideration of impacts on adjacent or nearby Federal lands in addition to non-Federal lands. This language is consistent with the Planning 2.0 goal to improve the BLM's ability to apply landscape-scale management approaches and facilitates coordination and collaboration with adjacent Federal land managers and landowners, as appropriate. No substantive changes are made to this sentence from the proposed to final rule.

Subpart 1610—Resource Management Planning

Section 1610.1 Resource Management Planning Framework

The final rule revises the heading of § 1610.1 by replacing the word guidance with framework, consistent with the proposed rule. The broader heading will reflect the entire section as revised.

Many of the provisions of existing § 1610.1 are found in §§ 1610.1-1 and 1610.1-2 of the final rule. The final rule does not adopt proposed § 1610.1-3 in the final rule. Those sections are discussed in greater detail as follows.

Section 1610.1-1 Guidance and General Requirements

The final rule adopts proposed § 1610.1-1, with revisions. This section addresses the development of guidance for resource management planning and general requirements for the preparation and amendment of resource management plans.

Section 1610.1-1(a) of the final rule contains provisions of existing § 1610.1(a). This section still refers to planning guidance, but references to “State Director” are replaced with “deciding official” and references to “Field Manager” are replaced with “responsible official,” consistent with the proposed rule. These changes facilitate planning across traditional BLM administrative boundaries, when appropriate. The final rule specifies that the word “plan” refers to a “resource management plan,” consistent with the proposed rule.

Section 1610.1-1(a)(1) contains provisions of existing § 1610.1(a)(1), and explains that guidance may include “Policy established by the President, Secretary, Director, or deciding official approved documents, so long as such policy complies with the Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.” The final rule adopts the proposed change to remove existing language limiting this guidance to “National level policy” in order 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. The final rule also adopts the proposed change 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.

A public comment suggested that the phrase “is consistent with” Federal laws and regulations in paragraph (a)(1) of this section introduces potential for controversy and suggested replacing this language with “shall comply with.” In response to this comment, the final rule replaces the phrase “is consistent” in paragraph (a)(1) of this section with “complies,” to clarify that any policy must comply with Federal laws and regulations. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from revisions to this section. Rather, these changes are intended to improve readability and reaffirm that the BLM may only develop or apply policy that complies with Federal laws and regulations.

The final rule adopts proposed § 1610.1-1(a)(2), which provides that guidance may include “[a]nalysis requirements, planning procedures, and other written information and instructions required to be considered in the planning process.” Section 1610.1-1(a)(2) of the final rule contains most of the provisions found in existing § 1610.1(a)(2), with some revisions from existing language, but remains unchanged from the proposed rule.

The final rule removes existing § 1610.1(a)(3), consistent with the proposed rule. This section is no longer necessary because guidance developed at the deciding official level is incorporated into § 1610.1-1(a)(1). The final rule also removes existing requirements for the State Director to reconsider inappropriate guidance during the planning process, consistent with the proposed rule. 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.

The final rule adopts the proposed change 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 final § 1610.4(a) describes the process for developing a preliminary planning area and final § 1601.0-4 describes the responsibilities for determining the final planning area. For more information, see the discussions on planning areas at the preamble for §§ 1610.4(a) and 1601.0-4.

The final rule adopts proposed § 1610.1-1(b), with minor edits. Section 1610.1-1(b) contains the provisions of existing § 1610.1(c). The first sentence is revised to read “the BLM shall 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.” This language highlights the objective of using an interdisciplinary approach, as described in FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2)), as well as the importance of integrated consideration of sciences in the planning process. This list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it describes the disciplines provided in FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2)), including the broader inclusion of “other sciences,” and identifies social sciences for consistency with the CEQ NEPA regulations (see 40 CFR 1502.6).

As proposed, the second sentence of § 1610.1-1(b) is revised to replace the word “disciplines” with “expertise.” This change reflects that BLM staff may have expertise outside of their formal discipline, and an “interdisciplinary approach” should be based on expertise, not limited to formal disciplines. This change is consistent with current practice under the existing regulations. The final rule adds 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, unless otherwise specified by law.” The final rule replaces the proposed phrase “or other applicable law” with “unless otherwise specified by law” for grammatical clarity and for consistency with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7); 43 U.S.C. 1732(a)). No change in meaning, practice, or policy is intended by these changes.

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

The final rule adopts proposed § 1610.1-1(c) with only minor revisions. This section requires the BLM to 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 or 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,

7

DOI,

8

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

9

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).

7

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, February 22, 2002).

8

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.

9

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.

10

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).

10

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, will result in greater consistency in how BLM identifies and uses information, including scientific information, throughout the land use planning process. Section 1610.1-1(c) establishes an explicit regulatory requirement for using high quality information in the planning regulations, as the existing regulations do not address information quality.

Section 1610.1-2 Plan Components

The final rule adopts proposed § 1610.1-2 with some revisions, which are described in the discussion for each corresponding paragraph of § 1610.1-2.

Section 1610.1-2 describes 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 final rule incorporates many of these elements into the “plan components” and removes several of the elements (for more information on elements that are removed from the planning regulations, please see the discussion at the preamble for proposed, but not adopted, § 1610.1-3). The plan components provide planning-level direction with which future management activities and decisions must be consistent (

i.e.,

planning-level management direction).

Consistent with the proposed rule, final § 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 as applicable, certain lands identified as available for disposal. Plan components provide planning-level management direction and will therefore only be changed through plan amendments or revisions under § 1610.1-2(c). Typographical and mapping errors, or minor changes in mapping or data for a plan component could be updated through plan maintenance (see § 1610.6-4). This is consistent with current BLM policy and practice (see § 1610.6-4).

The final rule clearly identifies the planning-level management direction reflected in the plan components of an approved resource management plan. This planning-level management direction is intended to guide future management activities towards the achievement of goals and objectives across the landscape, while also providing for use of the public lands by tracts or areas as required by FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(a)). The plan components will not, however, prescribe future management actions, which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions. By doing so, the final rule enables the BLM to establish clear management direction in a resource management plan, while allowing adaptive approaches to implement future actions under the plan. It also provides consistency throughout the BLM in how plans are structured.

The six 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 final rule, these elements are called plan components and each component is provided a

distinct name and a precise definition to facilitate understanding and consistent interpretation and inclusion in resource management plans.

The final rule adopts proposed §§ 1610.1-2(a)(1) and 1610.1-2(a)(2), with some revisions. These sections describe the first two types of plan components—goals and objectives—and explicitly require the inclusion of goals and objectives, as proposed. While not a major change from current practice, the final rule also provides clarity on the definition of the goals and objectives, which improve understanding and consistency in implementation.

Goals

are defined in the final rule as broad statements of desired outcomes addressing resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic characteristics within the planning area or a portion of the planning area. The BLM will direct the management of the land and resources within the planning area toward the goals of the resource management plan. This plan component replaces “resource condition goals” described in existing § 1601.0-5(n)(3). The final rule removes the words “resource condition” as goals may address other characteristics within a planning area as well. This is an important distinction as FLPMA directs the BLM to use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield when developing resource management plans. Multiple use, as defined in FLPMA, means, in part, the management of the public lands so that all resources are utilized in the combination that best meet the needs of the American people taking into account the long term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The final rule provides that these needs are reflected in the goals of a resource management plan. These needs may address a broad range of desired outcomes related to resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic characteristics. For example, the needs of local communities may include economic outcomes related to development of the public lands, or they may include social outcomes such as access to public lands for recreation, solitude, or gathering of traditional plants. The BLM intends no change from existing practice; rather, providing a clear definition of “goals” in the regulations will improve consistency and reflect FLPMA's mandate to manage on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.

The only change to proposed § 1610.1-2(a)(1) in the final rule is to replace the phrase “within a planning area” to “within the planning area,” for grammatical clarity. The BLM intends no change in meaning by this grammatical clarification.

Objectives

are described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and replace the “resource condition . . . objectives” described in existing § 1601.0-5(n)(3). An objective is a concise statement of desired resource conditions that guides progress toward one or more goals. In response to public comment, we add language to the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2) of this section to make clear that an objective is a statement of desired resource conditions “within the planning area, or a portion of the planning area.” This new language clarifies that a single objective may apply to the entire planning area, or it may only apply to a portion of the planning area. For example, an objective related to the achievement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards would likely apply to the entire planning area, whereas an objective related to vegetation composition may only apply to a portion of it.

The final rule adopts the proposed new requirement that objectives must be specific and measurable and should have established time-frames for achievement. Measurable objectives will 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.

Establishing measurable objectives will improve the BLM's ability to evaluate whether the objectives are being met, to track progress toward their achievement, and to change management direction, as appropriate, to meet established objectives. Since future resource management actions will be required to conform to the plan components, including the objectives (see the definition of “conformity or conformance” in § 1601.0-5), the requirement for measurable objectives will assist the BLM when determining if a proposed action is in conformance with the resource management plan objectives. For example, if the NEPA analysis reveals that a proposed action will prevent the achievement of an objective, the proposed action would not be in conformance with the resource management plan. These changes 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 is identified as part of a measurable objective, the BLM will use the monitoring and evaluation process to determine whether the threshold has been met (see the discussion on monitoring and evaluation at the preamble for § 1610.6-4).

The final rule adopts the proposal that objectives should identify standards to mitigate undesirable impacts to resource conditions, with minor edits. This change supports implementation of the BLM mitigation policy. For example, an objective might identify a mitigation standard for no net loss to a sensitive species, which would provide a standard to guide future authorizations in avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for any unavoidable remaining impacts to the sensitive species.

Changes between the proposed and final rule replace “to the extent practical” with “as appropriate” in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This change is intended to clarify that there may be situations when it is not appropriate to identify a mitigation standard in a resource management plan, such as within a wilderness area where development is not allowed, or when there is insufficient scientific information available to develop a standard. The final rule also replaces the word “effects” with “impacts” in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section for consistency with the proposed and final definition of mitigation (see § 1601.0-5). The BLM intends no substantive change in meaning from these changes between the proposed and final rule.

The final rule adopts the proposal that objectives should provide integrated consideration of resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic factors (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2)), however, this provision will also be applied “as appropriate” instead of “as practical” for improved clarity that there may be situations when it is not appropriate to provide integrated consideration of these factors. For example, when establishing measurable objectives for vegetation communities, social factors may or may not be pertinent depending on the location and circumstances.

Finally, in response to public comment, the final rule establishes an additional requirement (final § 1610.1-2(a)(2)(iii)) that, as appropriate, objectives should identify indicators for

evaluating progress toward achievement of the objective. The purpose of this new provision is to provide clear direction in the resource management plan on how the BLM intends to measure the objective. The indicators described in the objectives will be the same indicators as described in the monitoring and evaluation standards. Identifying these same indicators in both the objectives and the monitoring and evaluation standards more clearly links the achievement of objectives to monitoring and evaluation and will ensure that BLM is able to determine if the plan objective is being met through monitoring and evaluation. This provision is applied “as appropriate” because in some circumstances an objective may include more than one indicator, whereas in other circumstances an indicator may not be relevant or necessary in order to measure progress towards the achievement of the objective.

Section 1610.1-2(b) of the final rule describes 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. 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 will also provide planning-level management direction while supporting achievement of the goals and objectives of the resource management plan. The final rule adopts proposed section 1610.1-2(b), with the revisions described in the following paragraphs.

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

designations,

” which replaces 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 identify areas of public land where management is directed toward one or more priority resource values or resource uses. A designation highlights these areas to clearly communicate the BLM's intention to prioritize these resource values or resource uses when developing management direction or making future management decisions in the area. Changes between the proposed and final rule replace “uses” with “resource uses” for improved clarity. No change in meaning is intended by this revision.

Designations 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. The final rule adopts, with no changes, proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section which describe planning designations and non-discretionary designations.

Planning designations will 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. Examples of existing designations or allocations that will become planning designations that could be identified in a resource management plan are an ACEC, a research natural area, a special recreation management area, a backcountry conservation area, a wildlife corridor area, or a solar energy zone.

The BLM intends to include a list of planning designations available for use during the planning process in the revisions to the Land Use Planning Handbook. The BLM recognizes that new information or unique circumstances in a planning area may warrant the development of new planning designations; thus, the list in the handbook will not preclude development of additional designations in the future. The purpose of developing a list of available planning designations in the forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook is to provide consistent terminology and naming conventions for use across BLM resource management plans. Further, it is not the BLM's intention that all public lands will be included in a planning designation; rather, the final rule and the forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook will 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

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