Resource Management Planning, 89580-89671 [2016-28724]
Download as PDF
89580
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Summary
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.
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.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on
January 11, 2017.
DATES:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 BLMadministered 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
The BLM received 3,354 public
comments on the proposed rule, which
are available for viewing on the Federal
e-rulemaking portal (https://
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 informationgathering 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89581
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,
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89582
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 subsurface 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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89583
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.’’
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
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).
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89584
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 upfront 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, ecosystembased 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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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, postfire 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 landscapescale, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89585
process so that changes to a resource
management plan, when needed, are
timely and responsive to the relevant
issues.3
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89586
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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 sciencebased 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 landscapescale 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
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 https://lccnetwork.org/
about. Information about the REAs is available at:
https://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), https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
necessary data and information to
support the Planning 2.0 goal to apply
landscape-scale approaches to resource
management.
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 landscapescale 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.
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.
regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/
national_information/2012/IB_2012-058.html.
6 See https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/
eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 sitespecific 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89587
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89588
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
State and private lands. At the same
time, commenters cautioned that the
BLM should ensure that landscape level
planning does not result in timeconsuming 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
entering Docket ID: BLM–2016–0002 in
the ‘‘Search’’ bar.
Tribal Consultation on the Proposed
Rule
The BLM initiated government-togovernment 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-togovernment 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 governmentto-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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 restart 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 EISlevel 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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Summary of Changes
The BLM received 3,354 comments on
the proposed rule, which are available
for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking
portal (https://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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89589
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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89590
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and 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),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89591
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89592
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89593
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.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89594
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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-togovernment 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-togovernment consultation with federally
recognized Indian tribes and will also
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘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 ‘‘resourcerelated 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89595
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89596
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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, noncitizens 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89597
‘‘. . . the impact on local economies
and uses of adjacent or nearby nonFederal 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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89598
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
consideration of impacts on adjacent or
nearby Federal lands in addition to nonFederal 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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
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,’’ https://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,’’ https://www.blm.gov/style/
medialib/blm/national/national_page.Par.7549.File.
dat/guidelines.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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).
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
10 The implementation strategy is available at:
https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/
publications/blm_publications/advancing_
science.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89599
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89600
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 nonrenewable 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 Management and
Protection Areas, Outstanding Natural
Areas, and the Headwaters Forest
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89601
Reserve in northern California pursuant
to Congressional direction.
Non-discretionary designations are
not established or amended through the
BLM land use planning process. These
non-discretionary designations will,
however, be identified in a resource
management plan, and management
direction for the designation, including
plan components, will be developed,
consistent with applicable direction
provided in the proclamation,
legislation, or order that established the
non-discretionary designation.
This section of the final rule does not
represent a substantive change from the
existing rule, other than identifying
designations as a plan component and
specifying that planning designations
can be applied either to achieve the
goals and objectives of the resource
management plan or to comply with
legal requirements or policies. Further,
the final rule clarifies the difference
between a designation and other plan
components, such as a resource use
determination. The BLM believes that
differentiating between resource use
determinations and designations in the
regulations will help to improve general
understanding of terminology.
Resource use determinations are
another type of plan component
described in final § 1610.1–2(b).
Resource use determinations replace
several existing elements of a resource
management plan, including ‘‘land areas
for limited, restricted, or exclusive use,’’
‘‘allowable resource uses,’’ and
‘‘program constraints,’’ (see existing
§ 1601.0–5(n)). A resource use
determination identifies areas of public
lands or mineral estate where specific
uses are excluded, restricted, or allowed
in order to achieve the goals and
objectives of the resource management
plan or applicable legal requirements or
policies. Resource use determinations
include the specific restrictions to an
allowed use that will be required for all
future activities and authorizations
within the area. Examples of resource
use determinations include: Areas
identified as available or unavailable for
livestock grazing, open or closed to
mineral leasing, or open to mineral
leasing subject to standard terms and
conditions or major or moderate
constraints, or open, limited, or closed
to Off-Highway-Vehicle use. In most
circumstances, a resource use
determination indicating that a use is
allowed, or allowed with restrictions in
an area, will not represent a final
decision allowing future use
authorizations in the area, rather it will
indicate that future authorizations for
the activities may be considered for
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89602
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
approval following site-specific NEPA
analysis.
In response to public comment, the
final rule adds language to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section to clarify that a
resource use determination is ‘‘subject
to valid existing rights.’’ The final rule
includes this language in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, although it is not
necessary, as determinations are always
subject to valid existing rights, because
we believe it is instructive in regards to
resource use determinations, which
provide for the use of public lands. This
change between proposed and final rule
does not represent a change in the
meaning of this section, nor does it
represent a change from current practice
or policy.
Also in response to public comment,
the final rule adds language to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section stating
that ‘‘resource use determinations shall
be consistent with or support the
management priorities (i.e., the resource
values and resource uses) identified
through designations.’’ In contrast to
designations, which indicate where one
or more resources or uses is prioritized
over other resources or uses, resource
use determinations identify where a use
is excluded, restricted, or allowed, but
do not identify a priority for one or
more multiple-uses. Resource use
determinations may be developed for
the designation, or they may be
developed for another purpose, but
overlay a designation; in these
situations, the resource use
determinations must be consistent with
or support the management priorities
established through the designations,
subject to valid existing rights.
Final § 1610.1–2(b)(2) provides
terminology for the ‘‘allowable resource
uses’’ and ‘‘land use allowances,
exclusions, and restrictions’’ identified
in the existing definition of a resource
management plan. This change
improves the identification of these
elements in a resource management
plan and consistent use of terminology.
The BLM intends no substantive change
in practice or policy associated with this
new terminology; however, under the
final rule there are changes in how the
various parts of a resource management
plan are categorized.
For example, under this final rule,
some common ‘‘management actions’’
described in resource management
plans prepared under the existing
planning regulations are classified as
‘‘resource use determinations,’’ such as
any explicit restrictions to an allowed
use at the land use planning level. For
example, mineral lease stipulations
such as No Surface Occupancy or
Controlled Surface Use will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
considered resource use determinations,
as these constraints represent
restrictions to an allowed use that are
explicitly required at the land use
planning level. Resource use
determinations will be changed only
through plan amendments or revisions.
This change does not represent a change
in current practice under the existing
regulations, as planning-level
restrictions to an allowed use are
currently subject to protest procedures
and may be changed only through plan
amendments.
With these changes, the BLM also
affirms that planning designations and
resource use determinations may be
defined explicitly by geographic
boundaries, or implicitly by describing
the specific conditions or criteria under
which a resource or use will be
prioritized, or a use will be excluded,
restricted, or allowed. In situations
where a criteria-based approach is used,
the BLM will develop maps showing
where the criteria apply based on
current data and conditions. These
options for defining planning
designations and resource use
determinations are consistent with
current practice and do not represent a
change from existing policy, though it
does represent a change in terminology.
For example, under the existing
planning regulations, the BLM applied
both approaches when developing the
‘‘Approved Resource Management Plan
Amendments and Record of Decision
(ROD) for Solar Energy Development in
Six Southwestern States’’ (Western
Solar Energy Plan). In this Plan the BLM
developed a list of areas where utilityscale solar energy development was
prohibited. Some of these areas were
defined by explicit geographic
boundaries, such as lands in the
Ivanpah Valley in California and
Nevada. Others were defined by the
presence of a specific land use
designation in an applicable land use
plan (e.g., ACECs) or the presence of a
specific resource or condition (e.g.,
designated or proposed critical habitat
for ESA-listed species). The geographic
boundaries for these areas may change
over time as land use plans are revised
or amended and new information on
resource conditions is developed. When
developing the Western Solar Energy
Plan and its associated NEPA analysis,
the BLM mapped and estimated the
acreage for all exclusion areas based on
best available information; however,
those maps will be updated over time
through plan maintenance.
Monitoring and evaluation standards
are another type of plan component.
These standards are described in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
replace the existing element of a
resource management plan entitled
‘‘Intervals and standards for monitoring
and evaluating the plan to determine the
effectiveness of the plan and the need
for amendment or revision’’ (see
existing § 1601.0–5(n)(8)). The final rule
adopts proposed paragraph (b)(3) of this
section with no changes. Monitoring
and evaluation standards include
‘‘indicators and intervals for monitoring
and evaluation to determine whether
the objectives are being met or there is
relevant new information that may
warrant amendment or revision of the
resource management plan.’’ Indicators
and intervals for monitoring will be tied
directly to the measurable objectives to
clearly indicate how each objective will
be measured (i.e., the indicator) and
how often it will be measured (i.e., the
interval). The indicators described in
the monitoring and evaluation standards
will be the same indicators as described
in the objectives (see § 1610.1–
2(a)(2)(iii)). Intervals for evaluating the
resource management plan identify the
frequency for evaluating the resource
management plan to determine whether
the resource management plan
objectives are being met or if there is
relevant new information that may
warrant amendment or revision of the
resource management plan. The
forthcoming revision of the Land Use
Planning Handbook will provide
guidance on developing appropriate
indicators and intervals for monitoring
and evaluation.
Lands identified as available for
disposal from BLM administration
constitute the final type of plan
component and replace the existing
element of a resource management plan
described as ‘‘land areas . . . for
transfer from Bureau of Land
Management Administration’’ (see
existing § 1601.0–5(n)(1)). The final rule
adopts proposed paragraph (b)(4), which
specifies that lands identified as
available for disposal will be considered
a plan component. This paragraph is
revised to clarify that lands identified
for disposal may include, but are not
limited to sales under section 203 of
FLPMA. FLPMA provides for the
disposal of tracts of public land where
the BLM determines that the disposal
meets specified criteria (see 43 U.S.C.
1713; 43 U.S.C. 1716; and 43 U.S.C.
1719).
Identification of lands available for
disposal is ‘‘as appropriate’’ because
they may not be applicable to every
resource management plan. For
example, it is unlikely that a resource
management plan developed for a
national monument or national
conservation area will identify lands as
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
available for disposal. As a plan
component, identification of lands as
available for disposal will only be
changed through amendment or
revision. This is consistent with current
BLM policy.
Collectively, the plan components
described in this final rule provide the
framework for a land use plan (i.e., a
resource management plan), as
contemplated by FLPMA. FLPMA
provides direction that the present and
future use of public lands and their
resources be projected through land use
planning (i.e., resource management
planning) (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(2)), and
similarly, that land use plans provide,
by tracts or areas, for the use of public
lands (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)). In the
development of land use plans, FLPMA
directs the BLM to use and observe the
principles of multiple use and sustained
yield. In doing so, the BLM must
manage the various resource values so
that they are utilized in the combination
that will best meet the present and
future needs of the American people,
making the most judicious use of the
land for some or all of these resources
or related services over areas large
enough to provide sufficient latitude for
periodic adjustments in use to conform
to changing needs and conditions (see
43 U.S.C. 1702(c)).
Under the final rule, the plan
components are designed to accomplish
each of these FLPMA mandates. The
needs of the American people are
articulated through the goals of the
resource management plan, the
management of resource values is
provided through the objectives, as well
as the designations and resource use
determinations. The resource use
determinations also provide, by tracts or
areas, for the use of the public lands.
Finally, the standards for monitoring
and evaluation provide the means to
respond to changing needs and
conditions, by ensuring the BLM
monitors changes to the resource values
identified in the plan objectives. This
rule sets forward what the BLM will
include in resource management plans,
and a process for developing those
plans, consistent with FLPMA.
Proposed Section 1610.1–3
Implementation Strategies
The final rule does not adopt
proposed section 1610.1–3. Proposed
§ 1610.1–3 described implementation
strategies that the BLM proposed to
develop in conjunction with a resource
management plan, but that would not
represent planning level management
direction and would not be considered
components of the resource
management plan. As proposed,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
implementation strategies would be
included as an appendix to the resource
management plan. The proposed rule
described implementation strategies as
examples of how the BLM would
implement future actions consistent
with the planning-level management
direction. After careful consideration of
public comment, the BLM believes that
this proposed concept is not appropriate
for inclusion in this rule.
Many public comments indicated that
the concept of implementation
strategies, as described in the proposed
rule, was confusing. Namely,
commenters questioned why
implementation strategies would be
developed during the planning process
and described in this subpart if they
were not intended to be a part of the
resource management plan. Several
public comments suggested that
implementation strategies should follow
the same procedures as those required
for the preparation and amendment of a
resource management plan, which
would effectively make implementation
strategies a plan component. The BLM
does not believe that implementation
strategies would be appropriate as a
plan component, however, because this
approach would limit the BLM’s ability
to efficiently and effectively apply
adaptive management approaches to
ensure that the goals and objectives of
land use plans are being met. Therefore,
this proposed change would not support
the goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative
and this rulemaking.
As a consequence of not adopting
proposed § 1610.1–3(a)(1), several
elements described in the existing
definition of a resource management
plan are not retained in the final rule.
These elements do not represent
requirements under existing regulations,
as they are described as ‘‘generally’’
included in a resource management
plan. The existing elements include
‘‘general management practices,’’ the
‘‘need for an area to be covered by more
detailed and specific plans,’’ ‘‘general
implementation sequences, where
carrying out a planned action is
dependent upon prior accomplishment
of another planned action,’’ and some
‘‘support action[s].’’ These existing
elements are removed from the final
rule because they require site-specific
information before a final decision can
be rendered, or they describe
procedures and are not associated with
a formal decision, and therefore they do
not represent planning-level
management direction.
Under current practice, some of these
existing elements are generally
described as ‘‘management actions’’ (for
a definition of management actions,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89603
please see the current Land Use
Planning Handbook, H–1601–1) and the
removal of these existing elements
represents a change from current
practice; however, not all ‘‘management
actions’’ are removed from the final
rule, those that represent planning level
management direction will be
incorporated into the plan components.
For example, under the final rule a
restriction on use, such as a lease
stipulation, will be a resource use
determination; similarly a statement
that describes desired resource
conditions, such as a desired vegetation
composition, will be a plan objective.
The removal of these existing
elements in existing § 1601.0–5(n),
combined with new requirements in
final § 1610.1–2 related to plan
components, represents a transition in
the overall resource management
planning framework applied by the
BLM through the resource management
planning process. This change is
necessary in order to apply adaptive
approaches to resource management and
is based on new research and
information that was not available when
the existing definition of a resource
management plan was promulgated (44
FR 46386). Under the final rule the plan
objectives describe specific and
measurable desired resource conditions,
including indicators, as appropriate, for
measuring progress towards their
achievement. Further, the BLM will
develop standards for monitoring and
evaluating to determine if objectives are
being achieved. These new
requirements ensure that resource
management plans will provide clear
direction for the desired objectives to be
achieved.
By identifying objectives, while
maintaining flexibility to vary the
actions taken to achieve the objectives,
the BLM will be able to more readily
respond to change. These changes are
consistent with current guidelines for
applying adaptive management. The
DOI technical guide on adaptive
management describes ‘‘adaptive
management’’ as a decision process that
promotes flexible decision making that
can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as outcomes from
management actions and other events
become better understood. Adaptive
management requires explicit and
measurable objectives so that progress
toward their achievement can be
assessed, and performance that deviates
from objectives may trigger a change in
management. Adaptive management
also requires flexibility to change
management actions when necessary.
The final rule supports the use of these
types of adaptive approaches, while still
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89604
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
providing direction in resource
management plans regarding the areas
of public lands available for use, and the
goals and objectives to be achieved, as
provided for in FLPMA. The final rule
does not preclude development of the
information described in the two types
of proposed implementation strategies—
management measures and monitoring
procedures. Rather, it affirms that while
this information is not required as
planning level management direction
and need not be included in a resource
management plan this information is
important for resource management and
essential to the effective implementation
of adaptive management procedures. In
some situations, the BLM may choose to
develop this information concurrently
with resource management planning,
and the final rule does not preclude this
option.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1610.2 Public Involvement
In the heading of this section and
throughout the planning regulations, the
final rule adopts the proposal to replace
the term ‘‘public participation’’ with
‘‘public involvement’’ to be more
consistent with FLPMA. The BLM
intends no change in practice or
meaning from this revision. Public
involvement is central to the BLM land
use planning process under FLPMA,
which directs the Secretary, ‘‘with
public involvement’’ and consistent
with FLPMA, to ‘‘develop, maintain,
and, when appropriate, revise land use
plans which provide by tracts or areas
for the use of the public lands.’’ (See 43
U.S.C. 1712(a).) FLPMA also requires
that the Secretary ‘‘allow an opportunity
for public involvement and by
regulation shall establish procedures
. . . to give Federal, State, and local
governments and the public, adequate
notice and opportunity to comment
upon and participate in the formulation
of plans and programs relating to the
management of the public lands.’’ (See
43 U.S.C. 1712(f).) FLPMA broadly
defines the term ‘‘public involvement’’
as ‘‘the opportunity for participation by
affected citizens in rule making,
decision making, and planning with
respect to the public lands, including
public meetings or hearings held at
locations near the affected lands, or
advisory mechanisms, or such other
procedures as may be necessary to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
provide public comment in a particular
instance’’ (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(d)). The
final rule provides a similar definition
to public involvement as ‘‘the
opportunity for participation by the
public in decision making and planning
with respect to the public lands.’’ This
is also discussed in the preamble
discussion of the definition of public
involvement § 1601.0–5.
The BLM interprets this definition
(see § 1601.0–5) as encompassing notice
by varied means, including by making a
planning document available
electronically (e.g., on the BLM Web
site), providing direct notice to
individuals or groups that have asked to
receive notice about public involvement
opportunities (e.g., by electronic means
such as email or by U.S. mail), or
publishing general notice for the public
(e.g., in a local newspaper or in the
Federal Register). The final rule adopts
the proposal to revise § 1610.2 to
indicate more clearly the points in the
planning process when the BLM will
provide notice through one or more of
these means.
In addition, the final rule adopts the
proposal to distinguish in the
regulations between making a document
‘‘available for public review’’ and
specifically requesting public
comments. Where the BLM makes
documents available for public review,
the BLM believes it is important for the
public to have an opportunity to see the
BLM’s progress. The public is welcome
to bring any questions or concerns to the
responsible official’s attention based on
public review and, to the extent that it
is practical, the responsible official will
consider their input and document it in
the decision file associated with the
resource management plan or plan
amendment.
When the BLM makes a document
‘‘available for public review’’ the BLM
is not required to provide a formal
opportunity for public comment,
including a time-period for submission
of comments or a formal summary or
response to any public comments
received. This is not a change from
existing practice, but clarifies the BLM’s
intent when we use this terminology.
In contrast, where the BLM ‘‘requests
written comments,’’ the BLM will
provide a minimum of 30 days for
response (see § 1610.2–2(a)). As
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
appropriate, the BLM will also
summarize and respond to substantive
comments. For example, the BLM will
summarize public comments raised
during scoping, develop planning issues
based on the comments, and issue a
scoping report. Similarly, the BLM will
summarize and respond to substantive
public comments submitted on a draft
resource management plan and draft
EIS. In some situations, the BLM may
request written comments, but will not
provide a written response to
commenters. For example, the BLM may
request public comment on a draft EAlevel amendment without issuing a
written response. Again, this is not a
change from existing practice, but will
clarify to the public the BLM’s intent
when we use this terminology.
The final rule also makes it clear that
the requirements to make a document
‘‘available for public review,’’ as
described in this subpart, represent a
minimum requirement and do not
preclude the BLM from providing
additional or enhanced opportunities
for public involvement during any given
planning effort. For example, a
responsible official may choose to
request written comments and provide a
time-period for submission of comments
when making the preliminary
alternatives available for public review,
should the responsible official believe
that it would add value to that
particular planning effort. The
responsible official may not provide a
summary of these written comments,
but would describe in the draft resource
management plan how public
involvement informed the development
of the draft alternatives (see § 1610.5–
4(a)(1)).
The final rule adopts the proposal to
restructure § 1610.2 to clearly indicate
the different aspects of public
involvement in the land use planning
process. General provisions are outlined
in final § 1610.2, which is followed by
specific sections, including: Public
notice (see final § 1610.2–1); public
comment periods (see final § 1610.2–2);
and availability of the resource
management plan (see final § 1610.2–3).
The following table and paragraphs
explain the specific changes to § 1610.2
and the supporting rationale.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
89605
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING VS. PROPOSED REGULATIONS VS. FINAL
REGULATIONS
Step in planning process for the
preparation of a resource
management plan or an
EIS-level amendment
Level of public involvement
Existing regulations
Proposed regulations
Final regulations
Planning assessment .....................
Not applicable: The planning assessment will be a new requirement under the proposed rule,
and therefore is not applicable
to the existing regulations.
1610.4: Same as proposed regulations, except for option to
waive a planning assessment.
The BLM could waive the requirement to conduct a planning assessment for projectspecific or other minor EIS-level
amendments.
Identification of planning issues .....
1610.2(c) and 1610.4–1: The
BLM publishes a NOI in the
Federal Register and publishes a notice in appropriate
local media. The public is provided a minimum of 30-days to
comment.
1610.4–2: Proposed planning criteria are published in a NOI in
the Federal Register and
made available for public comment through the scoping period and comment on the draft
resource management plan.
1610.4: The public would be provided opportunities to provide
existing data or information or
to suggest policies, guidance,
or plans for consideration in the
planning assessment. The BLM
would identify public views in
relation to the planning area,
which could include public
meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in
a report, which would be made
available for public review. The
BLM could waive the requirement to conduct a planning assessment for project-specific or
minor EIS-level amendments.
1610.2–1(f) and 1610.5–1: Same
as existing regulations.
1610.5–2 and 1610.5–3: Planning
criteria would no longer be required under the proposed rule.
Instead, the BLM would describe the rationale for the differences between alternatives
as well as the basis for analysis. Preliminary versions of
both would be made available
for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource
management plan or EIS-level
amendment.
1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. The public would be
provided opportunities to provide existing data or information
or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration
in the planning assessment.
The BLM would identify public
views in relation to the planning
area, which may include public
meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in
a report, which would be made
available for public review.
1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. The public would be
provided opportunities to provide existing data or information
or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration
in the planning assessment.
The BLM would identify public
views in relation to the planning
area, which could include public
meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in
a report, which would be made
available for public review.
1610.5–2 and 1610.5–3: Same as
proposed regulations, except
the public review of the rationale for alternatives and basis for
analysis will be made available
for public review ‘‘as appropriate’’ for EIS-level amendments.
Development of planning criteria ...
1610.4–3: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
Analysis of the management situation.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Inventory data and information collection.
1610.4–4: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
1610.2–1(f) and 1610.5–1: Same
as existing and proposed regulations.
1610.4: Same as proposed regulations.
1610.4: Same as proposed regulations.
12DER2
89606
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING VS. PROPOSED REGULATIONS VS. FINAL
REGULATIONS—Continued
Step in planning process for the
preparation of a resource
management plan or an
EIS-level amendment
Level of public involvement
Existing regulations
Proposed regulations
Final regulations
Formulation of resource management alternatives.
1610.4–5: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
Estimation of effects of alternatives
1610.4–6: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
1610.5–2: The preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for alternatives would be
made available for public review
before publication of the draft
resource management plan or
EIS-level amendment.
1610.5–3: The preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used when estimating
the effects of alternatives would
be made available for public review before publication of the
draft resource management
plan or EIS-level amendment.
Preparation of the draft resource
management plan and selection
of preferred alternatives.
Publication of the draft resource
management plan.
1610.4–7: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
1610.2(e): The BLM requests
public comment on the draft resource management plan and
draft EIS and provides 90 calendar days for response.
1610.5–2: Same as proposed regulations, except the public review of the rationale for alternatives and basis for analysis
will be made available for public
review ‘‘as appropriate’’ for EISlevel amendments.
1610.5–3: Same as proposed regulations, except the preliminary
procedures, assumptions, and
indicators to be used when estimating the effects of alternatives will be made available
for public review ‘‘as appropriate’’ for EIS-level amendments.
1610.5–4: Same as existing and
proposed regulations.
Selection of the proposed resource
management plan.
Protest ............................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Resource management plan approval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
1610.5–4: Same as existing regulations.
1610.2–2: When requesting written comments on a draft resource management plan and
draft EIS, the BLM would notify
the public and provide at least
60 calendar days for response.
When requesting written comments on an EIS-level amendment, the BLM would notify the
public and provide at least 45
calendar days for response.
1610.4–8: The BLM publishes the 1610.5–5: The BLM would publish
proposed resource managethe proposed resource management plan and final EIS.
ment plan or plan amendment
and final EIS and also will publish any implementation strategies. The BLM expects that the
implementation strategies will
be included as appendices to
the proposed resource management plan.
1610.5–2: The BLM provides 30 1610.6–2: The BLM would still
calendar days for the public to
provide 30 calendar days for
protest plan approval. The pubthe public to protest plan aplic must submit a hard-copy of
proval, but the proposed rule
the protest to the BLM.
would describe more specific
requirements on what constitutes a valid protest and
allow for dismissal of any protest that does not meet these
requirements. The public could
submit a hard-copy or an electronic-copy of the protest to the
BLM.
1610.5–1: The BLM must provide 1610.6–1: If the BLM intends to
public notice and opportunity for
select an alternative that is subcomment on any significant
stantially different than the prochange made to the proposed
posed resource management
plan before approval of the plan.
plan or plan amendment, the
BLM would notify the public and
request written comments on
the change before approval of
the resource management plan
or plan amendment. The BLM
would notify the public when a
resource management plan or
plan amendment has been approved.
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
1610.2–2: When requesting written comments on a draft resource management plan and
draft EIS, the BLM will notify
the public and provide at least
100 calendar days for response. When requesting written comments on an EIS-level
amendment, the BLM will notify
the public and provide at least
60 calendar days for response.
1610.5–5: Same as existing regulations.
1610.6–2: Same as proposed regulations.
1610.6–1: Same as proposed regulations.
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
89607
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING VS. PROPOSED REGULATIONS VS. FINAL
REGULATIONS—Continued
Step in planning process for the
preparation of a resource
management plan or an
EIS-level amendment
Level of public involvement
Proposed regulations
Final regulations
Monitoring and evaluation .............
1610.4–9: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
1610.5–4: No opportunities for
public involvement are provided
at this step.
1610.6–4: The BLM would document the evaluation of the resource management plan in a
report made available for public
review.
1610.5–4: When changes are
made to an approved resource
management plan through plan
maintenance, the BLM will notify the public and make the
changes available for public review at least 30 days prior to
their implementation.
1610.6–4: Same as proposed regulations.
Plan maintenance ..........................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Existing regulations
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2(a) with only minor revisions.
Final § 1610.2(a) remains relatively
unchanged from existing regulations
and states that the BLM will provide the
public with opportunities to become
meaningfully involved in and comment
on the preparation and amendment of
resource management plans. The final
rule removes references to ‘‘related
guidance’’ in order to focus this
provision on the preparation and
amendment of resource management
plans. During the planning process, the
public may submit comments on
‘‘related guidance’’ to the BLM and the
BLM will consider substantive
comments as they relate to the
preparation of the resource management
plan, but the BLM does not provide a
separate and distinct comment period
for related guidance. This is not a
change in existing practice or policy,
but will provide clarity to the public on
opportunities for comment.
The final rule also removes language
on giving ‘‘early notice of planning
activities’’ from existing § 1610.2(a).
This language is vague and unnecessary
because final § 1610.2–1(e) carries
forward the existing and proposed
requirement that the BLM notify the
public at least 15 days before any public
involvement activities. The BLM will
provide further advance notice beyond
the 15-day requirement to the extent
possible, consistent with current
practice.
Final § 1610.2(a) will also carry
forward the existing requirement that
public involvement in the planning
process conform to the requirements of
NEPA and its associated implementing
regulations. The final rule also revises
the paragraph to use active voice for
improved readability. No substantive
revisions were made to paragraph (a) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
this section between the proposed and
final rule.
The final rule removes existing
§ 1610.2(b) and includes several of its
provisions in final § 1610.2(c),
consistent with the proposed rule.
Existing § 1610.2(b) requires the BLM
to publish a planning schedule early in
each fiscal year in order to advise the
public of the status of each plan being
prepared or scheduled to start during
the year, the major planning actions
expected during the fiscal year, and the
projected new planning starts for the
next three fiscal years. The final rule
revises this requirement. Final
§ 1610.2(c) replaces existing § 1610.2(b)
and requires the BLM to post the status
of each resource management plan in
the process of being prepared, or
scheduled to be started, on the BLM’s
Web site before the close of each fiscal
year. The BLM often does not know its
budget, priorities, or on-the-ground
needs several years in advance; in
recent years the BLM has operated
under a continuing resolution to the
budget for several months into the fiscal
year, and is therefore unable to
accurately predict a planning schedule
with the specificity required in the
existing regulations.
The BLM’s current practice is to post
a planning schedule for resource
management plans currently under
preparation or approved to initiate
preparation on the national BLM
planning Web site when this
information is available. This change in
the regulations will give the BLM
flexibility in communicating its
planning schedule, including by posting
the schedule electronically, and will be
consistent with current practice. It also
reflects the fact that budgetary
constraints and the need to address new
and emerging resource issues make it
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1610.5–4: Same as proposed regulations.
difficult to accurately predict a planning
schedule beyond the current fiscal year.
Final paragraph (c) of this section
does not include the related
requirement for requesting public
comments on the projected new
planning starts so that comments can be
considered when refining priorities.
This existing requirement is not
practical, as the BLM often does not
know its budget, priorities, or on-theground needs far enough in advance to
request public comments on projected
planning starts. However, by posting the
status of resource management plans
scheduled to be started, the BLM will
provide transparency to the public,
while also retaining adequate flexibility
to respond to emerging resource
management issues or changes in
available budgets. This change will
make the planning regulations
consistent with current BLM practice,
but will represent a change from
existing regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2(b) with some revisions. Final
§ 1610.2(b) is adapted from §§ 1610.2(d)
and (e) of the existing planning
regulations. This section maintains the
existing requirement that public
involvement activities conducted by the
BLM be documented either by a record
or by a summary of the principal issues
discussed and comments made. This
requirement applies to ‘‘activities’’ the
BLM hosts for the public during the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan, such as public
meetings, listening sessions, or
workshops. The final rule is revised to
clarify that the BLM may provide
‘‘either’’ a record or a summary. No
change in meaning is intended by this
clarifying change. This provision further
provides that the record or summary
will be available to the public and open
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89608
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
for 30 days to any participant who
wishes to review the record or
summary. There will be no change in
BLM operation or impact on the public
from this change under the final rule.
For example, the BLM will continue to
prepare a scoping report following the
identification of planning issues (see
§ 1610.5–1), which summarizes scoping
meetings and written scoping comments
under § 1610.2(b).
Existing § 1610.2(c) requires the BLM
to publish a Notice in the Federal
Register whenever beginning any new
plan, revision, or amendment. This
requirement is carried forward in final
§ 1610.2–1(f) and is discussed in the
corresponding section of this analysis.
Section 1610.2–1 Public Notice
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1 with some revisions. Final
§ 1610.2–1 describes the requirements
for when and how the BLM will provide
public notice related to opportunities
for public involvement.
Final § 1610.2–1(a) contains the
provisions of existing § 1610.2(f) with
edits for consistency with other
proposed changes. Final § 1610.2–1(a)
lists the points in the planning process
when the BLM will notify the public
and provide opportunities for public
involvement that are appropriate to the
areas and people involved in the
preparation of a resource management
plan, or an EIS-level amendment. We
replace the existing and proposed
phrase ‘‘steps in the planning process’’
with ‘‘points in the planning process’’ to
clarify that the planning regulations do
not require a sequential order for all of
these ‘‘points’’ in the process. For
example, the BLM intends that the
review of the preliminary alternatives
and the rationale for alternatives will
generally be made available for public
review concurrently with the basis for
analysis, however there is no
requirement that these occur
concurrently. The BLM intends no
change in meaning from this clarifying
edit.
The following paragraphs describe
each of these points in the planning
process and any changes between the
existing, proposed, and the final rule.
These points will include new
opportunities for public involvement
early in the planning process, such as
during the planning assessment, as
appropriate.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, with
minor edits. This paragraph requires
that the BLM notify the public and
provides opportunities for public
involvement during the preparation of
the planning assessment, subject to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
§ 1610.4. The BLM intends that such
notification will occur when the BLM
initiates the planning assessment and
provides opportunities for public
involvement during the planning
assessment. The final rule is revised to
replace ‘‘as appropriate’’ with ‘‘subject
to § 1610.4’’ in this provision to clarify
that under § 1610.4 the deciding official
may waive the requirement to prepare a
planning assessment for project-specific
or other minor EIS-level amendments.
In these specific circumstances, a
planning assessment will not be
conducted, and therefore the BLM
cannot provide opportunities for public
involvement. However, when a
planning assessment is conducted, the
BLM must notify the public and provide
opportunities for public involvement.
For more information on this waiver,
please see the discussion at the
preamble for § 1610.4(f). The planning
assessment is a new requirement under
the final rule, so this represents a new
opportunity for public involvement.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, with
minor revisions. Final § 1610.2–1(a)(2)
requires that the BLM notify the public
and provide opportunities for public
involvement during the identification of
planning issues. Changes between the
proposed and final rule include the
‘‘review of the preliminary statement of
purpose and need’’ in this section. This
added language identifies a new
opportunity for public involvement, as
there is no similar requirement under
existing regulations, but does not
represent a substantive change between
the proposed and final rule, as this new
opportunity for public review was
described in proposed § 1610.5–1. The
BLM will include this language simply
for improved readability and
consistency with the requirements of
§ 1610.5–1.
The final rule adopts and combines
proposed paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of
this section into a single final paragraph
(a)(3). Final § 1610.2–1(a)(3) requires
that the BLM notify the public and
provide opportunities for public
involvement during the public review of
the preliminary resource management
alternatives, rationale for alternatives,
and the basis for analysis. Changes
between the proposed and final rule
will add the phrase ‘‘subject to
§§ 1610.5–2(c) and 1610.5–3(a)(1)’’ for
consistency with these sections. Under
§§ 1610.5–2(c) and 1610.5–3(a)(1) the
BLM will provide a public review of
preliminary alternatives, rationale for
alternatives, and the basis for analysis
for all resource management plans and
‘‘as appropriate’’ for EIS-level
amendments. When the public review is
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conducted, the BLM must notify the
public and provide opportunities for
public involvement.
The public review of the preliminary
resource management alternatives,
rationale for alternatives, and the basis
for analysis is a new opportunity for
public involvement and therefore a
change from existing regulations. Please
see the discussions at the preamble for
§§ 1610.5–2(c) and 1610.5–3(a)(1) for
more information on this change
between the requirements of the
existing, proposed, and final rule.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
however, this paragraph will instead be
designated as final § 1610.2–1(a)(4).
Paragraph (a)(4) of this section requires
that the BLM notify the public and
provide opportunities for public
involvement during the public comment
period on the draft resource
management plan. There will be no
change from existing requirements.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(6) of this section,
however, this paragraph will be
designated as final § 1610.2–1(a)(5).
Paragraph (a)(5) of this section requires
that the BLM notify the public and
provide opportunities for public
involvement during the protest period
of the proposed resource management
plan. This is not a change from existing
requirements.
In the proposed rule, the BLM
requested public comment on whether
the provisions of proposed § 1610.2–1(a)
should apply to the preparation of a
resource management plan, but not
apply to EIS-level amendments because
plan amendments are generally smaller
in scope than the preparation of a
resource management plan. Under this
alternative, the BLM would have
notified the public and provided
opportunities for public involvement in
the preparation of an EIS-level
amendment, as appropriate to the areas
and people involved during: (1)
Identification of planning issues; (2)
Comment on the draft resource
management plan; and (3) Protest of the
proposed resource management plan. In
response to public comment, the final
rule does not adopt this proposal;
however, final § 1610.2–1(a)(3) is
revised, from the proposed rule, to
specify that the BLM will provide a
public review of the preliminary
alternatives, rationale for alternatives,
and the basis for analysis, ‘‘as
appropriate.’’ Please see the discussions
at the preamble for §§ 1610.5–2(c) and
1610.5–3(a)(1) for more information on
this change between the proposed and
final rule and for response to public
comments related to this change.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(b), with minor edits. Final
§ 1610.2–1(b) lists the points in the
planning process when the BLM will
notify the public and provide
opportunities for public involvement in
the preparation of a plan amendment
where an EA is prepared (EA-level
amendment), as appropriate to the areas
and people involved. Changes between
the proposed and final rule will replace
the word ‘‘steps’’ with ‘‘points’’ for
consistency with the changes made to
paragraph (a) of this section. The BLM
intends no change in the meaning of
this section from this change between
proposed and final rules.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) without
edits. These paragraphs identify the
points where the BLM will notify the
public and provide opportunities for
public involvement. The points include:
(1) Identification of planning issues; (2)
Comment on the draft resource
management plan amendment, as
appropriate; and (3) Protest of the
proposed resource management plan
amendment.
The existing regulations do not
require that BLM provide opportunities
for public involvement during the
identification of planning issues for EAlevel amendments, however, the BLM
often chooses to provide such
opportunities. Under the final rule,
public involvement will be required
when identifying planning issues for
EA-level amendments. This change
supports the goal of establishing early
opportunities for public involvement in
the planning process, including EAlevel amendments. The final rule will
not, however, require that the BLM
request public comment on draft EAlevel amendments, consistent with the
existing regulations. However, the BLM
often chooses to request public
comments on draft EA-level
amendments, and in such circumstances
the public will be provided 30 calendar
days for response (see final § 1610.2–
2(a)).
The final rule adopts proposed
§§ 1610.2–1(c) through (e), with some
revisions. Sections 1610.2–1(c) through
(e) are general provisions that will apply
whenever the BLM provides public
notice relating to the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(c), which establishes new
requirements that the BLM announce
opportunities for public involvement by
posting a notice on the BLM Web site
and at all BLM offices within the
planning area. In response to public
comments, the final rule also includes a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
new requirement that the responsible
official identify additional forms of
notification to reach local communities
located within the planning area, as
appropriate. The BLM acknowledges
that in many rural communities,
Internet access may not be readily
available and residents often live many
hundred or more miles from BLM
offices. In these situations, the BLM will
provide additional notifications using
formats that are relevant and accessible
to the various publics interested in or
affected by the planning effort,
including local communities. For
example, the BLM may also post an
announcement at a local library, postoffice, or other frequently visited
location; issue a local, regional, or
national press release; notify
community leaders of the opportunity;
or post an announcement using various
social media. The use of these
additional formats will vary based on
the location and public interest in the
planning effort.
These new notification requirements
are consistent with current practice in
many BLM offices and ensure
consistency in implementation
throughout the BLM. Final § 1610.2–1(c)
provides certainty to the public on
where, at a minimum, they can find
information on all public involvement
opportunities.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(d) with only minor revisions.
This section provides that individuals
or groups could ask the BLM to notify
them of opportunities for public
involvement related to the preparation
and amendment of a resource
management plan. The BLM will notify
those individuals or groups through
written or electronic means, such as a
letter sent by U.S. mail or email.
Under existing regulations
(§ 1610.2(d)), the Field Manager must
maintain a mailing list of those
individuals or groups known to be
interested in or affected by a resource
management plan or that have asked to
be placed on the list and notify those
individuals or groups of public
participation activities. The final rule
removes the requirement for the BLM to
maintain a list of groups or individuals
‘‘known to be interested in or affected
by a resource management plan,’’ which
places an unnecessary burden on the
BLM to find contact information for
groups or individuals that may not be
readily available. The final rule instead
requires the BLM to notify any groups
or individuals that have explicitly
requested to be notified of opportunities
for public involvement.
The BLM will continue its current
practice of conducting outreach to all
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89609
individuals or groups known to be
interested in or affected by a resource
management plan. The BLM believes
that such outreach is important to a
successful planning process. The final
rule reflects the fact that the BLM
cannot ‘‘guarantee’’ that such
individuals or groups and their correct
contact information will be added to the
mailing list unless they request to be
added and provide the BLM with
current contact information. The
forthcoming revision of the Land Use
Planning Handbook will provide more
detailed guidance on best practices for
providing public notifications and
public involvement.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(e) with only minor revisions.
Under this section, the BLM will notify
the public at least 15 days before any
public involvement activities where the
public is invited to attend, such as a
public meeting. This requirement is the
same as that in § 1610.2(e) of the
existing regulations. It is intended to
allow members of the public to plan
their schedules and make arrangements
to attend scoping meetings, ‘‘open
house’’ style workshops, or other public
meetings that are part of the BLM land
use planning process. The BLM will
provide further advance notice beyond
the 15-day requirement to the extent
possible, consistent with current
practice.
In response to public comment, final
§ 1610.2–1(f) retains the existing
requirement that the BLM publish a
notice in the Federal Register when
initiating the identification of planning
issues for a resource management plan
or plan amendment. The proposed rule
would have removed this requirement
for EA-level amendments; however, in
response to public comments, the BLM
will retain this existing requirement.
The final rule combines proposed
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
section into final paragraph (f)(1).
Separate paragraphs distinguishing
between the notice requirements for EAlevel amendments and EIS-level
amendments are no longer necessary, as
the final notice requirements are the
same.
Final § 1610.2–1(f)(1) provides that
when initiating the identification of
planning issues for the preparation of a
resource management plan or plan
amendment, in addition to posting a
notice on the BLM’s Web site and at all
BLM offices in the planning area and
providing direct notice to those
individuals or groups who have
requested notification, the BLM will
also publish a notice in appropriate
local media, including in newspapers of
general circulation in the planning area
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89610
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
and publish a notice of intent (NOI) in
the Federal Register. This requirement
will apply regardless of the level of
NEPA analysis (e.g., whether the BLM
prepares an EA or an EIS). This section
retains existing language stating that the
NOI also may constitute the NEPA
scoping notice (see 40 CFR 1501.7 and
43 CFR 46.235(a)).
Final § 1610.2–1(f)(1) maintains the
existing requirement (see existing
§§ 1610.2(c) and (f)(1)) to publish a NOI
in the Federal Register where the BLM
prepares an EIS for a resource
management plan or plan amendment.
Publishing a NOI to prepare an EIS for
a resource management plan or plan
amendment in the Federal Register is
consistent with NEPA requirements (40
CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22) and CEQ
direction that agencies ‘‘integrate the
NEPA process with other planning at
the earliest possible time to insure that
planning and decisions reflect
environmental values, to avoid delays
later in the process, and to head off
potential conflicts’’ (40 CFR 1501.2).
Publishing an NOI for these EISs also
contributes to an efficient, integrated
process by offering an opportunity to
integrate planning with NEPA scoping
requirements.11
The final rule does not include the
existing language in § 1610.2(c) allowing
the Field Manager to decide whether it
is appropriate to publish a notice in
media in adjoining States. This language
is no longer needed because final
§ 1610.2–1(f) allows the BLM discretion
to identify ‘‘appropriate local media,’’
and this encompasses media in
adjoining states. There will be no
change in practice in the
implementation of this section.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(f)(3), with minor edits;
however, this section will be
redesignated as § 1610.2–1(f)(2) in the
final rule. This section outlines the
information that will be included in the
notices described in § 1610.2–1(f)(1) and
contains the provisions of existing
§ 1610.2(c)(1) through (8), respectively,
as follows.
There will be no changes to the
requirement in final 1610.2–1(f)(2)(i)
from existing requirements (see existing
11 CEQ and DOI NEPA regulations encourage such
integration. See 40 CFR 1501.7(b)(4) (providing that
as part of the NEPA scoping process, a lead agency
may ‘‘(h)old an early scoping meeting or meetings
which may be integrated with any other early
planning meeting the agency has’’) and 43 CFR
46.235(a)) (stating that scoping ‘‘provides an
opportunity to bring agencies and applicants
together to lay the groundwork for setting time
limits, expediting reviews where possible,
integrating other environmental reviews, and
identifying any major obstacles that could delay the
process’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
§ 1610.2(c)(1)). The final rule adopts the
proposal to specify in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)
of this section that the ‘‘plan’’ in
reference is a ‘‘resource management
plan.’’ In response to public comment,
we replace ‘‘geographic area’’ with
‘‘planning area’’ for consistent use in
terminology throughout this part. There
will be no change in the meaning of this
provision from this change between the
proposed and final rule. Final paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section remains
unchanged from the existing and
proposed requirements. In paragraph
(f)(2)(iv) of this section, the final rule
adopts the proposal to replace
‘‘disciplines’’ with ‘‘expertise,’’ to
reflect that BLM staff may have
expertise outside of their formal
discipline, and an ‘‘interdisciplinary
approach’’ should be based on expertise,
not formal disciplines. The final rule
also adopts the proposal to specify that
the ‘‘plan’’ in reference is a ‘‘resource
management plan’’ and the purpose of
having a range of expertise represented
is to ‘‘achieve an interdisciplinary
approach.’’ There is no substantive
change in practice or policy. Final
paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section adopts
the proposal to add language indicating
that the notice should include the kind
and extent of public involvement
activities ‘‘as known at the time.’’
Although there is no substantive change
in practice or policy, this clarifies that
the BLM may always provide additional
opportunities for public involvement as
planning proceeds. There are no
substantive changes to the requirements
in paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) through
(f)(2)(viii) of this section.
The final rule adopts proposed
§§ 1610.2–1(g) and (h) with only minor
revisions. Final § 1610.2–1(g) contains
the provisions of existing § 1610.2(f)(5)
and provides that if the BLM intends to
select an alternative that is substantially
different than the proposed resource
management plan, the BLM will notify
the public and request written
comments on the change. This
requirement is intended to ensure that
the public has an opportunity to
comment on important changes that are
made late in the planning process, such
as those that result from protest
resolution or the recommendations of a
Governor during the Governor’s
consistency review.
Final § 1610.2–1(h) establishes a new
regulatory requirement for the BLM to
notify the public when a resource
management plan or plan amendment
has been approved, consistent with
current practice. The BLM expects to
post this notification on the BLM Web
site, at the local BLM office where the
plan was prepared, and by direct
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
notification to those individuals and
groups that have asked to receive notice
of specific planning efforts. This
notification will help those who are
interested to stay up-to-date on plans
and increase transparency.
The BLM did not receive public
comments related to paragraph (h) of
this section.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–1(i), with minor edits that
require the BLM to notify the public any
time changes are made to an approved
resource management plan through plan
maintenance and to make those changes
generally available to the public at least
30 days before the change is
implemented. This change will provide
transparency to the public on any
changes made to the resource
management plan through plan
maintenance, including the correction
of typographical or mapping errors or
changes made to reflect minor changes
in mapping or data. The BLM expects to
notify the public by posting the changes
to the BLM Web site.
The final rule does not adopt
proposed § 1610.2–1(j). This section
would have required that the BLM
notify the public any time a change is
made to an implementation strategy and
make those changes available to the
public at least 30 days before their
implementation. This provision is no
longer necessary because the final rule
does not include the concept of
implementation strategies. For more
information, please see the discussion
on implementation strategies at the
preamble for § 1610.1–3.
Section 1610.2–2 Public Comment
Periods
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–2, with revisions to the
proposed lengths of public comments
periods and inclusion of a new
provision to address public comment
requirements when a resource
management plan or plan amendment
involves the possible designation of
ACECs.
Final §§ 1610.2–2(a) through (c)
address the length of public comment
periods when the BLM requests written
comments and this final section also
replaces most of existing § 1610.2(e).
Final § 1610.2–2(a) requires that when
requesting written comments, the BLM
will provide a comment period of at
least 30 calendar days, unless a longer
period is required by law or regulation,
in which case the longer period will be
provided as a minimum. For example,
when the BLM requests scoping
comments, a minimum 30 day comment
period will be required; if the BLM
offers a public comment period for a
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
plan amendment where an EA is
prepared, a minimum 30 day comment
period will be required. This section
maintains the requirement from existing
§ 1610.2(e) to provide at least 30
calendar days for public comment,
while also clarifying that in certain
circumstances the BLM is legally
required to offer a longer comment
period.
Final § 1610.2–2(b) describes the
public comment period the BLM will
provide for draft EIS-level amendments.
The BLM proposed to require at least 45
calendar days for public comment on
the draft plan amendment and draft EIS.
This would have been shorter than the
90-day public comment period that
applies to all EIS-level plan
amendments under the existing
planning regulations, but consistent
with existing NEPA requirements. Many
public comments did not support the
reduction in the length of any public
comment period, although a few
comments did indicate support for the
proposal. In response to public
comments, the final rule requires at
least 60 calendar days for public
comment for draft EIS-level
amendments.
The BLM acknowledges the
importance in providing adequate
lengths of time for the public to review
and comment on draft plan
amendments. At the same time, the
BLM recognizes that the scope and scale
of draft EIS-level amendments varies
substantially. In many circumstances,
an EIS-level plan amendment may be
narrow in scope and scale, such as a
project-specific amendment for a small
geographic area. In these situations, a
mandatory comment period of 90
calendar days is unnecessary and
inefficient. The final rule provides a
balanced approach by requiring a
minimum of 60 calendar days for public
comment, a period longer in length than
the proposed rule, but shorter in length
than the existing regulations. For those
plan amendments that are broad in
scope or scale, such as a multi-State
programmatic plan amendment, the
BLM expects to typically offer a longer
public comment period, commensurate
with the complexity of the draft plan
amendment. The forthcoming revision
of the Land Use Planning Handbook
will provide guidance to responsible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
officials regarding the length of the
public comment period.
Final § 1610.2–2(c) describes the
public comment period the BLM will
provide for draft resource management
plans and draft EISs. The BLM proposed
to provide at least 60 calendar days for
public comment on the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS. This
would have been shorter than the 90day public comment period that applies
to all draft resource management plans
under the existing planning regulations.
Although a few public comments
supported this proposal, the majority of
public comments did not, and some
public comments suggested the BLM
should provide a longer comment
period than the existing regulations. In
response to public comment, the final
rule revises § 1610.2–2(c) to provide at
least 100 calendar days for public
comment, a period longer in length than
the existing requirement.
Final § 1610.2–2(c) retains the
existing provision that the public
comment period begins when the EPA
publishes a notice of availability (NOA)
of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.
The BLM will continue to comply with
public involvement and notification
requirements of NEPA, including 40
CFR 1506.6(b)(2), which provides that
agencies must provide public notice of
availability of environmental documents
in the Federal Register for actions with
effects of national concern. In many
cases where the BLM prepares an EIS
for a resource management plan or plan
amendment, the BLM expects to
continue its current practice of
publishing a NOA in the Federal
Register for Draft and Final EISs and the
record of decision for these EIS level
planning efforts.
Final § 1610.2–2(d) includes a new
requirement that when a draft resource
management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or
more potential ACECs, the BLM shall
request written comments on the
designations under consideration. This
paragraph is added between in the final
rule for consistency with changes to
§ 1610.8–2 and in response to associated
public comments. Existing regulations
require a minimum of 60 calendar days
be provided for public comments on a
proposed ACEC designation (see
existing § 1610.7–2(b)), and the
proposed rule would have removed this
requirement. The BLM received several
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89611
public comments indicating that a
public comment period is necessary any
time an ACEC is being considered for
designation. In response to public
comments, the final rule requires the
BLM to provide a public comment
period of at least 30 calendar days. The
BLM intends that this comment period
will normally be integrated with the
public comment period on the draft
resource management plan or plan
amendment; therefore, a longer period
will be provided for EIS-level
amendments (at least 60-days) and
resource management plans (at least
100-days). For more information, please
see the discussion at the preamble for
final § 1610.8–2(b)(1).
Consistent with the existing
regulations, the final rule does not
explicitly address situations where the
BLM prepares an EA for a plan
amendment (EA-level amendment) and
the BLM elects to offer an opportunity
for public comment. In this situation,
however, the BLM will provide at least
30 calendar days for public comment on
the draft plan amendment, unless a
longer period is required by law or
regulation, consistent with the
requirements of final § 1610.2–2(a). The
public comment period will begin on
the date the BLM notifies the public of
the availability of the draft plan
amendment and EA.
While the BLM often offers a public
comment period on an EA-level plan
amendment, this is not required by
NEPA,12 the existing planning
regulations, or the final planning
regulations. There may be situations
where there is no public interest in a
minor EA-level amendment and a
formal public comment period is not
necessary. The forthcoming revision of
the Land Use Planning Handbook will
provide more detailed guidance on this
topic.
The following table provides a
comparison of some public involvement
opportunities in the final rule for EAlevel amendments, EIS-level
amendments, and resource management
plans.
12 NEPA requires public involvement, to the
extent practicable, in the preparation of an
environmental assessment, but it need not take the
form of a public comment period. 40 CFR 1504.1(b)
and 43 CFR 46.305(a); see 40 CFR 1506.6; BLM
National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H–
1790–1), 8.2, p. 76.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89612
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE FINAL RULE
Step in the planning process
EA-level amendments
EIS-level amendments
Resource management plans
Planning Assessment ....................
The BLM is not required to conduct a planning assessment for
EA-level amendments.
To formally initiate the planning
assessment, the BLM will post
a notice on the BLM Web site
and at BLM offices within the
planning area, and provide direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
Plan initiation and identification of
planning issues.
The BLM will publish a NOI in the
Federal Register and will publish a notice in appropriate local
media, on the BLM Web site,
and at BLM offices within the
planning area, and provide direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
The BLM will offer a minimum 30
day comment period on identification of planning issues.
These steps do not apply to EAlevel amendments.
When the BLM conducts a planning assessment for EIS-level
amendments, to formally initiate
the planning assessment, the
BLM will post a notice on the
BLM Web site and at BLM offices within the planning area,
and provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
The BLM will publish a NOI in the
Federal Register and will publish a notice in appropriate local
media, on the BLM Web site,
and at BLM offices within the
planning area, and provide direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
The BLM will offer a minimum 30
day comment period on identification of planning issues.
The BLM will provide this step for
EIS-level amendments, as appropriate. The BLM will post the
preliminary alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the
basis for analysis on the BLM
Web site. The BLM will post notice of their availability on the
BLM Web site and at BLM offices within the planning area,
and provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
The BLM will offer a 60 day comment period. The BLM will announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at
BLM offices within the planning
area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification. The
EPA will publish an NOA in the
Federal Register.
Review of the preliminary alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis.
If the BLM requests written comment, BLM will offer a minimum
30 day comment period. The
BLM will announce the start of
the comment period by posting
a notice on the BLM Web site
and at BLM offices within the
planning area, and provide direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
Protest ............................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Comment on the draft plan or
amendment.
The BLM will offer a 30 day protest period. The BLM will announce the start of the protest
period by posting a notice on
the BLM Web site and at BLM
offices within the planning area,
and provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
The BLM will offer a 30 day protest period. The BLM will announce the start of the protest
period by posting a notice on
the BLM Web site and at BLM
offices within the planning area,
and provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification. The EPA will publish an NOA in the Federal
Register.
Comment on a substantive change
made after release of a proposed plan or amendment (i.e.,
if the BLM intends to select an
alternative that is substantially
different than the proposed plan
or amendment).
The BLM will offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM will announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at
BLM offices within the planning
area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.
The BLM will offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM will announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at
BLM offices within the planning
area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
The BLM will publish a NOI in the
Federal Register and will publish a notice in appropriate local
media, on the BLM Web site,
and at BLM offices within the
planning area, and provide direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
The BLM will offer a minimum 30
day comment period on identification of planning issues.
The BLM will post the preliminary
alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis on the BLM Web site. The
BLM will post notice of their
availability on the BLM Web
site, and at BLM offices within
the planning area, and provide
direct notification to those who
have requested such notification.
The BLM will offer a 100 day
comment period. The BLM will
announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at
BLM offices within the planning
area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification. The
EPA will publish an NOA in the
Federal Register under separate authorities.
The BLM will offer a 30 day protest period. The BLM will announce the start of the protest
period by posting a notice on
the BLM Web site and at BLM
offices within the planning area,
and provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification. The EPA will publish an NOA in the Federal
Register under separate authorities.
The BLM will offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM will announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at
BLM offices within the planning
area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
89613
TABLE 2—PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE FINAL RULE—Continued
EA-level amendments
EIS-level amendments
Resource management plans
Plan approval .................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Step in the planning process
The BLM will notify the public by
posting a notice on the BLM
Web site and at BLM offices
within the planning area, and
provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
The BLM will notify the public by
posting a notice on the BLM
Web site and at BLM offices
within the planning area, and
provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
The BLM will notify the public by
posting a notice on the BLM
Web site and at BLM offices
within the planning area, and
provide direct notification to
those who have requested such
notification.
Section 1610.2–3 Availability of the
Resource Management Plan
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–3, with some revisions. This
section addresses the availability of
resource management plans.
Final § 1610.2–3(a) contains revised
language from existing § 1610.2(g) and
requires that the BLM make copies of
the draft, proposed, and approved
resource management plan or plan
amendment reasonably available for
public review. The final rule requires, at
a minimum, that the BLM make copies
of these documents available
electronically and at all BLM offices
within the planning area.
For example, the BLM could make
documents available electronically by
posting documents on the BLM Web
site, or if Internet access is limited in an
area, by sending participants a Compact
Disc or a USB flash drive in the mail.
The BLM will also make resource
management plans available for public
viewing at all BLM offices within the
planning area. While this is a change
from existing regulations, it is consistent
with current practice for most BLM
offices. This language replaces the
existing requirements to make copies of
the resource management plan available
at the State, district, and field office (see
existing §§ 1610.2(g)(1) through (3)) and
copies of supporting documents
available at the office where the plan
was prepared. These changes will
increase electronic availability of
documents and change the BLM offices
where the document is required to be
available for viewing.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove the existing requirement to
make ‘‘supporting documents’’ available
to the public as this term is vague and
it is unclear what is considered a
supporting document. In response to
public comments, we will include new
language in final § 1610.2–3(a) that the
BLM will make scientific or technical
reports that the responsible official uses
in preparation of a resource
management plan or plan amendment
reasonably available to the public, to the
extent practical and consistent with
Federal law. For the purposes of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
provision, the BLM considers scientific
or technical reports to be final
documents that describe the results of
scientific research or technical analysis
related to the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment. The BLM includes
pertinent scientific and technical
information and reports in the project
file and generally makes certain
scientific or technical reports, such as a
biological opinion, available to the
public as appendices to the resource
management plan or plan amendment,
or on the BLM’s Web site. We expect
that in most situations, the BLM will
continue to post these types of scientific
or technical reports on its Web site,
make them available for viewing at BLM
offices within the planning area, or
make them available as appendices to
the resource management plan. While
this is a new requirement in the
regulations, it is consistent with current
BLM practice.
The BLM will not, however, post the
entire project file, including email
records or other types of
communication, to the BLM’s Web site
or make the entire project file available
at BLM offices within the planning area.
This would be inconsistent with current
practice and policy and would place an
unnecessary administrative and
personnel burden on the BLM. These
types of supporting documents are made
available to the public through other
means, such as a Freedom of
Information Act request.
The new requirements in § 1610.2–
3(a) to make resource management plans
available electronically reflect that
digital technology and Internet access is
far more widely available than it was
when these regulations were last
updated. These requirements will
advance BLM policy on transitioning to
electronic distribution of NEPA and
planning documents (IM 2013–144,
Transitioning from Printing Hard Copies
of National Environmental Policy Act
and Planning Documents to Providing
Documents in Electronic Formats (June
21, 2013), https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/
info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_
and_Bulletins/national_instruction/
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2013/IM_2013-144.html), and with the
DOI Environmental Statement
Memorandum No. 13–7, ‘‘Publication
and Distribution of DOI NEPA
Compliance Documents via Electronic
Methods’’ (Jan. 7, 2013), https://
www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM137.pdf). These changes will also ensure
consistency in how the BLM makes
documents available to the public,
increase transparency, and help to
ensure that the public has access to
current versions of plans without
missing amendments that only appear
in paper copies. Electronic posting of
planning documents also may help to
reduce high printing costs.
The BLM recognizes, however, that
there are many communities with
limited technological and Internet
availability, such as rural communities
and some environmental justice
communities.13 The BLM will continue
to work to involve these communities in
the development of resource
management plans and make planning
documents available in the most
appropriate formats. For example,
resource management plans could be
made available at public libraries,
community centers, or other locations
frequented by local communities.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.2–3(b) without any substantive
revisions. This section clarifies the
requirements in existing § 1610.2(g) that
the BLM will make single printed copies
of a resource management plan available
to individual members of the public
upon request during the public
involvement process, and that after the
BLM has approved a plan, the BLM may
charge a fee for additional printed
copies. The BLM considered an
alternative option, which was discussed
in the preamble for the proposed rule,
to make these copies available through
digital means, such as a compact disc or
13 ‘‘Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to
address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations’’ directs
Federal agencies to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of its programs, policies,
and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89614
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
other digital storage device, instead of
printed copies and requested public
comment on this option. This option
would have allowed the agency to
continue to move away from printing
paper copies in the future as technology
continues to become more available to
the public. Although some public
comments supported this approach,
others indicated that a paper copy is
necessary because not everyone uses or
has the available resources to access
digital media. In response to public
comments, the final rule does not
include this alternative, and the BLM
will continue to provide paper copies as
provided in final § 1610.2–3(b).
Final § 1610.2–3(b) also maintains the
language in existing § 1610.2(g)
concerning fees for reproducing
requested documents beyond those used
as part of the public involvement
process, although this section refers to
a ‘‘resource management plan’’ instead
of a ‘‘revision’’ and ‘‘public
involvement’’ instead of ‘‘public
participation.’’ This word change will
reflect changes made throughout this
final rule and the use of the FLPMA
term ‘‘public involvement.’’ These
changes are not a change in practice or
policy.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove existing § 1610.2(j) and (k). The
BLM prepared the coal program
regulations simultaneously with the first
land use planning regulations under
FLPMA in the late 1970’s and certain
coal-related provisions remain in 43
CFR subpart 1610. The BLM believes
that these coal-related provisions are
inappropriate in the planning
regulations, as they are either
duplicative of the coal program
regulations, or reference procedures that
are inconsistent with current practice
and policy.
Existing § 1610.2(j) requires
consultation with surface owners when
resource management plans involve
areas of potential mining for coal by
means other than underground mining.
Input and consent from a qualified
surface owner is required at the leasing
stage under 43 CFR 3427.1, therefore
existing 1610.2(j) is duplicative of the
consultation requirements at 43 CFR
3427.1 and unnecessary.
Existing § 1610.2(k) is also removed in
the final rule. Existing § 1610.2(k) is
consistent with a process of ‘‘regional
coal leasing,’’ described in subpart 3420,
which the BLM used in designated coal
production regions (defined in § 3400.5)
at the time the planning regulations
were originally published. Since 1990,
all coal production regions have been
decertified and the BLM currently uses
the ‘‘lease by application’’ process
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
described in subpart 3425, where
approval for coal leasing is conducted
for each individual application, as
opposed to at the resource management
plan level. Since publication of the
resource management plan only
designates areas as suitable for coal
leasing and no longer approves coal
leases over the entire suitable area, this
public hearing is no longer appropriate
during the land use planning process.
Under the ‘‘lease by application’’
process, a hearing will be held for each
coal lease application, consistent with
the BLM coal regulations at
§ 3425.4(a)(1) and current BLM practice.
The BLM received a few comments in
opposition to the removal of existing
§ 1610.2(j) and (k). These comments
stated that the planning process is the
appropriate time for BLM to contact
surface owners about their preferences
regarding leasing, and that the similar
notice prescribed in the BLM’s leasing
regulations may come after coal-related
decisions in a resource management
plan or plan amendment have been
finalized. Additionally, comments
stated that the BLM should not make
coal-related regulatory changes until the
ongoing review of the Federal coal
program and its associated
Programmatic EIS are completed.
The final rule is not revised in
response to this comment. The BLM
believes that removing § 1610.2(k) will
help reduce confusion, avoid
redundancy with existing requirements
in the coal regulations, and keep coalspecific requirements in the coal
regulations, where they are more
appropriate. Further, the BLM will
provide for public involvement during
the preparation and amendment of
resource management plans, including
for any coal-related issues. These
regulatory changes will not be a change
in current practice or policy during coal
leasing.
As a separate matter, Secretarial Order
3338 issued on January 15, 2016,
requires the BLM to conduct a
comprehensive review to modernize the
Federal coal program, including a
Programmatic EIS. The regulatory
changes in this final rule are unrelated
to and will not impact the Secretarial
Order or the BLM’s comprehensive
review.
Section 1610.3 Consultation With
Indian Tribes and Coordination With
Other Federal Agencies, State and Local
Governments, and Indian Tribes
The final rule revises the proposed
heading of section 1610.3 to include
‘‘consultation with Indian tribes.’’ This
change is necessary for consistency with
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final § 1610.3–1, a new section in the
final rule.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove the words ‘‘federally
recognized’’ before Indian tribes
throughout final §§ 1610.3–1, 1610.3–2,
and 1610.3–3 for consistent use in
terminology. These references are no
longer necessary with the inclusion of
the proposed definition for Indian tribes
in § 1601.0–5. For further information
on this revision, see the preamble
discussion of the definition for ‘‘Indian
tribe.’’ The final rule is revised to
replace any existing uses of ‘‘will’’ in
this section with ‘‘shall,’’ for the reasons
previously described. These changes are
not a change in practice or policy.
Section 1610.3–1 Consultation With
Indian Tribes
In response to input received during
consultation with federally recognized
Indian tribes regarding the proposed
rule, as well as public comments, the
final rule includes a new section on
tribal consultation. Proposed § 1610.3–1
is redesignated as § 1610.3–2 in the final
rule. This section provides that the BLM
will initiate consultation with Indian
tribes on a government-to-government
basis during the preparation and
amendment of resource management
plans. This section is added to the final
rule to reflect the fact that the BLM is
required to initiate consultation with
affected Indian tribes during the
planning process, and will consult with
any Indian tribes that choose to accept
the BLM’s request for consultation, but
the BLM cannot guarantee that an
Indian tribe will agree to consultation.
Although this will be a new provision
in the planning regulations, this is an
existing requirement for the BLM under
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (2000) and Secretarial
Order 3317—Department of the Interior
Policy on Consultation with Indian
Tribes (2011).
This government-to-government
consultation shall be initiated regardless
of an Indian tribe’s status as a
cooperating agency or any on-going
coordination with the Indian tribe.
Should an Indian tribe choose to
participate as a cooperating agency or to
coordinate with the BLM, the BLM is
still required to initiate government-togovernment consultation.
Section 1610.3–2 Coordination of
Planning Efforts
Proposed § 1610.3–1 is redesignated
as § 1610.3–2 in the final rule. Final
§ 1610.3–2 contains the provisions of
existing and proposed section 1610.3–1,
with revisions. This section retains the
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
heading ‘‘coordination of planning
efforts.’’
The final rule adds introductory
language to final § 1610.3–2(a) to clarify
that this section describes the
‘‘objectives of coordination.’’ Final
§ 1610.3–2(a) contains the provisions of
existing § 1610.3–1(a), but replaces the
reference to ‘‘State Directors and Field
Managers’’ with ‘‘the BLM’’ because the
responsibility of coordination are those
of the BLM and they extend beyond any
individual.
Elsewhere throughout final §§ 1610.3–
2(b) through (f), the final rule replaces
references to ‘‘Field Manager(s)’’ with
‘‘responsible official(s)’’ and replaces
references to ‘‘State Director(s)’’ with
‘‘deciding official(s),’’ as proposed. The
new terms, which are defined in final
§ 1601.0–5, refer to specific official
responsibilities.
Proposed § 1610.3–1(a) (final
§ 1610.3.2(a)) would have added
language to clarify that coordination is
accomplished ‘‘to the extent consistent
with Federal laws and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the
purposes, policies and programs of such
laws and regulations.’’ Several public
comments noted that this proposed
requirement would exceed the statutory
requirement that coordination occur ‘‘to
the extent consistent with the laws
governing the administration of the
public lands’’ (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). In
response to public comment, the final
rule replaces the proposed language
with ‘‘to the extent consistent with
Federal laws and regulations applicable
to public lands.’’ Although FLPMA only
mentions the ‘‘laws governing the
administration of the public lands,’’ the
BLM interprets this phrase to
encompass the regulations
implementing the laws, as these
regulations have the full force and effect
of law and the BLM is required to
comply with Federal laws and
regulations. Final § 1610.3–2(a) does not
represent a change from current practice
or policy.
Final §§ 1610.3–2(a)(1) and (a)(2) are
revised in response to public comments.
Several public comments expressed
concern over the proposal to remove
existing § 1610.3–2(b) regarding
consistency between resource
management plans and the policies and
programs of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes as well as references to these
‘‘policies and programs’’ in other
sections of the existing regulations
(please see the discussion for the
definitions of ‘‘consistent with officially
approved and adopted plans’’ and
‘‘officially approved and adopted plans’’
at the preamble for final § 1601.0–5 as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
well as the discussion for final § 1610.3–
3(b)). Comments expressed concern that
the BLM would no longer consider these
policies and programs during the
planning process and suggested that
such a change would be in violation of
FLPMA. The BLM acknowledges and
affirms that coordination on relevant
policies and programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes is important to the
success of a planning effort, consistent
with FLPMA.
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).) The final rule
revises paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
§ 1610.3–2 (proposed § 1610.3–1) to
incorporate this direction provided by
FLPMA and in response to concerns
raised in public comments, stating that
objectives of coordination are for the
BLM to ‘‘[k]eep apprised of the plans,
policies, and management programs of
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes’’ and to
‘‘[a]ssure that the BLM considers those
plans, policies, and management
programs that are germane in the
development of resource management
plans for public lands.’’
The final rule supports the
achievement of these objectives. For
example, final § 1610.4(b)(2) requires
that during the planning assessment the
responsible official ‘‘identify relevant
national, regional, State, tribal, or local
laws, regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans for consideration in
the planning assessment.’’ Further, final
§ 1610.4(b)(3) requires that the
responsible official provide
opportunities for other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes to suggest other law, regulations,
policies, guidance, strategies, or plans.
The responsible official will fulfill these
requirements through coordination, as
contemplated by FLPMA, and in doing
so the responsible official will assure
that the BLM considers those plans,
policies, and management programs that
are germane in the development of
resource management plans for public
lands.
In addition, final § 1610.3–2(b)
describes the procedures for
establishing a cooperating agency
relationship with governmental entities.
Cooperating agencies are provided a
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89615
special role during the preparation of
resource management plans.
Cooperating agencies work closely with
the BLM at every stage of the planning
process to identify issues that should be
addressed, collect or analyze data,
develop or evaluate alternatives, and
review preliminary documents. This
unique partnership is provided only to
governmental entities and helps the
BLM develop a resource management
plan that is responsive to the needs and
concerns of local communities. Further,
this partnership helps the BLM to
achieve the objectives described in final
§ 1610.3–2(a)(1) and (a)(2). Should a
governmental entity choose not to
participate as a cooperating agency,
final § 1610.3–2(c) provides additional
requirements for coordination, to ensure
that BLM achieves the objectives of
coordination.
In response to public comments, the
final rule also removes the existing and
proposed phrase ‘‘non-BLM’’ plans in
final § 1610.3–2(a)(1), and clarifies that
this section refers to the plans, policies,
and management programs of ‘‘other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes.’’ This
distinction is important, as the
objectives of this section apply uniquely
to other governmental entities. This is
not a change in practice or policy;
rather, this change improves readability
of these regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph 1610.3–2(a)(3) of this section
without revision. The existing word
‘‘practicable’’ (see existing § 1610.3–
1(a)(3)) is replaced with ‘‘practical’’ in
the final rule for consistency with
FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Several public comments noted that this
represents a substantive change from
existing regulations, as ‘‘practicable’’
and ‘‘practical’’ are not exact synonyms,
and suggested that the proposed rule
did not adequately address this subtle
distinction. The BLM disagrees there is
a substantive difference but
acknowledges the subtle distinction in
the meaning of these terms; however,
we believe this change is appropriate for
consistency with FLPMA, which uses
the term ‘‘practical.’’ (See 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9) (‘‘the Secretary shall, to the
extent he finds practical, keep apprised
of State, local, and tribal land use plans
. . .’’).)
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. Changes
to this section will remove the word
‘‘public’’ from ‘‘early public notice’’ for
improved clarity. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from this
change.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89616
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, which is
identical to the existing regulations.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
add introductory language to § 1610.3–
2(b) (proposed § 1610.3–1(b)) to indicate
that this section describes procedures
and requirements related to
‘‘cooperating agencies.’’ This paragraph
is also broken down into subparagraphs
to improve readability and is revised as
follows.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b) of this section, with no
substantive changes. The final rule is
revised to replace the existing word
‘‘will’’ with ‘‘shall’’ for the reasons
previously described. The first sentence
of final § 1610.3–2(b) replaces
‘‘developing’’ with ‘‘preparing’’ for
consistent use in terminology. The BLM
intends no change in meaning or
practice. The final rule also replaces
‘‘eligible Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes’’
with ‘‘eligible governmental entities’’ for
consistency with the DOI NEPA
regulations, and to specify that the
responsible official will follow
applicable regulations regarding the
invitation of eligible governmental
entities, including the DOI NEPA
regulations at 43 CFR 46.225. The BLM
intends no change in practice or policy
from these changes.
The second sentence of final
§ 1610.3–2(b) is revised to reflect the
fact that a plan is not amended by an
EIS, rather the EIS is prepared to inform
the amendment.
The final rule does not adopt the
proposal to remove the last three
sentences of existing § 1610.3–1(b),
which provided for State Director
review of a Field Manager’s decision to
deny requests for cooperating agency
status. Several public comments noted
that the DOI NEPA regulations do not
provide an opportunity for
governmental entities to appeal a denial
to a request for cooperating agency
status beyond the responsible official
and suggested that the existing
opportunity to appeal a denial provides
more certainty to governmental entities
that their request for cooperating agency
status will be given due consideration.
In response to public comments, the
final rule will retain this opportunity to
appeal, with revisions, by adding
§ 1610.3–2(b)(1) to the final rule.
Final § 1610.3–2(b)(1) states that the
‘‘responsible official shall consider any
request by an eligible governmental
entity to participate as a cooperating
agency. If the responsible official denies
a request or determines it is
inappropriate to extend an invitation to
an eligible governmental entity, he or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
she shall inform the deciding official of
the denial. The deciding official shall
determine if the denial is appropriate
and state the reasons for any denials in
the [EIS].’’ In the first sentence, we
replace ‘‘State Directors and Field
Managers’’ with the ‘‘responsible
official’’ for consistency with new
terminology and to specify that the
responsible official is the BLM
employee responsible for considering
cooperating agency requests. We revise
the second sentence of this paragraph to
use active voice, replace ‘‘field
manager’’ with ‘‘responsible official,’’
and improve consistency with the DOI
NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(c)). In
addition to denials of requests,
responsible officials will also inform the
deciding official if he or she determines
it is inappropriate to extend an
invitation to an eligible governmental
entity (i.e., any Federal agency or nonFederal agency (State, tribal, or local)
that is qualified to participate by virtue
of its jurisdiction by law or its special
expertise (see 43 CFR 46.225(a))). This
is a broader requirement than the
existing regulations, which only apply
to denials of requests and will ensure
that deciding officials are aware of all
eligible governmental entities that were
not provided cooperating agency status.
Finally, the third sentence replaces
‘‘State Director’’ with ‘‘deciding official’’
and will establish a new requirement
that deciding officials ‘‘state the reasons
for any denials in the [EIS].’’ Although
this requirement is new to the planning
regulations, it is already required under
the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR
46.225(c)) and therefore does not
represent a change in practice or policy.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(b)(1) with only minor
revisions, however this section will be
redesignated as final § 1610.3–2(b)(2).
This section will describe that a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
must be used for a non-Federal
cooperating agency and must include a
commitment to maintain confidentiality
of documents and deliberations prior to
their public release. The change reflects
an existing requirement in the DOI
NEPA regulations (see 43 CFR
46.225(d)) and therefore would not be a
change in practice or policy. Although
a written agreement is not explicitly
required for Federal cooperating
agencies, the BLM often chooses to
prepare such an agreement to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of all parties,
and the final rule will not preclude the
continuation of this practice. No change
in practice or policy is intended.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(b)(2), with some revisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
This section is redesignated as final
§ 1610.3–2(b)(3).
This section identifies the various
steps during the planning process when
the responsible official will collaborate
with cooperating agencies. The BLM
promulgated regulations in 2005 (70 FR
14561), which required BLM Field
Managers to collaborate with
cooperating agencies at steps throughout
the planning process (see existing
§ 1610.4). The final rule adopts the
proposal to consolidate these references
that are currently inserted throughout
existing § 1610.4 and to identify
additional steps where cooperating
agencies will be involved, including the
preparation of the planning assessment
and the preparation of the proposed
resource management plan. The BLM
intends no change in practice or policy
by consolidating these references;
rather, the BLM believes that
consolidating these references improves
readability and clarity.
Under the final rule, the BLM
provides an additional role for
cooperating agencies during the new
planning assessment. While NEPA
regulations require a lead agency to
invite cooperating agencies to
participate in the NEPA process ‘‘at the
earliest possible time’’ (40 CFR
1501.6(a)(1); see 43 CFR 46.200(a) and
(b)), the BLM recognizes that eligible
governmental entities may be reluctant
to agree to serve as cooperating agencies
for a planning effort before the scoping
process yields a fuller understanding of
the scope of the plan or revision and the
supporting NEPA analysis.
The BLM further recognizes that DOI
NEPA regulations and the final rule (see
final § 1610.3–2(b)(2)) require the BLM
to work with non-Federal cooperating
agencies to develop an MOU that
outlines agencies’ respective roles,
assignments, schedules, and other
commitments and such a cooperating
agency MOU may not yet be completed
during the planning assessment step.
Nonetheless, the BLM does not
foresee any problems working with
eligible governmental entities without
an MOU during the planning
assessment step, because this step
primarily involves information
gathering by the BLM. Additionally, the
BLM believes the planning assessment
will afford the BLM and eligible
governmental entities alike valuable
time to build working relationships and
share information that will inform the
planning assessment and contribute to
the formation of fruitful cooperating
agency relationships. However, the BLM
may need to withhold confidential
information, such as locations of
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sensitive cultural resources, until an
MOU has been executed.
In response to public comments, final
§ 1610.3–2(b)(3) (proposed § 1610.3–
1(b)(2)) is revised to provide ‘‘[t]he
responsible official shall collaborate, to
the fullest extent possible, with all
cooperating agencies concerning those
issues relating to their jurisdiction and
special expertise.’’ We remove the
proposed phrase ‘‘as feasible and
appropriate given their interests, scope
of expertise and the constraints of their
resources.’’ These changes are
consistent with the DOI NEPA
regulations which provide ‘‘the lead
bureau will collaborate, to the fullest
extent possible, with all cooperating
agencies concerning those issues
relating to their jurisdiction and special
expertise’’ (43 CFR 46.230). The
proposed language was adapted from
the final sentences of the existing
definition of a cooperating agency (see
existing § 1601.0–5) which states
‘‘[c]ooperating agencies will participate
in the various steps of BLM’s planning
process as feasible, given the constraints
of their resources and expertise.’’ In
response to public comments noting
that it is the decision of a potential
cooperating agency, and not the BLM, as
to whether the potential cooperator has
adequate resources to participate as a
cooperating agency, the BLM will not
retain this existing language in the
definition of a cooperating agency, nor
will it be retained in final § 1610.3–
2(b)(3). Further, the final rule more
precisely reflects the DOI NEPA
regulations regarding the constraints of
a cooperating agencies expertise.
The final rule adopts proposed
§§ 1610.3–1(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(vi)
(redesignated as final §§ 1610.3–
2(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(vi)). The only
change between the proposed and final
rule is the removal of the phrase ‘‘and
implementation strategies’’ from final
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section. This
language is no longer necessary, as the
concept of implementation strategies is
not included in the final rule. For more
information on this topic, please see the
discussion on implementation strategies
at the preamble for proposed § 1610.1–
3.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(c), with some revisions. This
section is designated as final § 1610.3–
2(c). This section describes
requirements for coordination with
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes,
consistent with FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)). These requirements are in
addition to the opportunities for public
involvement described in § 1610.2,
which apply to governmental entities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
(see the definition of public in § 1610.0–
5).
We adopt the proposal to add
introductory language to paragraph (c)
of this section to indicate that this
section describes general ‘‘coordination
requirements’’ and to divide the existing
paragraph (c) into three separate
paragraphs (paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and
(c)(2) in the final rule) for improved
readability.
The final rule adopts the proposed
change to replace the existing phrase
‘‘State Directors and Field Managers’’
with ‘‘[t]he BLM’’ in the first sentence
of paragraph (c) of this section because
the responsibility of coordination are
those of the BLM and they extend
beyond any individual. Some public
comments noted that although it is the
BLM’s responsibility to provide for
coordination, by not identifying the
BLM employee who is responsible for
this important task, there would be no
accountability to the public regarding
which BLM official will ensure the task
is completed. The BLM believes it is
appropriate to use ‘‘the BLM’’ when
describing a role that applies to multiple
BLM employees and describes a
requirement related to coordination in
general, such as in paragraph (c) of this
section. Paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5)
of this section, however, identify
specific coordination requirements and
these responsibilities are assigned to
either the deciding official or the
responsible official. In response to
public comments, the final rule is
revised to use ‘‘responsible official’’
instead of ‘‘the BLM’’ in a few sections
that describe specific coordination
requirements (see final §§ 1610.3–
2(c)(5), 1610.3–2(d)).
Final § 1610.3–2(c)(1) provides that
‘‘deciding officials should seek the
input of the Governor(s) on the timing,
scope and coordination of resource
management planning; definition of
planning areas; scheduling of public
involvement activities; and resource
management opportunities and
constraints on public lands.’’ We adopt
the proposed changes to replace ‘‘policy
advice’’ with ‘‘input’’ because the topics
listed in this provision are not ‘‘policy,’’
therefore the phrase ‘‘policy advice’’ is
inaccurate. We also adopt the proposal
to replace ‘‘plan components’’ with
‘‘resource management planning’’
because the existing language would be
inconsistent with new terminology and
definitions in the final rule (see
§ 1610.1–2). The final rule does not
adopt the proposal to replace ‘‘multiple
use’’ with ‘‘resource management’’
because this change is unnecessary. The
term ‘‘multiple use’’ already includes
the various aspects of resource
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89617
management (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(c)).
The final rule is instead revised to
replace ‘‘multiple use’’ with ‘‘multiple
use and sustained yield’’ for consistency
with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2))
and throughout these regulations. The
BLM intends no change from current
practice or policy from these changes.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove existing § 1610.3–1(d), which
describes how the State Director will
provide guidance to the Field Manager.
This existing section is unnecessary as
it describes an internal BLM process.
Further, existing § 1610.3–1(d) exceeds
the statutory requirements of FLPMA,
which provides for consistency with
resource management plans, but not
BLM guidance. (See 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9).) Several public comments
raised concerns over the removal of
existing § 1610.3–1(d), stating that this
is a significant and unjustified change
from current regulations. The final rule
is not revised in response to these
comments. The removal of existing
§ 1610.3–1(d) represents a change from
existing requirements; however, the
BLM believes that this change is
appropriate.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(c)(3), with some revisions.
This proposed section will be split into
two paragraphs and redesignated as
§§ 1610.3–2(c)(3) and 1610.3–2(c)(4) in
the final rule, for improved readability.
Final § 1610.3–2(c)(4) contains the first
sentence of proposed § 1610.3–1(c)(3)
and final § 1610.3–2(c)(3) contains the
remaining provisions of proposed
§ 1610.3–1(c)(3), with revisions.
Final §§ 1610.3–2(c)(3) and (c)(4)
contains the provisions of existing
§ 1610.3–1(e) and are revised to reflect
changes to § 1610.2 concerning public
involvement, to use active voice for
improved readability, and to respond to
public comments.
Final § 1610.3–2(c)(3) requires that
‘‘[t]he responsible official shall notify
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes that
have requested to be notified or that the
responsible official has reason to believe
would be interested in the resource
management plan or plan amendment.’’
The final rule does not adopt the
proposal to clarify that heads of county
boards are ‘‘elected,’’ and to replace
‘‘Tribal Chairmen’’ and ‘‘Alaska Native
Leaders’’ with ‘‘elected government
officials of Indian tribes.’’ Instead, the
final rule replaces existing language
with a more general statement to notify
‘‘Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes.’’
A few comments noted that the
proposed changes to replace ‘‘Tribal
Chairmen or Alaska Native Leaders’’
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89618
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
with ‘‘elected government officials of
Indian tribes’’ would effectively exclude
Alaska Native Corporations from the
required notice. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments.
Section 1610.3–2 applies to
coordination with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes, consistent with
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). This
section does not apply to Alaska Native
Corporations, which are not a
governmental entity. The BLM will,
however continue to notify any Alaska
Native Corporations that have requested
to be notified or that the responsible
official believes may be interested in a
resource management plan. The BLM
intends no change from current practice;
rather, this change is intended to clarify
that § 1610.3–2 applies to coordination
as described in FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)). It is also important to note
that the final rule does not affect
implementation of ‘‘Department of the
Interior Policy on Consultation with
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) Corporations’’ (2012). BLM
remains committed to meaningful
consultation with Alaska Native
Corporations during the planning
process.
We also rephrase the end of this
sentence in final § 1610.3–2(c)(3),
stating that the BLM shall notify Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes that the responsible
official has reason to believe would be
‘‘interested in’’ the resource
management plan or plan amendment
instead of ‘‘concerned with’’ the
resource management plan or plan
amendment. This revised language
encompasses the existing requirement to
notify those ‘‘concerned with’’ a
resource management plan or plan
amendment while broadening the
requirement to also include those
‘‘interested in’’ a resource management
plan or plan amendment. This is
consistent with current BLM practice
and reflects the fact that the BLM
believes that any interest in the resource
management plan or amendment, not
just concern, warrants notification.
Final § 1610.3–2(c)(4) of this section
adopts the first sentence of proposed
§ 1610.3–1(c)(3), and specifies that State
procedures for coordination with
Federal agencies will be followed, ‘‘if
such procedures exist.’’ The BLM
intends no change in practice or policy
from this added language; rather, we
wish to clarify that such procedures can
only be followed if they exist.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(c)(4), with some revisions.
This section is redesignated as final
§ 1610.3–2(c)(5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Final § 1610.3–2(c)(5) contains the
provisions of existing § 1610.3–1(f). The
final rule adopts the proposed change to
replace ‘‘resource management plan
proposals’’ with ‘‘resource management
plans and plan amendments’’ to clarify
that this paragraph refers to all of the
opportunities for public involvement
described in § 1610.2, and not just the
‘‘proposed’’ resource management plan.
The BLM intends no change from
current practice or policy.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
revise and move the final sentence of
existing § 1610.3–1(f) to final § 1610.3–
3(a)(3) (proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(3)). The
existing language refers to consistency
requirements and is therefore more
appropriately addressed in the
consistency section of the final rule,
final § 1610.3–3.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–1(d), with some revisions. This
section is redesignated as § 1610.3–2(d)
in the final rule and the final rule
replaces the existing word ‘‘will’’ with
‘‘shall’’ for the reasons previously
described. Final § 1610.3–2(d) contains
the provisions of existing § 1610.3–1(g).
The final rule adopts the proposal to
include introductory language
indicating that this section describes
requirements related to ‘‘resource
advisory councils.’’ In response to
public comments, the final rule replaces
the existing word ‘‘BLM’’ with
‘‘responsible official’’ to specify that the
responsible official is the BLM
employee responsible for ensuring that
this requirement is fulfilled. No
substantive changes are intended other
than to specify which BLM employee is
responsible for ensuring that resource
advisory councils are informed and
their views considered during the
planning process.
Section 1610.3–3 Consistency
Requirements
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2, with revisions; however,
this section is redesignated as § 1610.3–
3 in the final rule. Unless otherwise
noted, the final rule adopts the proposal
to replace references to ‘‘Field
Manager(s)’’ with ‘‘responsible
official(s)’’ and references to ‘‘State
Director(s)’’ with ‘‘deciding official(s)’’
throughout this section to reflect these
individuals’ roles or responsibilities.
Final § 1610.3–3(a) revises existing
§ 1610.3–2(a) to read as follows:
‘‘Resource management plans shall be
consistent with officially approved or
adopted plans of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments and Indian
tribes to the maximum extent the BLM
finds consistent with the purposes of
FLPMA and other Federal law and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulations applicable to public lands,
and the purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations.’’ The final language reflects
FLPMA requirements for consistency
with the plans of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) while
retaining several existing requirements
regarding the extent to which such
consistency may be achieved.
In response to public comment, the
final rule removes the words ‘‘practical
and’’ from the phrase ‘‘to the maximum
extent the BLM finds practical and
consistent . . .’’ in final § 1610.3–3(a).
FLPMA states that ‘‘the Secretary shall
. . . assist in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between
Federal and non-Federal Government
plans,’’ (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9));
however, this language is already
described under the objectives of
coordination (see final § 1610.3–2(a)(3))
and is therefore unnecessary in this
section. Through coordination, the BLM
will assist in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between
Federal and non-Federal Government
plans.
Final § 1610.3.3(a) retains the existing
requirement that the plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments and Indian tribes must be
‘‘officially approved and adopted,’’ but
does not adopt the proposal to specify
that these must be ‘‘land use plans.’’ For
more information on this change
throughout the final rule, please see the
discussion on ‘‘officially approved and
adopted plans’’ at the preamble for
§ 1601.0–5. The final rule also corrects
an inconsistency in the use of
terminology in the existing and
proposed rule by replacing ‘‘officially
approved or adopted’’ with ‘‘officially
approved and adopted’’ as used
elsewhere throughout this final rule.
Final § 1610.3–3(a) also retains the
existing requirement that consistency
with officially approved and adopted
plans will be achieved to the extent
consistent with the purposes of Federal
laws and regulations applicable to
public lands and the ‘‘purposes, policies
and programs’’ implementing Federal
laws and regulations. Changes between
the proposed and final rule clarify that
these purposes, policies and programs
‘‘implement’’ Federal laws and
regulations.
The BLM received public comments
in opposition to this existing
requirement, noting that under FLPMA
the obligation for consistency with local
plans does not hinge on whether or not
they are consistent with Federal
purposes, policies and programs, only
whether they do not contradict Federal
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Laws. The BLM disagrees with these
comments. The BLM does not interpret
FLPMA to require resource management
plans to be consistent with the
described non-BLM plans if those plans
are simply lawful under Federal law
and FLPMA. Rather, and particularly
given 1712(c)(9)’s explicit reference to
the purposes of FLPMA, and BLM’s and
the Secretary’s ultimate responsibility as
the manager of the public lands, BLM
interprets FLPMA to authorize it to
evaluate whether those non-BLM plans
are consistent with the policies
underlying BLM management of the
public lands. Inclusion of language
stating that plan consistency shall only
be achieved to the extent consistent
with the purposes of Federal laws and
regulations and the policies and
programs implementing such laws and
regulations is necessary in order for the
Secretary of the Interior to fulfill his or
her responsibilities under FLPMA.
Through FLPMA, the Secretary of the
Interior is provided the authority to
administer the public lands (through the
BLM) and the responsibility to
implement the statutory direction
provided in public land statutes,
including FLPMA. In order to
implement public land statutes and
administer the public lands, the
Secretary considers the purposes of the
statutes and develops regulations,
policies, and management programs to
implement the statutes. These
regulations, policies, and management
programs are an important component
of implementing public lands statutes.
Consistent with FLPMA, the existing
regulations include a requirement that
acknowledges the need for BLM to
comply with and follow the direction
provided through regulations, policies,
and programs developed to implement
public lands statutes, and the final rule
retains this requirement in the final
rule.
Changes adopted in § 1610.3–3(a) of
the final rule represent, in part, a change
from current regulations, but will be
consistent with the statutory direction
provided by FLPMA. The BLM believes
these changes clarify the BLM’s plan
consistency requirements and will assist
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes in
engaging in the consistency process by
providing those entities additional
information on the BLM’s process.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove existing § 1610.3–2(b). The
existing section exceeds the statutory
requirements of FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)) by providing that in the
absence of officially approved and
adopted plans, resource management
plans should be consistent with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
‘‘policies and programs’’ of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes.
FLPMA provides 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.’’ This FLPMA
requirement is reflected in final
§ 1610.3–3(a) and applies to ‘‘State and
local plans,’’ which constitute a formal
decision regarding resource
management, but does not apply to
‘‘policies and programs,’’ which do not
constitute a formal decision regarding
resource management; rather, policies
and programs are tools for
implementing laws and regulations and
developing formal decisions.
FLPMA limits consistency
requirements to ‘‘State and local plans’’
while the broader coordination
requirements of FLPMA include the
consideration of policies and
management programs. In response to
public comments, the final rule aligns
with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9))
by requiring that the BLM coordinate
with other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes on
all types of plans, policies, and
management programs that are germane
to the development of resource
management plans in order to assure
that consideration is given to all of these
documents during the preparation of
resource management plans (see final
§ 1610.3–2(a)).
The BLM believes that coordination
on and consideration of plans, policies,
and management programs is important
to a successful planning effort and this
coordination is appropriately addressed
in § 1610.3–2 of the final rule. The
consistency requirements of final
§ 1610.3–3, however, only apply to
‘‘officially approved and adopted plans’’
as these plans constitute a formal
decision regarding resource
management. The BLM believes that
such an approach more closely aligns
with the statutory requirements of
FLPMA. The final rule also removes
references to consistency with ‘‘policies
and programs’’ throughout § 1610.3–2.
These changes represent a change from
the existing regulations.
By removing existing § 1610.3–2(b)
from the regulations, the final rule
removes the reference to ‘‘Federal and
State pollution control laws,’’ which are
listed as an example of Federal laws that
BLM resource management plans and
guidance must be consistent with.
Resource management plans must
comply with Federal and State pollution
control laws as implemented by
applicable Federal and State air, water,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89619
noise, and other pollution standards or
implementation plans. It is unnecessary
to identify all relevant laws the BLM
must abide by in the regulations, as the
BLM is required to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The
BLM does not intend any change in
policy or practice with this change.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2(a)(1) with only minor
revisions. This section is redesignated
as final § 1610.3–3(a)(1). The final rule
removes the term ‘‘land use’’ from
‘‘officially approved and adopted [land
use] plans.’’ For more information on
the removal of ‘‘land use’’ please see the
discussion on the definition of
‘‘officially approved and adopted plans’’
at the preamble for § 1601.0–5. The final
rule also includes the plans of ‘‘other
Federal agencies’’ in this section for
consistency with paragraph (a) of this
section.
Final § 1610.3–3(a)(1) contains the
first sentence of existing section 1610.3–
2(c). The first two references to ‘‘State
Directors and Field Managers’’ in the
first sentence are replaced with ‘‘the
BLM,’’ because the requirement to keep
apprised of State and local
governmental and Indian tribal policies,
plans, and programs is attributed to the
BLM, rather than specific employees.
The final rule also replaces
‘‘practicable’’ with ‘‘practical’’ for
consistency with section of FLPMA (see
43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) and final § 1610.3–
2(a)(3). Several public comments noted
that this represents a substantive change
from existing regulations, as
‘‘practicable’’ and ‘‘practical’’ are not
exact synonyms, and suggested that the
proposed rule did not adequately
address this subtle distinction. The BLM
disagrees this is a substantive change,
however acknowledges the subtle
distinction in the meaning of these
terms. We believe this change is
appropriate for consistency with
FLPMA, as this is the term used in
FLMPA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Final § 1610.3–3(a)(1) specifies that
the ‘‘BLM shall, to the extent practical,
keep apprised of the officially approved
and adopted plans of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes and give consideration
to those plans that are germane in the
development of resource management
plans.’’ The final rule removes the
words ‘‘policies’’ and ‘‘programs’’ from
the existing phrase ‘‘policies, plans, and
programs’’ in existing § 1610.3–2(c) (for
more information, see the discussion on
consistency at the preamble for existing
§ 1610.3–2(b)) and adds language
requiring that BLM consider those plans
that are germane to the resource
management plan. It would place an
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89620
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
unnecessary and inappropriate burden
on the BLM to give consideration to
plans that are not germane to the
planning effort, thereby diminishing
efficiency without adding value to the
planning effort. These changes are
consistent with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)). This change reflects existing
policy and procedure, as the BLM
currently does not consider plans that
are not germane to the planning effort.
Therefore, this change provides clarity
to other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes
about the types of plans the BLM will
consider.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2(a)(2) (final § 1610.3–3(a)(2)),
with minor revisions. The final rule
includes the phrase ‘‘Federal agencies’’
for consistency with paragraphs (a) and
(a)(1) of this section. This section is
redesignated as § 1610.3–3(a)(2) in the
final rule.
Final § 1610.3–3(a)(2) contains the
second sentence of existing § 1610.3–
2(c). The final rule replaces
‘‘accountable for ensuring consistency’’
with ‘‘required to address the
consistency requirements of this
section.’’ The BLM cannot ‘‘ensure’’
consistency, but seeks to achieve
consistency to the maximum extent
consistent with the purposes of FLPMA
and other Federal law and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the
policies and programs implementing
such laws and regulations. For example,
if a State, local, or tribal plan is not
consistent with a Federal law or
regulation, the BLM will not be able to
ensure consistency with the State, local,
or tribal plan.
The final rule also replaces the
reference to State Directors and Field
Managers (‘‘they’’) with ‘‘responsible
official,’’ thereby providing that the
BLM will not be accountable for
addressing the consistency requirements
of final § 1610.3–3 if the ‘‘responsible
official’’ has not received written notice
of an apparent inconsistency from other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, or Indian tribes, rather
than ‘‘State Directors and Field
Managers.’’ Because the responsible
official is the BLM employee who is
delegated the authority to prepare a
resource management plan or plan
amendment, it is important that the
responsible official receives written
notice of an apparent inconsistency so
that it can be considered during the
planning process. The BLM cannot
ensure that notice sent to someone other
than the responsible official will be
redirected and delivered in a reasonable
time-frame, although we will attempt to
do so to the best of our ability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
This change provides clarity to other
Federal agencies, State and local
government officials, and Indian tribes
of the appropriate BLM official to notify
of inconsistencies; however, it also
reduces the number of individuals that
could be notified under the existing
regulations from two individuals (the
State Director and Field Manager) to one
individual in the final rule (the
responsible official). The BLM believes
that this change will improve the BLM’s
ability to consider potential
inconsistencies at the earliest time
possible, thereby promoting efficiency
in the planning process.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2(a)(3), with revisions. This
section is redesignated as § 1610.3–
3(a)(3) in the final rule and contains the
provisions of existing § 1610.3–1(f). The
final rule removes the term ‘‘land use’’
from ‘‘officially approved and adopted
[land use] plans.’’ For more information
on the removal of ‘‘land use’’ please see
the discussion on the definition of
‘‘officially approved and adopted plans’’
at the preamble for § 1601.0–5.
Some public comments requested that
the final rule provide a clearly-defined
process for resolution of inconsistencies
with local plans. In response to public
comments, final § 1610.3–3(a)(3) is
revised to clarify an important step in
this process, stating that if the BLM is
notified of specific inconsistencies
between the BLM draft resource
management plan and officially
approved and adopted plans, the
proposed resource management plan
shall show how these inconsistencies
were addressed and, if possible,
resolved.
Changes between the proposed and
final rule specify that inconsistencies
should be identified in writing
regarding the BLM’s ‘‘draft’’ resource
management plan. The BLM believes
that this is the appropriate stage to
formally identify inconsistencies as this
represents the first formal review of and
comment on the resource management
plan. Prior to the publication of the draft
resource management plan, the BLM
will coordinate with governmental
entities and collaborate with
cooperating agencies to identify and
resolve potential inconsistencies,
subject to the qualifications of § 1610.3.
Upon publication of the draft resource
management plan, the BLM will notify
governmental entities of its availability
(see § 1610.3–2(c)(3)) for review and
comment (see §§ 1610.3–2(c)(5) and
1610.2–2(c)). During this public
comment period, governmental entities
may identify inconsistencies, in
addition to any other comments they
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may have on the draft resource
management plan.
Final § 1610.3–3(a)(3) is also revised
to replace ‘‘the resource management
documentation’’ with ‘‘the proposed
resource management plan.’’ This
change provides transparency to
governmental entities and to the public
on where they can look for information
on how the identified inconsistencies
were addressed and, if possible,
resolved; it also ensures governmental
entities and the public will have access
to this information during the protest
period (see § 1610.6–2). This is
important because it provides them the
opportunity to protest should they
believe an inconsistency, or the
resolution of an inconsistency, does not
comply with Federal laws or
regulations, or is inconsistent with the
purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2(a)(4), with minor revisions.
This section is redesignated as § 1610.3–
3(a)(4) in the final rule and contains the
provisions of existing § 1610.3–2(d).
This paragraph states that where
officially approved and adopted plans of
State and local governments differ from
each other, those of the higher authority
will normally be followed. There are no
substantive changes to this section from
the existing requirements; the only
revisions are to use active voice and
consistent terminology for improved
readability. The final rule removes the
term ‘‘land use’’ from ‘‘officially
approved and adopted [land use]
plans.’’ For more information on the
removal of ‘‘land use’’ please see the
discussion on the definition of
‘‘officially approved and adopted plans’’
at the preamble for § 1601.0–5.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.3–2(b), with revisions. This
section is redesignated as § 1610.3–3(b)
in the final rule. The final rule also
removes the words ‘‘land use’’ from
‘‘officially approved and adopted [land
use] plans’’ throughout this section
(please see the discussion on the
definition of ‘‘officially approved and
adopted plans’’ at the preamble for
§ 1601.0–5).
Final § 1610.3–3(b) contains the
provisions of existing § 1610.3–2(e) and
describes the Governor’s consistency
review process. Several public
comments stated that these provisions
improperly bypass local governments by
attempting to satisfy consistency
requirements through Governors. In
response to public comments, we wish
to clarify that the Governor’s
consistency review is a unique step in
the planning process that affords the
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Governor, as the elected representative
of the State, a final opportunity to
identify, discuss, and provide
recommendations to remedy any
relevant inconsistencies between a BLM
resource management plan or
amendment and State and local plans.
The Governor may consider various
State and local plans during the review.
The BLM does not define a process for
the Governor to consider those plans
because creating a uniform process to
apply to all Governors would be
inappropriate. The Governor’s
consistency review, however, does not
represent the only opportunity to
identify, discuss, and remedy
inconsistencies. A key objective of
coordination, as described in final
§ 1610.3–2, is for the BLM to work with
representatives from State and local
governments to avoid or resolve
inconsistencies with State and local
plans. As outlined in final § 1610.3–2,
the BLM will seek to coordinate during
every stage of the planning process,
including during the planning
assessment (§§ 1610.3–2(b)(3)(i) and
1610.4(b)); the identification of planning
issues (§§ 1610.3–2(b)(3)(ii) and 1610.5–
1(b)); the review of the preliminary
alternatives (§§ 1610.3–2(b)(3)(iii) and
1610.5–2(c)); the preparation of, and
comment period on, the draft resource
management plans (§§ 1610.3–2(b)(3)(v)
and 1610.5–4(c)); preparation of the
proposed resource management plan
(§§ 1610.3–2(b)(3)(vi) and 1610.5–5);
and the protest period on the proposed
resource management plan (§ 1610.6–
2(a)). Further, representatives from State
and local governments are invited to
participate as cooperating agencies, and
therefore have the opportunity to
partner with the BLM, and in doing so,
identify and resolve inconsistencies
during the development of key planning
documents. The Governor’s consistency
review is not intended to replace early
coordination, and the BLM intends that
in most situations, inconsistencies will
be avoided or resolved through early
coordination.
Final § 1610.3–3(b) is revised for
consistency with edits made throughout
final § 1610.3–3. This section is also
revised in response to public comments,
and in order to provide clarity and align
with other sections of these regulations
and with FLPMA. The final rule breaks
the provisions of the Governor’s
consistency review into multiple
paragraphs to improve readability. In
the following paragraphs, we describe
the changes from the existing
regulations that are adopted in the final
rule.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
replace references to ‘‘State Director’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
with ‘‘deciding official,’’ consistent with
the new terms used throughout the final
rule. There is no change in practice or
policy, other than those changes
described in the discussion on
responsibilities in the preamble for
§ 1601.0–4.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
specify that the document submitted to
the Governor by the deciding official
shall identify ‘‘relevant’’ known
inconsistencies with ‘‘officially
approved and adopted plans of State
and local governments.’’ This revision
limits the inconsistencies that the
deciding official must identify to those
that are relevant. It also requires the
deciding official to identify only
inconsistencies with officially approved
and adopted plans, not with ‘‘State or
local plans, policies or programs’’ (see
existing § 1610.3–2(b)), consistent with
§§ 1601.0–5 and 1610.3–3(a) in the final
rule.
Final § 1610.3–3(b)(1) states that
within 60 days after receiving a
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment, the Governor(s) may
submit a written document to the
deciding official identifying
inconsistencies with the officially
approved and adopted plans of State
and local governments and provide
recommendations to remedy them.
Final § 1610.3–3(b)(1)(i) clarifies that
the Governor’s recommendations should
address identified inconsistencies with
State and local plans, rather than other
aspects of a resource management plan.
This language reflects the fact that the
Governor’s consistency review is not
intended to replace early coordination
with State and local governments;
rather, this unique step affords the
Governor a final opportunity to discuss
and remedy inconsistencies. These
changes do not preclude the BLM from
considering or responding to a
Governor’s recommendations on other
subjects, but it underscores that the
BLM’s focus at this late stage of the
planning process is on consistency with
State or local plans. There is no change
in meaning or practice associated with
the change other than focusing the
Governor’s consistency review on
consistency with officially approved
and adopted State and local plans.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section,
which introduces a new provision that
allows the Governor to waive or shorten
the 60-day consistency review period in
writing. This provision facilitates a
more efficient planning process by
reducing the length of the review period
in situations where the Governor has no
comments to submit. For example, if
representatives from the Governor’s
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89621
Office participated as cooperators and
found the plan to be adequately
consistent with officially approved and
adopted State and local plans, then the
Governor may have no further
comments and wish to expedite the
review period. This change is consistent
with current practice under the existing
regulations, as the Governor is not
precluded from waiving or shortening
the consistency review period under the
existing regulations. The addition of this
language, however, provides more
transparency to the public on the
Governor’s consistency review process
and affirms the availability of this
option for the Governor.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, with no
changes. This section retains existing
language that the plan or amendment is
presumed to be consistent if the
Governor(s) does not respond to the
BLM within the 60-day period, but is
revised from the existing regulations to
improve readability. There is no change
in practice or meaning associated with
these changes.
Final § 1610.3–3(b)(3) is revised to
clarify existing language and reflect
terms used in this rule. This paragraph
provides that ‘‘[i]f the document
submitted by the Governor(s)
recommends substantive changes that
were not considered during the public
involvement process, the BLM shall
notify the public and provide
opportunity for public comment on
these changes.’’ This clarifies that the
public must be provided an opportunity
to comment on any substantive changes
recommended by the Governor to
remedy inconsistencies between the
BLM’s proposed resource management
plan and officially approved and
adopted plans that were not previously
raised or considered during the public
involvement process, and this
opportunity must be provided before the
Director renders a decision. While this
is not a change from BLM practice
under existing regulations, these
clarifications provide a more precise
description of the public’s opportunity
to comment on the Governor’s
recommended changes to remedy
inconsistencies.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(4) of this section with
only minor revisions. This section
provides that the deciding official
(revised from the State Director) shall
notify the Governor(s) in writing of his
or her decision regarding the
Governor(s)’ recommendations. The
final rule adopts the proposed new
requirements that the notification
include the deciding official’s reason for
the decision and that the notification be
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89622
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mandatory, replacing the existing
requirement to notify the Governor only
if their recommendations are not
accepted. These changes are not a
change in practice or policy, other than
ensuring that the Governor is notified of
any decision related to the Governor’s
recommendations.
Final paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this
section maintains the existing process
by which the Governor(s) may submit a
written appeal to the BLM Director
within 30 days after receiving the
deciding official’s decision.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, with
revisions. The final rule removes
existing language requiring the BLM
Director to accept the recommendations
of the Governor(s) if the BLM Director
determines that the recommendations
‘‘provide for a reasonable balance
between the national interest and the
State’s interest.’’ This existing language
does not reflect the broader range of
considerations that need apply. For
example, the Director must consider
whether the recommendations of the
Governor are consistent with the
purposes of FLPMA and other Federal
laws and regulations, as well as the
purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations, as described in final
§ 1610.3–3(a). The Director must also
consider whether the recommendations
of the Governor are consistent with the
purpose and need statement for the
resource management plan revision or
amendment, whether they were
encompassed by the range of
alternatives and analyzed in the effects
analysis, as well as the environmental
effects of the recommendations. We
proposed to replace the existing
language, instead stating that the BLM
Director will consider the Governor(s)’
comments in rendering a final decision.
Several public comments opposed this
proposed change, stating that the
Congressional intent of FLPMA is to
reach a reasonable balance between the
national interests and the State or local
interests without undue impacts to
either the State or local governments. In
response to public comments, final
paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section is
revised to replace ‘‘comments’’ with
‘‘appeal’’ and to include additional
language requiring that the Director also
consider the consistency requirements
of this section. In particular, this
reference points the Director to the
standard reflected in § 1610.3–3(a) that
resource management plans shall be
consistent with officially approved and
adopted State and local plans to the
maximum extent the BLM finds
consistent with the purposes of FLPMA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
and other Federal law and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the
purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations. The Director will review the
Governor’s appeal and determine
whether the proposed resource
management plan meets this standard,
which encompasses the broader range of
considerations described above.
Final § 1610.3–3(b)(4)(ii) retains the
existing requirement, with clarifying
edits, that the BLM Director will notify
the Governor(s) in writing of his or her
decision regarding the appeal. Final
§ 1610.3–3(b)(4)(ii) also replaces the
existing requirement to publish the
reasons for the BLM’s decision in the
Federal Register with commitments to
notify the public of the decision and to
make the written decision available to
the public. The BLM will instead
provide this notification on the BLM
Web site, by posting a notice at BLM
offices within the planning area, by
sending an email to the mailing list, or
by other means as appropriate.
The BLM received several public
comments that expressed concern over
the removal of the existing requirements
to publish Federal Register notices. The
BLM believes that it is appropriate to
move away from relying on Federal
Register notices at this step, given that
Internet communications are both
readily available and widely used.
Further, at this late stage of the planning
process, individuals or organizations
interested in the planning effort will
have had many opportunities to request
to be added to the mailing list (see
§ 1610.2–1(d)) to receive notifications
related to the planning effort. In
locations where Internet is not readily
available, the responsible official will
identify additional forms of notification
to reach local communities within the
planning area (see § 1610.2–1(c)).
Removal of the unnecessary
requirement to publish a notice in the
Federal Register provides for a more
efficient planning process.
In the proposed rule, the BLM
requested public comments on whether
to adjust the timeline or appeal process
for the Governor’s consistency review.
Although some comments expressed
support for shortening the timeline to 30
days and requested the BLM eliminate
the appeal process, the BLM received
many comments expressing concern
over any changes that would reduce
opportunities for coordination or
achievement of consistency. In light of
these comments, the final rule does not
adjust the timeline or appeal process.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 1610.4 Planning Assessment
Existing § 1610.4 consists only of the
section heading ‘‘Resource management
planning process.’’ This section is
revised in the final rule as follows.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.4, ‘‘Planning assessment,’’ with
revisions. This section combines and
revises the existing sections for
inventory data and information
collection (existing § 1610.4–3) and the
analysis of the management situation
(AMS) (existing § 1610.4–4) into a new
planning assessment section. The
planning assessment will occur before
the BLM initiates the preparation of a
resource management plan and will be
consistent with the nature, scope, scale,
and timing of the planning effort. The
combination of those points in the
planning process into this early
planning assessment will result in a
more informed scoping process;
however, several existing provisions are
removed because they will no longer be
relevant at this early stage. These
changes are described in detail at each
corresponding section of the planning
assessment provisions in this rule.
The planning assessment includes
new opportunities for public
involvement, coordination with other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, and
collaboration with cooperating agencies.
The BLM anticipates that greater
coordination, collaboration and public
involvement, particularly early in the
planning process, will result in
efficiencies by ensuring that the BLM
considers a wide range of relevant
policies, information, and perspectives
even before scoping.14
The planning assessment is intended
to help the BLM better understand
resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic conditions, and
identify public views and resource
management priorities for the planning
area. The planning assessment will
occur early in the process, before the
formal initiation of a planning effort and
before the steps that the BLM
traditionally has taken first—namely,
the identification of issues and the
14 See OMB and President’s CEQ Memorandum
on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict
Resolution (Sept. 7, 2012), 4.b., p. 3 (‘‘Given
possible cost savings through improved outcomes,
fewer appeals and less litigation, department and
agency leadership should identify and support
upfront investments in collaborative processes and
conflict resolution . . .’’) and 5, p. 4 (Federal
departments and agencies should prioritize
integrating collaboration and conflict resolution
objectives and ‘‘a focus on up-front collaboration as
a key principle in agency mission statements and
strategic plans’’), available at: https://ceq.doe.gov/
ceq_regulations/OMB_CEQ_Env_Collab_Conflict_
Resolution_20120907.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
development of planning criteria. The
BLM believes that conducting an
upfront assessment will provide useful
baseline information to inform
subsequent steps, such as the
preparation of a preliminary purpose
and need statement, the identification of
planning issues, and the formulation of
resource management alternatives. The
planning assessment will include new
opportunities for collaboration and
public involvement and measures that
will increase transparency. Further, the
planning assessment is similar to the
assessment procedures in the U.S.
Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule (see
36 CFR 219.6(a)), and therefore create a
new opportunity for inter-agency
coordination.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.4, which serves as an
introduction and provides that the
planning assessment shall be required
before the BLM initiates the preparation
of a resource management plan.
In response to public comment, the
final rule adds new § 1610.4(a), which
addresses the determination of a
planning area. Several public comments
suggested that the planning regulations
would benefit from more direction on
how the BLM will determine future
planning areas. Some comments
requested that the BLM clarify how the
planning assessment informs and helps
to establish the planning area boundary.
Other comments recommended that
planning areas be based on common
management concerns. This new
paragraph requires that the BLM
identify a preliminary planning area for
use as the basis for the planning
assessment.
Paragraph (a)(1) and paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(v) of this section
describe the factors that the BLM will
consider when identifying a preliminary
planning area. First, the BLM will
consider relevant management concerns
identified through monitoring and
evaluation. These management concerns
will be available to the public through
the summary report of the plan
evaluation (see § 1610.6–4). Next the
BLM will consider any relevant
landscapes associated with these
management concerns. (See final
§ 1601.0–5). For example, if the plan
evaluation indicates that the existing
resource management plan does not
adequately address the impacts of new
resource uses on sensitive plant species,
then the BLM would take into
consideration the area of land where
these new resource uses are relevant as
well as the extent of the sensitive plant
species. This does not mean that the
planning area must encompass the full
geographic extent of the resource use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:31 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
and sensitive plant species; rather, it
means that the BLM must consider the
geographic extent of this interaction
when determining an appropriate
planning area and the potential
consequences for the species as a result
of this interaction. The BLM also must
consider any relevant guidance
provided by the deciding official or the
BLM Director, as well as the officially
approved and adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, as well
as other relevant information, as
appropriate. For example, if a State
wildlife action plan identifies a
management area for an important
wildlife species, then the BLM will take
that into consideration when developing
a preliminary planning area.
Several public comments raised
concern that under the proposed rule,
there would be no opportunity for
public involvement in the
determination of a planning area. In
response to public comments, this
section also includes a new requirement
(final § 1610.6–4(b)) that the responsible
official shall make the description and
a rationale for the preliminary planning
area available for public review prior to
the publication of the NOI in the
Federal Register. The BLM intends that
this description and rationale will
normally be made available at the onset
of the planning assessment, which will
take place before an NOI is published.
The planning area will be revised, as
necessary, based on any feedback
provided by other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, Indian
tribes, or the public during the planning
assessment. For example, the BLM
intends to host public meetings during
the planning assessment to assist in
identifying public views (see
§ 1610.4(b)(4)). During these public
meetings, the BLM will also discuss the
preliminary planning area with
participants and consider any input
received. The BLM will also coordinate
with other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes to
receive feedback on the preliminary
planning area. A planning area will be
identified in the NOI (see § 1610.2–
1(f)(2)(ii)) and will be informed by the
input received during the planning
assessment. For more information on
the determination of a planning area,
please see the discussion of § 1601.0–4
in this preamble.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.4(a), with revisions. This section
is redesignated as § 1610.4(b) in the
final rule. This section addresses
‘‘information gathering’’ and replaces
and enhances the existing inventory
data and information collection
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89623
requirements (see existing § 1610.4–3),
providing that the responsible official
will follow the four requirements
described in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(4) of this section.
Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
the responsible official will arrange for
relevant resource, environmental,
ecological, social, economic, and
institutional data or information to be
gathered, or assembled if it is already
available, including the identification of
potential ACECs. This replaces language
in existing § 1610.4–3 that requires the
BLM to ‘‘arrange for resource,
environmental, social, economic and
institutional data and information to be
collected or assembled if already
available.’’ The final rule replaces the
word ‘‘collected’’ with ‘‘gathered’’ to
avoid potential confusion with the
information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The final
rule includes ‘‘the identification of
potential ACECs’’ in this step to specify
when potential ACECs should be
identified (see § 1610.8–2). It is
important to note that as planning
proceeds the BLM may identify the need
for additional information gathering or
new information may become available.
The BLM will consider this new
information, such as the identification
of a potential ACEC.
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section
encompasses the BLM’s statutory
obligation for inventory of ‘‘public lands
and their resource and other values,’’ as
described in FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C.
1711(a)), and also provides for the
gathering and consideration of the best
available scientific information, or other
types of high quality information,
provided by sources outside of the BLM.
The final rule does not carry forward
language from existing § 1610.4–3
requiring that ‘‘new information and
inventory data . . . emphasize
significant issues and decisions with the
greatest potential impact.’’ At this early
stage in the planning process, the BLM
recognizes that all significant issues
may not yet be known and without
conducting a broad assessment, the
BLM may not be able to reasonably
identify all of the significant issues. At
the same time, the BLM must make
every effort to conduct a planning
assessment relevant to the issues and
concerns associated with the incipient
planning process recognizing existing
budgets and timeframes. The BLM
intends that ‘‘relevant’’ data and
information will include inventory of
the land and resources (see 43 U.S.C.
1711(a)) and any other available high
quality information, including the best
available scientific information, relevant
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89624
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to the planning process and necessary to
address the applicable factors described
in proposed § 1610.4(d).
The final rule adopts the proposal to
include a provision in final
§ 1610.4(b)(1) to avoid unnecessary
data-gathering, similar to the existing
provision in the development of
planning criteria regulations (see
existing § 1610.4–2(a)(2)), however, in
response to public comment, this
sentence is revised in the final rule to
incorporate a new provision. Several
public comments stated that the
planning rule does not adequately
address the FLPMA requirement for the
BLM to ‘‘coordinate the land use
inventory’’ (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). In
response to public comments, this
sentence is revised to provide that ‘‘to
the extent consistent with the laws
governing the administration of the
public lands and as appropriate,
inventory data and information shall be
gathered or assembled in coordination
with the land use planning and
management programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes within which the
lands are located, and in a manner that
aids the planning process and avoids
unnecessary data-gathering.’’ This
language aligns with FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) and reflects the
importance of early coordination with
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes on
inventory and information gathering.
In addition, the BLM intends to
emphasize that inventory data and
information gathered for the planning
assessment should be responsive to the
relevant issues and geared to inform the
overall planning process, including
subsequent monitoring and
implementation of the resource
management plan. The responsible
official will determine what information
is relevant to the planning process based
on available resources and existing
requirements, such as inventory of the
land and resources, the previous results
of monitoring and evaluation, or
existing assessments or strategies that
overlay the planning area.
In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the
final rule adopts the new regulatory
requirement, consistent with current
practice, that the responsible official
‘‘[i]dentify relevant national, regional,
State, tribal or local laws, regulations,
policies, guidance, strategies or plans
for consideration in the planning
assessment.’’ In response to public
comments, the final rule adds ‘‘State’’
and ‘‘tribal’’ to this list, as well as
‘‘laws’’ and ‘‘regulations.’’ This expands
the relevant laws, regulations, policies,
guidance, strategies, and plans for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
consideration, and better helps the BLM
meet its consistency requirements by
conducting this assessment early in the
process. Examples identified in the final
rule include Executive Orders issued by
the President, Secretarial Orders issued
by the Secretary of the Interior, DOI or
BLM policy, BLM Director or deciding
official guidance, mitigation strategies,
interagency initiatives, State, multiState, tribal, or local resource plans. In
response to public comments, the final
rule includes ‘‘tribal’’ and ‘‘local’’
resource plans as examples. Recent
examples might include: Secretarial
Order 3336—Rangeland Fire Prevention,
Management and Restoration (Jan. 5,
2015); the National Cohesive Wildland
Fire Management Strategy (Apr. 2014)
(https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/
strategy); a State wildlife action plan
such as the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan
which was prepared by the Nevada
Department of Wildlife and approved by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(https://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/
Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_
Plan/); or a community wildfire
protection plan (https://
www.forestsandrangelands.gov/
communities/cwpp.shtml).
Identifying policies and strategies up
front is important because successful
planning needs to be informed by
policies and strategies that cross
traditional administrative boundaries.
This step also enables the BLM Director
and the deciding official to consider
input during the planning assessment
process, including information from
other Federal and State agencies
engaged in planning in the same or
similar geographic area. Further, this
step ensures that the BLM keeps
apprised of the plans, policies, and
management programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes and considers those
plans, policies, and management
programs that are germane in the
development of resource management
plans for public lands (see § 1610.3–
2(a)).
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, with
edits. The final rule adopts the proposal
to add a new regulatory requirement
that the responsible official provide
opportunities for other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, Indian
tribes and the public to provide existing
data and information or suggest other
laws, regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans for the BLM to
consider in the planning assessment.
For example, a State wildlife agency
might ask the BLM to consider a
conservation plan for a sensitive
species; a member of the public might
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ask the BLM to consider the results of
a peer-reviewed study relevant to the
planning area; or a recreation user group
might ask the BLM to consider data
identifying areas of high recreation use
in the planning area. This opportunity
will be provided through a general
request for information from the public.
In addition to accepting written input,
the BLM may provide opportunities
through in-person meetings or
workshops, webinars, collaborative Web
sites, or other information gathering
techniques. In response to public
comments, and for consistency with
revisions to paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the final rule includes relevant
‘‘laws’’ and ‘‘regulations’’ in this
section. These could include Federal,
State, or tribal laws and regulations,
such as the California Environmental
Quality Act.
The adoption of this new requirement
in the final § 1610.4(b)(3) establishes a
new public involvement opportunity
during the planning assessment, which
supports the Planning 2.0 goal to
provide new and enhanced
opportunities for collaborative planning.
It will also help the BLM consider
relevant data and information in the
planning assessment.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, with no
edits, which requires that the BLM
identify relevant public views
concerning resource, environmental,
ecological, social, or economic
conditions of the planning area. The
BLM intends that these views will be
identified through a public ‘‘envisioning
process.’’ This process will generally
include public meetings, although the
BLM may also use other techniques,
such as a collaborative Web site, for
example. Final § 1610.4(b)(4) will help
the Bureau to better understand public
views in relation to the planning area,
including what is important to the
public, where important areas are
located, and why these areas are
important to members of the public.
Under current practice, the BLM
identifies public views during the
identification of planning issues. By
providing this opportunity during the
planning assessment, the BLM will be
able to summarize public views in the
planning assessment report (see
§ 1610.4(e)). This will provide increased
transparency, will help to inform the
preparation of a preliminary purpose
and need statement, and will help
inform the identification of planning
issues.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.4(b) with revisions. This section
is redesignated as § 1610.4(c) in the final
rule. This new section addresses
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘information quality’’ for the planning
assessment. The responsible official will
evaluate the data and information
gathered or provided to the BLM to
ensure the use of high quality
information in the planning assessment
and to identify any data gaps or further
information needs.’’ In this new step,
the responsible official must evaluate
the information that has been gathered
to ensure the use of high quality
information in the planning assessment
(for more information on high quality
information, please see the discussions
for §§ 1601.0–5 and 1610.1–1(c) in this
preamble). Including this new
requirement in the planning regulations
is important because it clearly
communicates to the public that any
information submitted to the BLM must
be high quality information to be
considered further in the planning
assessment. After evaluating
information, the responsible official, in
collaboration with any cooperating
agencies, will use the high quality
information to assess the resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions of the planning
area.
Several public comments requested
that the responsible official document
his or her evaluations of information
quality, including a rationale for any
information excluded from use in the
planning assessment, and make this
information available to the public. The
evaluation of high quality information
will be documented in the
administrative file for the planning
effort and the BLM expects the
evaluation will be summarized in the
planning assessment report in most
cases (see § 1610.4(e)). The forthcoming
revision of the Land Use Planning
Handbook will provide more detailed
guidance on these steps.
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.4(c) with revisions. This section
is redesignated as § 1610.4(d) in the
final rule. This section describes the
factors that the responsible official must
consider when assessing the resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions of the planning
area for the planning assessment. The
responsible official will consider and
document these factors whenever they
are applicable, however, the responsible
official will not be limited to the
proposed factors.
These factors contain elements from
the nine factors in § 1610.4–4(a) through
(i) of the existing planning regulations,
which outline the AMS. The planning
assessment also includes some factors
that were not included in the existing
regulations regarding the AMS (see
existing § 1610.4–4). These new factors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
are intended to help inform the
planning process and include types of
information the BLM already may
consider under the existing regulations.
The inclusion of these factors in the
regulations provides the public with a
better understanding of the types of
information that will be considered
during the preparation of a resource
management plan. The BLM anticipates
no direct impacts to the public from
these proposed additions. The following
paragraphs highlight the changes and
rationales.
Paragraph (d)(1) of this section ((c)(1)
in the proposed rule) revises existing
§ 1610.4–4(a), providing that the BLM
consider ‘‘the types of resource
management authorized by FLPMA and
other relevant authorities’’ during the
planning assessment. The final rule
replaces Federal Land Policy and
Management Act with the acronym
FLPMA and replaces ‘‘legislation’’ with
‘‘authorities.’’ The proposed rule would
have replaced ‘‘resource use and
protection’’ with ‘‘resource
management.’’ Several public comments
suggested that the proposed change
could be interpreted to mean that the
BLM would no longer consider resource
uses authorized by FLPMA. In response
to public comment, the final rule
maintains the term ‘‘use’’ from the
existing regulations to clarify and affirm
that resource use is considered in the
assessment. There is no change in
meaning or practice associated with
these edits, as the term ‘‘resource
management’’ encompasses ‘‘resource
use and protection’’ as well as other
types of management such as
restoration.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(2)
of this section ((c)(2) in the proposed
rule) with revisions. The final rule
includes ‘‘land status and ownership
. . . infrastructure, and access patterns
in the planning area,’’ consistent with
the proposed rule. The final rule
changes ‘‘existing resource uses’’ to
‘‘existing resource management’’
because existing resource uses are
covered by other factors in this section
(including, but not limited to
§ 1610.4(d)(7)), but existing resource
management (as described in the
existing land use plan) is not. Further,
it is important to identify existing
management direction that allows for a
use, such as a known valid existing
right, even if that use is not yet applied
in the area. The final rule also adds
‘‘including any known valid existing
rights’’ for the reasons discussed in the
preamble to § 1610.1–2(b)(2). This
factor, although often included in the
AMS under current practice, is not
identified in the current regulations and
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89625
will provide important baseline
information on current uses within the
planning area to inform the
identification of planning issues and the
formulation of alternatives.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(3)
of this section ((c)(3) in the proposed
rule) without revisions. This paragraph
refers to current resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions, and any known
trends related to these conditions. This
information is typically included in the
AMS under current practice, but is not
identified in the current regulations. It
is important that current conditions
serve as a starting point for the planning
assessment. This information provides
the basis for the affected environment
and assists in the identification of
planning issues and formulation of a
reasonable range of alternatives for
analysis. Trends in resource or other
conditions, such as economic trends,
wildlife population trends, or recreation
use trends, could also provide useful
information for the planning process. If
this information is available, the BLM
will consider it during the planning
assessment.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(4)
of this section ((c)(4) in the proposed
rule) with revisions. This paragraph
refers to ‘‘known resource constraints or
limitations.’’ The final rule removes the
term ‘‘thresholds’’ because it is
unnecessary and duplicative of the
terms ‘‘constraints or limitations.’’
Paragraph (d)(4) of this section
modifies and expands on existing
§ 1610.4–4(i), which refers to ‘‘critical
threshold levels which should be
considered in the formulation of
planned alternatives.’’ Known resource
constraints or limitations will be
identified based on the best available
scientific information. For instance, a
known limitation might include a
minimum viable population number for
an endangered species as determined by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or a
minimum area of critical habitat, such
as breeding grounds or winter range, as
determined by peer-reviewed scientific
research. The BLM believes this concept
is important to the planning process
because it informs the development of
plan components in the resource
management plan, including
disturbance limits, mitigation standards,
or decision points for applying adaptive
management. For example, a land use
plan could establish an objective to
support viable populations for a
sensitive species by protecting
important habitat. If a known minimum
viable population for the species was
identified in the planning assessment,
this information could be used to
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89626
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
establish a decision point to consider a
plan amendment if the population
numbers dropped near or below the
minimum.
Under this new provision, the BLM
will identify any known constraints or
limitations to resource management that
should be considered in order to
effectively manage resources consistent
with its multiple use and sustained
yield mandate, including any known
and potential conflicts between multiple
uses. For example, the BLM may
identify uses that are known to be
incompatible with important habitat for
a sensitive species based on the best
available scientific information in order
to provide for the long-term
sustainability of the species.
The BLM will also identify any
related or indirect constraints to
resource management. For example,
wildfire propensity in an area might
provide a constraint to future allowed
uses, because in addition to use
disturbance, the protection of habitat for
a sensitive species could also be affected
by natural disturbance. Or rights-of-way
corridors might be constrained by
natural features in certain areas, limiting
where a transmission corridor could be
located on the landscape. The BLM does
not anticipate that all resource
limitations will be identified at this
stage of planning; many will be
identified later through the formulation
of alternatives and the estimation of
their effects. At this early stage in
planning, the BLM will identify known
limitations based on best available
scientific information, such as peerreviewed research. This information
will be useful to inform the
identification of planning issues and
resource management alternatives, and
will promote a transparent and efficient
planning process.
Paragraph (d)(5) of this section ((c)(5)
in the proposed rule) refers to areas of
potential importance within the
planning area and is adopted in the final
rule with revisions. This information is
typically included in the AMS under
current practice, but is not identified in
the current regulations. The
identification of these areas will inform
the identification of planning issues and
the formulation of alternatives. The
following paragraphs describe the
different types of ‘‘areas of importance’’
that are included.
Paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section
((c)(5)(i) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
of tribal, traditional, or cultural
importance. These could include areas
important for subsistence use, important
cultural sites, traditional cultural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
properties, or a cultural landscape.
Although the BLM will identify these
areas during the planning assessment,
sensitive or confidential areas may not
be made available to the public or
included in the planning assessment
report.
Paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section
((c)(5)(ii) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule with one
revision. This paragraph refers to habitat
for special status species, including
state or federally listed threatened or
endangered species. The final rule
changes ‘‘and/or’’ to ‘‘or’’ because the
‘‘and’’ is unnecessary. No change in
meaning is intended.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section
((c)(5)(iii) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to other
areas of key fish and wildlife habitat
such as big game wintering and summer
areas, bird nesting and feeding areas,
habitat connectivity or wildlife
migration corridors, and areas of large
and intact habitat. The identification of
these areas is important at the onset of
planning because fish and wildlife
habitat often crosses jurisdictional
boundaries and conservation of such
habitat will often require landscapescale management approaches.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section
((c)(5)(iv) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
of ecological importance, such as areas
that increase the ability of terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems within the planning
area to adapt to, resist, or recover from
change. For example, areas of ecological
importance might include refugia or
migratory corridors identified to help
sensitive species respond to the effects
of climate change or wetlands that help
to buffer the effects of weather
fluctuations by storing floodwaters and
maintaining surface water flow during
dry periods.
Paragraph (d)(5)(v) of this section
((c)(5)(v) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule with revisions.
This paragraph refers to lands with
wilderness characteristics, wild and
scenic study rivers, or areas of
significant scenic value. A comment
stated that the term ‘‘candidate wild and
scenic rivers’’ is unclear, and suggested
the final rule replace ‘‘candidate’’ with
‘‘eligible’’ and adopt the Department of
Interior’s definition for eligible wild and
scenic rivers as its definition for
candidate wild and scenic rivers. In
response to public comments, the final
rule instead replaces ‘‘candidate wild
and scenic rivers’’ with ‘‘wild and
scenic study rivers.’’ This term is
defined in BLM Manual 6400 and is
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
therefore consistent with current BLM
practice and policy.
A few comments requested the
planning assessment include specific
consideration of areas of scientific
value. The comments stated that
scientific value is listed in FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)), but the proposed rule
does not account for it. In response to
public comments, final paragraph
(d)(5)(v) of this section is revised to
include areas of significant ‘‘scientific’’
value, consistent with FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1701(a)(8), 1702(c)).
Paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section
((c)(5)(vi) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
of significant historical value, including
paleontological sites. A comment urged
the BLM to include archaeological sites
to the list of areas of potential
importance, among others.
Archeological sites are encompassed by
‘‘areas of significant historical value’’
and may also be identified under this
paragraph, subject to any requirement
that the BLM keep the location of
archeological sites confidential.
Paragraph (d)(5)(vii) of this section
((c)(5)(vii) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to
existing designations in the planning
area, such as wilderness, wilderness
study areas, wild and scenic rivers,
national scenic or historic trails, or
existing ACECs.
Paragraph (d)(5)(viii) of this section
((c)(5)(viii) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without
revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
with potential for renewable or nonrenewable energy development or
energy transmission.
The BLM received comments
requesting that areas with mineral
potential, as well as timber, be included
in the planning assessment. In response
to comments, the final rule includes
new paragraphs (d)(5)(ix) and (d)(5)(x),
which refer to areas with known
mineral potential and areas with known
potential for producing forest products,
including timber. This information is
typically identified in the affected
environment section of a draft resource
management plan and draft EIS under
current practice, but is not identified in
the current regulations. Identification of
these areas at the outset of the planning
process is important because minerals
and forest products are among the
resources that BLM manages under
FLPMA’s multiple use standard and
other statutory mandates.
Paragraph (c)(5)(ix) of this section in
the proposed rule is redesignated as
paragraph (d)(5)(xi) in the final rule, but
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
otherwise is adopted without revisions.
This paragraph refers to areas of
importance for recreation activities or
access. These might include high use
recreation sites or areas with limited
access points.
Paragraph (c)(5)(x) of this section in
the proposed rule is redesignated as
paragraph (d)(5) (xii) in the final rule,
but otherwise is adopted without
revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
of importance for public health and
safety, such as abandoned mine lands or
natural hazards.
Paragraph (d)(6) of this section ((c)(6)
in the proposed rule) is adopted in the
final rule without revisions. This
paragraph refers to dominant ecological
processes, disturbance regimes, and
stressors, such as drought, wildland fire,
invasive species, and climate change.
This information is not identified in the
current regulations, but will be useful to
inform the formulation of alternatives
and assess the need for adaptive
management approaches or crossboundary collaboration with other land
managers. For example, halting the
spread of invasive species may require
collaboration between adjacent
landowners such as the BLM, the
United States Forest Service, or willing
private landowners.
Paragraph (c)(7) of this section in the
proposed rule is adopted as paragraph
(d)(7) in the final rule with revisions.
We adapted this paragraph from the
beginning of existing § 1610.4–4(d),
which directs the BLM to consider the
‘‘estimated sustained levels of the
various goods, services and uses that
may be attained.’’ The proposed rule
referred instead to identifying the
‘‘various goods and services, including
ecological services, that people obtain
from the planning area.’’ The phrase
‘‘goods and services’’ includes the many
ecological services (i.e., ecosystem
services) that are provided by the public
lands, in addition to the ‘‘principal or
major uses’’ described in FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1702(l)), and other multiple uses.
‘‘Ecosystem goods and services include
a range of human benefits resulting from
appropriate ecosystem structure and
function, such as flood control from
intact wetlands and carbon
sequestration from healthy forests.’’
Several public comments expressed
concern that, as a whole, the factors
identified in proposed paragraph (c)
(final paragraph (d)) of this section
would not adequately address resource
uses. In response to public comments,
the final rule uses the phrase ‘‘goods,
services, and uses’’ instead of the
proposed language ‘‘goods and services’’
in final §§ 1610.4–7(d)(7) and (d)(7)(i)
through (d)(7)(iii). Resource uses result
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
in the production of ‘‘goods and
services;’’ therefore, the inclusion of this
word does not represent a substantive
change in meaning. The inclusion of
this word is intended to provide clarity
that this provision applies to resource
uses. This paragraph is also revised to
refer expressly to those principal or
major uses described in FLPMA, which
include domestic livestock grazing, fish
and wildlife development and
utilization, mineral exploration and
production, rights-of-way, outdoor
recreation, and timber production.
‘‘Uses,’’ in this context, means
existing or potential resource uses, but
does not mean resource use
determinations, which are also referred
to as ‘‘allowable uses’’ in the existing
Land Use Planning Handbook. At this
early stage in the planning process, the
BLM believes it is appropriate to
identify the goods and services,
including resource uses that people
obtain from the planning area, but it is
not yet appropriate to establish
allowable uses (resource use
determinations in the final rule).
Paragraph (c)(7)(i) of the proposed
rule is redesignated as paragraph
(d)(7)(i) in the final rule, but otherwise
is adopted with only minor revisions for
consistency with final § 1610.4(d)(7).
This paragraph incorporates language
from existing § 1610.4(g), which directs
the BLM to consider the ‘‘degree of local
dependence on resources from public
lands.’’ The BLM will instead consider
the degree of local, regional, national, or
international importance of these goods
and services. ‘‘Resources’’ is replaced
with ‘‘goods, services, and uses’’ to
provide a more precise explanation of
what the BLM considers in regards to
those resources. For example, the BLM
could identify the degree of local
dependence on potable water from
groundwater recharge in the planning
area (i.e., local dependence on a service
associated with water resources). The
BLM believes that use of more precise
terminology in the regulations improves
understanding of this provision; no
change in meaning is intended by this
proposed word change.
In addition to the degree of local
importance of goods and services, the
BLM may also consider the degree of
regional, national, or international
importance of goods and services. This
is particularly important when planning
across traditional administrative
boundaries and implementing
landscape-scale management
approaches. Examples of regional or
national importance include goals for
renewable energy generation on Federal
lands under the President’s Climate
Action Plan (June 2013), (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89627
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
image/president27sclimateaction
plan.pdf), and the Nation’s reliance on
the BLM-administered Federal Helium
Reserve (https://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/
prog/energy/helium_program.html).
Paragraph (c)(7)(ii) is redesignated as
paragraph (d)(7)(ii) in the final rule, but
otherwise is adopted with only minor
revisions for consistency with final
§ 1610.4(d)(7). This paragraph
incorporates language from existing
§ 1610.4–4(c) and refers to ‘‘available
forecasts and analyses related to the
supply and demand for these goods and
services.’’ The final rule broadens this
provision to include both supply and
demand and to apply to ‘‘goods,
services, and uses’’ including ecological
services, instead of ‘‘resource
demands.’’
Paragraph (c)(7)(iii) is redesignated as
paragraph (d)(7)(iii), but otherwise is
adopted with only minor revisions for
consistency with final § 1610.4(d)(7).
This paragraph refers to ‘‘the estimated
sustained levels of the various goods
and services that may be produced
based on a sustained yield basis.’’ For
example, the BLM commonly estimates
the sustainable levels of timber
production. This factor is adapted from
existing § 1610.4–4(d), which links
estimated sustained levels to those that
may be attained ‘‘under existing
biological and physical conditions and
under differing management practices
and degrees of management intensity
which are economically viable under
benefit cost or cost effectiveness
standards prescribed in national or State
Director [deciding official] guidance.’’
The final rule simplifies the language in
this factor for improved readability and
understanding. At this early stage in the
planning process, the BLM believes that
the planning assessment should focus
on the capability of resources to provide
goods and services on a sustained yield
basis. This information is important for
the development of resource
management plans based on the
principles of multiple use and sustained
yield and will assist the BLM in
developing a range of alternatives that is
consistent with FLPMA.
In addition to the foregoing changes,
we removed some of the factors that are
described in existing § 1610.4–4
regarding the AMS and will not include
them in the planning assessment. The
planning assessment will not include
‘‘specific requirements and constraints
to achieve consistency with policies,
plans and programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local government
agencies and Indian tribes’’ (see existing
§ 1610.4–4(e)). At this early stage in the
planning process, the BLM will identify
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89628
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
these plans, but will not have sufficient
information to identify ‘‘requirements
and constraints’’ related to consistency,
as the BLM will not yet be developing
resource management alternatives. This
step is more appropriately considered
when developing the draft resource
management plan.
Paragraph (d) of this section also does
not include ‘‘[o]pportunities to meet
goals and objectives defined in national
and State Director guidance’’ (see
existing § 1610.4–4(b)). This language is
no longer necessary, because final
§ 1610.4(b)(2) directs the responsible
official to identify BLM guidance that is
relevant to the planning assessment.
That paragraph requires the responsible
official to consider BLM guidance.
Another factor not included in the
planning assessment section of the final
rule is ‘‘Opportunities to resolve public
issues and management concerns’’ (see
existing § 1610.4–4(f)). The planning
assessment will typically be conducted
before the identification of planning
issues (see § 1610.5–1), and the BLM
may not yet have the information
necessary to resolve public issues and
management concerns. The BLM will
instead identify these opportunities
during the formulation of alternatives
(see final § 1610.5–2). We believe that
this is the appropriate step to consider
these opportunities because it allows
the BLM to consider more than one
opportunity and compare their impacts
through the effects analysis (see final
§ 1610.5–3). This is consistent with
current practice and policy, as the AMS
is currently prepared after the
identification of planning issues.
The final rule also removes ‘‘the
extent of coal lands which may be
further considered under provisions of
§ 3420.2–3(a) of this title’’ from the
existing regulations (see existing
§ 1610.4–4(h)) because it references a
regulation that does not currently exist
(§ 3420.2–3(a)). Removing § 1610.4–4(h)
will help reduce confusion, avoid
redundancy with existing requirements
in the coal regulations, and keep coalspecific requirements in the coal
regulations where they are more
appropriate. This does not change
practice or policy.
Proposed § 1610.4(d) is redesignated
as final § 1610.4(e) and adopted with
revisions. This paragraph states that the
responsible official will document the
planning assessment in a report made
available for public review and this
report will include the identification
and rationale for potential ACECs. The
responsible official will post the report
on the BLM Web site and make copies
available at BLM offices within the
planning area and other locations, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
appropriate. This provision introduces a
new requirement for the BLM, as the
current regulations do not require the
AMS to be made available to the public.
In the final rule, we clarify that the
responsible official must make the
report available to the public before the
NOI is published. The planning
assessment report will be made
available before scoping so that it can
inform the scoping process and help in
the identification of planning issues.
The BLM intends that the planning
assessment will inform stakeholders’
input throughout the development of
the resource management plan and
provide increased transparency to the
planning process.
This section also establishes that, to
the extent practical, the BLM should
make non-sensitive geospatial
information used in the planning
assessment available to the public on
the BLM’s Web site. This change
provides for public transparency and
supports meaningful public
involvement in the planning process.
Finally, proposed § 1610.4(e) is
redesignated as final § 1610.4(f) and
adopted with revisions. This paragraph
requires that the BLM conduct a
planning assessment before initiating
the preparation of an EIS-level
amendment. The planning assessment
only applies to the geographic area
being considered for amendment, and
the content of the planning assessment
only includes information relevant to
the plan amendment. For example, if
the BLM were considering an
amendment solely to a visual resource
class, the planning assessment will only
consider information relevant to a
potential change in visual resource class
within the geographic area of the
potential amendment. In the final rule
we clarified that the planning
assessment is to be completed
consistent with the requirements of final
§ 1610.4.
Proposed § 1610.4(e) would have
provided the deciding official the
discretion to waive the requirements of
§ 1610.4 for minor amendments or if he
or she determined that an existing
planning assessment was adequate (see
proposed § 1610.4(e)). Several
comments expressed that such
discretion was too open-ended. In
response to public comments, the final
rule does not adopt the proposed
language allowing for a ‘‘waiver’’ if an
existing planning assessment is
determined to be adequate. In the case
when an existing assessment provides
the needed information to inform the
planning process, the responsible
official will identify those parts of the
existing assessment that are pertinent to
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the geographic area being identified and
the issues to be addressed. This
information, along with any new
information, will be incorporated into
the planning assessment for the plan
amendment and made available for
public review, consistent with final
paragraph (e) of this section. The final
rule retains the deciding official’s
discretion to waive the requirements of
this paragraph for minor amendments,
however, because the BLM believes
there are situations for minor
amendments where a planning
assessment would not add value to the
planning process and these situations
need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
Several public comments expressed
confusion over the meaning of the term
‘‘minor amendment.’’ In this context,
this term is intended to address
amendments that are either small in
scope or scale and the BLM prepares an
EIS to inform the amendment. The most
common type of minor amendments for
which the BLM prepares an EIS are
project-specific amendments, such as a
solar energy development project, in
which the amendment only addresses a
small portion of a resource management
plan or a single plan component, but the
project itself requires the preparation of
an EIS. In these situations, a planning
assessment may not add value to the
amendment process and could
unnecessarily delay the amendment
process; the responsible official will
have the discretion to assess whether
the preparation of a planning
assessment is necessary in these
situations. Although less common, the
BLM recognizes that there are other
types of EIS-level plan amendments that
are also small in scope or scale, and
therefore the planning rule provides the
discretion to identify these situations on
a case-by-case basis.
Section 1610.5 Preparation of a
Resource Management Plan
This section serves as an introduction
to final §§ 1610.5–1 through 1610.5–5,
which outline the process the BLM must
follow when preparing a resource
management plan, or an EIS-level plan
amendment. These sections are based
on existing § 1610.4 ‘‘Resource
management planning process.’’ Other
revisions from the existing regulations
are discussed in the appropriate
sections of this preamble.
The final rule removes existing
§ 1610.4–2 ‘‘Development of Planning
Criteria,’’ consistent with the proposed
rule. This section is no longer necessary
under the final rule. Existing paragraph
(a)(1) of this section is incorporated into
final § 1610.5–2(b). Existing paragraph
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
(a)(2) of this section is incorporated into
§§ 1610.4(b)(1) and 1610.5–3(a) of the
final rule. For more information, see the
discussion in the preamble for
§§ 1610.4(b)(1), 1610.5–2(b), and
1610.5–3(a)). The final rule also
removes existing §§ 1610.4–3
‘‘Inventory data and information
collection’’ and 1610.4–4 ‘‘Analysis of
the management situation’’ and
combines many of the provisions into
final § 1610.4 ‘‘Planning assessment,’’
consistent with the proposed rule.
Finally, the final rule removes existing
§ 1610.4–9 ‘‘Monitoring and evaluation’’
and incorporates many of the provisions
from this section into § 1610.6–4 of the
final rule.
The final rule removes the words
‘‘federally recognized’’ before Indian
tribes throughout these sections for
consistent use in terminology. These
references will no longer be necessary
with the inclusion of the definition for
Indian tribes in § 1601.0–5 of the final
rule. The final rule removes the phrase
‘‘in collaboration with any cooperating
agencies’’ from throughout these
sections. These references will be
consolidated and moved to final
§ 1610.3–2(b)(3) (for more on
‘‘cooperating agencies,’’ see the
preamble discussion of § 1610.3–
1(b)(3)).
Section 1610.5–1 Identification of
Planning Issues
Final § 1610.5–1 is based on existing
§ 1610.4–1, with revisions to clarify
existing text, ensure consistency with
other changes in this rule, and to require
the preparation of a preliminary
purpose and need statement.
Paragraph (a) of this section
establishes a new requirement for the
BLM to prepare a preliminary statement
of purpose and need and to make this
statement available for public review
when initiating the identification of
planning issues, consistent with the
proposed rule. The preliminary
statement of purpose and need will be
informed by Director and deciding
official guidance, preliminary public
views, the planning assessment, the
results of previous monitoring and
evaluation, and Federal laws and
regulations, and the purposes, policies,
and programs implementing such laws
and regulations. The latter language was
revised consistent with the revisions to
§ 1610.3–3, discussed above.
Preparation of a statement of purpose
and need is currently required under the
DOI NEPA regulations (see 43 CFR
46.415(a) and 46.420(a)(1)). Final
§ 1610.5–1(a) adopts a new requirement
that the preliminary statement of
purpose and need be made available to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
the public when initiating the
identification of planning issues,
consistent with the proposed rule. The
change provides transparency to the
public and support the Planning 2.0
goal to provide earlier opportunities for
public involvement.
Making the document available for
public review does not constitute a
formal request for public comment on
the preliminary statement of purpose
and need; however, the public is
welcome to provide feedback on it, and,
in particular, the BLM expects that the
preliminary statement of purpose and
need could be updated based on the
issues identified during the scoping
process (see § 1610.5–1(b)). This
opportunity for public review is
important because the statement of
purpose and need informs the
development of all subsequent steps in
the preparation of a resource
management plan. For example, the
BLM does not typically formulate or
analyze a resource management action
alternative (see final §§ 1610.5–2 and
1610.5–3) to the no action unless it is
consistent with the statement of purpose
and need.
Final paragraph (b) of this section is
based on existing § 1610.4–1. The final
rule adopts the proposal to remove the
existing language ‘‘[a]t the outset of the
planning process,’’ due to the new
planning assessment and the
preparation of a preliminary statement
of purpose and need, both of which will
occur prior to the identification of
planning issues. An upfront planning
assessment will result in more
information on resource, environmental,
ecological, social and economic
conditions for the planning area being
available to the public and the BLM
during the identification of planning
issues. There will be no impact from
this change, other than the availability
of more information at this point in the
process.
The final rule adopts the proposed
language to include ‘‘concerns, needs,
opportunities, conflicts, or constraints
related to resource management’’ as
types of suggestions the public can
provide during the identification of
planning issues step. The final rule
removes ‘‘resource use, development,
and protection opportunities’’ as these
are encompassed by the final language
and are therefore unnecessary. There
will be no change from current practice.
Based on public comment, the final
rule adds clarification to the first
sentence of final paragraph (b) of this
section. Proposed paragraph (b) of this
section provided that the public, other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes would
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89629
be given an opportunity to suggest
concerns, needs, opportunities,
conflicts, or constraints related to
resource management for consideration
in the preparation of the resource
management plan. Final paragraph (b) of
this section is revised to include
concerns, needs, opportunities,
conflicts, or constraints, ‘‘including
those respecting officially approved and
adopted plans of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes.’’ This change is consistent with
the purpose of identifying planning
issues and responds to public comment.
Several public comments requested that
the final rule incorporate existing
§ 1610.4–4(e) into the planning
assessment. This existing provision
states that a factor which may be
included in the existing AMS step is
‘‘specific requirements and constraints
to achieve consistency with policies,
plans and programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local government
agencies and Indian tribes.’’ The BLM
believes that this existing optional
provision is more appropriately
incorporated into § 1610.5–1(b), which
includes the identification of
‘‘constraints.’’ The word ‘‘requirements’’
is not necessary, as the word
‘‘constraints’’ encompasses
‘‘requirements.’’
The final rule adopts the last sentence
of proposed paragraph (b) of this section
stating that the identification of
planning issues ‘‘should be integrated’’
with the scoping process required by
regulations implementing the NEPA.
The final language does not represent a
change in practice or policy, rather the
final rule clarifies that although the
identification of planning issues should
be integrated with the NEPA scoping
process, these are two distinct steps
with distinct regulatory requirements
that the BLM must comply with during
the planning process.
Final paragraph (b) of this section also
adopts proposed changes which reflect
new terms used throughout the
proposed and final rule. The term
‘‘Field Manager’’ is replaced with
‘‘responsible official’’ to maintain
consistency with other proposed
changes. The term ‘‘planning issue’’
replaces ‘‘issues’’ for consistency with
the newly added definition for planning
issues (see § 1601.0–5) and to clarify
what type of ‘‘issues’’ are intended. The
term ‘‘information’’ is added, to clarify
that the BLM analyzes data and
information when we determine
planning issues, consistent with current
BLM practice. ‘‘Planning assessment,’’
replaces the existing examples of other
available data. The planning assessment
includes the existing examples, thus the
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89630
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
change is consistent with new
terminology introduced in the final rule
(see final § 1610.4), but does not
represent a change from current practice
in the types of available data and
information that the BLM analyzes.
Here, and throughout the final rule,
the term ‘‘information’’ is used
consistent with the definition of
information provided in the OMB
‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies’’ (67
FR 8452). ‘‘Information’’ means any
communication or representation of
knowledge such as facts or data, in any
medium or form, including textual,
numerical, graphic, cartographic,
narrative, or audiovisual forms.’’ As
discussed in the preamble for § 1610.1–
1(c), the BLM uses ‘‘high quality’’
information, which is includes the best
available scientific information, to
inform the resource management
planning process.
The BLM intends no change in
practice with the changes to final
§ 1610.5–1, other than to provide
increased transparency by making a
preliminary statement of purpose and
need available to the public.
Section 1610.5–2 Formulation of
Resource Management Alternatives
Final § 1610.5–2 is based on existing
§ 1610.4–5. The final rule revises the
heading of this section to read
‘‘[f]ormulation of resource management
alternatives,’’ consistent with the
proposed rule. The words ‘‘resource
management’’ are added to the heading
to more precisely describe the
‘‘alternatives’’ and for consistent use in
terminology. No change in practice or
policy is intended by the change.
Paragraph (a) of this section describes
the requirements for developing
resource management alternatives. The
first sentence in final paragraph (a) of
this section includes the proposed
introductory language indicating that
this section describes ‘‘[a]lternatives
development,’’ for improved readability.
The final rule also adopts the proposed
change to remove the phrase, ‘‘At the
direction of the Field Manager,’’ because
it is the obligation of the BLM, not of
any individual, to consider all
reasonable resource management
alternatives and develop several for
detailed study. The final rule adopts the
proposal to add the abbreviation
‘‘alternatives’’ for ‘‘resource
management alternatives’’ and remove
the word ‘‘[n]onetheless’’ for improved
readability in the final rule. No change
in practice or policy is intended by
these changes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section
adopts the proposed requirement that
the alternatives developed be informed
by Director or deciding official
guidance, the planning assessment, and
the planning issues and removes the
existing requirement that alternatives
‘‘reflect the variety of issues and
guidance applicable to resource uses.’’
This language is consistent with other
changes and more accurately describes
the information that informs the
development of alternatives.
A public comment suggested that the
final rule include language stating that
all alternatives must be developed with
the intent to achieve the purpose and
need for the planning process. In
response to this public comment, the
final rule includes a new requirement
that the alternatives developed shall
also be informed by the statement of
purpose and need (see § 1610.5–1). This
change is consistent with the BLM’s
current practice and policy for the
compliance with NEPA requirements,
and also reflects the fact that the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative must be included in
the range of alternatives (see 43 CFR
1502.14) regardless of whether it would
achieve the statement of purpose and
need, as suggested in the public
comment. There will be no substantive
change from current practice or policy,
other than the availability of the
planning assessment to inform the
development of alternatives.
Several public comments raised
concerns that the BLM would not
consider citizen-proposed alternatives
under the proposed rule. Under the final
rule, the BLM will continue to comply
with NEPA requirements for
alternatives, including the requirement
that the BLM analyze all reasonable
alternatives, and discuss the reasons for
alternatives eliminated from detailed
study (40 CFR 1502.14). This
requirement applies to citizen-proposed
alternatives. The final rule adopts
proposed paragraph (a)(2) with no
revisions. Final paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is based on the fourth sentence
of existing § 1610.4–5, and states that
‘‘[i]n order to limit the total number of
alternatives analyzed in detail to a
manageable number for presentation
and analysis, reasonable variations may
be treated as sub-alternatives.’’ The final
rule replaces the phrase ‘‘all reasonable
variations shall be treated as
subalternatives’’ with ‘‘reasonable
variations may be treated as
subalternatives.’’ The change provides
the BLM flexibility to develop
subalternatives when appropriate, but
will not explicitly require the use of
subalternatives. In some instances, it
may be appropriate to develop a new
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
alternative, rather than a subalternative.
In other situations, a subalternative may
not be necessary because it is already
covered under the full spectrum of
examples in existing alternatives. The
final changes are consistent with CEQ
guidance that ‘‘when there are a very
large number of alternatives, only a
reasonable number of examples,
covering the full spectrum of examples,
must be analyzed.’’ 15 The BLM intends
no change from current practice or
policy from this change.
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section
is based on the fifth sentence of existing
§ 1610.4–5 and requires the inclusion of
a no action alternative. The final rule
adopts the proposal to replace ‘‘resource
use’’ with ‘‘resource management’’
because the no-action alternative
applies to resource management in
general, and not just resource use. There
is no change in practice or policy from
this change.
Final paragraph (a)(4) of this section
is based on the sixth sentence of
existing § 1610.4–5 and requires that the
BLM note in the resource management
plan any alternatives that are eliminated
from detailed study, along with the
rationale for their elimination. No
substantive changes are made to this
sentence.
Final paragraph (b) of this section
establishes a new requirement that the
BLM describe the rationale for the
differences between alternatives,
consistent with the proposed rule. This
requirement incorporates and expands
on the requirements of existing
§ 1610.4–2(a)(1) that the resource
management plan be ‘‘tailored to the
issues previously identified.’’ The
proposed rationale for alternatives
includes: A description of how each
alternative addresses the planning
issues, consistent with the principles of
multiple use and sustained yield, unless
otherwise specified by law; a
description of management direction
that is common to all alternatives; and
a description of how management
direction varies across alternatives to
address the planning issues. The BLM
believes that the rationale for
alternatives will provide transparency to
the public on the reasons for the
formulation of alternatives and will
ensure that the resource management
plan is ‘‘tailored to the issues previously
identified.’’
With regards to the rationale for the
differences between alternatives, final
paragraph (b)(1) modifies the proposed
15 ‘‘Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations.’’ 46 FR 18026. https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/G-CEQ-40Questions.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
phrase ‘‘consistent with the principles
of multiple use and sustained yield, or
other applicable law’’ to state
‘‘consistent with the principles of
multiple use and sustained yield unless
otherwise specified by law.’’ This
change between the proposed and final
rule is made for consistency with the
changes to § 1601.0–1 and throughout
these regulations. For more information,
please see the discussion to § 1601.0–1
for this preamble.
Final paragraph (c) of this section
adopts the proposal to add a new public
involvement opportunity. The
responsible official must make the
preliminary resource management
alternatives and the preliminary
rationale for these alternatives available
for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS. The
BLM intends that the preliminary
alternatives and rationale for
alternatives ordinarily will be made
available for public review prior to the
estimation of effects of alternatives.
This public review is intended to
serve as a ‘‘check’’ of the preliminary
alternatives and affords the public an
opportunity to bring to the BLM’s
attention any possible alternatives that
may have been overlooked before the
BLM conducts the environmental
impact analysis and prepares a draft
resource management plan and draft
EIS. The BLM anticipates that this
review will increase efficiency by
avoiding the need to re-do or
supplement NEPA analyses if
alternatives are identified during the
public comment period on the draft
resource management plan and draft
EIS. Accordingly, the BLM will build
time for this public review of
preliminary alternatives and rationale
for alternatives into their planning
schedules. This public review also
increases transparency in the BLM’s
planning process.
As previously discussed, the BLM
does not request written comments
when making documents available for
public review. However, the public is
welcome to contact the BLM with any
appropriate concerns. For more
information, please see the discussion at
§ 1610.2 for this preamble.
The preliminary alternatives and
rationale for alternatives will be posted
on the BLM’s Web site and made
available at BLM offices within the
planning area. The BLM may consider
hosting public meetings to discuss the
alternatives and the forthcoming
revision of the Land Use Planning
Handbook will describe situations in
which the BLM might hold public
meetings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the BLM requested public comment on
whether the requirements in paragraph
(c) should apply to draft plan
amendments. The BLM received some
comments indicating that these
requirements should apply to plan
amendments as well as other comments
suggesting that while in general this
step should occur, the BLM should have
the ability to skip this step on a caseby-case basis, when appropriate. In
response to public comment, the final
rule includes new language requiring
the responsible official to make
preliminary alternatives and
preliminary rationale for alternatives
available for public review, as
appropriate, for draft EIS-level plan
amendments. The BLM intends that in
general this step will occur during draft
plan amendments. In some situations,
such as project-specific or other minor
amendments, the public review of
preliminary alternatives and rationale
for alternatives may not be appropriate
or necessary.
Final paragraph (d) of this section
adopts proposed language stating that
the BLM may change the preliminary
alternatives and the preliminary
rationale for alternatives as planning
proceeds, if it determines that public
suggestions or other new information
make such changes necessary. The final
language supports BLM’s intent to
consider public input on the
preliminary alternatives and make
changes accordingly. Further, a primary
purpose of making preliminary
documents available to the public is for
the BLM to receive feedback and revise
these documents, prior to issuing a
formal draft. Therefore, the BLM expects
that in most situations, the preliminary
alternatives will be revised during the
preparation of the draft resource
management plan.
Several public comments suggested
that the BLM should disclose changes
made to the preliminary alternatives
and the preliminary rationale for
alternatives. In response to public
comment, final paragraph (d) adds a
requirement that a description of
changes made to the preliminary
alternatives and preliminary rationale
for alternatives shall be made available
to the public in the draft resource
management plan (see § 1610.5–4). This
description is not intended to identify
each and every change made to these
preliminary documents; rather it will
summarize how the public involvement
activities or other new information
informed the development of the draft
resource management plan. For
example, a citizen-proposed alternative
might be incorporated into the draft
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89631
resource management plan as a result of
public involvement activities associated
with the review of the preliminary
alternatives. In this situation, the draft
resource management plan would
describe the origin and purpose of the
citizen-proposed alternative.
Section 1610.5–3 Estimation of Effects
of Alternatives
Final § 1610.5–3 is based on existing
§ 1610.4–6 and incorporates elements of
existing § 1610.4–2(a)(2).
Final paragraph (a) of this section
establishes a new requirement that the
responsible official identify the
procedures, assumptions, and indicators
that will be used to estimate the
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic effects of the alternatives
considered in detail, consistent with the
proposed rule. These procedures,
assumptions, and indicators are referred
to as the ‘‘basis for analysis.’’ Although
this is a new requirement in the
planning regulations, there are existing
examples where the BLM has developed
a ‘‘basis for analysis,’’ or similar
document, before conducting an effects
analysis. For example, in the
preparation of the Western Oregon
Resource Management Plans finalized in
2016, the BLM described the analytical
methodology the BLM intended to use
to estimate the effects of alternatives
and made this available to the public.
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section
requires that the responsible official
make the preliminary basis for analysis
available for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS,
consistent with the proposed rule. The
BLM expects that in most situations this
information will be made available to
the public concurrently with the
preliminary alternatives and rationale
for alternatives and prior to conducting
the effects analysis. As previously
discussed, the BLM does not request
written comments when making
documents available for public review
(see the discussion at § 1610.2 for this
preamble). However, the public is
welcome to contact the BLM with any
appropriate concerns.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the BLM requested public comment on
whether the requirements in paragraph
(a)(1) should apply to draft plan
amendments. The BLM received some
comments indicating that these
requirements should apply to plan
amendments as well as other comments
suggesting that while in general this
step should occur, the BLM should have
the ability to skip this step on a caseby-case basis when appropriate. In
response to public comments, the final
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89632
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
rule will add a requirement to this
paragraph requiring the responsible
official to make preliminary alternatives
and preliminary rationale for
alternatives available for public review,
as appropriate, for draft EIS-level plan
amendments. The BLM intends that in
general this step will occur for these
amendments. In some situations, such
as project-specific or other minor
amendments, the public review of the
basis for analysis may not be
appropriate.
This paragraph is adapted from an
existing requirement of § 1610.4–2(a)(2)
that the ‘‘BLM avoids unnecessary . . .
analyses.’’ The BLM believes that
identifying the basis for analysis and
making that information available to the
public will provide a more precise
description in the regulations of how to
avoid unnecessary analyses than
existing language. The final change also
supports the Planning 2.0 goal to
provide early opportunities for
meaningful public involvement.
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section
adopts proposed language explaining
that the BLM could change the
preliminary basis for analysis as
planning proceeds to respond to new
information, including public
suggestions. The final language supports
BLM’s intent to consider public input
on the basis for analysis and make
changes accordingly. A few public
comments expressed concern that the
proposed rule did not explain how the
BLM will notify the public when the
basis for analysis changes during
planning process. In response to public
comment, final paragraph (a)(2) adds a
requirement that a description of
changes made to the basis for analysis
shall be made available to the public in
the draft resource management plan (see
§ 1610.5–4). This description is not
intended to identify each and every
change made to basis for analysis; rather
it will summarize how the public
involvement activities or other new
information informed the development
of the draft resource management plan,
including the basis for analysis.
Final paragraph (b) of this section is
adapted from existing § 1610.4–6 and
adopts the proposed introductory
phrase ‘‘[e]ffects analysis’’ for improved
readability. The term ‘‘Field Manager’’
is replaced with ‘‘responsible official’’
for the reasons previously explained.
The first sentence of final paragraph
(b) of this section adopts the proposed
change to replace the phrase ‘‘physical,
biological, economic, and social effects’’
with ‘‘environmental, ecological,
economic, and social effects’’ for
consistent use in terminology. The final
language encompasses the existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
terminology. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from this
change in terminology.
In the second sentence of paragraph
(b) of this section, the final rule adopts
the proposal to replace the ‘‘planning
criteria’’ with the ‘‘basis for analysis’’
and to add the ‘‘planning assessment.’’
Final paragraph (b) states ‘‘the
estimation of effects must be guided by
the basis for analysis, the planning
assessment, and procedures
implementing NEPA.’’ Changes to this
section incorporate new terminology
and reflect the fact that planning criteria
are no longer required under the final
rule. The planning assessment and the
basis for analysis will provide the
appropriate information to guide the
effects analysis. No substantive changes
were made to paragraph (b) of this
section between the proposed and final
rule.
Section 1610.5–4 Preparation of the
Draft Resource Management Plan and
Selection of Preferred Alternatives
This section is based on existing
§ 1610.4–7. This final section replaces
references to ‘‘Field Manager’’ with
‘‘responsible official,’’ references to
‘‘State Director’’ with ‘‘deciding
official,’’ and makes grammatical edits.
The heading of the section is revised to
include the new provision in paragraph
(a) of this section regarding the
preparation of the draft resource
management plan.
Final paragraph (a) of this section
states that the responsible official shall
prepare a draft resource management
plan based on Director and deciding
official guidance, the planning
assessment, the planning issues, and the
estimation of the effects of alternatives,
consistent with the proposed rule. This
language highlights the unique step in
the BLM land use planning process of
preparing a draft resource management
plan, consistent with current practice,
and it will facilitate public
understanding of the planning process
outlined in § 1610.5. There is no change
from existing requirements associated
with this final language, other than to
reflect new terminology in this final rule
and more broadly describe the
information the BLM uses to prepare the
draft resource management plan and
draft EIS.
The final rule separates proposed
paragraph (a) of this section into several
subparagraphs for improved readability.
No change in meaning is intended by
this revision.
In response to public comment, final
paragraph (a)(1) of this section includes
a new requirement that the draft
resource management plan and draft EIS
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
shall ‘‘describe any changes made to the
preliminary alternatives and
preliminary procedures, assumptions,
and indicators.’’ This description is not
intended to identify each and every
change made; rather it will summarize
how the public involvement activities or
other new information informed the
development of the draft resource
management plan. This revision is
consistent with the revisions made to
final §§ 1610.5–2(d) and 1610.5–3(a)(2).
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section
adopts the existing requirement that the
draft resource management plan and
draft EIS shall ‘‘evaluate the
alternatives,’’ consistent with the
proposed rule and removes the existing
language requiring the BLM to ‘‘estimate
their effects according to the planning
criteria’’ because planning criteria will
no longer be prepared under the
proposed rule and the estimation of
effects of alternatives is already
addressed in proposed § 1610.5–4.
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section
requires that the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS
‘‘identify one or more preferred
alternatives, if one or more exist.’’ This
represents a change from existing
regulations which direct the field
manager to ‘‘identify a preferred
alternative.’’ The proposed rule would
have broadened this requirement to
allow the responsible official to select
‘‘one or more’’ preferred alternatives
and in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the BLM requested public
comments on whether the final
regulations should require a single
preferred alternative, allow for multiple
preferred alternatives, or allow for no
preferred alternative if one does not
exist. Several comments expressed that
identifying multiple preferred
alternatives could create confusion and
uncertainty, making it more difficult for
the public to provide meaningful
comments. A few comments stated that
it would increase the time needed for
critical evaluation of the preferred
alternative, and be time consuming and
burdensome for the public. Other
comments expressed support for the
three options, noting that there may be
instances where it is not possible to
select only one preferred alternative, or
alternatively any preferred alternative,
and as such, it is appropriate to provide
regulatory provisions addressing those
instances.
The BLM considered these comments
and has revised the proposed language
to include the option of identifying no
preferred alternative, if no preferred
alternative exists. Under this change to
existing regulations, the BLM might
select a single preferred alternative,
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
multiple preferred alternatives, or no
preferred alternative. The BLM expects
that in most situations a single preferred
alternative will be identified, consistent
with current practice; however, there
may be instances in which either several
may be identified, or where none of the
alternatives are preferred. The latter
instances, in particular, are rare, and
usually occur when a plan amendment
is being initiated in conjunction with
decision-making regarding a sitespecific proposal, and it is unclear
which of possibly several project
alternatives, each designed to reduce
adverse environmental consequences,
might be preferred. The BLM also
sought public comment on whether to
include a specific regulatory provision
addressing these circumstances, to
clarify that these are the only kinds of
instances in which a preferred
alternative need not be identified. The
BLM will not include this provision in
the final rule. The BLM did not receive
comments suggesting specific
circumstances, and the BLM believes
that these circumstances are more
appropriately identified on a case-bycase basis. The final rule provides such
flexibility. This change also makes the
planning regulations more consistent
with the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR
46.425(a)), which were promulgated
after the BLM planning regulations were
last amended. The forthcoming revision
of the Land Use Planning Handbook
will provide more detailed guidance on
the selection of preferred alternatives.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
replace the existing requirement to
select a preferred alternative that ‘‘best
meets Director and State Director
guidance’’ with a requirement to explain
the rationale for the preferred
alternative(s) in final paragraph (a)(3) of
this section. There are many factors that
might influence the selection of a
preferred alternative, in addition to
Director or deciding official guidance,
such as assessment findings, public
involvement, local planning priorities,
and identified planning issues. The
preferred alternative(s) must be
consistent with Federal laws, regulation,
and policy guidance, and will represent
the alternative that the deciding official
believes is most responsive to the
planning issues and the planning
assessment, which includes Director
and deciding official guidance. The final
rule states that the BLM will identify
one or more preferred alternatives, ‘‘if
one or more exist,’’ and will explain the
rationale for the preference ‘‘or absence
of a preference.’’ The added language
reflects the new option where a
preferred alternative may not exist and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
requires the BLM to provide a rationale
for the absence of a preference.
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section
further states that ‘‘[t]he identification of
one or more preferred alternatives
remains the exclusive responsibility of
the BLM.’’ The final rule replaces the
phrase ‘‘the decision to select’’ with the
phrase ‘‘the identification of’’ to
improve readability, clarify meaning,
and for consistent use in terminology.
The BLM intends no change in meaning
from existing regulations. The final rule
also specifies that this applies to the
identification of ‘‘one or more’’
preferred alternatives, for consistency
with changes made earlier in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
Final paragraph (b) of this section
adopts the last sentence of proposed
paragraph (a). This change to create a
new subparagraph is to improve
readability. There is no substantive
change to this provision, which
provides that the draft resource
management plan and EIS will be
forwarded to the deciding official for
publication and filing with the EPA.
Final paragraph (c) of this section is
based on existing § 1610.4–7 and adopts
the language from proposed § 1610.5–
4(b), with revisions. The final rule
adopts the proposal to replace ‘‘draft
plan and [EIS]’’ with ‘‘draft resource
management plan and draft [EIS],’’ for
improved readability, and also adopts
the proposal to pluralize the word
‘‘Governor’’ to acknowledge that a
resource management plan may cross
State boundaries and in that situation
the draft resource management plan
should be provided to the Governors of
all States involved.
In response to public comment, the
final rule is revised to include language
requiring the BLM to provide a copy of
the draft resource management plan and
draft EIS to officials of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes ‘‘that have requested
to be notified of opportunities for public
involvement’’ in addition to the
proposed requirement to provide a copy
to those officials that the deciding
official has reason to believe would be
interested. These changes are to address
concerns expressed in public comments
that the deciding official might exclude
government officials if the deciding
official has reason to believe an agency
or unit may lack interest. This change is
consistent with final § 1610.3–2(c)(3).
The final rule adopts the proposal to
replace the word ‘‘concerned’’ with
‘‘interested’’ because any type of interest
from a government official, including
concern, is sufficient reason for the BLM
to provide such official with a copy of
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89633
the draft resource management plan and
EIS for review.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
add a reference to § 1610.3–2(c) to
improve readability of the regulations
text. There is no change in practice or
policy from this change.
Section 1610.5–5 Selection of the
Proposed Resource Management Plan
Final § 1610.5–5 is based on existing
§ 1610.4–8. The final rule does not
adopt the proposal to include
‘‘preparation of implementation
strategies’’ in the heading to this section
because the concept of implementation
strategies was not adopted in the final
rule (see the discussion to proposed
§ 1610.1–3 in this preamble).
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a) of this section. Changes to
this section replace the existing
reference to the ‘‘Field Manager’’ with
‘‘responsible official’’ stating that the
‘‘responsible official’’ shall evaluate the
comments received after publication of
the draft resource management plan and
draft EIS and will prepare the proposed
resource management plan and final
EIS.
The final rule does not adopt
proposed paragraph (b) of this section
which would have provided that the
responsible official prepare
implementation strategies for the
proposed resource management plan, as
appropriate. This paragraph is no longer
relevant because the concept of
implementation strategies was not
adopted in the final rule (see the
discussion to proposed § 1610.1–3 in
this preamble).
The final rule redesignates proposed
paragraph (c) of this section as final
paragraph (b) of this section. Final
paragraph (b) requires that the deciding
official publish the proposed resource
management plan and file the final EIS
with the EPA, consistent with current
practice and policy. The final rule will
no longer detail the BLM’s internal
review process. The final rule adopts
the proposal to remove references to
internal steps such as ‘‘supervisory
review’’ because these internal review
processes are better established through
BLM policy. The BLM intends no
change to existing policy or practice, but
the final rule will provide the BLM
discretion on how to conduct its
internal review process, which is
addressed through BLM policy.
Section 1610.6 Resource Management
Plan Approval, Implementation and
Modification
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6, with revisions. Final § 1610.6
is adapted from existing § 1610.5. This
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89634
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
section heading provides an
introduction to final §§ 1610.6–1
through 1610.6–8. The final rule adopts
the proposed change to replace the word
‘‘use’’ with ‘‘implementation’’ in the
heading to final § 1610.6 to more
accurately describe the provisions of
these sections.
Section 1610.6–1 Resource
Management Plan Approval and
Implementation
Section 1610.6–1 is adapted from
existing § 1610.5–1. There are no
substantive revisions to § 1610.6–1
between the proposed and final rule.
The final rule replaces ‘‘and
administrative review’’ with ‘‘and
implementation’’ in the heading of this
section to focus this section on resource
management plan approval and
implementation. Similarly, the final rule
deletes the existing first paragraph,
which refers to internal procedures such
as ‘‘supervisory review and approval.’’
The BLM’s internal review procedures
are better established through BLM
policy. The BLM intends no change in
practice or policy from these changes.
Final paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of
this section contain the provisions of
existing § 1610.5–1. The final rule
adopts edits to this section to improve
understanding of existing requirements,
but does not anticipate any change in
implementation from existing
regulations.
Under final paragraph (a) of this
section, the deciding official will
approve a resource management plan, or
EIS-level amendment, no earlier than 30
days after the EPA publishes a Federal
Register notice of the filing of the final
EIS. This is an existing part of the
process and regulations, but the final
rule uses ‘‘deciding official’’ instead of
the State Director, to maintain
consistency with other changes (see
§ 1601.0–4(b)). The final rule removes
the provision that approval depends on
‘‘final action on any protest that may be
filed’’ as this requirement is already
addressed in 1610.6–1(b) and in the
protest procedures at § 1610.6–2(b). This
revision is not a change in practice or
policy.
Final § 1610.6–1(b) contains some
language from existing § 1610.5–1 (b),
with clarifying edits. In addition to
existing provisions stating that plan
approval will be withheld until after
protests have been resolved, paragraph
(b) of this final section also clarifies an
existing requirement to provide public
notice and opportunity for public
comment if the BLM intends to select a
different alternative, or portion of an
alternative, than the proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Such a change may result from the
BLM’s decision on a protest or from the
BLM’s consideration of inconsistencies
identified by a Governor. The final rule
revises this sentence to explain that ‘‘if,
after publication of a proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment,
the BLM intends to select an alternative
that is within the spectrum of
alternatives in the final [EIS] or [EA] but
is substantially different than the
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment, the BLM shall notify
the public and request written
comments on the change before the
resource management plan or plan
amendment is approved.’’ The final
language will more precisely describe
what is meant by the existing phrase
‘‘any significant change made to the
proposed plan.’’ The final rule uses
‘‘within the spectrum of’’ instead of
‘‘encompassed by’’ for consistency with
CEQ terminology.16 The BLM intends
no change from current practice or
policy; rather this provision will
provide a more precise description of
existing requirements.
Final § 1610.6–1(c) contains language
from the last sentence of existing
§ 1610.5–1(b) and provides that the
approval of a resource management plan
or a plan amendment for which an EIS
is prepared must be documented in a
concise public ROD, consistent with
NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1505.2).
Current language refers to ‘‘the
approval,’’ and this change will specify
that a ROD will be prepared for
approval of a resource management plan
or EIS-level amendment. Approvals of
EA-level amendments need not be
documented in a ROD; however, current
BLM policy requires the preparation of
a decision record to document these
decisions (see BLM NEPA Handbook,
H–1790–1).
Section 1610.6–2 Protest Procedures
Final § 1610.6–2 contains the protest
procedures found at existing § 1610.5–2.
The final rule revises this existing
section to update the procedures for the
public’s submission and the BLM’s
action on protests of a resource
management plan or plan amendment.
Under the introductory text in final
paragraph (a) of this section, the final
rule clarifies that a member of the
public who participated in the
preparation of the resource management
plan or plan amendment and has an
interest which ‘‘may be adversely
affected’’ by the approval of a proposed
resource management plan or plan
amendment may protest such approval.
16 NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions, Question
29B. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The final rule adopts the proposed
change to replace ‘‘planning process’’
with ‘‘the preparation of the resource
management plan or plan amendment’’
to more precisely describe what steps of
the ‘‘planning process’’ apply to
paragraph (a) and for consistency with
other changes. Under current practice,
the BLM generally considers the
‘‘planning process’’ to mean the
preparation of a resource management
plan or plan amendment. The final rule
clarifies that the preparation of a
resource management plan is just one
step of the planning process. Other steps
include the planning assessment, the
approval of the resource management
plan, the implementation of the
resource management plan, monitoring
and evaluation, and future modification
of the resource management plan
through plan maintenance, amendment,
or revision. A member of the public may
only submit a protest, however, if they
participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment. This change is consistent
with current practice and policy. Final
§ 1610.6–2(a) is revised to remove
reference to § 1610.4, which was
incorrect. The planning assessment is
not considered a step in the preparation
of a resource management plan; rather,
it precedes the initiation of the
preparation of a resource management
plan. In order to be eligible to submit a
protest, a member of the public must
participate in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment, and not just the planning
assessment.
In response to public comment, final
paragraph (a) of this section replaces the
existing phrase ‘‘[a]ny person’’ with
‘‘[a]ny member of the public.’’ Some
public comments suggested that the
phrase ‘‘any person’’ should be revised
to include cooperating agencies. The
BLM currently interprets the phrase
‘‘any person’’ to include cooperating
agencies. The term ‘‘public,’’ however,
is defined at final § 1610.0–5 and
therefore provides a more precise
description of who may submit a
protest, including cooperating agencies
or other government officials. This
change is consistent with current
practice and policy under existing
regulations, and is made for clarification
and improved readability only. The
BLM intends no change in the meaning
of this provision.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove language in paragraph (a) of this
section stating that any person who has
an interest which ‘‘is or may be’’
adversely affected by the approval or
amendment of a resource management
plan may protest such approval or
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
amendment. Instead, the final rule states
that any member of the public who has
an interest which ‘‘may be’’ adversely
affected by the approval of a proposed
resource management plan or plan
amendment may protest such approval.
The final rule replaces the phrase ‘‘is or
may be’’ with ‘‘may be’’ to eliminate
duplicative and unnecessary language.
An interest that ‘‘may be adversely
affected’’ includes an already affected
interest. This final change is made to
improve readability only; the BLM
intends no change to the meaning of this
provision.
Final paragraph (a) of this section is
revised to include new language stating
that a protest may raise only those
issues which were submitted for the
record during the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment ‘‘unless the protest
concerns an issue that arose after the
close of the opportunity for public
comment on the draft resource
management plan.’’ This change in the
final rule is made throughout the
subparagraphs of § 1610.6–2(a) and
clarifies that if an issue arises after the
close of the formal public comment
period on a draft resource management
plan, the public may submit a protest
regarding that issue. This exclusion only
applies to issues that did not exist when
the draft resource management plan was
available for public comment, and
therefore the public could not comment
on the issue. For example, the issue may
arise due to a change that was made to
the draft resource management plan or
due to new information that was not
previously available. This revision is
consistent with current practice and
policy and is made for clarification
purposes only.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
split existing § 1610.5–2(a)(1) into
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of final
§ 1610.6–2. The final rule adopts
proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
with only minor revisions. These
paragraphs contain the requirements for
filing protests, including new provisions
for electronic submission.
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section
adopts the proposed introductory text
‘‘Submission,’’ and describes the
procedures for submitting a protest. The
final rule adopts the new provision
which states that the protest may be
filed as a hard-copy or electronically
and that the responsible official will
specify protest filing procedures for a
resource management plan or plan
amendment (beyond these general
requirements in the planning
regulations), including the method the
public may use to submit a protest
electronically. Under the existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
regulations, a protest must be filed as a
hard-copy. Although the BLM will
continue to accept hard-copy protest
submissions, providing an additional
option for electronic submission will
reduce the burden on the public by
reducing the expense associated with
mailing a hard-copy. An electronic
format will also streamline the
processing of protests, since the protest
will already be digitized, thereby
eliminating a step from the process.
Further, a protest sent by mail may take
many days to arrive at the appropriate
BLM office and delay the start of the
BLM’s protest resolution process.
Electronic means for protest submission
are more readily available to the public
today and electronic options will
promote a more efficient protest
resolution process. The final rule
provides flexibility for how protests will
be submitted electronically to the BLM
to accommodate future advances in
electronic technology. The BLM expects
to provide an electronic submission
option either through email submission
or through the BLM Web site.
Although the BLM believes that
electronic submission promotes
efficiency, it is also important to note
that providing an electronic option for
protest submission could also lead to an
increased burden on the agency by
increasing the number of protest
submissions, such as form letters. In this
situation, it will take additional time to
process protests. Under current practice,
the BLM summarizes protest issues and
provides a single response to each issue;
regardless of how many times the issue
was raised. We intend to continue this
practice, thus a possible increase in
form letters will not lead to an increase
in the number of responses or the
complexity of the final protest
resolution report.
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section
adopts the proposed introductory text
‘‘Timing.’’ The final rule also adopts the
proposal to maintain the existing time
periods for submitting a protest and to
make edits for improved readability and
understanding. There are no changes to
existing requirements. For resource
management plans and EIS-level
amendments, protests must be filed
within 30 days after the date the EPA
publishes a NOA of the final EIS in the
Federal Register. For EA-level
amendments, protests must be filed
within 30 days after the date the BLM
notifies the public of the availability of
the proposed plan amendment.
Final § 1610.6–2(a)(3) adopts the
proposed introductory text ‘‘Content
Requirements,’’ and describes the
required content of a protest.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89635
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section with
no revisions. This paragraph includes a
new provision that protesting parties
include their email address (if available)
in addition to other identifying
information in the protest letter in order
to facilitate BLM communications with
protesting parties in the event of a
question regarding a protest or its filing.
It often is easier to communicate by
email than by telephone and this
requirement is in line with the BLM’s
acceptance of protests electronically
under final § 1610.6–2(a)(1). This
provision includes the statement ‘‘if
available’’ because the BLM recognizes
that not all members of the public have
easy access to the Internet, and the lack
of an email address will not preclude a
member of the public from submitting a
protest. There is no change in practice
or policy, other than to clarify that an
email address, if available, should be
included.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section with
no revisions. Final paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of
this section requires a statement of how
the protestor participated in the
preparation of the resource management
plan. This is a change from existing
language that requires a statement of the
issue or issues being protested, which is
instead included in final paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section. Although
existing paragraph (a) states that only a
person who participated in the
preparation of a resource management
plan may submit a protest, final
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) places the burden on
the protestor to demonstrate their
eligibility for submitting a protest. This
requirement is a more efficient method
for the BLM to determine eligibility to
protest and will help the BLM to more
efficiently respond to all protests in a
timely manner.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section with
only minor revisions. Final paragraph
(a)(3)(iii) replaces the requirement to
provide a ‘‘statement of the part or parts
of the plan or amendment being
protested’’ with a new requirement to
identify the plan component(s) believed
to be inconsistent with Federal laws or
regulations applicable to public lands,
or the purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations. The change is consistent
with other changes made in this final
rule (see final § 1610.1–2). Plan
components provide planning-level
management direction. The final
decision to approve a resource
management plan or plan amendment
represents the final decision to approve
the planning level management
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89636
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
direction, which will guide all
subsequent management decisions. The
final rule replaces the proposed phrase
‘‘purposes, policies, and programs of
such laws and regulations’’ with
‘‘purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations’’ for consistency with
changes made throughout these
regulations (see § 1610.3–3, for
example). No change in meaning is
intended by this revision; rather, this
change improves readability and
clarifies that purposes, policies, and
programs are developed to ‘‘implement’’
laws and regulations. This revision is
also made in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this
section.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this
section requires the protest to include a
concise explanation of why the plan
component(s) 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, and identification of the
associated issue(s) raised during the
planning process. This provision
replaces existing paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and
the final sentence of existing paragraph
(a)(1)(iv) of this section. The final rule
requires that protests include more
specific grounds for challenging a plan
component than the existing
regulations, which require only ‘‘(a)
concise statement explaining why the
State Director’s decision is believed to
be wrong.’’ The identification of more
specific grounds for protests will help
the BLM to identify, understand, and
respond thoughtfully to valid protest
issues, such as inconsistencies with
Federal laws or regulations.
This final change also provides a
more clear distinction between the
protest process and the earlier public
comment period on a draft resource
management plan and draft EIS. The
earlier public comment period offers an
opportunity to comment on a wide
variety of matters relating to a draft
plan. The protest procedures, in
contrast, are intended to focus the BLM
Director’s attention on aspects of a
proposed resource management plan
that may be inconsistent with legal
requirements or policies. These changes
are not a change from existing practice
or policy; rather they provide
clarification to the public on how the
BLM interprets and implements the
regulations. The BLM believes that the
change will more effectively
communicate to the public what the
BLM considers when addressing
protests.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(iv) adopts the
proposed requirement that a protest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
identify the associated issue or issues
raised during the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment; however this section is
revised to clarify that this requirement
is not necessary if the protest concerns
an issue that arose after the close of the
opportunity for public comment on the
draft resource management plan. This
exclusion would only apply to issues
that did not exist when the draft
resource management plan was
available for public comment, and
therefore the public could not comment
on the issue. For example, the issue may
arise due to a change that was made to
the draft resource management plan or
due to new information that was not
previously available. These changes do
not represent a change from current
practice or policy; rather they provide
clarification to the public on existing
requirements.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this
section retains the existing requirement
that protests include a copy of all
documents addressing the issue(s)
raised that the protesting party
submitted during the planning process
or an indication of the date the issue(s)
were discussed for the record. These
documents or dates will assist the BLM
in responding to protests. The final rule
clarifies that this requirement is not
necessary if the protest concerns an
issue that arose after the close of the
opportunity for public comment on the
draft resource management plan and the
public has not had an opportunity to
raise the issue, for consistency with
changes made throughout this section.
Final paragraph (a)(4) of this section
adopts the proposed introductory text
‘‘availability’’ and establishes a new
requirement that protests will be made
available to the public upon request and
this is independent of existing
requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act. This commitment
demonstrates the value the BLM places
on public involvement in resource
management planning. The BLM
intends for this commitment to promote
transparency and consistency in
practice. The BLM is exploring how to
make protests available in a timely and
efficient manner, including by posting
all protest submissions to the BLM Web
site. In response to public comment,
final paragraph (a)(4) includes an
additional provision that in making the
protests available to the public, the
Director shall withhold any protected
information that is exempt from
disclosure under applicable laws or
regulation. Several public comments
noted that sometimes it is necessary for
a member of the public to include
protected information as part of a
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
protest, and the BLM may not make this
information available to the general
public. Comments provided as an
example that release of commercial or
financial information may violate the
Trade Secrets Act. This change is
consistent with current practice and
policy.
Final paragraph (b) of this section
includes the existing requirements at
existing § 1610.6–1(b) that the BLM
Director render a decision on all
protests. The final rule adopts the
proposal to remove ‘‘promptly’’ from
this requirement, as the term is vague
and does not account for the many
variables that affect timelines for protest
resolution, including the magnitude and
complexity of protest issues, as well as
available budgets and competing
workloads. This edit clarifies that the
timeline to resolve the protest varies
extensively across planning efforts. This
is not a change in practice or policy; the
BLM will continue to resolve protests as
quickly as possible.
Final paragraph (b) further provides
that the BLM notify protesting parties of
the decision and make both the decision
and the reasons for the decision on the
protest available to the public. The BLM
expects that these typically will be
posted on the BLM Web site and the
BLM will notify individuals or groups
that have requested notification in
conjunction with the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan. The final rule adopts the proposal
to remove the requirement that the BLM
send its decision on a protest to the
protesting parties by certified mail,
return receipt requested. The BLM
believes that the wide availability and
ease of use of the Internet and electronic
communications make these means of
notifying the public well-suited for
sharing protest decisions with the
public. Electronic communications
allow the BLM flexibility to make
protest decisions available to a
potentially large number of protesting
parties or members of the public
without an overly burdensome
workload. These means are also
consistent with BLM policy promoting
the use of electronic communications in
the land use planning process.17
17 BLM, Instruction Memorandum No. 2013–144,
‘‘Transitioning from Printing Hard Copies of
National Environmental Policy Act and Planning
Documents to Providing Documents in Electronic
Formats’’ (June 21, 2013), https://www.blm.gov/wo/
st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_
Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013144.html); DOI Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance, Environmental Statement
Memorandum No. 13–7, ‘‘Publication and
Distribution of DOI NEPA Compliance Documents
via Electronic Methods’’ (Jan. 7, 2013), https://
www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM13-7.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Nonetheless, where Internet access is
limited or protesting parties or members
of the public express concerns about
electronic communications, the BLM
will provide notice by other means, as
necessary.
The second sentence of final
paragraph (b) reflects existing § 1610.5–
2(b) and explains that the BLM
Director’s decision is the final decision
of the Department of the Interior. This
decision may be subject to judicial
review. The final rule adopts the
proposal to change ‘‘shall be’’ to ‘‘is,’’ to
comply with more recent style
conventions and improve readability.
There is no change in meaning from this
style change.
In response to public comment,
paragraph (b) of this section is revised
to incorporate language from final
§ 1610.6–1(b), stating that ‘‘[a]pproval
will be withheld on any portion of a
resource management plan or plan
amendment until final action has been
completed on such protest.’’ This does
not represent a change in practice or
policy, as this is an existing
requirement. In conjunction with this
revision, the first sentence of paragraph
(b) is revised for consistency and
readability; however, there are no
changes in the meaning of this
provision.
Final paragraph (c) of this section
adopts the proposal to add a new
provision stating that the BLM Director
may dismiss any protest that does not
meet the requirements of this section.
For example, the BLM may dismiss
protests where protestors lack standing
or protests that are incomplete or
untimely. The final text does not
represent a change in requirements or in
existing practice. The BLM Director may
currently dismiss protests that do not
meet the regulatory requirements. The
BLM believes that adding this text will
more effectively communicate to
potential protestors that their protest
may be dismissed if it does not meet the
requirements for submission. In
response to public comment, the final
rule adds a new sentence to the end of
paragraph (c) of this section stating that
the Director shall notify protesting
parties of the dismissal and provide the
reasons for the dismissal. The Director
will provide this notification either
through written or electronic means,
depending on available contact
information. This revision provides
transparency to a member of the public
should their protest be dismissed. In a
situation where the BLM is not provided
contact information from a protesting
party, we will not be able to provide
such notification. The BLM intends that
dismissals will also be described in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
protest resolution report, consistent
with current practice. These reports are
generally posted to the BLM Web site;
therefore protesting parties and any
other members of the public could still
find this information.
Section 1610.6–3
Implementation
Conformity and
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–3 with only minor revisions.
Section 1610.6–3 is based on existing
§ 1610.5–3. Changes to this section are
made only for improved readability or
improved understanding of existing
practice or policy.
In paragraph (a) of this section, the
final rule removes the phrase ‘‘as well
as budget or other action proposals to
higher levels in the Bureau of Land
Management and Department.’’ All
future authorizations and actions must
conform to the approved resource
management plan, thus this language is
confusing and unnecessary. No change
from current practice is intended by this
change. The final rule adds the words
‘‘plan components,’’ stating ‘‘All future
resource management authorizations
and actions . . . must conform to the
plan components of the approved
resource management plan.’’ These edits
are consistent with the definition of
‘‘plan components’’ in § 1601.0–5 and
the requirements of § 1610.1–2 and
more precisely describe how the BLM
will interpret conformance under this
final rule.
In paragraph (b) of this section, the
final rule specifies that the ‘‘plan’’
referenced is a ‘‘resource management
plan’’ and that the requirements of this
section also apply following the
approval of a plan amendment. The
final rule replaces ‘‘Field Manager’’ with
the ‘‘BLM.’’ As previously described,
replacing the ‘‘Field Manager’’ with the
‘‘BLM’’ acknowledges responsibilities
that might be fulfilled by a BLM
employee other than a Field Manager.
Changes to paragraph (c) of this
section also specify that the ‘‘plan’’
referenced is a ‘‘resource management
plan’’ and that conformance applies to
‘‘plan components’’ for consistency with
changes made elsewhere in these
regulations. The final rule further
specifies that the ‘‘deciding official’’ is
responsible for the determination that
an action warrants further consideration
before a plan revision is scheduled.
These changes are intended to provide
clarity, but do not represent a change in
policy or practice.
There are no substantive changes
made to paragraph (d) of this section,
only grammatical edits made throughout
this part.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89637
Section 1610.6–4 Monitoring and
Evaluation
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–4 with revisions. This section
addresses monitoring and evaluation of
resource management plans following
their approval. It incorporates much of
the language from existing § 1610.4–9
with edits for consistency with other
changes to the regulations. Revisions to
this section split the existing provision
into subparagraphs for improved
readability.
Under the final rule, the BLM will
monitor and evaluate the resource
management plan in accordance with
the monitoring and evaluation standards
(see final § 1610.1–2(b)(3)). The final
rule does not include the proposed
reference to ‘‘monitoring procedures’’
because the final rule does not adopt
proposed § 1610.1–3 or the concepts
described in that section, including
implementation strategies (for more
information please see the discussion on
proposed § 1610.1–3 for this preamble
to the final rule).
The final rule is also revised to
include language from final § 1610.1–
2(b)(3) for improved readability and
understanding of these regulations.
Final paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section incorporate provisions from
§ 1610.1–2(b)(3) which specify that,
through monitoring and evaluation, the
BLM will determine whether the
resource management plan objectives
are being met and whether there is
relevant new information or other
sufficient cause to warrant
consideration of amendment or revision
of the resource management plan. For
more information regarding this
language, please see the discussion at
§ 1610.1–2(b)(3) for this preamble.
Revisions to this section improve
readability and understanding of the
relationship between this section and
final § 1610.1–2(b)(3).
Final paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section replace existing language
that the BLM ‘‘shall provide for
evaluation to determine whether
mitigation measures are satisfactory,
whether there has been significant
change in the related plans of other
Federal agencies, State or local
governments, or Indian tribes, or
whether there is new data of
significance to the plan.’’ The
evaluation of specific mitigation
measures generally occurs during the
implementation phase of a project or
activity, not during an evaluation of a
resource management plan. The effect of
mitigation on the achievement of plan
objectives is evaluated under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. ‘‘Significant
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89638
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
changes in the plans of other Federal
agencies, State or local governments, or
Indian tribes,’’ and ‘‘new data of
significance’’ are encompassed by the
phrase ‘‘relevant new information’’ and
are evaluated under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy by the
removal of this existing language.
The last sentence of proposed
§ 1610.6–4 is redesignated as final
§ 1610.6–4(b) and adopts the proposal to
establish a new requirement that the
BLM document the evaluation of the
resource management plan in a report
made available for public review. The
BLM believes that sharing this
information with the public will
provide transparency during the
implementation of a resource
management plan. The final rule is
revised to specify that this report shall
be made available for public review on
the BLM’s Web site. This change is
intended to provide clarity and
transparency to the public on where to
find the evaluation report.
Section 1610.6–5 Maintenance
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–5 with only minor revisions.
This section is based on existing
§ 1610.5–4. It explains the reasons for
updating RMPs through plan
maintenance and identifies the
parameters for plan maintenance. Under
the existing regulations and the final
regulations, maintenance includes
minor changes and updates to an RMP
that do not change any fundamental
aspects of the plan. Maintenance does
not change a plan component except to
correct typographical or mapping errors
or to reflect minor changes in mapping
or data.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
delete ‘‘and supporting components’’
from the first sentence of this section in
the existing regulations to avoid
confusion. The existing regulations are
unclear on what is meant by
‘‘supporting components’’ in this
provision. Supporting information, such
as a visual resources inventory or a
model predicting wildfire propensity,
can be updated at any point in time;
such a change is not considered plan
maintenance as it does not constitute a
change to the resource management
plan itself. Further, the BLM does not
consider supporting information such as
the planning assessment to be a
component of the approved resource
management plan, because it does not
provide planning-level management
direction. Rather, the planning
assessment provides baseline
information to inform the preparation of
a resource management plan. That type
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
of support information can be updated
at any point in time, and such a change
is not considered plan maintenance
because it does not constitute a change
to the resource management plan itself.
The final rule also adopts the
proposal to replace ‘‘shall be
maintained’’ in the first sentence of the
existing regulations with ‘‘may be
maintained.’’ The BLM intends to
maintain its resource management plans
to ensure that they are current and
reflect existing resource conditions and
land and resource uses to the fullest
extent permitted by available funds and
staffing, but those constraints could
affect BLM’s ability to fully achieve this
goal.
The final rule also adopts the
proposal to expand existing language
stating that plans are maintained as
necessary to ‘‘reflect minor changes in
data’’ with language stating that the
plans will be maintained as necessary
‘‘to correct typographical or mapping
errors or to reflect minor changes in
mapping or data.’’ The new language
provides a more precise and accurate
description of changes that are made
using plan maintenance. This change
does not represent a substantive change
from existing regulations as ‘‘mapping
errors’’ or ‘‘changes in mapping’’ are
currently considered as a type of minor
change in data, and typographical errors
do not represent a substantive change to
a resource management plan. These
changes are intended to provide
clarification and improved
understanding of changes that may be
made through plan maintenance.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove existing language that limited
maintenance ‘‘to further refining or
documenting a previously approved
decision incorporated in the plan’’ as
well as language that indicated that
‘‘maintenance must not result in the
expansion in the scope of resource uses
or restrictions, or change the terms,
conditions, and decisions of the
approved plan.’’ Instead, the final rule
states that maintenance must not change
a plan component of the approved
resource management plan except to
correct typographical or mapping errors
or to reflect minor changes in data. This
change makes the maintenance
provisions consistent with other
changes to the regulations. The plan
components encompass the ‘‘scope of
resource uses or restrictions’’ and the
‘‘terms, conditions, and decisions’’ of
the approved resource management plan
(see § 1610.1–2). Therefore there is no
substantive change from current policy.
The final rule retains existing
language which indicates that
maintenance is not considered a plan
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
amendment and therefore does not
require the same public involvement,
interagency coordination, or NEPA
analysis as plan amendments. This
language is still relevant and applicable
because plan components (i.e., the
management-level direction of the
approved plan) may not be changed
through plan maintenance other than to
correct typographical or mapping errors
or reflect minor changes in mapping or
data.
The final rule does not adopt the
proposal to replace the words ‘‘shall
not’’ with ‘‘does not’’ where the existing
regulations state that maintenance
‘‘shall not’’ require the formal public
involvement and interagency
coordination process described in
§§ 1610.2 and 1610.3.
Finally, the final rule removes the
existing requirement that maintenance
be documented in plans and supporting
records. Instead, the final rule adopts a
new requirement for the BLM to notify
the public when changes are made to an
approved resource management plan
through plan maintenance and, through
notice to the public at least 30 days
prior to their implementation, document
the proposed changes. We anticipate
that changes will be posted on the BLM
Web site and made available at BLM
offices within the planning area, with
direct notice sent to those individuals
and groups that have requested such
notice. The forthcoming revision of the
Land Use Planning Handbook will
provide more detailed guidance on how
the BLM will make different types of
plan maintenance available to the
public.
Section 1610.6–6 Amendment
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–6 with minor revisions. This
section is based on § 1610.5–5 in the
existing regulations and explains how
the BLM amends its resource
management plans. Changes update
existing language to be consistent with
other changes in this final rule.
Paragraph (a) of this section revises
the undesignated introductory text in
existing § 1610.5–5 to explain that a
‘‘plan component’’ may be changed
through amendment, consistent with the
proposed rule. This represents a change
from the existing regulations, which
provide that a ‘‘resource management
plan’’ may be changed by amendment.
The change is necessary for consistency
with changes to § 1610.1, which
describes plan components. As
explained in the preamble for § 1610.1–
2, plan components represent planninglevel management direction and may
only be changed through amendment or
revision.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Paragraph (a) of this section adopts
the proposal to specify that an
amendment ‘‘may’’ be initiated when
the BLM determines that monitoring
and evaluation findings, new high
quality information, including best
available scientific information, new or
revised policy, a proposed action, ‘‘or
other relevant changes in
circumstances’’ warrant a change to one
or more plan components of the
approved plan. The final rule replaces
‘‘shall be initiated’’ with ‘‘may be
initiated’’ reflecting the fact that the
BLM must ensure that the public is
aware that monitoring and evaluation
findings, new high quality information,
including best available scientific
information, new or revised policy, a
proposed action, ‘‘or other relevant
changes in circumstances’’ warrant a
change to one or more plan components
of the approved plan but may be limited
by available budgets and competing
workload priorities when making the
determination to initiate a plan
amendment. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from this
final change as the BLM currently is
limited by available budgets and
competing workload priorities when
making the determination to initiate a
plan amendment.
Paragraph (a) of this section adopts
the proposal to clarify that an
amendment must be made ‘‘in
conjunction’’ with an EA or EIS. The
final rule replaces the word ‘‘through’’
with ‘‘in conjunction’’ because the EA
or EIS informs the amendment, but is
not the mechanism through which the
amendment is made. The final rule
clarifies that the procedures for plan
amendments include public
involvement (see final § 1610.2),
interagency coordination, tribal
consultation, and consistency review
(see final § 1610.3), and protest
procedures (see final § 1610.6–2). The
final rule is revised from the proposed
rule to include ‘‘tribal consultation’’ for
consistency with modifications made to
final § 1610.3 and to clarify that the
initiation of tribal consultation is
required during a plan amendment. This
does not represent a change in practice
or policy, as the BLM currently must
initiate tribal consultation during a plan
amendment. The final rule is also
revised to replace ‘‘consistency’’ with
‘‘consistency review.’’ This change is
made to improve readability only and
for consistency with final § 1610.3.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
replace the existing requirement to
evaluate the effect of the amendment on
‘‘the plan’’ with a requirement to
evaluate the effect of the amendment on
‘‘other plan components.’’ This change
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
is made for consistency with final
§ 1610.1–2 which describes plan
components, and reflects the fact a plan
amendment could potentially have an
effect on other plan components that are
not being considered for amendment
and it is important that the BLM
understand these potential effects before
rendering a decision to ensure that plan
amendments do not introduce
inconsistencies between plan
components in a resource management
plan.
The final sentence of paragraph (a) of
this section retains the existing
provision that if the amendment under
consideration is in response to a specific
proposal, the requisite analysis for the
proposal and the amendment may occur
simultaneously. This is consistent with
NEPA regulations encouraging Federal
agencies to integrate NEPA with other
planning processes (see 40 CFR
1500.2(c) and 1500.4(k)).
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b) with only minor revisions.
Paragraph (b) describes the
requirements for a plan amendment
when an EA is prepared and does not
disclose significant impacts. The final
rule replaces existing references to the
‘‘Field Manager’’ with the ‘‘responsible
official’’ or the ‘‘BLM’’ and replaces a
reference to the ‘‘State Director’’ with
the ‘‘deciding official.’’ These changes
are consistent with new terms used
throughout this new rule. This section
also provides that, upon approval of a
plan amendment, the BLM will issue a
public notice of the action taken, and
that an amendment may be
implemented 30 days after such notice.
There is no substantive change to this
paragraph or the BLM’s implementation
of it.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove the existing requirement in
existing § 1610.5–5(b) that if a decision
is made to prepare an environmental
impact statement, the amending process
shall follow the same procedure
required for the preparation and
approval of a resource management
plan. Instead, in the relevant sections,
the final rule identifies where EIS-level
amendments must follow the same
procedures as those required for
preparing and approving a resource
management plan.
The final rule also adopts the
proposal to remove the existing
requirement in existing § 1610.5–5(b)
that consideration for an EIS-level
amendment is limited to ‘‘that portion
of the plan being amended.’’ This
existing language contradicts the
requirement in paragraph (a) that the
‘‘effect of the amendment on other plan
components must be evaluated.’’ For
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89639
example, if an amendment will preclude
the BLM from achieving other goals and
objectives of the approved RMP that are
not explicitly addressed in the
amendment, this is important
information of which BLM and the
public should be aware.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (c) of this section with only
minor revisions. Paragraph (c) of this
section is adapted from the existing
provision of § 1610.5–5(b) that ‘‘if
several plans are being amended
simultaneously, a single [EIS] may be
prepared to cover all amendments.’’ For
improved readability, this provision is
revised to state that ‘‘if the BLM amends
several resource management plans
simultaneously, a single programmatic
[EIS] or [EA] may be prepared to address
all amendments.’’
Section 1610.6–7 Revision
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–7 with only minor revisions.
Section 1610.6–7 is based on existing
§ 1610.5–6 in the existing regulations.
Changes to this section are made to
improve readability and explain more
clearly when the BLM will prepare a
plan revision.
In the first sentence, the clause ‘‘a
resource management plan shall be
revised’’ is replaced with ‘‘the BLM may
revise a resource management plan.’’
The final rule uses the active voice to
indicate that the BLM will be revising
the plan. The final rule adopts the
proposal to change the mandatory term
‘‘shall’’ to the discretionary term ‘‘may.’’
In both the existing regulations and this
final rule, revisions occur ‘‘as
necessary.’’ The change from ‘‘shall’’ to
‘‘may’’ reflects the fact that the BLM
must consider many factors including
available budgets, competing workload
priorities, and development of new
policy when making the determination
to revise a resource management plan.
The BLM currently must take these
factors into account when determining
when to revise a resource management
plan, so there will be no change in
practice or policy.
The existing rule states that
‘‘monitoring and evaluation findings
. . . new data, new or revised policy
and changes in circumstances’’ that
affect an entire plan or major portions
of a plan require a plan revision. The
final rule clarifies that ‘‘other relevant
changes in circumstances’’ may justify a
plan revision. This does not represent a
change in practice. For example, the
need to provide habitat protection for a
wide-ranging species that is considered
for listing as threatened or endangered
in an area could result in a plan revision
if the BLM believed that a plan revision
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89640
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
was necessary to address adequately
this concern and consider impacts at a
regional-scale. This section maintains
the existing requirement that revisions
must comply with all of the
requirements of the planning
regulations for preparing and approving
a resource management plan, with
minor edits to improve readability.
Section 1610.6–8 Situations Where
Action Can Be Taken Based on Another
Agency’s Planning Documents
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.6–8 with revisions. This section
is based on existing § 1610.5–7. The
final rule replaces the ‘‘Bureau of Land
Management’’ with the ‘‘BLM’’ and
replaces a reference to the ‘‘Field
Manager’’ with ‘‘the BLM,’’ as the action
described applies more to the agency
than any particular individual. In
response to public comment, the final
rule revises the existing introductory
text in this section stating that the BLM
‘‘may use the plans or land use analysis
of other agencies’’ to instead read that
the BLM may ‘‘rely on’’ those plans or
analysis. This revised text more
accurately describes BLM practice and
is consistent with the language of
paragraph (a) of this section in the
proposed and final rule. The final rule
replaces ‘‘there are situations of mixed
ownership’’ in the existing regulations
with ‘‘including mixed ownership’’ in
the first sentence for improved
readability. No changes in practice or
policy are intended by these changes.
The final rule revises the existing and
proposed language in this section by
replacing the reference to other
agencies’ plans or land use analyses to
other agencies’ ‘‘planning documents.’’
The new term better encompasses the
types of documents referred to in the
following paragraphs of this section,
including the added provision for
resource assessments (see paragraph (c)
of this section).
The final rule revises paragraph (a) of
this section, which lists those other
agency plans that may be relied on as
the basis for a BLM action to include a
reference to tribal plans. The final rule
replaces ‘‘public participation’’ with
‘‘public involvement,’’ consistent with
FLPMA and other changes throughout
this rule.
Final §§ 1610.6–8(a) and (b) are
revised from the proposed rule to clarify
that for the BLM to rely on or adopt
another agency’s plan, that plan must be
consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands,
and the purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations. For example, the other
agency’s plan must comply with NEPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
These changes are consistent with
current practice and policy. For
consistency with other revisions made
to the proposed rule (for example, see
§ 1610.3–3(a)), the final rule clarifies
that the ‘‘purposes, policies and
programs’’ to which paragraphs (a) and
(b) refer are those that implement
Federal laws and regulations.
Final § 1610.6–8 (b) removes the
existing phrase ‘‘to comply with law
and policy applicable to public lands’’
because that language is no longer
necessary with the added text.
Public comments suggested that the
BLM should have the discretion to rely
on other agencies’ resource assessments.
In response to public comment, the final
rule includes a new paragraph (c) in this
section which provides that another
agency’s resource assessment may be
relied on if it is comprehensive,
meaning that it is consistent with the
nature, scope, and scale of the issues of
concern relevant to the planning area,
and has considered the resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions in a way
comparable to the manner in which
these conditions would have been
considered in a planning assessment,
including the opportunity for public
involvement. If the agency’s resource
assessment process did not provide
public involvement, the BLM could
choose to provide such opportunities in
order to rely on the other agencies
resource assessment. For example, the
BLM could rely on an assessment
developed by the United States Forest
Service during the development of a
land and resource management plan,
which provides opportunities for public
involvement.
Paragraph 1610.8–6(c) of the proposed
rule is redesignated as paragraph (d) in
the final rule. The final rule removes the
final sentence of § 1610.5–7 in the
existing regulations, which provides
that ‘‘[t]he decision to approve the land
use analysis and to lease coal is made
by the Departmental official who has
been delegated the authority to issue
coal leases.’’ This language is
unnecessary in the planning regulations.
The final rule is revised to replace
‘‘public participation’’ with ‘‘public
involvement’’ for consistency with
changes made throughout this part.
Finally, the reference to § 1610.5–2 is
updated to reflect other changes to this
rule. No change in meaning is intended
by updating this reference.
Section 1610.7 Management Decision
Review by Congress
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.7 with only minor revisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
This section is based on existing
§ 1610.6 with minor revisions. The final
rule replaces the ‘‘Federal Land Policy
and Management Act’’ with ‘‘FLPMA,’’
and the ‘‘Bureau of Land Management’’
with the ‘‘BLM.’’ In the second sentence
of this section, the final rule replaces
‘‘[t]his report shall not be required’’ to
‘‘[t]his report is not required’’ for
improved readability and ease of
understanding. The final rule clarifies
that this report is not required prior to
approval of a RMP which, if fully or
partially implemented, will result in
elimination ‘‘of use(s).’’ No change in
meaning is intended with these changes.
Section 1610.8 Designation of Areas
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.8 with only minor revisions.
Section 1610.8–1 Designation of Areas
Unsuitable for Surface Mining
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.8–1 without revision. This
section is based on existing § 1610.7–1.
The final rule replaces references to the
‘‘Field Manager’’ and the ‘‘Bureau of
Land Management’’ with the ‘‘BLM’’ in
this section. The Field Manager
commitments described in this section
are those of the BLM, not any one
individual.
Section 1610.8–2 Designation and
Protection of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.8–2 with revisions. This section
is based on existing § 1610.7–2. In
response to public comment, the
heading for this section is revised to
include designation ‘‘and protection’’ of
ACECs. This new language is consistent
with the statutory requirement to ‘‘give
priority to the designation and
protection of areas of critical
environmental concern’’ (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(3)) and provides improved
clarity and understanding that the BLM
gives priority to the designation and
protection of ACECs as required by
FLPMA through the procedures
outlined in this section.
The final rule adopts proposed
paragraphs (a), (a)(1), and (a)(2).
Paragraph (a) of this section contains the
undesignated introductory language in
existing § 1610.7–2. The final rule
replaces ‘‘areas of critical environmental
concern’’ with the abbreviation ‘‘ACEC’’
for improved readability. The existing
language stating that potential ACECs
are identified and considered
throughout the resource management
planning process is removed. Instead
the final rule states that ‘‘Areas having
potential for ACEC designation and
protection management will be
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
identified through inventory of public
lands and during the planning
assessment, and considered during the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan.’’ This change reflects
the fact that FLPMA directs the BLM to
identify potential ACECs through the
inventory of public lands (see section
201(a) of FLPMA) and to prioritize their
consideration for designation through
land use planning (see section 202(c)(3)
of FLPMA). When the BLM prepares a
resource management plan or an EISlevel amendment, potential ACECs will
be identified during the planning
assessment stage (see § 1610.4(b)(1)).
Potential ACECs may also be identified
when the BLM conducts inventories at
times not associated with the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan. The identification of
potential ACECs will be given priority
consistent with FLPMA and initially
identified during the planning
assessment, a new step in the planning
process.
Final §§ 1610.8–2(a)(1) and (a)(2)
include language from existing 1610.7–
2(a) that describes the criteria for
identifying a potential ACEC.
The final rule maintains the existing
descriptions of the ‘‘relevance’’ and
‘‘importance’’ criteria in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, except
that ‘‘shall’’ is replaced with ‘‘must’’ for
improved readability and the phrase
‘‘more than local significance’’ is
removed from the description of
importance. This phrase is vague and
unnecessary in the regulations. There
are many existing examples where an
area of local significance has been
determined to meet the ‘‘importance’’
criteria. This change is consistent with
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(a)) and
improves the understanding that the
importance criteria is based on the
degree of significance (i.e., substantial
significance and values); a local value,
resource, system, process, or natural
hazard could have ‘‘substantial’’
significance.
Paragraph (b) of this section addresses
the designation of ACECs and provides
that the process for considering whether
potential ACECs should be designated
as ACECs is during the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan. This replaces language in existing
§ 1610.7–2 stating that ACECs are
‘‘considered throughout the resource
management planning process.’’ In
response to public comment, the final
rule is revised to include the phrase
‘‘consistent with the priority established
by FLPMA.’’ This new language
references the statutory requirement to
‘‘give priority to the designation and
protection of areas of critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
environmental concern’’ (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(3)). The language references this
statutory requirement for improved
clarity and understanding that the BLM
gives priority to the designation and
protection of ACECs as required by
FLPMA through the procedures
outlined in this section.
Paragraph (b) of this section also
contains the provision that ‘‘[t]he
identification of a potential ACEC shall
not, of itself, change or prevent change
of the management or use of public
lands,’’ which is moved from the
definition of ‘‘Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern or ACEC’’ in
existing § 1601.0–5(a) to this section.
This provision belongs with the ACEC
provisions, and this placement avoids
including substantive regulatory
provisions in the definitions. Changes
between the proposed and final rule
replace the phrase ‘‘in of itself’’ with ‘‘of
itself’’ for grammatical clarity and to
reflect the phrasing used in FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1711(a)).
The final rule includes new language
at the end of paragraph (b) providing
that ‘‘ACECs require special
management attention (when such areas
are developed or used or no
development is required) to protect and
prevent irreparable damage to the
important historic, cultural, or scenic
values, fish and wildlife resources or
other natural system or process, or to
protect life and safety from natural
hazards.’’ That language is consistent
with FLPMA (see section 103(a)) and
will provide useful information in
regard to designating ACECs. The BLM
intends no change in practice or policy
from adding this language; rather, the
planning regulations reflect existing
statutory direction.
The proposed rule would have
referred to ‘‘potential’’ ACECs at the end
of paragraph (b), however public
comments noted that FLPMA defines
ACECs ‘‘as areas within the public lands
where special management is required
. . .’’ but contains no language
regarding ‘‘potential’’ ACECs or their
management. In response to public
comments, the final rule is revised to
remove the word ‘‘potential’’ from this
sentence because FLPMA does not
require ‘‘special management attention’’
for potential ACECs; rather, a potential
ACEC which requires special
management attention may be formally
designated as an ACEC.
The final rule splits existing § 1610.7–
2(b) into two paragraphs (final
§§ 1610.8–2(b)(1) and (2)) to distinguish
more clearly between the BLM’s notice
of potential ACECs and the formal
designation of ACECs in the approved
plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89641
Paragraph 1610.8–2(b)(1) maintains
the existing requirement, with clarifying
edits, that upon release of a draft
resource management plan or plan
amendment involving a potential ACEC,
the BLM will notify the public. The
proposed rule would have eliminated
the requirement from the existing
regulations (see existing § 1610.7–2(b))
that the BLM publish notice and
provide a 60-day public comment
period on potential ACEC designations.
Several public comments expressed that
notification and public comment on
potential ACECs is essential and these
existing provisions should be retained
in the final rule. In response to
comments, the final rule retains the
existing requirement that the BLM
publish notice in the Federal Register
and replaces the existing requirement
for a 60-day public comment period
with a requirement to ‘‘request written
comments.’’
The final rule further specifies that
notice and comment on potential ACECs
may be integrated with notice and
comment on the draft RMP or plan
amendment. The planning process
provides an opportunity to consider
impacts to potential ACECs through the
development of a range of alternatives
and to assess effectively whether special
management attention is needed. The
planning process also provides
substantial opportunity for public
involvement. We believe that
consistency between ACEC
requirements and the other steps of the
planning process will be less confusing
and will more effectively integrate
ACEC consideration into the planning
process.
The final rule does not specify any
particular length for the public
comment period in this section, because
it is not necessary. The BLM is required
to provide a minimum of 30 days when
requesting public comments (see
§ 1610.2–2(a)). The BLM intends that
this comment period will generally be
integrated with the public comment
period on the draft resources
management plan or plan amendment.
The length of these public comment
periods are provided appropriate to the
level of BLM action under final
§ 1610.2–2.
The BLM will notify the public of
each potential ACEC by posting a notice
on the BLM Web site and at the BLM
office where the plan is being prepared
(see § 1610.2–1(c)), and through written
or email correspondence to those
individuals or groups who have
requested to receive updates throughout
the planning process (see § 1610.2–1(d)).
For the preparation of a RMP, the BLM
will provide a 100-day comment period;
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89642
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
for EIS-level amendments, the BLM will
provide a 60-day comment period; and
for EA-level amendments when an
ACEC is involved, the BLM will provide
a 30-day comment period (see § 1610.2–
2).
Paragraph 1610.8–2(b)(1) also
maintains the existing requirement that
any draft RMP or plan amendment
involving potential ACECs include a list
of each potential ACEC and any special
management attention which will
follow a formal designation. For clarity
and readability, the final rule replaces
‘‘Upon release of a’’ with ‘‘Any.’’ This
does not change existing practice or
policy. The final rule also replaces the
term ‘‘proposed ACEC’’ in the existing
rule with ‘‘potential ACEC’’ in order to
avoid confusion with the proposed
resource management plan. The BLM
provides notice of potential ACECs
upon release of a draft resource
management plan or plan amendment,
rather than upon release of a proposed
resource management plan or plan
amendment. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from this
word change. The final rule also
replaces ‘‘resource use limitations’’ with
‘‘special management attention.’’ That
language is based on the definition of an
ACEC provided in FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1702 (a)) and reflects the fact that
special management attention is not
restricted to resource use limitations.
For example, special management
attention might include objectives
related to plant species composition to
maintain habitat for a wildlife resource.
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section
maintains the existing provision with
edits clarifying that the approval of a
resource management plan or plan
amendment that contains an ACEC
constitutes formal designation of an
ACEC. The final rule removes the
phrase ‘‘plan revision’’ as this is
included in the definition of a resource
management plan (see § 1601.0–5). This
paragraph also replaces the existing
requirement for the approved plan to
include ‘‘general management practices
and uses, including mitigation
measures’’ with a new requirement to
include ‘‘any special management
attention’’ identified to protect the
designated ACEC. We believe that the
new requirement for plan objectives to
be measurable (see § 1610.1–2(a)(2))
provides a more effective method to
apply special management attention
because it allows the BLM to track
progress toward the achievement of the
objective while incorporating new
science and information when
implementing specific management
measures. This change also reflects the
definition of an ACEC provided in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
FLPMA (section 103(a)). Under the final
rule, the BLM will provide ‘‘special
management attention,’’ as required by
FLPMA, through the development of
plan components. For example, special
management attention could include
goals, measurable objectives, mitigation
standards (as part of a measurable
objective), or resource use
determinations, among others. In
response to public comment, the final
rule includes the example ‘‘such as
resource use determinations’’ (see final
§ 1610.1–2(b)(2)) for improved clarity.
Section 1610.9
Transition Period
The final rule adopts proposed
§ 1610.9 with revisions. This section
contains the provisions of existing
§ 1610.8, amended as follows. The
existing regulations address the
transition from management framework
plans, the land use plans the BLM
prepared beginning in 1969 under
authorities predating FLPMA, to
resource management plans, which the
BLM has prepared and approved under
FLPMA and the planning regulations
first adopted in 1979. The final rule
revises existing § 1610.8(a) and (b) to
refer to ‘‘public involvement’’ instead of
‘‘public participation’’ and to the
‘‘responsible official’’ instead of the
‘‘Field Manager,’’ consistent with
changes made throughout this rule.
In the proposed rule, we would have
revised paragraph (a)(1) by specifying
that management framework plans may
be the basis for considering a proposed
action if the management framework
plan is in compliance with the principle
of multiple use and sustained yield ‘‘or
other applicable law.’’ In the final rule,
we employ the phrase ‘‘unless otherwise
specified by law’’ for consistency with
changes made to other sections (for
example, see § 1610.0–1). We believe
this language better fulfills the purpose
of recognizing that in some situations
the BLM must be in compliance with
other legal authorities. For instance,
BLM management of national
monuments established under the
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431–
433) must comply with the terms in the
Proclamation establishing the specific
national monument.
The final rule removes existing
§ 1610.8(a)(2), because it is no longer
necessary. The BLM will rely instead on
§ 1610.9(a)(2) when considering
proposed actions under a management
framework plan.
Final § 1610.9(b)(1) and (b)(2) are
adopted from existing § 1610.8(b)(1) and
(b)(2) with only minor revisions for
improved readability or to fix
grammatical or reference mistakes.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
New paragraphs 1610.9(c) and (d)
address the transition from resource
management plans approved under the
existing regulations, which first became
effective on September 6, 1979 (44 FR
46386) and which were updated with
revisions that became effective on July
5, 1983 (48 FR 20364) and April 22,
2005 (55 FR 14561), to resource
management plans that will be
prepared, revised, or amended under
the final rule.
In considering the transition
provisions, it is important to remember
that this final rule changes the
procedures the BLM uses to prepare,
revise, or amend RMPs and provides
more detailed guidance in areas where
the current regulations are vague,
unclear, or silent. This final rule does
not change the nature of a RMP itself
(i.e., a document developed to guide
future management activities on the
public lands). Additionally, although
the final rule includes new terms for the
contents of a plan (e.g., plan
components), the contents of a plan
promulgated under this final rule will
not differ substantially from the
contents of existing plans. For instance,
plan objectives developed under this
final rule will likely be more specific
and measurable than many plan
objectives developed under the existing
regulations. Nonetheless, plan
objectives developed under the new rule
and the previous regulations will guide
the BLM’s management of the public
lands across varied programs.
Accordingly, § 1610.9(c)(1) discusses
how the BLM will evaluate whether a
proposed action, such as an oil and gas
lease sale, is in conformance with a
resource management plan once these
regulations become effective. The BLM
will use an existing resource
management plan (i.e., one approved by
the BLM before these regulations
become effective) until it is superseded
by a resource management plan or
amended by a plan amendment
prepared under these regulations when
they are final. In such circumstances
where the plan has not been developed
or amended under these regulations, the
proposed action must either be
specifically provided for in the plan or
clearly consistent with the terms,
conditions, and decisions of the
approved plan. RMPs prepared under
the existing regulations do not identify
plan components, thus an evaluation for
whether a proposed action is in
conformance with the plan must use the
terminology that was in place when the
plan was approved.
Paragraph 1610.9(c)(2) addresses how
to evaluate whether an action is in
conformance with a resource
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
management plan issued under existing
regulations after the resource
management plan has been amended
under this final rule. In such
circumstances, the amended portions of
the plan will use new terminology and
identify plan components, whereas the
remainder of the plan not amended will
not use new terminology. A proposed
action must therefore be consistent with
the plan components (proposed new
terminology) of the provisions of the
resource management plan amended
under the final rule and the terms,
conditions, and decisions of the
provisions of the resource management
plan not amended under the final rule
(existing terminology). In response to
public comment, the final rule is revised
to specify that the proposed action must
be ‘‘clearly’’ consistent with the plan
components. This revision brings this
provision into line with the definition of
‘‘conformity or conformance’’ in
§ 1601.0–5.
The BLM received comments stating
that proposed § 1610.9(c)(2) was
confusing. In response to these
comments, the final rule is revised to
clarify that future proposed action must
be clearly consistent with the provisions
of the resource management plan
amended under the final rule, which
will have plan components, as well as
the provisions of the resource
management plan not amended under
the final rule, which will still have
terms, conditions, and decisions,
consistent with the existing regulations.
Paragraph 1610.9(d) addresses
resource management plans that are
currently being prepared, revised, or
amended when this final rule is
published. If the preparation, revision,
or amendment of a resource
management plan was or is formally
initiated by publication of a NOI in the
Federal Register before these
regulations become effective (on January
11, 2017), the BLM may complete the
RMP or plan amendment under the
planning regulations promulgated in
1979 (44 FR 46386) and amended in
1983 (48 FR 20364) and 2005 (55 FR
14561). This approach allows BLM
offices that have initiated planning to
continue with their efforts without the
need to re-start or re-do steps in the
planning process. This will avoid
duplicative efforts, and it respects the
time that the BLM, other agencies,
stakeholders, and members of the public
have invested in planning that will be
in-progress when these regulations
become effective. It also provides the
BLM flexibility to incorporate
provisions of the final rule into a
planning process that is underway when
the new regulations are final.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
III. Response to Public Comments
The BLM received 3,354 comments on
the proposed rule, which are available
for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking
portal (https://www.regulations.gov). The
BLM has reviewed all public comments,
and has made changes, as appropriate,
to the final rule based on those
comments. Those changes are noted in
the section-by-section discussion.
The following is a summary of
significant issues raised in comments
the BLM received on the proposed rule
and responses to these comments. The
comments highlighted in the following
paragraphs fell into several categories:
Comments related to sections of the
proposed rule; comments related to the
goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative; and
comments on the rulemaking process.
A comprehensive account of public
comments and detailed responses to
these comments is available to the
public on the BLM Web site
(www.blm.gov/plan2) and is included as
a supporting document in the docket for
this rulemaking on regulations.gov.
Objective of Resource Management
Planning
Several comments raised concern that
the proposed removal of the existing
phrase ‘‘maximize resource values for
the public’’ in § 1601.0–2 represents a
change in the BLM’s management of the
public lands and is an effort to bias the
planning process against resource
extraction. Some comments similarly
raised concern that proposed new
language in § 1601.0–2 represents a shift
in public policy by departing from
FLPMA and redefining the concept of
multiple use, or is weaker than the
statutory language that mandates
multiple-use.
The final rule does not retain existing
language to ‘‘maximize resource values’’
and adopts proposed new language
regarding the manner by which the
public lands are to be managed (see
§ 1601.0–2). These changes do not
reflect a departure from FLPMA and
multiple-use management, nor do they
represent a shift in public policy or an
effort to bias the planning process.
The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove the phrase ‘‘maximize resource
values’’ to remove vague language and
for consistency with FLPMA. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89643
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’’ (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). The
existing rule does not define the
meaning of the phrase ‘‘maximize
resource values’’ or describe how it is to
be achieved in accordance with
multiple use and sustained yield, as
defined in FLPMA. FLPMA’s language
provides the best expression of how the
BLM should consider resource values in
the planning process in order to manage
on the basis of multiple use and
sustained yield, unless otherwise
specified by law. In response to public
comment, the final rule is revised to
include language directly from FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)) to ‘‘manage on the
basis of multiple use and sustained
yield’’ to provide clarity on the BLM’s
mandate.
The final rule also adopts the
proposed new language describing the
manner by which the public lands are
to be managed (see § 1601.0–2). This
language is from FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1701(a)(8) and (a)(12)). Resource
management plans describe how the
public lands will be managed within a
geographic area; therefore it is
appropriate that an objective of resource
management planning is to develop
management direction that is consistent
with statutory direction describing the
manner by which public lands are to be
managed. Several comments noted that
the language added to this section in the
proposed rule (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(12))
omitted the reference to the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act. Other comments
requested this section identify
additional resources or resource uses
and raised concern that the proposed
language would prioritize some resource
values over others. The final rule does
not include a reference to the Mining
and Minerals Policy Act or identify
additional resources or resource uses, as
suggested by the comments. The
objective section provides the objective
for resource management planning on
BLM-managed lands. The final rule
includes language from FLPMA in
§ 1601.0–2 to provide context. In
revising § 1601.0–2, we endeavored to
find a balance between including those
statutory provisions that provide useful
context, while also maintaining concise
regulations that are easy to read and
understand. It is not necessary to list the
Mining and Minerals Policy Act or other
applicable laws in the planning
regulations as the BLM must comply
with these laws even if they are not
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89644
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
referenced in these regulations. Neither
is it necessary to list all resources under
BLM management in the objective
section. The list of resources provided at
§ 1601.0–2 is not intended to be
exclusive and does not preclude
consideration of other resources, nor
does it prioritize any single resource
over other resources, including those
not identified in § 1601.0–2. To the
contrary, FLPMA and final § 1601.0–2
require that management be on the basis
of multiple use and sustained yield; the
concept of multiple use encompasses all
resource values and uses applicable to
the public lands. In response to public
comments, the final rule is revised to
include language that public lands are
to be managed in a manner that
recognizes that Nation’s need for
‘‘renewable and non-renewable
resources’’ to reflect the fact that all
relevant resources are considered during
resource management planning.
Responsibilities and Determination of
Planning Areas
The existing planning regulations
establish the BLM field office as the
default boundary for resource
management plans and delegate the
responsibility for preparing resource
management plans to BLM Field
Managers and approval of plans to BLM
State Directors. Under the BLM’s
interpretation and implementation of
the existing regulations, these
responsibilities can be carried out by an
official at a higher level in the BLM and
the BLM may select a different
boundary.
The proposed planning rule would
have removed the default planning area
boundary and replaced references to
State Directors with ‘‘deciding official’’
and Field Manager with ‘‘responsible
official.’’ Many public comments
supported these changes, but some
opposed the changes for various
reasons, including the concern that the
public would not know who the default
deciding official is if it is not addressed
in the regulations. In response to these
comments, the final rule adopts the
proposed changes to ‘‘responsible
official’’ and ‘‘deciding official,’’ but
provides that when resource
management plans do not cross state
lines, the default deciding official is the
BLM State Director. If the resource
management plan or plan amendment
crosses State boundaries, the BLM
Director will determine the deciding
official (§ 1601.0–4(a)). For reasons
explained in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1601.0–4, this is not a
change from existing BLM practice or
policy, and in fact clarifies the BLM’s
existing process, and provides the BLM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
flexibility to determine the appropriate
deciding officials for planning across
State boundaries or for resource
management plans or plan amendments
of national significance, while
maintaining the State Director’s role in
the process.
The proposed planning rule also
would have removed the default
planning area boundary and provided
that the BLM Director would determine
the planning area for all resource
management plans. The BLM received
public comments in opposition to and
in support of this change. Comments
expressed concerns that the BLM
Director was too far removed from local
concerns and management issues, and
that ‘‘landscape-scale’’ planning areas
would not respond to local concerns.
Other comments supported this change,
stating that the BLM should further
emphasize that planning area
boundaries should be more responsive
to ecological and social conditions,
rather than traditional field office and
district boundaries.
In response to comments, the final
rule is revised to provide that where a
resource management plan or plan
amendment is wholly within a single
State’s boundaries, the deciding official,
by default the BLM State Director,
determines the planning area. Where the
resource management plan or plan
amendment does cross State boundaries,
the BLM believes that it is appropriate
for the BLM Director to determine the
planning area boundary and this
requirement is adopted in the final rule.
In some situations the BLM’s State,
district, or field office boundaries may
be the most appropriate planning area
boundary. The BLM intends that this
determination will be made in
consultation with the relevant BLM
State Directors, District Managers, and
Field Managers.
The final rule does not prescribe
‘‘landscape-scale’’ planning area as
suggested by public comments. The
final rule does not prescribe any specific
planning area boundary or geographic
scale for such a boundary. Rather, the
final rule provides flexibility to
determine the appropriate planning area
boundary based on relevant landscapes
and management concerns. This
flexibility does not represent a
substantive change from the existing
regulations, as the BLM currently may
determine any planning area boundary.
Under the current planning rule,
planning areas have been both smaller
and larger than field offices, including
for example, the Greater Sage-Grouse
Resource Management Plan
Amendments (2015), West Eugene
Wetlands Resource Management Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2015), and Resource Management Plans
for Western Oregon (2016). Although
not a substantive change in the
regulations, the BLM believes that the
final rule provides increased
transparency to the public that the BLM
intends to develop future planning area
boundaries based on the relevant
management concerns rather than
historical administrative boundaries.
Several public comments suggested
that the proposed language on the
determination of a planning area did not
provide adequate opportunity for public
involvement or coordination with
governmental entities. In response to
these comments, the final rule is revised
to include considerations for
determining a preliminary planning area
and an opportunity for public review of
the preliminary planning area. A new
provision in final § 1610.4(a) requires
the identification of a preliminary
planning area during the planning
assessment. The preliminary planning
area will be made available for public
review prior to the publication of the
NOI in the Federal Register. The final
rule also retains the existing
requirement that the BLM seek the input
of Governor(s) on the definition of
planning areas (see final § 1610.3–
2(c)(1)).
Public comments also suggested that
the proposed language on the
determination of a planning area did not
adequately describe how the BLM
would make planning area
determinations. In response to public
comments, the final rule is revised to
describe considerations for determining
the preliminary planning area. Under
the final rule, the BLM will consider
scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,
environmental, air and atmospheric,
water resource, and archeological values
and management concerns identified
through monitoring and evaluation,
relevant landscapes based on these
management concerns, the officially
approved and adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, and
other relevant information, as
appropriate. These provisions support
the goal of applying landscape-scale
management approaches by ensuring
that the BLM considers relevant
landscapes when developing a
preliminary planning area. For more
information on the preliminary
planning area, please see the discussion
for § 1610.4(a) in this preamble.
High Quality Information
The final rule adopts proposed
requirements for the BLM to ‘‘use high
quality information to inform the
preparation, amendment, and
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
maintenance of resource management
plans’’ (§ 1610.1–1(c)) and requires the
responsible official to ‘‘evaluate the data
and information gathered . . . to ensure
the use of high quality information in
the planning assessment’’ (§ 1610.4(c)).
The rule also defines the term ‘‘high
quality information’’ (§ 1601.0–5).
While several comments supported
the proposed definition of high quality
information, many comments asserted
that the proposed definition is vague or
suggested specific edits to the
definition. Some comments objected to
specific elements of the definition, such
as the phrase ‘‘useful to its intended
users.’’ Other comments suggested that
this new standard may allow biased,
subjective, unsubstantiated, or
questionable scientific data or
information to inform planning. The
final rule is not revised in response to
these comments. The final rule adopts
the definition of ‘‘high quality
information’’ without revisions in
§ 1601.0–5 of the final rule. The
definition for high quality information
is not vague and is consistent with the
Information Quality Act (or Data Quality
Act) and the related ‘‘OMB Guidelines
for Ensuring and Maximizing the
Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by
Federal Agencies; Republication,’’
(OMB Guidelines) (67 FR 8452). The
definition specifies high quality
information is ‘‘accurate, reliable, and
unbiased’’ and includes the ‘‘best
available scientific information’’ and
therefore does not allow biased,
subjective, unsubstantiated, or
questionable scientific data or
information to inform planning. The
final rule includes ‘‘useful to its
intended users’’ in the definition of high
quality information for consistency with
the OMB Guidelines. In the guidelines,
OMB defines ‘‘quality’’ as the
‘‘encompassing term, of which ‘utility,’
‘objectivity,’ and ‘integrity’ are the
constituents.’’ The guidelines further
define ‘‘utility’’ as referring to the
‘‘usefulness of the information to its
intended users, including the public.’’
This standard allows the BLM to focus
on relevant information during resource
management planning.
Several comments expressed concern
that the high quality information
standard is a relaxing of current data
evaluation standards. The final rule is
not revised in response to these
comments. Although this standard is
new to the planning rule, the
requirement to use ‘‘high quality
information’’ is consistent with the
BLM’s current standards for NEPA
analyses as set forth by Federal law and
regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
The BLM will continue to comply
with data standards set forth by Federal
law and regulations and other relevant
policy, such as the CEQ’s NEPA
regulations regarding ‘‘high quality’’
information and ‘‘[a]ccurate scientific
analysis’’ (40 CFR 1500.1(b)). Where
more specific Federal standards apply to
certain types of information, the BLM
will conform with those Federal
standards as well. For more information
on the use of high quality information
and consistency with other Federal
information standards, see the
discussion for § 1610.1–1(c) in this
preamble.
Several comments asserted that there
is no reason for the BLM to create a new
standard for data quality because the
BLM already must adhere to existing
data standards and the addition of
another standard is confusing. The final
rule is not revised in response to these
comments. The BLM believes that a
requirement to use ‘‘high quality
information’’ in the planning
regulations, as well as a definition for
this term, provides clarity on the
relationship of existing standards for
information quality to resource
management planning. Further, this
standard affirms the BLM’s commitment
to science-based decision-making.
Several comments expressed concern
about the BLM making the
determination as to whether or not data
or information meets the high quality
standard, and suggested that third-party
experts, governmental entities, or the
public should be involved in this
determination. Some comments
suggested that the public should have
an opportunity to appeal the evaluation
of the data they submit. The final rule
is not revised in response to these
comments. It is appropriate for the BLM
to make the final determination
regarding information quality because
the BLM is responsible for preparing
resource management plans and for the
management of the public lands, and
the supporting environmental review
under NEPA. The BLM recognizes the
importance of being transparent and
providing the public an opportunity for
input on the information used during
the planning process. The final rule
provides such transparency and
opportunity for input. The final rule
does not provide opportunities for the
public to appeal the evaluation of the
data they submit. The public may,
however, provide comments regarding
information quality on the draft
resource management plan and draft
EIS, and may also submit a protest on
the proposed resource management plan
should they believe a plan component is
in violation of Federal laws or
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89645
regulations, or the purposes, policies,
and programs implementing such laws
and regulations, due to information
quality. The final rule also does not
establish a requirement for a third party
review of information quality. Such an
approach would not be practical given
the magnitude of information used
during the preparation of a resource
management plan. The BLM will
evaluate the data and information it
receives to ensure the use of high
quality information. Statutory and
regulatory requirements, policies, and
strategies relating to information will
guide responsible officials as they
evaluate whether information is high
quality information. This process may
vary depending on the discipline, and
therefore it is more appropriate to
address through guidance.
Many comments concerned the
statement in the preamble to the
proposed rule that ‘‘Traditional
Ecological Knowledge’’ (TEK) may be a
type of ‘‘high quality information.’’ A
few comments suggested that the intent
and definition of the term TEK is not
clear. Several comments opposed the
use of TEK, some comments supported
the use of TEK, and others asked for
specific clarifications to the definition
of TEK. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The
proposed and final regulations do not
include the term TEK. The preamble
discussion of TEK was provided as an
example to help illustrate the concept of
high quality information; this
discussion does not represent a
regulatory provision regarding TEK.
Under the final rule, TEK may be
considered a type of high quality
information so long as it 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.
Through the disciplines of
anthropology, as well as other social
science disciplines, accepted scientific
methodologies have been established for
documenting ethnographic information
and other types of social information.
Such methodologies, and the
information collected through these
methodologies, are widely accepted by
the scientific community and
appropriate for consideration during
resource management planning. The
BLM will apply the same standards to
TEK as it applies to other types of
information.
Several comments expressed concern
over the use of citizen science during
resource management planning. Some
comments asserted that citizen science
falls short of a ‘‘best available science’’
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89646
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
threshold. The final rule is not revised
in response to these comments. The
final rule defines high quality
information 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’’ (see
§ 1610.0–5). This standard applies to all
information used in resource
management planning, including citizen
science. It does not preclude the use of
citizen science, so long as the
information meets this standard. On
September 30, 2015, the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy
issued a memorandum titled
‘‘Addressing Societal and Scientific
Challenges through Citizen Science and
Crowdsourcing.’’ This memo outlined
principles for effective use of citizen
science by Federal agencies. In addition
to standards for high quality
information, the BLM will apply the
principles described in this
memorandum, including the concept of
‘‘fitness for use’’ when using citizen
science to inform the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan.
Plan Components
Several comments stated that the
proposed rule fails to identify why the
existing planning framework is
inadequate and why a change is
warranted. Comments specifically
identified that the removal of existing
land use plan elements in the existing
regulations and their replacement with
plan components and implementation
strategies has the potential to
dramatically increase agency discretion
while disenfranchising the public, State
and local governments, and
stakeholders from involvement in
important aspects of planning (i.e., the
development of implementation
strategies). Other comments supported
the proposed framework for plan
components and implementation
strategies. In response to public
comments, the final rule adopts the
concept of plan components (§ 1610.1–
2), but does not adopt the concept of
implementation strategies (proposed
§ 1610.1–3). This preamble provides a
rationale for the need to revise the
planning rule in the ‘‘Background’’
discussion. The preamble discussion of
§ 1610.1–2 also provides a detailed
rationale for the removal of existing
planning elements and the addition of
each plan component. The final rule
does not disenfranchise the public and
stakeholders from involvement, nor
does it dramatically increase or decrease
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
the BLM’s discretion, as suggested by
public comments. Rather, the final rule
provides for extensive public
involvement in the development of plan
components, as these represent
planning level management direction;
the BLM will also provide for public
involvement related to future
implementation decisions, consistent
with NEPA requirements.
A few comments asserted that the
definition of ‘‘goal’’ provided at
§ 1610.1–2(a)(1), which includes
‘‘resource, environmental, ecological,
social, or economic characteristics,’’
exceeds the BLM’s management
authority under FLPMA because the
BLM’s authority is limited to goals
related to renewable resources on BLM
lands. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The
definition of ‘‘goal’’ is consistent with
FLPMA. 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 (43
U.S.C. 1702(c)), means, in part, the
management of the public lands so they
are utilized in the combination that best
meet the needs of the American people;
multiple use takes into account the long
term needs of future generations for
renewable and non-renewable
resources. The ‘‘needs of the American
people,’’ including future generations,
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.
A comment requested the BLM add
‘‘cultural’’ to the list ‘‘resource,
environmental, ecological, social, or
economic characteristics’’ at §§ 1610.1–
2(a)(1) and 1610.1–2(a)(2)(ii). The final
rule is not revised in response to this
comment. This change is not necessary
because cultural characteristics are
encompassed by the term ‘‘resource
characteristics,’’ and thus must be
considered.
A few comments raised concerns
regarding how the BLM plans to meet
objectives as defined in the proposed
rule at § 1610.1–2(a)(2). Comments also
asserted that including a requirement
for objectives to have ‘‘established timeframes’’ (§ 1610.1–2(a)(2)) would expose
the BLM to litigation challenging its
failure to meet these self-imposed
timelines. The final rule is not revised
in response to these comments.
Objectives are intended to guide
progress towards the achievement of
one or more goals. The inclusion of
time-frames in a resource management
plan is discretionary. In some situations
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the inclusion of time-frames may be
appropriate. In other situations, timeframes may not be relevant or
appropriate. The forthcoming revision
of the Land Use Planning Handbook
will include additional guidance on
setting objectives. The BLM cannot
guarantee achievement of the objectives,
particularly with regard to factors that
are outside of the agency’s control, such
as future available budgets and
environmental factors such as drought
or wildfires, but the BLM must make
resource management decisions that are
consistent with the achievement of the
objectives (see the definition for
‘‘conformance’’ at § 1601.0–5). The
resource management plan objectives
describe the desired resource conditions
that the agency will aim to achieve
through future implementation
decisions.
Several comments stated support for
the identification of attributes and
indicators as an important way to relate
current conditions with habitat
standards and adaptive management.
Comments recommend revising the final
rule to require and define these
attributes and indicators. 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
towards 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
should be the same as the indicators
described in the monitoring and
evaluation standards. This approach
will ensure that the BLM is able to
determine if the plan objective is being
met through monitoring and evaluation.
The final rule does not include specific
language regarding ‘‘attributes.’’ The
BLM believes that this concept is more
appropriately described through
guidance, such as the forthcoming
revision of the Land Use Planning
Handbook.
The final rule adopts proposed
language that objectives should identify
standards to mitigate undesirable
impacts to resource conditions
(§ 1610.1–2(a)(2)(i)). Several comments
raised concerns regarding these
mitigation standards and questioned the
BLM’s authority to require mitigation.
Some comments supported the
proposed mitigation standards and
suggested they should always be
required and not ‘‘to the extent
practical.’’ Other comments
recommended the BLM incorporate
language in the final rule to state that
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
resource management plans would be
required to contain applicable
mitigation strategies or identify
mitigation sites.
The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The
planning rule establishes the procedural
framework for preparing and amending
resource management plans, but does
not develop comprehensive policy
related to mitigation, nor does it
explicitly require mitigation. Rather, it
provides a method to establish
standards for resource conditions that
will help guide future mitigation
consistent with the plan objectives.
Mitigation standards will be developed
as appropriate. Mitigation standards do
not prescribe specific mitigation
practices. Although the final rule does
not explicitly require mitigation, it is
important to note that the BLM has the
authority under FLPMA to require
mitigation for land use authorizations or
permits. Specific mitigation measures
are applied when a land use
authorization is granted, based on the
environmental review of that
authorization and the statutes and
regulations under which that
authorization is granted.
Several comments stated support for
the inclusion of planning designations
as plan components. Some comments
requested the final rule identify specific
types of planning designations. Some
comments raised concerns about the
lack of a requirement to explicitly
connect priorities identified through
designations with resource use
determinations or other steps to ensure
that values prioritized through
designations are in fact protected. Some
comments opposed the inclusion of
planning designations. One comment
stated that planning designations
demonstrate that the proposed planning
rule attempts a fundamental policy shift
away from traditional public land uses
identified in FLPMA.
The final rule adopts ‘‘designations’’
as a plan component (§ 1610.1–2(b)(1)).
The final rule identifies ACECs as an
example of a planning designation;
however, this is not intended to be an
exhaustive list, rather it provides an
example to illustrate the concept. The
final rule is not revised to list other
examples of planning designations as it
is not necessary or practical to list all
planning designations. In response to
public comments, the final rule adds
language to § 1610.1–2(b)(1)(i) stating
that ‘‘resource use determinations shall
be consistent with or support the
management priorities identified
through designations.’’ This language is
intended to connect priorities identified
through designations with resource use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
determinations. The concept of
planning designations is consistent with
FLPMA, as they are a tool to identify
management for areas with specific
resources or values, and does not
represent a policy shift away from
traditional public land uses identified in
FLPMA. In response to public
comments, § 1610.1–2(b)(1) is revised to
clarify that designations may identify
priority ‘‘resource uses’’ in addition to
resource values.
Several comments raised concerns
that plan components, such as resource
use determinations, would remove
lands from operation of the Mining Law
of 1872, noting that such an action can
only be accomplished through
withdrawals taken under section 204 of
the FLPMA. Several comments
expressed concern that the proposed
rule would allow for the development of
plan components that would conflict
with or restrain the exercise of valid
existing rights.
The BLM must comply with all
applicable Federal laws in developing
plan components. The BLM agrees that
FLPMA prohibits it from removing
lands from the operation of the Mining
Law of 1872 in the land use planning
process (43 U.S.C. 1712(e)(3)) and the
rule does not and could not provide
otherwise. The BLM does, however,
have the authority through land use
planning to identify lands as
recommended for withdrawal from
operation of the Mining Law of 1872
where such recommendation is
determined appropriate to meet plan
goals and objectives to protect resource
values. In response to public comments,
final § 1610.1–2(b)(2) is revised to
clarify that resource use determinations
are subject to valid existing rights.
FLPMA requires that all plan
components and other types of
management decisions be subject to
valid existing rights. Although the final
rule cannot change this requirement, the
BLM decided to include this language
specifically in § 1610.1–2(b)(2) because
resource use determinations describe
exclusions and restrictions to use,
which are directly related to valid
existing rights.
Several comments suggested that the
BLM should integrate ‘‘designations’’
(§ 1610.1–2(b)(1)) and ‘‘resource use
determinations’’ (§ 1610.1–2(b)(2)).
Comments stated that this would result
in a more clearly defined set of criteria
for determining whether future actions
are in conformance with plan
components. The final rule is not
revised to combine designations and
resource use determinations. After
consideration of public comments, the
BLM believes that the distinction
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89647
between designations and resource use
determinations is appropriate.
Designations are intended to establish
priorities, when appropriate. Resource
use determinations are intended to
identify exclusions, restrictions, or
allowance of use. Resource use
determinations must be consistent with
the priority established through
designations, and the final rule is
revised to include language clarifying
this relationship (§ 1610.1–2(b)(2)).
Several comments expressed support
for monitoring and evaluation but were
concerned over the BLM’s staffing
resources, stating that the BLM may not
have the capacity to implement
monitoring and evaluation. Some
comments requested the final rule
require the BLM to provide adequate
personnel for monitoring and
evaluation. Other comments suggested
the BLM revise the final rule to revise
monitoring and evaluation standards as
tools available to the BLM, but not
enforceable requirements of resource
management plans or plan amendments.
The final rule is not revised to re-define
monitoring and evaluation standards as
these plan components are necessary to
understand whether the plan objectives
are being met. The final rule is also not
revised to address staffing concerns or
establish personnel requirements; this
would not be appropriate in regulations
as the BLM cannot reasonably predict
future budgets and staffing availability.
Several comments noted that the
proposed rule suggests that the
achievement of goals and objectives and
implementation of monitoring and
evaluation could be enforceable
commitments under the Administrative
Procedure Act and recommended the
BLM revise the final rule to expressly
state that goals, objectives, and
monitoring measures in resource
management plans do not commit the
BLM to future courses of action, and
that BLM actions are dependent upon
appropriation of necessary funds and
agency priorities, and are not intended
to be enforced by third parties through
legal remedies. Comments also
recommend including language to state
that these plan components cannot be
enforced by the general public under 5
U.S.C. 706(1). The comments cited
several court rulings supporting this
statement. The final rule does not
include the language suggested by these
comments. Resource management plans
provide planning level management
direction intended to help the BLM
prioritize available funds and to guide
future management decisions, including
future proposed actions. Although the
BLM does not intend that plan
components be discrete agency actions
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89648
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
that BLM is required to take and
therefore enforceable under § 706(1) of
the APA, they do bind the BLM to the
extent that all future actions taken by
the BLM must conform to them. Should,
through the process of monitoring and
evaluation, the BLM determine that the
goals and objectives are not being met,
the BLM has the discretion to identify
appropriate remedies, including the
option to revise or amend the resource
management plan.
Notice Requirements
The proposed planning rule would
have replaced several requirements to
publish a notice in the Federal Register
with a requirement to notify the public
through other means, including direct
email or posting a notice to the BLM
Web site and at local BLM offices. Many
comments requested that the BLM retain
all existing Federal Register notice
requirements. In response to these
comments, the final rule will retain
most existing Federal Register notice
requirements that were proposed to be
removed, including the notice of intent
for plan amendments when an
environmental assessment is prepared
(final § 1610.2–1(f)) and notice when a
draft plan or plan amendment involves
possible designation of areas of critical
environmental concern (final § 1610.8–
2(b)(1).
The BLM does not, however, consider
a Federal Register notice to be
appropriate or necessary for all
announcements for public involvement,
as some comments suggested. Although
the Federal Register provides a record
of notices and a tool for reaching a
national audience, it is not necessary for
every public involvement opportunity
nor is it the only tool available to reach
a national audience. For instance, a
public meeting in a local community in
the planning area to discuss a particular,
individual planning issue does not need
a Federal Register notice. Including one
would cause unnecessary delays to the
planning process and costs to the BLM.
Additionally, when the BLM announces
the start of a planning process, through
a NOI, this provides the public an
opportunity to request notification of
future public involvement opportunities
and to be added to the mailing list, as
well as learning of public involvement
opportunities through BLM’s Web site,
which also reaches a national audience.
This is consistent with current BLM
policy and practice.
Several comments requested that the
BLM retain the existing requirement for
the BLM Director to publish in the
Federal Register the reasons for his or
her determination regarding a
Governor’s appeal on a State Director’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
decision for the Governor’s consistency
review (existing § 1610.3–2(e)). The
final rule does not retain this existing
requirement and will instead adopt the
commitment that the BLM shall notify
the public of this decision and make the
written decision available to the public
(final § 1610.3–3(b)(4)(ii)). Removing the
requirement to publish a Federal
Register notice at this step will provide
for a more efficient planning process
and better reflects the ready availability
of Internet communications. In locations
where internet is not readily available,
the responsible official will identify
additional forms of notification to reach
local communities within the planning
area (§ 1610.2–1(c)). Moreover,
interested parties already will have had
the opportunity to be added to the
mailing list to receive notifications
(§ 1610.2–1(d)).
Public Comment Periods
The proposed rule would have
reduced the minimum length of formal
public comment periods on draft
resource management plans from 90
days to 60 days. Many comments
opposed that proposed change, stating
various reasons, including that resource
management plans were complex
documents and shortening the comment
period would reduce opportunities for
meaningful public input. Some
comments stated that additional, early
opportunities for public involvement,
such as the planning assessment and
review of preliminary alternatives, were
adequate substitutions for formal
comment periods on the draft resource
management plan. In response to these
comments, the final rule will expand
the comment period for draft resource
management plans to a minimum of 100
days, which is 10 days longer than the
existing minimum comment period of
90 days (§ 1610.2–2(c)). The proposed
rule also would have reduced the
minimum public comment period for
plan amendments when an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is
prepared from 90 days to 45 days. Many
comments opposed that change as well,
for similar reasons. In response to these
comments, the final rule will change the
comment period for draft EIS-level plan
amendments to a minimum of 60 days
(§ 1610.2–2(b)), which is longer than the
length of the proposed comment period,
but shorter than the length of the
existing comment period. The scope and
complexity of EIS-level plan
amendments varies considerably, and
the 60-day period will be appropriate as
a minimum for EIS-level plan
amendments. The BLM retains the
discretion to extend the length of public
comment periods or to initially offer a
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
longer public comment period, as
appropriate.
A number of comments requested a
provision in the rule providing an
opportunity to request a comment
period extension, or a requirement of an
automatic extension when a plan was
particularly long or complex. The BLM
has the discretion to extend the length
of the minimum public comment
periods; however, due to the variation
in issues, geographic scope, and
complexity, it is not appropriate to
adopt a single standard for comment
period extensions in the final rule.
The BLM received several comments
requesting that all opportunities for
public involvement, including the
planning assessment, review of
preliminary alternatives, and the basis
for analysis, be subject to a formal
comment period, and require the BLM
to provide a formal comment response.
Some comments expressed concern that
without formal comment responses, it
would not be clear to the public that the
BLM considered public comment during
these steps. The final rule does not
adopt these recommendations. Although
public involvement must meet the
requirements of § 1610.2, the BLM
recognizes that resource management
plans and plan amendments will vary
based on factors such as complexity,
geographic scale, and budgets. Public
notification and review will provide
additional transparency and an
opportunity for the public to provide
feedback, but it is not appropriate to
require a formal comment period for
each public involvement opportunity.
The BLM generally provides a formal
comment period at steps when there is
a complete document available for
review, such as a draft resource
management plan. The final rule adds
opportunities for public involvement in
the development of these documents,
which may take several forms, such as
public workshops or posting
information on the web and inviting the
public to provide additional
information. This will inform the
development of the draft resource
management plan, and it will be made
available for a formal comment period.
Section 1610.2(b) requires the BLM to
document public involvement activities
by either a record or summary of
principle issues discussed and
comments made, and make that record
or summary available to the public.
Consultation With Indian Tribes
The BLM received comments noting
that the proposed rule did not recognize
the sovereign status of Indian tribes or
address government-to-government
consultation with Indian tribes during
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
planning. Other comments raised
concerns that a larger planning area
under the new rule could mean less
meaningful tribal consultation and
potentially less influence by Indian
tribes over BLM planning decisions.
Some comments raised concern that the
BLM would no longer consult with
tribes in person and electronic means
would replace the current process.
In response to comments, the final
rule is revised to include a new section
on tribal consultation (final § 1610.3–1).
This section provides that the BLM will
initiate consultation with Indian tribes
on a government-to-government basis
during the preparation and amendment
of resource management plans. This
section is added to the final rule to
reflect the fact that the BLM is required
to initiate consultation with affected
Indian tribes during the planning
process, and will consult with any
Indian tribes that choose to accept the
BLM’s request for consultation, but the
BLM cannot guarantee that an Indian
tribe will agree to consultation. This
government-to-government consultation
shall be initiated regardless of an Indian
tribe’s status as a cooperating agency or
any on-going coordination with the
Indian tribe. Should an Indian tribe
choose to participate as a cooperating
agency or to coordinate with the BLM,
the BLM is still required to initiate
government-to-government
consultation.
The final rule does not explicitly
prescribe larger planning areas; should
future planning areas increase in size,
however, the BLM will continue to
conduct meaningful consultation with
Indian tribes, including in person
meetings. The BLM does not intend for
electronic means to replace current
processes for consultation. The BLM
recognizes, however, that some Indian
tribes may prefer electronic
communication such as email
correspondence, and the BLM will
employ such communication techniques
where they are helpful and appropriate.
Coordination With State, Tribal and
Local Governments
The BLM received many comments
regarding coordination with other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, as
provided in section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA,
as well as cooperating agency status
under NEPA.
Several comments expressed that the
definition of and provisions for
cooperating agencies inappropriately
restrict eligibility by saying that
cooperating agencies will participate ‘‘as
feasible and appropriate given the scope
of their expertise and constraints of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
their resources’’ (proposed §§ 1601.0–5
and 1610.3–1(b)(2)). In response to these
comments, this language is removed
from the definition of cooperating
agencies, and proposed § 1610.3–1(b)(2)
is revised to state that ‘‘[t]he responsible
official shall collaborate, to the fullest
extent possible, with all cooperating
agencies concerning those issues
relating to their jurisdiction and special
expertise.’’ These changes are consistent
with the DOI NEPA regulations which
provide ‘‘the lead bureau will
collaborate, to the fullest extent
possible, with all cooperating agencies
concerning those issues relating to their
jurisdiction and special expertise’’ (43
CFR 46.230). Cooperating agencies must
meet the requirements defined in DOI’s
NEPA implementation regulations, 43
CFR 46.225(a), which includes special
expertise or jurisdiction by law. That
section references the Council on
Environmental Quality’s NEPA
implementation regulations’ definition
of special expertise (40 CFR 1508.26)
and jurisdiction by law (40 CFR
1508.15). These requirements apply to
both Federal and non-Federal
governments, such as State, local, and
tribal governments. The BLM will
continue to use these definitions to
determine eligibility for cooperating
agencies. Eligible governmental entities
are not required to be cooperating
agencies if they do not have sufficient
resources; therefore, the reference to
‘‘constraints of their resources’’ is not
appropriate.
Comments raised the concern that
including the term ‘‘eligible
governmental entity’’ in the definition
of ‘‘cooperating agency’’ in § 1601.0–5
will lead to confusion and potentially
exclude some government entities. The
final rule is not revised in response to
these comments. The use of this term
does not represent a change from
existing regulations. The term ‘‘eligible
governmental entity’’ is used in the
existing definition of cooperating
agencies and is defined in the DOI
NEPA regulations (§ 46.225(a)). The
final rule adds a reference to this
definition in the DOI NEPA regulations
to improve clarity and understanding of
this term. The BLM believes it is
appropriate for the planning regulations
to use similar terminology as the DOI
NEPA regulations when defining
cooperating agencies. Hence the term
‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ is used
in the final definition of ‘‘cooperating
agency’’ in § 1601.0–5 and when
describing what entities can participate
as cooperating agencies in final
§ 1610.3–2(b) of the final rule.
Several comments objected to the
removal of the existing requirement that
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89649
field managers must inform the State
Director of any denials of a request to
be a cooperating agency and requested
that the final rule retain the State
Director’s review. In response to these
public comments, the final rule includes
a new paragraph requiring the
responsible official to consider a request
by an eligible governmental entity to
participate as a cooperating agency and
to inform the deciding official of any
denials. The deciding official shall
determine if the denial is appropriate
and state the reasons for any denials in
the environmental impact statement (see
§ 1610.3–2(b)(1)).
Several comments requested that the
planning rule clarify requirements for
consultation with Indian tribes. Some
comments requested the BLM identify
specific offices eligible for consultation,
such as Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers. In response to these comments,
the final rule includes a new section
titled ‘‘[c]onsultation with Indian
tribes’’ (§ 1610.3–1). This section states
that the BLM shall initiate consultation
with Indian tribes on a government-togovernment basis during the preparation
and amendment of resource
management plans. The final rule does
not define consultation because that
term is defined in other regulations and
guidance. These other sources also
outline the types of processes, how
consultation may inform decision
making, and what information should
be exchanged in consultation. The
methods of consultation and its content
may vary by particular circumstances.
The rule also does not list all the types
of offices that are included under the
consultation provisions because this
level of detail is not necessary in
regulations. The BLM will continue to
consult with Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers as required under
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Further, tribes are considered an
‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ under 43
CFR 46.225(a), and will be invited to
participate as cooperating agencies in
the planning process in accordance with
final § 1610.3–2(b). While a tribe may
elect not to participate as a cooperating
agency, the BLM is still required to
appropriately consult and coordinate
with tribes during the planning process
in accordance with §§ 1610.3–1 and
1610.3–2, respectively.
The final rule 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 consult with
ANCSA corporations during the
preparation and amendment of resource
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89650
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
management plans, consistent with DOI
policy.
Many comments included support for
the proposed requirement of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU),
including its commitment to
confidentiality. These comments noted
that confidential review affords agencies
the opportunity to identify and resolve
conflicts without creating public worry
or confusion. The final rule adopts these
provisions with minor modifications
(see proposed § 1610.3–1(b)(1) and final
§ 1610.3–2(b)(2)). Some comments
recommended a requirement to
establish a separate MOU for the
planning assessment. The final rule
does not adopt this recommendation
because it is not necessary. Final
§ 1610.3–2(b)(3) does not specify the
length or scope of the MOU for a
cooperating agency relationship and
includes sufficient flexibility for the
BLM and cooperating agencies to
establish multiple MOUs, if necessary,
or to enter into an MOU that includes
only the planning assessment. The final
rule does not address the status of
information provided to the BLM by
cooperating agencies, because this will
be a case-by-case determination based
on the MOU agreement and any
applicable State and Federal
requirements, such as the Freedom of
Information Act.
Some comments suggested the BLM
publish a Federal Register notice
inviting cooperating agencies to
participate in the preparation of a
resource management plan. In response
to public comments, the BLM will
publish a NOI in the Federal Register
for all resource management plans and
plan amendments as described in final
§ 1610.2–1(f), but does not adopt the
recommendation to publish a Federal
Register notice inviting cooperating
agencies. The NOI will include the kind
and extent of public involvement
activities to be provided, as known at
the time, as well as contact information
for a BLM employee for further
information, including a request to
participate as a cooperating agency. The
responsible official will invite
cooperating agencies as provided for in
§ 1610.3–2(b) of the final rule. The BLM
considers these two provisions to be
complimentary. The BLM will
collaborate with cooperating agencies as
early as possible in the planning
process. Section 1610.3–2(b)(3) will
include the steps of the planning
process for collaborating with
cooperating agencies. The earliest step
in this section will be the planning
assessment which occurs before
publication of the NOI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Some comments recommended a
requirement that a cooperating agency
MOU must be in place before the
commencement of the planning
assessment. The final rule does not
adopt this recommendation. Eligible
governmental entities have the option of
entering into a MOU as cooperating
agencies under NEPA, but are not
required to do so at any specific point
in the planning process. Creating a
requirement for all MOUs to be in place
prior to the planning assessment would
limit eligible government entities from
joining as cooperating agencies later in
the planning process when the scope of
the planning effort is more clearly
defined. The BLM does not foresee any
problems working with eligible
governmental entities without a MOU
during the planning assessment step
since this step primarily involves
information gathering by the BLM. The
BLM will not share confidential
information with other government
entities without an MOU in place to
maintain confidentiality.
Many comments raised concerns that
the proposed rule would limit local
governments to ‘‘cooperator status’’ by
failing to provide for ‘‘coordination
status,’’ which the comments state is
required by FLPMA, which would place
an unfair burden on such governmental
entities. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments because
coordination requirements are already
addressed in this rule. While the BLM
believes that cooperating agency status
is a tool to achieve coordination, the
BLM recognizes that local governments
may choose not to participate as
cooperating agencies for a variety of
reasons such as limited resources or
confidentiality concerns. An eligible
government entity is not required to
participate as a cooperating agency and
under the final rule the BLM must still
coordinate with these governmental
entities, whether or not they choose to
participate as a cooperating agency
under NEPA. The final rule includes a
number of ways for governmental
entities, including local governments, to
meaningfully participate in the planning
process outside of cooperating agency
status. Local governments are able to
participate in the public involvement
opportunities described in § 1610.2 of
the final rule. Additionally, final
§ 1610.3–2(c) addresses the
requirements for coordination with
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, and
these requirements apply independently
of cooperating agency status. The final
rule adopts proposed changes to more
clearly distinguish the cooperating
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agency role from ‘‘coordination’’ and
‘‘consistency’’ requirements under
FLPMA. Each of these is covered by
different paragraphs in final §§ 1610.3–
2 and 1610.3–3. In final § 1610.3–2,
paragraph (b) covers cooperating
agencies and paragraph (c) covers
coordination requirements. Final
§ 1610.3–3 covers consistency
requirements. By separating these
provisions, the BLM believes that the
final rule sufficiently identifies the
distinction between these roles under
FLPMA and NEPA.
Some comments recommended the
final rule make formal coordination
mandatory during the planning
assessment. It is important to note that
coordination is already mandatory
during the planning assessment. Final
§ 1610.4(b)(3) requires the BLM to
‘‘[p]rovide opportunities for other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, and the
public to provide existing data and
information or suggest other laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans.’’ In response to
public comments, the final rule includes
additional language regarding
coordination during the planning
assessment, stating that ‘‘[t]o the extent
consistent with the laws governing the
administration of the public lands and
as appropriate, inventory data and
information shall be gathered or
assembled in coordination with the land
use planning and management programs
of other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes
within which the lands are located’’
(§ 1610.4(b)(1)). This language is
consistent with FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)).
Several comments raised concerns
that individual notification
requirements for State and local
governments are insufficient as they
only require the BLM to provide
affirmative individual notification to
those that have requested to be notified
or that the BLM has reason to believe
would be interested in the planning
effort. Comments requested the final
rule require notification of all affected
State and local governments. The final
rule is not revised in response to these
comments. This provision does not
represent a substantive change from
existing regulations, which require the
BLM to provide notice to governmental
entities ‘‘that have requested such
notices or that the responsible line
manager has reason to believe would be
concerned with the plan or
amendment’’ (existing § 1610.3–1(e)).
The final rule clarifies this requirement
slightly by replacing ‘‘concerned with’’
with ‘‘interested in.’’ Interest in the
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
resource management plan includes
‘‘concern,’’ but also includes a broader
range of interest. The wording of the
final rule is necessary to avoid
providing an unreasonable ‘‘guarantee’’
that the BLM will be able to identify,
find contact information for, and contact
all affected governmental entities.
However, the BLM will continue its
current practices and commitment to
notifying State and local governments
and will endeavor to contact all affected
governmental entities to the best of our
ability. Additionally, the BLM believes
that public notification requirements
will provide an additional opportunity
for government entities to become aware
of resource management plans and plan
amendments.
In addition, the BLM will post a list
on its Web site of the status of each
resource management plan in process or
scheduled to be started by the end of
each fiscal year under § 1610.2(c).
Interested members of the public,
including governmental entities, may
review that list for information on
upcoming plans in advance of the BLM
beginning notification for public
involvement, and may request to be
notified of public involvement
opportunities. Additionally, in response
to public comment, final § 1610.2–1(c)
is revised such that the ‘‘responsible
official shall identify additional forms of
notification to reach local communities
located within the planning area, as
appropriate.’’ This provision addresses
concerns about local governments that
may not be reached by notices in the
Federal Register or through online
notifications.
Consistency With State, Tribal, and
Local Government Plans
The BLM received many comments
regarding requirements under FLPMA
for BLM resource management plans to
be consistent with State and local
government plans (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Several comments raised concerns that
the proposed rule departs from
FLPMA’s coordination and consistency
requirements. In response to public
comments, final § 1610.3–3 is revised in
several ways, as described in the
following paragraphs.
Several comments raised concerns
that the proposed rule would provide
the BLM more discretion regarding
consistency with State and local plans
than is afforded by FLPMA. In response
to comments, final § 1610.3–3(a) is
revised to state that ‘‘resource
management plans shall be consistent
with officially approved or adopted
plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian
tribes to the maximum extent the BLM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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.’’ Because of its obligations
under FLPMA and other Federal law,
the BLM cannot always ensure
consistency. The BLM will achieve
consistency to the maximum extent
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. Based on public comment,
the final rule removes ‘‘practical’’ from
the phrase ‘‘practical and consistent’’ in
this paragraph. It is important to note
that statements in the final rule that the
BLM will coordinate to the extent
consistent with the laws governing the
administration of the public lands (e.g.,
final § 1610.4(b)(1)) do not preclude the
BLM from satisfying its requirements for
coordination and consistency under
final §§ 1610.3–2 and 1610.3–3.
Similarly, the final rule’s additional
opportunities for public involvement in
the planning process do not eliminate or
alter the BLM’s obligations for
coordination and consistency.
A few comments stated that proposed
changes to § 1610.3–2 would omit
FLPMA consistency requirements
pertaining to compliance with pollution
control laws, ‘‘including State and
Federal air, water, noise, or other
pollution standards or implementation
plans. . . .’’ The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments
because this language is not necessary.
Resource management plans must
comply with Federal and State pollution
control laws as implemented by
applicable Federal and State air, water,
noise, and other pollution standards or
implementation plans. It is unnecessary
to identify all relevant laws the BLM
must abide by in the regulations, as the
BLM is required to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The
final rule removes existing § 1610.3–
2(b), which references Federal and State
pollution control laws, because the BLM
believes that final § 1610.3–3(a)’s
requirement that resource management
plans be consistent with ‘‘officially
approved or adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes’’
includes pollution control laws as
implemented by applicable Federal and
State air, water, noise, and other
pollution standards and implementation
plans. Although FLPMA specifically
references pollution control laws (43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(8)), the BLM believes that
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89651
such laws are appropriately
encompassed by the requirements of
final § 1610.3–3(a). The BLM does not
intend a change to current policy or
practice as a result of this change, and
will continue to comply with applicable
pollution control laws.
Several comments objected to
language providing that consistency
requirements would only apply to the
‘‘officially approved and adopted land
use plans’’ of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes (see proposed §§ 1610.0–5 and
1610.3–2). Comments stated that this
language exceeds the statutory
requirements of FLPMA, which refers
only to ‘‘plans.’’ In response to public
comments, the final rule does not adopt
the words ‘‘land use’’ in this phrase.
The BLM acknowledges that other types
of resource-related plans, such as a State
wildlife plans, are relevant to resource
management planning conducted by the
BLM and should be included during
consistency review. The final rule also
revises the definition of an ‘‘officially
approved and adopted plan’’ to specify
that these are ‘‘resource-related’’ plans
instead of ‘‘land use’’ plans (§ 1610.0–5).
The term ‘‘officially approved and
adopted,’’ however, is contained in
existing regulation and is retained in the
final rule. The definition of this term in
the final rule describes it as a plan that
is prepared and approved pursuant to
and in accordance with authorization
provided by Federal, State, and tribal, or
local constitutions, legislation, or
charters which have the force and effect
of law (§ 1601.0–5). Final § 1610.3–2
provides a mechanism to address
potential inconsistencies with plans and
policies that are not officially approved
or adopted, or plans that are under
development, but not yet approved or
adopted.
Similarly, several comments
expressed concern that the proposed
rule would inappropriately limit the
BLM’s consistency requirements by
removing the requirement for BLM
resource management plans to be
consistent with the ‘‘policies, programs,
and processes’’ of State and local
governments. In response to these
comments, the final rule will instead
adopt a new objective of coordination
for the BLM to ‘‘keep apprised of the
plans, policies and management
programs of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes’’ (see final § 1610.3–3(a)(1)). The
BLM will continue to coordinate with
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes
throughout the planning process, which
will include consideration of plans,
policies, and management programs.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89652
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
However, the consistency requirements
in final § 1610.3–3 only apply to
officially approved and adopted plans.
This is consistent with FLPMA, which
requires that resource management
plans be consistent with State and local
plans to the maximum extent the
Secretary finds consistent with Federal
law and the purposes of the FLPMA (see
43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). It would be
inappropriate to establish consistency
requirements for ‘‘policies and
programs’’ because they do not
constitute a formal decision regarding
resource management.
Many comments expressed concern
that the proposed rule would place the
burden on State and local governments
to notify BLM of inconsistencies.
Comments expressed that it is the
BLM’s responsibility to identify
inconsistencies, not that of State and
local governments. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments.
Final § 1610.3–3(a)(2) will carry forward
the existing provision that the BLM is
not required to address the consistency
requirements of this section if the
responsible official has not been
notified, in writing, by Federal agencies,
State and local governments, or Indian
tribes of an apparent inconsistency. This
is an existing requirement, and therefore
does not represent a change in policy.
Although the BLM believes that the
coordination and cooperation
provisions of the final rule will help the
BLM to identify apparent
inconsistencies early in the process, and
the BLM will do so to the best of its
ability, we cannot guarantee that all
apparent inconsistencies are identified
and responded to if the BLM is not
notified of inconsistencies.
The requirements for consistency
contained in final § 1610.3–3, however,
do not represent the only opportunity to
identify and remedy inconsistencies
during the planning process. The BLM
believes that the opportunities for
coordination will address the majority
of inconsistencies prior to the
publication of a proposed resource
management plan. Coordination, as
described in § 1610.3–2 of the final rule,
provides the BLM with a way to identify
and address potential inconsistencies
with other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and tribes
throughout the duration of the planning
process. Final § 1610.3–2(a) states that
the objectives of coordination include
the BLM keeping apprised of the plans,
policies, and management programs of
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes and
assisting in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between
Federal and non-Federal government
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
plans. In addition, as part of information
gathering during the planning
assessment, final § 1610.4(b)(2) requires
the BLM to identify relevant national,
regional, State, tribal, or local laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans for consideration in
the planning assessment.
The Governor’s consistency review in
§ 1610.3–3(b) provides an additional
opportunity to meet consistency
requirements by affording the Governor
an opportunity to identify any
remaining inconsistencies with the
proposed resource management plan
and work with the BLM to address these
inconsistencies. Several comments
raised concerns that the burden of
identifying inconsistencies for all State
and local plans would be placed solely
on the Governor. Some comments
requested a similar consistency review
for other governmental entities, such as
local governments. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments.
The burden of identifying
inconsistencies is not placed solely on
Governors. Through coordination, the
BLM will make a good faith effort to
identify and address inconsistencies
throughout the planning process; this is
addressed under the objectives of
coordination (§ 1610.3–2(a)).
Coordination and the work of
identifying inconsistencies is a shared
responsibility, and the final rule reflects
this. For example, § 1610.3–3(b) of the
final rule states that the deciding official
shall submit to the Governor of the
State(s) involved, the proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment
and shall identify any relevant known
inconsistencies with the officially
approved and adopted plans of State
and local governments. In turn, the
Governor may submit a written
document within the 60-day
consistency review period that
identifies inconsistencies. Additionally,
final § 1610.3–3(b)(3) states that the
responsible official will collaborate, to
the fullest extent possible, with all
cooperating agencies throughout the
planning process. Early coordination as
outlined in the final rule will help to
identify potential inconsistencies early
in the planning process in compliance
with FLPMA.
Several comments expressed that the
proposed rule inappropriately limits the
Governor’s consistency review to
inconsistencies between BLM resource
management plans and State and local
plans. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The
Governor may raise other concerns and
the BLM will consider these concerns
and, as appropriate, work with the
Governor to seek resolution; however,
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consistency requirements under FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9) and this final rule
(see § 1610.3–3(a)) only apply to
consistency between BLM resource
management plans and State and local
plans.
Many comments objected to the
proposed removal of the requirement
that, if the Governor appeals the BLM
State Director’s decision, the BLM
Director must accept the Governor’s
recommendations if doing so provides
for an appropriate balance between
State and Federal interests (see existing
§ 1610.3–2(e)). The final rule adopts the
proposal to remove the existing
language requiring the BLM Director to
accept recommendations if it is
determined that such recommendations
‘‘provide for a reasonable balance
between the national interest and the
State’s interest.’’ Instead, the final rule
will state that the BLM Director ‘‘shall
consider the Governor(s)’ comments and
the consistency requirements of this
section in rendering a final decision’’
(§ 1610.3–3(b)(4)(ii)). In response to
public comments, the final rule is
revised to include a requirement that
the BLM Director consider ‘‘the
consistency requirements of this
section,’’ which includes the
requirement that resource management
plans must be consistent with officially
approved and adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes ‘‘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’’ (§ 1610.3–3(a)).
The BLM believes the existing
language is misleading in regards to
BLM’s obligations and does not reflect
the broader range of considerations that
must apply. When considering the
Governor’s recommendations, the
Director must consider whether the
recommendations are consistent with
the purposes of FLPMA and other
Federal laws and regulations. The BLM
Director must also consider whether the
BLM has achieved consistency ‘‘to the
maximum extent,’’ subject to the
qualifications of § 1610.3–3.
Several comments asserted that
proposed § 1610.3–2(b) (final § 1610.3–
3(b)) improperly bypasses local
governments by attempting to satisfy
consistency requirements through
Governors. Final § 1610.3–3(b) does not
bypass local governments, but rather
provides the Governor, as the highest
elected representative of the State, a
final opportunity to identify, discuss,
and remedy any relevant
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
inconsistencies between State and local
plans prior to the approval of a resource
management plan. Further, the
Governor’s consistency review does not
replace the BLM’s requirements for
coordination and consistency under
final §§ 1610.3–2 and 1610.3–3. The
BLM recognizes that counties may have
officially approved and adopted plans
that are relevant to the planning
process. Such plans would not be
excluded from consistency review.
Several comments stated that the
proposed rule limits opportunities to
coordinate with local governments early
in the planning process and
recommended that the BLM provide
preliminary consistency review periods
at the planning assessment and draft
environmental impact statement stages.
The final rule does not incorporate
formal consistency reviews at earlier
stages of the planning process, as a
formal review prior to availability of a
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment would be premature.
Requirements for consistency will be
achieved primarily through
coordination with Federal, State, local,
and tribal governments throughout the
planning process, as outlined in final
§ 1610.3–2, and detailed in the preamble
discussion of that section. Finally, the
final rule increases transparency and
opportunities for public involvement,
which will provide local governments
an opportunity to participate and raise
concerns related to consistency, in
addition to the opportunities in final
§ 1610.3–2.
Planning Assessment
Many comments expressed broad
support for the planning assessment.
Some comments stated that the addition
of the planning assessment step, if based
on the best available scientific
information and other high-quality
information, would be a valuable tool
for understanding a planning area’s
current baseline resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions. Several comments
expressed support for new opportunities
for public involvement, including early
opportunities for stakeholders to
provide important, relevant baseline
information before the BLM identifies
planning issues and formulates resource
management alternatives. Other
comments expressed concern or were
unsupportive of the planning
assessment, stating that it would
represent a major policy shift from the
current planning process. Some of these
comments asserted that the planning
assessment creates more steps and
analysis for an already long and
confusing process. Other comments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
asserted that the planning assessment
and the many factors the BLM must
consider when conducting it, shift focus
from resources, multiple use, and
sustained yield to ‘‘value-based’’
decision-making.
After consideration of public
comments, the final rule adopts the
proposed planning assessment
(§ 1610.4), with some minor
modifications. Although the planning
assessment does represent a new step
prior to initiating the preparation of a
resource management plan, this does
not represent a major policy shift from
the current planning process, as the
planning assessment replaces the
existing ‘‘analysis of the management
situation’’ (see existing § 1610.4–4) and
the BLM is required to describe the
‘‘affected environment’’ for a resource
management plan under CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.15). The BLM
believes that new requirements under
the planning assessment, such as
opportunities for public involvement,
will provide valuable information for
the preparation of a resource
management plan, and therefore are
appropriate for inclusion in the final
rule. Further, the planning assessment
provides baseline information on
resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic conditions, all of
which are needed to support
management on the basis of multiple
use and sustained yield. The planning
assessment does not represent a shift to
‘‘value-based decision-making’’ as no
decisions are contemplated or made
during the planning assessment.
Many comments asserted that the
planning assessment phase does not
allow for meaningful coordination
opportunities which could lead to a lack
of consistency with State and local
plans. Other comments stated that the
planning rule does not adequately
address the FLPMA requirement for the
BLM to ‘‘coordinate the land use
inventory . . . 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’’ (43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). Some comments
asserted that the planning assessment
treats State and local governments as
members of the public rather than as
agencies with which the BLM must
coordinate under FLPMA. In response
to these comments, the final rule
includes a new requirement that ‘‘[t]o
the extent consistent with the laws
governing the administration of the
public lands and as appropriate,
inventory data and information shall be
gathered or assembled in coordination
with the land use planning and
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89653
management programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes within which the
lands are located’’ (§ 1610.4(b)(1)). This
new language highlights the existing
requirement under FLPMA to
coordinate inventory, and promotes a
more efficient planning process by
ensuring that the BLM does not
duplicate data collection efforts with
other governmental entities.
The final rule also adopts the
proposed requirement that the BLM
‘‘[p]rovide opportunities for other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, and the
public to provide existing data and
information or suggest other laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans’’ (§ 1610.4(b)(3)).
This provides an important step for the
BLM to coordinate with State and local
governments on data and information,
as well as any State and local laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans that are germane to
the resource management plan. This
coordination also provides an important
early step to avoid inconsistencies
between the resource management plan
and State and local ‘‘plans, policies, and
management programs’’ (see §§ 1610.3–
2(a)(1) and (a)(2)).
Final § 1610.4(b)(3) also includes a
requirement for the BLM to provide
opportunities for the public to provide
existing data and information or suggest
other laws, regulations, policies,
guidance, strategies, or plans. This
provision does not diminish the
coordination requirements with State
and local governments; it simply adds
an opportunity for the public to identify
these items. Rather, the inclusion of this
requirement reflects the fact that, under
NEPA, the BLM must consider
substantive comments related to data
and information submitted during the
comment period on a draft EIS. Rather
than waiting until the draft resource
management plan is developed, the
identification of this information
upfront, whether from a government
entity or the public, during the planning
assessment will provide for a more
efficient planning process. Further, the
BLM recognizes that a member of the
public may be aware of best available
scientific information, such as a peerreviewed research publication, and this
information should be brought to the
BLM’s attention as early as possible.
A few comments noted that the
planning rule does not mention
economic or ‘‘commodity’’ resources,
such as minerals, forest products,
grazing, or other resource uses. One
comment noted that valid existing rights
are not addressed in the planning
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89654
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
assessment. Many comments opposed
the absence of ‘‘uses’’ in ‘‘the various
goods and services that people obtain
from the planning area’’ (proposed
§ 1610.4(c)(7)). Comments asserted that
the exclusion of ‘‘uses’’ eliminates the
multiple use and ‘‘major uses’’
principles of FLPMA and implies an
effort to avoid or minimize these uses in
future resource management plans.
The final rule does not eliminate the
multiple use and ‘‘major uses’’
principles of FLPMA and does not
represent an effort to avoid or minimize
these uses in future resource
management plans. In response to
public comments, the following
revisions are made to the final rule.
Final § 1610.4(d)(5) is revised to include
‘‘areas with known mineral potential’’
and ‘‘areas with known potential for
producing forest products, including
timber.’’ Final § 1610.4(d)(7) is revised
to clarify that the responsible official
will consider and document ‘‘[t]he
various goods, services, and uses that
people obtain from the planning area,
such as ecological services, domestic
livestock grazing, fish and wildlife
development and utilization, mineral
exploration and production, rights-ofway, outdoor recreation, and timber
production.’’ And finally, final
§ 1610.4(d)(2) is revised to include
‘‘known valid existing rights.’’
Many public comments objected to
the provision allowing the deciding
official to waive the planning
assessment for minor amendments or if
an existing planning assessment is
determined to be adequate, for a variety
of reasons. Some comments stated that
the term ‘‘minor amendments’’ is vague.
Other comments supported the waiver
in some situations. In response to public
comments, the final rule does not adopt
the proposed language allowing for a
‘‘waiver’’ if an existing planning
assessment is determined to be
adequate. In the case when an existing
assessment provides the needed
information to inform the planning
process, the responsible official will
identify those parts of the existing
assessment that are pertinent to the
geographic area being identified and the
issues to be addressed. This
information, along with any new
information, will be incorporated into
the planning assessment for the plan
amendment and made available for
public review. The final rule retains the
deciding official’s discretion to waive
the requirements of this paragraph for
minor amendments, however, because
the BLM believes there are situations for
minor amendments where a planning
assessment would not add value to the
planning process and these situations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
In response to comments, this
language is revised to provide that the
responsible official may waive this
requirement for ‘‘project-specific or
other minor amendments.’’ Minor
amendments are intended to mean those
that are small in scope or scale. The
most common type of minor
amendments for which the BLM
prepares an EIS are project-specific
amendments, such as a solar energy
development project, in which the
amendment only addresses a small
portion of a resource management plan
or a single plan component, but the
project itself requires the preparation of
an EIS. In these situations, a planning
assessment may not add value to the
amendment process and could
unnecessarily delay the amendment
process; the responsible official will
have the discretion to assess whether
the preparation of a planning
assessment is necessary in these
situations. Other types of ‘‘minor
amendments’’ will be assessed on a
case-by-case basis, and this rule
provides the BLM the flexibility and
discretion to make such assessments.
Preparation of a Resource Management
Plan
Many of the comments on the
preparation of a resource management
plan (§§ 1610.5 to 1610.5–5) raised
concerns or expressed support for the
provisions regarding public
involvement and cooperation and
coordination. The concerns raised in
these comments are summarized in
previous paragraphs.
Several comments suggested that the
BLM make the preliminary statement of
purpose and need available for public
comment. The final rule is not revised
in response to these comments. The
final rule adopts the proposed
requirement to make the preliminary
statement of purpose and need available
for public review (§ 1610.5–1(a)). The
public may provide input on the
statement and the BLM will consider
this input when developing a draft
statement of purpose and need.
Several comments stated that the BLM
should accept citizen-proposed
alternatives. One comment raised
concerns that the BLM would develop
the preliminary alternatives before the
public had an opportunity to suggest
alternatives. The final rule does not
adopt a specific provision to solicit
citizen-proposed alternatives. The final
rule does not change the BLM’s
requirement under the CEQ NEPA
regulations to analyze a range of
alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14). If a
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
citizen-submitted alternative meets the
criteria in § 1610.5–2(a)(1), then it could
be considered as an alternative or a subalternative, or incorporated into an
existing alternative. Although the final
rule does not have a specific step to
solicit citizen-proposed alternatives, the
public involvement opportunities early
in the planning process, including as
part of the planning assessment, the
preliminary statement of purpose and
need, identification of the planning
issues, and development of preliminary
alternatives, will provide the public
opportunities to provide input on the
range of alternatives they believe should
be considered. The public will also have
an opportunity to review the
preliminary range of alternatives and
inform the BLM if they believe a
reasonable alternative is not being
considered.
Several comments expressed support
for the preliminary alternatives, as this
step creates greater transparency. Some
public comments requested that the
BLM provide notices and disclose
changes made to the preliminary
alternatives, the preliminary rationale
for alternatives, and the basis for
analysis. In response to public
comment, the final rule includes a
requirement that a description of
changes made to the preliminary
alternatives, preliminary rationale for
alternatives, and the basis for analysis
shall be made available to the public in
the draft resource management plan (see
§ 1610.5–4). This description is not
intended to identify each and every
change made to these preliminary
documents; rather it will summarize
how the public involvement activities or
other new information informed the
development of the draft resource
management plan.
Several comments expressed concern
with the BLM’s ability to identify
multiple preferred alternatives, stating
that this is a departure from
longstanding practice, and that it would
create confusion or uncertainty, and
would make public review more
cumbersome. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments.
The final rule language to acknowledge
‘‘one or more’’ preferred alternatives is
adopted to make the planning
regulations more consistent with the
DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR
46.425(a)). The BLM anticipates that
selecting more than one preferred
alternatives will not be the norm for
resource management planning, and the
BLM will have the discretion to extend
public comment periods on a case-bycase basis if it is determined that the
extension will benefit the resource
management planning process.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Resource Management Plan Approval,
Implementation and Modification
The BLM received comments in
support of, and opposed to the proposed
revision to allow the BLM to accept
protests electronically. A few comments
supported the proposal to make protests
and responses available to the public
and suggested that the BLM promptly
post all protests and related responses,
whether requested or not, on its Web
site for public access. While the BLM
expects to post protests to its Web site,
the final rule is not revised to require
the BLM to post all protests. Such a
requirement would not be practical to
implement if the BLM were to receive
a substantial number of hard-copy
protest submissions. The final rule
instead provides the BLM flexibility to
determine the best timing and methods
to share protest information.
A few comments requested revisions
to proposed § 1610.6–2(a)(4) to allow
the BLM to withhold certain private and
confidential information submitted in a
protest that is, or could be, exempt from
disclosure under other laws or
regulations. In response to these
comments, the final rule is revised to
include language stating that the BLM
Director will withhold any protected
information that is exempt from
disclosure under applicable laws or
regulations.
A few comments requested that the
BLM expand the eligibility requirements
for protest submissions by accepting
protests from members of the public
who may not have participated
previously in the planning process due
to the fact that several years may pass
between the release of a draft resource
management plan and the proposed
resource management plan. Several
other comments expressed concern that
the requirement that a protest identify
the associated issue or issues raised
during the preparation of the resource
management plan or plan amendment
would preclude protests on issues that
were not disclosed to the public until
the publication of the proposed resource
management plan. The BLM recognizes
that changes may occur between the
release of the draft resource
management plan and the proposed
resource management plan. However,
the final rule is not revised to accept
this recommendation, as the current
standing requirement is written to
ensure that individuals do not use the
protest process to raise issues that could
have been raised during previous public
involvement opportunities, and to
recognize that the protest period is not
a public comment period. However, in
recognition of the potential for changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
between the draft and proposed
resource management plan, final
§ 1610.6–2(a) is revised to include new
language stating that a protest may raise
only those issues which were submitted
for the record during the preparation of
the resource management plan or plan
amendment ‘‘unless the protest
concerns an issue that arose after the
close of the opportunity for public
comment on the draft resource
management plan.’’ This change in the
final rule is made throughout the
subparagraphs of § 1610.6–2(a) and
clarifies that if an issue arises after the
close of the formal public comment
period on a draft resource management
plan, the public may submit a protest
regarding that issue. This exclusion only
applies to issues that did not exist when
the draft resource management plan was
available for public comment, and
therefore the public could not comment
on the issue.
Many comments asserted that the
proposed rule limited the ability to
protest by imposing tedious formatting
requirements and narrowing protest
criteria to ‘‘component(s) believed to be
inconsistent with Federal laws or
regulations applicable to public lands,
or the purposes, policies, and programs
of such laws and regulations.’’ The final
rule is not revised in response to these
comments. Protest criteria identified in
final § 1610.6–2(a)(3)(iii) are consistent
with other adopted changes in the final
rule, such as the adoption of planning
components in § 1610.1–2, and focus
protests on potential inconsistencies
with Federal laws or regulations or the
purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations. The protest period is not
intended as a second public comment
period; rather, it is intended to remedy
inconsistencies with Federal laws and
regulations prior to the approval of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment. The BLM does not believe
that the required information represents
a barrier to protest, rather, it ensures
that the BLM has adequate information
to make a decision on protests.
One comment stated that the explicit
authority of the Director to approve
portions of a resource management plan
not subject to a protest during protest
resolution should be made more clear in
the final planning rule. In response to
this comment, the final rule adopts a
statement at § 1610.6–2(b), stating
‘‘[a]pproval will be withheld on any
portion of a resource management plan
or plan amendment until final action
has been completed on such protest.’’
Many comments stated that the final
rule should require the Director to
briefly explain why a protest does not
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89655
meet the requirements of § 1610.6–2. In
response to this comment, final
§ 1610.6–2(c) has been modified to state
that the Director shall notify the
protesting parties of a dismissal and
provide reasons for the dismissal.
A few comments requested that the
protest period be extended from 30 days
to 60 days. The final rule is not revised
based on this request. The 30-day
protest period is an existing
requirement, and does not represent a
change in practice or policy.
Several comments included requests
that the BLM adopt language in
§ 1610.6–4 requiring the BLM to adopt
an adaptive management structure. The
final rule is not revised in response to
these comments. As explained in the
preamble discussion of § 1610.1–3, the
measurable objectives and use of
monitoring and evaluation will guide
adaptive management strategies to help
manage for uncertainty. However, the
specific application of adaptive
management principles depends on the
unique circumstances of each planning
effort, and it is not appropriate to
prescribe how those principles will be
applied in the final rule.
Several comments suggested that
§ 1610.6–4 include a review of the
objectives as part of monitoring and
evaluation. The final rule is revised to
state that monitoring and evaluation is
used to determine whether the resource
management plan objectives are being
met; and whether there is relevant new
information or other sufficient cause to
warrant consideration of amendment or
revision of the resource management
plan.
Several public comments suggested
that the BLM should have the discretion
to rely on other agencies’ resource
assessments. In response to public
comment, the final rule includes a new
§ 1610.6–8(c), which provides that
another agency’s resource assessment
may be relied on if it is consistent with
the nature, scope, and scale of the issues
of concern relevant to the planning area
and has considered the resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions in a way
comparable to the manner in which
these conditions would have been
considered in a planning assessment,
including the opportunity for public
involvement, and is consistent with
Federal laws and regulations applicable
to public lands, and the purposes,
policies, and programs implementing
such laws and regulations. For example,
the BLM could rely on an assessment
developed by the United States Forest
Service during the development of a
land management plan, should it meet
these requirements.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
89656
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Designation of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs)
Several comments objected to the
proposed removal of the requirement to
publish a Federal Register notice and
60-day public comment period for
proposed ACECs. In response to public
comment, the final rule is revised to
require that when a draft resource
management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or
more potential ACECs, the BLM shall
publish a notice in the Federal Register
and request written comments on the
designations under consideration. The
final rule further provides that this step
may be integrated with the notice and
comment period for the draft resource
management plan or plan amendment
(see §§ 1610.2–2(d) and 1610.8–2(b)(1)).
This comment period will be at least 30
days long, in accordance with § 1610.2–
2(a) of the final rule, and will be longer
when it is integrated with the comment
period for draft EIS-level amendments
(at least 60 days) and draft resource
management plans (at least 100 days).
Either resource management plans or
plan amendments can consider
potential ACECs for designation
consistent with the priority established
by FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712–(c)(3)). After
careful consideration, BLM believes that
a 30-day comment period will generally
be adequate for EA-level plan
amendments that include ACECs, such
as revising the boundary of an existing
ACEC after the acquisition of an
adjoining parcel; however, BLM may
extend the comment period if
warranted.
Some comments expressed concern
that language in the proposed rule
would not allow identification of
potential ACECs later in the process as
new resources are identified, or in
between planning process. Other
comments objected to identifying
potential ACECs during the planning
assessment, or outside of the
preparation of a resource management
plan. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The final
rule retains the requirement to identify
potential ACECs through inventory of
public lands and during the planning
process (see § 1610.8–2(a)). The
identification of potential ACECs is an
inventory process required under
FLPMA which states that an inventory
of all public lands and their resources
and other values, shall be prepared and
maintained on a continuing basis, giving
priority to ACECs (43 U.S.C. 1711(a)).
The final rule establishes procedures for
inventory of the public lands during the
planning assessment at §§ 1610.4(b)(1)
and 1610.4(d)(5)(vii), therefore it is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
appropriate that an inventory of
potential ACECs occur during the
planning assessment. Inventory and
assessment can be conducted at any
point in time, however, and not just at
times associated with a plan
amendment or resource management
plan. Potential ACECs may be identified
after the planning assessment is
completed, such as during public
scoping, and the BLM will consider
these potential ACECs for designation in
the draft resource management plan. It
is important to note that the
identification of a potential ACEC does
not constitute formal designation of an
ACEC. Designation of an ACEC occurs
through the approval of a resource
management plan, consistent with
existing regulation (see final § 1610.8–
2(b)(1)). Under the final rule, an ACEC
is not designated during the planning
assessment.
Some commenters expressed that
ACECs are inappropriately given special
treatment in the rule. The final rule is
not revised in response to these
comments. FLPMA provides that the
BLM shall give priority to the inventory,
designation, and protection of ACECs
(43 U.S.C. 1711(a) and 1712(c)(3)). The
procedures described in final § 1610.8–
2 are similar to the existing rule, but are
modified slightly for clarification, to
promote efficiency, and to better align
with FLPMA. The final rule at § 1610.8–
2 provides the process for the
identification, designation and
protection of ACECs through the
planning process, consistent with the
priority established in FLPMA.
Several comments objected to the
proposed removal of language stating
that an ACEC generally contains values
that are of ‘‘more than local
significance’’ (existing § 1610.7–2(a)(2)).
Other comments expressed support for
this proposed change. In response to
public comments, the final rule removes
this existing language. The BLM
believes that this existing language is
not appropriate in the regulations
because it does not accurately describe
the existing criteria for importance that
an area ‘‘must have substantial
significance and values.’’ There are
many examples where an area of local
significance would meet the importance
criteria for substantial significance and
values, including a cultural site of
substantial significance to local tribes; a
wetland that provides critical water
filtration services to a local community;
or key habitat for an endemic wildlife
species. The removal of this language
does not represent a substantive change
in these regulations, as this language
does not represent a requirement under
the existing regulations; rather it
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provided an example of what generally
meets the ‘‘importance’’ criteria.
A few comments suggested that the
last sentence in proposed § 1610.8–2(b)
should be deleted, or the word potential
removed, as this sentences suggests that
the existence of a potential ACEC
requires the BLM to provide special
management to the area. Comments
noted that FLPMA defines ACECs ‘‘as
areas within the public lands where
special management is required . . .’’
but contains no language regarding
‘‘potential’’ ACECs or their
management. In response to these
comments, the word ‘‘potential’’ is
removed from the last sentence of
§ 1610.8–2(b) to clarify that only
designated ACECs (not ‘‘potential’’
ACECs) require special management
attention.
Several comments stated that the final
rule should include language to give
priority to ACECs in the final rule.
Comments noted that FLPMA directs
BLM to give priority to ACECs, and this
priority is a unique directive in multiple
use land management law which
requires the BLM to do more than
simply ‘‘consider’’ potential ACECs. In
response to public comment, the final
rule is revised at § 1610.8–2(b) to state
that potential ACECs shall be
considered for designation during the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan ‘‘consistent with the
priority established by FLPMA.’’ The
BLM must comply with FLPMA,
regardless of these regulations;
therefore, a restatement of FLPMA is not
necessary in the regulations. The BLM,
however, recognizes the value in
restating statutory direction in the
planning regulations to provide context
on the relationship between the
regulations and overarching statutory
direction. This does not represent a
substantive change in BLM policy;
rather, it provides context that the BLM
must consider ACECs for designation
consistent with the statutory direction
provided in FLPMA.
Some comments asserted that
revisions to the ACEC provisions
attempt to change the process and intent
of FLPMA under the guise of trying to
make it more readable. Comments stated
that the final rule needs to ensure the
use of the ACEC designation is in
accordance with FLPMA and the intent
of Congress. The final rule is not revised
in response to these comments. The
final rule does not significantly change
the process for designating ACECs or the
intent of ACECs from the existing
regulations. Where changes are made to
the existing regulations, the changes are
disclosed and a rationale provided in
the discussion of § 1610.8–2 in this
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
preamble. The definition of an ACEC
and the process for designating ACECs,
as described in the final rule, are
consistent with FLPMA.
Several comments requested that the
BLM ensure that ACECs are not
managed as a substitute for wilderness,
or used as a substitute for wilderness
suitability recommendations. Comments
noted that BLM Manual 1613 (1988)
states that ‘‘an ACEC designation will
not be used as a substitute for
wilderness suitability
recommendations.’’ The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments.
ACECs will be identified, designated,
and managed in accordance with
FLPMA and applicable policy,
including this final rule. Such areas may
not be used as a substitute for
wilderness areas or wilderness
suitability recommendations.
Climate Change
Several comments suggested that the
planning rule should require each
resource management plan and plan
amendment to analyze climate change
and provide for climate adaptation. The
final rule is not revised in response to
these comments to prescribe specific
requirements related to climate change.
The BLM’s planning rule addresses the
impacts of BLM decisions on climate
change through the NEPA process.
Section 1610.5–3(b) of the final rule
provides that the estimation of effects
for resource management plans shall be
‘‘guided by the basis for analysis, the
planning assessment, and procedures
implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act.’’ This
analysis includes implementation of
current policy on climate change
analysis under NEPA, as appropriate. It
is not necessary to provide duplicative
regulatory guidance in the planning
rule.
It is also important to note that the
planning regulations establish the
procedural framework for preparing and
amending resource management plans,
but they do not prescribe specific
management outcomes. The BLM,
through the land use planning process,
will develop plan components to
address desired management outcomes
within the planning area. The BLM will
consider relevant resource management
concerns, such as climate change and
the need for climate change adaptation,
when assessing the baseline condition,
trend, and potential future condition
and when identifying the planning
issues for any given resource
management plan (see § 1610.5–1). The
planning issues will be informed by,
among other things, the planning
assessment, and will in turn inform the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
development of the plan components.
Final § 1610.4(b)(2) requires that, as part
of the planning assessment, the BLM
‘‘identify relevant national, regional,
State, tribal, or local laws, regulations,
policies, guidance, strategies, or plans
for consideration in the planning
assessment.’’ We believe that this is the
appropriate place to consider relevant
policies such as Federal or
Departmental climate change policies.
Goals of Planning 2.0
The BLM received comments both in
support of, and opposed to, the goals of
Planning 2.0. The BLM also received
comments stating both that the revisions
to the existing rule did not support the
Planning 2.0 goals, and comments
stating that the revisions did support
those goals.
The BLM has retained the goals of
Planning 2.0 in the final rule, with
minor edits. The BLM believes these
goals respond to the increasing
challenges that the BLM faces in
managing for multiple-use and
sustained yield on public lands, and to
recent Executive and Secretarial
direction. For more information, please
see the Background discussion to this
preamble.
Length of Public Comment Period for
the Proposed Planning Rule
The BLM initially provided a 60-day
public comment period on the proposed
planning rule and made the rule
available to the public two-weeks prior
to the formal start of the comment
period. Many comments requested that
the BLM extend the comment period for
up to 240 days. In response, the BLM
granted a 30-day extension of the public
comment period. Additional comments
requested that the BLM further extend
the comment period for up to 270 days.
The BLM did not further extend the
comment period. ‘‘Executive Order
13563—Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ published on
January 21, 2011, directs Federal
agencies to ‘‘afford the public a
meaningful opportunity to comment
through the Internet on any proposed
regulation, with a comment period that
should generally be at least 60 days’’
and the BLM has provided such
opportunity. Several comments also
requested that the BLM hold public
hearings across the western United
States. The BLM held webinars on
March 21, 2016, and April 13, 2016, as
well as a public meeting broadcast live
over the Internet on March 25, 2016.
Recordings of all webinars and meetings
were posted to the BLM Web site and
the public was provided an email
address to submit any additional
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89657
questions. The BLM did not hold public
hearings on the proposed rule across the
western United States because the BLM
provided opportunities for remote
public participation in webinars and
meetings over the Internet and through
email.
Level of NEPA Analysis for the Planning
Rule
The BLM made a preliminary
categorical exclusion available
concurrent with publication of the
proposed rule. The BLM received
multiple comments stating that it is
violating NEPA by relying on a
categorical exclusion for NEPA
compliance. Specifically, comments
argued that the revisions to the planning
rule had potentially significant impacts,
and should have been analyzed through
an Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement.
Comments stated that the following
extraordinary circumstances were
present, making a categorical exclusion
inappropriate:
• Significant impacts to public health
and safety;
• Significant impacts on natural
resources and unique geographic
characteristics;
• Highly controversial environmental
effects or unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available
resources;
• Highly uncertain and potentially
significant environmental effects or
involving unique or unknown
environmental risks;
• Establishes a precedent for future
action or represents a decision in
principle for future actions; and
• Cumulatively significant impacts.
The BLM believes that the categorical
exclusion is the proper form of NEPA
compliance for this action under 43 CFR
46.210(i). The existing and final rules
are entirely procedural in character. The
actual planning decisions reached
through the planning process are
themselves subject to compliance with
NEPA’s analytical requirements as well
as the statute’s public involvement
elements. Any decisions that might be
reached through the planning process,
as proposed for revision through this
rulemaking, would be subject to
compliance with NEPA. For this reason,
the BLM’s reliance upon this categorical
exclusion is appropriate.
The BLM has revised the categorical
exclusion documentation based on
public comments. However, none of the
comments raised information indicating
the presence of one or more of the
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43
CFR 46.215.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89658
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) will
review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has determined that this final rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of Executive Order 12866
while calling for improvements in the
nation’s regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
Executive Order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process
must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this final rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Small Business
Administration (SBA) has developed
size standards to carry out the purposes
of the Small Business Act, which can be
found in 13 CFR 121.201. For a specific
industry identified by the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), small entities are
defined by the SBA as an individual,
limited partnership, or small company
considered at ‘‘arm’s length’’ from the
control of any parent company, which
meet certain size standards. The size
standards are expressed either in
number of employees or annual
receipts. The final rule could affect any
entity that elects to participate in the
BLM’s planning process. The industries
most likely to be directly affected are
listed in the table below along with the
relevant SBA size standards. Other
industries, such as transportation or
manufacturing, may be indirectly
affected and are not listed below.
Size standards
in millions of
dollars
Size standards
in number of
employees
Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming .........................................................................................................................
Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products ...............................................................................................
Logging ....................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and Gas Extraction ............................................................................................................................................
Mining (except Oil and Gas) ....................................................................................................................................
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells .......................................................................................................................................
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations ........................................................................................................
Support Activities for Coal Mining ...........................................................................................................................
Support Activities for Metal Mining ..........................................................................................................................
Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) .....................................................................................
Hydroelectric Power Generation ..............................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation ....................................................................................................................
Solar, Wind, Geothermal Power Generation ...........................................................................................................
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control .......................................................................................................
Electric Power Distribution .......................................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Distribution ..........................................................................................................................................
Environmental Consulting Services .........................................................................................................................
Other Amusement and Recreation Industries .........................................................................................................
Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations ..........................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Industry
0.75
11.0
........................
........................
........................
........................
38.5
20.5
20.5
7.5
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
15.0
7.5
15.0
........................
........................
500
500
500
500
........................
........................
........................
........................
500
750
250
500
1,000
500
........................
........................
........................
These industries may include a large,
though unquantifiable, number of small
entities. In addition to determining
whether a substantial number of small
entities are likely to be affected by this
rule, the BLM must also determine
whether the rule is anticipated to have
a significant economic impact on those
small entities. The final rule is largely
administrative in nature and only affects
internal BLM procedures. The direct
impacts on the public are increased
opportunities for voluntary public
involvement. The magnitude of the
impact on any individual or group,
including small entities, is expected to
be negligible. The actual impacts cannot
reasonably be predicted at this stage, as
they will depend on the specific context
of each planning effort. However, there
is no reason to expect that these
changes, when implemented across all
future planning efforts, place undue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
burden on any specific individual or
group, including small entities.
Based on the available information,
we conclude that the final rule does not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required, and a Small
Entity Compliance Guide is not
required. The BLM prepared an
economic and threshold analysis as part
of the record, which is available for
review.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule is administrative in nature and
affects the BLM’s resource management
planning process and procedures.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
This rule does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. The final rule revises existing
procedures and requirements. Although
the final rule allows the public to
submit protests electronically, which
was not possible under the existing
regulations, it would be speculative to
estimate how many protests the BLM
will receive as a result of this final rule.
This rule does not cause a major
increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. There
are no impacts to any prices as a result
of this final rule.
This rule does not have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. This rule is
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
administrative in nature and only
impacts the BLM’s resource
management planning process and
procedures. The BLM prepared an
economic and threshold analysis as part
of the record, which is available for
review.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. This
rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector. This
rule is administrative in nature and only
impacts the BLM’s land use planning
process and procedures. A statement
containing the information required by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
takings implications under Executive
Order 12630. This rule is administrative
in nature and only impacts internal
BLM procedures. A takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of
Executive Order 13132, this rule does
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact
statement. A federalism summary
impact statement is not required.
A Federalism assessment is not
required because the rule does not have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
The only provisions that could
possibly have a direct effect on States
are the Governor’s consistency review
and the increased public involvement
opportunities, but these provisions will
only have minimal impacts, if any. In
the Governor’s consistency review, the
final rule does not significantly impact
Governors or change the existing
requirements of this section. This
section is revised only to clarify an
existing process that has caused some
confusion. The only change from
existing requirements is final § 1610.3–
2(b)(1)(ii), which allows the Governor to
waive or reduce the 60-day period
during which the Governor may identify
inconsistencies. This could provide a
benefit to the Governor in some
situations where the timely approval of
a plan or amendment is necessary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Please see the discussion on the
Governor’s consistency review at the
preamble for final § 1610.3–2(b)(1)(ii).
The final rule adds more
opportunities for public involvement,
including through the planning
assessment (see § 1610.4) and the public
review of the preliminary alternatives
(see § 1610.5–2), which may result in
more engagement with State and local
governments. Neither of these instances
have a significant adverse effect on State
governments.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
This rule complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically this rule: (a) Meets the
criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate
errors and ambiguity and be written to
minimize litigation; and (b) meets the
criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that
all regulations be written in clear
language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes
(Executive Order 13175 and
Departmental Policy)
This rule complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175
and Department of the Interior
Secretarial Order 3317. Specifically, in
conjunction with preparation of this
final 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 requesting governmentto-government consultation.
Additionally, each BLM State Office
sent a follow-up notification and request
for consultation; the format for followup requests varied across BLM State
Offices. Formats included phone 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89659
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
Overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Collections of information
include requests and requirements that
an individual, partnership, or
corporation obtain information, and
report it to a Federal agency. See 44
U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k).
This final rule contains information
collection activities that require
approval by OMB under the PRA.
The BLM included an information
collection request in the proposed rule.
OMB has approved the information
collection for the final rule under
control number 1004–0212.
Summary of Information Collection
Activities
• Title: Resource Management
Planning (43 CFR part 1600).
• Forms: None.
• OMB Control Number: 1004–0212.
• Description of Respondents:
Participants in the BLM land use
planning process (including Governors
of States; individuals; households;
businesses; associations; and State,
local, and tribal governments).
• Respondents’ Obligation: Required
to obtain or retain a benefit.
• Abstract: This BLM final rule
revises existing regulations on
procedures used to prepare, revise, or
amend land use plans in accordance
with FLPMA. This information
collection request includes activities
that have been ongoing without a
control number.
• Frequency of Collection: On
occasion.
• Estimated Number of Responses
Annually: 131.
• Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
1,965 hours.
• Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost:
None.
Discussion of Information Collection
Activities
Consistency (43 CFR 1610.3–3(b))
Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)) requires that the Secretary of
the Interior ‘‘assist in resolving, to the
extent practical, inconsistencies
between Federal and non-Federal
Government plans.’’ This responsibility
is delegated to the BLM Director and
accomplished, in part, through the
‘‘Governor’s Consistency Review’’
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89660
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
process described in final § 1610.3–3(b).
This information collection activity is
necessary for this process and for
compliance with section 202(c)(9) of
FLPMA.
Final § 1610.3–3(b) provides an
opportunity for Governors of affected
States to identify possible
inconsistencies between officially
approved and adopted land use plans of
State and local governments and
proposed resource management plans
(RMPs) or proposed amendments to
RMPs and management framework
plans (MFPs). Following receipt of a
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment from the BLM,
Governors will have a period of 60 days
to submit to the deciding official a
written document that:
• Identifies any inconsistencies with
officially approved and adopted land
use plans of State and local
governments; and
• Recommends remedies for the
identified inconsistencies.
The final rule provides that the BLM
deciding official will notify the
Governor in writing of his or her
decision regarding these
recommendations and the reasons for
this decision. Within 30 days of this
decision, the Governor will be
authorized to appeal this decision to the
BLM Director. The BLM Director will
consider the Governor(s)’ comments in
rendering a final decision.
Protests (43 CFR 1610.6–2)
Section 202(f) of FLPMA requires that
the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘allow an
opportunity for public involvement and
by regulation . . . establish procedures
. . . to give Federal, State, and local
governments and the public, adequate
notice and opportunity to comment
upon and participate in the formulation
of plans and programs relating to the
management of public lands.’’ The
protest process described in final
§ 1610.6–2 authorizes protests of
proposed land use plans and plan
amendments before such plans or plan
amendments are approved. The
collection of information assists the
BLM in complying with section 202(f) of
FLPMA. Final § 1610.6–2 provides an
opportunity for any person who
participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment to protest the approval of
proposed RMPs and proposed
amendments to RMPs and MFPs to the
Director of the BLM. The following
information is required for submission
of a valid protest:
1. The protestor’s name, mailing,
address, telephone number, and email
address (if available). The BLM needs
this information in order to contact the
protestor.
2. The protestor’s interest that may be
adversely affected by the planning
process. This information helps the
BLM understand whether or not the
protestor is eligible to submit a protest.
3. How the protestor participated in
the preparation of the resource
management plan or plan amendment.
This information helps the BLM
determine whether or not the protestor
is eligible to submit a protest.
4. The plan component or
components believed to be inconsistent
with Federal laws or regulations
applicable to public lands, or the
purposes, policies and programs of such
laws and regulations. This information
is necessary because the approval of a
resource management plan is the final
decision for the Department of the
Interior. Plan components represent
planning-level management direction
with which all future decisions within
a planning area must be consistent, thus
it is important for the BLM to know if
a plan component is believed to be
inconsistent with Federal laws or
regulations applicable to public lands,
or the purposes, policies and programs
of such laws and regulations.
5. A concise explanation of why the
plan component is believed to be
inconsistent with Federal laws or
regulations applicable to public lands,
or the purposes, policies and programs
of such laws and regulations and of the
associated issue or issues that were
raised during the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment. This information is
essential to the BLM’s understanding of
the protest and decision to grant or
dismiss the protest.
6. Copies of all documents addressing
the issue or issues that were submitted
during the planning process by the
protesting party or an indication of the
date the issue or issues were discussed
for the record. This information helps
the BLM to understand the protest and
to reach a decision.
The BLM Director is required to
render a decision on the protest before
approval of any portion of the resource
management plan or plan amendment
being protested. The Director’s decision
is the final decision of the Department
of the Interior.
Estimated Hour Burdens
The BLM estimates 131 responses and
1,965 hours annually. The estimated
hour burdens are itemized in the
following table. Included in the burden
estimates are the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing each component of the
information collection requirements.
ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL HOUR BURDENS
Type of response
Number of
responses
Hours per
response
Total hours
(column B ×
column C)
A.
B.
C.
D.
27
16
32
56
15
15
15
15
405
240
480
840
Totals ....................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Governor’s Consistency Review Requirements 43 CFR 1610.3–3(b) ........................................
Protest Procedures/Governments 43 CFR 1610.6–2 .................................................................
Protest Procedures/Individuals and Households 43 CFR 1610.6–2 ...........................................
Protest Procedures/Businesses and Associations 43 CFR 1610.6–) .........................................
131
........................
1,965
In response to the proposed rule (81
FR 9674, February 25, 2016), BLM did
not receive any public comments that
addressed information collection
activities for this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
National Environmental Policy Act
The final rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment, and the BLM has prepared
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
documentation to this effect, explaining
that a detailed statement under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) is not required because the
rule is categorically excluded from
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
NEPA review. This rule is excluded
from the requirement to prepare a
detailed statement because it is entirely
procedural in nature. (For further
information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We
have also determined that the rule does
not involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215
that requires further analysis under
NEPA.
Documentation of the reliance upon a
categorical exclusion has been prepared
and is available for public review with
the other supporting documents for this
final rule.
National Historic Preservation Act
While the promulgation of the rule is
an undertaking under the National
Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C.
306108, the BLM has determined that
the rulemaking is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on
historic properties under 36 CFR
800.3(a)(1). This is because the final rule
is entirely procedural. This final rule
does not set goals, standards, or
methods for how the public land is to
be managed. Rather, it describes the
process by which the BLM develops
these for individual land use planning
areas. This final rule does not approve
any land use plans or plan amendments
and does not authorize any particular
projects or other actions that could
cause effects on historic properties.
Endangered Species Act
The BLM has determined a no effect
determination is appropriate under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The final rule is entirely procedural in
nature, and it would have no effect on
listed species or designated critical
habitat because it does not approve any
land use plans or plan amendments or
authorize any particular projects or
other actions that could have such
effects.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive
Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy
action under the definition of Executive
Order 13211. This rule is administrative
in nature and affects the BLM’s internal
procedures. There are no impacts on the
development of energy on public lands.
A statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
Authors
The principal author of this rule is
Shasta Ferranto, Division of Decision
Support, Planning and NEPA, BLM
Washington Office; assisted by Charles
Yudson, Jean Sonneman and Ian Senio,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, BLM
Washington Office; Elizabeth Meyer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Shields, Leah Baker, and Rebecca
Moore, Division of Decision Support,
Planning and NEPA, BLM Washington
Office; Kathryn Kovacs, BLM
Washington Office; and Nicollee
Gaddis, BLM Las Vegas Field Office.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1600
Administrative practice and
procedure, Coal, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Public
lands, State and local governments.
Dated: November 22, 2016.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management.
43 CFR Chapter II
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management amends 43 CFR by revising
part 1600 to read as follows:
■
PART 1600—PLANNING,
PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING
Subpart 1601—Planning
Sec.
1601.0–1 Purpose.
1601.0–2 Objective.
1601.0–3 Authority.
1601.0–4 Responsibilities.
1601.0–5 Definitions.
1601.0–6 Environmental impact statement
policy.
1601.0–7 Scope.
1601.0–8 Principles.
Subpart 1610—Resource Management
Planning
Sec.
1610.1 Resource management planning
framework.
1610.1–1 Guidance and general
requirements.
1610.1–2 Plan components.
1610.2 Public involvement.
1610.2–1 Public notice.
1610.2–2 Public comment periods.
1610.2–3 Availability of the resource
management plan.
1610.3 Consultation with Indian tribes and
coordination with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes.
1610.3–1 Consultation with Indian tribes.
1610.3–2 Coordination of planning efforts.
1610.3–3 Consistency requirements.
1610.4 Planning assessment.
1610.5 Preparation of a resource
management plan.
1610.5–1 Identification of planning issues.
1610.5–2 Formulation of resource
management alternatives.
1610.5–3 Estimation of effects of
alternatives.
1610.5–4 Preparation of the draft resource
management plan and selection of
preferred alternatives.
1610.5–5 Selection of the proposed
resource management plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89661
1610.6 Resource management plan
approval, implementation, and
modification.
1610.6–1 Resource management plan
approval and implementation.
1610.6–2 Protest procedures.
1610.6–3 Conformity and implementation.
1610.6–4 Monitoring and evaluation.
1610.6–5 Maintenance.
1610.6–6 Amendment.
1610.6–7 Revision.
1610.6–8 Situations where action can be
taken based on another agency’s
planning documents.
1610.7 Management decision review by
Congress.
1610.8 Designation of areas.
1610.8–1 Designation of areas unsuitable
for surface mining.
1610.8–2 Designation of areas of critical
environmental concern.
1610.9 Transition period.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1711–1712.
Subpart 1601—Planning
§ 1601.0–1
Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to establish
in regulations a process for the
development, approval, maintenance,
and amendment of resource
management plans, and the use of
existing plans for public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), consistent with the
principles of multiple use and sustained
yield, unless otherwise specified by law.
§ 1601.0–2
Objective.
The objective of resource management
planning by the BLM is to manage
public lands on the basis of multiple use
and sustained yield, unless otherwise
specified by law, provide for meaningful
public involvement by the public, State
and local governments, Indian tribes
and Federal agencies in the preparation
and amendment of resource
management plans, and 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 food and habitat for fish
and wildlife and domestic animals; that
will provide for outdoor recreation and
human occupancy and use, and 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.
§ 1601.0–3
Authority.
These regulations are issued under
the authority of sections 201 and 202 of
the Federal Land Policy and
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89662
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1711–1712) (FLPMA); the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
(43 U.S.C. 1901); section 3 of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1976 (30 U.S.C. 201(a)); sections 522,
601, and 714 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.); and the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
§ 1601.0–4
Responsibilities.
(a) The Secretary and the Director
provide national level policy and
procedure guidance for planning. The
Director determines the deciding official
and the planning area for the
preparation of resource management
plans and plan amendments that cross
State boundaries. For other resource
management plans or plan amendments,
the deciding official shall be the BLM
State Director, unless otherwise
determined by the Director.
(b) Deciding officials provide quality
control and supervisory review,
including approval, for the preparation
and amendment of resource
management plans and related
environmental impact statements or
environmental assessments. The
deciding official determines the
responsible official for the preparation
of each resource management plan or
plan amendment. The deciding official
also determines the planning area for
resource management plans and plan
amendments that do not cross State
boundaries.
(c) Responsible officials prepare
resource management plans and plan
amendments and related environmental
impact statements or environmental
assessments.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1601.0–5
Definitions.
As used in this part, the term:
Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern or ACEC means areas within
the public lands where special
management attention is required (when
such areas are developed or used or
where no development is required) to
protect and prevent irreparable damage
to important historic, cultural, or scenic
values, fish and wildlife resources, or
other natural systems or processes, or to
protect life and safety from natural
hazards.
Conformity or conformance means
that a resource management action shall
be clearly consistent with the plan
components of the approved resource
management plan (see § 1610.6–3).
Consistent with officially approved
and adopted plans means that resource
management plans are compatible with
the terms, conditions, and decisions of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
officially approved and adopted plans of
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, 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, and subject to the
qualifications in § 1610.3–3.
Cooperating agency means an eligible
governmental entity (see 43 CFR
46.225(a)) that has entered into an
agreement with the BLM to participate
in the development of an environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment as a cooperating agency
under the National Environmental
Policy Act and in the planning process
as described in § 1610.3–2 of this part.
The BLM and the cooperating agency
will work together under the terms of
the agreement.
Deciding official means the BLM
official who is delegated the authority to
approve a resource management plan or
plan amendment (see § 1601.0–4).
High quality information means 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.
Indian tribe means an Indian tribe
under section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130).
Landscape means 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.
Mitigation means the sequence of
avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
and compensating for remaining
unavoidable impacts.
Multiple use means 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; making the most
judicious use of the lands for some or
all of these resources or related services
over areas large enough to provide
sufficient latitude for periodic
adjustments in use to conform to
changing needs and conditions; the use
of some lands for less than all of the
resources; a combination of balanced
and diverse resource uses that takes into
account the long term needs of future
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not
limited to, recreation, range, timber,
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish,
and natural scenic, scientific and
historical values; and harmonious and
coordinated management of the various
resources without permanent
impairment of the productivity of the
lands 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.
Officially approved and adopted
plans means resource-related plans
prepared and approved by other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes pursuant to and in
accordance with authorization provided
by Federal, State, tribal, or local
constitutions, legislation, or charters
which have the force and effect of law.
Plan amendment means an
amendment to an approved resource
management plan or management
framework plan to change one or more
plan components (see § 1610.6–6).
Plan components means the elements
of a resource management plan with
which future management actions shall
be consistent. Plan components consist
of goals; objectives; designations;
resource use determinations; monitoring
and evaluation standards; and lands
identified as available for disposal,
including sales under section 203 of
FLPMA, as applicable (see § 1610.1–2).
Plan maintenance means change(s) to
an approved resource management plan
to correct typographical or mapping
errors or to reflect minor changes in
mapping or data (see § 1610.6–5).
Plan revision means a revision of an
approved resource management plan
that affects the entire resource
management plan or major portions of
the resource management plan (see
§ 1610.6–7). Preparation or development
of a resource management plan includes
plan revisions.
Planning area means the geographic
area for the preparation or amendment
of a resource management plan.
Planning assessment means an
evaluation of relevant resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions in the planning
area (see § 1610.4). A planning
assessment is developed to inform the
preparation and, as appropriate, the
implementation of a resource
management plan.
Planning issue means disputes,
controversies, or opportunities related
to resource management.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Public means affected or interested
individuals, including consumer
organizations, public land resource
users, corporations and other business
entities, environmental organizations
and other special interest groups, and
officials of Federal, State, local, and
Indian tribal governments.
Public involvement means the
opportunity for participation by the
public in decision making and planning
with respect to the public lands.
Public lands means any lands or
interest in lands owned by the United
States and administered by the
Secretary of the Interior through the
BLM. Public lands do not include lands
located on the Outer Continental Shelf
and lands held for the benefit of
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.
Resource management plan means a
land use plan as described under
section 202 of the FLPMA, including
plan revisions. 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.
Responsible official means a BLM
official who is delegated the authority to
prepare a resource management plan or
plan amendment.
State and local government means 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.
Sustained yield means the
achievement and maintenance in
perpetuity of a high-level annual or
regular periodic output of the various
renewable resources of the public lands
consistent with multiple use.
§ 1601.0–6 Environmental impact
statement policy.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
The BLM shall prepare an
environmental impact statement when
preparing a resource management plan.
The environmental analysis of
alternatives and the proposed resource
management plan shall be accomplished
as part of the resource management
planning process and, wherever
possible, the proposed resource
management plan shall be published in
a single document with the related
environmental impact statement.
§ 1601.0–7
Scope.
(a) These regulations apply to all
public lands.
(b) These regulations also govern the
preparation of resource management
plans when the only public land interest
is the mineral estate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
§ 1601.0–8
Principles.
§ 1610.1–2
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.
Additionally, the BLM shall consider
the impacts of resource management
plans on resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic
conditions at relevant scales. The BLM
also shall consider the impacts of
resource management plans on, and the
uses of, adjacent or nearby Federal and
non-Federal lands, and non-public land
surface over federally-owned mineral
interests.
Subpart 1610—Resource Management
Planning
§ 1610.1 Resource management planning
framework.
§ 1610.1–1 Guidance and general
requirements.
(a) Guidance for preparation and
amendment of resource management
plans may be provided by the Director
and deciding official, as needed, to help
the responsible official prepare a
specific resource management plan.
Such guidance may include the
following:
(1) 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; and
(2) Analysis requirements, planning
procedures, and other written
information and instructions required to
be considered in the planning process.
(b) 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. The expertise of the preparers
shall be appropriate to the resource
values involved, the issues identified
during the issue identification and
environmental impact statement
scoping stage of the planning process,
and the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield unless otherwise
specified by law. The responsible
official may use any necessary
combination of BLM staff, consultants,
contractors, other governmental
personnel, and advisors to achieve an
interdisciplinary approach.
(c) The BLM shall use high quality
information to inform the preparation,
amendment, and maintenance of
resource management plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89663
Plan components.
(a) Plan components guide future
management actions within the
planning area. Resource management
plans shall include the following plan
components:
(1) Goals. A goal is a broad statement
of desired outcomes addressing
resource, environmental, ecological,
social, or economic characteristics
within the planning area, or a portion of
the planning area, toward which
management of the land and resources
should be directed.
(2) Objectives. An objective is a
concise statement of desired resource
conditions within the planning area, or
a portion of the planning area,
developed to guide progress toward one
or more goals. An objective is specific,
measurable, and should have
established time-frames for
achievement. As appropriate, objectives
should also:
(i) Identify standards to mitigate
undesirable impacts to resource
conditions;
(ii) Provide integrated consideration
of resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic factors; and
(iii) Identify indicators for evaluating
progress toward achievement of the
objective.
(b) Resource management plans also
shall include the following plan
components in order to achieve the
goals and objectives of the resource
management plan, or applicable legal
requirements or policies, consistent
with the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield unless otherwise
specified by law:
(1) Designations. A designation
identifies areas of public land where
management is directed toward one or
more priority resource values or
resource uses.
(i) Planning designations are
identified through the BLM’s land use
planning process in order to achieve the
goals and objectives of the resource
management plan or applicable legal
requirements or policies such as the
designation of areas of critical
environmental concern (ACEC) (see
§ 1610.8–2).
(ii) Non-discretionary designations are
designated by the President, Congress,
or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
to other legal authorities.
(2) Resource use determinations. A
resource use determination identifies
areas of public lands or mineral estate
where, subject to valid existing rights,
specific uses are excluded, restricted, or
allowed, in order to achieve the goals
and objectives of the resource
management plan or applicable legal
requirements or policies. Resource use
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89664
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
determinations shall be consistent with
or support the management priorities
identified through designations.
(3) Monitoring and evaluation
standards. Monitoring and evaluation
standards identify indicators and
intervals for monitoring and evaluation
to determine whether the resource
management plan objectives are being
met or there is relevant new information
that may warrant amendment or
revision of the resource management
plan.
(4) Lands identified as available for
disposal from BLM administration,
including sales under section 203 of
FLPMA, as applicable.
(c) A plan component may only be
changed through a resource
management plan amendment or
revision, except to correct typographical
or mapping errors or to reflect minor
changes in mapping or data (see
§ 1610.6–5).
§ 1610.2
Public involvement.
(a) The BLM shall provide the public
with opportunities to become
meaningfully involved in and comment
on the preparation and amendment of
resource management plans. Public
involvement in the resource
management planning process shall
conform to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act and
associated implementing regulations.
(b) Public involvement activities
conducted by the BLM shall be
documented either by a record or by a
summary of the principal issues
discussed and comments made. The
record or summary of the principal
issues discussed and comments made
shall be available to the public and open
for 30 days to any participant who
wishes to review the record or
summary.
(c) Before the close of each fiscal year,
the BLM shall post the status of each
resource management plan in process of
preparation or scheduled to be started to
the BLM’s Web site.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1610.2–1
Public notice.
(a) When the BLM prepares a resource
management plan or amends a resource
management plan and prepares an
environmental impact statement to
inform the amendment, the BLM shall
notify the public and provide
opportunities for public involvement
appropriate to the areas and people
involved during the following points in
the planning process:
(1) Preparation of the planning
assessment (subject to § 1610.4);
(2) Identification of planning issues
and review of the preliminary statement
of purpose and need (see § 1610.5–1);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
(3) Review of the preliminary resource
management alternatives, preliminary
rationale for alternatives, and the basis
for analysis (subject to §§ 1610.5–2(c)
and 1610.5–3(a)(1));
(4) Comment on the draft resource
management plan (see § 1610.5–4); and
(5) Protest of the proposed resource
management plan (see §§ 1610.5–5 and
1610.6–2).
(b) When the BLM amends a resource
management plan and prepares an
environmental assessment to inform the
amendment, the BLM shall notify the
public and provide opportunities for
public involvement appropriate to the
areas and people involved during the
following points in the planning
process:
(1) Identification of planning issues
(see § 1610.6–6(a));
(2) Comment on the draft resource
management plan amendment, as
appropriate (see § 1610.6–6(a)); and
(3) Protest of the proposed resource
management plan amendment (see
§§ 1610.5–5 and 1610.6–2).
(c) The BLM shall announce
opportunities for public involvement by
posting a notice on the BLM’s Web site,
at all BLM offices within the planning
area, and at other public locations, as
appropriate. The responsible official
shall identify additional forms of
notification to reach local communities
located within the planning area, as
appropriate.
(d) Individuals or groups may request
to be notified of opportunities for public
involvement related to the preparation
or amendment of a resource
management plan. The BLM shall notify
those individuals or groups through
written or electronic means.
(e) The BLM shall notify the public at
least 15 days before any public
involvement activities where the public
is invited to attend, such as a public
meeting.
(f) When initiating the identification
of planning issues for the preparation of
a resource management plan or plan
amendment, in addition to the public
notification requirements of §§ 1610.2–
1(c) and 1610.2–1(d), the BLM shall
notify the public as follows:
(1) The BLM shall publish a notice in
appropriate media, including
newspapers of general circulation in the
planning area. The BLM shall also
publish a notice of intent in the Federal
Register. This notice may also constitute
the scoping notice required by
regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR
1501.7).
(2) This notice shall include the
following:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) Description of the proposed
planning action;
(ii) Identification of the planning area
for which the resource management
plan is to be prepared;
(iii) The general types of issues
anticipated;
(iv) The expertise to be represented
and used to prepare the resource
management plan, in order to achieve
an interdisciplinary approach (see
§ 1610.1–1(b));
(v) The kind and extent of public
involvement opportunities to be
provided, as known at the time;
(vi) The times, dates, and locations
scheduled or anticipated for any public
meetings, hearings, conferences, or
other gatherings, as known at the time;
(vii) The name, title, address, and
telephone number of the BLM official
who may be contacted for further
information; and
(viii) The location and availability of
documents relevant to the planning
process.
(g) If, after publication of a proposed
resource management plan or plan
amendment, the BLM intends to select
an alternative that is encompassed by
the range of alternatives in the final
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment, but is
substantially different than the
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment, the BLM shall notify
the public and request written
comments on the change before the
resource management plan or plan
amendment is approved (see § 1610.6–
1(b)).
(h) The BLM shall notify the public
when a resource management plan or
plan amendment has been approved.
(i) When changes are made to an
approved resource management plan
through plan maintenance, the BLM
shall notify the public and make the
changes available for public review at
least 30 days prior to their
implementation.
§ 1610.2–2
Public comment periods.
(a) Any time the BLM requests written
comments during the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan, the BLM shall notify the public
and provide for at least 30 calendar days
for response, unless a longer period is
required by law or regulation.
(b) When requesting written
comments on a draft plan amendment
and an environmental impact statement
is prepared to inform the amendment,
the BLM shall provide at least 60
calendar days for response. The 60-day
period begins when the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes a notice of
availability of the draft environmental
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
impact statement in the Federal
Register.
(c) When requesting written
comments on a draft resource
management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, the
BLM shall provide at least 100 calendar
days for response. The 100-day period
begins when the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes a notice of
availability of the draft environmental
impact statement in the Federal
Register.
(d) When a draft resource
management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or
more potential ACECs, the BLM shall
request written comments on the
designations under consideration (see
§ 1610.8–2).
§ 1610.2–3 Availability of the resource
management plan.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
(a) The BLM shall make copies of the
draft, proposed, and approved resource
management plan or plan amendment
reasonably available to the public. At a
minimum, the BLM shall make copies of
these documents available electronically
and at all BLM offices within the
planning area. The BLM shall also make
any scientific or technical reports the
responsible official uses in the
preparation of a resource management
plan or plan amendment reasonably
available to the public, to the extent
practical and consistent with Federal
law.
(b) Upon request, the BLM shall make
single printed copies of the draft or
proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment available to individual
members of the public during the public
involvement process. After the BLM
approves a resource management plan
or plan amendment, the BLM may
charge a fee for additional printed
copies. Fees for reproducing requested
documents beyond those used as part of
the public involvement activities and
other than single printed copies of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment may be charged according
to the Department of the Interior
schedule for Freedom of Information
Act requests in 43 CFR part 2.
§ 1610.3 Consultation with Indian tribes
and coordination with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes.
§ 1610.3–1
Consultation with Indian tribes.
The BLM shall initiate consultation
with Indian tribes on a government-togovernment basis during the preparation
and amendment of resource
management plans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
§ 1610.3–2
efforts.
Coordination of planning
(a) Objectives of coordination. In
addition to the public involvement
prescribed by § 1610.2, and to the extent
consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands,
coordination is to be accomplished with
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes. The
objectives of this coordination are for
the BLM to:
(1) Keep apprised of the plans,
policies, and management programs of
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes;
(2) Assure that the BLM considers
those plans, policies, and management
programs that are germane in the
development of resource management
plans for public lands;
(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between
Federal and non-Federal government
plans;
(4) Provide for meaningful public
involvement of other Federal agencies,
State and local government officials,
both elected and appointed, and Indian
tribes, in the development of resource
management plans, including early
notice of final decisions that may have
a significant impact on non-Federal
lands; and
(5) Where possible and appropriate,
develop resource management plans
collaboratively with cooperating
agencies.
(b) Cooperating agencies. When
preparing a resource management plan,
the responsible official shall follow
applicable regulations regarding the
invitation of eligible governmental
entities (see 43 CFR 46.225) to
participate as cooperating agencies. The
same requirement applies when the
BLM amends a resource management
plan and prepares an environmental
impact statement to inform the
amendment.
(1) The responsible official shall
consider any request by an eligible
governmental entity to participate as a
cooperating agency. If the responsible
official denies a request or determines it
is inappropriate to extend an invitation
to an eligible governmental entity, he or
she shall inform the deciding official of
the denial. The deciding official shall
determine if the denial is appropriate
and state the reasons for any denials in
the environmental impact statement.
(2) When a cooperating agency is a
non-Federal agency, a memorandum of
understanding shall be used and shall
include a commitment to maintain the
confidentiality of documents and
deliberations during the period prior to
the public release by the BLM of any
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89665
documents, including drafts (see 43 CFR
46.225(d)).
(3) The responsible official shall
collaborate, to the fullest extent
possible, with all cooperating agencies
concerning those issues relating to their
jurisdiction and special expertise,
during the following steps in the
planning process:
(i) Preparation of the planning
assessment (see § 1610.4);
(ii) Identification of planning issues
(see § 1610.5–1);
(iii) Formulation of resource
management alternatives (see § 1610.5–
2);
(iv) Estimation of effects of
alternatives (see § 1610.5–3);
(v) Preparation of the draft resource
management plan (see § 1610.5–4); and
(vi) Preparation of the proposed
resource management plan (see
§ 1610.5–5).
(c) Coordination requirements. The
BLM shall provide Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes opportunity for review, advice,
and suggestions on issues and topics
which may affect or influence other
agency or other government programs.
(1) To facilitate coordination with
State governments, deciding officials
should seek the input of the Governor(s)
on the timing, scope, and coordination
of resource management planning;
definition of planning areas; scheduling
of public involvement activities; and
multiple use and sustained yield on
public lands.
(2) Deciding officials may seek written
agreements with Governors or their
designated representatives on processes
and procedural topics such as
exchanging information, providing
advice and participation, and
timeframes for receiving State
government participation and review in
a timely fashion. If an agreement is not
reached, the deciding official shall
provide opportunity for Governor and
State agency review, advice, and
suggestions on issues and topics that the
deciding official has reason to believe
could affect or influence State
government programs.
(3) The responsible official shall
notify Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes that
have requested to be notified or that the
responsible official has reason to believe
would be interested in the resource
management plan or plan amendment of
any opportunities for public
involvement in the preparation or
amendment of a resource management
plan. These notices shall be issued
simultaneously with the public notices
required under § 1610.2–1 of this part.
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89666
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(4) The responsible official shall
notify relevant State agencies consistent
with State procedures for coordination
of Federal activities for circulation
among State agencies, if such
procedures exist.
(5) The responsible official shall
provide Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes the
time period prescribed under § 1610.2 of
this part for review and comment on
resource management plans and plan
amendments.
(d) Resource advisory councils. When
an advisory council has been formed
under section 309 of FLPMA for the area
addressed in a resource management
plan or plan amendment, the
responsible official shall inform that
council, seek its views, and consider
them throughout the planning process.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1610.3–3
Consistency requirements.
(a) Resource management plans shall
be consistent with officially approved
and adopted plans of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes to the maximum
extent the BLM finds consistent with
the purposes of FLPMA and other
Federal laws and regulations applicable
to public lands, and the purposes,
policies and programs implementing
such laws and regulations.
(1) The BLM shall, to the extent
practical, keep apprised of officially
approved and adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes and give
consideration to those plans that are
germane in the development of resource
management plans.
(2) The BLM is not required to
address the consistency requirements of
this section if the responsible official
has not been notified, in writing, by
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, or Indian tribes of an
apparent inconsistency.
(3) If a Federal agency, State and local
government, or Indian tribe notifies the
responsible official, in writing, of what
they believe to be specific
inconsistencies between the BLM draft
resource management plan and their
officially approved and adopted plans,
the proposed resource management plan
shall show how those inconsistencies
were addressed and, if possible,
resolved.
(4) Where the officially approved and
adopted plans of State and local
governments differ from each other,
those of the higher authority will
normally be followed.
(b) Governor’s consistency review.
Prior to the approval of a proposed
resource management plan or plan
amendment, the deciding official shall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
submit to the Governor of the State(s)
involved, the proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment
and shall identify any relevant known
inconsistencies with the officially
approved and adopted plans of State
and local governments.
(1) The Governor(s) may submit a
written document to the deciding
official within 60 days after receiving
the proposed resource management plan
or plan amendment that:
(i) Identifies inconsistencies with
officially approved and adopted land
use plans of State and local
governments and provides
recommendations to remedy the
identified inconsistencies; or
(ii) Waives or reduces the 60-day
period.
(2) If the Governor(s) does not
respond within the 60-day period, the
resource management plan or plan
amendment is presumed to be
consistent.
(3) If the document submitted by the
Governor(s) recommends substantive
changes that were not considered during
the public involvement process, the
BLM shall notify the public and request
written comments on these changes.
(4) The deciding official shall notify
the Governor(s) in writing of his or her
decision regarding these
recommendations and the reasons for
this decision.
(i) The Governor(s) may submit a
written appeal to the Director within 30
days after receiving the deciding
official’s decision.
(ii) The Director shall consider the
Governor(s)’ appeal and the consistency
requirements of this section in
rendering a final decision. The Director
shall notify the Governor(s) in writing of
his or her decision regarding the
Governor’s appeal. The BLM shall notify
the public of this decision and make the
written decision available to the public.
§ 1610.4
Planning assessment.
Before initiating the preparation of a
resource management plan the BLM
shall, consistent with the nature, scope,
scale, and timing of the planning effort,
complete a planning assessment.
(a) Planning area. The BLM shall
identify a preliminary planning area for
use as the basis for the planning
assessment.
(1) In identifying the preliminary
planning area, the BLM shall consider
the following:
(i) Management concerns identified
through monitoring and evaluation (see
§ 1610.6–4);
(ii) Relevant landscapes based on
these management concerns;
(iii) Director and deciding official
guidance;
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(iv) Officially approved and adopted
plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian
tribes; and
(v) Other relevant information, as
appropriate.
(2) The responsible official shall make
a description of and a rationale for the
preliminary planning area available for
public review prior to the publication of
the notice of intent in the Federal
Register (see § 1610.2–1(f)).
(b) Information gathering. The
responsible official shall:
(1) Arrange for relevant resource,
environmental, ecological, social,
economic, and institutional data and
information to be gathered, or
assembled if already available,
including the identification of potential
ACECs (see § 1610.8–2). To the extent
consistent with the laws governing the
administration of the public lands and
as appropriate, inventory data and
information shall be gathered or
assembled in coordination with the land
use planning and management programs
of other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes
within which the lands are located, and
in a manner that aids the planning
process and avoids unnecessary datagathering;
(2) Identify relevant national,
regional, State, tribal, or local laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans for consideration in
the planning assessment. These may
include, but are not limited to,
Executive or Secretarial orders,
Departmental or BLM policy, Director or
deciding official guidance, mitigation
strategies, interagency initiatives, and
State, multi-state, tribal, or local
resource plans;
(3) Provide opportunities for other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, and the
public to provide existing data and
information or suggest other laws,
regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans described under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for the
BLM’s consideration in the planning
assessment; and
(4) Identify relevant public views
concerning resource, environmental,
ecological, social, or economic
conditions of the planning area.
(c) Information quality. The
responsible official shall evaluate the
data and information gathered under
paragraph (b) of this section to ensure
the use of high quality information in
the planning assessment and to identify
any data gaps or further information
needs.
(d) Assessment. The responsible
official shall assess the resource,
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions of the planning
area. At a minimum, the responsible
official shall consider and document the
following factors in this assessment
when they are applicable:
(1) Resource use and management
authorized by FLPMA and other
relevant authorities;
(2) Land status and ownership,
existing resource management,
infrastructure, and access patterns in the
planning area, including any known
valid existing rights;
(3) Current resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic
conditions, and any known trends
related to these conditions;
(4) Known resource constraints, or
limitations;
(5) Areas of potential importance
within the planning area, including:
(i) Areas of tribal, traditional, or
cultural importance;
(ii) Habitat for special status species,
including State or federally-listed
threatened and endangered species;
(iii) Other areas of key fish and
wildlife habitat such as big game
wintering and summer areas, bird
nesting and feeding areas, habitat
connectivity or wildlife migration
corridors, and areas of large and intact
habitat;
(iv) Areas of ecological importance,
such as areas that increase the ability of
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
within the planning area to adapt to,
resist, or recover from change;
(v) Lands with wilderness
characteristics, wild and scenic study
rivers, or areas of significant scientific
or scenic value;
(vi) Areas of significant historical
value, including paleontological sites;
(vii) Existing designations located in
the planning area, such as wilderness,
wilderness study areas, wild and scenic
rivers, national scenic or historic trails,
or ACECs;
(viii) Areas with potential for
renewable or non-renewable energy
development or energy transmission;
(ix) Areas with known mineral
potential;
(x) Areas with known potential for
producing forest products, including
timber;
(xi) Areas of importance for recreation
activities or access;
(xii) Areas of importance for public
health and safety, such as abandoned
mine lands or natural hazards;
(6) Dominant ecological processes,
disturbance regimes, and stressors, such
as drought, wildland fire, invasive
species, and climate change; and
(7) The various goods, services, and
uses that people obtain from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
planning area, such as ecological
services, domestic livestock grazing, fish
and wildlife development and
utilization, mineral exploration and
production, rights-of-way, outdoor
recreation, and timber production; and
(i) The degree of local, regional,
national, or international importance of
these goods, services, and uses;
(ii) Available forecasts and analyses
related to the supply and demand for
these goods, services, and uses; and
(iii) The estimated levels of these
goods, services, and uses that may be
produced on a sustained yield basis.
(e) Planning assessment report. The
responsible official shall document the
planning assessment in a report made
available for public review prior to the
publication of the notice of intent,
which includes the identification and
rationale for potential ACECs. To the
extent practical, any non-sensitive
geospatial information used in the
planning assessment should be made
available to the public on the BLM’s
Web site.
(f) Plan amendments. Before initiating
the preparation of a plan amendment for
which an environmental impact
statement will be prepared, the BLM
shall complete a planning assessment
consistent with the requirements of this
section for the geographic area being
considered for amendment. The
deciding official may waive this
requirement for project-specific or other
minor amendments.
§ 1610.5 Preparation of a resource
management plan.
When preparing a resource
management plan, or a plan amendment
for which an environmental impact
statement will be prepared, the BLM
shall follow the process described in
§§ 1610.5–1 through 1610.5–5.
§ 1610.5–1
issues.
Identification of planning
(a) The responsible official shall
prepare a preliminary statement of
purpose and need, which briefly
indicates the underlying purpose and
need to which the BLM is responding
(see 43 CFR 46.420). This statement
shall be informed by Director and
deciding official guidance (see § 1610.1–
1(a)), public views (see § 1610.4(a)(4)),
the planning assessment (see
§ 1610.4(c)), the results of any previous
monitoring and evaluation within the
planning area (see § 1610.6–4), Federal
laws and regulations applicable to
public lands, and the purposes, policies,
and programs implementing such laws
and regulations. The BLM shall initiate
the identification of planning issues by
notifying the public and making the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
89667
preliminary statement of purpose and
need available for public review.
(b) The public, other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes shall be given an opportunity to
suggest concerns, needs, opportunities,
conflicts, or constraints related to
resource management for consideration
in the preparation of the resource
management plan, including those
respecting officially approved and
adopted plans of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian
tribes. The responsible official shall
analyze those suggestions and other
available data and information, such as
the planning assessment (see § 1610.4–
1), and determine the planning issues to
be addressed during the planning
process. Planning issues may be
modified during the planning process to
incorporate new information. The
identification of planning issues should
be integrated with the scoping process
required by regulations implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act
(40 CFR 1501.7).
§ 1610.5–2 Formulation of resource
management alternatives.
(a) Alternatives development. The
BLM shall consider all reasonable
resource management alternatives
(alternatives) and develop several
complete alternatives for detailed study.
The decision to designate alternatives
for further development and analysis
remains the exclusive responsibility of
the BLM.
(1) The alternatives developed shall
be informed by the Director and
deciding official guidance (see
§ 1610.1(a)), the planning assessment
(see § 1610.4), the statement of purpose
and need (see § 1610.5–1), and the
planning issues (see § 1610.5–1).
(2) In order to limit the total number
of alternatives analyzed in detail to a
manageable number for presentation
and analysis, reasonable variations may
be treated as sub-alternatives.
(3) One alternative shall be for no
action, which means continuation of
present level or systems of resource
management.
(4) The resource management plan
shall note any alternatives identified
and eliminated from detailed study and
shall briefly discuss the reasons for their
elimination.
(b) Rationale for alternatives. The
resource management plan shall
describe the rationale for the differences
between alternatives. The rationale shall
include:
(1) A description of how each
alternative addresses the planning
issues, consistent with the principles of
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89668
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
multiple use and sustained yield, unless
otherwise specified by law;
(2) A description of management
direction that is common to all
alternatives; and
(3) A description of how management
direction varies across alternatives to
address the planning issues.
(c) Public review of preliminary
alternatives. The responsible official
shall make the preliminary alternatives
and the preliminary rationale for
alternatives available for public review
prior to the publication of the draft
resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, and as
appropriate, prior to the publication of
draft plan amendments when an
environmental impact statement is
prepared to inform the amendment.
(d) Changes to preliminary
alternatives. The BLM may change the
preliminary alternatives and
preliminary rationale for alternatives as
planning proceeds if it determines that
public suggestions or other new
information make such changes
necessary. A description of these
changes shall be made available to the
public in the draft resource management
plan (see § 1610.5–4).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1610.5–3 Estimation of effects of
alternatives.
(a) Basis for analysis. The responsible
official shall identify the procedures,
assumptions, and indicators that will be
used to estimate the environmental,
ecological, social, and economic effects
of implementing each alternative
considered in detail.
(1) The responsible official shall make
the preliminary procedures,
assumptions, and indicators available
for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource
management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, and, as
appropriate, prior to the publication of
draft plan amendments when an
environmental impact statement is
prepared to inform the amendment.
(2) The BLM may change the
procedures, assumptions, and indicators
as planning proceeds if it determines
that public suggestions or other new
information make such changes
necessary. A description of these
changes shall be made available to the
public in the draft resource management
plan (see § 1610.5–4).
(b) Effects analysis. The responsible
official shall estimate and display the
environmental, ecological, economic,
and social effects of implementing each
alternative considered in detail. The
estimation of effects shall be guided by
the basis for analysis, the planning
assessment, and procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act. The estimate
may be stated in terms of probable
ranges where effects cannot be precisely
determined.
§ 1610.5–4 Preparation of the draft
resource management plan and selection of
preferred alternatives.
(a) The responsible official shall
prepare a draft resource management
plan based on Director and deciding
official guidance, the planning
assessment, the planning issues, and the
estimation of the effects of alternatives.
The draft resource management plan
and draft environmental impact
statement shall:
(1) Describe any changes made to the
preliminary alternatives and
preliminary procedures, assumptions,
and indicators;
(2) Evaluate the alternatives; and
(3) Identify one or more preferred
alternatives, if one or more exist, and
explain the rationale for the preference
or absence of a preference. The
identification of one or more preferred
alternatives remains the exclusive
responsibility of the BLM.
(b) The resulting draft resource
management plan and draft
environmental impact statement shall
be forwarded to the deciding official for
publication and filing with the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) This draft resource management
plan and draft environmental impact
statement shall be provided for
comment to the Governor(s) of the
State(s) involved, and to officials of
other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes that
have requested to be notified of
opportunities for public involvement or
that the deciding official has reason to
believe would be interested (see
§ 1610.3–2(c)). This action constitutes
compliance with the requirements of
§ 3420.1–7 of this title.
§ 1610.5–5 Selection of the proposed
resource management plan.
(a) After publication of the draft
resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, the
responsible official shall evaluate the
comments received and prepare the
proposed resource management plan
and final environmental impact
statement.
(b) The deciding official shall publish
these documents and file the final
environmental impact statement with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 1610.6 Resource management plan
approval, implementation, and modification.
§ 1610.6–1 Resource management plan
approval and implementation.
(a) The deciding official may approve
the resource management plan or plan
amendment for which an environmental
impact statement was prepared no
earlier than 30 days after the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes a notice of availability of the
final environmental impact statement in
the Federal Register.
(b) Approval shall be withheld on any
portion of a resource management plan
or plan amendment being protested (see
§ 1610.6–2) until final action has been
completed on such protest. If, after
publication of a proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment,
the BLM intends to select an alternative
that is within the spectrum of
alternatives in the final environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment, but is substantially different
than the proposed resource management
plan or plan amendment, the BLM shall
notify the public and request written
comments on the change before the
resource management plan or plan
amendment is approved.
(c) The approval of a resource
management plan or a plan amendment
for which an environmental impact
statement is prepared shall be
documented in a concise public record
of the decision (see 40 CFR 1505.2).
§ 1610.6–2
Protest procedures.
(a) Any member of the public who
participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment and has an interest which
may be adversely affected by the
approval of a proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment
may protest such approval. A protest
may raise only those issues which were
submitted for the record during the
preparation of the resource management
plan or plan amendment (see § 1610.5),
unless the protest concerns an issue that
arose after the close of the opportunity
for public comment on the draft
resource management plan.
(1) Submission. The protest must be
in writing and must be filed with the
Director. The protest may be filed as a
hard-copy or electronically. The
responsible official shall specify protest
filing procedures for each resource
management plan or plan amendment,
including the method the public may
use to submit a protest electronically.
(2) Timing. For resource management
plans or plan amendments for which an
environmental impact statement was
prepared, the protest must be filed
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
within 30 days after the date the
Environmental Protection Agency
published the notice of availability of
the final environmental impact
statement in the Federal Register. For
plan amendments for which an
environmental assessment was
prepared, the protest must be filed
within 30 days after the date that the
BLM notifies the public of the
availability of the amendment.
(3) Content requirements. The protest
must:
(i) Include the name, mailing address,
telephone number, email address (if
available), and interest of the person
filing the protest;
(ii) State how the protestor
participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment;
(iii) Identify the plan component(s)
believed to be inconsistent with Federal
laws or regulations applicable to public
lands, or the purposes, policies, and
programs implementing such laws and
regulations;
(iv) Concisely explain why the plan
component(s) 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
and, unless the protest concerns an
issue that arose after the close of the
opportunity for public comment on the
draft resource management plan,
identify the associated issue or issues
raised during the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan
amendment; and
(v) Include a copy of all documents
addressing the issue or issues that were
submitted during the planning process
by the protesting party or an indication
of the date the issue or issues were
discussed for the record, unless the
protest concerns an issue that arose after
the close of the opportunity for public
comment on the draft resource
management plan.
(4) Availability. Upon request, the
Director shall make protests available to
the public, withholding any protected
information that is exempt from
disclosure under applicable laws or
regulations.
(b) The Director shall render a written
decision on all protests and notify
protesting parties of the decision. The
decision on the protest and the reasons
for the decision shall be made available
to the public. The decision of the
Director is the final decision of the
Department of the Interior. Approval
will be withheld on any portion of a
resource management plan or plan
amendment until final action has been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
completed on such protest (see
§ 1610.6–1(b)).
(c) The Director may dismiss any
protest that does not meet the
requirements of this section. The
Director shall notify protesting parties of
the dismissal and provide the reasons
for the dismissal.
§ 1610.6–3 Conformity and
implementation.
§ 1610.6–4
Monitoring and evaluation.
(a) The BLM shall monitor and
evaluate the resource management plan
in accordance with the monitoring and
evaluation standards to determine
whether:
(1) The resource management plan
objectives are being met; and
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) There is relevant new information
or other sufficient cause to warrant
consideration of amendment or revision
of the resource management plan.
(b) The responsible official shall
document the evaluation of the resource
management plan in a report made
available for public review on the BLM’s
Web site.
§ 1610.6–5
(a) All future resource management
authorizations and actions, and
subsequent more detailed or specific
planning, shall conform to the plan
components of the approved resource
management plan.
(b) After a resource management plan
or plan amendment is approved, and if
otherwise authorized by law, regulation,
contract, permit, cooperative agreement,
or other instrument of occupancy and
use, the BLM shall take appropriate
measures, subject to valid existing
rights, to make operations and activities
under existing permits, contracts,
cooperative agreements, or other
instruments for occupancy and use,
conform to the plan components of the
approved resource management plan or
plan amendment within a reasonable
period of time. Any person adversely
affected by a specific action being
proposed to implement some portion of
a resource management plan or plan
amendment may appeal such action
pursuant to part 4, subpart E of this
chapter, at the time the specific action
is proposed for implementation.
(c) If a proposed action is not in
conformance with a plan component,
and the deciding official determines that
such action warrants further
consideration before a resource
management plan revision is scheduled,
such consideration shall be through a
resource management plan amendment
in accordance with § 1610.6–6 of this
part.
(d) More detailed and site specific
plans for coal, oil shale and tar sand
resources shall be prepared in
accordance with specific regulations for
those resources: Part 3400 of this title
for coal; part 3900 of this title for oil
shale; and part 3140 of this title for tar
sand. These activity plans shall be in
conformance with land use plans
prepared and approved under the
provisions of this part.
89669
Maintenance.
Resource management plans may be
maintained as necessary to correct
typographical or mapping errors or to
reflect minor changes in mapping or
data. Maintenance shall not change a
plan component of the approved
resource management plan, except to
correct typographical or mapping errors
or to reflect minor changes in mapping
or data. Maintenance is not considered
a resource management plan
amendment and shall not require the
formal public involvement and
interagency coordination process
described under §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3 of
this part or the preparation of an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. When
changes are made to an approved
resource management plan through plan
maintenance, the BLM shall notify the
public and make the changes available
for public review at least 30 days prior
to their implementation.
§ 1610.6–6
Amendment.
(a) A plan component may be changed
through amendment. An amendment
may be initiated when the BLM
determines monitoring and evaluation
findings, new high quality information,
new or revised policy, a proposed
action, or other relevant changes in
circumstances, such as changes in
resource, environmental, ecological,
social, or economic conditions, warrants
a change to one or more of the plan
components of the approved resource
management plan. An amendment shall
be made in conjunction with an
environmental assessment of the
proposed change, or an environmental
impact statement, if necessary. When
amending a resource management plan,
the BLM shall provide for public
involvement (see § 1610.2), interagency
coordination, tribal consultation,
consistency review (see § 1610.3), and
protest (see § 1610.6–2). In all cases, the
effect of the amendment on other plan
components shall be evaluated. If the
amendment is being considered in
response to a specific proposal, the
effects analysis required for the proposal
and for the amendment may occur
simultaneously.
(b) If the environmental assessment
does not disclose significant impacts,
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
89670
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the responsible official may make a
finding of no significant impact and
then make a recommendation on the
amendment to the deciding official for
approval. Upon approval, the BLM shall
issue a public notice of the action taken
on the amendment. If the amendment is
approved, it may be implemented 30
days after such notice.
(c) If the BLM amends several
resource management plans
simultaneously, a single programmatic
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment may be
prepared to address all amendments.
§ 1610.6–7
Revision.
The BLM may revise a resource
management plan, as necessary, when
monitoring and evaluation findings
(§ 1610.6–4), new data, new or revised
policy, or other relevant changes in
circumstances affect the entire resource
management plan or major portions of
the resource management plan.
Revisions shall comply with all of the
requirements of this part for preparing
and approving a resource management
plan.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1610.6–8 Situations where action can be
taken based on another agency’s planning
documents.
These regulations authorize the
preparation of a resource management
plan for whatever public land interests
exist in a given land area, including
mixed ownership where the public land
estate is under non-Federal surface, or
administration of the land is shared by
the BLM and another Federal agency.
The BLM may rely on the planning
documents of other agencies when split
or shared estate conditions exist in any
of the following situations:
(a) Another agency’s plan (Federal,
tribal, State, or local) may be relied on
as a basis for an action only if it is
comprehensive and has considered the
public land interest involved in a way
comparable to the manner in which it
would have been considered in a
resource management plan, including
the opportunity for public involvement,
and is consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands,
and the purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and
regulations.
(b) After evaluation and review, the
BLM may adopt another agency’s plan
for continued use as a resource
management plan so long as the plan is
consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands,
and the purposes, policies, and
programs implementing such laws and
regulations, and an agreement is
reached between the BLM and the other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
agency to provide for maintenance and
amendment of the plan, as necessary.
(c) Another agency’s resource
assessment may be relied on only if it
is comprehensive and has considered
the resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic conditions in a
way comparable to the manner in which
these conditions would have been
considered in a planning assessment
(see § 1610.4), including the opportunity
for public involvement, and is
consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands,
and the purposes, policies, and
programs implementing such laws and
regulations.
(d) A land use analysis may be relied
on to consider a coal lease when there
is no Federal ownership interest in the
surface or when coal resources are
insufficient to justify plan preparation
costs. The land use analysis process, as
authorized by the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act, consists of an
environmental assessment or impact
statement, public involvement as
required by § 1610.2, the consultation
and consistency determinations
required by § 1610.3, the protest
procedure prescribed by § 1610.6–2, and
a decision on the coal lease proposal. A
land use analysis meets the planning
requirements of section 202 of FLPMA.
§ 1610.7 Management decision review by
Congress.
FLPMA requires that any BLM
management decision or action
pursuant to a management decision
which totally eliminates one or more
principal or major uses for 2 or more
years with respect to a tract of 100,000
acres or more, shall be reported by the
Secretary to Congress before it can be
implemented. This report is not
required prior to approval of a resource
management plan which, if fully or
partially implemented, would result in
such an elimination of use(s). The
required report shall be submitted as the
first action step in implementing that
portion of a resource management plan
which would require elimination of
such a use.
§ 1610.8
Designation of areas.
§ 1610.8–1 Designation of areas unsuitable
for surface mining.
(a)(1) The resource management
planning process is the chief process by
which public land is reviewed to assess
whether there are areas unsuitable for
all or certain types of surface coal
mining operations under section 522(b)
of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act. The unsuitability
criteria to be applied during the
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
planning process are found in § 3461.1
of this title.
(2) When petitions to designate land
unsuitable under section 522(c) of the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act are referred to the BLM
for comment, the resource management
plan, or plan amendment if available,
shall be the basis for review.
(3) After a resource management plan
or plan amendment is approved in
which lands are assessed as unsuitable,
the BLM shall take all necessary steps
to implement the results of the
unsuitability review as it applies to all
or certain types of coal mining.
(b)(1) The resource management
planning process is the chief process by
which public lands are reviewed for
designation as unsuitable for entry or
leasing for mining operations for
minerals and materials other than coal
under section 601 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act.
(2) When petitions to designate lands
unsuitable under section 601 of the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act are received by the
BLM, the resource management plan, if
available, shall be the basis for
determinations for designation.
(3) After a resource management plan
or plan amendment in which lands are
designated unsuitable is approved, the
BLM shall take all necessary steps to
implement the results of the
unsuitability review as it applies to
minerals or materials other than coal.
§ 1610.8–2 Designation and protection of
areas of critical environmental concern.
(a) Areas having potential for ACEC
designation and protection shall be
identified through inventory of public
lands and during the planning
assessment, and considered during the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan. The inventory data
shall be analyzed to determine whether
there are areas containing resources,
values, systems or processes, or natural
hazards eligible for further
consideration for designation as an
ACEC. In order to be a potential ACEC,
both of the following criteria must be
met:
(1) Relevance. There must be present
a significant historic, cultural, or scenic
value; a fish or wildlife resource or
other natural system or process; or
natural hazard; and
(2) Importance. The value, resource,
system, process, or natural hazard
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section must have substantial
significance and values. This generally
requires qualities of special worth,
consequence, meaning, distinctiveness,
or cause for concern. A natural hazard
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
can be important if it is a significant
threat to human life or property.
(b) Potential ACECs shall be
considered for designation during the
preparation or amendment of a resource
management plan consistent with the
priority established by FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(3)). The identification of
a potential ACEC shall not, of itself,
change or prevent change of the
management or use of public lands.
ACECs require special management
attention (when such areas are
developed or used or no development is
required) to protect and prevent
irreparable damage to the important
historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish
and wildlife resources or other natural
system or process, or to protect life and
safety from natural hazards.
(1) When a draft resource
management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or
more potential ACECs, the BLM shall
publish a notice in the Federal Register
and request written comments on the
designations under consideration. This
step may be integrated with the notice
and comment period for the draft
resource management plan or plan
amendment (see § 1610.2–2). Any draft
resource management plan or plan
amendment involving a potential ACEC
shall include a list of each potential
ACEC and any special management
attention which would occur if it were
formally designated.
(2) The approval of a resource
management plan or plan amendment
that contains an ACEC constitutes
formal designation of an ACEC. The
approved plan shall include a list of all
designated ACECs, and include any
special management attention, such as
resource use determinations (§ 1610.1–
2(b)(2)), identified to protect the
designated ACECs.
§ 1610.9
Transition period.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
(a) Until superseded by resource
management plans, management
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
framework plans may be the basis for
considering proposed actions as follows:
(1) The management framework plan
must be in compliance with the
principle of multiple use and sustained
yield unless otherwise specified by law,
and must have been developed with
public involvement and governmental
coordination, but not necessarily
precisely as prescribed in §§ 1610.2 and
1610.3 of this part.
(2) For proposed actions a
determination shall be made by the
responsible official whether the
proposed action is in conformance with
the management framework plan. Such
determination shall be in writing and
shall explain the reasons for the
determination.
(i) If the proposed action is in
conformance with the management
framework plan, it may be further
considered for decision under
procedures applicable to that type of
action, including the regulatory
provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
(ii) If the proposed action is not in
conformance with the management
framework plan, and if the proposed
action warrants further consideration
before a resource management plan is
scheduled for preparation, such
consideration shall be through an
amendment to the management
framework plan under the provisions of
§ 1610.6–6 of this part.
(b)(1) If an action is proposed where
public lands are not covered by a
management framework plan or a
resource management plan, an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement, if
necessary, plus any other data and
analysis deemed necessary by the BLM
to make an informed decision, shall be
used to assess the impacts of the
proposal and to provide a basis for a
decision on the proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
89671
(2) A land disposal action may be
considered before a resource
management plan is scheduled for
preparation, through a planning
analysis, using the process described in
§ 1610.6–6 of this part for amending a
plan.
(c)(1) When considering whether a
proposed action is in conformance with
a resource management plan, the BLM
shall use an existing resource
management plan approved prior to
January 11, 2017 until it is superseded
by a resource management plan or plan
amendment prepared under the
regulations in this part. In such
circumstances, the proposed action
must either be specifically provided for
in the resource management plan or
clearly consistent with the terms,
conditions, and decisions of the
approved plan.
(2) If a resource management plan is
amended by a plan amendment
prepared under the regulations in this
part, a future proposed action must be
clearly consistent with the plan
components of the provisions of the
approved resource management plan
amended under the regulations in this
part and the terms, conditions, and
decisions of the provisions of the
approved resource management plan
that have not been amended under the
regulations in this part.
(d) If the preparation, revision, or
amendment of a plan was formally
initiated by issuance of a notice of
intent in the Federal Register prior to
January 11, 2017, the BLM may
complete and approve the resource
management plan or plan amendment
pursuant to the requirements of this part
or to the provisions of the planning
regulations in 43 CFR part 1600 in effect
prior to the effective date of this rule.
[FR Doc. 2016–28724 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM
12DER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89580-89671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28724]
[[Page 89579]]
Vol. 81
Monday,
No. 238
December 12, 2016
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
43 CFR Part 1600
Resource Management Planning; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 89580]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 89581]]
The BLM received 3,354 public comments on the proposed rule, which
are available for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking portal (https://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,
[[Page 89582]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 89583]]
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
[[Page 89584]]
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
[[Page 89585]]
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 Sec. 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
[[Page 89586]]
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 https://lccnetwork.org/about. Information
about the REAs is available at: https://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), https://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.
[[Page 89587]]
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
[[Page 89588]]
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
[[Page 89589]]
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 (https://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 Sec. 1601.0-5) and must comply
with all of the requirements of these regulations for preparing and
approving a resource management plan (see final Sec. 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.
[[Page 89590]]
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
Sec. 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.
[[Page 89591]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
1610.4(a) for more information on this process). In situations where,
through the process described in Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 89592]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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
[[Page 89593]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.3-2,
which the final rule revises to address coordination on policies and
programs (see Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 89594]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.1-
2(a)(2)). The definition is consistent with the Departmental Manual
chapter on
[[Page 89595]]
``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 Sec. 1610.3-2 (final Sec. 1610.3-3), which distinguishes
between ``officially approved or adopted resource related plans'' in
existing Sec. 1610.3-2(a) and ``officially approved or adopted
resource related policies and programs'' in existing Sec. 1610.3-2(b),
rather than combining them, such as in the existing definition.
These changes mean that the consistency requirements of final Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.1-2).
For improved clarity, the final rule identifies the six different
types of plan components and adds a reference to Sec. 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 Sec. 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
(Sec. 1610.5-4), proposed rule (Sec. 1610.6-5), and final rule (Sec.
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 Sec. 1610.6-7).
Planning area. The final rule adopts the new definition ``planning
area,'' as
[[Page 89596]]
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 Sec. Sec.
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 (Sec.
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 Sec. 1610.1-2. ``Plan components'' described in final Sec.
1610.1-2 replace some of the elements generally established in a
resource management plan under the existing definition in Sec. 1601.0-
5(n), and some of these elements will be removed. As discussed in the
preamble for Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 89597]]
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
[[Page 89598]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.1 are found in
Sec. Sec. 1610.1-1 and 1610.1-2 of the final rule. The final rule does
not adopt proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
1610.1(a)(2), with some revisions from existing language, but remains
unchanged from the proposed rule.
The final rule removes existing Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 1610.4(a) describes the process
for developing a preliminary planning area and final Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 1610.4(a) and 1601.0-4.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.1-1(b), with minor edits.
Section 1610.1-1(b) contains the provisions of existing Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.1-1(b). This change is consistent with other
changes in terminology in this final rule.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.1-1(c) with only minor
revisions. This section requires the BLM to use high quality
information to inform the
[[Page 89599]]
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,'' https://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,'' https://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: https://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 Sec. 1610.1-2 with some revisions,
which are described in the discussion for each corresponding paragraph
of Sec. 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
Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 1610.6-4). This is consistent with current BLM policy and
practice (see Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 89600]]
distinct name and a precise definition to facilitate understanding and
consistent interpretation and inclusion in resource management plans.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2)(iii)) that, as
appropriate, objectives should identify indicators for
[[Page 89601]]
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 Sec. 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 Management and
Protection Areas, Outstanding Natural Areas, and the Headwaters Forest
Reserve in northern California pursuant to Congressional direction.
Non-discretionary designations are not established or amended
through the BLM land use planning process. These non-discretionary
designations will, however, be identified in a resource management
plan, and management direction for the designation, including plan
components, will be developed, consistent with applicable direction
provided in the proclamation, legislation, or order that established
the non-discretionary designation.
This section of the final rule does not represent a substantive
change from the existing rule, other than identifying designations as a
plan component and specifying that planning designations can be applied
either to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource management
plan or to comply with legal requirements or policies. Further, the
final rule clarifies the difference between a designation and other
plan components, such as a resource use determination. The BLM believes
that differentiating between resource use determinations and
designations in the regulations will help to improve general
understanding of terminology.
Resource use determinations are another type of plan component
described in final Sec. 1610.1-2(b). Resource use determinations
replace several existing elements of a resource management plan,
including ``land areas for limited, restricted, or exclusive use,''
``allowable resource uses,'' and ``program constraints,'' (see existing
Sec. 1601.0-5(n)). A resource use determination identifies areas of
public lands or mineral estate where specific uses are excluded,
restricted, or allowed in order to achieve the goals and objectives of
the resource management plan or applicable legal requirements or
policies. Resource use determinations include the specific restrictions
to an allowed use that will be required for all future activities and
authorizations within the area. Examples of resource use determinations
include: Areas identified as available or unavailable for livestock
grazing, open or closed to mineral leasing, or open to mineral leasing
subject to standard terms and conditions or major or moderate
constraints, or open, limited, or closed to Off-Highway-Vehicle use. In
most circumstances, a resource use determination indicating that a use
is allowed, or allowed with restrictions in an area, will not represent
a final decision allowing future use authorizations in the area, rather
it will indicate that future authorizations for the activities may be
considered for
[[Page 89602]]
approval following site-specific NEPA analysis.
In response to public comment, the final rule adds language to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section to clarify that a resource use
determination is ``subject to valid existing rights.'' The final rule
includes this language in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, although it
is not necessary, as determinations are always subject to valid
existing rights, because we believe it is instructive in regards to
resource use determinations, which provide for the use of public lands.
This change between proposed and final rule does not represent a change
in the meaning of this section, nor does it represent a change from
current practice or policy.
Also in response to public comment, the final rule adds language to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section stating that ``resource use
determinations shall be consistent with or support the management
priorities (i.e., the resource values and resource uses) identified
through designations.'' In contrast to designations, which indicate
where one or more resources or uses is prioritized over other resources
or uses, resource use determinations identify where a use is excluded,
restricted, or allowed, but do not identify a priority for one or more
multiple-uses. Resource use determinations may be developed for the
designation, or they may be developed for another purpose, but overlay
a designation; in these situations, the resource use determinations
must be consistent with or support the management priorities
established through the designations, subject to valid existing rights.
Final Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2) provides terminology for the ``allowable
resource uses'' and ``land use allowances, exclusions, and
restrictions'' identified in the existing definition of a resource
management plan. This change improves the identification of these
elements in a resource management plan and consistent use of
terminology. The BLM intends no substantive change in practice or
policy associated with this new terminology; however, under the final
rule there are changes in how the various parts of a resource
management plan are categorized.
For example, under this final rule, some common ``management
actions'' described in resource management plans prepared under the
existing planning regulations are classified as ``resource use
determinations,'' such as any explicit restrictions to an allowed use
at the land use planning level. For example, mineral lease stipulations
such as No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use will be
considered resource use determinations, as these constraints represent
restrictions to an allowed use that are explicitly required at the land
use planning level. Resource use determinations will be changed only
through plan amendments or revisions. This change does not represent a
change in current practice under the existing regulations, as planning-
level restrictions to an allowed use are currently subject to protest
procedures and may be changed only through plan amendments.
With these changes, the BLM also affirms that planning designations
and resource use determinations may be defined explicitly by geographic
boundaries, or implicitly by describing the specific conditions or
criteria under which a resource or use will be prioritized, or a use
will be excluded, restricted, or allowed. In situations where a
criteria-based approach is used, the BLM will develop maps showing
where the criteria apply based on current data and conditions. These
options for defining planning designations and resource use
determinations are consistent with current practice and do not
represent a change from existing policy, though it does represent a
change in terminology.
For example, under the existing planning regulations, the BLM
applied both approaches when developing the ``Approved Resource
Management Plan Amendments and Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar
Energy Development in Six Southwestern States'' (Western Solar Energy
Plan). In this Plan the BLM developed a list of areas where utility-
scale solar energy development was prohibited. Some of these areas were
defined by explicit geographic boundaries, such as lands in the Ivanpah
Valley in California and Nevada. Others were defined by the presence of
a specific land use designation in an applicable land use plan (e.g.,
ACECs) or the presence of a specific resource or condition (e.g.,
designated or proposed critical habitat for ESA-listed species). The
geographic boundaries for these areas may change over time as land use
plans are revised or amended and new information on resource conditions
is developed. When developing the Western Solar Energy Plan and its
associated NEPA analysis, the BLM mapped and estimated the acreage for
all exclusion areas based on best available information; however, those
maps will be updated over time through plan maintenance.
Monitoring and evaluation standards are another type of plan
component. These standards are described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section and replace the existing element of a resource management plan
entitled ``Intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluating the
plan to determine the effectiveness of the plan and the need for
amendment or revision'' (see existing Sec. 1601.0-5(n)(8)). The final
rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(3) of this section with no changes.
Monitoring and evaluation standards include ``indicators and intervals
for monitoring and evaluation to determine whether the objectives are
being met or there is relevant new information that may warrant
amendment or revision of the resource management plan.'' Indicators and
intervals for monitoring will be tied directly to the measurable
objectives to clearly indicate how each objective will be measured
(i.e., the indicator) and how often it will be measured (i.e., the
interval). The indicators described in the monitoring and evaluation
standards will be the same indicators as described in the objectives
(see Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2)(iii)). Intervals for evaluating the resource
management plan identify the frequency for evaluating the resource
management plan to determine whether the resource management plan
objectives are being met or if there is relevant new information that
may warrant amendment or revision of the resource management plan. The
forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook will provide
guidance on developing appropriate indicators and intervals for
monitoring and evaluation.
Lands identified as available for disposal from BLM administration
constitute the final type of plan component and replace the existing
element of a resource management plan described as ``land areas . . .
for transfer from Bureau of Land Management Administration'' (see
existing Sec. 1601.0-5(n)(1)). The final rule adopts proposed
paragraph (b)(4), which specifies that lands identified as available
for disposal will be considered a plan component. This paragraph is
revised to clarify that lands identified for disposal may include, but
are not limited to sales under section 203 of FLPMA. FLPMA provides for
the disposal of tracts of public land where the BLM determines that the
disposal meets specified criteria (see 43 U.S.C. 1713; 43 U.S.C. 1716;
and 43 U.S.C. 1719).
Identification of lands available for disposal is ``as
appropriate'' because they may not be applicable to every resource
management plan. For example, it is unlikely that a resource management
plan developed for a national monument or national conservation area
will identify lands as
[[Page 89603]]
available for disposal. As a plan component, identification of lands as
available for disposal will only be changed through amendment or
revision. This is consistent with current BLM policy.
Collectively, the plan components described in this final rule
provide the framework for a land use plan (i.e., a resource management
plan), as contemplated by FLPMA. FLPMA provides direction that the
present and future use of public lands and their resources be projected
through land use planning (i.e., resource management planning) (43
U.S.C. 1701(a)(2)), and similarly, that land use plans provide, by
tracts or areas, for the use of public lands (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)). In
the development of land use plans, FLPMA directs the BLM to use and
observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. In doing
so, the BLM must manage the various resource values so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future
needs of the American people, making the most judicious use of the land
for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large
enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use
to conform to changing needs and conditions (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(c)).
Under the final rule, the plan components are designed to
accomplish each of these FLPMA mandates. The needs of the American
people are articulated through the goals of the resource management
plan, the management of resource values is provided through the
objectives, as well as the designations and resource use
determinations. The resource use determinations also provide, by tracts
or areas, for the use of the public lands. Finally, the standards for
monitoring and evaluation provide the means to respond to changing
needs and conditions, by ensuring the BLM monitors changes to the
resource values identified in the plan objectives. This rule sets
forward what the BLM will include in resource management plans, and a
process for developing those plans, consistent with FLPMA.
Proposed Section 1610.1-3 Implementation Strategies
The final rule does not adopt proposed section 1610.1-3. Proposed
Sec. 1610.1-3 described implementation strategies that the BLM
proposed to develop in conjunction with a resource management plan, but
that would not represent planning level management direction and would
not be considered components of the resource management plan. As
proposed, implementation strategies would be included as an appendix to
the resource management plan. The proposed rule described
implementation strategies as examples of how the BLM would implement
future actions consistent with the planning-level management direction.
After careful consideration of public comment, the BLM believes that
this proposed concept is not appropriate for inclusion in this rule.
Many public comments indicated that the concept of implementation
strategies, as described in the proposed rule, was confusing. Namely,
commenters questioned why implementation strategies would be developed
during the planning process and described in this subpart if they were
not intended to be a part of the resource management plan. Several
public comments suggested that implementation strategies should follow
the same procedures as those required for the preparation and amendment
of a resource management plan, which would effectively make
implementation strategies a plan component. The BLM does not believe
that implementation strategies would be appropriate as a plan
component, however, because this approach would limit the BLM's ability
to efficiently and effectively apply adaptive management approaches to
ensure that the goals and objectives of land use plans are being met.
Therefore, this proposed change would not support the goals of the
Planning 2.0 initiative and this rulemaking.
As a consequence of not adopting proposed Sec. 1610.1-3(a)(1),
several elements described in the existing definition of a resource
management plan are not retained in the final rule. These elements do
not represent requirements under existing regulations, as they are
described as ``generally'' included in a resource management plan. The
existing elements include ``general management practices,'' the ``need
for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans,''
``general implementation sequences, where carrying out a planned action
is dependent upon prior accomplishment of another planned action,'' and
some ``support action[s].'' These existing elements are removed from
the final rule because they require site-specific information before a
final decision can be rendered, or they describe procedures and are not
associated with a formal decision, and therefore they do not represent
planning-level management direction.
Under current practice, some of these existing elements are
generally described as ``management actions'' (for a definition of
management actions, please see the current Land Use Planning Handbook,
H-1601-1) and the removal of these existing elements represents a
change from current practice; however, not all ``management actions''
are removed from the final rule, those that represent planning level
management direction will be incorporated into the plan components. For
example, under the final rule a restriction on use, such as a lease
stipulation, will be a resource use determination; similarly a
statement that describes desired resource conditions, such as a desired
vegetation composition, will be a plan objective.
The removal of these existing elements in existing Sec. 1601.0-
5(n), combined with new requirements in final Sec. 1610.1-2 related to
plan components, represents a transition in the overall resource
management planning framework applied by the BLM through the resource
management planning process. This change is necessary in order to apply
adaptive approaches to resource management and is based on new research
and information that was not available when the existing definition of
a resource management plan was promulgated (44 FR 46386). Under the
final rule the plan objectives describe specific and measurable desired
resource conditions, including indicators, as appropriate, for
measuring progress towards their achievement. Further, the BLM will
develop standards for monitoring and evaluating to determine if
objectives are being achieved. These new requirements ensure that
resource management plans will provide clear direction for the desired
objectives to be achieved.
By identifying objectives, while maintaining flexibility to vary
the actions taken to achieve the objectives, the BLM will be able to
more readily respond to change. These changes are consistent with
current guidelines for applying adaptive management. The DOI technical
guide on adaptive management describes ``adaptive management'' as a
decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be
adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management
actions and other events become better understood. Adaptive management
requires explicit and measurable objectives so that progress toward
their achievement can be assessed, and performance that deviates from
objectives may trigger a change in management. Adaptive management also
requires flexibility to change management actions when necessary. The
final rule supports the use of these types of adaptive approaches,
while still
[[Page 89604]]
providing direction in resource management plans regarding the areas of
public lands available for use, and the goals and objectives to be
achieved, as provided for in FLPMA. The final rule does not preclude
development of the information described in the two types of proposed
implementation strategies--management measures and monitoring
procedures. Rather, it affirms that while this information is not
required as planning level management direction and need not be
included in a resource management plan this information is important
for resource management and essential to the effective implementation
of adaptive management procedures. In some situations, the BLM may
choose to develop this information concurrently with resource
management planning, and the final rule does not preclude this option.
Section 1610.2 Public Involvement
In the heading of this section and throughout the planning
regulations, the final rule adopts the proposal to replace the term
``public participation'' with ``public involvement'' to be more
consistent with FLPMA. The BLM intends no change in practice or meaning
from this revision. Public involvement is central to the BLM land use
planning process under FLPMA, which directs the Secretary, ``with
public involvement'' and consistent with FLPMA, to ``develop, maintain,
and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or
areas for the use of the public lands.'' (See 43 U.S.C. 1712(a).) FLPMA
also requires that the Secretary ``allow an opportunity for public
involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures . . . to give
Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice
and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of
plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.''
(See 43 U.S.C. 1712(f).) FLPMA broadly defines the term ``public
involvement'' as ``the opportunity for participation by affected
citizens in rule making, decision making, and planning with respect to
the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at
locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such
other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a
particular instance'' (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(d)). The final rule provides
a similar definition to public involvement as ``the opportunity for
participation by the public in decision making and planning with
respect to the public lands.'' This is also discussed in the preamble
discussion of the definition of public involvement Sec. 1601.0-5.
The BLM interprets this definition (see Sec. 1601.0-5) as
encompassing notice by varied means, including by making a planning
document available electronically (e.g., on the BLM Web site),
providing direct notice to individuals or groups that have asked to
receive notice about public involvement opportunities (e.g., by
electronic means such as email or by U.S. mail), or publishing general
notice for the public (e.g., in a local newspaper or in the Federal
Register). The final rule adopts the proposal to revise Sec. 1610.2 to
indicate more clearly the points in the planning process when the BLM
will provide notice through one or more of these means.
In addition, the final rule adopts the proposal to distinguish in
the regulations between making a document ``available for public
review'' and specifically requesting public comments. Where the BLM
makes documents available for public review, the BLM believes it is
important for the public to have an opportunity to see the BLM's
progress. The public is welcome to bring any questions or concerns to
the responsible official's attention based on public review and, to the
extent that it is practical, the responsible official will consider
their input and document it in the decision file associated with the
resource management plan or plan amendment.
When the BLM makes a document ``available for public review'' the
BLM is not required to provide a formal opportunity for public comment,
including a time-period for submission of comments or a formal summary
or response to any public comments received. This is not a change from
existing practice, but clarifies the BLM's intent when we use this
terminology.
In contrast, where the BLM ``requests written comments,'' the BLM
will provide a minimum of 30 days for response (see Sec. 1610.2-2(a)).
As appropriate, the BLM will also summarize and respond to substantive
comments. For example, the BLM will summarize public comments raised
during scoping, develop planning issues based on the comments, and
issue a scoping report. Similarly, the BLM will summarize and respond
to substantive public comments submitted on a draft resource management
plan and draft EIS. In some situations, the BLM may request written
comments, but will not provide a written response to commenters. For
example, the BLM may request public comment on a draft EA-level
amendment without issuing a written response. Again, this is not a
change from existing practice, but will clarify to the public the BLM's
intent when we use this terminology.
The final rule also makes it clear that the requirements to make a
document ``available for public review,'' as described in this subpart,
represent a minimum requirement and do not preclude the BLM from
providing additional or enhanced opportunities for public involvement
during any given planning effort. For example, a responsible official
may choose to request written comments and provide a time-period for
submission of comments when making the preliminary alternatives
available for public review, should the responsible official believe
that it would add value to that particular planning effort. The
responsible official may not provide a summary of these written
comments, but would describe in the draft resource management plan how
public involvement informed the development of the draft alternatives
(see Sec. 1610.5-4(a)(1)).
The final rule adopts the proposal to restructure Sec. 1610.2 to
clearly indicate the different aspects of public involvement in the
land use planning process. General provisions are outlined in final
Sec. 1610.2, which is followed by specific sections, including: Public
notice (see final Sec. 1610.2-1); public comment periods (see final
Sec. 1610.2-2); and availability of the resource management plan (see
final Sec. 1610.2-3). The following table and paragraphs explain the
specific changes to Sec. 1610.2 and the supporting rationale.
[[Page 89605]]
Table 1--Comparison of Public Involvement Opportunities in Existing vs. Proposed Regulations vs. Final
Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step in planning process for the Level of public involvement
preparation of a resource management --------------------------------------------------------------------------
plan or an EIS-level amendment Existing regulations Proposed regulations Final regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning assessment.................. Not applicable: The 1610.4: The public 1610.4: Same as
planning assessment would be provided proposed regulations,
will be a new opportunities to except for option to
requirement under the provide existing data waive a planning
proposed rule, and or information or to assessment. The BLM
therefore is not suggest policies, could waive the
applicable to the guidance, or plans for requirement to conduct
existing regulations. consideration in the a planning assessment
planning assessment. for project-specific
The BLM would identify or other minor EIS-
public views in level amendments.
relation to the
planning area, which
could include public
meetings. The planning
assessment would be
documented in a
report, which would be
made available for
public review. The BLM
could waive the
requirement to conduct
a planning assessment
for project-specific
or minor EIS-level
amendments.
Identification of planning issues.... 1610.2(c) and 1610.4-1: 1610.2-1(f) and 1610.5- 1610.2-1(f) and 1610.5-
The BLM publishes a 1: Same as existing 1: Same as existing
NOI in the Federal regulations. and proposed
Register and publishes regulations.
a notice in
appropriate local
media. The public is
provided a minimum of
30-days to comment.
Development of planning criteria..... 1610.4-2: Proposed 1610.5-2 and 1610.5-3: 1610.5-2 and 1610.5-3:
planning criteria are Planning criteria Same as proposed
published in a NOI in would no longer be regulations, except
the Federal Register required under the the public review of
and made available for proposed rule. the rationale for
public comment through Instead, the BLM would alternatives and basis
the scoping period and describe the rationale for analysis will be
comment on the draft for the differences made available for
resource management between alternatives public review ``as
plan. as well as the basis appropriate'' for EIS-
for analysis. level amendments.
Preliminary versions
of both would be made
available for public
review prior to the
publication of the
draft resource
management plan or EIS-
level amendment.
Inventory data and information 1610.4-3: No 1610.4: This step would 1610.4: Same as
collection. opportunities for be replaced with the proposed regulations.
public involvement are planning assessment.
provided at this step. The public would be
provided opportunities
to provide existing
data or information or
to suggest policies,
guidance, or plans for
consideration in the
planning assessment.
The BLM would identify
public views in
relation to the
planning area, which
may include public
meetings. The planning
assessment would be
documented in a
report, which would be
made available for
public review.
Analysis of the management situation. 1610.4-4: No 1610.4: This step would 1610.4: Same as
opportunities for be replaced with the proposed regulations.
public involvement are planning assessment.
provided at this step. The public would be
provided opportunities
to provide existing
data or information or
to suggest policies,
guidance, or plans for
consideration in the
planning assessment.
The BLM would identify
public views in
relation to the
planning area, which
could include public
meetings. The planning
assessment would be
documented in a
report, which would be
made available for
public review.
[[Page 89606]]
Formulation of resource management 1610.4-5: No 1610.5-2: The 1610.5-2: Same as
alternatives. opportunities for preliminary proposed regulations,
public involvement are alternatives and except the public
provided at this step. preliminary rationale review of the
for alternatives would rationale for
be made available for alternatives and basis
public review before for analysis will be
publication of the made available for
draft resource public review ``as
management plan or EIS- appropriate'' for EIS-
level amendment. level amendments.
Estimation of effects of alternatives 1610.4-6: No 1610.5-3: The 1610.5-3: Same as
opportunities for preliminary proposed regulations,
public involvement are procedures, except the preliminary
provided at this step. assumptions, and procedures,
indicators to be used assumptions, and
when estimating the indicators to be used
effects of when estimating the
alternatives would be effects of
made available for alternatives will be
public review before made available for
publication of the public review ``as
draft resource appropriate'' for EIS-
management plan or EIS- level amendments.
level amendment.
Preparation of the draft resource 1610.4-7: No 1610.5-4: Same as 1610.5-4: Same as
management plan and selection of opportunities for existing regulations. existing and proposed
preferred alternatives. public involvement are regulations.
provided at this step.
Publication of the draft resource 1610.2(e): The BLM 1610.2-2: When 1610.2-2: When
management plan. requests public requesting written requesting written
comment on the draft comments on a draft comments on a draft
resource management resource management resource management
plan and draft EIS and plan and draft EIS, plan and draft EIS,
provides 90 calendar the BLM would notify the BLM will notify
days for response. the public and provide the public and provide
at least 60 calendar at least 100 calendar
days for response. days for response.
When requesting When requesting
written comments on an written comments on an
EIS-level amendment, EIS-level amendment,
the BLM would notify the BLM will notify
the public and provide the public and provide
at least 45 calendar at least 60 calendar
days for response. days for response.
Selection of the proposed resource 1610.4-8: The BLM 1610.5-5: The BLM would 1610.5-5: Same as
management plan. publishes the proposed publish the proposed existing regulations.
resource management resource management
plan and final EIS. plan or plan amendment
and final EIS and also
will publish any
implementation
strategies. The BLM
expects that the
implementation
strategies will be
included as appendices
to the proposed
resource management
plan.
Protest.............................. 1610.5-2: The BLM 1610.6-2: The BLM would 1610.6-2: Same as
provides 30 calendar still provide 30 proposed regulations.
days for the public to calendar days for the
protest plan approval. public to protest plan
The public must submit approval, but the
a hard-copy of the proposed rule would
protest to the BLM. describe more specific
requirements on what
constitutes a valid
protest and allow for
dismissal of any
protest that does not
meet these
requirements. The
public could submit a
hard-copy or an
electronic-copy of the
protest to the BLM.
Resource management plan approval.... 1610.5-1: The BLM must 1610.6-1: If the BLM 1610.6-1: Same as
provide public notice intends to select an proposed regulations.
and opportunity for alternative that is
comment on any substantially
significant change different than the
made to the proposed proposed resource
plan before approval management plan or
of the plan. plan amendment, the
BLM would notify the
public and request
written comments on
the change before
approval of the
resource management
plan or plan
amendment. The BLM
would notify the
public when a resource
management plan or
plan amendment has
been approved.
[[Page 89607]]
Monitoring and evaluation............ 1610.4-9: No 1610.6-4: The BLM would 1610.6-4: Same as
opportunities for document the proposed regulations.
public involvement are evaluation of the
provided at this step. resource management
plan in a report made
available for public
review.
Plan maintenance..................... 1610.5-4: No 1610.5-4: When changes 1610.5-4: Same as
opportunities for are made to an proposed regulations.
public involvement are approved resource
provided at this step. management plan
through plan
maintenance, the BLM
will notify the public
and make the changes
available for public
review at least 30
days prior to their
implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2(a) with only minor
revisions. Final Sec. 1610.2(a) remains relatively unchanged from
existing regulations and states that the BLM will provide the public
with opportunities to become meaningfully involved in and comment on
the preparation and amendment of resource management plans. The final
rule removes references to ``related guidance'' in order to focus this
provision on the preparation and amendment of resource management
plans. During the planning process, the public may submit comments on
``related guidance'' to the BLM and the BLM will consider substantive
comments as they relate to the preparation of the resource management
plan, but the BLM does not provide a separate and distinct comment
period for related guidance. This is not a change in existing practice
or policy, but will provide clarity to the public on opportunities for
comment.
The final rule also removes language on giving ``early notice of
planning activities'' from existing Sec. 1610.2(a). This language is
vague and unnecessary because final Sec. 1610.2-1(e) carries forward
the existing and proposed requirement that the BLM notify the public at
least 15 days before any public involvement activities. The BLM will
provide further advance notice beyond the 15-day requirement to the
extent possible, consistent with current practice.
Final Sec. 1610.2(a) will also carry forward the existing
requirement that public involvement in the planning process conform to
the requirements of NEPA and its associated implementing regulations.
The final rule also revises the paragraph to use active voice for
improved readability. No substantive revisions were made to paragraph
(a) of this section between the proposed and final rule.
The final rule removes existing Sec. 1610.2(b) and includes
several of its provisions in final Sec. 1610.2(c), consistent with the
proposed rule.
Existing Sec. 1610.2(b) requires the BLM to publish a planning
schedule early in each fiscal year in order to advise the public of the
status of each plan being prepared or scheduled to start during the
year, the major planning actions expected during the fiscal year, and
the projected new planning starts for the next three fiscal years. The
final rule revises this requirement. Final Sec. 1610.2(c) replaces
existing Sec. 1610.2(b) and requires the BLM to post the status of
each resource management plan in the process of being prepared, or
scheduled to be started, on the BLM's Web site before the close of each
fiscal year. The BLM often does not know its budget, priorities, or on-
the-ground needs several years in advance; in recent years the BLM has
operated under a continuing resolution to the budget for several months
into the fiscal year, and is therefore unable to accurately predict a
planning schedule with the specificity required in the existing
regulations.
The BLM's current practice is to post a planning schedule for
resource management plans currently under preparation or approved to
initiate preparation on the national BLM planning Web site when this
information is available. This change in the regulations will give the
BLM flexibility in communicating its planning schedule, including by
posting the schedule electronically, and will be consistent with
current practice. It also reflects the fact that budgetary constraints
and the need to address new and emerging resource issues make it
difficult to accurately predict a planning schedule beyond the current
fiscal year.
Final paragraph (c) of this section does not include the related
requirement for requesting public comments on the projected new
planning starts so that comments can be considered when refining
priorities. This existing requirement is not practical, as the BLM
often does not know its budget, priorities, or on-the-ground needs far
enough in advance to request public comments on projected planning
starts. However, by posting the status of resource management plans
scheduled to be started, the BLM will provide transparency to the
public, while also retaining adequate flexibility to respond to
emerging resource management issues or changes in available budgets.
This change will make the planning regulations consistent with current
BLM practice, but will represent a change from existing regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2(b) with some revisions.
Final Sec. 1610.2(b) is adapted from Sec. Sec. 1610.2(d) and (e) of
the existing planning regulations. This section maintains the existing
requirement that public involvement activities conducted by the BLM be
documented either by a record or by a summary of the principal issues
discussed and comments made. This requirement applies to ``activities''
the BLM hosts for the public during the preparation or amendment of a
resource management plan, such as public meetings, listening sessions,
or workshops. The final rule is revised to clarify that the BLM may
provide ``either'' a record or a summary. No change in meaning is
intended by this clarifying change. This provision further provides
that the record or summary will be available to the public and open
[[Page 89608]]
for 30 days to any participant who wishes to review the record or
summary. There will be no change in BLM operation or impact on the
public from this change under the final rule. For example, the BLM will
continue to prepare a scoping report following the identification of
planning issues (see Sec. 1610.5-1), which summarizes scoping meetings
and written scoping comments under Sec. 1610.2(b).
Existing Sec. 1610.2(c) requires the BLM to publish a Notice in
the Federal Register whenever beginning any new plan, revision, or
amendment. This requirement is carried forward in final Sec. 1610.2-
1(f) and is discussed in the corresponding section of this analysis.
Section 1610.2-1 Public Notice
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1 with some revisions.
Final Sec. 1610.2-1 describes the requirements for when and how the
BLM will provide public notice related to opportunities for public
involvement.
Final Sec. 1610.2-1(a) contains the provisions of existing Sec.
1610.2(f) with edits for consistency with other proposed changes. Final
Sec. 1610.2-1(a) lists the points in the planning process when the BLM
will notify the public and provide opportunities for public involvement
that are appropriate to the areas and people involved in the
preparation of a resource management plan, or an EIS-level amendment.
We replace the existing and proposed phrase ``steps in the planning
process'' with ``points in the planning process'' to clarify that the
planning regulations do not require a sequential order for all of these
``points'' in the process. For example, the BLM intends that the review
of the preliminary alternatives and the rationale for alternatives will
generally be made available for public review concurrently with the
basis for analysis, however there is no requirement that these occur
concurrently. The BLM intends no change in meaning from this clarifying
edit.
The following paragraphs describe each of these points in the
planning process and any changes between the existing, proposed, and
the final rule. These points will include new opportunities for public
involvement early in the planning process, such as during the planning
assessment, as appropriate.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
with minor edits. This paragraph requires that the BLM notify the
public and provides opportunities for public involvement during the
preparation of the planning assessment, subject to Sec. 1610.4. The
BLM intends that such notification will occur when the BLM initiates
the planning assessment and provides opportunities for public
involvement during the planning assessment. The final rule is revised
to replace ``as appropriate'' with ``subject to Sec. 1610.4'' in this
provision to clarify that under Sec. 1610.4 the deciding official may
waive the requirement to prepare a planning assessment for project-
specific or other minor EIS-level amendments. In these specific
circumstances, a planning assessment will not be conducted, and
therefore the BLM cannot provide opportunities for public involvement.
However, when a planning assessment is conducted, the BLM must notify
the public and provide opportunities for public involvement. For more
information on this waiver, please see the discussion at the preamble
for Sec. 1610.4(f). The planning assessment is a new requirement under
the final rule, so this represents a new opportunity for public
involvement.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
with minor revisions. Final Sec. 1610.2-1(a)(2) requires that the BLM
notify the public and provide opportunities for public involvement
during the identification of planning issues. Changes between the
proposed and final rule include the ``review of the preliminary
statement of purpose and need'' in this section. This added language
identifies a new opportunity for public involvement, as there is no
similar requirement under existing regulations, but does not represent
a substantive change between the proposed and final rule, as this new
opportunity for public review was described in proposed Sec. 1610.5-1.
The BLM will include this language simply for improved readability and
consistency with the requirements of Sec. 1610.5-1.
The final rule adopts and combines proposed paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) of this section into a single final paragraph (a)(3). Final
Sec. 1610.2-1(a)(3) requires that the BLM notify the public and
provide opportunities for public involvement during the public review
of the preliminary resource management alternatives, rationale for
alternatives, and the basis for analysis. Changes between the proposed
and final rule will add the phrase ``subject to Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(c)
and 1610.5-3(a)(1)'' for consistency with these sections. Under
Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(c) and 1610.5-3(a)(1) the BLM will provide a public
review of preliminary alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the
basis for analysis for all resource management plans and ``as
appropriate'' for EIS-level amendments. When the public review is
conducted, the BLM must notify the public and provide opportunities for
public involvement.
The public review of the preliminary resource management
alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis is
a new opportunity for public involvement and therefore a change from
existing regulations. Please see the discussions at the preamble for
Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(c) and 1610.5-3(a)(1) for more information on this
change between the requirements of the existing, proposed, and final
rule.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
however, this paragraph will instead be designated as final Sec.
1610.2-1(a)(4). Paragraph (a)(4) of this section requires that the BLM
notify the public and provide opportunities for public involvement
during the public comment period on the draft resource management plan.
There will be no change from existing requirements.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(6) of this section,
however, this paragraph will be designated as final Sec. 1610.2-
1(a)(5). Paragraph (a)(5) of this section requires that the BLM notify
the public and provide opportunities for public involvement during the
protest period of the proposed resource management plan. This is not a
change from existing requirements.
In the proposed rule, the BLM requested public comment on whether
the provisions of proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(a) should apply to the
preparation of a resource management plan, but not apply to EIS-level
amendments because plan amendments are generally smaller in scope than
the preparation of a resource management plan. Under this alternative,
the BLM would have notified the public and provided opportunities for
public involvement in the preparation of an EIS-level amendment, as
appropriate to the areas and people involved during: (1) Identification
of planning issues; (2) Comment on the draft resource management plan;
and (3) Protest of the proposed resource management plan. In response
to public comment, the final rule does not adopt this proposal;
however, final Sec. 1610.2-1(a)(3) is revised, from the proposed rule,
to specify that the BLM will provide a public review of the preliminary
alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis,
``as appropriate.'' Please see the discussions at the preamble for
Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(c) and 1610.5-3(a)(1) for more information on this
change between the proposed and final rule and for response to public
comments related to this change.
[[Page 89609]]
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(b), with minor edits.
Final Sec. 1610.2-1(b) lists the points in the planning process when
the BLM will notify the public and provide opportunities for public
involvement in the preparation of a plan amendment where an EA is
prepared (EA-level amendment), as appropriate to the areas and people
involved. Changes between the proposed and final rule will replace the
word ``steps'' with ``points'' for consistency with the changes made to
paragraph (a) of this section. The BLM intends no change in the meaning
of this section from this change between proposed and final rules.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3)
without edits. These paragraphs identify the points where the BLM will
notify the public and provide opportunities for public involvement. The
points include: (1) Identification of planning issues; (2) Comment on
the draft resource management plan amendment, as appropriate; and (3)
Protest of the proposed resource management plan amendment.
The existing regulations do not require that BLM provide
opportunities for public involvement during the identification of
planning issues for EA-level amendments, however, the BLM often chooses
to provide such opportunities. Under the final rule, public involvement
will be required when identifying planning issues for EA-level
amendments. This change supports the goal of establishing early
opportunities for public involvement in the planning process, including
EA-level amendments. The final rule will not, however, require that the
BLM request public comment on draft EA-level amendments, consistent
with the existing regulations. However, the BLM often chooses to
request public comments on draft EA-level amendments, and in such
circumstances the public will be provided 30 calendar days for response
(see final Sec. 1610.2-2(a)).
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. Sec. 1610.2-1(c) through (e),
with some revisions. Sections 1610.2-1(c) through (e) are general
provisions that will apply whenever the BLM provides public notice
relating to the preparation or amendment of a resource management plan.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(c), which establishes
new requirements that the BLM announce opportunities for public
involvement by posting a notice on the BLM Web site and at all BLM
offices within the planning area. In response to public comments, the
final rule also includes a new requirement that the responsible
official identify additional forms of notification to reach local
communities located within the planning area, as appropriate. The BLM
acknowledges that in many rural communities, Internet access may not be
readily available and residents often live many hundred or more miles
from BLM offices. In these situations, the BLM will provide additional
notifications using formats that are relevant and accessible to the
various publics interested in or affected by the planning effort,
including local communities. For example, the BLM may also post an
announcement at a local library, post-office, or other frequently
visited location; issue a local, regional, or national press release;
notify community leaders of the opportunity; or post an announcement
using various social media. The use of these additional formats will
vary based on the location and public interest in the planning effort.
These new notification requirements are consistent with current
practice in many BLM offices and ensure consistency in implementation
throughout the BLM. Final Sec. 1610.2-1(c) provides certainty to the
public on where, at a minimum, they can find information on all public
involvement opportunities.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(d) with only minor
revisions. This section provides that individuals or groups could ask
the BLM to notify them of opportunities for public involvement related
to the preparation and amendment of a resource management plan. The BLM
will notify those individuals or groups through written or electronic
means, such as a letter sent by U.S. mail or email.
Under existing regulations (Sec. 1610.2(d)), the Field Manager
must maintain a mailing list of those individuals or groups known to be
interested in or affected by a resource management plan or that have
asked to be placed on the list and notify those individuals or groups
of public participation activities. The final rule removes the
requirement for the BLM to maintain a list of groups or individuals
``known to be interested in or affected by a resource management
plan,'' which places an unnecessary burden on the BLM to find contact
information for groups or individuals that may not be readily
available. The final rule instead requires the BLM to notify any groups
or individuals that have explicitly requested to be notified of
opportunities for public involvement.
The BLM will continue its current practice of conducting outreach
to all individuals or groups known to be interested in or affected by a
resource management plan. The BLM believes that such outreach is
important to a successful planning process. The final rule reflects the
fact that the BLM cannot ``guarantee'' that such individuals or groups
and their correct contact information will be added to the mailing list
unless they request to be added and provide the BLM with current
contact information. The forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning
Handbook will provide more detailed guidance on best practices for
providing public notifications and public involvement.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(e) with only minor
revisions. Under this section, the BLM will notify the public at least
15 days before any public involvement activities where the public is
invited to attend, such as a public meeting. This requirement is the
same as that in Sec. 1610.2(e) of the existing regulations. It is
intended to allow members of the public to plan their schedules and
make arrangements to attend scoping meetings, ``open house'' style
workshops, or other public meetings that are part of the BLM land use
planning process. The BLM will provide further advance notice beyond
the 15-day requirement to the extent possible, consistent with current
practice.
In response to public comment, final Sec. 1610.2-1(f) retains the
existing requirement that the BLM publish a notice in the Federal
Register when initiating the identification of planning issues for a
resource management plan or plan amendment. The proposed rule would
have removed this requirement for EA-level amendments; however, in
response to public comments, the BLM will retain this existing
requirement. The final rule combines proposed paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this section into final paragraph (f)(1). Separate paragraphs
distinguishing between the notice requirements for EA-level amendments
and EIS-level amendments are no longer necessary, as the final notice
requirements are the same.
Final Sec. 1610.2-1(f)(1) provides that when initiating the
identification of planning issues for the preparation of a resource
management plan or plan amendment, in addition to posting a notice on
the BLM's Web site and at all BLM offices in the planning area and
providing direct notice to those individuals or groups who have
requested notification, the BLM will also publish a notice in
appropriate local media, including in newspapers of general circulation
in the planning area
[[Page 89610]]
and publish a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. This
requirement will apply regardless of the level of NEPA analysis (e.g.,
whether the BLM prepares an EA or an EIS). This section retains
existing language stating that the NOI also may constitute the NEPA
scoping notice (see 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 46.235(a)).
Final Sec. 1610.2-1(f)(1) maintains the existing requirement (see
existing Sec. Sec. 1610.2(c) and (f)(1)) to publish a NOI in the
Federal Register where the BLM prepares an EIS for a resource
management plan or plan amendment. Publishing a NOI to prepare an EIS
for a resource management plan or plan amendment in the Federal
Register is consistent with NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1501.7 and
1508.22) and CEQ direction that agencies ``integrate the NEPA process
with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that
planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays
later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts'' (40 CFR
1501.2). Publishing an NOI for these EISs also contributes to an
efficient, integrated process by offering an opportunity to integrate
planning with NEPA scoping requirements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CEQ and DOI NEPA regulations encourage such integration.
See 40 CFR 1501.7(b)(4) (providing that as part of the NEPA scoping
process, a lead agency may ``(h)old an early scoping meeting or
meetings which may be integrated with any other early planning
meeting the agency has'') and 43 CFR 46.235(a)) (stating that
scoping ``provides an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants
together to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting
reviews where possible, integrating other environmental reviews, and
identifying any major obstacles that could delay the process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule does not include the existing language in Sec.
1610.2(c) allowing the Field Manager to decide whether it is
appropriate to publish a notice in media in adjoining States. This
language is no longer needed because final Sec. 1610.2-1(f) allows the
BLM discretion to identify ``appropriate local media,'' and this
encompasses media in adjoining states. There will be no change in
practice in the implementation of this section.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(f)(3), with minor
edits; however, this section will be redesignated as Sec. 1610.2-
1(f)(2) in the final rule. This section outlines the information that
will be included in the notices described in Sec. 1610.2-1(f)(1) and
contains the provisions of existing Sec. 1610.2(c)(1) through (8),
respectively, as follows.
There will be no changes to the requirement in final 1610.2-
1(f)(2)(i) from existing requirements (see existing Sec.
1610.2(c)(1)). The final rule adopts the proposal to specify in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section that the ``plan'' in reference is
a ``resource management plan.'' In response to public comment, we
replace ``geographic area'' with ``planning area'' for consistent use
in terminology throughout this part. There will be no change in the
meaning of this provision from this change between the proposed and
final rule. Final paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section remains
unchanged from the existing and proposed requirements. In paragraph
(f)(2)(iv) of this section, the final rule adopts the proposal to
replace ``disciplines'' with ``expertise,'' to reflect that BLM staff
may have expertise outside of their formal discipline, and an
``interdisciplinary approach'' should be based on expertise, not formal
disciplines. The final rule also adopts the proposal to specify that
the ``plan'' in reference is a ``resource management plan'' and the
purpose of having a range of expertise represented is to ``achieve an
interdisciplinary approach.'' There is no substantive change in
practice or policy. Final paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section adopts
the proposal to add language indicating that the notice should include
the kind and extent of public involvement activities ``as known at the
time.'' Although there is no substantive change in practice or policy,
this clarifies that the BLM may always provide additional opportunities
for public involvement as planning proceeds. There are no substantive
changes to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) through
(f)(2)(viii) of this section.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. Sec. 1610.2-1(g) and (h) with
only minor revisions. Final Sec. 1610.2-1(g) contains the provisions
of existing Sec. 1610.2(f)(5) and provides that if the BLM intends to
select an alternative that is substantially different than the proposed
resource management plan, the BLM will notify the public and request
written comments on the change. This requirement is intended to ensure
that the public has an opportunity to comment on important changes that
are made late in the planning process, such as those that result from
protest resolution or the recommendations of a Governor during the
Governor's consistency review.
Final Sec. 1610.2-1(h) establishes a new regulatory requirement
for the BLM to notify the public when a resource management plan or
plan amendment has been approved, consistent with current practice. The
BLM expects to post this notification on the BLM Web site, at the local
BLM office where the plan was prepared, and by direct notification to
those individuals and groups that have asked to receive notice of
specific planning efforts. This notification will help those who are
interested to stay up-to-date on plans and increase transparency.
The BLM did not receive public comments related to paragraph (h) of
this section.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(i), with minor edits
that require the BLM to notify the public any time changes are made to
an approved resource management plan through plan maintenance and to
make those changes generally available to the public at least 30 days
before the change is implemented. This change will provide transparency
to the public on any changes made to the resource management plan
through plan maintenance, including the correction of typographical or
mapping errors or changes made to reflect minor changes in mapping or
data. The BLM expects to notify the public by posting the changes to
the BLM Web site.
The final rule does not adopt proposed Sec. 1610.2-1(j). This
section would have required that the BLM notify the public any time a
change is made to an implementation strategy and make those changes
available to the public at least 30 days before their implementation.
This provision is no longer necessary because the final rule does not
include the concept of implementation strategies. For more information,
please see the discussion on implementation strategies at the preamble
for Sec. 1610.1-3.
Section 1610.2-2 Public Comment Periods
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-2, with revisions to
the proposed lengths of public comments periods and inclusion of a new
provision to address public comment requirements when a resource
management plan or plan amendment involves the possible designation of
ACECs.
Final Sec. Sec. 1610.2-2(a) through (c) address the length of
public comment periods when the BLM requests written comments and this
final section also replaces most of existing Sec. 1610.2(e). Final
Sec. 1610.2-2(a) requires that when requesting written comments, the
BLM will provide a comment period of at least 30 calendar days, unless
a longer period is required by law or regulation, in which case the
longer period will be provided as a minimum. For example, when the BLM
requests scoping comments, a minimum 30 day comment period will be
required; if the BLM offers a public comment period for a
[[Page 89611]]
plan amendment where an EA is prepared, a minimum 30 day comment period
will be required. This section maintains the requirement from existing
Sec. 1610.2(e) to provide at least 30 calendar days for public
comment, while also clarifying that in certain circumstances the BLM is
legally required to offer a longer comment period.
Final Sec. 1610.2-2(b) describes the public comment period the BLM
will provide for draft EIS-level amendments. The BLM proposed to
require at least 45 calendar days for public comment on the draft plan
amendment and draft EIS. This would have been shorter than the 90-day
public comment period that applies to all EIS-level plan amendments
under the existing planning regulations, but consistent with existing
NEPA requirements. Many public comments did not support the reduction
in the length of any public comment period, although a few comments did
indicate support for the proposal. In response to public comments, the
final rule requires at least 60 calendar days for public comment for
draft EIS-level amendments.
The BLM acknowledges the importance in providing adequate lengths
of time for the public to review and comment on draft plan amendments.
At the same time, the BLM recognizes that the scope and scale of draft
EIS-level amendments varies substantially. In many circumstances, an
EIS-level plan amendment may be narrow in scope and scale, such as a
project-specific amendment for a small geographic area. In these
situations, a mandatory comment period of 90 calendar days is
unnecessary and inefficient. The final rule provides a balanced
approach by requiring a minimum of 60 calendar days for public comment,
a period longer in length than the proposed rule, but shorter in length
than the existing regulations. For those plan amendments that are broad
in scope or scale, such as a multi-State programmatic plan amendment,
the BLM expects to typically offer a longer public comment period,
commensurate with the complexity of the draft plan amendment. The
forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook will provide
guidance to responsible officials regarding the length of the public
comment period.
Final Sec. 1610.2-2(c) describes the public comment period the BLM
will provide for draft resource management plans and draft EISs. The
BLM proposed to provide at least 60 calendar days for public comment on
the draft resource management plan and draft EIS. This would have been
shorter than the 90-day public comment period that applies to all draft
resource management plans under the existing planning regulations.
Although a few public comments supported this proposal, the majority of
public comments did not, and some public comments suggested the BLM
should provide a longer comment period than the existing regulations.
In response to public comment, the final rule revises Sec. 1610.2-2(c)
to provide at least 100 calendar days for public comment, a period
longer in length than the existing requirement.
Final Sec. 1610.2-2(c) retains the existing provision that the
public comment period begins when the EPA publishes a notice of
availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The BLM
will continue to comply with public involvement and notification
requirements of NEPA, including 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(2), which provides
that agencies must provide public notice of availability of
environmental documents in the Federal Register for actions with
effects of national concern. In many cases where the BLM prepares an
EIS for a resource management plan or plan amendment, the BLM expects
to continue its current practice of publishing a NOA in the Federal
Register for Draft and Final EISs and the record of decision for these
EIS level planning efforts.
Final Sec. 1610.2-2(d) includes a new requirement that when a
draft resource management plan or plan amendment involves possible
designation of one or more potential ACECs, the BLM shall request
written comments on the designations under consideration. This
paragraph is added between in the final rule for consistency with
changes to Sec. 1610.8-2 and in response to associated public
comments. Existing regulations require a minimum of 60 calendar days be
provided for public comments on a proposed ACEC designation (see
existing Sec. 1610.7-2(b)), and the proposed rule would have removed
this requirement. The BLM received several public comments indicating
that a public comment period is necessary any time an ACEC is being
considered for designation. In response to public comments, the final
rule requires the BLM to provide a public comment period of at least 30
calendar days. The BLM intends that this comment period will normally
be integrated with the public comment period on the draft resource
management plan or plan amendment; therefore, a longer period will be
provided for EIS-level amendments (at least 60-days) and resource
management plans (at least 100-days). For more information, please see
the discussion at the preamble for final Sec. 1610.8-2(b)(1).
Consistent with the existing regulations, the final rule does not
explicitly address situations where the BLM prepares an EA for a plan
amendment (EA-level amendment) and the BLM elects to offer an
opportunity for public comment. In this situation, however, the BLM
will provide at least 30 calendar days for public comment on the draft
plan amendment, unless a longer period is required by law or
regulation, consistent with the requirements of final Sec. 1610.2-
2(a). The public comment period will begin on the date the BLM notifies
the public of the availability of the draft plan amendment and EA.
While the BLM often offers a public comment period on an EA-level
plan amendment, this is not required by NEPA,\12\ the existing planning
regulations, or the final planning regulations. There may be situations
where there is no public interest in a minor EA-level amendment and a
formal public comment period is not necessary. The forthcoming revision
of the Land Use Planning Handbook will provide more detailed guidance
on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NEPA requires public involvement, to the extent
practicable, in the preparation of an environmental assessment, but
it need not take the form of a public comment period. 40 CFR
1504.1(b) and 43 CFR 46.305(a); see 40 CFR 1506.6; BLM National
Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1), 8.2, p. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table provides a comparison of some public
involvement opportunities in the final rule for EA-level amendments,
EIS-level amendments, and resource management plans.
[[Page 89612]]
Table 2--Public Notification and Involvement Opportunities Under the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource management
Step in the planning process EA-level amendments EIS-level amendments plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Assessment.................. The BLM is not required When the BLM conducts a To formally initiate
to conduct a planning planning assessment the planning
assessment for EA- for EIS-level assessment, the BLM
level amendments. amendments, to will post a notice on
formally initiate the the BLM Web site and
planning assessment, at BLM offices within
the BLM will post a the planning area, and
notice on the BLM Web provide direct
site and at BLM notification to those
offices within the who have requested
planning area, and such notification.
provide direct
notification to those
who have requested
such notification.
Plan initiation and identification of The BLM will publish a The BLM will publish a The BLM will publish a
planning issues. NOI in the Federal NOI in the Federal NOI in the Federal
Register and will Register and will Register and will
publish a notice in publish a notice in publish a notice in
appropriate local appropriate local appropriate local
media, on the BLM Web media, on the BLM Web media, on the BLM Web
site, and at BLM site, and at BLM site, and at BLM
offices within the offices within the offices within the
planning area, and planning area, and planning area, and
provide direct provide direct provide direct
notification to those notification to those notification to those
who have requested who have requested who have requested
such notification. such notification. such notification.
The BLM will offer a The BLM will offer a The BLM will offer a
minimum 30 day comment minimum 30 day comment minimum 30 day comment
period on period on period on
identification of identification of identification of
planning issues. planning issues. planning issues.
Review of the preliminary These steps do not The BLM will provide The BLM will post the
alternatives, rationale for apply to EA-level this step for EIS- preliminary
alternatives, and the basis for amendments. level amendments, as alternatives,
analysis. appropriate. The BLM rationale for
will post the alternatives, and the
preliminary basis for analysis on
alternatives, the BLM Web site. The
rationale for BLM will post notice
alternatives, and the of their availability
basis for analysis on on the BLM Web site,
the BLM Web site. The and at BLM offices
BLM will post notice within the planning
of their availability area, and provide
on the BLM Web site direct notification to
and at BLM offices those who have
within the planning requested such
area, and provide notification.
direct notification to
those who have
requested such
notification.
Comment on the draft plan or If the BLM requests The BLM will offer a 60 The BLM will offer a
amendment. written comment, BLM day comment period. 100 day comment
will offer a minimum The BLM will announce period. The BLM will
30 day comment period. the start of the announce the start of
The BLM will announce comment period by the comment period by
the start of the posting a notice on posting a notice on
comment period by the BLM Web site and the BLM Web site and
posting a notice on at BLM offices within at BLM offices within
the BLM Web site and the planning area, and the planning area, and
at BLM offices within provide direct provide direct
the planning area, and notification to those notification to those
provide direct who have requested who have requested
notification to those such notification. The such notification. The
who have requested EPA will publish an EPA will publish an
such notification. NOA in the Federal NOA in the Federal
Register. Register under
separate authorities.
Protest.............................. The BLM will offer a 30 The BLM will offer a 30 The BLM will offer a 30
day protest period. day protest period. day protest period.
The BLM will announce The BLM will announce The BLM will announce
the start of the the start of the the start of the
protest period by protest period by protest period by
posting a notice on posting a notice on posting a notice on
the BLM Web site and the BLM Web site and the BLM Web site and
at BLM offices within at BLM offices within at BLM offices within
the planning area, and the planning area, and the planning area, and
provide direct provide direct provide direct
notification to those notification to those notification to those
who have requested who have requested who have requested
such notification. such notification. The such notification. The
EPA will publish an EPA will publish an
NOA in the Federal NOA in the Federal
Register. Register under
separate authorities.
Comment on a substantive change made The BLM will offer a 30 The BLM will offer a 30 The BLM will offer a 30
after release of a proposed plan or day comment period. day comment period. day comment period.
amendment (i.e., if the BLM intends The BLM will announce The BLM will announce The BLM will announce
to select an alternative that is the start of the the start of the the start of the
substantially different than the comment period by comment period by comment period by
proposed plan or amendment). posting a notice on posting a notice on posting a notice on
the BLM Web site and the BLM Web site and the BLM Web site and
at BLM offices within at BLM offices within at BLM offices within
the planning area, and the planning area, and the planning area, and
provide direct provide direct provide direct
notification to those notification to those notification to those
who have requested who have requested who have requested
such notification. such notification. such notification.
[[Page 89613]]
Plan approval........................ The BLM will notify the The BLM will notify the The BLM will notify the
public by posting a public by posting a public by posting a
notice on the BLM Web notice on the BLM Web notice on the BLM Web
site and at BLM site and at BLM site and at BLM
offices within the offices within the offices within the
planning area, and planning area, and planning area, and
provide direct provide direct provide direct
notification to those notification to those notification to those
who have requested who have requested who have requested
such notification. such notification. such notification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1610.2-3 Availability of the Resource Management Plan
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-3, with some revisions.
This section addresses the availability of resource management plans.
Final Sec. 1610.2-3(a) contains revised language from existing
Sec. 1610.2(g) and requires that the BLM make copies of the draft,
proposed, and approved resource management plan or plan amendment
reasonably available for public review. The final rule requires, at a
minimum, that the BLM make copies of these documents available
electronically and at all BLM offices within the planning area.
For example, the BLM could make documents available electronically
by posting documents on the BLM Web site, or if Internet access is
limited in an area, by sending participants a Compact Disc or a USB
flash drive in the mail. The BLM will also make resource management
plans available for public viewing at all BLM offices within the
planning area. While this is a change from existing regulations, it is
consistent with current practice for most BLM offices. This language
replaces the existing requirements to make copies of the resource
management plan available at the State, district, and field office (see
existing Sec. Sec. 1610.2(g)(1) through (3)) and copies of supporting
documents available at the office where the plan was prepared. These
changes will increase electronic availability of documents and change
the BLM offices where the document is required to be available for
viewing.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the existing
requirement to make ``supporting documents'' available to the public as
this term is vague and it is unclear what is considered a supporting
document. In response to public comments, we will include new language
in final Sec. 1610.2-3(a) that the BLM will make scientific or
technical reports that the responsible official uses in preparation of
a resource management plan or plan amendment reasonably available to
the public, to the extent practical and consistent with Federal law.
For the purposes of this provision, the BLM considers scientific or
technical reports to be final documents that describe the results of
scientific research or technical analysis related to the preparation of
the resource management plan or plan amendment. The BLM includes
pertinent scientific and technical information and reports in the
project file and generally makes certain scientific or technical
reports, such as a biological opinion, available to the public as
appendices to the resource management plan or plan amendment, or on the
BLM's Web site. We expect that in most situations, the BLM will
continue to post these types of scientific or technical reports on its
Web site, make them available for viewing at BLM offices within the
planning area, or make them available as appendices to the resource
management plan. While this is a new requirement in the regulations, it
is consistent with current BLM practice.
The BLM will not, however, post the entire project file, including
email records or other types of communication, to the BLM's Web site or
make the entire project file available at BLM offices within the
planning area. This would be inconsistent with current practice and
policy and would place an unnecessary administrative and personnel
burden on the BLM. These types of supporting documents are made
available to the public through other means, such as a Freedom of
Information Act request.
The new requirements in Sec. 1610.2-3(a) to make resource
management plans available electronically reflect that digital
technology and Internet access is far more widely available than it was
when these regulations were last updated. These requirements will
advance BLM policy on transitioning to electronic distribution of NEPA
and planning documents (IM 2013-144, Transitioning from Printing Hard
Copies of National Environmental Policy Act and Planning Documents to
Providing Documents in Electronic Formats (June 21, 2013), https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013-144.html), and with the DOI
Environmental Statement Memorandum No. 13-7, ``Publication and
Distribution of DOI NEPA Compliance Documents via Electronic Methods''
(Jan. 7, 2013), https://www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM13-7.pdf). These
changes will also ensure consistency in how the BLM makes documents
available to the public, increase transparency, and help to ensure that
the public has access to current versions of plans without missing
amendments that only appear in paper copies. Electronic posting of
planning documents also may help to reduce high printing costs.
The BLM recognizes, however, that there are many communities with
limited technological and Internet availability, such as rural
communities and some environmental justice communities.\13\ The BLM
will continue to work to involve these communities in the development
of resource management plans and make planning documents available in
the most appropriate formats. For example, resource management plans
could be made available at public libraries, community centers, or
other locations frequented by local communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' directs Federal agencies to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.2-3(b) without any
substantive revisions. This section clarifies the requirements in
existing Sec. 1610.2(g) that the BLM will make single printed copies
of a resource management plan available to individual members of the
public upon request during the public involvement process, and that
after the BLM has approved a plan, the BLM may charge a fee for
additional printed copies. The BLM considered an alternative option,
which was discussed in the preamble for the proposed rule, to make
these copies available through digital means, such as a compact disc or
[[Page 89614]]
other digital storage device, instead of printed copies and requested
public comment on this option. This option would have allowed the
agency to continue to move away from printing paper copies in the
future as technology continues to become more available to the public.
Although some public comments supported this approach, others indicated
that a paper copy is necessary because not everyone uses or has the
available resources to access digital media. In response to public
comments, the final rule does not include this alternative, and the BLM
will continue to provide paper copies as provided in final Sec.
1610.2-3(b).
Final Sec. 1610.2-3(b) also maintains the language in existing
Sec. 1610.2(g) concerning fees for reproducing requested documents
beyond those used as part of the public involvement process, although
this section refers to a ``resource management plan'' instead of a
``revision'' and ``public involvement'' instead of ``public
participation.'' This word change will reflect changes made throughout
this final rule and the use of the FLPMA term ``public involvement.''
These changes are not a change in practice or policy.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove existing Sec.
1610.2(j) and (k). The BLM prepared the coal program regulations
simultaneously with the first land use planning regulations under FLPMA
in the late 1970's and certain coal-related provisions remain in 43 CFR
subpart 1610. The BLM believes that these coal-related provisions are
inappropriate in the planning regulations, as they are either
duplicative of the coal program regulations, or reference procedures
that are inconsistent with current practice and policy.
Existing Sec. 1610.2(j) requires consultation with surface owners
when resource management plans involve areas of potential mining for
coal by means other than underground mining. Input and consent from a
qualified surface owner is required at the leasing stage under 43 CFR
3427.1, therefore existing 1610.2(j) is duplicative of the consultation
requirements at 43 CFR 3427.1 and unnecessary.
Existing Sec. 1610.2(k) is also removed in the final rule.
Existing Sec. 1610.2(k) is consistent with a process of ``regional
coal leasing,'' described in subpart 3420, which the BLM used in
designated coal production regions (defined in Sec. 3400.5) at the
time the planning regulations were originally published. Since 1990,
all coal production regions have been decertified and the BLM currently
uses the ``lease by application'' process described in subpart 3425,
where approval for coal leasing is conducted for each individual
application, as opposed to at the resource management plan level. Since
publication of the resource management plan only designates areas as
suitable for coal leasing and no longer approves coal leases over the
entire suitable area, this public hearing is no longer appropriate
during the land use planning process. Under the ``lease by
application'' process, a hearing will be held for each coal lease
application, consistent with the BLM coal regulations at Sec.
3425.4(a)(1) and current BLM practice.
The BLM received a few comments in opposition to the removal of
existing Sec. 1610.2(j) and (k). These comments stated that the
planning process is the appropriate time for BLM to contact surface
owners about their preferences regarding leasing, and that the similar
notice prescribed in the BLM's leasing regulations may come after coal-
related decisions in a resource management plan or plan amendment have
been finalized. Additionally, comments stated that the BLM should not
make coal-related regulatory changes until the ongoing review of the
Federal coal program and its associated Programmatic EIS are completed.
The final rule is not revised in response to this comment. The BLM
believes that removing Sec. 1610.2(k) will help reduce confusion,
avoid redundancy with existing requirements in the coal regulations,
and keep coal-specific requirements in the coal regulations, where they
are more appropriate. Further, the BLM will provide for public
involvement during the preparation and amendment of resource management
plans, including for any coal-related issues. These regulatory changes
will not be a change in current practice or policy during coal leasing.
As a separate matter, Secretarial Order 3338 issued on January 15,
2016, requires the BLM to conduct a comprehensive review to modernize
the Federal coal program, including a Programmatic EIS. The regulatory
changes in this final rule are unrelated to and will not impact the
Secretarial Order or the BLM's comprehensive review.
Section 1610.3 Consultation With Indian Tribes and Coordination With
Other Federal Agencies, State and Local Governments, and Indian Tribes
The final rule revises the proposed heading of section 1610.3 to
include ``consultation with Indian tribes.'' This change is necessary
for consistency with final Sec. 1610.3-1, a new section in the final
rule.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the words ``federally
recognized'' before Indian tribes throughout final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-1,
1610.3-2, and 1610.3-3 for consistent use in terminology. These
references are no longer necessary with the inclusion of the proposed
definition for Indian tribes in Sec. 1601.0-5. For further information
on this revision, see the preamble discussion of the definition for
``Indian tribe.'' The final rule is revised to replace any existing
uses of ``will'' in this section with ``shall,'' for the reasons
previously described. These changes are not a change in practice or
policy.
Section 1610.3-1 Consultation With Indian Tribes
In response to input received during consultation with federally
recognized Indian tribes regarding the proposed rule, as well as public
comments, the final rule includes a new section on tribal consultation.
Proposed Sec. 1610.3-1 is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-2 in the final
rule. This section provides that the BLM will initiate consultation
with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis during the
preparation and amendment of resource management plans. This section is
added to the final rule to reflect the fact that the BLM is required to
initiate consultation with affected Indian tribes during the planning
process, and will consult with any Indian tribes that choose to accept
the BLM's request for consultation, but the BLM cannot guarantee that
an Indian tribe will agree to consultation. Although this will be a new
provision in the planning regulations, this is an existing requirement
for the BLM under Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (2000) and Secretarial Order 3317--
Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes
(2011).
This government-to-government consultation shall be initiated
regardless of an Indian tribe's status as a cooperating agency or any
on-going coordination with the Indian tribe. Should an Indian tribe
choose to participate as a cooperating agency or to coordinate with the
BLM, the BLM is still required to initiate government-to-government
consultation.
Section 1610.3-2 Coordination of Planning Efforts
Proposed Sec. 1610.3-1 is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-2 in the
final rule. Final Sec. 1610.3-2 contains the provisions of existing
and proposed section 1610.3-1, with revisions. This section retains the
[[Page 89615]]
heading ``coordination of planning efforts.''
The final rule adds introductory language to final Sec. 1610.3-
2(a) to clarify that this section describes the ``objectives of
coordination.'' Final Sec. 1610.3-2(a) contains the provisions of
existing Sec. 1610.3-1(a), but replaces the reference to ``State
Directors and Field Managers'' with ``the BLM'' because the
responsibility of coordination are those of the BLM and they extend
beyond any individual.
Elsewhere throughout final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(b) through (f), the
final rule replaces references to ``Field Manager(s)'' with
``responsible official(s)'' and replaces references to ``State
Director(s)'' with ``deciding official(s),'' as proposed. The new
terms, which are defined in final Sec. 1601.0-5, refer to specific
official responsibilities.
Proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(a) (final Sec. 1610.3.2(a)) would have
added language to clarify that coordination is accomplished ``to the
extent consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to
public lands, and the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and
regulations.'' Several public comments noted that this proposed
requirement would exceed the statutory requirement that coordination
occur ``to the extent consistent with the laws governing the
administration of the public lands'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). In
response to public comment, the final rule replaces the proposed
language with ``to the extent consistent with Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands.'' Although FLPMA only mentions
the ``laws governing the administration of the public lands,'' the BLM
interprets this phrase to encompass the regulations implementing the
laws, as these regulations have the full force and effect of law and
the BLM is required to comply with Federal laws and regulations. Final
Sec. 1610.3-2(a) does not represent a change from current practice or
policy.
Final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(1) and (a)(2) are revised in response
to public comments. Several public comments expressed concern over the
proposal to remove existing Sec. 1610.3-2(b) regarding consistency
between resource management plans and the policies and programs of
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes
as well as references to these ``policies and programs'' in other
sections of the existing regulations (please see the discussion for the
definitions of ``consistent with officially approved and adopted
plans'' and ``officially approved and adopted plans'' at the preamble
for final Sec. 1601.0-5 as well as the discussion for final Sec.
1610.3-3(b)). Comments expressed concern that the BLM would no longer
consider these policies and programs during the planning process and
suggested that such a change would be in violation of FLPMA. The BLM
acknowledges and affirms that coordination on relevant policies and
programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes is important to the success of a planning effort,
consistent with FLPMA.
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).) The final rule revises paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
of Sec. 1610.3-2 (proposed Sec. 1610.3-1) to incorporate this
direction provided by FLPMA and in response to concerns raised in
public comments, stating that objectives of coordination are for the
BLM to ``[k]eep apprised of the plans, policies, and management
programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes'' and to ``[a]ssure that the BLM considers those plans,
policies, and management programs that are germane in the development
of resource management plans for public lands.''
The final rule supports the achievement of these objectives. For
example, final Sec. 1610.4(b)(2) requires that during the planning
assessment the responsible official ``identify relevant national,
regional, State, tribal, or local laws, regulations, policies,
guidance, strategies, or plans for consideration in the planning
assessment.'' Further, final Sec. 1610.4(b)(3) requires that the
responsible official provide opportunities for other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes to suggest other law,
regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans. The responsible
official will fulfill these requirements through coordination, as
contemplated by FLPMA, and in doing so the responsible official will
assure that the BLM considers those plans, policies, and management
programs that are germane in the development of resource management
plans for public lands.
In addition, final Sec. 1610.3-2(b) describes the procedures for
establishing a cooperating agency relationship with governmental
entities. Cooperating agencies are provided a special role during the
preparation of resource management plans. Cooperating agencies work
closely with the BLM at every stage of the planning process to identify
issues that should be addressed, collect or analyze data, develop or
evaluate alternatives, and review preliminary documents. This unique
partnership is provided only to governmental entities and helps the BLM
develop a resource management plan that is responsive to the needs and
concerns of local communities. Further, this partnership helps the BLM
to achieve the objectives described in final Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(1) and
(a)(2). Should a governmental entity choose not to participate as a
cooperating agency, final Sec. 1610.3-2(c) provides additional
requirements for coordination, to ensure that BLM achieves the
objectives of coordination.
In response to public comments, the final rule also removes the
existing and proposed phrase ``non-BLM'' plans in final Sec. 1610.3-
2(a)(1), and clarifies that this section refers to the plans, policies,
and management programs of ``other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes.'' This distinction is important, as the
objectives of this section apply uniquely to other governmental
entities. This is not a change in practice or policy; rather, this
change improves readability of these regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph 1610.3-2(a)(3) of this
section without revision. The existing word ``practicable'' (see
existing Sec. 1610.3-1(a)(3)) is replaced with ``practical'' in the
final rule for consistency with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Several public comments noted that this represents a substantive change
from existing regulations, as ``practicable'' and ``practical'' are not
exact synonyms, and suggested that the proposed rule did not adequately
address this subtle distinction. The BLM disagrees there is a
substantive difference but acknowledges the subtle distinction in the
meaning of these terms; however, we believe this change is appropriate
for consistency with FLPMA, which uses the term ``practical.'' (See 43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(9) (``the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds
practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans . .
.'').)
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
Changes to this section will remove the word ``public'' from ``early
public notice'' for improved clarity. The BLM intends no change in
practice or policy from this change.
[[Page 89616]]
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
which is identical to the existing regulations.
The final rule adopts the proposal to add introductory language to
Sec. 1610.3-2(b) (proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)) to indicate that this
section describes procedures and requirements related to ``cooperating
agencies.'' This paragraph is also broken down into subparagraphs to
improve readability and is revised as follows.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b) of this section, with
no substantive changes. The final rule is revised to replace the
existing word ``will'' with ``shall'' for the reasons previously
described. The first sentence of final Sec. 1610.3-2(b) replaces
``developing'' with ``preparing'' for consistent use in terminology.
The BLM intends no change in meaning or practice. The final rule also
replaces ``eligible Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes'' with ``eligible governmental entities'' for consistency
with the DOI NEPA regulations, and to specify that the responsible
official will follow applicable regulations regarding the invitation of
eligible governmental entities, including the DOI NEPA regulations at
43 CFR 46.225. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from
these changes.
The second sentence of final Sec. 1610.3-2(b) is revised to
reflect the fact that a plan is not amended by an EIS, rather the EIS
is prepared to inform the amendment.
The final rule does not adopt the proposal to remove the last three
sentences of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(b), which provided for State
Director review of a Field Manager's decision to deny requests for
cooperating agency status. Several public comments noted that the DOI
NEPA regulations do not provide an opportunity for governmental
entities to appeal a denial to a request for cooperating agency status
beyond the responsible official and suggested that the existing
opportunity to appeal a denial provides more certainty to governmental
entities that their request for cooperating agency status will be given
due consideration. In response to public comments, the final rule will
retain this opportunity to appeal, with revisions, by adding Sec.
1610.3-2(b)(1) to the final rule.
Final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(1) states that the ``responsible official
shall consider any request by an eligible governmental entity to
participate as a cooperating agency. If the responsible official denies
a request or determines it is inappropriate to extend an invitation to
an eligible governmental entity, he or she shall inform the deciding
official of the denial. The deciding official shall determine if the
denial is appropriate and state the reasons for any denials in the
[EIS].'' In the first sentence, we replace ``State Directors and Field
Managers'' with the ``responsible official'' for consistency with new
terminology and to specify that the responsible official is the BLM
employee responsible for considering cooperating agency requests. We
revise the second sentence of this paragraph to use active voice,
replace ``field manager'' with ``responsible official,'' and improve
consistency with the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(c)). In
addition to denials of requests, responsible officials will also inform
the deciding official if he or she determines it is inappropriate to
extend an invitation to an eligible governmental entity (i.e., any
Federal agency or non-Federal agency (State, tribal, or local) that is
qualified to participate by virtue of its jurisdiction by law or its
special expertise (see 43 CFR 46.225(a))). This is a broader
requirement than the existing regulations, which only apply to denials
of requests and will ensure that deciding officials are aware of all
eligible governmental entities that were not provided cooperating
agency status. Finally, the third sentence replaces ``State Director''
with ``deciding official'' and will establish a new requirement that
deciding officials ``state the reasons for any denials in the [EIS].''
Although this requirement is new to the planning regulations, it is
already required under the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.225(c)) and
therefore does not represent a change in practice or policy.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(1) with only minor
revisions, however this section will be redesignated as final Sec.
1610.3-2(b)(2). This section will describe that a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) must be used for a non-Federal cooperating agency
and must include a commitment to maintain confidentiality of documents
and deliberations prior to their public release. The change reflects an
existing requirement in the DOI NEPA regulations (see 43 CFR 46.225(d))
and therefore would not be a change in practice or policy. Although a
written agreement is not explicitly required for Federal cooperating
agencies, the BLM often chooses to prepare such an agreement to clarify
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and the final rule will
not preclude the continuation of this practice. No change in practice
or policy is intended.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(2), with some
revisions. This section is redesignated as final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3).
This section identifies the various steps during the planning
process when the responsible official will collaborate with cooperating
agencies. The BLM promulgated regulations in 2005 (70 FR 14561), which
required BLM Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies at
steps throughout the planning process (see existing Sec. 1610.4). The
final rule adopts the proposal to consolidate these references that are
currently inserted throughout existing Sec. 1610.4 and to identify
additional steps where cooperating agencies will be involved, including
the preparation of the planning assessment and the preparation of the
proposed resource management plan. The BLM intends no change in
practice or policy by consolidating these references; rather, the BLM
believes that consolidating these references improves readability and
clarity.
Under the final rule, the BLM provides an additional role for
cooperating agencies during the new planning assessment. While NEPA
regulations require a lead agency to invite cooperating agencies to
participate in the NEPA process ``at the earliest possible time'' (40
CFR 1501.6(a)(1); see 43 CFR 46.200(a) and (b)), the BLM recognizes
that eligible governmental entities may be reluctant to agree to serve
as cooperating agencies for a planning effort before the scoping
process yields a fuller understanding of the scope of the plan or
revision and the supporting NEPA analysis.
The BLM further recognizes that DOI NEPA regulations and the final
rule (see final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(2)) require the BLM to work with non-
Federal cooperating agencies to develop an MOU that outlines agencies'
respective roles, assignments, schedules, and other commitments and
such a cooperating agency MOU may not yet be completed during the
planning assessment step.
Nonetheless, the BLM does not foresee any problems working with
eligible governmental entities without an MOU during the planning
assessment step, because this step primarily involves information
gathering by the BLM. Additionally, the BLM believes the planning
assessment will afford the BLM and eligible governmental entities alike
valuable time to build working relationships and share information that
will inform the planning assessment and contribute to the formation of
fruitful cooperating agency relationships. However, the BLM may need to
withhold confidential information, such as locations of
[[Page 89617]]
sensitive cultural resources, until an MOU has been executed.
In response to public comments, final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)
(proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(2)) is revised to provide ``[t]he
responsible official shall collaborate, to the fullest extent possible,
with all cooperating agencies concerning those issues relating to their
jurisdiction and special expertise.'' We remove the proposed phrase
``as feasible and appropriate given their interests, scope of expertise
and the constraints of their resources.'' These changes are consistent
with the DOI NEPA regulations which provide ``the lead bureau will
collaborate, to the fullest extent possible, with all cooperating
agencies concerning those issues relating to their jurisdiction and
special expertise'' (43 CFR 46.230). The proposed language was adapted
from the final sentences of the existing definition of a cooperating
agency (see existing Sec. 1601.0-5) which states ``[c]ooperating
agencies will participate in the various steps of BLM's planning
process as feasible, given the constraints of their resources and
expertise.'' In response to public comments noting that it is the
decision of a potential cooperating agency, and not the BLM, as to
whether the potential cooperator has adequate resources to participate
as a cooperating agency, the BLM will not retain this existing language
in the definition of a cooperating agency, nor will it be retained in
final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3). Further, the final rule more precisely
reflects the DOI NEPA regulations regarding the constraints of a
cooperating agencies expertise.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(2)(i) through
(b)(2)(vi) (redesignated as final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)(i) through
(b)(3)(vi)). The only change between the proposed and final rule is the
removal of the phrase ``and implementation strategies'' from final
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section. This language is no longer
necessary, as the concept of implementation strategies is not included
in the final rule. For more information on this topic, please see the
discussion on implementation strategies at the preamble for proposed
Sec. 1610.1-3.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(c), with some
revisions. This section is designated as final Sec. 1610.3-2(c). This
section describes requirements for coordination with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, consistent
with FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). These requirements are in addition
to the opportunities for public involvement described in Sec. 1610.2,
which apply to governmental entities (see the definition of public in
Sec. 1610.0-5).
We adopt the proposal to add introductory language to paragraph (c)
of this section to indicate that this section describes general
``coordination requirements'' and to divide the existing paragraph (c)
into three separate paragraphs (paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2) in
the final rule) for improved readability.
The final rule adopts the proposed change to replace the existing
phrase ``State Directors and Field Managers'' with ``[t]he BLM'' in the
first sentence of paragraph (c) of this section because the
responsibility of coordination are those of the BLM and they extend
beyond any individual. Some public comments noted that although it is
the BLM's responsibility to provide for coordination, by not
identifying the BLM employee who is responsible for this important
task, there would be no accountability to the public regarding which
BLM official will ensure the task is completed. The BLM believes it is
appropriate to use ``the BLM'' when describing a role that applies to
multiple BLM employees and describes a requirement related to
coordination in general, such as in paragraph (c) of this section.
Paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, however, identify
specific coordination requirements and these responsibilities are
assigned to either the deciding official or the responsible official.
In response to public comments, the final rule is revised to use
``responsible official'' instead of ``the BLM'' in a few sections that
describe specific coordination requirements (see final Sec. Sec.
1610.3-2(c)(5), 1610.3-2(d)).
Final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(1) provides that ``deciding officials
should seek the input of the Governor(s) on the timing, scope and
coordination of resource management planning; definition of planning
areas; scheduling of public involvement activities; and resource
management opportunities and constraints on public lands.'' We adopt
the proposed changes to replace ``policy advice'' with ``input''
because the topics listed in this provision are not ``policy,''
therefore the phrase ``policy advice'' is inaccurate. We also adopt the
proposal to replace ``plan components'' with ``resource management
planning'' because the existing language would be inconsistent with new
terminology and definitions in the final rule (see Sec. 1610.1-2). The
final rule does not adopt the proposal to replace ``multiple use'' with
``resource management'' because this change is unnecessary. The term
``multiple use'' already includes the various aspects of resource
management (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). The final rule is instead revised
to replace ``multiple use'' with ``multiple use and sustained yield''
for consistency with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2)) and throughout
these regulations. The BLM intends no change from current practice or
policy from these changes.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove existing Sec. 1610.3-
1(d), which describes how the State Director will provide guidance to
the Field Manager. This existing section is unnecessary as it describes
an internal BLM process. Further, existing Sec. 1610.3-1(d) exceeds
the statutory requirements of FLPMA, which provides for consistency
with resource management plans, but not BLM guidance. (See 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9).) Several public comments raised concerns over the removal
of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(d), stating that this is a significant and
unjustified change from current regulations. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments. The removal of existing Sec.
1610.3-1(d) represents a change from existing requirements; however,
the BLM believes that this change is appropriate.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(c)(3), with some
revisions. This proposed section will be split into two paragraphs and
redesignated as Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3) and 1610.3-2(c)(4) in the
final rule, for improved readability. Final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(4)
contains the first sentence of proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(c)(3) and final
Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3) contains the remaining provisions of proposed
Sec. 1610.3-1(c)(3), with revisions.
Final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3) and (c)(4) contains the provisions
of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(e) and are revised to reflect changes to
Sec. 1610.2 concerning public involvement, to use active voice for
improved readability, and to respond to public comments.
Final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3) requires that ``[t]he responsible
official shall notify Federal agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes that have requested to be notified or that the
responsible official has reason to believe would be interested in the
resource management plan or plan amendment.'' The final rule does not
adopt the proposal to clarify that heads of county boards are
``elected,'' and to replace ``Tribal Chairmen'' and ``Alaska Native
Leaders'' with ``elected government officials of Indian tribes.''
Instead, the final rule replaces existing language with a more general
statement to notify ``Federal agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes.''
A few comments noted that the proposed changes to replace ``Tribal
Chairmen or Alaska Native Leaders''
[[Page 89618]]
with ``elected government officials of Indian tribes'' would
effectively exclude Alaska Native Corporations from the required
notice. The final rule is not revised in response to these comments.
Section 1610.3-2 applies to coordination with other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes, consistent with FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). This section does not apply to Alaska Native
Corporations, which are not a governmental entity. The BLM will,
however continue to notify any Alaska Native Corporations that have
requested to be notified or that the responsible official believes may
be interested in a resource management plan. The BLM intends no change
from current practice; rather, this change is intended to clarify that
Sec. 1610.3-2 applies to coordination as described in FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)). It is also important to note that the final rule does not
affect implementation of ``Department of the Interior Policy on
Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Corporations'' (2012). BLM remains committed to meaningful consultation
with Alaska Native Corporations during the planning process.
We also rephrase the end of this sentence in final Sec. 1610.3-
2(c)(3), stating that the BLM shall notify Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes that the responsible official has
reason to believe would be ``interested in'' the resource management
plan or plan amendment instead of ``concerned with'' the resource
management plan or plan amendment. This revised language encompasses
the existing requirement to notify those ``concerned with'' a resource
management plan or plan amendment while broadening the requirement to
also include those ``interested in'' a resource management plan or plan
amendment. This is consistent with current BLM practice and reflects
the fact that the BLM believes that any interest in the resource
management plan or amendment, not just concern, warrants notification.
Final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(4) of this section adopts the first
sentence of proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(c)(3), and specifies that State
procedures for coordination with Federal agencies will be followed,
``if such procedures exist.'' The BLM intends no change in practice or
policy from this added language; rather, we wish to clarify that such
procedures can only be followed if they exist.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(c)(4), with some
revisions. This section is redesignated as final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(5).
Final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(5) contains the provisions of existing
Sec. 1610.3-1(f). The final rule adopts the proposed change to replace
``resource management plan proposals'' with ``resource management plans
and plan amendments'' to clarify that this paragraph refers to all of
the opportunities for public involvement described in Sec. 1610.2, and
not just the ``proposed'' resource management plan. The BLM intends no
change from current practice or policy.
The final rule adopts the proposal to revise and move the final
sentence of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(f) to final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(3)
(proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(3)). The existing language refers to
consistency requirements and is therefore more appropriately addressed
in the consistency section of the final rule, final Sec. 1610.3-3.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(d), with some
revisions. This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-2(d) in the
final rule and the final rule replaces the existing word ``will'' with
``shall'' for the reasons previously described. Final Sec. 1610.3-2(d)
contains the provisions of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(g). The final rule
adopts the proposal to include introductory language indicating that
this section describes requirements related to ``resource advisory
councils.'' In response to public comments, the final rule replaces the
existing word ``BLM'' with ``responsible official'' to specify that the
responsible official is the BLM employee responsible for ensuring that
this requirement is fulfilled. No substantive changes are intended
other than to specify which BLM employee is responsible for ensuring
that resource advisory councils are informed and their views considered
during the planning process.
Section 1610.3-3 Consistency Requirements
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2, with revisions;
however, this section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-3 in the final
rule. Unless otherwise noted, the final rule adopts the proposal to
replace references to ``Field Manager(s)'' with ``responsible
official(s)'' and references to ``State Director(s)'' with ``deciding
official(s)'' throughout this section to reflect these individuals'
roles or responsibilities.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a) revises existing Sec. 1610.3-2(a) to read
as follows: ``Resource management plans shall be consistent with
officially approved or adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments and Indian tribes 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.'' The final language
reflects FLPMA requirements for consistency with the plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes (see
43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) while retaining several existing requirements
regarding the extent to which such consistency may be achieved.
In response to public comment, the final rule removes the words
``practical and'' from the phrase ``to the maximum extent the BLM finds
practical and consistent . . .'' in final Sec. 1610.3-3(a). FLPMA
states that ``the Secretary shall . . . assist in resolving, to the
extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal
Government plans,'' (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)); however, this language
is already described under the objectives of coordination (see final
Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(3)) and is therefore unnecessary in this section.
Through coordination, the BLM will assist in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government
plans.
Final Sec. 1610.3.3(a) retains the existing requirement that the
plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian
tribes must be ``officially approved and adopted,'' but does not adopt
the proposal to specify that these must be ``land use plans.'' For more
information on this change throughout the final rule, please see the
discussion on ``officially approved and adopted plans'' at the preamble
for Sec. 1601.0-5. The final rule also corrects an inconsistency in
the use of terminology in the existing and proposed rule by replacing
``officially approved or adopted'' with ``officially approved and
adopted'' as used elsewhere throughout this final rule.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a) also retains the existing requirement that
consistency with officially approved and adopted plans will be achieved
to the extent consistent with the purposes of Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands and the ``purposes, policies and
programs'' implementing Federal laws and regulations. Changes between
the proposed and final rule clarify that these purposes, policies and
programs ``implement'' Federal laws and regulations.
The BLM received public comments in opposition to this existing
requirement, noting that under FLPMA the obligation for consistency
with local plans does not hinge on whether or not they are consistent
with Federal purposes, policies and programs, only whether they do not
contradict Federal
[[Page 89619]]
Laws. The BLM disagrees with these comments. The BLM does not interpret
FLPMA to require resource management plans to be consistent with the
described non-BLM plans if those plans are simply lawful under Federal
law and FLPMA. Rather, and particularly given 1712(c)(9)'s explicit
reference to the purposes of FLPMA, and BLM's and the Secretary's
ultimate responsibility as the manager of the public lands, BLM
interprets FLPMA to authorize it to evaluate whether those non-BLM
plans are consistent with the policies underlying BLM management of the
public lands. Inclusion of language stating that plan consistency shall
only be achieved to the extent consistent with the purposes of Federal
laws and regulations and the policies and programs implementing such
laws and regulations is necessary in order for the Secretary of the
Interior to fulfill his or her responsibilities under FLPMA. Through
FLPMA, the Secretary of the Interior is provided the authority to
administer the public lands (through the BLM) and the responsibility to
implement the statutory direction provided in public land statutes,
including FLPMA. In order to implement public land statutes and
administer the public lands, the Secretary considers the purposes of
the statutes and develops regulations, policies, and management
programs to implement the statutes. These regulations, policies, and
management programs are an important component of implementing public
lands statutes. Consistent with FLPMA, the existing regulations include
a requirement that acknowledges the need for BLM to comply with and
follow the direction provided through regulations, policies, and
programs developed to implement public lands statutes, and the final
rule retains this requirement in the final rule.
Changes adopted in Sec. 1610.3-3(a) of the final rule represent,
in part, a change from current regulations, but will be consistent with
the statutory direction provided by FLPMA. The BLM believes these
changes clarify the BLM's plan consistency requirements and will assist
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes
in engaging in the consistency process by providing those entities
additional information on the BLM's process.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove existing Sec. 1610.3-
2(b). The existing section exceeds the statutory requirements of FLPMA
(see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) by providing that in the absence of
officially approved and adopted plans, resource management plans should
be consistent with ``policies and programs'' of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes.
FLPMA provides 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.'' This FLPMA
requirement is reflected in final Sec. 1610.3-3(a) and applies to
``State and local plans,'' which constitute a formal decision regarding
resource management, but does not apply to ``policies and programs,''
which do not constitute a formal decision regarding resource
management; rather, policies and programs are tools for implementing
laws and regulations and developing formal decisions.
FLPMA limits consistency requirements to ``State and local plans''
while the broader coordination requirements of FLPMA include the
consideration of policies and management programs. In response to
public comments, the final rule aligns with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(9)) by requiring that the BLM coordinate with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes on all types
of plans, policies, and management programs that are germane to the
development of resource management plans in order to assure that
consideration is given to all of these documents during the preparation
of resource management plans (see final Sec. 1610.3-2(a)).
The BLM believes that coordination on and consideration of plans,
policies, and management programs is important to a successful planning
effort and this coordination is appropriately addressed in Sec.
1610.3-2 of the final rule. The consistency requirements of final Sec.
1610.3-3, however, only apply to ``officially approved and adopted
plans'' as these plans constitute a formal decision regarding resource
management. The BLM believes that such an approach more closely aligns
with the statutory requirements of FLPMA. The final rule also removes
references to consistency with ``policies and programs'' throughout
Sec. 1610.3-2. These changes represent a change from the existing
regulations.
By removing existing Sec. 1610.3-2(b) from the regulations, the
final rule removes the reference to ``Federal and State pollution
control laws,'' which are listed as an example of Federal laws that BLM
resource management plans and guidance must be consistent with.
Resource management plans must comply with Federal and State pollution
control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water,
noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans. It is
unnecessary to identify all relevant laws the BLM must abide by in the
regulations, as the BLM is required to comply with all applicable laws
and regulations. The BLM does not intend any change in policy or
practice with this change.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(1) with only minor
revisions. This section is redesignated as final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(1).
The final rule removes the term ``land use'' from ``officially approved
and adopted [land use] plans.'' For more information on the removal of
``land use'' please see the discussion on the definition of
``officially approved and adopted plans'' at the preamble for Sec.
1601.0-5. The final rule also includes the plans of ``other Federal
agencies'' in this section for consistency with paragraph (a) of this
section.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(1) contains the first sentence of existing
section 1610.3-2(c). The first two references to ``State Directors and
Field Managers'' in the first sentence are replaced with ``the BLM,''
because the requirement to keep apprised of State and local
governmental and Indian tribal policies, plans, and programs is
attributed to the BLM, rather than specific employees. The final rule
also replaces ``practicable'' with ``practical'' for consistency with
section of FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) and final Sec. 1610.3-
2(a)(3). Several public comments noted that this represents a
substantive change from existing regulations, as ``practicable'' and
``practical'' are not exact synonyms, and suggested that the proposed
rule did not adequately address this subtle distinction. The BLM
disagrees this is a substantive change, however acknowledges the subtle
distinction in the meaning of these terms. We believe this change is
appropriate for consistency with FLPMA, as this is the term used in
FLMPA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(1) specifies that the ``BLM shall, to the
extent practical, keep apprised of the officially approved and adopted
plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes and give consideration to those plans that are germane in
the development of resource management plans.'' The final rule removes
the words ``policies'' and ``programs'' from the existing phrase
``policies, plans, and programs'' in existing Sec. 1610.3-2(c) (for
more information, see the discussion on consistency at the preamble for
existing Sec. 1610.3-2(b)) and adds language requiring that BLM
consider those plans that are germane to the resource management plan.
It would place an
[[Page 89620]]
unnecessary and inappropriate burden on the BLM to give consideration
to plans that are not germane to the planning effort, thereby
diminishing efficiency without adding value to the planning effort.
These changes are consistent with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
This change reflects existing policy and procedure, as the BLM
currently does not consider plans that are not germane to the planning
effort. Therefore, this change provides clarity to other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes about the
types of plans the BLM will consider.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(2) (final Sec.
1610.3-3(a)(2)), with minor revisions. The final rule includes the
phrase ``Federal agencies'' for consistency with paragraphs (a) and
(a)(1) of this section. This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-
3(a)(2) in the final rule.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(2) contains the second sentence of existing
Sec. 1610.3-2(c). The final rule replaces ``accountable for ensuring
consistency'' with ``required to address the consistency requirements
of this section.'' The BLM cannot ``ensure'' consistency, but seeks to
achieve consistency to the maximum extent consistent with the purposes
of FLPMA and other Federal law and regulations applicable to public
lands, and the policies and programs implementing such laws and
regulations. For example, if a State, local, or tribal plan is not
consistent with a Federal law or regulation, the BLM will not be able
to ensure consistency with the State, local, or tribal plan.
The final rule also replaces the reference to State Directors and
Field Managers (``they'') with ``responsible official,'' thereby
providing that the BLM will not be accountable for addressing the
consistency requirements of final Sec. 1610.3-3 if the ``responsible
official'' has not received written notice of an apparent inconsistency
from other Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Indian
tribes, rather than ``State Directors and Field Managers.'' Because the
responsible official is the BLM employee who is delegated the authority
to prepare a resource management plan or plan amendment, it is
important that the responsible official receives written notice of an
apparent inconsistency so that it can be considered during the planning
process. The BLM cannot ensure that notice sent to someone other than
the responsible official will be redirected and delivered in a
reasonable time-frame, although we will attempt to do so to the best of
our ability.
This change provides clarity to other Federal agencies, State and
local government officials, and Indian tribes of the appropriate BLM
official to notify of inconsistencies; however, it also reduces the
number of individuals that could be notified under the existing
regulations from two individuals (the State Director and Field Manager)
to one individual in the final rule (the responsible official). The BLM
believes that this change will improve the BLM's ability to consider
potential inconsistencies at the earliest time possible, thereby
promoting efficiency in the planning process.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(3), with
revisions. This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(3) in the
final rule and contains the provisions of existing Sec. 1610.3-1(f).
The final rule removes the term ``land use'' from ``officially approved
and adopted [land use] plans.'' For more information on the removal of
``land use'' please see the discussion on the definition of
``officially approved and adopted plans'' at the preamble for Sec.
1601.0-5.
Some public comments requested that the final rule provide a
clearly-defined process for resolution of inconsistencies with local
plans. In response to public comments, final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(3) is
revised to clarify an important step in this process, stating that if
the BLM is notified of specific inconsistencies between the BLM draft
resource management plan and officially approved and adopted plans, the
proposed resource management plan shall show how these inconsistencies
were addressed and, if possible, resolved.
Changes between the proposed and final rule specify that
inconsistencies should be identified in writing regarding the BLM's
``draft'' resource management plan. The BLM believes that this is the
appropriate stage to formally identify inconsistencies as this
represents the first formal review of and comment on the resource
management plan. Prior to the publication of the draft resource
management plan, the BLM will coordinate with governmental entities and
collaborate with cooperating agencies to identify and resolve potential
inconsistencies, subject to the qualifications of Sec. 1610.3. Upon
publication of the draft resource management plan, the BLM will notify
governmental entities of its availability (see Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3))
for review and comment (see Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(5) and 1610.2-2(c)).
During this public comment period, governmental entities may identify
inconsistencies, in addition to any other comments they may have on the
draft resource management plan.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(3) is also revised to replace ``the
resource management documentation'' with ``the proposed resource
management plan.'' This change provides transparency to governmental
entities and to the public on where they can look for information on
how the identified inconsistencies were addressed and, if possible,
resolved; it also ensures governmental entities and the public will
have access to this information during the protest period (see Sec.
1610.6-2). This is important because it provides them the opportunity
to protest should they believe an inconsistency, or the resolution of
an inconsistency, does not comply with Federal laws or regulations, or
is inconsistent with the purposes, policies, and programs implementing
such laws and regulations.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(4), with minor
revisions. This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(4) in the
final rule and contains the provisions of existing Sec. 1610.3-2(d).
This paragraph states that where officially approved and adopted plans
of State and local governments differ from each other, those of the
higher authority will normally be followed. There are no substantive
changes to this section from the existing requirements; the only
revisions are to use active voice and consistent terminology for
improved readability. The final rule removes the term ``land use'' from
``officially approved and adopted [land use] plans.'' For more
information on the removal of ``land use'' please see the discussion on
the definition of ``officially approved and adopted plans'' at the
preamble for Sec. 1601.0-5.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(b), with revisions.
This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.3-3(b) in the final rule.
The final rule also removes the words ``land use'' from ``officially
approved and adopted [land use] plans'' throughout this section (please
see the discussion on the definition of ``officially approved and
adopted plans'' at the preamble for Sec. 1601.0-5).
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b) contains the provisions of existing Sec.
1610.3-2(e) and describes the Governor's consistency review process.
Several public comments stated that these provisions improperly bypass
local governments by attempting to satisfy consistency requirements
through Governors. In response to public comments, we wish to clarify
that the Governor's consistency review is a unique step in the planning
process that affords the
[[Page 89621]]
Governor, as the elected representative of the State, a final
opportunity to identify, discuss, and provide recommendations to remedy
any relevant inconsistencies between a BLM resource management plan or
amendment and State and local plans. The Governor may consider various
State and local plans during the review. The BLM does not define a
process for the Governor to consider those plans because creating a
uniform process to apply to all Governors would be inappropriate. The
Governor's consistency review, however, does not represent the only
opportunity to identify, discuss, and remedy inconsistencies. A key
objective of coordination, as described in final Sec. 1610.3-2, is for
the BLM to work with representatives from State and local governments
to avoid or resolve inconsistencies with State and local plans. As
outlined in final Sec. 1610.3-2, the BLM will seek to coordinate
during every stage of the planning process, including during the
planning assessment (Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)(i) and 1610.4(b)); the
identification of planning issues (Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)(ii) and
1610.5-1(b)); the review of the preliminary alternatives (Sec. Sec.
1610.3-2(b)(3)(iii) and 1610.5-2(c)); the preparation of, and comment
period on, the draft resource management plans (Sec. Sec. 1610.3-
2(b)(3)(v) and 1610.5-4(c)); preparation of the proposed resource
management plan (Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)(vi) and 1610.5-5); and the
protest period on the proposed resource management plan (Sec. 1610.6-
2(a)). Further, representatives from State and local governments are
invited to participate as cooperating agencies, and therefore have the
opportunity to partner with the BLM, and in doing so, identify and
resolve inconsistencies during the development of key planning
documents. The Governor's consistency review is not intended to replace
early coordination, and the BLM intends that in most situations,
inconsistencies will be avoided or resolved through early coordination.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b) is revised for consistency with edits made
throughout final Sec. 1610.3-3. This section is also revised in
response to public comments, and in order to provide clarity and align
with other sections of these regulations and with FLPMA. The final rule
breaks the provisions of the Governor's consistency review into
multiple paragraphs to improve readability. In the following
paragraphs, we describe the changes from the existing regulations that
are adopted in the final rule.
The final rule adopts the proposal to replace references to ``State
Director'' with ``deciding official,'' consistent with the new terms
used throughout the final rule. There is no change in practice or
policy, other than those changes described in the discussion on
responsibilities in the preamble for Sec. 1601.0-4.
The final rule adopts the proposal to specify that the document
submitted to the Governor by the deciding official shall identify
``relevant'' known inconsistencies with ``officially approved and
adopted plans of State and local governments.'' This revision limits
the inconsistencies that the deciding official must identify to those
that are relevant. It also requires the deciding official to identify
only inconsistencies with officially approved and adopted plans, not
with ``State or local plans, policies or programs'' (see existing Sec.
1610.3-2(b)), consistent with Sec. Sec. 1601.0-5 and 1610.3-3(a) in
the final rule.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(1) states that within 60 days after
receiving a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment, the
Governor(s) may submit a written document to the deciding official
identifying inconsistencies with the officially approved and adopted
plans of State and local governments and provide recommendations to
remedy them.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(1)(i) clarifies that the Governor's
recommendations should address identified inconsistencies with State
and local plans, rather than other aspects of a resource management
plan. This language reflects the fact that the Governor's consistency
review is not intended to replace early coordination with State and
local governments; rather, this unique step affords the Governor a
final opportunity to discuss and remedy inconsistencies. These changes
do not preclude the BLM from considering or responding to a Governor's
recommendations on other subjects, but it underscores that the BLM's
focus at this late stage of the planning process is on consistency with
State or local plans. There is no change in meaning or practice
associated with the change other than focusing the Governor's
consistency review on consistency with officially approved and adopted
State and local plans.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section, which introduces a new provision that allows the Governor to
waive or shorten the 60-day consistency review period in writing. This
provision facilitates a more efficient planning process by reducing the
length of the review period in situations where the Governor has no
comments to submit. For example, if representatives from the Governor's
Office participated as cooperators and found the plan to be adequately
consistent with officially approved and adopted State and local plans,
then the Governor may have no further comments and wish to expedite the
review period. This change is consistent with current practice under
the existing regulations, as the Governor is not precluded from waiving
or shortening the consistency review period under the existing
regulations. The addition of this language, however, provides more
transparency to the public on the Governor's consistency review process
and affirms the availability of this option for the Governor.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
with no changes. This section retains existing language that the plan
or amendment is presumed to be consistent if the Governor(s) does not
respond to the BLM within the 60-day period, but is revised from the
existing regulations to improve readability. There is no change in
practice or meaning associated with these changes.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(3) is revised to clarify existing language
and reflect terms used in this rule. This paragraph provides that
``[i]f the document submitted by the Governor(s) recommends substantive
changes that were not considered during the public involvement process,
the BLM shall notify the public and provide opportunity for public
comment on these changes.'' This clarifies that the public must be
provided an opportunity to comment on any substantive changes
recommended by the Governor to remedy inconsistencies between the BLM's
proposed resource management plan and officially approved and adopted
plans that were not previously raised or considered during the public
involvement process, and this opportunity must be provided before the
Director renders a decision. While this is not a change from BLM
practice under existing regulations, these clarifications provide a
more precise description of the public's opportunity to comment on the
Governor's recommended changes to remedy inconsistencies.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(4) of this section
with only minor revisions. This section provides that the deciding
official (revised from the State Director) shall notify the Governor(s)
in writing of his or her decision regarding the Governor(s)'
recommendations. The final rule adopts the proposed new requirements
that the notification include the deciding official's reason for the
decision and that the notification be
[[Page 89622]]
mandatory, replacing the existing requirement to notify the Governor
only if their recommendations are not accepted. These changes are not a
change in practice or policy, other than ensuring that the Governor is
notified of any decision related to the Governor's recommendations.
Final paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section maintains the existing
process by which the Governor(s) may submit a written appeal to the BLM
Director within 30 days after receiving the deciding official's
decision.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this
section, with revisions. The final rule removes existing language
requiring the BLM Director to accept the recommendations of the
Governor(s) if the BLM Director determines that the recommendations
``provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and
the State's interest.'' This existing language does not reflect the
broader range of considerations that need apply. For example, the
Director must consider whether the recommendations of the Governor are
consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other Federal laws and
regulations, as well as the purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and regulations, as described in final Sec.
1610.3-3(a). The Director must also consider whether the
recommendations of the Governor are consistent with the purpose and
need statement for the resource management plan revision or amendment,
whether they were encompassed by the range of alternatives and analyzed
in the effects analysis, as well as the environmental effects of the
recommendations. We proposed to replace the existing language, instead
stating that the BLM Director will consider the Governor(s)' comments
in rendering a final decision. Several public comments opposed this
proposed change, stating that the Congressional intent of FLPMA is to
reach a reasonable balance between the national interests and the State
or local interests without undue impacts to either the State or local
governments. In response to public comments, final paragraph (b)(4)(i)
of this section is revised to replace ``comments'' with ``appeal'' and
to include additional language requiring that the Director also
consider the consistency requirements of this section. In particular,
this reference points the Director to the standard reflected in Sec.
1610.3-3(a) that resource management plans shall be consistent with
officially approved and adopted State and local plans 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. The Director will review the Governor's appeal and
determine whether the proposed resource management plan meets this
standard, which encompasses the broader range of considerations
described above.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(4)(ii) retains the existing requirement,
with clarifying edits, that the BLM Director will notify the
Governor(s) in writing of his or her decision regarding the appeal.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(4)(ii) also replaces the existing requirement
to publish the reasons for the BLM's decision in the Federal Register
with commitments to notify the public of the decision and to make the
written decision available to the public. The BLM will instead provide
this notification on the BLM Web site, by posting a notice at BLM
offices within the planning area, by sending an email to the mailing
list, or by other means as appropriate.
The BLM received several public comments that expressed concern
over the removal of the existing requirements to publish Federal
Register notices. The BLM believes that it is appropriate to move away
from relying on Federal Register notices at this step, given that
Internet communications are both readily available and widely used.
Further, at this late stage of the planning process, individuals or
organizations interested in the planning effort will have had many
opportunities to request to be added to the mailing list (see Sec.
1610.2-1(d)) to receive notifications related to the planning effort.
In locations where Internet is not readily available, the responsible
official will identify additional forms of notification to reach local
communities within the planning area (see Sec. 1610.2-1(c)). Removal
of the unnecessary requirement to publish a notice in the Federal
Register provides for a more efficient planning process.
In the proposed rule, the BLM requested public comments on whether
to adjust the timeline or appeal process for the Governor's consistency
review. Although some comments expressed support for shortening the
timeline to 30 days and requested the BLM eliminate the appeal process,
the BLM received many comments expressing concern over any changes that
would reduce opportunities for coordination or achievement of
consistency. In light of these comments, the final rule does not adjust
the timeline or appeal process.
Section 1610.4 Planning Assessment
Existing Sec. 1610.4 consists only of the section heading
``Resource management planning process.'' This section is revised in
the final rule as follows.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.4, ``Planning
assessment,'' with revisions. This section combines and revises the
existing sections for inventory data and information collection
(existing Sec. 1610.4-3) and the analysis of the management situation
(AMS) (existing Sec. 1610.4-4) into a new planning assessment section.
The planning assessment will occur before the BLM initiates the
preparation of a resource management plan and will be consistent with
the nature, scope, scale, and timing of the planning effort. The
combination of those points in the planning process into this early
planning assessment will result in a more informed scoping process;
however, several existing provisions are removed because they will no
longer be relevant at this early stage. These changes are described in
detail at each corresponding section of the planning assessment
provisions in this rule.
The planning assessment includes new opportunities for public
involvement, coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes, and collaboration with cooperating
agencies. The BLM anticipates that greater coordination, collaboration
and public involvement, particularly early in the planning process,
will result in efficiencies by ensuring that the BLM considers a wide
range of relevant policies, information, and perspectives even before
scoping.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See OMB and President's CEQ Memorandum on Environmental
Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (Sept. 7, 2012), 4.b., p. 3
(``Given possible cost savings through improved outcomes, fewer
appeals and less litigation, department and agency leadership should
identify and support upfront investments in collaborative processes
and conflict resolution . . .'') and 5, p. 4 (Federal departments
and agencies should prioritize integrating collaboration and
conflict resolution objectives and ``a focus on up-front
collaboration as a key principle in agency mission statements and
strategic plans''), available at: https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/OMB_CEQ_Env_Collab_Conflict_Resolution_20120907.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The planning assessment is intended to help the BLM better
understand resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic
conditions, and identify public views and resource management
priorities for the planning area. The planning assessment will occur
early in the process, before the formal initiation of a planning effort
and before the steps that the BLM traditionally has taken first--
namely, the identification of issues and the
[[Page 89623]]
development of planning criteria. The BLM believes that conducting an
upfront assessment will provide useful baseline information to inform
subsequent steps, such as the preparation of a preliminary purpose and
need statement, the identification of planning issues, and the
formulation of resource management alternatives. The planning
assessment will include new opportunities for collaboration and public
involvement and measures that will increase transparency. Further, the
planning assessment is similar to the assessment procedures in the U.S.
Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule (see 36 CFR 219.6(a)), and therefore
create a new opportunity for inter-agency coordination.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.4, which serves as an
introduction and provides that the planning assessment shall be
required before the BLM initiates the preparation of a resource
management plan.
In response to public comment, the final rule adds new Sec.
1610.4(a), which addresses the determination of a planning area.
Several public comments suggested that the planning regulations would
benefit from more direction on how the BLM will determine future
planning areas. Some comments requested that the BLM clarify how the
planning assessment informs and helps to establish the planning area
boundary. Other comments recommended that planning areas be based on
common management concerns. This new paragraph requires that the BLM
identify a preliminary planning area for use as the basis for the
planning assessment.
Paragraph (a)(1) and paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(v) of this
section describe the factors that the BLM will consider when
identifying a preliminary planning area. First, the BLM will consider
relevant management concerns identified through monitoring and
evaluation. These management concerns will be available to the public
through the summary report of the plan evaluation (see Sec. 1610.6-4).
Next the BLM will consider any relevant landscapes associated with
these management concerns. (See final Sec. 1601.0-5). For example, if
the plan evaluation indicates that the existing resource management
plan does not adequately address the impacts of new resource uses on
sensitive plant species, then the BLM would take into consideration the
area of land where these new resource uses are relevant as well as the
extent of the sensitive plant species. This does not mean that the
planning area must encompass the full geographic extent of the resource
use and sensitive plant species; rather, it means that the BLM must
consider the geographic extent of this interaction when determining an
appropriate planning area and the potential consequences for the
species as a result of this interaction. The BLM also must consider any
relevant guidance provided by the deciding official or the BLM
Director, as well as the officially approved and adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, as
well as other relevant information, as appropriate. For example, if a
State wildlife action plan identifies a management area for an
important wildlife species, then the BLM will take that into
consideration when developing a preliminary planning area.
Several public comments raised concern that under the proposed
rule, there would be no opportunity for public involvement in the
determination of a planning area. In response to public comments, this
section also includes a new requirement (final Sec. 1610.6-4(b)) that
the responsible official shall make the description and a rationale for
the preliminary planning area available for public review prior to the
publication of the NOI in the Federal Register. The BLM intends that
this description and rationale will normally be made available at the
onset of the planning assessment, which will take place before an NOI
is published. The planning area will be revised, as necessary, based on
any feedback provided by other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, or the public during the planning
assessment. For example, the BLM intends to host public meetings during
the planning assessment to assist in identifying public views (see
Sec. 1610.4(b)(4)). During these public meetings, the BLM will also
discuss the preliminary planning area with participants and consider
any input received. The BLM will also coordinate with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes to receive
feedback on the preliminary planning area. A planning area will be
identified in the NOI (see Sec. 1610.2-1(f)(2)(ii)) and will be
informed by the input received during the planning assessment. For more
information on the determination of a planning area, please see the
discussion of Sec. 1601.0-4 in this preamble.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.4(a), with revisions.
This section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.4(b) in the final rule. This
section addresses ``information gathering'' and replaces and enhances
the existing inventory data and information collection requirements
(see existing Sec. 1610.4-3), providing that the responsible official
will follow the four requirements described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) of this section.
Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the responsible official
will arrange for relevant resource, environmental, ecological, social,
economic, and institutional data or information to be gathered, or
assembled if it is already available, including the identification of
potential ACECs. This replaces language in existing Sec. 1610.4-3 that
requires the BLM to ``arrange for resource, environmental, social,
economic and institutional data and information to be collected or
assembled if already available.'' The final rule replaces the word
``collected'' with ``gathered'' to avoid potential confusion with the
information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The final rule includes ``the
identification of potential ACECs'' in this step to specify when
potential ACECs should be identified (see Sec. 1610.8-2). It is
important to note that as planning proceeds the BLM may identify the
need for additional information gathering or new information may become
available. The BLM will consider this new information, such as the
identification of a potential ACEC.
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section encompasses the BLM's statutory
obligation for inventory of ``public lands and their resource and other
values,'' as described in FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1711(a)), and also
provides for the gathering and consideration of the best available
scientific information, or other types of high quality information,
provided by sources outside of the BLM.
The final rule does not carry forward language from existing Sec.
1610.4-3 requiring that ``new information and inventory data . . .
emphasize significant issues and decisions with the greatest potential
impact.'' At this early stage in the planning process, the BLM
recognizes that all significant issues may not yet be known and without
conducting a broad assessment, the BLM may not be able to reasonably
identify all of the significant issues. At the same time, the BLM must
make every effort to conduct a planning assessment relevant to the
issues and concerns associated with the incipient planning process
recognizing existing budgets and timeframes. The BLM intends that
``relevant'' data and information will include inventory of the land
and resources (see 43 U.S.C. 1711(a)) and any other available high
quality information, including the best available scientific
information, relevant
[[Page 89624]]
to the planning process and necessary to address the applicable factors
described in proposed Sec. 1610.4(d).
The final rule adopts the proposal to include a provision in final
Sec. 1610.4(b)(1) to avoid unnecessary data-gathering, similar to the
existing provision in the development of planning criteria regulations
(see existing Sec. 1610.4-2(a)(2)), however, in response to public
comment, this sentence is revised in the final rule to incorporate a
new provision. Several public comments stated that the planning rule
does not adequately address the FLPMA requirement for the BLM to
``coordinate the land use inventory'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). In
response to public comments, this sentence is revised to provide that
``to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration
of the public lands and as appropriate, inventory data and information
shall be gathered or assembled in coordination with the land use
planning and management programs of other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and Indian tribes within which the lands are
located, and in a manner that aids the planning process and avoids
unnecessary data-gathering.'' This language aligns with FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) and reflects the importance of early coordination
with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian
tribes on inventory and information gathering.
In addition, the BLM intends to emphasize that inventory data and
information gathered for the planning assessment should be responsive
to the relevant issues and geared to inform the overall planning
process, including subsequent monitoring and implementation of the
resource management plan. The responsible official will determine what
information is relevant to the planning process based on available
resources and existing requirements, such as inventory of the land and
resources, the previous results of monitoring and evaluation, or
existing assessments or strategies that overlay the planning area.
In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the final rule adopts the new
regulatory requirement, consistent with current practice, that the
responsible official ``[i]dentify relevant national, regional, State,
tribal or local laws, regulations, policies, guidance, strategies or
plans for consideration in the planning assessment.'' In response to
public comments, the final rule adds ``State'' and ``tribal'' to this
list, as well as ``laws'' and ``regulations.'' This expands the
relevant laws, regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, and plans
for consideration, and better helps the BLM meet its consistency
requirements by conducting this assessment early in the process.
Examples identified in the final rule include Executive Orders issued
by the President, Secretarial Orders issued by the Secretary of the
Interior, DOI or BLM policy, BLM Director or deciding official
guidance, mitigation strategies, interagency initiatives, State, multi-
State, tribal, or local resource plans. In response to public comments,
the final rule includes ``tribal'' and ``local'' resource plans as
examples. Recent examples might include: Secretarial Order 3336--
Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration (Jan. 5, 2015);
the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Apr. 2014)
(https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy); a State wildlife action
plan such as the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan which was prepared by the
Nevada Department of Wildlife and approved by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (https://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_Plan/); or a community wildfire protection plan
(https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/communities/cwpp.shtml).
Identifying policies and strategies up front is important because
successful planning needs to be informed by policies and strategies
that cross traditional administrative boundaries. This step also
enables the BLM Director and the deciding official to consider input
during the planning assessment process, including information from
other Federal and State agencies engaged in planning in the same or
similar geographic area. Further, this step ensures that the BLM keeps
apprised of the plans, policies, and management programs of other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes and
considers those plans, policies, and management programs that are
germane in the development of resource management plans for public
lands (see Sec. 1610.3-2(a)).
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
with edits. The final rule adopts the proposal to add a new regulatory
requirement that the responsible official provide opportunities for
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes and
the public to provide existing data and information or suggest other
laws, regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans for the BLM
to consider in the planning assessment. For example, a State wildlife
agency might ask the BLM to consider a conservation plan for a
sensitive species; a member of the public might ask the BLM to consider
the results of a peer-reviewed study relevant to the planning area; or
a recreation user group might ask the BLM to consider data identifying
areas of high recreation use in the planning area. This opportunity
will be provided through a general request for information from the
public. In addition to accepting written input, the BLM may provide
opportunities through in-person meetings or workshops, webinars,
collaborative Web sites, or other information gathering techniques. In
response to public comments, and for consistency with revisions to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the final rule includes relevant
``laws'' and ``regulations'' in this section. These could include
Federal, State, or tribal laws and regulations, such as the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The adoption of this new requirement in the final Sec.
1610.4(b)(3) establishes a new public involvement opportunity during
the planning assessment, which supports the Planning 2.0 goal to
provide new and enhanced opportunities for collaborative planning. It
will also help the BLM consider relevant data and information in the
planning assessment.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
with no edits, which requires that the BLM identify relevant public
views concerning resource, environmental, ecological, social, or
economic conditions of the planning area. The BLM intends that these
views will be identified through a public ``envisioning process.'' This
process will generally include public meetings, although the BLM may
also use other techniques, such as a collaborative Web site, for
example. Final Sec. 1610.4(b)(4) will help the Bureau to better
understand public views in relation to the planning area, including
what is important to the public, where important areas are located, and
why these areas are important to members of the public. Under current
practice, the BLM identifies public views during the identification of
planning issues. By providing this opportunity during the planning
assessment, the BLM will be able to summarize public views in the
planning assessment report (see Sec. 1610.4(e)). This will provide
increased transparency, will help to inform the preparation of a
preliminary purpose and need statement, and will help inform the
identification of planning issues.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.4(b) with revisions. This
section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.4(c) in the final rule. This new
section addresses
[[Page 89625]]
``information quality'' for the planning assessment. The responsible
official will evaluate the data and information gathered or provided to
the BLM to ensure the use of high quality information in the planning
assessment and to identify any data gaps or further information
needs.'' In this new step, the responsible official must evaluate the
information that has been gathered to ensure the use of high quality
information in the planning assessment (for more information on high
quality information, please see the discussions for Sec. Sec. 1601.0-5
and 1610.1-1(c) in this preamble). Including this new requirement in
the planning regulations is important because it clearly communicates
to the public that any information submitted to the BLM must be high
quality information to be considered further in the planning
assessment. After evaluating information, the responsible official, in
collaboration with any cooperating agencies, will use the high quality
information to assess the resource, environmental, ecological, social,
and economic conditions of the planning area.
Several public comments requested that the responsible official
document his or her evaluations of information quality, including a
rationale for any information excluded from use in the planning
assessment, and make this information available to the public. The
evaluation of high quality information will be documented in the
administrative file for the planning effort and the BLM expects the
evaluation will be summarized in the planning assessment report in most
cases (see Sec. 1610.4(e)). The forthcoming revision of the Land Use
Planning Handbook will provide more detailed guidance on these steps.
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.4(c) with revisions. This
section is redesignated as Sec. 1610.4(d) in the final rule. This
section describes the factors that the responsible official must
consider when assessing the resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic conditions of the planning area for the planning
assessment. The responsible official will consider and document these
factors whenever they are applicable, however, the responsible official
will not be limited to the proposed factors.
These factors contain elements from the nine factors in Sec.
1610.4-4(a) through (i) of the existing planning regulations, which
outline the AMS. The planning assessment also includes some factors
that were not included in the existing regulations regarding the AMS
(see existing Sec. 1610.4-4). These new factors are intended to help
inform the planning process and include types of information the BLM
already may consider under the existing regulations. The inclusion of
these factors in the regulations provides the public with a better
understanding of the types of information that will be considered
during the preparation of a resource management plan. The BLM
anticipates no direct impacts to the public from these proposed
additions. The following paragraphs highlight the changes and
rationales.
Paragraph (d)(1) of this section ((c)(1) in the proposed rule)
revises existing Sec. 1610.4-4(a), providing that the BLM consider
``the types of resource management authorized by FLPMA and other
relevant authorities'' during the planning assessment. The final rule
replaces Federal Land Policy and Management Act with the acronym FLPMA
and replaces ``legislation'' with ``authorities.'' The proposed rule
would have replaced ``resource use and protection'' with ``resource
management.'' Several public comments suggested that the proposed
change could be interpreted to mean that the BLM would no longer
consider resource uses authorized by FLPMA. In response to public
comment, the final rule maintains the term ``use'' from the existing
regulations to clarify and affirm that resource use is considered in
the assessment. There is no change in meaning or practice associated
with these edits, as the term ``resource management'' encompasses
``resource use and protection'' as well as other types of management
such as restoration.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(2) of this section ((c)(2) in
the proposed rule) with revisions. The final rule includes ``land
status and ownership . . . infrastructure, and access patterns in the
planning area,'' consistent with the proposed rule. The final rule
changes ``existing resource uses'' to ``existing resource management''
because existing resource uses are covered by other factors in this
section (including, but not limited to Sec. 1610.4(d)(7)), but
existing resource management (as described in the existing land use
plan) is not. Further, it is important to identify existing management
direction that allows for a use, such as a known valid existing right,
even if that use is not yet applied in the area. The final rule also
adds ``including any known valid existing rights'' for the reasons
discussed in the preamble to Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2). This factor,
although often included in the AMS under current practice, is not
identified in the current regulations and will provide important
baseline information on current uses within the planning area to inform
the identification of planning issues and the formulation of
alternatives.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(3) of this section ((c)(3) in
the proposed rule) without revisions. This paragraph refers to current
resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions,
and any known trends related to these conditions. This information is
typically included in the AMS under current practice, but is not
identified in the current regulations. It is important that current
conditions serve as a starting point for the planning assessment. This
information provides the basis for the affected environment and assists
in the identification of planning issues and formulation of a
reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. Trends in resource or
other conditions, such as economic trends, wildlife population trends,
or recreation use trends, could also provide useful information for the
planning process. If this information is available, the BLM will
consider it during the planning assessment.
The final rule adopts paragraph (d)(4) of this section ((c)(4) in
the proposed rule) with revisions. This paragraph refers to ``known
resource constraints or limitations.'' The final rule removes the term
``thresholds'' because it is unnecessary and duplicative of the terms
``constraints or limitations.''
Paragraph (d)(4) of this section modifies and expands on existing
Sec. 1610.4-4(i), which refers to ``critical threshold levels which
should be considered in the formulation of planned alternatives.''
Known resource constraints or limitations will be identified based on
the best available scientific information. For instance, a known
limitation might include a minimum viable population number for an
endangered species as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
or a minimum area of critical habitat, such as breeding grounds or
winter range, as determined by peer-reviewed scientific research. The
BLM believes this concept is important to the planning process because
it informs the development of plan components in the resource
management plan, including disturbance limits, mitigation standards, or
decision points for applying adaptive management. For example, a land
use plan could establish an objective to support viable populations for
a sensitive species by protecting important habitat. If a known minimum
viable population for the species was identified in the planning
assessment, this information could be used to
[[Page 89626]]
establish a decision point to consider a plan amendment if the
population numbers dropped near or below the minimum.
Under this new provision, the BLM will identify any known
constraints or limitations to resource management that should be
considered in order to effectively manage resources consistent with its
multiple use and sustained yield mandate, including any known and
potential conflicts between multiple uses. For example, the BLM may
identify uses that are known to be incompatible with important habitat
for a sensitive species based on the best available scientific
information in order to provide for the long-term sustainability of the
species.
The BLM will also identify any related or indirect constraints to
resource management. For example, wildfire propensity in an area might
provide a constraint to future allowed uses, because in addition to use
disturbance, the protection of habitat for a sensitive species could
also be affected by natural disturbance. Or rights-of-way corridors
might be constrained by natural features in certain areas, limiting
where a transmission corridor could be located on the landscape. The
BLM does not anticipate that all resource limitations will be
identified at this stage of planning; many will be identified later
through the formulation of alternatives and the estimation of their
effects. At this early stage in planning, the BLM will identify known
limitations based on best available scientific information, such as
peer-reviewed research. This information will be useful to inform the
identification of planning issues and resource management alternatives,
and will promote a transparent and efficient planning process.
Paragraph (d)(5) of this section ((c)(5) in the proposed rule)
refers to areas of potential importance within the planning area and is
adopted in the final rule with revisions. This information is typically
included in the AMS under current practice, but is not identified in
the current regulations. The identification of these areas will inform
the identification of planning issues and the formulation of
alternatives. The following paragraphs describe the different types of
``areas of importance'' that are included.
Paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section ((c)(5)(i) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph
refers to areas of tribal, traditional, or cultural importance. These
could include areas important for subsistence use, important cultural
sites, traditional cultural properties, or a cultural landscape.
Although the BLM will identify these areas during the planning
assessment, sensitive or confidential areas may not be made available
to the public or included in the planning assessment report.
Paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section ((c)(5)(ii) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule with one revision. This paragraph
refers to habitat for special status species, including state or
federally listed threatened or endangered species. The final rule
changes ``and/or'' to ``or'' because the ``and'' is unnecessary. No
change in meaning is intended.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section ((c)(5)(iii) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph
refers to other areas of key fish and wildlife habitat such as big game
wintering and summer areas, bird nesting and feeding areas, habitat
connectivity or wildlife migration corridors, and areas of large and
intact habitat. The identification of these areas is important at the
onset of planning because fish and wildlife habitat often crosses
jurisdictional boundaries and conservation of such habitat will often
require landscape-scale management approaches.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section ((c)(5)(iv) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph
refers to areas of ecological importance, such as areas that increase
the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the planning
area to adapt to, resist, or recover from change. For example, areas of
ecological importance might include refugia or migratory corridors
identified to help sensitive species respond to the effects of climate
change or wetlands that help to buffer the effects of weather
fluctuations by storing floodwaters and maintaining surface water flow
during dry periods.
Paragraph (d)(5)(v) of this section ((c)(5)(v) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule with revisions. This paragraph
refers to lands with wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic study
rivers, or areas of significant scenic value. A comment stated that the
term ``candidate wild and scenic rivers'' is unclear, and suggested the
final rule replace ``candidate'' with ``eligible'' and adopt the
Department of Interior's definition for eligible wild and scenic rivers
as its definition for candidate wild and scenic rivers. In response to
public comments, the final rule instead replaces ``candidate wild and
scenic rivers'' with ``wild and scenic study rivers.'' This term is
defined in BLM Manual 6400 and is therefore consistent with current BLM
practice and policy.
A few comments requested the planning assessment include specific
consideration of areas of scientific value. The comments stated that
scientific value is listed in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)), but the
proposed rule does not account for it. In response to public comments,
final paragraph (d)(5)(v) of this section is revised to include areas
of significant ``scientific'' value, consistent with FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1701(a)(8), 1702(c)).
Paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section ((c)(5)(vi) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph
refers to areas of significant historical value, including
paleontological sites. A comment urged the BLM to include
archaeological sites to the list of areas of potential importance,
among others. Archeological sites are encompassed by ``areas of
significant historical value'' and may also be identified under this
paragraph, subject to any requirement that the BLM keep the location of
archeological sites confidential.
Paragraph (d)(5)(vii) of this section ((c)(5)(vii) in the proposed
rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph
refers to existing designations in the planning area, such as
wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, national
scenic or historic trails, or existing ACECs.
Paragraph (d)(5)(viii) of this section ((c)(5)(viii) in the
proposed rule) is adopted in the final rule without revisions. This
paragraph refers to areas with potential for renewable or non-renewable
energy development or energy transmission.
The BLM received comments requesting that areas with mineral
potential, as well as timber, be included in the planning assessment.
In response to comments, the final rule includes new paragraphs
(d)(5)(ix) and (d)(5)(x), which refer to areas with known mineral
potential and areas with known potential for producing forest products,
including timber. This information is typically identified in the
affected environment section of a draft resource management plan and
draft EIS under current practice, but is not identified in the current
regulations. Identification of these areas at the outset of the
planning process is important because minerals and forest products are
among the resources that BLM manages under FLPMA's multiple use
standard and other statutory mandates.
Paragraph (c)(5)(ix) of this section in the proposed rule is
redesignated as paragraph (d)(5)(xi) in the final rule, but
[[Page 89627]]
otherwise is adopted without revisions. This paragraph refers to areas
of importance for recreation activities or access. These might include
high use recreation sites or areas with limited access points.
Paragraph (c)(5)(x) of this section in the proposed rule is
redesignated as paragraph (d)(5) (xii) in the final rule, but otherwise
is adopted without revisions. This paragraph refers to areas of
importance for public health and safety, such as abandoned mine lands
or natural hazards.
Paragraph (d)(6) of this section ((c)(6) in the proposed rule) is
adopted in the final rule without revisions. This paragraph refers to
dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such
as drought, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change. This
information is not identified in the current regulations, but will be
useful to inform the formulation of alternatives and assess the need
for adaptive management approaches or cross-boundary collaboration with
other land managers. For example, halting the spread of invasive
species may require collaboration between adjacent landowners such as
the BLM, the United States Forest Service, or willing private
landowners.
Paragraph (c)(7) of this section in the proposed rule is adopted as
paragraph (d)(7) in the final rule with revisions. We adapted this
paragraph from the beginning of existing Sec. 1610.4-4(d), which
directs the BLM to consider the ``estimated sustained levels of the
various goods, services and uses that may be attained.'' The proposed
rule referred instead to identifying the ``various goods and services,
including ecological services, that people obtain from the planning
area.'' The phrase ``goods and services'' includes the many ecological
services (i.e., ecosystem services) that are provided by the public
lands, in addition to the ``principal or major uses'' described in
FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(l)), and other multiple uses. ``Ecosystem
goods and services include a range of human benefits resulting from
appropriate ecosystem structure and function, such as flood control
from intact wetlands and carbon sequestration from healthy forests.''
Several public comments expressed concern that, as a whole, the
factors identified in proposed paragraph (c) (final paragraph (d)) of
this section would not adequately address resource uses. In response to
public comments, the final rule uses the phrase ``goods, services, and
uses'' instead of the proposed language ``goods and services'' in final
Sec. Sec. 1610.4-7(d)(7) and (d)(7)(i) through (d)(7)(iii). Resource
uses result in the production of ``goods and services;'' therefore, the
inclusion of this word does not represent a substantive change in
meaning. The inclusion of this word is intended to provide clarity that
this provision applies to resource uses. This paragraph is also revised
to refer expressly to those principal or major uses described in FLPMA,
which include domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development
and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way,
outdoor recreation, and timber production.
``Uses,'' in this context, means existing or potential resource
uses, but does not mean resource use determinations, which are also
referred to as ``allowable uses'' in the existing Land Use Planning
Handbook. At this early stage in the planning process, the BLM believes
it is appropriate to identify the goods and services, including
resource uses that people obtain from the planning area, but it is not
yet appropriate to establish allowable uses (resource use
determinations in the final rule).
Paragraph (c)(7)(i) of the proposed rule is redesignated as
paragraph (d)(7)(i) in the final rule, but otherwise is adopted with
only minor revisions for consistency with final Sec. 1610.4(d)(7).
This paragraph incorporates language from existing Sec. 1610.4(g),
which directs the BLM to consider the ``degree of local dependence on
resources from public lands.'' The BLM will instead consider the degree
of local, regional, national, or international importance of these
goods and services. ``Resources'' is replaced with ``goods, services,
and uses'' to provide a more precise explanation of what the BLM
considers in regards to those resources. For example, the BLM could
identify the degree of local dependence on potable water from
groundwater recharge in the planning area (i.e., local dependence on a
service associated with water resources). The BLM believes that use of
more precise terminology in the regulations improves understanding of
this provision; no change in meaning is intended by this proposed word
change.
In addition to the degree of local importance of goods and
services, the BLM may also consider the degree of regional, national,
or international importance of goods and services. This is particularly
important when planning across traditional administrative boundaries
and implementing landscape-scale management approaches. Examples of
regional or national importance include goals for renewable energy
generation on Federal lands under the President's Climate Action Plan
(June 2013), (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf), and the Nation's reliance on the
BLM-administered Federal Helium Reserve (https://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/energy/helium_program.html).
Paragraph (c)(7)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(7)(ii) in the
final rule, but otherwise is adopted with only minor revisions for
consistency with final Sec. 1610.4(d)(7). This paragraph incorporates
language from existing Sec. 1610.4-4(c) and refers to ``available
forecasts and analyses related to the supply and demand for these goods
and services.'' The final rule broadens this provision to include both
supply and demand and to apply to ``goods, services, and uses''
including ecological services, instead of ``resource demands.''
Paragraph (c)(7)(iii) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(7)(iii), but
otherwise is adopted with only minor revisions for consistency with
final Sec. 1610.4(d)(7). This paragraph refers to ``the estimated
sustained levels of the various goods and services that may be produced
based on a sustained yield basis.'' For example, the BLM commonly
estimates the sustainable levels of timber production. This factor is
adapted from existing Sec. 1610.4-4(d), which links estimated
sustained levels to those that may be attained ``under existing
biological and physical conditions and under differing management
practices and degrees of management intensity which are economically
viable under benefit cost or cost effectiveness standards prescribed in
national or State Director [deciding official] guidance.'' The final
rule simplifies the language in this factor for improved readability
and understanding. At this early stage in the planning process, the BLM
believes that the planning assessment should focus on the capability of
resources to provide goods and services on a sustained yield basis.
This information is important for the development of resource
management plans based on the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield and will assist the BLM in developing a range of alternatives
that is consistent with FLPMA.
In addition to the foregoing changes, we removed some of the
factors that are described in existing Sec. 1610.4-4 regarding the AMS
and will not include them in the planning assessment. The planning
assessment will not include ``specific requirements and constraints to
achieve consistency with policies, plans and programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local government agencies and Indian tribes'' (see
existing Sec. 1610.4-4(e)). At this early stage in the planning
process, the BLM will identify
[[Page 89628]]
these plans, but will not have sufficient information to identify
``requirements and constraints'' related to consistency, as the BLM
will not yet be developing resource management alternatives. This step
is more appropriately considered when developing the draft resource
management plan.
Paragraph (d) of this section also does not include
``[o]pportunities to meet goals and objectives defined in national and
State Director guidance'' (see existing Sec. 1610.4-4(b)). This
language is no longer necessary, because final Sec. 1610.4(b)(2)
directs the responsible official to identify BLM guidance that is
relevant to the planning assessment. That paragraph requires the
responsible official to consider BLM guidance.
Another factor not included in the planning assessment section of
the final rule is ``Opportunities to resolve public issues and
management concerns'' (see existing Sec. 1610.4-4(f)). The planning
assessment will typically be conducted before the identification of
planning issues (see Sec. 1610.5-1), and the BLM may not yet have the
information necessary to resolve public issues and management concerns.
The BLM will instead identify these opportunities during the
formulation of alternatives (see final Sec. 1610.5-2). We believe that
this is the appropriate step to consider these opportunities because it
allows the BLM to consider more than one opportunity and compare their
impacts through the effects analysis (see final Sec. 1610.5-3). This
is consistent with current practice and policy, as the AMS is currently
prepared after the identification of planning issues.
The final rule also removes ``the extent of coal lands which may be
further considered under provisions of Sec. 3420.2-3(a) of this
title'' from the existing regulations (see existing Sec. 1610.4-4(h))
because it references a regulation that does not currently exist (Sec.
3420.2-3(a)). Removing Sec. 1610.4-4(h) will help reduce confusion,
avoid redundancy with existing requirements in the coal regulations,
and keep coal-specific requirements in the coal regulations where they
are more appropriate. This does not change practice or policy.
Proposed Sec. 1610.4(d) is redesignated as final Sec. 1610.4(e)
and adopted with revisions. This paragraph states that the responsible
official will document the planning assessment in a report made
available for public review and this report will include the
identification and rationale for potential ACECs. The responsible
official will post the report on the BLM Web site and make copies
available at BLM offices within the planning area and other locations,
as appropriate. This provision introduces a new requirement for the
BLM, as the current regulations do not require the AMS to be made
available to the public. In the final rule, we clarify that the
responsible official must make the report available to the public
before the NOI is published. The planning assessment report will be
made available before scoping so that it can inform the scoping process
and help in the identification of planning issues. The BLM intends that
the planning assessment will inform stakeholders' input throughout the
development of the resource management plan and provide increased
transparency to the planning process.
This section also establishes that, to the extent practical, the
BLM should make non-sensitive geospatial information used in the
planning assessment available to the public on the BLM's Web site. This
change provides for public transparency and supports meaningful public
involvement in the planning process.
Finally, proposed Sec. 1610.4(e) is redesignated as final Sec.
1610.4(f) and adopted with revisions. This paragraph requires that the
BLM conduct a planning assessment before initiating the preparation of
an EIS-level amendment. The planning assessment only applies to the
geographic area being considered for amendment, and the content of the
planning assessment only includes information relevant to the plan
amendment. For example, if the BLM were considering an amendment solely
to a visual resource class, the planning assessment will only consider
information relevant to a potential change in visual resource class
within the geographic area of the potential amendment. In the final
rule we clarified that the planning assessment is to be completed
consistent with the requirements of final Sec. 1610.4.
Proposed Sec. 1610.4(e) would have provided the deciding official
the discretion to waive the requirements of Sec. 1610.4 for minor
amendments or if he or she determined that an existing planning
assessment was adequate (see proposed Sec. 1610.4(e)). Several
comments expressed that such discretion was too open-ended. In response
to public comments, the final rule does not adopt the proposed language
allowing for a ``waiver'' if an existing planning assessment is
determined to be adequate. In the case when an existing assessment
provides the needed information to inform the planning process, the
responsible official will identify those parts of the existing
assessment that are pertinent to the geographic area being identified
and the issues to be addressed. This information, along with any new
information, will be incorporated into the planning assessment for the
plan amendment and made available for public review, consistent with
final paragraph (e) of this section. The final rule retains the
deciding official's discretion to waive the requirements of this
paragraph for minor amendments, however, because the BLM believes there
are situations for minor amendments where a planning assessment would
not add value to the planning process and these situations need to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Several public comments expressed confusion over the meaning of the
term ``minor amendment.'' In this context, this term is intended to
address amendments that are either small in scope or scale and the BLM
prepares an EIS to inform the amendment. The most common type of minor
amendments for which the BLM prepares an EIS are project-specific
amendments, such as a solar energy development project, in which the
amendment only addresses a small portion of a resource management plan
or a single plan component, but the project itself requires the
preparation of an EIS. In these situations, a planning assessment may
not add value to the amendment process and could unnecessarily delay
the amendment process; the responsible official will have the
discretion to assess whether the preparation of a planning assessment
is necessary in these situations. Although less common, the BLM
recognizes that there are other types of EIS-level plan amendments that
are also small in scope or scale, and therefore the planning rule
provides the discretion to identify these situations on a case-by-case
basis.
Section 1610.5 Preparation of a Resource Management Plan
This section serves as an introduction to final Sec. Sec. 1610.5-1
through 1610.5-5, which outline the process the BLM must follow when
preparing a resource management plan, or an EIS-level plan amendment.
These sections are based on existing Sec. 1610.4 ``Resource management
planning process.'' Other revisions from the existing regulations are
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
The final rule removes existing Sec. 1610.4-2 ``Development of
Planning Criteria,'' consistent with the proposed rule. This section is
no longer necessary under the final rule. Existing paragraph (a)(1) of
this section is incorporated into final Sec. 1610.5-2(b). Existing
paragraph
[[Page 89629]]
(a)(2) of this section is incorporated into Sec. Sec. 1610.4(b)(1) and
1610.5-3(a) of the final rule. For more information, see the discussion
in the preamble for Sec. Sec. 1610.4(b)(1), 1610.5-2(b), and 1610.5-
3(a)). The final rule also removes existing Sec. Sec. 1610.4-3
``Inventory data and information collection'' and 1610.4-4 ``Analysis
of the management situation'' and combines many of the provisions into
final Sec. 1610.4 ``Planning assessment,'' consistent with the
proposed rule. Finally, the final rule removes existing Sec. 1610.4-9
``Monitoring and evaluation'' and incorporates many of the provisions
from this section into Sec. 1610.6-4 of the final rule.
The final rule removes the words ``federally recognized'' before
Indian tribes throughout these sections for consistent use in
terminology. These references will no longer be necessary with the
inclusion of the definition for Indian tribes in Sec. 1601.0-5 of the
final rule. The final rule removes the phrase ``in collaboration with
any cooperating agencies'' from throughout these sections. These
references will be consolidated and moved to final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3)
(for more on ``cooperating agencies,'' see the preamble discussion of
Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(3)).
Section 1610.5-1 Identification of Planning Issues
Final Sec. 1610.5-1 is based on existing Sec. 1610.4-1, with
revisions to clarify existing text, ensure consistency with other
changes in this rule, and to require the preparation of a preliminary
purpose and need statement.
Paragraph (a) of this section establishes a new requirement for the
BLM to prepare a preliminary statement of purpose and need and to make
this statement available for public review when initiating the
identification of planning issues, consistent with the proposed rule.
The preliminary statement of purpose and need will be informed by
Director and deciding official guidance, preliminary public views, the
planning assessment, the results of previous monitoring and evaluation,
and Federal laws and regulations, and the purposes, policies, and
programs implementing such laws and regulations. The latter language
was revised consistent with the revisions to Sec. 1610.3-3, discussed
above.
Preparation of a statement of purpose and need is currently
required under the DOI NEPA regulations (see 43 CFR 46.415(a) and
46.420(a)(1)). Final Sec. 1610.5-1(a) adopts a new requirement that
the preliminary statement of purpose and need be made available to the
public when initiating the identification of planning issues,
consistent with the proposed rule. The change provides transparency to
the public and support the Planning 2.0 goal to provide earlier
opportunities for public involvement.
Making the document available for public review does not constitute
a formal request for public comment on the preliminary statement of
purpose and need; however, the public is welcome to provide feedback on
it, and, in particular, the BLM expects that the preliminary statement
of purpose and need could be updated based on the issues identified
during the scoping process (see Sec. 1610.5-1(b)). This opportunity
for public review is important because the statement of purpose and
need informs the development of all subsequent steps in the preparation
of a resource management plan. For example, the BLM does not typically
formulate or analyze a resource management action alternative (see
final Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2 and 1610.5-3) to the no action unless it is
consistent with the statement of purpose and need.
Final paragraph (b) of this section is based on existing Sec.
1610.4-1. The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the existing
language ``[a]t the outset of the planning process,'' due to the new
planning assessment and the preparation of a preliminary statement of
purpose and need, both of which will occur prior to the identification
of planning issues. An upfront planning assessment will result in more
information on resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic
conditions for the planning area being available to the public and the
BLM during the identification of planning issues. There will be no
impact from this change, other than the availability of more
information at this point in the process.
The final rule adopts the proposed language to include ``concerns,
needs, opportunities, conflicts, or constraints related to resource
management'' as types of suggestions the public can provide during the
identification of planning issues step. The final rule removes
``resource use, development, and protection opportunities'' as these
are encompassed by the final language and are therefore unnecessary.
There will be no change from current practice.
Based on public comment, the final rule adds clarification to the
first sentence of final paragraph (b) of this section. Proposed
paragraph (b) of this section provided that the public, other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes would be given
an opportunity to suggest concerns, needs, opportunities, conflicts, or
constraints related to resource management for consideration in the
preparation of the resource management plan. Final paragraph (b) of
this section is revised to include concerns, needs, opportunities,
conflicts, or constraints, ``including those respecting officially
approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes.'' This change is consistent with the
purpose of identifying planning issues and responds to public comment.
Several public comments requested that the final rule incorporate
existing Sec. 1610.4-4(e) into the planning assessment. This existing
provision states that a factor which may be included in the existing
AMS step is ``specific requirements and constraints to achieve
consistency with policies, plans and programs of other Federal
agencies, State and local government agencies and Indian tribes.'' The
BLM believes that this existing optional provision is more
appropriately incorporated into Sec. 1610.5-1(b), which includes the
identification of ``constraints.'' The word ``requirements'' is not
necessary, as the word ``constraints'' encompasses ``requirements.''
The final rule adopts the last sentence of proposed paragraph (b)
of this section stating that the identification of planning issues
``should be integrated'' with the scoping process required by
regulations implementing the NEPA. The final language does not
represent a change in practice or policy, rather the final rule
clarifies that although the identification of planning issues should be
integrated with the NEPA scoping process, these are two distinct steps
with distinct regulatory requirements that the BLM must comply with
during the planning process.
Final paragraph (b) of this section also adopts proposed changes
which reflect new terms used throughout the proposed and final rule.
The term ``Field Manager'' is replaced with ``responsible official'' to
maintain consistency with other proposed changes. The term ``planning
issue'' replaces ``issues'' for consistency with the newly added
definition for planning issues (see Sec. 1601.0-5) and to clarify what
type of ``issues'' are intended. The term ``information'' is added, to
clarify that the BLM analyzes data and information when we determine
planning issues, consistent with current BLM practice. ``Planning
assessment,'' replaces the existing examples of other available data.
The planning assessment includes the existing examples, thus the
[[Page 89630]]
change is consistent with new terminology introduced in the final rule
(see final Sec. 1610.4), but does not represent a change from current
practice in the types of available data and information that the BLM
analyzes.
Here, and throughout the final rule, the term ``information'' is
used consistent with the definition of information provided in the OMB
``Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal
Agencies'' (67 FR 8452). ``Information'' means any communication or
representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or
form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative,
or audiovisual forms.'' As discussed in the preamble for Sec. 1610.1-
1(c), the BLM uses ``high quality'' information, which is includes the
best available scientific information, to inform the resource
management planning process.
The BLM intends no change in practice with the changes to final
Sec. 1610.5-1, other than to provide increased transparency by making
a preliminary statement of purpose and need available to the public.
Section 1610.5-2 Formulation of Resource Management Alternatives
Final Sec. 1610.5-2 is based on existing Sec. 1610.4-5. The final
rule revises the heading of this section to read ``[f]ormulation of
resource management alternatives,'' consistent with the proposed rule.
The words ``resource management'' are added to the heading to more
precisely describe the ``alternatives'' and for consistent use in
terminology. No change in practice or policy is intended by the change.
Paragraph (a) of this section describes the requirements for
developing resource management alternatives. The first sentence in
final paragraph (a) of this section includes the proposed introductory
language indicating that this section describes ``[a]lternatives
development,'' for improved readability. The final rule also adopts the
proposed change to remove the phrase, ``At the direction of the Field
Manager,'' because it is the obligation of the BLM, not of any
individual, to consider all reasonable resource management alternatives
and develop several for detailed study. The final rule adopts the
proposal to add the abbreviation ``alternatives'' for ``resource
management alternatives'' and remove the word ``[n]onetheless'' for
improved readability in the final rule. No change in practice or policy
is intended by these changes.
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section adopts the proposed
requirement that the alternatives developed be informed by Director or
deciding official guidance, the planning assessment, and the planning
issues and removes the existing requirement that alternatives ``reflect
the variety of issues and guidance applicable to resource uses.'' This
language is consistent with other changes and more accurately describes
the information that informs the development of alternatives.
A public comment suggested that the final rule include language
stating that all alternatives must be developed with the intent to
achieve the purpose and need for the planning process. In response to
this public comment, the final rule includes a new requirement that the
alternatives developed shall also be informed by the statement of
purpose and need (see Sec. 1610.5-1). This change is consistent with
the BLM's current practice and policy for the compliance with NEPA
requirements, and also reflects the fact that the ``no action''
alternative must be included in the range of alternatives (see 43 CFR
1502.14) regardless of whether it would achieve the statement of
purpose and need, as suggested in the public comment. There will be no
substantive change from current practice or policy, other than the
availability of the planning assessment to inform the development of
alternatives.
Several public comments raised concerns that the BLM would not
consider citizen-proposed alternatives under the proposed rule. Under
the final rule, the BLM will continue to comply with NEPA requirements
for alternatives, including the requirement that the BLM analyze all
reasonable alternatives, and discuss the reasons for alternatives
eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14). This requirement
applies to citizen-proposed alternatives. The final rule adopts
proposed paragraph (a)(2) with no revisions. Final paragraph (a)(2) of
this section is based on the fourth sentence of existing Sec. 1610.4-
5, and states that ``[i]n order to limit the total number of
alternatives analyzed in detail to a manageable number for presentation
and analysis, reasonable variations may be treated as sub-
alternatives.'' The final rule replaces the phrase ``all reasonable
variations shall be treated as subalternatives'' with ``reasonable
variations may be treated as subalternatives.'' The change provides the
BLM flexibility to develop subalternatives when appropriate, but will
not explicitly require the use of subalternatives. In some instances,
it may be appropriate to develop a new alternative, rather than a
subalternative. In other situations, a subalternative may not be
necessary because it is already covered under the full spectrum of
examples in existing alternatives. The final changes are consistent
with CEQ guidance that ``when there are a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full
spectrum of examples, must be analyzed.'' \15\ The BLM intends no
change from current practice or policy from this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations.'' 46 FR 18026. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-CEQ-40Questions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section is based on the fifth
sentence of existing Sec. 1610.4-5 and requires the inclusion of a no
action alternative. The final rule adopts the proposal to replace
``resource use'' with ``resource management'' because the no-action
alternative applies to resource management in general, and not just
resource use. There is no change in practice or policy from this
change.
Final paragraph (a)(4) of this section is based on the sixth
sentence of existing Sec. 1610.4-5 and requires that the BLM note in
the resource management plan any alternatives that are eliminated from
detailed study, along with the rationale for their elimination. No
substantive changes are made to this sentence.
Final paragraph (b) of this section establishes a new requirement
that the BLM describe the rationale for the differences between
alternatives, consistent with the proposed rule. This requirement
incorporates and expands on the requirements of existing Sec. 1610.4-
2(a)(1) that the resource management plan be ``tailored to the issues
previously identified.'' The proposed rationale for alternatives
includes: A description of how each alternative addresses the planning
issues, consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield, unless otherwise specified by law; a description of management
direction that is common to all alternatives; and a description of how
management direction varies across alternatives to address the planning
issues. The BLM believes that the rationale for alternatives will
provide transparency to the public on the reasons for the formulation
of alternatives and will ensure that the resource management plan is
``tailored to the issues previously identified.''
With regards to the rationale for the differences between
alternatives, final paragraph (b)(1) modifies the proposed
[[Page 89631]]
phrase ``consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield, or other applicable law'' to state ``consistent with the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise
specified by law.'' This change between the proposed and final rule is
made for consistency with the changes to Sec. 1601.0-1 and throughout
these regulations. For more information, please see the discussion to
Sec. 1601.0-1 for this preamble.
Final paragraph (c) of this section adopts the proposal to add a
new public involvement opportunity. The responsible official must make
the preliminary resource management alternatives and the preliminary
rationale for these alternatives available for public review prior to
the publication of the draft resource management plan and draft EIS.
The BLM intends that the preliminary alternatives and rationale for
alternatives ordinarily will be made available for public review prior
to the estimation of effects of alternatives.
This public review is intended to serve as a ``check'' of the
preliminary alternatives and affords the public an opportunity to bring
to the BLM's attention any possible alternatives that may have been
overlooked before the BLM conducts the environmental impact analysis
and prepares a draft resource management plan and draft EIS. The BLM
anticipates that this review will increase efficiency by avoiding the
need to re-do or supplement NEPA analyses if alternatives are
identified during the public comment period on the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS. Accordingly, the BLM will build time for
this public review of preliminary alternatives and rationale for
alternatives into their planning schedules. This public review also
increases transparency in the BLM's planning process.
As previously discussed, the BLM does not request written comments
when making documents available for public review. However, the public
is welcome to contact the BLM with any appropriate concerns. For more
information, please see the discussion at Sec. 1610.2 for this
preamble.
The preliminary alternatives and rationale for alternatives will be
posted on the BLM's Web site and made available at BLM offices within
the planning area. The BLM may consider hosting public meetings to
discuss the alternatives and the forthcoming revision of the Land Use
Planning Handbook will describe situations in which the BLM might hold
public meetings.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the BLM requested public
comment on whether the requirements in paragraph (c) should apply to
draft plan amendments. The BLM received some comments indicating that
these requirements should apply to plan amendments as well as other
comments suggesting that while in general this step should occur, the
BLM should have the ability to skip this step on a case-by-case basis,
when appropriate. In response to public comment, the final rule
includes new language requiring the responsible official to make
preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for alternatives
available for public review, as appropriate, for draft EIS-level plan
amendments. The BLM intends that in general this step will occur during
draft plan amendments. In some situations, such as project-specific or
other minor amendments, the public review of preliminary alternatives
and rationale for alternatives may not be appropriate or necessary.
Final paragraph (d) of this section adopts proposed language
stating that the BLM may change the preliminary alternatives and the
preliminary rationale for alternatives as planning proceeds, if it
determines that public suggestions or other new information make such
changes necessary. The final language supports BLM's intent to consider
public input on the preliminary alternatives and make changes
accordingly. Further, a primary purpose of making preliminary documents
available to the public is for the BLM to receive feedback and revise
these documents, prior to issuing a formal draft. Therefore, the BLM
expects that in most situations, the preliminary alternatives will be
revised during the preparation of the draft resource management plan.
Several public comments suggested that the BLM should disclose
changes made to the preliminary alternatives and the preliminary
rationale for alternatives. In response to public comment, final
paragraph (d) adds a requirement that a description of changes made to
the preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for alternatives
shall be made available to the public in the draft resource management
plan (see Sec. 1610.5-4). This description is not intended to identify
each and every change made to these preliminary documents; rather it
will summarize how the public involvement activities or other new
information informed the development of the draft resource management
plan. For example, a citizen-proposed alternative might be incorporated
into the draft resource management plan as a result of public
involvement activities associated with the review of the preliminary
alternatives. In this situation, the draft resource management plan
would describe the origin and purpose of the citizen-proposed
alternative.
Section 1610.5-3 Estimation of Effects of Alternatives
Final Sec. 1610.5-3 is based on existing Sec. 1610.4-6 and
incorporates elements of existing Sec. 1610.4-2(a)(2).
Final paragraph (a) of this section establishes a new requirement
that the responsible official identify the procedures, assumptions, and
indicators that will be used to estimate the environmental, ecological,
social, and economic effects of the alternatives considered in detail,
consistent with the proposed rule. These procedures, assumptions, and
indicators are referred to as the ``basis for analysis.'' Although this
is a new requirement in the planning regulations, there are existing
examples where the BLM has developed a ``basis for analysis,'' or
similar document, before conducting an effects analysis. For example,
in the preparation of the Western Oregon Resource Management Plans
finalized in 2016, the BLM described the analytical methodology the BLM
intended to use to estimate the effects of alternatives and made this
available to the public.
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section requires that the
responsible official make the preliminary basis for analysis available
for public review prior to the publication of the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS, consistent with the proposed rule. The
BLM expects that in most situations this information will be made
available to the public concurrently with the preliminary alternatives
and rationale for alternatives and prior to conducting the effects
analysis. As previously discussed, the BLM does not request written
comments when making documents available for public review (see the
discussion at Sec. 1610.2 for this preamble). However, the public is
welcome to contact the BLM with any appropriate concerns.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the BLM requested public
comment on whether the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) should apply to
draft plan amendments. The BLM received some comments indicating that
these requirements should apply to plan amendments as well as other
comments suggesting that while in general this step should occur, the
BLM should have the ability to skip this step on a case-by-case basis
when appropriate. In response to public comments, the final
[[Page 89632]]
rule will add a requirement to this paragraph requiring the responsible
official to make preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for
alternatives available for public review, as appropriate, for draft
EIS-level plan amendments. The BLM intends that in general this step
will occur for these amendments. In some situations, such as project-
specific or other minor amendments, the public review of the basis for
analysis may not be appropriate.
This paragraph is adapted from an existing requirement of Sec.
1610.4-2(a)(2) that the ``BLM avoids unnecessary . . . analyses.'' The
BLM believes that identifying the basis for analysis and making that
information available to the public will provide a more precise
description in the regulations of how to avoid unnecessary analyses
than existing language. The final change also supports the Planning 2.0
goal to provide early opportunities for meaningful public involvement.
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section adopts proposed language
explaining that the BLM could change the preliminary basis for analysis
as planning proceeds to respond to new information, including public
suggestions. The final language supports BLM's intent to consider
public input on the basis for analysis and make changes accordingly. A
few public comments expressed concern that the proposed rule did not
explain how the BLM will notify the public when the basis for analysis
changes during planning process. In response to public comment, final
paragraph (a)(2) adds a requirement that a description of changes made
to the basis for analysis shall be made available to the public in the
draft resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.5-4). This description
is not intended to identify each and every change made to basis for
analysis; rather it will summarize how the public involvement
activities or other new information informed the development of the
draft resource management plan, including the basis for analysis.
Final paragraph (b) of this section is adapted from existing Sec.
1610.4-6 and adopts the proposed introductory phrase ``[e]ffects
analysis'' for improved readability. The term ``Field Manager'' is
replaced with ``responsible official'' for the reasons previously
explained.
The first sentence of final paragraph (b) of this section adopts
the proposed change to replace the phrase ``physical, biological,
economic, and social effects'' with ``environmental, ecological,
economic, and social effects'' for consistent use in terminology. The
final language encompasses the existing terminology. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from this change in terminology.
In the second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section, the final
rule adopts the proposal to replace the ``planning criteria'' with the
``basis for analysis'' and to add the ``planning assessment.'' Final
paragraph (b) states ``the estimation of effects must be guided by the
basis for analysis, the planning assessment, and procedures
implementing NEPA.'' Changes to this section incorporate new
terminology and reflect the fact that planning criteria are no longer
required under the final rule. The planning assessment and the basis
for analysis will provide the appropriate information to guide the
effects analysis. No substantive changes were made to paragraph (b) of
this section between the proposed and final rule.
Section 1610.5-4 Preparation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and
Selection of Preferred Alternatives
This section is based on existing Sec. 1610.4-7. This final
section replaces references to ``Field Manager'' with ``responsible
official,'' references to ``State Director'' with ``deciding
official,'' and makes grammatical edits. The heading of the section is
revised to include the new provision in paragraph (a) of this section
regarding the preparation of the draft resource management plan.
Final paragraph (a) of this section states that the responsible
official shall prepare a draft resource management plan based on
Director and deciding official guidance, the planning assessment, the
planning issues, and the estimation of the effects of alternatives,
consistent with the proposed rule. This language highlights the unique
step in the BLM land use planning process of preparing a draft resource
management plan, consistent with current practice, and it will
facilitate public understanding of the planning process outlined in
Sec. 1610.5. There is no change from existing requirements associated
with this final language, other than to reflect new terminology in this
final rule and more broadly describe the information the BLM uses to
prepare the draft resource management plan and draft EIS.
The final rule separates proposed paragraph (a) of this section
into several subparagraphs for improved readability. No change in
meaning is intended by this revision.
In response to public comment, final paragraph (a)(1) of this
section includes a new requirement that the draft resource management
plan and draft EIS shall ``describe any changes made to the preliminary
alternatives and preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators.''
This description is not intended to identify each and every change
made; rather it will summarize how the public involvement activities or
other new information informed the development of the draft resource
management plan. This revision is consistent with the revisions made to
final Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(d) and 1610.5-3(a)(2).
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section adopts the existing
requirement that the draft resource management plan and draft EIS shall
``evaluate the alternatives,'' consistent with the proposed rule and
removes the existing language requiring the BLM to ``estimate their
effects according to the planning criteria'' because planning criteria
will no longer be prepared under the proposed rule and the estimation
of effects of alternatives is already addressed in proposed Sec.
1610.5-4.
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section requires that the draft
resource management plan and draft EIS ``identify one or more preferred
alternatives, if one or more exist.'' This represents a change from
existing regulations which direct the field manager to ``identify a
preferred alternative.'' The proposed rule would have broadened this
requirement to allow the responsible official to select ``one or more''
preferred alternatives and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
BLM requested public comments on whether the final regulations should
require a single preferred alternative, allow for multiple preferred
alternatives, or allow for no preferred alternative if one does not
exist. Several comments expressed that identifying multiple preferred
alternatives could create confusion and uncertainty, making it more
difficult for the public to provide meaningful comments. A few comments
stated that it would increase the time needed for critical evaluation
of the preferred alternative, and be time consuming and burdensome for
the public. Other comments expressed support for the three options,
noting that there may be instances where it is not possible to select
only one preferred alternative, or alternatively any preferred
alternative, and as such, it is appropriate to provide regulatory
provisions addressing those instances.
The BLM considered these comments and has revised the proposed
language to include the option of identifying no preferred alternative,
if no preferred alternative exists. Under this change to existing
regulations, the BLM might select a single preferred alternative,
[[Page 89633]]
multiple preferred alternatives, or no preferred alternative. The BLM
expects that in most situations a single preferred alternative will be
identified, consistent with current practice; however, there may be
instances in which either several may be identified, or where none of
the alternatives are preferred. The latter instances, in particular,
are rare, and usually occur when a plan amendment is being initiated in
conjunction with decision-making regarding a site-specific proposal,
and it is unclear which of possibly several project alternatives, each
designed to reduce adverse environmental consequences, might be
preferred. The BLM also sought public comment on whether to include a
specific regulatory provision addressing these circumstances, to
clarify that these are the only kinds of instances in which a preferred
alternative need not be identified. The BLM will not include this
provision in the final rule. The BLM did not receive comments
suggesting specific circumstances, and the BLM believes that these
circumstances are more appropriately identified on a case-by-case
basis. The final rule provides such flexibility. This change also makes
the planning regulations more consistent with the DOI NEPA regulations
(43 CFR 46.425(a)), which were promulgated after the BLM planning
regulations were last amended. The forthcoming revision of the Land Use
Planning Handbook will provide more detailed guidance on the selection
of preferred alternatives.
The final rule adopts the proposal to replace the existing
requirement to select a preferred alternative that ``best meets
Director and State Director guidance'' with a requirement to explain
the rationale for the preferred alternative(s) in final paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. There are many factors that might influence the
selection of a preferred alternative, in addition to Director or
deciding official guidance, such as assessment findings, public
involvement, local planning priorities, and identified planning issues.
The preferred alternative(s) must be consistent with Federal laws,
regulation, and policy guidance, and will represent the alternative
that the deciding official believes is most responsive to the planning
issues and the planning assessment, which includes Director and
deciding official guidance. The final rule states that the BLM will
identify one or more preferred alternatives, ``if one or more exist,''
and will explain the rationale for the preference ``or absence of a
preference.'' The added language reflects the new option where a
preferred alternative may not exist and requires the BLM to provide a
rationale for the absence of a preference.
Final paragraph (a)(3) of this section further states that ``[t]he
identification of one or more preferred alternatives remains the
exclusive responsibility of the BLM.'' The final rule replaces the
phrase ``the decision to select'' with the phrase ``the identification
of'' to improve readability, clarify meaning, and for consistent use in
terminology. The BLM intends no change in meaning from existing
regulations. The final rule also specifies that this applies to the
identification of ``one or more'' preferred alternatives, for
consistency with changes made earlier in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
Final paragraph (b) of this section adopts the last sentence of
proposed paragraph (a). This change to create a new subparagraph is to
improve readability. There is no substantive change to this provision,
which provides that the draft resource management plan and EIS will be
forwarded to the deciding official for publication and filing with the
EPA.
Final paragraph (c) of this section is based on existing Sec.
1610.4-7 and adopts the language from proposed Sec. 1610.5-4(b), with
revisions. The final rule adopts the proposal to replace ``draft plan
and [EIS]'' with ``draft resource management plan and draft [EIS],''
for improved readability, and also adopts the proposal to pluralize the
word ``Governor'' to acknowledge that a resource management plan may
cross State boundaries and in that situation the draft resource
management plan should be provided to the Governors of all States
involved.
In response to public comment, the final rule is revised to include
language requiring the BLM to provide a copy of the draft resource
management plan and draft EIS to officials of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes ``that have requested to
be notified of opportunities for public involvement'' in addition to
the proposed requirement to provide a copy to those officials that the
deciding official has reason to believe would be interested. These
changes are to address concerns expressed in public comments that the
deciding official might exclude government officials if the deciding
official has reason to believe an agency or unit may lack interest.
This change is consistent with final Sec. 1610.3-2(c)(3). The final
rule adopts the proposal to replace the word ``concerned'' with
``interested'' because any type of interest from a government official,
including concern, is sufficient reason for the BLM to provide such
official with a copy of the draft resource management plan and EIS for
review.
The final rule adopts the proposal to add a reference to Sec.
1610.3-2(c) to improve readability of the regulations text. There is no
change in practice or policy from this change.
Section 1610.5-5 Selection of the Proposed Resource Management Plan
Final Sec. 1610.5-5 is based on existing Sec. 1610.4-8. The final
rule does not adopt the proposal to include ``preparation of
implementation strategies'' in the heading to this section because the
concept of implementation strategies was not adopted in the final rule
(see the discussion to proposed Sec. 1610.1-3 in this preamble).
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a) of this section.
Changes to this section replace the existing reference to the ``Field
Manager'' with ``responsible official'' stating that the ``responsible
official'' shall evaluate the comments received after publication of
the draft resource management plan and draft EIS and will prepare the
proposed resource management plan and final EIS.
The final rule does not adopt proposed paragraph (b) of this
section which would have provided that the responsible official prepare
implementation strategies for the proposed resource management plan, as
appropriate. This paragraph is no longer relevant because the concept
of implementation strategies was not adopted in the final rule (see the
discussion to proposed Sec. 1610.1-3 in this preamble).
The final rule redesignates proposed paragraph (c) of this section
as final paragraph (b) of this section. Final paragraph (b) requires
that the deciding official publish the proposed resource management
plan and file the final EIS with the EPA, consistent with current
practice and policy. The final rule will no longer detail the BLM's
internal review process. The final rule adopts the proposal to remove
references to internal steps such as ``supervisory review'' because
these internal review processes are better established through BLM
policy. The BLM intends no change to existing policy or practice, but
the final rule will provide the BLM discretion on how to conduct its
internal review process, which is addressed through BLM policy.
Section 1610.6 Resource Management Plan Approval, Implementation and
Modification
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6, with revisions. Final
Sec. 1610.6 is adapted from existing Sec. 1610.5. This
[[Page 89634]]
section heading provides an introduction to final Sec. Sec. 1610.6-1
through 1610.6-8. The final rule adopts the proposed change to replace
the word ``use'' with ``implementation'' in the heading to final Sec.
1610.6 to more accurately describe the provisions of these sections.
Section 1610.6-1 Resource Management Plan Approval and Implementation
Section 1610.6-1 is adapted from existing Sec. 1610.5-1. There are
no substantive revisions to Sec. 1610.6-1 between the proposed and
final rule.
The final rule replaces ``and administrative review'' with ``and
implementation'' in the heading of this section to focus this section
on resource management plan approval and implementation. Similarly, the
final rule deletes the existing first paragraph, which refers to
internal procedures such as ``supervisory review and approval.'' The
BLM's internal review procedures are better established through BLM
policy. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from these
changes.
Final paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section contain the
provisions of existing Sec. 1610.5-1. The final rule adopts edits to
this section to improve understanding of existing requirements, but
does not anticipate any change in implementation from existing
regulations.
Under final paragraph (a) of this section, the deciding official
will approve a resource management plan, or EIS-level amendment, no
earlier than 30 days after the EPA publishes a Federal Register notice
of the filing of the final EIS. This is an existing part of the process
and regulations, but the final rule uses ``deciding official'' instead
of the State Director, to maintain consistency with other changes (see
Sec. 1601.0-4(b)). The final rule removes the provision that approval
depends on ``final action on any protest that may be filed'' as this
requirement is already addressed in 1610.6-1(b) and in the protest
procedures at Sec. 1610.6-2(b). This revision is not a change in
practice or policy.
Final Sec. 1610.6-1(b) contains some language from existing Sec.
1610.5-1 (b), with clarifying edits. In addition to existing provisions
stating that plan approval will be withheld until after protests have
been resolved, paragraph (b) of this final section also clarifies an
existing requirement to provide public notice and opportunity for
public comment if the BLM intends to select a different alternative, or
portion of an alternative, than the proposed resource management plan
or plan amendment. Such a change may result from the BLM's decision on
a protest or from the BLM's consideration of inconsistencies identified
by a Governor. The final rule revises this sentence to explain that
``if, after publication of a proposed resource management plan or plan
amendment, the BLM intends to select an alternative that is within the
spectrum of alternatives in the final [EIS] or [EA] but is
substantially different than the proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment, the BLM shall notify the public and request written
comments on the change before the resource management plan or plan
amendment is approved.'' The final language will more precisely
describe what is meant by the existing phrase ``any significant change
made to the proposed plan.'' The final rule uses ``within the spectrum
of'' instead of ``encompassed by'' for consistency with CEQ
terminology.\16\ The BLM intends no change from current practice or
policy; rather this provision will provide a more precise description
of existing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 29B. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 1610.6-1(c) contains language from the last sentence of
existing Sec. 1610.5-1(b) and provides that the approval of a resource
management plan or a plan amendment for which an EIS is prepared must
be documented in a concise public ROD, consistent with NEPA
requirements (40 CFR 1505.2). Current language refers to ``the
approval,'' and this change will specify that a ROD will be prepared
for approval of a resource management plan or EIS-level amendment.
Approvals of EA-level amendments need not be documented in a ROD;
however, current BLM policy requires the preparation of a decision
record to document these decisions (see BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1).
Section 1610.6-2 Protest Procedures
Final Sec. 1610.6-2 contains the protest procedures found at
existing Sec. 1610.5-2. The final rule revises this existing section
to update the procedures for the public's submission and the BLM's
action on protests of a resource management plan or plan amendment.
Under the introductory text in final paragraph (a) of this section,
the final rule clarifies that a member of the public who participated
in the preparation of the resource management plan or plan amendment
and has an interest which ``may be adversely affected'' by the approval
of a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment may protest
such approval. The final rule adopts the proposed change to replace
``planning process'' with ``the preparation of the resource management
plan or plan amendment'' to more precisely describe what steps of the
``planning process'' apply to paragraph (a) and for consistency with
other changes. Under current practice, the BLM generally considers the
``planning process'' to mean the preparation of a resource management
plan or plan amendment. The final rule clarifies that the preparation
of a resource management plan is just one step of the planning process.
Other steps include the planning assessment, the approval of the
resource management plan, the implementation of the resource management
plan, monitoring and evaluation, and future modification of the
resource management plan through plan maintenance, amendment, or
revision. A member of the public may only submit a protest, however, if
they participated in the preparation of the resource management plan or
plan amendment. This change is consistent with current practice and
policy. Final Sec. 1610.6-2(a) is revised to remove reference to Sec.
1610.4, which was incorrect. The planning assessment is not considered
a step in the preparation of a resource management plan; rather, it
precedes the initiation of the preparation of a resource management
plan. In order to be eligible to submit a protest, a member of the
public must participate in the preparation of the resource management
plan or plan amendment, and not just the planning assessment.
In response to public comment, final paragraph (a) of this section
replaces the existing phrase ``[a]ny person'' with ``[a]ny member of
the public.'' Some public comments suggested that the phrase ``any
person'' should be revised to include cooperating agencies. The BLM
currently interprets the phrase ``any person'' to include cooperating
agencies. The term ``public,'' however, is defined at final Sec.
1610.0-5 and therefore provides a more precise description of who may
submit a protest, including cooperating agencies or other government
officials. This change is consistent with current practice and policy
under existing regulations, and is made for clarification and improved
readability only. The BLM intends no change in the meaning of this
provision.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove language in paragraph
(a) of this section stating that any person who has an interest which
``is or may be'' adversely affected by the approval or amendment of a
resource management plan may protest such approval or
[[Page 89635]]
amendment. Instead, the final rule states that any member of the public
who has an interest which ``may be'' adversely affected by the approval
of a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment may protest
such approval. The final rule replaces the phrase ``is or may be'' with
``may be'' to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary language. An
interest that ``may be adversely affected'' includes an already
affected interest. This final change is made to improve readability
only; the BLM intends no change to the meaning of this provision.
Final paragraph (a) of this section is revised to include new
language stating that a protest may raise only those issues which were
submitted for the record during the preparation of the resource
management plan or plan amendment ``unless the protest concerns an
issue that arose after the close of the opportunity for public comment
on the draft resource management plan.'' This change in the final rule
is made throughout the subparagraphs of Sec. 1610.6-2(a) and clarifies
that if an issue arises after the close of the formal public comment
period on a draft resource management plan, the public may submit a
protest regarding that issue. This exclusion only applies to issues
that did not exist when the draft resource management plan was
available for public comment, and therefore the public could not
comment on the issue. For example, the issue may arise due to a change
that was made to the draft resource management plan or due to new
information that was not previously available. This revision is
consistent with current practice and policy and is made for
clarification purposes only.
The final rule adopts the proposal to split existing Sec. 1610.5-
2(a)(1) into paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of final Sec. 1610.6-2. The
final rule adopts proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) with only minor
revisions. These paragraphs contain the requirements for filing
protests, including new provisions for electronic submission.
Final paragraph (a)(1) of this section adopts the proposed
introductory text ``Submission,'' and describes the procedures for
submitting a protest. The final rule adopts the new provision which
states that the protest may be filed as a hard-copy or electronically
and that the responsible official will specify protest filing
procedures for a resource management plan or plan amendment (beyond
these general requirements in the planning regulations), including the
method the public may use to submit a protest electronically. Under the
existing regulations, a protest must be filed as a hard-copy. Although
the BLM will continue to accept hard-copy protest submissions,
providing an additional option for electronic submission will reduce
the burden on the public by reducing the expense associated with
mailing a hard-copy. An electronic format will also streamline the
processing of protests, since the protest will already be digitized,
thereby eliminating a step from the process. Further, a protest sent by
mail may take many days to arrive at the appropriate BLM office and
delay the start of the BLM's protest resolution process. Electronic
means for protest submission are more readily available to the public
today and electronic options will promote a more efficient protest
resolution process. The final rule provides flexibility for how
protests will be submitted electronically to the BLM to accommodate
future advances in electronic technology. The BLM expects to provide an
electronic submission option either through email submission or through
the BLM Web site.
Although the BLM believes that electronic submission promotes
efficiency, it is also important to note that providing an electronic
option for protest submission could also lead to an increased burden on
the agency by increasing the number of protest submissions, such as
form letters. In this situation, it will take additional time to
process protests. Under current practice, the BLM summarizes protest
issues and provides a single response to each issue; regardless of how
many times the issue was raised. We intend to continue this practice,
thus a possible increase in form letters will not lead to an increase
in the number of responses or the complexity of the final protest
resolution report.
Final paragraph (a)(2) of this section adopts the proposed
introductory text ``Timing.'' The final rule also adopts the proposal
to maintain the existing time periods for submitting a protest and to
make edits for improved readability and understanding. There are no
changes to existing requirements. For resource management plans and
EIS-level amendments, protests must be filed within 30 days after the
date the EPA publishes a NOA of the final EIS in the Federal Register.
For EA-level amendments, protests must be filed within 30 days after
the date the BLM notifies the public of the availability of the
proposed plan amendment.
Final Sec. 1610.6-2(a)(3) adopts the proposed introductory text
``Content Requirements,'' and describes the required content of a
protest.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section
with no revisions. This paragraph includes a new provision that
protesting parties include their email address (if available) in
addition to other identifying information in the protest letter in
order to facilitate BLM communications with protesting parties in the
event of a question regarding a protest or its filing. It often is
easier to communicate by email than by telephone and this requirement
is in line with the BLM's acceptance of protests electronically under
final Sec. 1610.6-2(a)(1). This provision includes the statement ``if
available'' because the BLM recognizes that not all members of the
public have easy access to the Internet, and the lack of an email
address will not preclude a member of the public from submitting a
protest. There is no change in practice or policy, other than to
clarify that an email address, if available, should be included.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section
with no revisions. Final paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section requires
a statement of how the protestor participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan. This is a change from existing language that
requires a statement of the issue or issues being protested, which is
instead included in final paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
Although existing paragraph (a) states that only a person who
participated in the preparation of a resource management plan may
submit a protest, final paragraph (a)(3)(ii) places the burden on the
protestor to demonstrate their eligibility for submitting a protest.
This requirement is a more efficient method for the BLM to determine
eligibility to protest and will help the BLM to more efficiently
respond to all protests in a timely manner.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this
section with only minor revisions. Final paragraph (a)(3)(iii) replaces
the requirement to provide a ``statement of the part or parts of the
plan or amendment being protested'' with a new requirement to identify
the plan component(s) believed to be inconsistent with Federal laws or
regulations applicable to public lands, or the purposes, policies and
programs implementing such laws and regulations. The change is
consistent with other changes made in this final rule (see final Sec.
1610.1-2). Plan components provide planning-level management direction.
The final decision to approve a resource management plan or plan
amendment represents the final decision to approve the planning level
management
[[Page 89636]]
direction, which will guide all subsequent management decisions. The
final rule replaces the proposed phrase ``purposes, policies, and
programs of such laws and regulations'' with ``purposes, policies and
programs implementing such laws and regulations'' for consistency with
changes made throughout these regulations (see Sec. 1610.3-3, for
example). No change in meaning is intended by this revision; rather,
this change improves readability and clarifies that purposes, policies,
and programs are developed to ``implement'' laws and regulations. This
revision is also made in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section requires the protest to
include a concise explanation of why the plan component(s) 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, and identification of the associated issue(s)
raised during the planning process. This provision replaces existing
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and the final sentence of existing paragraph
(a)(1)(iv) of this section. The final rule requires that protests
include more specific grounds for challenging a plan component than the
existing regulations, which require only ``(a) concise statement
explaining why the State Director's decision is believed to be wrong.''
The identification of more specific grounds for protests will help the
BLM to identify, understand, and respond thoughtfully to valid protest
issues, such as inconsistencies with Federal laws or regulations.
This final change also provides a more clear distinction between
the protest process and the earlier public comment period on a draft
resource management plan and draft EIS. The earlier public comment
period offers an opportunity to comment on a wide variety of matters
relating to a draft plan. The protest procedures, in contrast, are
intended to focus the BLM Director's attention on aspects of a proposed
resource management plan that may be inconsistent with legal
requirements or policies. These changes are not a change from existing
practice or policy; rather they provide clarification to the public on
how the BLM interprets and implements the regulations. The BLM believes
that the change will more effectively communicate to the public what
the BLM considers when addressing protests.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(iv) adopts the proposed requirement that a
protest identify the associated issue or issues raised during the
preparation of the resource management plan or plan amendment; however
this section is revised to clarify that this requirement is not
necessary if the protest concerns an issue that arose after the close
of the opportunity for public comment on the draft resource management
plan. This exclusion would only apply to issues that did not exist when
the draft resource management plan was available for public comment,
and therefore the public could not comment on the issue. For example,
the issue may arise due to a change that was made to the draft resource
management plan or due to new information that was not previously
available. These changes do not represent a change from current
practice or policy; rather they provide clarification to the public on
existing requirements.
Final paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section retains the existing
requirement that protests include a copy of all documents addressing
the issue(s) raised that the protesting party submitted during the
planning process or an indication of the date the issue(s) were
discussed for the record. These documents or dates will assist the BLM
in responding to protests. The final rule clarifies that this
requirement is not necessary if the protest concerns an issue that
arose after the close of the opportunity for public comment on the
draft resource management plan and the public has not had an
opportunity to raise the issue, for consistency with changes made
throughout this section.
Final paragraph (a)(4) of this section adopts the proposed
introductory text ``availability'' and establishes a new requirement
that protests will be made available to the public upon request and
this is independent of existing requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act. This commitment demonstrates the value the BLM places
on public involvement in resource management planning. The BLM intends
for this commitment to promote transparency and consistency in
practice. The BLM is exploring how to make protests available in a
timely and efficient manner, including by posting all protest
submissions to the BLM Web site. In response to public comment, final
paragraph (a)(4) includes an additional provision that in making the
protests available to the public, the Director shall withhold any
protected information that is exempt from disclosure under applicable
laws or regulation. Several public comments noted that sometimes it is
necessary for a member of the public to include protected information
as part of a protest, and the BLM may not make this information
available to the general public. Comments provided as an example that
release of commercial or financial information may violate the Trade
Secrets Act. This change is consistent with current practice and
policy.
Final paragraph (b) of this section includes the existing
requirements at existing Sec. 1610.6-1(b) that the BLM Director render
a decision on all protests. The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove ``promptly'' from this requirement, as the term is vague and
does not account for the many variables that affect timelines for
protest resolution, including the magnitude and complexity of protest
issues, as well as available budgets and competing workloads. This edit
clarifies that the timeline to resolve the protest varies extensively
across planning efforts. This is not a change in practice or policy;
the BLM will continue to resolve protests as quickly as possible.
Final paragraph (b) further provides that the BLM notify protesting
parties of the decision and make both the decision and the reasons for
the decision on the protest available to the public. The BLM expects
that these typically will be posted on the BLM Web site and the BLM
will notify individuals or groups that have requested notification in
conjunction with the preparation or amendment of a resource management
plan. The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the requirement that
the BLM send its decision on a protest to the protesting parties by
certified mail, return receipt requested. The BLM believes that the
wide availability and ease of use of the Internet and electronic
communications make these means of notifying the public well-suited for
sharing protest decisions with the public. Electronic communications
allow the BLM flexibility to make protest decisions available to a
potentially large number of protesting parties or members of the public
without an overly burdensome workload. These means are also consistent
with BLM policy promoting the use of electronic communications in the
land use planning process.\17\
[[Page 89637]]
Nonetheless, where Internet access is limited or protesting parties or
members of the public express concerns about electronic communications,
the BLM will provide notice by other means, as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ BLM, Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-144, ``Transitioning
from Printing Hard Copies of National Environmental Policy Act and
Planning Documents to Providing Documents in Electronic Formats''
(June 21, 2013), https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013-144.html); DOI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance,
Environmental Statement Memorandum No. 13-7, ``Publication and
Distribution of DOI NEPA Compliance Documents via Electronic
Methods'' (Jan. 7, 2013), https://www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM13-7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second sentence of final paragraph (b) reflects existing Sec.
1610.5-2(b) and explains that the BLM Director's decision is the final
decision of the Department of the Interior. This decision may be
subject to judicial review. The final rule adopts the proposal to
change ``shall be'' to ``is,'' to comply with more recent style
conventions and improve readability. There is no change in meaning from
this style change.
In response to public comment, paragraph (b) of this section is
revised to incorporate language from final Sec. 1610.6-1(b), stating
that ``[a]pproval will be withheld on any portion of a resource
management plan or plan amendment until final action has been completed
on such protest.'' This does not represent a change in practice or
policy, as this is an existing requirement. In conjunction with this
revision, the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised for
consistency and readability; however, there are no changes in the
meaning of this provision.
Final paragraph (c) of this section adopts the proposal to add a
new provision stating that the BLM Director may dismiss any protest
that does not meet the requirements of this section. For example, the
BLM may dismiss protests where protestors lack standing or protests
that are incomplete or untimely. The final text does not represent a
change in requirements or in existing practice. The BLM Director may
currently dismiss protests that do not meet the regulatory
requirements. The BLM believes that adding this text will more
effectively communicate to potential protestors that their protest may
be dismissed if it does not meet the requirements for submission. In
response to public comment, the final rule adds a new sentence to the
end of paragraph (c) of this section stating that the Director shall
notify protesting parties of the dismissal and provide the reasons for
the dismissal. The Director will provide this notification either
through written or electronic means, depending on available contact
information. This revision provides transparency to a member of the
public should their protest be dismissed. In a situation where the BLM
is not provided contact information from a protesting party, we will
not be able to provide such notification. The BLM intends that
dismissals will also be described in a protest resolution report,
consistent with current practice. These reports are generally posted to
the BLM Web site; therefore protesting parties and any other members of
the public could still find this information.
Section 1610.6-3 Conformity and Implementation
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-3 with only minor
revisions. Section 1610.6-3 is based on existing Sec. 1610.5-3.
Changes to this section are made only for improved readability or
improved understanding of existing practice or policy.
In paragraph (a) of this section, the final rule removes the phrase
``as well as budget or other action proposals to higher levels in the
Bureau of Land Management and Department.'' All future authorizations
and actions must conform to the approved resource management plan, thus
this language is confusing and unnecessary. No change from current
practice is intended by this change. The final rule adds the words
``plan components,'' stating ``All future resource management
authorizations and actions . . . must conform to the plan components of
the approved resource management plan.'' These edits are consistent
with the definition of ``plan components'' in Sec. 1601.0-5 and the
requirements of Sec. 1610.1-2 and more precisely describe how the BLM
will interpret conformance under this final rule.
In paragraph (b) of this section, the final rule specifies that the
``plan'' referenced is a ``resource management plan'' and that the
requirements of this section also apply following the approval of a
plan amendment. The final rule replaces ``Field Manager'' with the
``BLM.'' As previously described, replacing the ``Field Manager'' with
the ``BLM'' acknowledges responsibilities that might be fulfilled by a
BLM employee other than a Field Manager.
Changes to paragraph (c) of this section also specify that the
``plan'' referenced is a ``resource management plan'' and that
conformance applies to ``plan components'' for consistency with changes
made elsewhere in these regulations. The final rule further specifies
that the ``deciding official'' is responsible for the determination
that an action warrants further consideration before a plan revision is
scheduled. These changes are intended to provide clarity, but do not
represent a change in policy or practice.
There are no substantive changes made to paragraph (d) of this
section, only grammatical edits made throughout this part.
Section 1610.6-4 Monitoring and Evaluation
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-4 with revisions. This
section addresses monitoring and evaluation of resource management
plans following their approval. It incorporates much of the language
from existing Sec. 1610.4-9 with edits for consistency with other
changes to the regulations. Revisions to this section split the
existing provision into subparagraphs for improved readability.
Under the final rule, the BLM will monitor and evaluate the
resource management plan in accordance with the monitoring and
evaluation standards (see final Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(3)). The final rule
does not include the proposed reference to ``monitoring procedures''
because the final rule does not adopt proposed Sec. 1610.1-3 or the
concepts described in that section, including implementation strategies
(for more information please see the discussion on proposed Sec.
1610.1-3 for this preamble to the final rule).
The final rule is also revised to include language from final Sec.
1610.1-2(b)(3) for improved readability and understanding of these
regulations. Final paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section
incorporate provisions from Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(3) which specify that,
through monitoring and evaluation, the BLM will determine whether the
resource management plan objectives are being met and whether there is
relevant new information or other sufficient cause to warrant
consideration of amendment or revision of the resource management plan.
For more information regarding this language, please see the discussion
at Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(3) for this preamble. Revisions to this section
improve readability and understanding of the relationship between this
section and final Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(3).
Final paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section replace existing
language that the BLM ``shall provide for evaluation to determine
whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there has been
significant change in the related plans of other Federal agencies,
State or local governments, or Indian tribes, or whether there is new
data of significance to the plan.'' The evaluation of specific
mitigation measures generally occurs during the implementation phase of
a project or activity, not during an evaluation of a resource
management plan. The effect of mitigation on the achievement of plan
objectives is evaluated under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
``Significant
[[Page 89638]]
changes in the plans of other Federal agencies, State or local
governments, or Indian tribes,'' and ``new data of significance'' are
encompassed by the phrase ``relevant new information'' and are
evaluated under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy by the removal of this existing language.
The last sentence of proposed Sec. 1610.6-4 is redesignated as
final Sec. 1610.6-4(b) and adopts the proposal to establish a new
requirement that the BLM document the evaluation of the resource
management plan in a report made available for public review. The BLM
believes that sharing this information with the public will provide
transparency during the implementation of a resource management plan.
The final rule is revised to specify that this report shall be made
available for public review on the BLM's Web site. This change is
intended to provide clarity and transparency to the public on where to
find the evaluation report.
Section 1610.6-5 Maintenance
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-5 with only minor
revisions. This section is based on existing Sec. 1610.5-4. It
explains the reasons for updating RMPs through plan maintenance and
identifies the parameters for plan maintenance. Under the existing
regulations and the final regulations, maintenance includes minor
changes and updates to an RMP that do not change any fundamental
aspects of the plan. Maintenance does not change a plan component
except to correct typographical or mapping errors or to reflect minor
changes in mapping or data.
The final rule adopts the proposal to delete ``and supporting
components'' from the first sentence of this section in the existing
regulations to avoid confusion. The existing regulations are unclear on
what is meant by ``supporting components'' in this provision.
Supporting information, such as a visual resources inventory or a model
predicting wildfire propensity, can be updated at any point in time;
such a change is not considered plan maintenance as it does not
constitute a change to the resource management plan itself. Further,
the BLM does not consider supporting information such as the planning
assessment to be a component of the approved resource management plan,
because it does not provide planning-level management direction.
Rather, the planning assessment provides baseline information to inform
the preparation of a resource management plan. That type of support
information can be updated at any point in time, and such a change is
not considered plan maintenance because it does not constitute a change
to the resource management plan itself.
The final rule also adopts the proposal to replace ``shall be
maintained'' in the first sentence of the existing regulations with
``may be maintained.'' The BLM intends to maintain its resource
management plans to ensure that they are current and reflect existing
resource conditions and land and resource uses to the fullest extent
permitted by available funds and staffing, but those constraints could
affect BLM's ability to fully achieve this goal.
The final rule also adopts the proposal to expand existing language
stating that plans are maintained as necessary to ``reflect minor
changes in data'' with language stating that the plans will be
maintained as necessary ``to correct typographical or mapping errors or
to reflect minor changes in mapping or data.'' The new language
provides a more precise and accurate description of changes that are
made using plan maintenance. This change does not represent a
substantive change from existing regulations as ``mapping errors'' or
``changes in mapping'' are currently considered as a type of minor
change in data, and typographical errors do not represent a substantive
change to a resource management plan. These changes are intended to
provide clarification and improved understanding of changes that may be
made through plan maintenance.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove existing language that
limited maintenance ``to further refining or documenting a previously
approved decision incorporated in the plan'' as well as language that
indicated that ``maintenance must not result in the expansion in the
scope of resource uses or restrictions, or change the terms,
conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.'' Instead, the final
rule states that maintenance must not change a plan component of the
approved resource management plan except to correct typographical or
mapping errors or to reflect minor changes in data. This change makes
the maintenance provisions consistent with other changes to the
regulations. The plan components encompass the ``scope of resource uses
or restrictions'' and the ``terms, conditions, and decisions'' of the
approved resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.1-2). Therefore there
is no substantive change from current policy.
The final rule retains existing language which indicates that
maintenance is not considered a plan amendment and therefore does not
require the same public involvement, interagency coordination, or NEPA
analysis as plan amendments. This language is still relevant and
applicable because plan components (i.e., the management-level
direction of the approved plan) may not be changed through plan
maintenance other than to correct typographical or mapping errors or
reflect minor changes in mapping or data.
The final rule does not adopt the proposal to replace the words
``shall not'' with ``does not'' where the existing regulations state
that maintenance ``shall not'' require the formal public involvement
and interagency coordination process described in Sec. Sec. 1610.2 and
1610.3.
Finally, the final rule removes the existing requirement that
maintenance be documented in plans and supporting records. Instead, the
final rule adopts a new requirement for the BLM to notify the public
when changes are made to an approved resource management plan through
plan maintenance and, through notice to the public at least 30 days
prior to their implementation, document the proposed changes. We
anticipate that changes will be posted on the BLM Web site and made
available at BLM offices within the planning area, with direct notice
sent to those individuals and groups that have requested such notice.
The forthcoming revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook will provide
more detailed guidance on how the BLM will make different types of plan
maintenance available to the public.
Section 1610.6-6 Amendment
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-6 with minor revisions.
This section is based on Sec. 1610.5-5 in the existing regulations and
explains how the BLM amends its resource management plans. Changes
update existing language to be consistent with other changes in this
final rule.
Paragraph (a) of this section revises the undesignated introductory
text in existing Sec. 1610.5-5 to explain that a ``plan component''
may be changed through amendment, consistent with the proposed rule.
This represents a change from the existing regulations, which provide
that a ``resource management plan'' may be changed by amendment. The
change is necessary for consistency with changes to Sec. 1610.1, which
describes plan components. As explained in the preamble for Sec.
1610.1-2, plan components represent planning-level management direction
and may only be changed through amendment or revision.
[[Page 89639]]
Paragraph (a) of this section adopts the proposal to specify that
an amendment ``may'' be initiated when the BLM determines that
monitoring and evaluation findings, new high quality information,
including best available scientific information, new or revised policy,
a proposed action, ``or other relevant changes in circumstances''
warrant a change to one or more plan components of the approved plan.
The final rule replaces ``shall be initiated'' with ``may be
initiated'' reflecting the fact that the BLM must ensure that the
public is aware that monitoring and evaluation findings, new high
quality information, including best available scientific information,
new or revised policy, a proposed action, ``or other relevant changes
in circumstances'' warrant a change to one or more plan components of
the approved plan but may be limited by available budgets and competing
workload priorities when making the determination to initiate a plan
amendment. The BLM intends no change in practice or policy from this
final change as the BLM currently is limited by available budgets and
competing workload priorities when making the determination to initiate
a plan amendment.
Paragraph (a) of this section adopts the proposal to clarify that
an amendment must be made ``in conjunction'' with an EA or EIS. The
final rule replaces the word ``through'' with ``in conjunction''
because the EA or EIS informs the amendment, but is not the mechanism
through which the amendment is made. The final rule clarifies that the
procedures for plan amendments include public involvement (see final
Sec. 1610.2), interagency coordination, tribal consultation, and
consistency review (see final Sec. 1610.3), and protest procedures
(see final Sec. 1610.6-2). The final rule is revised from the proposed
rule to include ``tribal consultation'' for consistency with
modifications made to final Sec. 1610.3 and to clarify that the
initiation of tribal consultation is required during a plan amendment.
This does not represent a change in practice or policy, as the BLM
currently must initiate tribal consultation during a plan amendment.
The final rule is also revised to replace ``consistency'' with
``consistency review.'' This change is made to improve readability only
and for consistency with final Sec. 1610.3.
The final rule adopts the proposal to replace the existing
requirement to evaluate the effect of the amendment on ``the plan''
with a requirement to evaluate the effect of the amendment on ``other
plan components.'' This change is made for consistency with final Sec.
1610.1-2 which describes plan components, and reflects the fact a plan
amendment could potentially have an effect on other plan components
that are not being considered for amendment and it is important that
the BLM understand these potential effects before rendering a decision
to ensure that plan amendments do not introduce inconsistencies between
plan components in a resource management plan.
The final sentence of paragraph (a) of this section retains the
existing provision that if the amendment under consideration is in
response to a specific proposal, the requisite analysis for the
proposal and the amendment may occur simultaneously. This is consistent
with NEPA regulations encouraging Federal agencies to integrate NEPA
with other planning processes (see 40 CFR 1500.2(c) and 1500.4(k)).
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (b) with only minor
revisions. Paragraph (b) describes the requirements for a plan
amendment when an EA is prepared and does not disclose significant
impacts. The final rule replaces existing references to the ``Field
Manager'' with the ``responsible official'' or the ``BLM'' and replaces
a reference to the ``State Director'' with the ``deciding official.''
These changes are consistent with new terms used throughout this new
rule. This section also provides that, upon approval of a plan
amendment, the BLM will issue a public notice of the action taken, and
that an amendment may be implemented 30 days after such notice. There
is no substantive change to this paragraph or the BLM's implementation
of it.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the existing
requirement in existing Sec. 1610.5-5(b) that if a decision is made to
prepare an environmental impact statement, the amending process shall
follow the same procedure required for the preparation and approval of
a resource management plan. Instead, in the relevant sections, the
final rule identifies where EIS-level amendments must follow the same
procedures as those required for preparing and approving a resource
management plan.
The final rule also adopts the proposal to remove the existing
requirement in existing Sec. 1610.5-5(b) that consideration for an
EIS-level amendment is limited to ``that portion of the plan being
amended.'' This existing language contradicts the requirement in
paragraph (a) that the ``effect of the amendment on other plan
components must be evaluated.'' For example, if an amendment will
preclude the BLM from achieving other goals and objectives of the
approved RMP that are not explicitly addressed in the amendment, this
is important information of which BLM and the public should be aware.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraph (c) of this section with
only minor revisions. Paragraph (c) of this section is adapted from the
existing provision of Sec. 1610.5-5(b) that ``if several plans are
being amended simultaneously, a single [EIS] may be prepared to cover
all amendments.'' For improved readability, this provision is revised
to state that ``if the BLM amends several resource management plans
simultaneously, a single programmatic [EIS] or [EA] may be prepared to
address all amendments.''
Section 1610.6-7 Revision
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-7 with only minor
revisions. Section 1610.6-7 is based on existing Sec. 1610.5-6 in the
existing regulations. Changes to this section are made to improve
readability and explain more clearly when the BLM will prepare a plan
revision.
In the first sentence, the clause ``a resource management plan
shall be revised'' is replaced with ``the BLM may revise a resource
management plan.'' The final rule uses the active voice to indicate
that the BLM will be revising the plan. The final rule adopts the
proposal to change the mandatory term ``shall'' to the discretionary
term ``may.'' In both the existing regulations and this final rule,
revisions occur ``as necessary.'' The change from ``shall'' to ``may''
reflects the fact that the BLM must consider many factors including
available budgets, competing workload priorities, and development of
new policy when making the determination to revise a resource
management plan. The BLM currently must take these factors into account
when determining when to revise a resource management plan, so there
will be no change in practice or policy.
The existing rule states that ``monitoring and evaluation findings
. . . new data, new or revised policy and changes in circumstances''
that affect an entire plan or major portions of a plan require a plan
revision. The final rule clarifies that ``other relevant changes in
circumstances'' may justify a plan revision. This does not represent a
change in practice. For example, the need to provide habitat protection
for a wide-ranging species that is considered for listing as threatened
or endangered in an area could result in a plan revision if the BLM
believed that a plan revision
[[Page 89640]]
was necessary to address adequately this concern and consider impacts
at a regional-scale. This section maintains the existing requirement
that revisions must comply with all of the requirements of the planning
regulations for preparing and approving a resource management plan,
with minor edits to improve readability.
Section 1610.6-8 Situations Where Action Can Be Taken Based on Another
Agency's Planning Documents
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.6-8 with revisions. This
section is based on existing Sec. 1610.5-7. The final rule replaces
the ``Bureau of Land Management'' with the ``BLM'' and replaces a
reference to the ``Field Manager'' with ``the BLM,'' as the action
described applies more to the agency than any particular individual. In
response to public comment, the final rule revises the existing
introductory text in this section stating that the BLM ``may use the
plans or land use analysis of other agencies'' to instead read that the
BLM may ``rely on'' those plans or analysis. This revised text more
accurately describes BLM practice and is consistent with the language
of paragraph (a) of this section in the proposed and final rule. The
final rule replaces ``there are situations of mixed ownership'' in the
existing regulations with ``including mixed ownership'' in the first
sentence for improved readability. No changes in practice or policy are
intended by these changes.
The final rule revises the existing and proposed language in this
section by replacing the reference to other agencies' plans or land use
analyses to other agencies' ``planning documents.'' The new term better
encompasses the types of documents referred to in the following
paragraphs of this section, including the added provision for resource
assessments (see paragraph (c) of this section).
The final rule revises paragraph (a) of this section, which lists
those other agency plans that may be relied on as the basis for a BLM
action to include a reference to tribal plans. The final rule replaces
``public participation'' with ``public involvement,'' consistent with
FLPMA and other changes throughout this rule.
Final Sec. Sec. 1610.6-8(a) and (b) are revised from the proposed
rule to clarify that for the BLM to rely on or adopt another agency's
plan, that plan must be consistent with Federal laws and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies and programs
implementing such laws and regulations. For example, the other agency's
plan must comply with NEPA. These changes are consistent with current
practice and policy. For consistency with other revisions made to the
proposed rule (for example, see Sec. 1610.3-3(a)), the final rule
clarifies that the ``purposes, policies and programs'' to which
paragraphs (a) and (b) refer are those that implement Federal laws and
regulations.
Final Sec. 1610.6-8 (b) removes the existing phrase ``to comply
with law and policy applicable to public lands'' because that language
is no longer necessary with the added text.
Public comments suggested that the BLM should have the discretion
to rely on other agencies' resource assessments. In response to public
comment, the final rule includes a new paragraph (c) in this section
which provides that another agency's resource assessment may be relied
on if it is comprehensive, meaning that it is consistent with the
nature, scope, and scale of the issues of concern relevant to the
planning area, and has considered the resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic conditions in a way comparable to the
manner in which these conditions would have been considered in a
planning assessment, including the opportunity for public involvement.
If the agency's resource assessment process did not provide public
involvement, the BLM could choose to provide such opportunities in
order to rely on the other agencies resource assessment. For example,
the BLM could rely on an assessment developed by the United States
Forest Service during the development of a land and resource management
plan, which provides opportunities for public involvement.
Paragraph 1610.8-6(c) of the proposed rule is redesignated as
paragraph (d) in the final rule. The final rule removes the final
sentence of Sec. 1610.5-7 in the existing regulations, which provides
that ``[t]he decision to approve the land use analysis and to lease
coal is made by the Departmental official who has been delegated the
authority to issue coal leases.'' This language is unnecessary in the
planning regulations. The final rule is revised to replace ``public
participation'' with ``public involvement'' for consistency with
changes made throughout this part.
Finally, the reference to Sec. 1610.5-2 is updated to reflect
other changes to this rule. No change in meaning is intended by
updating this reference.
Section 1610.7 Management Decision Review by Congress
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.7 with only minor
revisions.
This section is based on existing Sec. 1610.6 with minor
revisions. The final rule replaces the ``Federal Land Policy and
Management Act'' with ``FLPMA,'' and the ``Bureau of Land Management''
with the ``BLM.'' In the second sentence of this section, the final
rule replaces ``[t]his report shall not be required'' to ``[t]his
report is not required'' for improved readability and ease of
understanding. The final rule clarifies that this report is not
required prior to approval of a RMP which, if fully or partially
implemented, will result in elimination ``of use(s).'' No change in
meaning is intended with these changes.
Section 1610.8 Designation of Areas
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.8 with only minor
revisions.
Section 1610.8-1 Designation of Areas Unsuitable for Surface Mining
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.8-1 without revision.
This section is based on existing Sec. 1610.7-1. The final rule
replaces references to the ``Field Manager'' and the ``Bureau of Land
Management'' with the ``BLM'' in this section. The Field Manager
commitments described in this section are those of the BLM, not any one
individual.
Section 1610.8-2 Designation and Protection of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.8-2 with revisions. This
section is based on existing Sec. 1610.7-2. In response to public
comment, the heading for this section is revised to include designation
``and protection'' of ACECs. This new language is consistent with the
statutory requirement to ``give priority to the designation and
protection of areas of critical environmental concern'' (see 43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(3)) and provides improved clarity and understanding that the
BLM gives priority to the designation and protection of ACECs as
required by FLPMA through the procedures outlined in this section.
The final rule adopts proposed paragraphs (a), (a)(1), and (a)(2).
Paragraph (a) of this section contains the undesignated introductory
language in existing Sec. 1610.7-2. The final rule replaces ``areas of
critical environmental concern'' with the abbreviation ``ACEC'' for
improved readability. The existing language stating that potential
ACECs are identified and considered throughout the resource management
planning process is removed. Instead the final rule states that ``Areas
having potential for ACEC designation and protection management will be
[[Page 89641]]
identified through inventory of public lands and during the planning
assessment, and considered during the preparation or amendment of a
resource management plan.'' This change reflects the fact that FLPMA
directs the BLM to identify potential ACECs through the inventory of
public lands (see section 201(a) of FLPMA) and to prioritize their
consideration for designation through land use planning (see section
202(c)(3) of FLPMA). When the BLM prepares a resource management plan
or an EIS-level amendment, potential ACECs will be identified during
the planning assessment stage (see Sec. 1610.4(b)(1)). Potential ACECs
may also be identified when the BLM conducts inventories at times not
associated with the preparation or amendment of a resource management
plan. The identification of potential ACECs will be given priority
consistent with FLPMA and initially identified during the planning
assessment, a new step in the planning process.
Final Sec. Sec. 1610.8-2(a)(1) and (a)(2) include language from
existing 1610.7-2(a) that describes the criteria for identifying a
potential ACEC.
The final rule maintains the existing descriptions of the
``relevance'' and ``importance'' criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, except that ``shall'' is replaced with ``must''
for improved readability and the phrase ``more than local
significance'' is removed from the description of importance. This
phrase is vague and unnecessary in the regulations. There are many
existing examples where an area of local significance has been
determined to meet the ``importance'' criteria. This change is
consistent with FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(a)) and improves the
understanding that the importance criteria is based on the degree of
significance (i.e., substantial significance and values); a local
value, resource, system, process, or natural hazard could have
``substantial'' significance.
Paragraph (b) of this section addresses the designation of ACECs
and provides that the process for considering whether potential ACECs
should be designated as ACECs is during the preparation or amendment of
a resource management plan. This replaces language in existing Sec.
1610.7-2 stating that ACECs are ``considered throughout the resource
management planning process.'' In response to public comment, the final
rule is revised to include the phrase ``consistent with the priority
established by FLPMA.'' This new language references the statutory
requirement to ``give priority to the designation and protection of
areas of critical environmental concern'' (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(3)).
The language references this statutory requirement for improved clarity
and understanding that the BLM gives priority to the designation and
protection of ACECs as required by FLPMA through the procedures
outlined in this section.
Paragraph (b) of this section also contains the provision that
``[t]he identification of a potential ACEC shall not, of itself, change
or prevent change of the management or use of public lands,'' which is
moved from the definition of ``Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
or ACEC'' in existing Sec. 1601.0-5(a) to this section. This provision
belongs with the ACEC provisions, and this placement avoids including
substantive regulatory provisions in the definitions. Changes between
the proposed and final rule replace the phrase ``in of itself'' with
``of itself'' for grammatical clarity and to reflect the phrasing used
in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1711(a)).
The final rule includes new language at the end of paragraph (b)
providing that ``ACECs require special management attention (when such
areas are developed or used or no development is required) to protect
and prevent irreparable damage to the important historic, cultural, or
scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural system or
process, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.'' That
language is consistent with FLPMA (see section 103(a)) and will provide
useful information in regard to designating ACECs. The BLM intends no
change in practice or policy from adding this language; rather, the
planning regulations reflect existing statutory direction.
The proposed rule would have referred to ``potential'' ACECs at the
end of paragraph (b), however public comments noted that FLPMA defines
ACECs ``as areas within the public lands where special management is
required . . .'' but contains no language regarding ``potential'' ACECs
or their management. In response to public comments, the final rule is
revised to remove the word ``potential'' from this sentence because
FLPMA does not require ``special management attention'' for potential
ACECs; rather, a potential ACEC which requires special management
attention may be formally designated as an ACEC.
The final rule splits existing Sec. 1610.7-2(b) into two
paragraphs (final Sec. Sec. 1610.8-2(b)(1) and (2)) to distinguish
more clearly between the BLM's notice of potential ACECs and the formal
designation of ACECs in the approved plan.
Paragraph 1610.8-2(b)(1) maintains the existing requirement, with
clarifying edits, that upon release of a draft resource management plan
or plan amendment involving a potential ACEC, the BLM will notify the
public. The proposed rule would have eliminated the requirement from
the existing regulations (see existing Sec. 1610.7-2(b)) that the BLM
publish notice and provide a 60-day public comment period on potential
ACEC designations. Several public comments expressed that notification
and public comment on potential ACECs is essential and these existing
provisions should be retained in the final rule. In response to
comments, the final rule retains the existing requirement that the BLM
publish notice in the Federal Register and replaces the existing
requirement for a 60-day public comment period with a requirement to
``request written comments.''
The final rule further specifies that notice and comment on
potential ACECs may be integrated with notice and comment on the draft
RMP or plan amendment. The planning process provides an opportunity to
consider impacts to potential ACECs through the development of a range
of alternatives and to assess effectively whether special management
attention is needed. The planning process also provides substantial
opportunity for public involvement. We believe that consistency between
ACEC requirements and the other steps of the planning process will be
less confusing and will more effectively integrate ACEC consideration
into the planning process.
The final rule does not specify any particular length for the
public comment period in this section, because it is not necessary. The
BLM is required to provide a minimum of 30 days when requesting public
comments (see Sec. 1610.2-2(a)). The BLM intends that this comment
period will generally be integrated with the public comment period on
the draft resources management plan or plan amendment. The length of
these public comment periods are provided appropriate to the level of
BLM action under final Sec. 1610.2-2.
The BLM will notify the public of each potential ACEC by posting a
notice on the BLM Web site and at the BLM office where the plan is
being prepared (see Sec. 1610.2-1(c)), and through written or email
correspondence to those individuals or groups who have requested to
receive updates throughout the planning process (see Sec. 1610.2-
1(d)). For the preparation of a RMP, the BLM will provide a 100-day
comment period;
[[Page 89642]]
for EIS-level amendments, the BLM will provide a 60-day comment period;
and for EA-level amendments when an ACEC is involved, the BLM will
provide a 30-day comment period (see Sec. 1610.2-2).
Paragraph 1610.8-2(b)(1) also maintains the existing requirement
that any draft RMP or plan amendment involving potential ACECs include
a list of each potential ACEC and any special management attention
which will follow a formal designation. For clarity and readability,
the final rule replaces ``Upon release of a'' with ``Any.'' This does
not change existing practice or policy. The final rule also replaces
the term ``proposed ACEC'' in the existing rule with ``potential ACEC''
in order to avoid confusion with the proposed resource management plan.
The BLM provides notice of potential ACECs upon release of a draft
resource management plan or plan amendment, rather than upon release of
a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment. The BLM intends
no change in practice or policy from this word change. The final rule
also replaces ``resource use limitations'' with ``special management
attention.'' That language is based on the definition of an ACEC
provided in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702 (a)) and reflects the fact that
special management attention is not restricted to resource use
limitations. For example, special management attention might include
objectives related to plant species composition to maintain habitat for
a wildlife resource.
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section maintains the existing provision
with edits clarifying that the approval of a resource management plan
or plan amendment that contains an ACEC constitutes formal designation
of an ACEC. The final rule removes the phrase ``plan revision'' as this
is included in the definition of a resource management plan (see Sec.
1601.0-5). This paragraph also replaces the existing requirement for
the approved plan to include ``general management practices and uses,
including mitigation measures'' with a new requirement to include ``any
special management attention'' identified to protect the designated
ACEC. We believe that the new requirement for plan objectives to be
measurable (see Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2)) provides a more effective method
to apply special management attention because it allows the BLM to
track progress toward the achievement of the objective while
incorporating new science and information when implementing specific
management measures. This change also reflects the definition of an
ACEC provided in FLPMA (section 103(a)). Under the final rule, the BLM
will provide ``special management attention,'' as required by FLPMA,
through the development of plan components. For example, special
management attention could include goals, measurable objectives,
mitigation standards (as part of a measurable objective), or resource
use determinations, among others. In response to public comment, the
final rule includes the example ``such as resource use determinations''
(see final Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2)) for improved clarity.
Section 1610.9 Transition Period
The final rule adopts proposed Sec. 1610.9 with revisions. This
section contains the provisions of existing Sec. 1610.8, amended as
follows. The existing regulations address the transition from
management framework plans, the land use plans the BLM prepared
beginning in 1969 under authorities predating FLPMA, to resource
management plans, which the BLM has prepared and approved under FLPMA
and the planning regulations first adopted in 1979. The final rule
revises existing Sec. 1610.8(a) and (b) to refer to ``public
involvement'' instead of ``public participation'' and to the
``responsible official'' instead of the ``Field Manager,'' consistent
with changes made throughout this rule.
In the proposed rule, we would have revised paragraph (a)(1) by
specifying that management framework plans may be the basis for
considering a proposed action if the management framework plan is in
compliance with the principle of multiple use and sustained yield ``or
other applicable law.'' In the final rule, we employ the phrase
``unless otherwise specified by law'' for consistency with changes made
to other sections (for example, see Sec. 1610.0-1). We believe this
language better fulfills the purpose of recognizing that in some
situations the BLM must be in compliance with other legal authorities.
For instance, BLM management of national monuments established under
the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) must comply with the
terms in the Proclamation establishing the specific national monument.
The final rule removes existing Sec. 1610.8(a)(2), because it is
no longer necessary. The BLM will rely instead on Sec. 1610.9(a)(2)
when considering proposed actions under a management framework plan.
Final Sec. 1610.9(b)(1) and (b)(2) are adopted from existing Sec.
1610.8(b)(1) and (b)(2) with only minor revisions for improved
readability or to fix grammatical or reference mistakes.
New paragraphs 1610.9(c) and (d) address the transition from
resource management plans approved under the existing regulations,
which first became effective on September 6, 1979 (44 FR 46386) and
which were updated with revisions that became effective on July 5, 1983
(48 FR 20364) and April 22, 2005 (55 FR 14561), to resource management
plans that will be prepared, revised, or amended under the final rule.
In considering the transition provisions, it is important to
remember that this final rule changes the procedures the BLM uses to
prepare, revise, or amend RMPs and provides more detailed guidance in
areas where the current regulations are vague, unclear, or silent. This
final rule does not change the nature of a RMP itself (i.e., a document
developed to guide future management activities on the public lands).
Additionally, although the final rule includes new terms for the
contents of a plan (e.g., plan components), the contents of a plan
promulgated under this final rule will not differ substantially from
the contents of existing plans. For instance, plan objectives developed
under this final rule will likely be more specific and measurable than
many plan objectives developed under the existing regulations.
Nonetheless, plan objectives developed under the new rule and the
previous regulations will guide the BLM's management of the public
lands across varied programs.
Accordingly, Sec. 1610.9(c)(1) discusses how the BLM will evaluate
whether a proposed action, such as an oil and gas lease sale, is in
conformance with a resource management plan once these regulations
become effective. The BLM will use an existing resource management plan
(i.e., one approved by the BLM before these regulations become
effective) until it is superseded by a resource management plan or
amended by a plan amendment prepared under these regulations when they
are final. In such circumstances where the plan has not been developed
or amended under these regulations, the proposed action must either be
specifically provided for in the plan or clearly consistent with the
terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. RMPs prepared
under the existing regulations do not identify plan components, thus an
evaluation for whether a proposed action is in conformance with the
plan must use the terminology that was in place when the plan was
approved.
Paragraph 1610.9(c)(2) addresses how to evaluate whether an action
is in conformance with a resource
[[Page 89643]]
management plan issued under existing regulations after the resource
management plan has been amended under this final rule. In such
circumstances, the amended portions of the plan will use new
terminology and identify plan components, whereas the remainder of the
plan not amended will not use new terminology. A proposed action must
therefore be consistent with the plan components (proposed new
terminology) of the provisions of the resource management plan amended
under the final rule and the terms, conditions, and decisions of the
provisions of the resource management plan not amended under the final
rule (existing terminology). In response to public comment, the final
rule is revised to specify that the proposed action must be ``clearly''
consistent with the plan components. This revision brings this
provision into line with the definition of ``conformity or
conformance'' in Sec. 1601.0-5.
The BLM received comments stating that proposed Sec. 1610.9(c)(2)
was confusing. In response to these comments, the final rule is revised
to clarify that future proposed action must be clearly consistent with
the provisions of the resource management plan amended under the final
rule, which will have plan components, as well as the provisions of the
resource management plan not amended under the final rule, which will
still have terms, conditions, and decisions, consistent with the
existing regulations.
Paragraph 1610.9(d) addresses resource management plans that are
currently being prepared, revised, or amended when this final rule is
published. If the preparation, revision, or amendment of a resource
management plan was or is formally initiated by publication of a NOI in
the Federal Register before these regulations become effective (on
January 11, 2017), the BLM may complete the RMP or plan amendment under
the planning regulations promulgated in 1979 (44 FR 46386) and amended
in 1983 (48 FR 20364) and 2005 (55 FR 14561). This approach allows BLM
offices that have initiated planning to continue with their efforts
without the need to re-start or re-do steps in the planning process.
This will avoid duplicative efforts, and it respects the time that the
BLM, other agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public have
invested in planning that will be in-progress when these regulations
become effective. It also provides the BLM flexibility to incorporate
provisions of the final rule into a planning process that is underway
when the new regulations are final.
III. Response to Public Comments
The BLM received 3,354 comments on the proposed rule, which are
available for viewing on the Federal e-rulemaking portal (https://www.regulations.gov). The BLM has reviewed all public comments, and has
made changes, as appropriate, to the final rule based on those
comments. Those changes are noted in the section-by-section discussion.
The following is a summary of significant issues raised in comments
the BLM received on the proposed rule and responses to these comments.
The comments highlighted in the following paragraphs fell into several
categories: Comments related to sections of the proposed rule; comments
related to the goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative; and comments on
the rulemaking process.
A comprehensive account of public comments and detailed responses
to these comments is available to the public on the BLM Web site
(www.blm.gov/plan2) and is included as a supporting document in the
docket for this rulemaking on regulations.gov.
Objective of Resource Management Planning
Several comments raised concern that the proposed removal of the
existing phrase ``maximize resource values for the public'' in Sec.
1601.0-2 represents a change in the BLM's management of the public
lands and is an effort to bias the planning process against resource
extraction. Some comments similarly raised concern that proposed new
language in Sec. 1601.0-2 represents a shift in public policy by
departing from FLPMA and redefining the concept of multiple use, or is
weaker than the statutory language that mandates multiple-use.
The final rule does not retain existing language to ``maximize
resource values'' and adopts proposed new language regarding the manner
by which the public lands are to be managed (see Sec. 1601.0-2). These
changes do not reflect a departure from FLPMA and multiple-use
management, nor do they represent a shift in public policy or an effort
to bias the planning process.
The final rule adopts the proposal to remove the phrase ``maximize
resource values'' to remove vague language and for consistency with
FLPMA. 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'' (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). The
existing rule does not define the meaning of the phrase ``maximize
resource values'' or describe how it is to be achieved in accordance
with multiple use and sustained yield, as defined in FLPMA. FLPMA's
language provides the best expression of how the BLM should consider
resource values in the planning process in order to manage on the basis
of multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law.
In response to public comment, the final rule is revised to include
language directly from FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)) to ``manage on the
basis of multiple use and sustained yield'' to provide clarity on the
BLM's mandate.
The final rule also adopts the proposed new language describing the
manner by which the public lands are to be managed (see Sec. 1601.0-
2). This language is from FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8) and (a)(12)).
Resource management plans describe how the public lands will be managed
within a geographic area; therefore it is appropriate that an objective
of resource management planning is to develop management direction that
is consistent with statutory direction describing the manner by which
public lands are to be managed. Several comments noted that the
language added to this section in the proposed rule (43 U.S.C.
1701(a)(12)) omitted the reference to the Mining and Minerals Policy
Act. Other comments requested this section identify additional
resources or resource uses and raised concern that the proposed
language would prioritize some resource values over others. The final
rule does not include a reference to the Mining and Minerals Policy Act
or identify additional resources or resource uses, as suggested by the
comments. The objective section provides the objective for resource
management planning on BLM-managed lands. The final rule includes
language from FLPMA in Sec. 1601.0-2 to provide context. In revising
Sec. 1601.0-2, we endeavored to find a balance between including those
statutory provisions that provide useful context, while also
maintaining concise regulations that are easy to read and understand.
It is not necessary to list the Mining and Minerals Policy Act or other
applicable laws in the planning regulations as the BLM must comply with
these laws even if they are not
[[Page 89644]]
referenced in these regulations. Neither is it necessary to list all
resources under BLM management in the objective section. The list of
resources provided at Sec. 1601.0-2 is not intended to be exclusive
and does not preclude consideration of other resources, nor does it
prioritize any single resource over other resources, including those
not identified in Sec. 1601.0-2. To the contrary, FLPMA and final
Sec. 1601.0-2 require that management be on the basis of multiple use
and sustained yield; the concept of multiple use encompasses all
resource values and uses applicable to the public lands. In response to
public comments, the final rule is revised to include language that
public lands are to be managed in a manner that recognizes that
Nation's need for ``renewable and non-renewable resources'' to reflect
the fact that all relevant resources are considered during resource
management planning.
Responsibilities and Determination of Planning Areas
The existing planning regulations establish the BLM field office as
the default boundary for resource management plans and delegate the
responsibility for preparing resource management plans to BLM Field
Managers and approval of plans to BLM State Directors. Under the BLM's
interpretation and implementation of the existing regulations, these
responsibilities can be carried out by an official at a higher level in
the BLM and the BLM may select a different boundary.
The proposed planning rule would have removed the default planning
area boundary and replaced references to State Directors with
``deciding official'' and Field Manager with ``responsible official.''
Many public comments supported these changes, but some opposed the
changes for various reasons, including the concern that the public
would not know who the default deciding official is if it is not
addressed in the regulations. In response to these comments, the final
rule adopts the proposed changes to ``responsible official'' and
``deciding official,'' but provides that when resource management plans
do not cross state lines, the default deciding official is the BLM
State Director. If the resource management plan or plan amendment
crosses State boundaries, the BLM Director will determine the deciding
official (Sec. 1601.0-4(a)). For reasons explained in the section-by-
section analysis of Sec. 1601.0-4, this is not a change from existing
BLM practice or policy, and in fact clarifies the BLM's existing
process, and provides the BLM flexibility to determine the appropriate
deciding officials for planning across State boundaries or for resource
management plans or plan amendments of national significance, while
maintaining the State Director's role in the process.
The proposed planning rule also would have removed the default
planning area boundary and provided that the BLM Director would
determine the planning area for all resource management plans. The BLM
received public comments in opposition to and in support of this
change. Comments expressed concerns that the BLM Director was too far
removed from local concerns and management issues, and that
``landscape-scale'' planning areas would not respond to local concerns.
Other comments supported this change, stating that the BLM should
further emphasize that planning area boundaries should be more
responsive to ecological and social conditions, rather than traditional
field office and district boundaries.
In response to comments, the final rule is revised to provide that
where a resource management plan or plan amendment is wholly within a
single State's boundaries, the deciding official, by default the BLM
State Director, determines the planning area. Where the resource
management plan or plan amendment does cross State boundaries, the BLM
believes that it is appropriate for the BLM Director to determine the
planning area boundary and this requirement is adopted in the final
rule. In some situations the BLM's State, district, or field office
boundaries may be the most appropriate planning area boundary. The BLM
intends that this determination will be made in consultation with the
relevant BLM State Directors, District Managers, and Field Managers.
The final rule does not prescribe ``landscape-scale'' planning area
as suggested by public comments. The final rule does not prescribe any
specific planning area boundary or geographic scale for such a
boundary. Rather, the final rule provides flexibility to determine the
appropriate planning area boundary based on relevant landscapes and
management concerns. This flexibility does not represent a substantive
change from the existing regulations, as the BLM currently may
determine any planning area boundary. Under the current planning rule,
planning areas have been both smaller and larger than field offices,
including for example, the Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan
Amendments (2015), West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan
(2015), and Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon (2016).
Although not a substantive change in the regulations, the BLM believes
that the final rule provides increased transparency to the public that
the BLM intends to develop future planning area boundaries based on the
relevant management concerns rather than historical administrative
boundaries.
Several public comments suggested that the proposed language on the
determination of a planning area did not provide adequate opportunity
for public involvement or coordination with governmental entities. In
response to these comments, the final rule is revised to include
considerations for determining a preliminary planning area and an
opportunity for public review of the preliminary planning area. A new
provision in final Sec. 1610.4(a) requires the identification of a
preliminary planning area during the planning assessment. The
preliminary planning area will be made available for public review
prior to the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register. The final
rule also retains the existing requirement that the BLM seek the input
of Governor(s) on the definition of planning areas (see final Sec.
1610.3-2(c)(1)).
Public comments also suggested that the proposed language on the
determination of a planning area did not adequately describe how the
BLM would make planning area determinations. In response to public
comments, the final rule is revised to describe considerations for
determining the preliminary planning area. Under the final rule, the
BLM will consider scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,
environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological
values and management concerns identified through monitoring and
evaluation, relevant landscapes based on these management concerns, the
officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes, and other relevant
information, as appropriate. These provisions support the goal of
applying landscape-scale management approaches by ensuring that the BLM
considers relevant landscapes when developing a preliminary planning
area. For more information on the preliminary planning area, please see
the discussion for Sec. 1610.4(a) in this preamble.
High Quality Information
The final rule adopts proposed requirements for the BLM to ``use
high quality information to inform the preparation, amendment, and
[[Page 89645]]
maintenance of resource management plans'' (Sec. 1610.1-1(c)) and
requires the responsible official to ``evaluate the data and
information gathered . . . to ensure the use of high quality
information in the planning assessment'' (Sec. 1610.4(c)). The rule
also defines the term ``high quality information'' (Sec. 1601.0-5).
While several comments supported the proposed definition of high
quality information, many comments asserted that the proposed
definition is vague or suggested specific edits to the definition. Some
comments objected to specific elements of the definition, such as the
phrase ``useful to its intended users.'' Other comments suggested that
this new standard may allow biased, subjective, unsubstantiated, or
questionable scientific data or information to inform planning. The
final rule is not revised in response to these comments. The final rule
adopts the definition of ``high quality information'' without revisions
in Sec. 1601.0-5 of the final rule. The definition for high quality
information is not vague and is consistent with the Information Quality
Act (or Data Quality Act) and the related ``OMB Guidelines for Ensuring
and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication,'' (OMB
Guidelines) (67 FR 8452). The definition specifies high quality
information is ``accurate, reliable, and unbiased'' and includes the
``best available scientific information'' and therefore does not allow
biased, subjective, unsubstantiated, or questionable scientific data or
information to inform planning. The final rule includes ``useful to its
intended users'' in the definition of high quality information for
consistency with the OMB Guidelines. In the guidelines, OMB defines
``quality'' as the ``encompassing term, of which `utility,'
`objectivity,' and `integrity' are the constituents.'' The guidelines
further define ``utility'' as referring to the ``usefulness of the
information to its intended users, including the public.'' This
standard allows the BLM to focus on relevant information during
resource management planning.
Several comments expressed concern that the high quality
information standard is a relaxing of current data evaluation
standards. The final rule is not revised in response to these comments.
Although this standard is new to the planning rule, the requirement to
use ``high quality information'' is consistent with the BLM's current
standards for NEPA analyses as set forth by Federal law and
regulations.
The BLM will continue to comply with data standards set forth by
Federal law and regulations and other relevant policy, such as the
CEQ's NEPA regulations regarding ``high quality'' information and
``[a]ccurate scientific analysis'' (40 CFR 1500.1(b)). Where more
specific Federal standards apply to certain types of information, the
BLM will conform with those Federal standards as well. For more
information on the use of high quality information and consistency with
other Federal information standards, see the discussion for Sec.
1610.1-1(c) in this preamble.
Several comments asserted that there is no reason for the BLM to
create a new standard for data quality because the BLM already must
adhere to existing data standards and the addition of another standard
is confusing. The final rule is not revised in response to these
comments. The BLM believes that a requirement to use ``high quality
information'' in the planning regulations, as well as a definition for
this term, provides clarity on the relationship of existing standards
for information quality to resource management planning. Further, this
standard affirms the BLM's commitment to science-based decision-making.
Several comments expressed concern about the BLM making the
determination as to whether or not data or information meets the high
quality standard, and suggested that third-party experts, governmental
entities, or the public should be involved in this determination. Some
comments suggested that the public should have an opportunity to appeal
the evaluation of the data they submit. The final rule is not revised
in response to these comments. It is appropriate for the BLM to make
the final determination regarding information quality because the BLM
is responsible for preparing resource management plans and for the
management of the public lands, and the supporting environmental review
under NEPA. The BLM recognizes the importance of being transparent and
providing the public an opportunity for input on the information used
during the planning process. The final rule provides such transparency
and opportunity for input. The final rule does not provide
opportunities for the public to appeal the evaluation of the data they
submit. The public may, however, provide comments regarding information
quality on the draft resource management plan and draft EIS, and may
also submit a protest on the proposed resource management plan should
they believe a plan component is in violation of Federal laws or
regulations, or the purposes, policies, and programs implementing such
laws and regulations, due to information quality. The final rule also
does not establish a requirement for a third party review of
information quality. Such an approach would not be practical given the
magnitude of information used during the preparation of a resource
management plan. The BLM will evaluate the data and information it
receives to ensure the use of high quality information. Statutory and
regulatory requirements, policies, and strategies relating to
information will guide responsible officials as they evaluate whether
information is high quality information. This process may vary
depending on the discipline, and therefore it is more appropriate to
address through guidance.
Many comments concerned the statement in the preamble to the
proposed rule that ``Traditional Ecological Knowledge'' (TEK) may be a
type of ``high quality information.'' A few comments suggested that the
intent and definition of the term TEK is not clear. Several comments
opposed the use of TEK, some comments supported the use of TEK, and
others asked for specific clarifications to the definition of TEK. The
final rule is not revised in response to these comments. The proposed
and final regulations do not include the term TEK. The preamble
discussion of TEK was provided as an example to help illustrate the
concept of high quality information; this discussion does not represent
a regulatory provision regarding TEK. Under the final rule, TEK may be
considered a type of high quality information so long as it 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. Through the
disciplines of anthropology, as well as other social science
disciplines, accepted scientific methodologies have been established
for documenting ethnographic information and other types of social
information. Such methodologies, and the information collected through
these methodologies, are widely accepted by the scientific community
and appropriate for consideration during resource management planning.
The BLM will apply the same standards to TEK as it applies to other
types of information.
Several comments expressed concern over the use of citizen science
during resource management planning. Some comments asserted that
citizen science falls short of a ``best available science''
[[Page 89646]]
threshold. The final rule is not revised in response to these comments.
The final rule defines high quality information 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'' (see Sec. 1610.0-5). This standard applies to all
information used in resource management planning, including citizen
science. It does not preclude the use of citizen science, so long as
the information meets this standard. On September 30, 2015, the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a
memorandum titled ``Addressing Societal and Scientific Challenges
through Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing.'' This memo outlined
principles for effective use of citizen science by Federal agencies. In
addition to standards for high quality information, the BLM will apply
the principles described in this memorandum, including the concept of
``fitness for use'' when using citizen science to inform the
preparation or amendment of a resource management plan.
Plan Components
Several comments stated that the proposed rule fails to identify
why the existing planning framework is inadequate and why a change is
warranted. Comments specifically identified that the removal of
existing land use plan elements in the existing regulations and their
replacement with plan components and implementation strategies has the
potential to dramatically increase agency discretion while
disenfranchising the public, State and local governments, and
stakeholders from involvement in important aspects of planning (i.e.,
the development of implementation strategies). Other comments supported
the proposed framework for plan components and implementation
strategies. In response to public comments, the final rule adopts the
concept of plan components (Sec. 1610.1-2), but does not adopt the
concept of implementation strategies (proposed Sec. 1610.1-3). This
preamble provides a rationale for the need to revise the planning rule
in the ``Background'' discussion. The preamble discussion of Sec.
1610.1-2 also provides a detailed rationale for the removal of existing
planning elements and the addition of each plan component. The final
rule does not disenfranchise the public and stakeholders from
involvement, nor does it dramatically increase or decrease the BLM's
discretion, as suggested by public comments. Rather, the final rule
provides for extensive public involvement in the development of plan
components, as these represent planning level management direction; the
BLM will also provide for public involvement related to future
implementation decisions, consistent with NEPA requirements.
A few comments asserted that the definition of ``goal'' provided at
Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(1), which includes ``resource, environmental,
ecological, social, or economic characteristics,'' exceeds the BLM's
management authority under FLPMA because the BLM's authority is limited
to goals related to renewable resources on BLM lands. The final rule is
not revised in response to these comments. The definition of ``goal''
is consistent with FLPMA. 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 (43 U.S.C.
1702(c)), means, in part, the management of the public lands so they
are utilized in the combination that best meet the needs of the
American people; multiple use takes into account the long term needs of
future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The
``needs of the American people,'' including future generations, 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.
A comment requested the BLM add ``cultural'' to the list
``resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic
characteristics'' at Sec. Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(1) and 1610.1-2(a)(2)(ii).
The final rule is not revised in response to this comment. This change
is not necessary because cultural characteristics are encompassed by
the term ``resource characteristics,'' and thus must be considered.
A few comments raised concerns regarding how the BLM plans to meet
objectives as defined in the proposed rule at Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2).
Comments also asserted that including a requirement for objectives to
have ``established time-frames'' (Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2)) would expose
the BLM to litigation challenging its failure to meet these self-
imposed timelines. The final rule is not revised in response to these
comments. Objectives are intended to guide progress towards the
achievement of one or more goals. The inclusion of time-frames in a
resource management plan is discretionary. In some situations the
inclusion of time-frames may be appropriate. In other situations, time-
frames may not be relevant or appropriate. The forthcoming revision of
the Land Use Planning Handbook will include additional guidance on
setting objectives. The BLM cannot guarantee achievement of the
objectives, particularly with regard to factors that are outside of the
agency's control, such as future available budgets and environmental
factors such as drought or wildfires, but the BLM must make resource
management decisions that are consistent with the achievement of the
objectives (see the definition for ``conformance'' at Sec. 1601.0-5).
The resource management plan objectives describe the desired resource
conditions that the agency will aim to achieve through future
implementation decisions.
Several comments stated support for the identification of
attributes and indicators as an important way to relate current
conditions with habitat standards and adaptive management. Comments
recommend revising the final rule to require and define these
attributes and indicators. In response to public comment, the final
rule establishes an additional requirement (final Sec. 1610.1-
2(a)(2)(iii)) that, as appropriate, objectives should identify
indicators for evaluating progress towards 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
should be the same as the indicators described in the monitoring and
evaluation standards. This approach will ensure that the BLM is able to
determine if the plan objective is being met through monitoring and
evaluation. The final rule does not include specific language regarding
``attributes.'' The BLM believes that this concept is more
appropriately described through guidance, such as the forthcoming
revision of the Land Use Planning Handbook.
The final rule adopts proposed language that objectives should
identify standards to mitigate undesirable impacts to resource
conditions (Sec. 1610.1-2(a)(2)(i)). Several comments raised concerns
regarding these mitigation standards and questioned the BLM's authority
to require mitigation. Some comments supported the proposed mitigation
standards and suggested they should always be required and not ``to the
extent practical.'' Other comments recommended the BLM incorporate
language in the final rule to state that
[[Page 89647]]
resource management plans would be required to contain applicable
mitigation strategies or identify mitigation sites.
The final rule is not revised in response to these comments. The
planning rule establishes the procedural framework for preparing and
amending resource management plans, but does not develop comprehensive
policy related to mitigation, nor does it explicitly require
mitigation. Rather, it provides a method to establish standards for
resource conditions that will help guide future mitigation consistent
with the plan objectives. Mitigation standards will be developed as
appropriate. Mitigation standards do not prescribe specific mitigation
practices. Although the final rule does not explicitly require
mitigation, it is important to note that the BLM has the authority
under FLPMA to require mitigation for land use authorizations or
permits. Specific mitigation measures are applied when a land use
authorization is granted, based on the environmental review of that
authorization and the statutes and regulations under which that
authorization is granted.
Several comments stated support for the inclusion of planning
designations as plan components. Some comments requested the final rule
identify specific types of planning designations. Some comments raised
concerns about the lack of a requirement to explicitly connect
priorities identified through designations with resource use
determinations or other steps to ensure that values prioritized through
designations are in fact protected. Some comments opposed the inclusion
of planning designations. One comment stated that planning designations
demonstrate that the proposed planning rule attempts a fundamental
policy shift away from traditional public land uses identified in
FLPMA.
The final rule adopts ``designations'' as a plan component (Sec.
1610.1-2(b)(1)). The final rule identifies ACECs as an example of a
planning designation; however, this is not intended to be an exhaustive
list, rather it provides an example to illustrate the concept. The
final rule is not revised to list other examples of planning
designations as it is not necessary or practical to list all planning
designations. In response to public comments, the final rule adds
language to Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(1)(i) stating that ``resource use
determinations shall be consistent with or support the management
priorities identified through designations.'' This language is intended
to connect priorities identified through designations with resource use
determinations. The concept of planning designations is consistent with
FLPMA, as they are a tool to identify management for areas with
specific resources or values, and does not represent a policy shift
away from traditional public land uses identified in FLPMA. In response
to public comments, Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(1) is revised to clarify that
designations may identify priority ``resource uses'' in addition to
resource values.
Several comments raised concerns that plan components, such as
resource use determinations, would remove lands from operation of the
Mining Law of 1872, noting that such an action can only be accomplished
through withdrawals taken under section 204 of the FLPMA. Several
comments expressed concern that the proposed rule would allow for the
development of plan components that would conflict with or restrain the
exercise of valid existing rights.
The BLM must comply with all applicable Federal laws in developing
plan components. The BLM agrees that FLPMA prohibits it from removing
lands from the operation of the Mining Law of 1872 in the land use
planning process (43 U.S.C. 1712(e)(3)) and the rule does not and could
not provide otherwise. The BLM does, however, have the authority
through land use planning to identify lands as recommended for
withdrawal from operation of the Mining Law of 1872 where such
recommendation is determined appropriate to meet plan goals and
objectives to protect resource values. In response to public comments,
final Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2) is revised to clarify that resource use
determinations are subject to valid existing rights. FLPMA requires
that all plan components and other types of management decisions be
subject to valid existing rights. Although the final rule cannot change
this requirement, the BLM decided to include this language specifically
in Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2) because resource use determinations describe
exclusions and restrictions to use, which are directly related to valid
existing rights.
Several comments suggested that the BLM should integrate
``designations'' (Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(1)) and ``resource use
determinations'' (Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2)). Comments stated that this
would result in a more clearly defined set of criteria for determining
whether future actions are in conformance with plan components. The
final rule is not revised to combine designations and resource use
determinations. After consideration of public comments, the BLM
believes that the distinction between designations and resource use
determinations is appropriate. Designations are intended to establish
priorities, when appropriate. Resource use determinations are intended
to identify exclusions, restrictions, or allowance of use. Resource use
determinations must be consistent with the priority established through
designations, and the final rule is revised to include language
clarifying this relationship (Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2)).
Several comments expressed support for monitoring and evaluation
but were concerned over the BLM's staffing resources, stating that the
BLM may not have the capacity to implement monitoring and evaluation.
Some comments requested the final rule require the BLM to provide
adequate personnel for monitoring and evaluation. Other comments
suggested the BLM revise the final rule to revise monitoring and
evaluation standards as tools available to the BLM, but not enforceable
requirements of resource management plans or plan amendments. The final
rule is not revised to re-define monitoring and evaluation standards as
these plan components are necessary to understand whether the plan
objectives are being met. The final rule is also not revised to address
staffing concerns or establish personnel requirements; this would not
be appropriate in regulations as the BLM cannot reasonably predict
future budgets and staffing availability.
Several comments noted that the proposed rule suggests that the
achievement of goals and objectives and implementation of monitoring
and evaluation could be enforceable commitments under the
Administrative Procedure Act and recommended the BLM revise the final
rule to expressly state that goals, objectives, and monitoring measures
in resource management plans do not commit the BLM to future courses of
action, and that BLM actions are dependent upon appropriation of
necessary funds and agency priorities, and are not intended to be
enforced by third parties through legal remedies. Comments also
recommend including language to state that these plan components cannot
be enforced by the general public under 5 U.S.C. 706(1). The comments
cited several court rulings supporting this statement. The final rule
does not include the language suggested by these comments. Resource
management plans provide planning level management direction intended
to help the BLM prioritize available funds and to guide future
management decisions, including future proposed actions. Although the
BLM does not intend that plan components be discrete agency actions
[[Page 89648]]
that BLM is required to take and therefore enforceable under Sec.
706(1) of the APA, they do bind the BLM to the extent that all future
actions taken by the BLM must conform to them. Should, through the
process of monitoring and evaluation, the BLM determine that the goals
and objectives are not being met, the BLM has the discretion to
identify appropriate remedies, including the option to revise or amend
the resource management plan.
Notice Requirements
The proposed planning rule would have replaced several requirements
to publish a notice in the Federal Register with a requirement to
notify the public through other means, including direct email or
posting a notice to the BLM Web site and at local BLM offices. Many
comments requested that the BLM retain all existing Federal Register
notice requirements. In response to these comments, the final rule will
retain most existing Federal Register notice requirements that were
proposed to be removed, including the notice of intent for plan
amendments when an environmental assessment is prepared (final Sec.
1610.2-1(f)) and notice when a draft plan or plan amendment involves
possible designation of areas of critical environmental concern (final
Sec. 1610.8-2(b)(1).
The BLM does not, however, consider a Federal Register notice to be
appropriate or necessary for all announcements for public involvement,
as some comments suggested. Although the Federal Register provides a
record of notices and a tool for reaching a national audience, it is
not necessary for every public involvement opportunity nor is it the
only tool available to reach a national audience. For instance, a
public meeting in a local community in the planning area to discuss a
particular, individual planning issue does not need a Federal Register
notice. Including one would cause unnecessary delays to the planning
process and costs to the BLM. Additionally, when the BLM announces the
start of a planning process, through a NOI, this provides the public an
opportunity to request notification of future public involvement
opportunities and to be added to the mailing list, as well as learning
of public involvement opportunities through BLM's Web site, which also
reaches a national audience. This is consistent with current BLM policy
and practice.
Several comments requested that the BLM retain the existing
requirement for the BLM Director to publish in the Federal Register the
reasons for his or her determination regarding a Governor's appeal on a
State Director's decision for the Governor's consistency review
(existing Sec. 1610.3-2(e)). The final rule does not retain this
existing requirement and will instead adopt the commitment that the BLM
shall notify the public of this decision and make the written decision
available to the public (final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(4)(ii)). Removing the
requirement to publish a Federal Register notice at this step will
provide for a more efficient planning process and better reflects the
ready availability of Internet communications. In locations where
internet is not readily available, the responsible official will
identify additional forms of notification to reach local communities
within the planning area (Sec. 1610.2-1(c)). Moreover, interested
parties already will have had the opportunity to be added to the
mailing list to receive notifications (Sec. 1610.2-1(d)).
Public Comment Periods
The proposed rule would have reduced the minimum length of formal
public comment periods on draft resource management plans from 90 days
to 60 days. Many comments opposed that proposed change, stating various
reasons, including that resource management plans were complex
documents and shortening the comment period would reduce opportunities
for meaningful public input. Some comments stated that additional,
early opportunities for public involvement, such as the planning
assessment and review of preliminary alternatives, were adequate
substitutions for formal comment periods on the draft resource
management plan. In response to these comments, the final rule will
expand the comment period for draft resource management plans to a
minimum of 100 days, which is 10 days longer than the existing minimum
comment period of 90 days (Sec. 1610.2-2(c)). The proposed rule also
would have reduced the minimum public comment period for plan
amendments when an environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared
from 90 days to 45 days. Many comments opposed that change as well, for
similar reasons. In response to these comments, the final rule will
change the comment period for draft EIS-level plan amendments to a
minimum of 60 days (Sec. 1610.2-2(b)), which is longer than the length
of the proposed comment period, but shorter than the length of the
existing comment period. The scope and complexity of EIS-level plan
amendments varies considerably, and the 60-day period will be
appropriate as a minimum for EIS-level plan amendments. The BLM retains
the discretion to extend the length of public comment periods or to
initially offer a longer public comment period, as appropriate.
A number of comments requested a provision in the rule providing an
opportunity to request a comment period extension, or a requirement of
an automatic extension when a plan was particularly long or complex.
The BLM has the discretion to extend the length of the minimum public
comment periods; however, due to the variation in issues, geographic
scope, and complexity, it is not appropriate to adopt a single standard
for comment period extensions in the final rule.
The BLM received several comments requesting that all opportunities
for public involvement, including the planning assessment, review of
preliminary alternatives, and the basis for analysis, be subject to a
formal comment period, and require the BLM to provide a formal comment
response. Some comments expressed concern that without formal comment
responses, it would not be clear to the public that the BLM considered
public comment during these steps. The final rule does not adopt these
recommendations. Although public involvement must meet the requirements
of Sec. 1610.2, the BLM recognizes that resource management plans and
plan amendments will vary based on factors such as complexity,
geographic scale, and budgets. Public notification and review will
provide additional transparency and an opportunity for the public to
provide feedback, but it is not appropriate to require a formal comment
period for each public involvement opportunity. The BLM generally
provides a formal comment period at steps when there is a complete
document available for review, such as a draft resource management
plan. The final rule adds opportunities for public involvement in the
development of these documents, which may take several forms, such as
public workshops or posting information on the web and inviting the
public to provide additional information. This will inform the
development of the draft resource management plan, and it will be made
available for a formal comment period. Section 1610.2(b) requires the
BLM to document public involvement activities by either a record or
summary of principle issues discussed and comments made, and make that
record or summary available to the public.
Consultation With Indian Tribes
The BLM received comments noting that the proposed rule did not
recognize the sovereign status of Indian tribes or address government-
to-government consultation with Indian tribes during
[[Page 89649]]
planning. Other comments raised concerns that a larger planning area
under the new rule could mean less meaningful tribal consultation and
potentially less influence by Indian tribes over BLM planning
decisions. Some comments raised concern that the BLM would no longer
consult with tribes in person and electronic means would replace the
current process.
In response to comments, the final rule is revised to include a new
section on tribal consultation (final Sec. 1610.3-1). This section
provides that the BLM will initiate consultation with Indian tribes on
a government-to-government basis during the preparation and amendment
of resource management plans. This section is added to the final rule
to reflect the fact that the BLM is required to initiate consultation
with affected Indian tribes during the planning process, and will
consult with any Indian tribes that choose to accept the BLM's request
for consultation, but the BLM cannot guarantee that an Indian tribe
will agree to consultation. This government-to-government consultation
shall be initiated regardless of an Indian tribe's status as a
cooperating agency or any on-going coordination with the Indian tribe.
Should an Indian tribe choose to participate as a cooperating agency or
to coordinate with the BLM, the BLM is still required to initiate
government-to-government consultation.
The final rule does not explicitly prescribe larger planning areas;
should future planning areas increase in size, however, the BLM will
continue to conduct meaningful consultation with Indian tribes,
including in person meetings. The BLM does not intend for electronic
means to replace current processes for consultation. The BLM
recognizes, however, that some Indian tribes may prefer electronic
communication such as email correspondence, and the BLM will employ
such communication techniques where they are helpful and appropriate.
Coordination With State, Tribal and Local Governments
The BLM received many comments regarding coordination with other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, as
provided in section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, as well as cooperating agency
status under NEPA.
Several comments expressed that the definition of and provisions
for cooperating agencies inappropriately restrict eligibility by saying
that cooperating agencies will participate ``as feasible and
appropriate given the scope of their expertise and constraints of their
resources'' (proposed Sec. Sec. 1601.0-5 and 1610.3-1(b)(2)). In
response to these comments, this language is removed from the
definition of cooperating agencies, and proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(2)
is revised to state that ``[t]he responsible official shall
collaborate, to the fullest extent possible, with all cooperating
agencies concerning those issues relating to their jurisdiction and
special expertise.'' These changes are consistent with the DOI NEPA
regulations which provide ``the lead bureau will collaborate, to the
fullest extent possible, with all cooperating agencies concerning those
issues relating to their jurisdiction and special expertise'' (43 CFR
46.230). Cooperating agencies must meet the requirements defined in
DOI's NEPA implementation regulations, 43 CFR 46.225(a), which includes
special expertise or jurisdiction by law. That section references the
Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA implementation regulations'
definition of special expertise (40 CFR 1508.26) and jurisdiction by
law (40 CFR 1508.15). These requirements apply to both Federal and non-
Federal governments, such as State, local, and tribal governments. The
BLM will continue to use these definitions to determine eligibility for
cooperating agencies. Eligible governmental entities are not required
to be cooperating agencies if they do not have sufficient resources;
therefore, the reference to ``constraints of their resources'' is not
appropriate.
Comments raised the concern that including the term ``eligible
governmental entity'' in the definition of ``cooperating agency'' in
Sec. 1601.0-5 will lead to confusion and potentially exclude some
government entities. The final rule is not revised in response to these
comments. The use of this term does not represent a change from
existing regulations. The term ``eligible governmental entity'' is used
in the existing definition of cooperating agencies and is defined in
the DOI NEPA regulations (Sec. 46.225(a)). The final rule adds a
reference to this definition in the DOI NEPA regulations to improve
clarity and understanding of this term. The BLM believes it is
appropriate for the planning regulations to use similar terminology as
the DOI NEPA regulations when defining cooperating agencies. Hence the
term ``eligible governmental entity'' is used in the final definition
of ``cooperating agency'' in Sec. 1601.0-5 and when describing what
entities can participate as cooperating agencies in final Sec. 1610.3-
2(b) of the final rule.
Several comments objected to the removal of the existing
requirement that field managers must inform the State Director of any
denials of a request to be a cooperating agency and requested that the
final rule retain the State Director's review. In response to these
public comments, the final rule includes a new paragraph requiring the
responsible official to consider a request by an eligible governmental
entity to participate as a cooperating agency and to inform the
deciding official of any denials. The deciding official shall determine
if the denial is appropriate and state the reasons for any denials in
the environmental impact statement (see Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(1)).
Several comments requested that the planning rule clarify
requirements for consultation with Indian tribes. Some comments
requested the BLM identify specific offices eligible for consultation,
such as Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. In response to these
comments, the final rule includes a new section titled ``[c]onsultation
with Indian tribes'' (Sec. 1610.3-1). This section states that the BLM
shall initiate consultation with Indian tribes on a government-to-
government basis during the preparation and amendment of resource
management plans. The final rule does not define consultation because
that term is defined in other regulations and guidance. These other
sources also outline the types of processes, how consultation may
inform decision making, and what information should be exchanged in
consultation. The methods of consultation and its content may vary by
particular circumstances. The rule also does not list all the types of
offices that are included under the consultation provisions because
this level of detail is not necessary in regulations. The BLM will
continue to consult with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers as
required under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Further, tribes are considered an ``eligible governmental entity''
under 43 CFR 46.225(a), and will be invited to participate as
cooperating agencies in the planning process in accordance with final
Sec. 1610.3-2(b). While a tribe may elect not to participate as a
cooperating agency, the BLM is still required to appropriately consult
and coordinate with tribes during the planning process in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 1610.3-1 and 1610.3-2, respectively.
The final rule 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
consult with ANCSA corporations during the preparation and amendment of
resource
[[Page 89650]]
management plans, consistent with DOI policy.
Many comments included support for the proposed requirement of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU), including its commitment to
confidentiality. These comments noted that confidential review affords
agencies the opportunity to identify and resolve conflicts without
creating public worry or confusion. The final rule adopts these
provisions with minor modifications (see proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)(1)
and final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(2)). Some comments recommended a
requirement to establish a separate MOU for the planning assessment.
The final rule does not adopt this recommendation because it is not
necessary. Final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(3) does not specify the length or
scope of the MOU for a cooperating agency relationship and includes
sufficient flexibility for the BLM and cooperating agencies to
establish multiple MOUs, if necessary, or to enter into an MOU that
includes only the planning assessment. The final rule does not address
the status of information provided to the BLM by cooperating agencies,
because this will be a case-by-case determination based on the MOU
agreement and any applicable State and Federal requirements, such as
the Freedom of Information Act.
Some comments suggested the BLM publish a Federal Register notice
inviting cooperating agencies to participate in the preparation of a
resource management plan. In response to public comments, the BLM will
publish a NOI in the Federal Register for all resource management plans
and plan amendments as described in final Sec. 1610.2-1(f), but does
not adopt the recommendation to publish a Federal Register notice
inviting cooperating agencies. The NOI will include the kind and extent
of public involvement activities to be provided, as known at the time,
as well as contact information for a BLM employee for further
information, including a request to participate as a cooperating
agency. The responsible official will invite cooperating agencies as
provided for in Sec. 1610.3-2(b) of the final rule. The BLM considers
these two provisions to be complimentary. The BLM will collaborate with
cooperating agencies as early as possible in the planning process.
Section 1610.3-2(b)(3) will include the steps of the planning process
for collaborating with cooperating agencies. The earliest step in this
section will be the planning assessment which occurs before publication
of the NOI.
Some comments recommended a requirement that a cooperating agency
MOU must be in place before the commencement of the planning
assessment. The final rule does not adopt this recommendation. Eligible
governmental entities have the option of entering into a MOU as
cooperating agencies under NEPA, but are not required to do so at any
specific point in the planning process. Creating a requirement for all
MOUs to be in place prior to the planning assessment would limit
eligible government entities from joining as cooperating agencies later
in the planning process when the scope of the planning effort is more
clearly defined. The BLM does not foresee any problems working with
eligible governmental entities without a MOU during the planning
assessment step since this step primarily involves information
gathering by the BLM. The BLM will not share confidential information
with other government entities without an MOU in place to maintain
confidentiality.
Many comments raised concerns that the proposed rule would limit
local governments to ``cooperator status'' by failing to provide for
``coordination status,'' which the comments state is required by FLPMA,
which would place an unfair burden on such governmental entities. The
final rule is not revised in response to these comments because
coordination requirements are already addressed in this rule. While the
BLM believes that cooperating agency status is a tool to achieve
coordination, the BLM recognizes that local governments may choose not
to participate as cooperating agencies for a variety of reasons such as
limited resources or confidentiality concerns. An eligible government
entity is not required to participate as a cooperating agency and under
the final rule the BLM must still coordinate with these governmental
entities, whether or not they choose to participate as a cooperating
agency under NEPA. The final rule includes a number of ways for
governmental entities, including local governments, to meaningfully
participate in the planning process outside of cooperating agency
status. Local governments are able to participate in the public
involvement opportunities described in Sec. 1610.2 of the final rule.
Additionally, final Sec. 1610.3-2(c) addresses the requirements for
coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
and Indian tribes, and these requirements apply independently of
cooperating agency status. The final rule adopts proposed changes to
more clearly distinguish the cooperating agency role from
``coordination'' and ``consistency'' requirements under FLPMA. Each of
these is covered by different paragraphs in final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2
and 1610.3-3. In final Sec. 1610.3-2, paragraph (b) covers cooperating
agencies and paragraph (c) covers coordination requirements. Final
Sec. 1610.3-3 covers consistency requirements. By separating these
provisions, the BLM believes that the final rule sufficiently
identifies the distinction between these roles under FLPMA and NEPA.
Some comments recommended the final rule make formal coordination
mandatory during the planning assessment. It is important to note that
coordination is already mandatory during the planning assessment. Final
Sec. 1610.4(b)(3) requires the BLM to ``[p]rovide opportunities for
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and
the public to provide existing data and information or suggest other
laws, regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans.'' In
response to public comments, the final rule includes additional
language regarding coordination during the planning assessment, stating
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with the laws governing the
administration of the public lands and as appropriate, inventory data
and information shall be gathered or assembled in coordination with the
land use planning and management programs of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes within which the lands
are located'' (Sec. 1610.4(b)(1)). This language is consistent with
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
Several comments raised concerns that individual notification
requirements for State and local governments are insufficient as they
only require the BLM to provide affirmative individual notification to
those that have requested to be notified or that the BLM has reason to
believe would be interested in the planning effort. Comments requested
the final rule require notification of all affected State and local
governments. The final rule is not revised in response to these
comments. This provision does not represent a substantive change from
existing regulations, which require the BLM to provide notice to
governmental entities ``that have requested such notices or that the
responsible line manager has reason to believe would be concerned with
the plan or amendment'' (existing Sec. 1610.3-1(e)). The final rule
clarifies this requirement slightly by replacing ``concerned with''
with ``interested in.'' Interest in the
[[Page 89651]]
resource management plan includes ``concern,'' but also includes a
broader range of interest. The wording of the final rule is necessary
to avoid providing an unreasonable ``guarantee'' that the BLM will be
able to identify, find contact information for, and contact all
affected governmental entities. However, the BLM will continue its
current practices and commitment to notifying State and local
governments and will endeavor to contact all affected governmental
entities to the best of our ability. Additionally, the BLM believes
that public notification requirements will provide an additional
opportunity for government entities to become aware of resource
management plans and plan amendments.
In addition, the BLM will post a list on its Web site of the status
of each resource management plan in process or scheduled to be started
by the end of each fiscal year under Sec. 1610.2(c). Interested
members of the public, including governmental entities, may review that
list for information on upcoming plans in advance of the BLM beginning
notification for public involvement, and may request to be notified of
public involvement opportunities. Additionally, in response to public
comment, final Sec. 1610.2-1(c) is revised such that the ``responsible
official shall identify additional forms of notification to reach local
communities located within the planning area, as appropriate.'' This
provision addresses concerns about local governments that may not be
reached by notices in the Federal Register or through online
notifications.
Consistency With State, Tribal, and Local Government Plans
The BLM received many comments regarding requirements under FLPMA
for BLM resource management plans to be consistent with State and local
government plans (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). Several comments raised
concerns that the proposed rule departs from FLPMA's coordination and
consistency requirements. In response to public comments, final Sec.
1610.3-3 is revised in several ways, as described in the following
paragraphs.
Several comments raised concerns that the proposed rule would
provide the BLM more discretion regarding consistency with State and
local plans than is afforded by FLPMA. In response to comments, final
Sec. 1610.3-3(a) is revised to state that ``resource management plans
shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted plans of other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes 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.'' Because of its obligations under FLPMA and other Federal
law, the BLM cannot always ensure consistency. The BLM will achieve
consistency to the maximum extent 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. Based on public comment, the final rule removes
``practical'' from the phrase ``practical and consistent'' in this
paragraph. It is important to note that statements in the final rule
that the BLM will coordinate to the extent consistent with the laws
governing the administration of the public lands (e.g., final Sec.
1610.4(b)(1)) do not preclude the BLM from satisfying its requirements
for coordination and consistency under final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2 and
1610.3-3. Similarly, the final rule's additional opportunities for
public involvement in the planning process do not eliminate or alter
the BLM's obligations for coordination and consistency.
A few comments stated that proposed changes to Sec. 1610.3-2 would
omit FLPMA consistency requirements pertaining to compliance with
pollution control laws, ``including State and Federal air, water,
noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans. . . .''
The final rule is not revised in response to these comments because
this language is not necessary. Resource management plans must comply
with Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by
applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution
standards or implementation plans. It is unnecessary to identify all
relevant laws the BLM must abide by in the regulations, as the BLM is
required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The final
rule removes existing Sec. 1610.3-2(b), which references Federal and
State pollution control laws, because the BLM believes that final Sec.
1610.3-3(a)'s requirement that resource management plans be consistent
with ``officially approved or adopted plans of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes'' includes pollution
control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water,
noise, and other pollution standards and implementation plans. Although
FLPMA specifically references pollution control laws (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)(8)), the BLM believes that such laws are appropriately
encompassed by the requirements of final Sec. 1610.3-3(a). The BLM
does not intend a change to current policy or practice as a result of
this change, and will continue to comply with applicable pollution
control laws.
Several comments objected to language providing that consistency
requirements would only apply to the ``officially approved and adopted
land use plans'' of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes (see proposed Sec. Sec. 1610.0-5 and
1610.3-2). Comments stated that this language exceeds the statutory
requirements of FLPMA, which refers only to ``plans.'' In response to
public comments, the final rule does not adopt the words ``land use''
in this phrase. The BLM acknowledges that other types of resource-
related plans, such as a State wildlife plans, are relevant to resource
management planning conducted by the BLM and should be included during
consistency review. The final rule also revises the definition of an
``officially approved and adopted plan'' to specify that these are
``resource-related'' plans instead of ``land use'' plans (Sec. 1610.0-
5).
The term ``officially approved and adopted,'' however, is contained
in existing regulation and is retained in the final rule. The
definition of this term in the final rule describes it as a plan that
is prepared and approved pursuant to and in accordance with
authorization provided by Federal, State, and tribal, or local
constitutions, legislation, or charters which have the force and effect
of law (Sec. 1601.0-5). Final Sec. 1610.3-2 provides a mechanism to
address potential inconsistencies with plans and policies that are not
officially approved or adopted, or plans that are under development,
but not yet approved or adopted.
Similarly, several comments expressed concern that the proposed
rule would inappropriately limit the BLM's consistency requirements by
removing the requirement for BLM resource management plans to be
consistent with the ``policies, programs, and processes'' of State and
local governments. In response to these comments, the final rule will
instead adopt a new objective of coordination for the BLM to ``keep
apprised of the plans, policies and management programs of other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes'' (see
final Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(1)). The BLM will continue to coordinate with
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes
throughout the planning process, which will include consideration of
plans, policies, and management programs.
[[Page 89652]]
However, the consistency requirements in final Sec. 1610.3-3 only
apply to officially approved and adopted plans. This is consistent with
FLPMA, which requires that resource management plans be consistent with
State and local plans to the maximum extent the Secretary finds
consistent with Federal law and the purposes of the FLPMA (see 43
U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). It would be inappropriate to establish consistency
requirements for ``policies and programs'' because they do not
constitute a formal decision regarding resource management.
Many comments expressed concern that the proposed rule would place
the burden on State and local governments to notify BLM of
inconsistencies. Comments expressed that it is the BLM's responsibility
to identify inconsistencies, not that of State and local governments.
The final rule is not revised in response to these comments. Final
Sec. 1610.3-3(a)(2) will carry forward the existing provision that the
BLM is not required to address the consistency requirements of this
section if the responsible official has not been notified, in writing,
by Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Indian tribes of
an apparent inconsistency. This is an existing requirement, and
therefore does not represent a change in policy. Although the BLM
believes that the coordination and cooperation provisions of the final
rule will help the BLM to identify apparent inconsistencies early in
the process, and the BLM will do so to the best of its ability, we
cannot guarantee that all apparent inconsistencies are identified and
responded to if the BLM is not notified of inconsistencies.
The requirements for consistency contained in final Sec. 1610.3-3,
however, do not represent the only opportunity to identify and remedy
inconsistencies during the planning process. The BLM believes that the
opportunities for coordination will address the majority of
inconsistencies prior to the publication of a proposed resource
management plan. Coordination, as described in Sec. 1610.3-2 of the
final rule, provides the BLM with a way to identify and address
potential inconsistencies with other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and tribes throughout the duration of the planning
process. Final Sec. 1610.3-2(a) states that the objectives of
coordination include the BLM keeping apprised of the plans, policies,
and management programs of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes and assisting in resolving, to the
extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal
government plans. In addition, as part of information gathering during
the planning assessment, final Sec. 1610.4(b)(2) requires the BLM to
identify relevant national, regional, State, tribal, or local laws,
regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans for consideration
in the planning assessment.
The Governor's consistency review in Sec. 1610.3-3(b) provides an
additional opportunity to meet consistency requirements by affording
the Governor an opportunity to identify any remaining inconsistencies
with the proposed resource management plan and work with the BLM to
address these inconsistencies. Several comments raised concerns that
the burden of identifying inconsistencies for all State and local plans
would be placed solely on the Governor. Some comments requested a
similar consistency review for other governmental entities, such as
local governments. The final rule is not revised in response to these
comments. The burden of identifying inconsistencies is not placed
solely on Governors. Through coordination, the BLM will make a good
faith effort to identify and address inconsistencies throughout the
planning process; this is addressed under the objectives of
coordination (Sec. 1610.3-2(a)). Coordination and the work of
identifying inconsistencies is a shared responsibility, and the final
rule reflects this. For example, Sec. 1610.3-3(b) of the final rule
states that the deciding official shall submit to the Governor of the
State(s) involved, the proposed resource management plan or plan
amendment and shall identify any relevant known inconsistencies with
the officially approved and adopted plans of State and local
governments. In turn, the Governor may submit a written document within
the 60-day consistency review period that identifies inconsistencies.
Additionally, final Sec. 1610.3-3(b)(3) states that the responsible
official will collaborate, to the fullest extent possible, with all
cooperating agencies throughout the planning process. Early
coordination as outlined in the final rule will help to identify
potential inconsistencies early in the planning process in compliance
with FLPMA.
Several comments expressed that the proposed rule inappropriately
limits the Governor's consistency review to inconsistencies between BLM
resource management plans and State and local plans. The final rule is
not revised in response to these comments. The Governor may raise other
concerns and the BLM will consider these concerns and, as appropriate,
work with the Governor to seek resolution; however, consistency
requirements under FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9) and this final rule (see
Sec. 1610.3-3(a)) only apply to consistency between BLM resource
management plans and State and local plans.
Many comments objected to the proposed removal of the requirement
that, if the Governor appeals the BLM State Director's decision, the
BLM Director must accept the Governor's recommendations if doing so
provides for an appropriate balance between State and Federal interests
(see existing Sec. 1610.3-2(e)). The final rule adopts the proposal to
remove the existing language requiring the BLM Director to accept
recommendations if it is determined that such recommendations ``provide
for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State's
interest.'' Instead, the final rule will state that the BLM Director
``shall consider the Governor(s)' comments and the consistency
requirements of this section in rendering a final decision'' (Sec.
1610.3-3(b)(4)(ii)). In response to public comments, the final rule is
revised to include a requirement that the BLM Director consider ``the
consistency requirements of this section,'' which includes the
requirement that resource management plans must be consistent with
officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes ``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'' (Sec. 1610.3-
3(a)).
The BLM believes the existing language is misleading in regards to
BLM's obligations and does not reflect the broader range of
considerations that must apply. When considering the Governor's
recommendations, the Director must consider whether the recommendations
are consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other Federal laws and
regulations. The BLM Director must also consider whether the BLM has
achieved consistency ``to the maximum extent,'' subject to the
qualifications of Sec. 1610.3-3.
Several comments asserted that proposed Sec. 1610.3-2(b) (final
Sec. 1610.3-3(b)) improperly bypasses local governments by attempting
to satisfy consistency requirements through Governors. Final Sec.
1610.3-3(b) does not bypass local governments, but rather provides the
Governor, as the highest elected representative of the State, a final
opportunity to identify, discuss, and remedy any relevant
[[Page 89653]]
inconsistencies between State and local plans prior to the approval of
a resource management plan. Further, the Governor's consistency review
does not replace the BLM's requirements for coordination and
consistency under final Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2 and 1610.3-3. The BLM
recognizes that counties may have officially approved and adopted plans
that are relevant to the planning process. Such plans would not be
excluded from consistency review.
Several comments stated that the proposed rule limits opportunities
to coordinate with local governments early in the planning process and
recommended that the BLM provide preliminary consistency review periods
at the planning assessment and draft environmental impact statement
stages. The final rule does not incorporate formal consistency reviews
at earlier stages of the planning process, as a formal review prior to
availability of a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment
would be premature. Requirements for consistency will be achieved
primarily through coordination with Federal, State, local, and tribal
governments throughout the planning process, as outlined in final Sec.
1610.3-2, and detailed in the preamble discussion of that section.
Finally, the final rule increases transparency and opportunities for
public involvement, which will provide local governments an opportunity
to participate and raise concerns related to consistency, in addition
to the opportunities in final Sec. 1610.3-2.
Planning Assessment
Many comments expressed broad support for the planning assessment.
Some comments stated that the addition of the planning assessment step,
if based on the best available scientific information and other high-
quality information, would be a valuable tool for understanding a
planning area's current baseline resource, environmental, ecological,
social, and economic conditions. Several comments expressed support for
new opportunities for public involvement, including early opportunities
for stakeholders to provide important, relevant baseline information
before the BLM identifies planning issues and formulates resource
management alternatives. Other comments expressed concern or were
unsupportive of the planning assessment, stating that it would
represent a major policy shift from the current planning process. Some
of these comments asserted that the planning assessment creates more
steps and analysis for an already long and confusing process. Other
comments asserted that the planning assessment and the many factors the
BLM must consider when conducting it, shift focus from resources,
multiple use, and sustained yield to ``value-based'' decision-making.
After consideration of public comments, the final rule adopts the
proposed planning assessment (Sec. 1610.4), with some minor
modifications. Although the planning assessment does represent a new
step prior to initiating the preparation of a resource management plan,
this does not represent a major policy shift from the current planning
process, as the planning assessment replaces the existing ``analysis of
the management situation'' (see existing Sec. 1610.4-4) and the BLM is
required to describe the ``affected environment'' for a resource
management plan under CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.15). The BLM
believes that new requirements under the planning assessment, such as
opportunities for public involvement, will provide valuable information
for the preparation of a resource management plan, and therefore are
appropriate for inclusion in the final rule. Further, the planning
assessment provides baseline information on resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic conditions, all of which are needed to
support management on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.
The planning assessment does not represent a shift to ``value-based
decision-making'' as no decisions are contemplated or made during the
planning assessment.
Many comments asserted that the planning assessment phase does not
allow for meaningful coordination opportunities which could lead to a
lack of consistency with State and local plans. Other comments stated
that the planning rule does not adequately address the FLPMA
requirement for the BLM to ``coordinate the land use inventory . . .
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'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). Some comments
asserted that the planning assessment treats State and local
governments as members of the public rather than as agencies with which
the BLM must coordinate under FLPMA. In response to these comments, the
final rule includes a new requirement that ``[t]o the extent consistent
with the laws governing the administration of the public lands and as
appropriate, inventory data and information shall be gathered or
assembled in coordination with the land use planning and management
programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes within which the lands are located'' (Sec.
1610.4(b)(1)). This new language highlights the existing requirement
under FLPMA to coordinate inventory, and promotes a more efficient
planning process by ensuring that the BLM does not duplicate data
collection efforts with other governmental entities.
The final rule also adopts the proposed requirement that the BLM
``[p]rovide opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, and the public to provide existing data and
information or suggest other laws, regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans'' (Sec. 1610.4(b)(3)). This provides an important
step for the BLM to coordinate with State and local governments on data
and information, as well as any State and local laws, regulations,
policies, guidance, strategies, or plans that are germane to the
resource management plan. This coordination also provides an important
early step to avoid inconsistencies between the resource management
plan and State and local ``plans, policies, and management programs''
(see Sec. Sec. 1610.3-2(a)(1) and (a)(2)).
Final Sec. 1610.4(b)(3) also includes a requirement for the BLM to
provide opportunities for the public to provide existing data and
information or suggest other laws, regulations, policies, guidance,
strategies, or plans. This provision does not diminish the coordination
requirements with State and local governments; it simply adds an
opportunity for the public to identify these items. Rather, the
inclusion of this requirement reflects the fact that, under NEPA, the
BLM must consider substantive comments related to data and information
submitted during the comment period on a draft EIS. Rather than waiting
until the draft resource management plan is developed, the
identification of this information upfront, whether from a government
entity or the public, during the planning assessment will provide for a
more efficient planning process. Further, the BLM recognizes that a
member of the public may be aware of best available scientific
information, such as a peer-reviewed research publication, and this
information should be brought to the BLM's attention as early as
possible.
A few comments noted that the planning rule does not mention
economic or ``commodity'' resources, such as minerals, forest products,
grazing, or other resource uses. One comment noted that valid existing
rights are not addressed in the planning
[[Page 89654]]
assessment. Many comments opposed the absence of ``uses'' in ``the
various goods and services that people obtain from the planning area''
(proposed Sec. 1610.4(c)(7)). Comments asserted that the exclusion of
``uses'' eliminates the multiple use and ``major uses'' principles of
FLPMA and implies an effort to avoid or minimize these uses in future
resource management plans.
The final rule does not eliminate the multiple use and ``major
uses'' principles of FLPMA and does not represent an effort to avoid or
minimize these uses in future resource management plans. In response to
public comments, the following revisions are made to the final rule.
Final Sec. 1610.4(d)(5) is revised to include ``areas with known
mineral potential'' and ``areas with known potential for producing
forest products, including timber.'' Final Sec. 1610.4(d)(7) is
revised to clarify that the responsible official will consider and
document ``[t]he various goods, services, and uses that people obtain
from the planning area, such as ecological services, domestic livestock
grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral
exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and
timber production.'' And finally, final Sec. 1610.4(d)(2) is revised
to include ``known valid existing rights.''
Many public comments objected to the provision allowing the
deciding official to waive the planning assessment for minor amendments
or if an existing planning assessment is determined to be adequate, for
a variety of reasons. Some comments stated that the term ``minor
amendments'' is vague. Other comments supported the waiver in some
situations. In response to public comments, the final rule does not
adopt the proposed language allowing for a ``waiver'' if an existing
planning assessment is determined to be adequate. In the case when an
existing assessment provides the needed information to inform the
planning process, the responsible official will identify those parts of
the existing assessment that are pertinent to the geographic area being
identified and the issues to be addressed. This information, along with
any new information, will be incorporated into the planning assessment
for the plan amendment and made available for public review. The final
rule retains the deciding official's discretion to waive the
requirements of this paragraph for minor amendments, however, because
the BLM believes there are situations for minor amendments where a
planning assessment would not add value to the planning process and
these situations need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In response to comments, this language is revised to provide that
the responsible official may waive this requirement for ``project-
specific or other minor amendments.'' Minor amendments are intended to
mean those that are small in scope or scale. The most common type of
minor amendments for which the BLM prepares an EIS are project-specific
amendments, such as a solar energy development project, in which the
amendment only addresses a small portion of a resource management plan
or a single plan component, but the project itself requires the
preparation of an EIS. In these situations, a planning assessment may
not add value to the amendment process and could unnecessarily delay
the amendment process; the responsible official will have the
discretion to assess whether the preparation of a planning assessment
is necessary in these situations. Other types of ``minor amendments''
will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and this rule provides the
BLM the flexibility and discretion to make such assessments.
Preparation of a Resource Management Plan
Many of the comments on the preparation of a resource management
plan (Sec. Sec. 1610.5 to 1610.5-5) raised concerns or expressed
support for the provisions regarding public involvement and cooperation
and coordination. The concerns raised in these comments are summarized
in previous paragraphs.
Several comments suggested that the BLM make the preliminary
statement of purpose and need available for public comment. The final
rule is not revised in response to these comments. The final rule
adopts the proposed requirement to make the preliminary statement of
purpose and need available for public review (Sec. 1610.5-1(a)). The
public may provide input on the statement and the BLM will consider
this input when developing a draft statement of purpose and need.
Several comments stated that the BLM should accept citizen-proposed
alternatives. One comment raised concerns that the BLM would develop
the preliminary alternatives before the public had an opportunity to
suggest alternatives. The final rule does not adopt a specific
provision to solicit citizen-proposed alternatives. The final rule does
not change the BLM's requirement under the CEQ NEPA regulations to
analyze a range of alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14). If a citizen-
submitted alternative meets the criteria in Sec. 1610.5-2(a)(1), then
it could be considered as an alternative or a sub-alternative, or
incorporated into an existing alternative. Although the final rule does
not have a specific step to solicit citizen-proposed alternatives, the
public involvement opportunities early in the planning process,
including as part of the planning assessment, the preliminary statement
of purpose and need, identification of the planning issues, and
development of preliminary alternatives, will provide the public
opportunities to provide input on the range of alternatives they
believe should be considered. The public will also have an opportunity
to review the preliminary range of alternatives and inform the BLM if
they believe a reasonable alternative is not being considered.
Several comments expressed support for the preliminary
alternatives, as this step creates greater transparency. Some public
comments requested that the BLM provide notices and disclose changes
made to the preliminary alternatives, the preliminary rationale for
alternatives, and the basis for analysis. In response to public
comment, the final rule includes a requirement that a description of
changes made to the preliminary alternatives, preliminary rationale for
alternatives, and the basis for analysis shall be made available to the
public in the draft resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.5-4). This
description is not intended to identify each and every change made to
these preliminary documents; rather it will summarize how the public
involvement activities or other new information informed the
development of the draft resource management plan.
Several comments expressed concern with the BLM's ability to
identify multiple preferred alternatives, stating that this is a
departure from longstanding practice, and that it would create
confusion or uncertainty, and would make public review more cumbersome.
The final rule is not revised in response to these comments. The final
rule language to acknowledge ``one or more'' preferred alternatives is
adopted to make the planning regulations more consistent with the DOI
NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46.425(a)). The BLM anticipates that selecting
more than one preferred alternatives will not be the norm for resource
management planning, and the BLM will have the discretion to extend
public comment periods on a case-by-case basis if it is determined that
the extension will benefit the resource management planning process.
[[Page 89655]]
Resource Management Plan Approval, Implementation and Modification
The BLM received comments in support of, and opposed to the
proposed revision to allow the BLM to accept protests electronically. A
few comments supported the proposal to make protests and responses
available to the public and suggested that the BLM promptly post all
protests and related responses, whether requested or not, on its Web
site for public access. While the BLM expects to post protests to its
Web site, the final rule is not revised to require the BLM to post all
protests. Such a requirement would not be practical to implement if the
BLM were to receive a substantial number of hard-copy protest
submissions. The final rule instead provides the BLM flexibility to
determine the best timing and methods to share protest information.
A few comments requested revisions to proposed Sec. 1610.6-2(a)(4)
to allow the BLM to withhold certain private and confidential
information submitted in a protest that is, or could be, exempt from
disclosure under other laws or regulations. In response to these
comments, the final rule is revised to include language stating that
the BLM Director will withhold any protected information that is exempt
from disclosure under applicable laws or regulations.
A few comments requested that the BLM expand the eligibility
requirements for protest submissions by accepting protests from members
of the public who may not have participated previously in the planning
process due to the fact that several years may pass between the release
of a draft resource management plan and the proposed resource
management plan. Several other comments expressed concern that the
requirement that a protest identify the associated issue or issues
raised during the preparation of the resource management plan or plan
amendment would preclude protests on issues that were not disclosed to
the public until the publication of the proposed resource management
plan. The BLM recognizes that changes may occur between the release of
the draft resource management plan and the proposed resource management
plan. However, the final rule is not revised to accept this
recommendation, as the current standing requirement is written to
ensure that individuals do not use the protest process to raise issues
that could have been raised during previous public involvement
opportunities, and to recognize that the protest period is not a public
comment period. However, in recognition of the potential for changes
between the draft and proposed resource management plan, final Sec.
1610.6-2(a) is revised to include new language stating that a protest
may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during
the preparation of the resource management plan or plan amendment
``unless the protest concerns an issue that arose after the close of
the opportunity for public comment on the draft resource management
plan.'' This change in the final rule is made throughout the
subparagraphs of Sec. 1610.6-2(a) and clarifies that if an issue
arises after the close of the formal public comment period on a draft
resource management plan, the public may submit a protest regarding
that issue. This exclusion only applies to issues that did not exist
when the draft resource management plan was available for public
comment, and therefore the public could not comment on the issue.
Many comments asserted that the proposed rule limited the ability
to protest by imposing tedious formatting requirements and narrowing
protest criteria to ``component(s) believed to be inconsistent with
Federal laws or regulations applicable to public lands, or the
purposes, policies, and programs of such laws and regulations.'' The
final rule is not revised in response to these comments. Protest
criteria identified in final Sec. 1610.6-2(a)(3)(iii) are consistent
with other adopted changes in the final rule, such as the adoption of
planning components in Sec. 1610.1-2, and focus protests on potential
inconsistencies with Federal laws or regulations or the purposes,
policies, and programs implementing such laws and regulations. The
protest period is not intended as a second public comment period;
rather, it is intended to remedy inconsistencies with Federal laws and
regulations prior to the approval of the resource management plan or
plan amendment. The BLM does not believe that the required information
represents a barrier to protest, rather, it ensures that the BLM has
adequate information to make a decision on protests.
One comment stated that the explicit authority of the Director to
approve portions of a resource management plan not subject to a protest
during protest resolution should be made more clear in the final
planning rule. In response to this comment, the final rule adopts a
statement at Sec. 1610.6-2(b), stating ``[a]pproval will be withheld
on any portion of a resource management plan or plan amendment until
final action has been completed on such protest.'' Many comments stated
that the final rule should require the Director to briefly explain why
a protest does not meet the requirements of Sec. 1610.6-2. In response
to this comment, final Sec. 1610.6-2(c) has been modified to state
that the Director shall notify the protesting parties of a dismissal
and provide reasons for the dismissal.
A few comments requested that the protest period be extended from
30 days to 60 days. The final rule is not revised based on this
request. The 30-day protest period is an existing requirement, and does
not represent a change in practice or policy.
Several comments included requests that the BLM adopt language in
Sec. 1610.6-4 requiring the BLM to adopt an adaptive management
structure. The final rule is not revised in response to these comments.
As explained in the preamble discussion of Sec. 1610.1-3, the
measurable objectives and use of monitoring and evaluation will guide
adaptive management strategies to help manage for uncertainty. However,
the specific application of adaptive management principles depends on
the unique circumstances of each planning effort, and it is not
appropriate to prescribe how those principles will be applied in the
final rule.
Several comments suggested that Sec. 1610.6-4 include a review of
the objectives as part of monitoring and evaluation. The final rule is
revised to state that monitoring and evaluation is used to determine
whether the resource management plan objectives are being met; and
whether there is relevant new information or other sufficient cause to
warrant consideration of amendment or revision of the resource
management plan.
Several public comments suggested that the BLM should have the
discretion to rely on other agencies' resource assessments. In response
to public comment, the final rule includes a new Sec. 1610.6-8(c),
which provides that another agency's resource assessment may be relied
on if it is consistent with the nature, scope, and scale of the issues
of concern relevant to the planning area and has considered the
resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions in
a way comparable to the manner in which these conditions would have
been considered in a planning assessment, including the opportunity for
public involvement, and is consistent with Federal laws and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and regulations. For example, the BLM could rely
on an assessment developed by the United States Forest Service during
the development of a land management plan, should it meet these
requirements.
[[Page 89656]]
Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
Several comments objected to the proposed removal of the
requirement to publish a Federal Register notice and 60-day public
comment period for proposed ACECs. In response to public comment, the
final rule is revised to require that when a draft resource management
plan or plan amendment involves possible designation of one or more
potential ACECs, the BLM shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
and request written comments on the designations under consideration.
The final rule further provides that this step may be integrated with
the notice and comment period for the draft resource management plan or
plan amendment (see Sec. Sec. 1610.2-2(d) and 1610.8-2(b)(1)). This
comment period will be at least 30 days long, in accordance with Sec.
1610.2-2(a) of the final rule, and will be longer when it is integrated
with the comment period for draft EIS-level amendments (at least 60
days) and draft resource management plans (at least 100 days). Either
resource management plans or plan amendments can consider potential
ACECs for designation consistent with the priority established by FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1712-(c)(3)). After careful consideration, BLM believes that
a 30-day comment period will generally be adequate for EA-level plan
amendments that include ACECs, such as revising the boundary of an
existing ACEC after the acquisition of an adjoining parcel; however,
BLM may extend the comment period if warranted.
Some comments expressed concern that language in the proposed rule
would not allow identification of potential ACECs later in the process
as new resources are identified, or in between planning process. Other
comments objected to identifying potential ACECs during the planning
assessment, or outside of the preparation of a resource management
plan. The final rule is not revised in response to these comments. The
final rule retains the requirement to identify potential ACECs through
inventory of public lands and during the planning process (see Sec.
1610.8-2(a)). The identification of potential ACECs is an inventory
process required under FLPMA which states that an inventory of all
public lands and their resources and other values, shall be prepared
and maintained on a continuing basis, giving priority to ACECs (43
U.S.C. 1711(a)). The final rule establishes procedures for inventory of
the public lands during the planning assessment at Sec. Sec.
1610.4(b)(1) and 1610.4(d)(5)(vii), therefore it is appropriate that an
inventory of potential ACECs occur during the planning assessment.
Inventory and assessment can be conducted at any point in time,
however, and not just at times associated with a plan amendment or
resource management plan. Potential ACECs may be identified after the
planning assessment is completed, such as during public scoping, and
the BLM will consider these potential ACECs for designation in the
draft resource management plan. It is important to note that the
identification of a potential ACEC does not constitute formal
designation of an ACEC. Designation of an ACEC occurs through the
approval of a resource management plan, consistent with existing
regulation (see final Sec. 1610.8-2(b)(1)). Under the final rule, an
ACEC is not designated during the planning assessment.
Some commenters expressed that ACECs are inappropriately given
special treatment in the rule. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. FLPMA provides that the BLM shall give
priority to the inventory, designation, and protection of ACECs (43
U.S.C. 1711(a) and 1712(c)(3)). The procedures described in final Sec.
1610.8-2 are similar to the existing rule, but are modified slightly
for clarification, to promote efficiency, and to better align with
FLPMA. The final rule at Sec. 1610.8-2 provides the process for the
identification, designation and protection of ACECs through the
planning process, consistent with the priority established in FLPMA.
Several comments objected to the proposed removal of language
stating that an ACEC generally contains values that are of ``more than
local significance'' (existing Sec. 1610.7-2(a)(2)). Other comments
expressed support for this proposed change. In response to public
comments, the final rule removes this existing language. The BLM
believes that this existing language is not appropriate in the
regulations because it does not accurately describe the existing
criteria for importance that an area ``must have substantial
significance and values.'' There are many examples where an area of
local significance would meet the importance criteria for substantial
significance and values, including a cultural site of substantial
significance to local tribes; a wetland that provides critical water
filtration services to a local community; or key habitat for an endemic
wildlife species. The removal of this language does not represent a
substantive change in these regulations, as this language does not
represent a requirement under the existing regulations; rather it
provided an example of what generally meets the ``importance''
criteria.
A few comments suggested that the last sentence in proposed Sec.
1610.8-2(b) should be deleted, or the word potential removed, as this
sentences suggests that the existence of a potential ACEC requires the
BLM to provide special management to the area. Comments noted that
FLPMA defines ACECs ``as areas within the public lands where special
management is required . . .'' but contains no language regarding
``potential'' ACECs or their management. In response to these comments,
the word ``potential'' is removed from the last sentence of Sec.
1610.8-2(b) to clarify that only designated ACECs (not ``potential''
ACECs) require special management attention.
Several comments stated that the final rule should include language
to give priority to ACECs in the final rule. Comments noted that FLPMA
directs BLM to give priority to ACECs, and this priority is a unique
directive in multiple use land management law which requires the BLM to
do more than simply ``consider'' potential ACECs. In response to public
comment, the final rule is revised at Sec. 1610.8-2(b) to state that
potential ACECs shall be considered for designation during the
preparation or amendment of a resource management plan ``consistent
with the priority established by FLPMA.'' The BLM must comply with
FLPMA, regardless of these regulations; therefore, a restatement of
FLPMA is not necessary in the regulations. The BLM, however, recognizes
the value in restating statutory direction in the planning regulations
to provide context on the relationship between the regulations and
overarching statutory direction. This does not represent a substantive
change in BLM policy; rather, it provides context that the BLM must
consider ACECs for designation consistent with the statutory direction
provided in FLPMA.
Some comments asserted that revisions to the ACEC provisions
attempt to change the process and intent of FLPMA under the guise of
trying to make it more readable. Comments stated that the final rule
needs to ensure the use of the ACEC designation is in accordance with
FLPMA and the intent of Congress. The final rule is not revised in
response to these comments. The final rule does not significantly
change the process for designating ACECs or the intent of ACECs from
the existing regulations. Where changes are made to the existing
regulations, the changes are disclosed and a rationale provided in the
discussion of Sec. 1610.8-2 in this
[[Page 89657]]
preamble. The definition of an ACEC and the process for designating
ACECs, as described in the final rule, are consistent with FLPMA.
Several comments requested that the BLM ensure that ACECs are not
managed as a substitute for wilderness, or used as a substitute for
wilderness suitability recommendations. Comments noted that BLM Manual
1613 (1988) states that ``an ACEC designation will not be used as a
substitute for wilderness suitability recommendations.'' The final rule
is not revised in response to these comments. ACECs will be identified,
designated, and managed in accordance with FLPMA and applicable policy,
including this final rule. Such areas may not be used as a substitute
for wilderness areas or wilderness suitability recommendations.
Climate Change
Several comments suggested that the planning rule should require
each resource management plan and plan amendment to analyze climate
change and provide for climate adaptation. The final rule is not
revised in response to these comments to prescribe specific
requirements related to climate change. The BLM's planning rule
addresses the impacts of BLM decisions on climate change through the
NEPA process. Section 1610.5-3(b) of the final rule provides that the
estimation of effects for resource management plans shall be ``guided
by the basis for analysis, the planning assessment, and procedures
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.'' This analysis
includes implementation of current policy on climate change analysis
under NEPA, as appropriate. It is not necessary to provide duplicative
regulatory guidance in the planning rule.
It is also important to note that the planning regulations
establish the procedural framework for preparing and amending resource
management plans, but they do not prescribe specific management
outcomes. The BLM, through the land use planning process, will develop
plan components to address desired management outcomes within the
planning area. The BLM will consider relevant resource management
concerns, such as climate change and the need for climate change
adaptation, when assessing the baseline condition, trend, and potential
future condition and when identifying the planning issues for any given
resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.5-1). The planning issues will
be informed by, among other things, the planning assessment, and will
in turn inform the development of the plan components. Final Sec.
1610.4(b)(2) requires that, as part of the planning assessment, the BLM
``identify relevant national, regional, State, tribal, or local laws,
regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans for consideration
in the planning assessment.'' We believe that this is the appropriate
place to consider relevant policies such as Federal or Departmental
climate change policies.
Goals of Planning 2.0
The BLM received comments both in support of, and opposed to, the
goals of Planning 2.0. The BLM also received comments stating both that
the revisions to the existing rule did not support the Planning 2.0
goals, and comments stating that the revisions did support those goals.
The BLM has retained the goals of Planning 2.0 in the final rule,
with minor edits. The BLM believes these goals respond to the
increasing challenges that the BLM faces in managing for multiple-use
and sustained yield on public lands, and to recent Executive and
Secretarial direction. For more information, please see the Background
discussion to this preamble.
Length of Public Comment Period for the Proposed Planning Rule
The BLM initially provided a 60-day public comment period on the
proposed planning rule and made the rule available to the public two-
weeks prior to the formal start of the comment period. Many comments
requested that the BLM extend the comment period for up to 240 days. In
response, the BLM granted a 30-day extension of the public comment
period. Additional comments requested that the BLM further extend the
comment period for up to 270 days. The BLM did not further extend the
comment period. ``Executive Order 13563--Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' published on January 21, 2011, directs Federal
agencies to ``afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment
through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period
that should generally be at least 60 days'' and the BLM has provided
such opportunity. Several comments also requested that the BLM hold
public hearings across the western United States. The BLM held webinars
on March 21, 2016, and April 13, 2016, as well as a public meeting
broadcast live over the Internet on March 25, 2016. Recordings of all
webinars and meetings were posted to the BLM Web site and the public
was provided an email address to submit any additional questions. The
BLM did not hold public hearings on the proposed rule across the
western United States because the BLM provided opportunities for remote
public participation in webinars and meetings over the Internet and
through email.
Level of NEPA Analysis for the Planning Rule
The BLM made a preliminary categorical exclusion available
concurrent with publication of the proposed rule. The BLM received
multiple comments stating that it is violating NEPA by relying on a
categorical exclusion for NEPA compliance. Specifically, comments
argued that the revisions to the planning rule had potentially
significant impacts, and should have been analyzed through an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Comments
stated that the following extraordinary circumstances were present,
making a categorical exclusion inappropriate:
Significant impacts to public health and safety;
Significant impacts on natural resources and unique
geographic characteristics;
Highly controversial environmental effects or unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;
Highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental
effects or involving unique or unknown environmental risks;
Establishes a precedent for future action or represents a
decision in principle for future actions; and
Cumulatively significant impacts.
The BLM believes that the categorical exclusion is the proper form
of NEPA compliance for this action under 43 CFR 46.210(i). The existing
and final rules are entirely procedural in character. The actual
planning decisions reached through the planning process are themselves
subject to compliance with NEPA's analytical requirements as well as
the statute's public involvement elements. Any decisions that might be
reached through the planning process, as proposed for revision through
this rulemaking, would be subject to compliance with NEPA. For this
reason, the BLM's reliance upon this categorical exclusion is
appropriate.
The BLM has revised the categorical exclusion documentation based
on public comments. However, none of the comments raised information
indicating the presence of one or more of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215.
[[Page 89658]]
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The Executive Order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Small Business Administration (SBA) has
developed size standards to carry out the purposes of the Small
Business Act, which can be found in 13 CFR 121.201. For a specific
industry identified by the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), small entities are defined by the SBA as an individual,
limited partnership, or small company considered at ``arm's length''
from the control of any parent company, which meet certain size
standards. The size standards are expressed either in number of
employees or annual receipts. The final rule could affect any entity
that elects to participate in the BLM's planning process. The
industries most likely to be directly affected are listed in the table
below along with the relevant SBA size standards. Other industries,
such as transportation or manufacturing, may be indirectly affected and
are not listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standards Size standards
Industry in millions of in number of
dollars employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming........ 0.75 ..............
Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest 11.0 ..............
Products...............................
Logging................................. .............. 500
Oil and Gas Extraction.................. .............. 500
Mining (except Oil and Gas)............. .............. 500
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells.............. .............. 500
Support Activities for Oil and Gas 38.5 ..............
Operations.............................
Support Activities for Coal Mining...... 20.5 ..............
Support Activities for Metal Mining..... 20.5 ..............
Support Activities for Nonmetallic 7.5 ..............
Minerals (except Fuels)................
Hydroelectric Power Generation.......... .............. 500
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation... .............. 750
Solar, Wind, Geothermal Power Generation .............. 250
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and .............. 500
Control................................
Electric Power Distribution............. .............. 1,000
Natural Gas Distribution................ .............. 500
Environmental Consulting Services....... 15.0 ..............
Other Amusement and Recreation 7.5 ..............
Industries.............................
Environment, Conservation and Wildlife 15.0 ..............
Organizations..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These industries may include a large, though unquantifiable, number
of small entities. In addition to determining whether a substantial
number of small entities are likely to be affected by this rule, the
BLM must also determine whether the rule is anticipated to have a
significant economic impact on those small entities. The final rule is
largely administrative in nature and only affects internal BLM
procedures. The direct impacts on the public are increased
opportunities for voluntary public involvement. The magnitude of the
impact on any individual or group, including small entities, is
expected to be negligible. The actual impacts cannot reasonably be
predicted at this stage, as they will depend on the specific context of
each planning effort. However, there is no reason to expect that these
changes, when implemented across all future planning efforts, place
undue burden on any specific individual or group, including small
entities.
Based on the available information, we conclude that the final rule
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, a final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required, and a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The
BLM prepared an economic and threshold analysis as part of the record,
which is available for review.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule is
administrative in nature and affects the BLM's resource management
planning process and procedures.
This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. The final rule revises existing procedures and
requirements. Although the final rule allows the public to submit
protests electronically, which was not possible under the existing
regulations, it would be speculative to estimate how many protests the
BLM will receive as a result of this final rule.
This rule does not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. There are no impacts to any prices as
a result of this final rule.
This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This
rule is
[[Page 89659]]
administrative in nature and only impacts the BLM's resource management
planning process and procedures. The BLM prepared an economic and
threshold analysis as part of the record, which is available for
review.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule is
administrative in nature and only impacts the BLM's land use planning
process and procedures. A statement containing the information required
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not
required.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. This rule is
administrative in nature and only impacts internal BLM procedures. A
takings implication assessment is not required.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism
summary impact statement is not required.
A Federalism assessment is not required because the rule does not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The only provisions that could possibly have a direct effect on
States are the Governor's consistency review and the increased public
involvement opportunities, but these provisions will only have minimal
impacts, if any. In the Governor's consistency review, the final rule
does not significantly impact Governors or change the existing
requirements of this section. This section is revised only to clarify
an existing process that has caused some confusion. The only change
from existing requirements is final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(1)(ii), which
allows the Governor to waive or reduce the 60-day period during which
the Governor may identify inconsistencies. This could provide a benefit
to the Governor in some situations where the timely approval of a plan
or amendment is necessary. Please see the discussion on the Governor's
consistency review at the preamble for final Sec. 1610.3-2(b)(1)(ii).
The final rule adds more opportunities for public involvement,
including through the planning assessment (see Sec. 1610.4) and the
public review of the preliminary alternatives (see Sec. 1610.5-2),
which may result in more engagement with State and local governments.
Neither of these instances have a significant adverse effect on State
governments.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically this rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (b) meets the
criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Departmental
Policy)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 13175
and Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3317. Specifically, in
conjunction with preparation of this final 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
requesting government-to-government consultation. Additionally, each
BLM State Office sent a follow-up notification and request for
consultation; the format for follow-up requests varied across BLM State
Offices. Formats included phone 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) provides
that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Collections of information include
requests and requirements that an individual, partnership, or
corporation obtain information, and report it to a Federal agency. See
44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k).
This final rule contains information collection activities that
require approval by OMB under the PRA.
The BLM included an information collection request in the proposed
rule. OMB has approved the information collection for the final rule
under control number 1004-0212.
Summary of Information Collection Activities
Title: Resource Management Planning (43 CFR part 1600).
Forms: None.
OMB Control Number: 1004-0212.
Description of Respondents: Participants in the BLM land
use planning process (including Governors of States; individuals;
households; businesses; associations; and State, local, and tribal
governments).
Respondents' Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit.
Abstract: This BLM final rule revises existing regulations
on procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans in
accordance with FLPMA. This information collection request includes
activities that have been ongoing without a control number.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Responses Annually: 131.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,965 hours.
Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost: None.
Discussion of Information Collection Activities
Consistency (43 CFR 1610.3-3(b))
Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) requires that the
Secretary of the Interior ``assist in resolving, to the extent
practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government
plans.'' This responsibility is delegated to the BLM Director and
accomplished, in part, through the ``Governor's Consistency Review''
[[Page 89660]]
process described in final Sec. 1610.3-3(b). This information
collection activity is necessary for this process and for compliance
with section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA.
Final Sec. 1610.3-3(b) provides an opportunity for Governors of
affected States to identify possible inconsistencies between officially
approved and adopted land use plans of State and local governments and
proposed resource management plans (RMPs) or proposed amendments to
RMPs and management framework plans (MFPs). Following receipt of a
proposed resource management plan or plan amendment from the BLM,
Governors will have a period of 60 days to submit to the deciding
official a written document that:
Identifies any inconsistencies with officially approved
and adopted land use plans of State and local governments; and
Recommends remedies for the identified inconsistencies.
The final rule provides that the BLM deciding official will notify
the Governor in writing of his or her decision regarding these
recommendations and the reasons for this decision. Within 30 days of
this decision, the Governor will be authorized to appeal this decision
to the BLM Director. The BLM Director will consider the Governor(s)'
comments in rendering a final decision.
Protests (43 CFR 1610.6-2)
Section 202(f) of FLPMA requires that the Secretary of the Interior
``allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation . . .
establish procedures . . . to give Federal, State, and local
governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment
upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating
to the management of public lands.'' The protest process described in
final Sec. 1610.6-2 authorizes protests of proposed land use plans and
plan amendments before such plans or plan amendments are approved. The
collection of information assists the BLM in complying with section
202(f) of FLPMA. Final Sec. 1610.6-2 provides an opportunity for any
person who participated in the preparation of the resource management
plan or plan amendment to protest the approval of proposed RMPs and
proposed amendments to RMPs and MFPs to the Director of the BLM. The
following information is required for submission of a valid protest:
1. The protestor's name, mailing, address, telephone number, and
email address (if available). The BLM needs this information in order
to contact the protestor.
2. The protestor's interest that may be adversely affected by the
planning process. This information helps the BLM understand whether or
not the protestor is eligible to submit a protest.
3. How the protestor participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan amendment. This information helps the
BLM determine whether or not the protestor is eligible to submit a
protest.
4. The plan component or components believed to be inconsistent
with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public lands, or the
purposes, policies and programs of such laws and regulations. This
information is necessary because the approval of a resource management
plan is the final decision for the Department of the Interior. Plan
components represent planning-level management direction with which all
future decisions within a planning area must be consistent, thus it is
important for the BLM to know if a plan component is believed to be
inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public
lands, or the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and
regulations.
5. A concise explanation of why the plan component is believed to
be inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public
lands, or the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and
regulations and of the associated issue or issues that were raised
during the preparation of the resource management plan or plan
amendment. This information is essential to the BLM's understanding of
the protest and decision to grant or dismiss the protest.
6. Copies of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were
submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an
indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the
record. This information helps the BLM to understand the protest and to
reach a decision.
The BLM Director is required to render a decision on the protest
before approval of any portion of the resource management plan or plan
amendment being protested. The Director's decision is the final
decision of the Department of the Interior.
Estimated Hour Burdens
The BLM estimates 131 responses and 1,965 hours annually. The
estimated hour burdens are itemized in the following table. Included in
the burden estimates are the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing each component of the information collection
requirements.
Estimates of Annual Hour Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total hours
Type of response Number of Hours per (column B x
responses response column C)
A. B. C. D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor's Consistency Review Requirements 43 CFR 1610.3-3(b)... 27 15 405
Protest Procedures/Governments 43 CFR 1610.6-2.................. 16 15 240
Protest Procedures/Individuals and Households 43 CFR 1610.6-2... 32 15 480
Protest Procedures/Businesses and Associations 43 CFR 1610.6-).. 56 15 840
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 131 .............. 1,965
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the proposed rule (81 FR 9674, February 25, 2016),
BLM did not receive any public comments that addressed information
collection activities for this rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
The final rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and the
BLM has prepared documentation to this effect, explaining that a
detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) is not required because the rule is categorically excluded from
[[Page 89661]]
NEPA review. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a
detailed statement because it is entirely procedural in nature. (For
further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined that
the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed
in 43 CFR 46.215 that requires further analysis under NEPA.
Documentation of the reliance upon a categorical exclusion has been
prepared and is available for public review with the other supporting
documents for this final rule.
National Historic Preservation Act
While the promulgation of the rule is an undertaking under the
National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108, the BLM has
determined that the rulemaking is not the type of activity that has the
potential to cause effects on historic properties under 36 CFR
800.3(a)(1). This is because the final rule is entirely procedural.
This final rule does not set goals, standards, or methods for how the
public land is to be managed. Rather, it describes the process by which
the BLM develops these for individual land use planning areas. This
final rule does not approve any land use plans or plan amendments and
does not authorize any particular projects or other actions that could
cause effects on historic properties.
Endangered Species Act
The BLM has determined a no effect determination is appropriate
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The final rule is
entirely procedural in nature, and it would have no effect on listed
species or designated critical habitat because it does not approve any
land use plans or plan amendments or authorize any particular projects
or other actions that could have such effects.
Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
of Executive Order 13211. This rule is administrative in nature and
affects the BLM's internal procedures. There are no impacts on the
development of energy on public lands. A statement of Energy Effects is
not required.
Authors
The principal author of this rule is Shasta Ferranto, Division of
Decision Support, Planning and NEPA, BLM Washington Office; assisted by
Charles Yudson, Jean Sonneman and Ian Senio, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, BLM Washington Office; Elizabeth Meyer Shields, Leah Baker,
and Rebecca Moore, Division of Decision Support, Planning and NEPA, BLM
Washington Office; Kathryn Kovacs, BLM Washington Office; and Nicollee
Gaddis, BLM Las Vegas Field Office.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1600
Administrative practice and procedure, Coal, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations,
Public lands, State and local governments.
Dated: November 22, 2016.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
43 CFR Chapter II
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management
amends 43 CFR by revising part 1600 to read as follows:
PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING
Subpart 1601--Planning
Sec.
1601.0-1 Purpose.
1601.0-2 Objective.
1601.0-3 Authority.
1601.0-4 Responsibilities.
1601.0-5 Definitions.
1601.0-6 Environmental impact statement policy.
1601.0-7 Scope.
1601.0-8 Principles.
Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning
Sec.
1610.1 Resource management planning framework.
1610.1-1 Guidance and general requirements.
1610.1-2 Plan components.
1610.2 Public involvement.
1610.2-1 Public notice.
1610.2-2 Public comment periods.
1610.2-3 Availability of the resource management plan.
1610.3 Consultation with Indian tribes and coordination with other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.
1610.3-1 Consultation with Indian tribes.
1610.3-2 Coordination of planning efforts.
1610.3-3 Consistency requirements.
1610.4 Planning assessment.
1610.5 Preparation of a resource management plan.
1610.5-1 Identification of planning issues.
1610.5-2 Formulation of resource management alternatives.
1610.5-3 Estimation of effects of alternatives.
1610.5-4 Preparation of the draft resource management plan and
selection of preferred alternatives.
1610.5-5 Selection of the proposed resource management plan.
1610.6 Resource management plan approval, implementation, and
modification.
1610.6-1 Resource management plan approval and implementation.
1610.6-2 Protest procedures.
1610.6-3 Conformity and implementation.
1610.6-4 Monitoring and evaluation.
1610.6-5 Maintenance.
1610.6-6 Amendment.
1610.6-7 Revision.
1610.6-8 Situations where action can be taken based on another
agency's planning documents.
1610.7 Management decision review by Congress.
1610.8 Designation of areas.
1610.8-1 Designation of areas unsuitable for surface mining.
1610.8-2 Designation of areas of critical environmental concern.
1610.9 Transition period.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1711-1712.
Subpart 1601--Planning
Sec. 1601.0-1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to establish in regulations a process
for the development, approval, maintenance, and amendment of resource
management plans, and the use of existing plans for public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), consistent with
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise
specified by law.
Sec. 1601.0-2 Objective.
The objective of resource management planning by the BLM is to
manage public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield,
unless otherwise specified by law, provide for meaningful public
involvement by the public, State and local governments, Indian tribes
and Federal agencies in the preparation and amendment of resource
management plans, and 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 food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals;
that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use,
and 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.
Sec. 1601.0-3 Authority.
These regulations are issued under the authority of sections 201
and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and
[[Page 89662]]
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711-1712) (FLPMA); the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901); section 3 of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 U.S.C. 201(a));
sections 522, 601, and 714 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.); and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Sec. 1601.0-4 Responsibilities.
(a) The Secretary and the Director provide national level policy
and procedure guidance for planning. The Director determines the
deciding official and the planning area for the preparation of resource
management plans and plan amendments that cross State boundaries. For
other resource management plans or plan amendments, the deciding
official shall be the BLM State Director, unless otherwise determined
by the Director.
(b) Deciding officials provide quality control and supervisory
review, including approval, for the preparation and amendment of
resource management plans and related environmental impact statements
or environmental assessments. The deciding official determines the
responsible official for the preparation of each resource management
plan or plan amendment. The deciding official also determines the
planning area for resource management plans and plan amendments that do
not cross State boundaries.
(c) Responsible officials prepare resource management plans and
plan amendments and related environmental impact statements or
environmental assessments.
Sec. 1601.0-5 Definitions.
As used in this part, the term:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or ACEC means areas within
the public lands where special management attention is required (when
such areas are developed or used or where no development is required)
to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic,
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other
natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from
natural hazards.
Conformity or conformance means that a resource management action
shall be clearly consistent with the plan components of the approved
resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.6-3).
Consistent with officially approved and adopted plans means that
resource management plans are compatible with the terms, conditions,
and decisions of officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, 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,
and subject to the qualifications in Sec. 1610.3-3.
Cooperating agency means an eligible governmental entity (see 43
CFR 46.225(a)) that has entered into an agreement with the BLM to
participate in the development of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment as a cooperating agency under the National
Environmental Policy Act and in the planning process as described in
Sec. 1610.3-2 of this part. The BLM and the cooperating agency will
work together under the terms of the agreement.
Deciding official means the BLM official who is delegated the
authority to approve a resource management plan or plan amendment (see
Sec. 1601.0-4).
High quality information means 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.
Indian tribe means an Indian tribe under section 102 of the
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130).
Landscape means 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.
Mitigation means the sequence of avoiding impacts, minimizing
impacts, and compensating for remaining unavoidable impacts.
Multiple use means 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; making the most judicious use of the lands for some or all of
these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide
sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to
changing needs and conditions; the use of some lands for less than all
of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses
that takes into account the long term needs of future generations for
renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to,
recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and
natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and
coordinated management of the various resources without permanent
impairment of the productivity of the lands 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.
Officially approved and adopted plans means resource-related plans
prepared and approved by other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes pursuant to and in accordance with
authorization provided by Federal, State, tribal, or local
constitutions, legislation, or charters which have the force and effect
of law.
Plan amendment means an amendment to an approved resource
management plan or management framework plan to change one or more plan
components (see Sec. 1610.6-6).
Plan components means the elements of a resource management plan
with which future management actions shall be consistent. Plan
components consist of goals; objectives; designations; resource use
determinations; monitoring and evaluation standards; and lands
identified as available for disposal, including sales under section 203
of FLPMA, as applicable (see Sec. 1610.1-2).
Plan maintenance means change(s) to an approved resource management
plan to correct typographical or mapping errors or to reflect minor
changes in mapping or data (see Sec. 1610.6-5).
Plan revision means a revision of an approved resource management
plan that affects the entire resource management plan or major portions
of the resource management plan (see Sec. 1610.6-7). Preparation or
development of a resource management plan includes plan revisions.
Planning area means the geographic area for the preparation or
amendment of a resource management plan.
Planning assessment means an evaluation of relevant resource,
environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions in the
planning area (see Sec. 1610.4). A planning assessment is developed to
inform the preparation and, as appropriate, the implementation of a
resource management plan.
Planning issue means disputes, controversies, or opportunities
related to resource management.
[[Page 89663]]
Public means affected or interested individuals, including consumer
organizations, public land resource users, corporations and other
business entities, environmental organizations and other special
interest groups, and officials of Federal, State, local, and Indian
tribal governments.
Public involvement means the opportunity for participation by the
public in decision making and planning with respect to the public
lands.
Public lands means any lands or interest in lands owned by the
United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through
the BLM. Public lands do not include lands located on the Outer
Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts,
and Eskimos.
Resource management plan means a land use plan as described under
section 202 of the FLPMA, including plan revisions. 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.
Responsible official means a BLM official who is delegated the
authority to prepare a resource management plan or plan amendment.
State and local government means 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.
Sustained yield means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity
of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various
renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.
Sec. 1601.0-6 Environmental impact statement policy.
The BLM shall prepare an environmental impact statement when
preparing a resource management plan. The environmental analysis of
alternatives and the proposed resource management plan shall be
accomplished as part of the resource management planning process and,
wherever possible, the proposed resource management plan shall be
published in a single document with the related environmental impact
statement.
Sec. 1601.0-7 Scope.
(a) These regulations apply to all public lands.
(b) These regulations also govern the preparation of resource
management plans when the only public land interest is the mineral
estate.
Sec. 1601.0-8 Principles.
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. Additionally, the BLM shall consider the impacts of resource
management plans on resource, environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions at relevant scales. The BLM also shall consider the
impacts of resource management plans on, and the uses of, adjacent or
nearby Federal and non-Federal lands, and non-public land surface over
federally-owned mineral interests.
Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning
Sec. 1610.1 Resource management planning framework.
Sec. 1610.1-1 Guidance and general requirements.
(a) Guidance for preparation and amendment of resource management
plans may be provided by the Director and deciding official, as needed,
to help the responsible official prepare a specific resource management
plan. Such guidance may include the following:
(1) 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; and
(2) Analysis requirements, planning procedures, and other written
information and instructions required to be considered in the planning
process.
(b) 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. The expertise of the preparers shall be
appropriate to the resource values involved, the issues identified
during the issue identification and environmental impact statement
scoping stage of the planning process, and the principles of multiple
use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law. The
responsible official may use any necessary combination of BLM staff,
consultants, contractors, other governmental personnel, and advisors to
achieve an interdisciplinary approach.
(c) The BLM shall use high quality information to inform the
preparation, amendment, and maintenance of resource management plans.
Sec. 1610.1-2 Plan components.
(a) Plan components guide future management actions within the
planning area. Resource management plans shall include the following
plan components:
(1) Goals. A goal is a broad statement of desired outcomes
addressing resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic
characteristics within the planning area, or a portion of the planning
area, toward which management of the land and resources should be
directed.
(2) Objectives. An objective is a concise statement of desired
resource conditions within the planning area, or a portion of the
planning area, developed to guide progress toward one or more goals. An
objective is specific, measurable, and should have established time-
frames for achievement. As appropriate, objectives should also:
(i) Identify standards to mitigate undesirable impacts to resource
conditions;
(ii) Provide integrated consideration of resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic factors; and
(iii) Identify indicators for evaluating progress toward
achievement of the objective.
(b) Resource management plans also shall include the following plan
components in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource
management plan, or applicable legal requirements or policies,
consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield
unless otherwise specified by law:
(1) Designations. A designation identifies areas of public land
where management is directed toward one or more priority resource
values or resource uses.
(i) Planning designations are identified through the BLM's land use
planning process in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the
resource management plan or applicable legal requirements or policies
such as the designation of areas of critical environmental concern
(ACEC) (see Sec. 1610.8-2).
(ii) Non-discretionary designations are designated by the
President, Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to other
legal authorities.
(2) Resource use determinations. A resource use determination
identifies areas of public lands or mineral estate where, subject to
valid existing rights, specific uses are excluded, restricted, or
allowed, in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resource
management plan or applicable legal requirements or policies. Resource
use
[[Page 89664]]
determinations shall be consistent with or support the management
priorities identified through designations.
(3) Monitoring and evaluation standards. Monitoring and evaluation
standards identify indicators and intervals for monitoring and
evaluation to determine whether the resource management plan objectives
are being met or there is relevant new information that may warrant
amendment or revision of the resource management plan.
(4) Lands identified as available for disposal from BLM
administration, including sales under section 203 of FLPMA, as
applicable.
(c) A plan component may only be changed through a resource
management plan amendment or revision, except to correct typographical
or mapping errors or to reflect minor changes in mapping or data (see
Sec. 1610.6-5).
Sec. 1610.2 Public involvement.
(a) The BLM shall provide the public with opportunities to become
meaningfully involved in and comment on the preparation and amendment
of resource management plans. Public involvement in the resource
management planning process shall conform to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act and associated implementing
regulations.
(b) Public involvement activities conducted by the BLM shall be
documented either by a record or by a summary of the principal issues
discussed and comments made. The record or summary of the principal
issues discussed and comments made shall be available to the public and
open for 30 days to any participant who wishes to review the record or
summary.
(c) Before the close of each fiscal year, the BLM shall post the
status of each resource management plan in process of preparation or
scheduled to be started to the BLM's Web site.
Sec. 1610.2-1 Public notice.
(a) When the BLM prepares a resource management plan or amends a
resource management plan and prepares an environmental impact statement
to inform the amendment, the BLM shall notify the public and provide
opportunities for public involvement appropriate to the areas and
people involved during the following points in the planning process:
(1) Preparation of the planning assessment (subject to Sec.
1610.4);
(2) Identification of planning issues and review of the preliminary
statement of purpose and need (see Sec. 1610.5-1);
(3) Review of the preliminary resource management alternatives,
preliminary rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis
(subject to Sec. Sec. 1610.5-2(c) and 1610.5-3(a)(1));
(4) Comment on the draft resource management plan (see Sec.
1610.5-4); and
(5) Protest of the proposed resource management plan (see
Sec. Sec. 1610.5-5 and 1610.6-2).
(b) When the BLM amends a resource management plan and prepares an
environmental assessment to inform the amendment, the BLM shall notify
the public and provide opportunities for public involvement appropriate
to the areas and people involved during the following points in the
planning process:
(1) Identification of planning issues (see Sec. 1610.6-6(a));
(2) Comment on the draft resource management plan amendment, as
appropriate (see Sec. 1610.6-6(a)); and
(3) Protest of the proposed resource management plan amendment (see
Sec. Sec. 1610.5-5 and 1610.6-2).
(c) The BLM shall announce opportunities for public involvement by
posting a notice on the BLM's Web site, at all BLM offices within the
planning area, and at other public locations, as appropriate. The
responsible official shall identify additional forms of notification to
reach local communities located within the planning area, as
appropriate.
(d) Individuals or groups may request to be notified of
opportunities for public involvement related to the preparation or
amendment of a resource management plan. The BLM shall notify those
individuals or groups through written or electronic means.
(e) The BLM shall notify the public at least 15 days before any
public involvement activities where the public is invited to attend,
such as a public meeting.
(f) When initiating the identification of planning issues for the
preparation of a resource management plan or plan amendment, in
addition to the public notification requirements of Sec. Sec. 1610.2-
1(c) and 1610.2-1(d), the BLM shall notify the public as follows:
(1) The BLM shall publish a notice in appropriate media, including
newspapers of general circulation in the planning area. The BLM shall
also publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register. This notice
may also constitute the scoping notice required by regulations
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.7).
(2) This notice shall include the following:
(i) Description of the proposed planning action;
(ii) Identification of the planning area for which the resource
management plan is to be prepared;
(iii) The general types of issues anticipated;
(iv) The expertise to be represented and used to prepare the
resource management plan, in order to achieve an interdisciplinary
approach (see Sec. 1610.1-1(b));
(v) The kind and extent of public involvement opportunities to be
provided, as known at the time;
(vi) The times, dates, and locations scheduled or anticipated for
any public meetings, hearings, conferences, or other gatherings, as
known at the time;
(vii) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the BLM
official who may be contacted for further information; and
(viii) The location and availability of documents relevant to the
planning process.
(g) If, after publication of a proposed resource management plan or
plan amendment, the BLM intends to select an alternative that is
encompassed by the range of alternatives in the final environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment, but is substantially
different than the proposed resource management plan or plan amendment,
the BLM shall notify the public and request written comments on the
change before the resource management plan or plan amendment is
approved (see Sec. 1610.6-1(b)).
(h) The BLM shall notify the public when a resource management plan
or plan amendment has been approved.
(i) When changes are made to an approved resource management plan
through plan maintenance, the BLM shall notify the public and make the
changes available for public review at least 30 days prior to their
implementation.
Sec. 1610.2-2 Public comment periods.
(a) Any time the BLM requests written comments during the
preparation or amendment of a resource management plan, the BLM shall
notify the public and provide for at least 30 calendar days for
response, unless a longer period is required by law or regulation.
(b) When requesting written comments on a draft plan amendment and
an environmental impact statement is prepared to inform the amendment,
the BLM shall provide at least 60 calendar days for response. The 60-
day period begins when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a
notice of availability of the draft environmental
[[Page 89665]]
impact statement in the Federal Register.
(c) When requesting written comments on a draft resource management
plan and draft environmental impact statement, the BLM shall provide at
least 100 calendar days for response. The 100-day period begins when
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability
of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register.
(d) When a draft resource management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or more potential ACECs, the BLM
shall request written comments on the designations under consideration
(see Sec. 1610.8-2).
Sec. 1610.2-3 Availability of the resource management plan.
(a) The BLM shall make copies of the draft, proposed, and approved
resource management plan or plan amendment reasonably available to the
public. At a minimum, the BLM shall make copies of these documents
available electronically and at all BLM offices within the planning
area. The BLM shall also make any scientific or technical reports the
responsible official uses in the preparation of a resource management
plan or plan amendment reasonably available to the public, to the
extent practical and consistent with Federal law.
(b) Upon request, the BLM shall make single printed copies of the
draft or proposed resource management plan or plan amendment available
to individual members of the public during the public involvement
process. After the BLM approves a resource management plan or plan
amendment, the BLM may charge a fee for additional printed copies. Fees
for reproducing requested documents beyond those used as part of the
public involvement activities and other than single printed copies of
the resource management plan or plan amendment may be charged according
to the Department of the Interior schedule for Freedom of Information
Act requests in 43 CFR part 2.
Sec. 1610.3 Consultation with Indian tribes and coordination with
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.
Sec. 1610.3-1 Consultation with Indian tribes.
The BLM shall initiate consultation with Indian tribes on a
government-to-government basis during the preparation and amendment of
resource management plans.
Sec. 1610.3-2 Coordination of planning efforts.
(a) Objectives of coordination. In addition to the public
involvement prescribed by Sec. 1610.2, and to the extent consistent
with Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands,
coordination is to be accomplished with other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes. The objectives of this
coordination are for the BLM to:
(1) Keep apprised of the plans, policies, and management programs
of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian
tribes;
(2) Assure that the BLM considers those plans, policies, and
management programs that are germane in the development of resource
management plans for public lands;
(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies
between Federal and non-Federal government plans;
(4) Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal
agencies, State and local government officials, both elected and
appointed, and Indian tribes, in the development of resource management
plans, including early notice of final decisions that may have a
significant impact on non-Federal lands; and
(5) Where possible and appropriate, develop resource management
plans collaboratively with cooperating agencies.
(b) Cooperating agencies. When preparing a resource management
plan, the responsible official shall follow applicable regulations
regarding the invitation of eligible governmental entities (see 43 CFR
46.225) to participate as cooperating agencies. The same requirement
applies when the BLM amends a resource management plan and prepares an
environmental impact statement to inform the amendment.
(1) The responsible official shall consider any request by an
eligible governmental entity to participate as a cooperating agency. If
the responsible official denies a request or determines it is
inappropriate to extend an invitation to an eligible governmental
entity, he or she shall inform the deciding official of the denial. The
deciding official shall determine if the denial is appropriate and
state the reasons for any denials in the environmental impact
statement.
(2) When a cooperating agency is a non-Federal agency, a memorandum
of understanding shall be used and shall include a commitment to
maintain the confidentiality of documents and deliberations during the
period prior to the public release by the BLM of any documents,
including drafts (see 43 CFR 46.225(d)).
(3) The responsible official shall collaborate, to the fullest
extent possible, with all cooperating agencies concerning those issues
relating to their jurisdiction and special expertise, during the
following steps in the planning process:
(i) Preparation of the planning assessment (see Sec. 1610.4);
(ii) Identification of planning issues (see Sec. 1610.5-1);
(iii) Formulation of resource management alternatives (see Sec.
1610.5-2);
(iv) Estimation of effects of alternatives (see Sec. 1610.5-3);
(v) Preparation of the draft resource management plan (see Sec.
1610.5-4); and
(vi) Preparation of the proposed resource management plan (see
Sec. 1610.5-5).
(c) Coordination requirements. The BLM shall provide Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes opportunity
for review, advice, and suggestions on issues and topics which may
affect or influence other agency or other government programs.
(1) To facilitate coordination with State governments, deciding
officials should seek the input of the Governor(s) on the timing,
scope, and coordination of resource management planning; definition of
planning areas; scheduling of public involvement activities; and
multiple use and sustained yield on public lands.
(2) Deciding officials may seek written agreements with Governors
or their designated representatives on processes and procedural topics
such as exchanging information, providing advice and participation, and
timeframes for receiving State government participation and review in a
timely fashion. If an agreement is not reached, the deciding official
shall provide opportunity for Governor and State agency review, advice,
and suggestions on issues and topics that the deciding official has
reason to believe could affect or influence State government programs.
(3) The responsible official shall notify Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes that have requested to be
notified or that the responsible official has reason to believe would
be interested in the resource management plan or plan amendment of any
opportunities for public involvement in the preparation or amendment of
a resource management plan. These notices shall be issued
simultaneously with the public notices required under Sec. 1610.2-1 of
this part.
[[Page 89666]]
(4) The responsible official shall notify relevant State agencies
consistent with State procedures for coordination of Federal activities
for circulation among State agencies, if such procedures exist.
(5) The responsible official shall provide Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes the time period prescribed
under Sec. 1610.2 of this part for review and comment on resource
management plans and plan amendments.
(d) Resource advisory councils. When an advisory council has been
formed under section 309 of FLPMA for the area addressed in a resource
management plan or plan amendment, the responsible official shall
inform that council, seek its views, and consider them throughout the
planning process.
Sec. 1610.3-3 Consistency requirements.
(a) Resource management plans shall be consistent with officially
approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes to the maximum extent the BLM finds
consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other Federal laws and
regulations applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies and
programs implementing such laws and regulations.
(1) The BLM shall, to the extent practical, keep apprised of
officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and Indian tribes and give consideration to
those plans that are germane in the development of resource management
plans.
(2) The BLM is not required to address the consistency requirements
of this section if the responsible official has not been notified, in
writing, by Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Indian
tribes of an apparent inconsistency.
(3) If a Federal agency, State and local government, or Indian
tribe notifies the responsible official, in writing, of what they
believe to be specific inconsistencies between the BLM draft resource
management plan and their officially approved and adopted plans, the
proposed resource management plan shall show how those inconsistencies
were addressed and, if possible, resolved.
(4) Where the officially approved and adopted plans of State and
local governments differ from each other, those of the higher authority
will normally be followed.
(b) Governor's consistency review. Prior to the approval of a
proposed resource management plan or plan amendment, the deciding
official shall submit to the Governor of the State(s) involved, the
proposed resource management plan or plan amendment and shall identify
any relevant known inconsistencies with the officially approved and
adopted plans of State and local governments.
(1) The Governor(s) may submit a written document to the deciding
official within 60 days after receiving the proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment that:
(i) Identifies inconsistencies with officially approved and adopted
land use plans of State and local governments and provides
recommendations to remedy the identified inconsistencies; or
(ii) Waives or reduces the 60-day period.
(2) If the Governor(s) does not respond within the 60-day period,
the resource management plan or plan amendment is presumed to be
consistent.
(3) If the document submitted by the Governor(s) recommends
substantive changes that were not considered during the public
involvement process, the BLM shall notify the public and request
written comments on these changes.
(4) The deciding official shall notify the Governor(s) in writing
of his or her decision regarding these recommendations and the reasons
for this decision.
(i) The Governor(s) may submit a written appeal to the Director
within 30 days after receiving the deciding official's decision.
(ii) The Director shall consider the Governor(s)' appeal and the
consistency requirements of this section in rendering a final decision.
The Director shall notify the Governor(s) in writing of his or her
decision regarding the Governor's appeal. The BLM shall notify the
public of this decision and make the written decision available to the
public.
Sec. 1610.4 Planning assessment.
Before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan the
BLM shall, consistent with the nature, scope, scale, and timing of the
planning effort, complete a planning assessment.
(a) Planning area. The BLM shall identify a preliminary planning
area for use as the basis for the planning assessment.
(1) In identifying the preliminary planning area, the BLM shall
consider the following:
(i) Management concerns identified through monitoring and
evaluation (see Sec. 1610.6-4);
(ii) Relevant landscapes based on these management concerns;
(iii) Director and deciding official guidance;
(iv) Officially approved and adopted plans of other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes; and
(v) Other relevant information, as appropriate.
(2) The responsible official shall make a description of and a
rationale for the preliminary planning area available for public review
prior to the publication of the notice of intent in the Federal
Register (see Sec. 1610.2-1(f)).
(b) Information gathering. The responsible official shall:
(1) Arrange for relevant resource, environmental, ecological,
social, economic, and institutional data and information to be
gathered, or assembled if already available, including the
identification of potential ACECs (see Sec. 1610.8-2). To the extent
consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public
lands and as appropriate, inventory data and information shall be
gathered or assembled in coordination with the land use planning and
management programs of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes within which the lands are located, and
in a manner that aids the planning process and avoids unnecessary data-
gathering;
(2) Identify relevant national, regional, State, tribal, or local
laws, regulations, policies, guidance, strategies, or plans for
consideration in the planning assessment. These may include, but are
not limited to, Executive or Secretarial orders, Departmental or BLM
policy, Director or deciding official guidance, mitigation strategies,
interagency initiatives, and State, multi-state, tribal, or local
resource plans;
(3) Provide opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to provide existing
data and information or suggest other laws, regulations, policies,
guidance, strategies, or plans described under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, for the BLM's consideration in the planning assessment; and
(4) Identify relevant public views concerning resource,
environmental, ecological, social, or economic conditions of the
planning area.
(c) Information quality. The responsible official shall evaluate
the data and information gathered under paragraph (b) of this section
to ensure the use of high quality information in the planning
assessment and to identify any data gaps or further information needs.
(d) Assessment. The responsible official shall assess the resource,
[[Page 89667]]
environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions of the
planning area. At a minimum, the responsible official shall consider
and document the following factors in this assessment when they are
applicable:
(1) Resource use and management authorized by FLPMA and other
relevant authorities;
(2) Land status and ownership, existing resource management,
infrastructure, and access patterns in the planning area, including any
known valid existing rights;
(3) Current resource, environmental, ecological, social, and
economic conditions, and any known trends related to these conditions;
(4) Known resource constraints, or limitations;
(5) Areas of potential importance within the planning area,
including:
(i) Areas of tribal, traditional, or cultural importance;
(ii) Habitat for special status species, including State or
federally-listed threatened and endangered species;
(iii) Other areas of key fish and wildlife habitat such as big game
wintering and summer areas, bird nesting and feeding areas, habitat
connectivity or wildlife migration corridors, and areas of large and
intact habitat;
(iv) Areas of ecological importance, such as areas that increase
the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the planning
area to adapt to, resist, or recover from change;
(v) Lands with wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic study
rivers, or areas of significant scientific or scenic value;
(vi) Areas of significant historical value, including
paleontological sites;
(vii) Existing designations located in the planning area, such as
wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, national
scenic or historic trails, or ACECs;
(viii) Areas with potential for renewable or non-renewable energy
development or energy transmission;
(ix) Areas with known mineral potential;
(x) Areas with known potential for producing forest products,
including timber;
(xi) Areas of importance for recreation activities or access;
(xii) Areas of importance for public health and safety, such as
abandoned mine lands or natural hazards;
(6) Dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and
stressors, such as drought, wildland fire, invasive species, and
climate change; and
(7) The various goods, services, and uses that people obtain from
the planning area, such as ecological services, domestic livestock
grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral
exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and
timber production; and
(i) The degree of local, regional, national, or international
importance of these goods, services, and uses;
(ii) Available forecasts and analyses related to the supply and
demand for these goods, services, and uses; and
(iii) The estimated levels of these goods, services, and uses that
may be produced on a sustained yield basis.
(e) Planning assessment report. The responsible official shall
document the planning assessment in a report made available for public
review prior to the publication of the notice of intent, which includes
the identification and rationale for potential ACECs. To the extent
practical, any non-sensitive geospatial information used in the
planning assessment should be made available to the public on the BLM's
Web site.
(f) Plan amendments. Before initiating the preparation of a plan
amendment for which an environmental impact statement will be prepared,
the BLM shall complete a planning assessment consistent with the
requirements of this section for the geographic area being considered
for amendment. The deciding official may waive this requirement for
project-specific or other minor amendments.
Sec. 1610.5 Preparation of a resource management plan.
When preparing a resource management plan, or a plan amendment for
which an environmental impact statement will be prepared, the BLM shall
follow the process described in Sec. Sec. 1610.5-1 through 1610.5-5.
Sec. 1610.5-1 Identification of planning issues.
(a) The responsible official shall prepare a preliminary statement
of purpose and need, which briefly indicates the underlying purpose and
need to which the BLM is responding (see 43 CFR 46.420). This statement
shall be informed by Director and deciding official guidance (see Sec.
1610.1-1(a)), public views (see Sec. 1610.4(a)(4)), the planning
assessment (see Sec. 1610.4(c)), the results of any previous
monitoring and evaluation within the planning area (see Sec. 1610.6-
4), Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, and the
purposes, policies, and programs implementing such laws and
regulations. The BLM shall initiate the identification of planning
issues by notifying the public and making the preliminary statement of
purpose and need available for public review.
(b) The public, other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes shall be given an opportunity to suggest
concerns, needs, opportunities, conflicts, or constraints related to
resource management for consideration in the preparation of the
resource management plan, including those respecting officially
approved and adopted plans of other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and Indian tribes. The responsible official shall analyze
those suggestions and other available data and information, such as the
planning assessment (see Sec. 1610.4-1), and determine the planning
issues to be addressed during the planning process. Planning issues may
be modified during the planning process to incorporate new information.
The identification of planning issues should be integrated with the
scoping process required by regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.7).
Sec. 1610.5-2 Formulation of resource management alternatives.
(a) Alternatives development. The BLM shall consider all reasonable
resource management alternatives (alternatives) and develop several
complete alternatives for detailed study. The decision to designate
alternatives for further development and analysis remains the exclusive
responsibility of the BLM.
(1) The alternatives developed shall be informed by the Director
and deciding official guidance (see Sec. 1610.1(a)), the planning
assessment (see Sec. 1610.4), the statement of purpose and need (see
Sec. 1610.5-1), and the planning issues (see Sec. 1610.5-1).
(2) In order to limit the total number of alternatives analyzed in
detail to a manageable number for presentation and analysis, reasonable
variations may be treated as sub-alternatives.
(3) One alternative shall be for no action, which means
continuation of present level or systems of resource management.
(4) The resource management plan shall note any alternatives
identified and eliminated from detailed study and shall briefly discuss
the reasons for their elimination.
(b) Rationale for alternatives. The resource management plan shall
describe the rationale for the differences between alternatives. The
rationale shall include:
(1) A description of how each alternative addresses the planning
issues, consistent with the principles of
[[Page 89668]]
multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law;
(2) A description of management direction that is common to all
alternatives; and
(3) A description of how management direction varies across
alternatives to address the planning issues.
(c) Public review of preliminary alternatives. The responsible
official shall make the preliminary alternatives and the preliminary
rationale for alternatives available for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, and as appropriate, prior to the
publication of draft plan amendments when an environmental impact
statement is prepared to inform the amendment.
(d) Changes to preliminary alternatives. The BLM may change the
preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for alternatives as
planning proceeds if it determines that public suggestions or other new
information make such changes necessary. A description of these changes
shall be made available to the public in the draft resource management
plan (see Sec. 1610.5-4).
Sec. 1610.5-3 Estimation of effects of alternatives.
(a) Basis for analysis. The responsible official shall identify the
procedures, assumptions, and indicators that will be used to estimate
the environmental, ecological, social, and economic effects of
implementing each alternative considered in detail.
(1) The responsible official shall make the preliminary procedures,
assumptions, and indicators available for public review prior to the
publication of the draft resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement, and, as appropriate, prior to the
publication of draft plan amendments when an environmental impact
statement is prepared to inform the amendment.
(2) The BLM may change the procedures, assumptions, and indicators
as planning proceeds if it determines that public suggestions or other
new information make such changes necessary. A description of these
changes shall be made available to the public in the draft resource
management plan (see Sec. 1610.5-4).
(b) Effects analysis. The responsible official shall estimate and
display the environmental, ecological, economic, and social effects of
implementing each alternative considered in detail. The estimation of
effects shall be guided by the basis for analysis, the planning
assessment, and procedures implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act. The estimate may be stated in terms of probable ranges
where effects cannot be precisely determined.
Sec. 1610.5-4 Preparation of the draft resource management plan and
selection of preferred alternatives.
(a) The responsible official shall prepare a draft resource
management plan based on Director and deciding official guidance, the
planning assessment, the planning issues, and the estimation of the
effects of alternatives. The draft resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement shall:
(1) Describe any changes made to the preliminary alternatives and
preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators;
(2) Evaluate the alternatives; and
(3) Identify one or more preferred alternatives, if one or more
exist, and explain the rationale for the preference or absence of a
preference. The identification of one or more preferred alternatives
remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.
(b) The resulting draft resource management plan and draft
environmental impact statement shall be forwarded to the deciding
official for publication and filing with the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(c) This draft resource management plan and draft environmental
impact statement shall be provided for comment to the Governor(s) of
the State(s) involved, and to officials of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and Indian tribes that have requested to
be notified of opportunities for public involvement or that the
deciding official has reason to believe would be interested (see Sec.
1610.3-2(c)). This action constitutes compliance with the requirements
of Sec. 3420.1-7 of this title.
Sec. 1610.5-5 Selection of the proposed resource management plan.
(a) After publication of the draft resource management plan and
draft environmental impact statement, the responsible official shall
evaluate the comments received and prepare the proposed resource
management plan and final environmental impact statement.
(b) The deciding official shall publish these documents and file
the final environmental impact statement with the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Sec. 1610.6 Resource management plan approval, implementation, and
modification.
Sec. 1610.6-1 Resource management plan approval and implementation.
(a) The deciding official may approve the resource management plan
or plan amendment for which an environmental impact statement was
prepared no earlier than 30 days after the Environmental Protection
Agency publishes a notice of availability of the final environmental
impact statement in the Federal Register.
(b) Approval shall be withheld on any portion of a resource
management plan or plan amendment being protested (see Sec. 1610.6-2)
until final action has been completed on such protest. If, after
publication of a proposed resource management plan or plan amendment,
the BLM intends to select an alternative that is within the spectrum of
alternatives in the final environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment, but is substantially different than the
proposed resource management plan or plan amendment, the BLM shall
notify the public and request written comments on the change before the
resource management plan or plan amendment is approved.
(c) The approval of a resource management plan or a plan amendment
for which an environmental impact statement is prepared shall be
documented in a concise public record of the decision (see 40 CFR
1505.2).
Sec. 1610.6-2 Protest procedures.
(a) Any member of the public who participated in the preparation of
the resource management plan or plan amendment and has an interest
which may be adversely affected by the approval of a proposed resource
management plan or plan amendment may protest such approval. A protest
may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during
the preparation of the resource management plan or plan amendment (see
Sec. 1610.5), unless the protest concerns an issue that arose after
the close of the opportunity for public comment on the draft resource
management plan.
(1) Submission. The protest must be in writing and must be filed
with the Director. The protest may be filed as a hard-copy or
electronically. The responsible official shall specify protest filing
procedures for each resource management plan or plan amendment,
including the method the public may use to submit a protest
electronically.
(2) Timing. For resource management plans or plan amendments for
which an environmental impact statement was prepared, the protest must
be filed
[[Page 89669]]
within 30 days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency
published the notice of availability of the final environmental impact
statement in the Federal Register. For plan amendments for which an
environmental assessment was prepared, the protest must be filed within
30 days after the date that the BLM notifies the public of the
availability of the amendment.
(3) Content requirements. The protest must:
(i) Include the name, mailing address, telephone number, email
address (if available), and interest of the person filing the protest;
(ii) State how the protestor participated in the preparation of the
resource management plan or plan amendment;
(iii) Identify the plan component(s) believed to be inconsistent
with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public lands, or the
purposes, policies, and programs implementing such laws and
regulations;
(iv) Concisely explain why the plan component(s) 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 and, unless the protest concerns an issue that arose
after the close of the opportunity for public comment on the draft
resource management plan, identify the associated issue or issues
raised during the preparation of the resource management plan or plan
amendment; and
(v) Include a copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues
that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party
or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the
record, unless the protest concerns an issue that arose after the close
of the opportunity for public comment on the draft resource management
plan.
(4) Availability. Upon request, the Director shall make protests
available to the public, withholding any protected information that is
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws or regulations.
(b) The Director shall render a written decision on all protests
and notify protesting parties of the decision. The decision on the
protest and the reasons for the decision shall be made available to the
public. The decision of the Director is the final decision of the
Department of the Interior. Approval will be withheld on any portion of
a resource management plan or plan amendment until final action has
been completed on such protest (see Sec. 1610.6-1(b)).
(c) The Director may dismiss any protest that does not meet the
requirements of this section. The Director shall notify protesting
parties of the dismissal and provide the reasons for the dismissal.
Sec. 1610.6-3 Conformity and implementation.
(a) All future resource management authorizations and actions, and
subsequent more detailed or specific planning, shall conform to the
plan components of the approved resource management plan.
(b) After a resource management plan or plan amendment is approved,
and if otherwise authorized by law, regulation, contract, permit,
cooperative agreement, or other instrument of occupancy and use, the
BLM shall take appropriate measures, subject to valid existing rights,
to make operations and activities under existing permits, contracts,
cooperative agreements, or other instruments for occupancy and use,
conform to the plan components of the approved resource management plan
or plan amendment within a reasonable period of time. Any person
adversely affected by a specific action being proposed to implement
some portion of a resource management plan or plan amendment may appeal
such action pursuant to part 4, subpart E of this chapter, at the time
the specific action is proposed for implementation.
(c) If a proposed action is not in conformance with a plan
component, and the deciding official determines that such action
warrants further consideration before a resource management plan
revision is scheduled, such consideration shall be through a resource
management plan amendment in accordance with Sec. 1610.6-6 of this
part.
(d) More detailed and site specific plans for coal, oil shale and
tar sand resources shall be prepared in accordance with specific
regulations for those resources: Part 3400 of this title for coal; part
3900 of this title for oil shale; and part 3140 of this title for tar
sand. These activity plans shall be in conformance with land use plans
prepared and approved under the provisions of this part.
Sec. 1610.6-4 Monitoring and evaluation.
(a) The BLM shall monitor and evaluate the resource management plan
in accordance with the monitoring and evaluation standards to determine
whether:
(1) The resource management plan objectives are being met; and
(2) There is relevant new information or other sufficient cause to
warrant consideration of amendment or revision of the resource
management plan.
(b) The responsible official shall document the evaluation of the
resource management plan in a report made available for public review
on the BLM's Web site.
Sec. 1610.6-5 Maintenance.
Resource management plans may be maintained as necessary to correct
typographical or mapping errors or to reflect minor changes in mapping
or data. Maintenance shall not change a plan component of the approved
resource management plan, except to correct typographical or mapping
errors or to reflect minor changes in mapping or data. Maintenance is
not considered a resource management plan amendment and shall not
require the formal public involvement and interagency coordination
process described under Sec. Sec. 1610.2 and 1610.3 of this part or
the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement. When changes are made to an approved resource management
plan through plan maintenance, the BLM shall notify the public and make
the changes available for public review at least 30 days prior to their
implementation.
Sec. 1610.6-6 Amendment.
(a) A plan component may be changed through amendment. An amendment
may be initiated when the BLM determines monitoring and evaluation
findings, new high quality information, new or revised policy, a
proposed action, or other relevant changes in circumstances, such as
changes in resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic
conditions, warrants a change to one or more of the plan components of
the approved resource management plan. An amendment shall be made in
conjunction with an environmental assessment of the proposed change, or
an environmental impact statement, if necessary. When amending a
resource management plan, the BLM shall provide for public involvement
(see Sec. 1610.2), interagency coordination, tribal consultation,
consistency review (see Sec. 1610.3), and protest (see Sec. 1610.6-
2). In all cases, the effect of the amendment on other plan components
shall be evaluated. If the amendment is being considered in response to
a specific proposal, the effects analysis required for the proposal and
for the amendment may occur simultaneously.
(b) If the environmental assessment does not disclose significant
impacts,
[[Page 89670]]
the responsible official may make a finding of no significant impact
and then make a recommendation on the amendment to the deciding
official for approval. Upon approval, the BLM shall issue a public
notice of the action taken on the amendment. If the amendment is
approved, it may be implemented 30 days after such notice.
(c) If the BLM amends several resource management plans
simultaneously, a single programmatic environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment may be prepared to address all amendments.
Sec. 1610.6-7 Revision.
The BLM may revise a resource management plan, as necessary, when
monitoring and evaluation findings (Sec. 1610.6-4), new data, new or
revised policy, or other relevant changes in circumstances affect the
entire resource management plan or major portions of the resource
management plan. Revisions shall comply with all of the requirements of
this part for preparing and approving a resource management plan.
Sec. 1610.6-8 Situations where action can be taken based on another
agency's planning documents.
These regulations authorize the preparation of a resource
management plan for whatever public land interests exist in a given
land area, including mixed ownership where the public land estate is
under non-Federal surface, or administration of the land is shared by
the BLM and another Federal agency. The BLM may rely on the planning
documents of other agencies when split or shared estate conditions
exist in any of the following situations:
(a) Another agency's plan (Federal, tribal, State, or local) may be
relied on as a basis for an action only if it is comprehensive and has
considered the public land interest involved in a way comparable to the
manner in which it would have been considered in a resource management
plan, including the opportunity for public involvement, and is
consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to public
lands, and the purposes, policies and programs implementing such laws
and regulations.
(b) After evaluation and review, the BLM may adopt another agency's
plan for continued use as a resource management plan so long as the
plan is consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to
public lands, and the purposes, policies, and programs implementing
such laws and regulations, and an agreement is reached between the BLM
and the other agency to provide for maintenance and amendment of the
plan, as necessary.
(c) Another agency's resource assessment may be relied on only if
it is comprehensive and has considered the resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic conditions in a way comparable to the
manner in which these conditions would have been considered in a
planning assessment (see Sec. 1610.4), including the opportunity for
public involvement, and is consistent with Federal laws and regulations
applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies, and programs
implementing such laws and regulations.
(d) A land use analysis may be relied on to consider a coal lease
when there is no Federal ownership interest in the surface or when coal
resources are insufficient to justify plan preparation costs. The land
use analysis process, as authorized by the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act, consists of an environmental assessment or impact
statement, public involvement as required by Sec. 1610.2, the
consultation and consistency determinations required by Sec. 1610.3,
the protest procedure prescribed by Sec. 1610.6-2, and a decision on
the coal lease proposal. A land use analysis meets the planning
requirements of section 202 of FLPMA.
Sec. 1610.7 Management decision review by Congress.
FLPMA requires that any BLM management decision or action pursuant
to a management decision which totally eliminates one or more principal
or major uses for 2 or more years with respect to a tract of 100,000
acres or more, shall be reported by the Secretary to Congress before it
can be implemented. This report is not required prior to approval of a
resource management plan which, if fully or partially implemented,
would result in such an elimination of use(s). The required report
shall be submitted as the first action step in implementing that
portion of a resource management plan which would require elimination
of such a use.
Sec. 1610.8 Designation of areas.
Sec. 1610.8-1 Designation of areas unsuitable for surface mining.
(a)(1) The resource management planning process is the chief
process by which public land is reviewed to assess whether there are
areas unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining
operations under section 522(b) of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act. The unsuitability criteria to be applied during the
planning process are found in Sec. 3461.1 of this title.
(2) When petitions to designate land unsuitable under section
522(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are referred
to the BLM for comment, the resource management plan, or plan amendment
if available, shall be the basis for review.
(3) After a resource management plan or plan amendment is approved
in which lands are assessed as unsuitable, the BLM shall take all
necessary steps to implement the results of the unsuitability review as
it applies to all or certain types of coal mining.
(b)(1) The resource management planning process is the chief
process by which public lands are reviewed for designation as
unsuitable for entry or leasing for mining operations for minerals and
materials other than coal under section 601 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act.
(2) When petitions to designate lands unsuitable under section 601
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are received by the
BLM, the resource management plan, if available, shall be the basis for
determinations for designation.
(3) After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which
lands are designated unsuitable is approved, the BLM shall take all
necessary steps to implement the results of the unsuitability review as
it applies to minerals or materials other than coal.
Sec. 1610.8-2 Designation and protection of areas of critical
environmental concern.
(a) Areas having potential for ACEC designation and protection
shall be identified through inventory of public lands and during the
planning assessment, and considered during the preparation or amendment
of a resource management plan. The inventory data shall be analyzed to
determine whether there are areas containing resources, values, systems
or processes, or natural hazards eligible for further consideration for
designation as an ACEC. In order to be a potential ACEC, both of the
following criteria must be met:
(1) Relevance. There must be present a significant historic,
cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other natural
system or process; or natural hazard; and
(2) Importance. The value, resource, system, process, or natural
hazard described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must have
substantial significance and values. This generally requires qualities
of special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for
concern. A natural hazard
[[Page 89671]]
can be important if it is a significant threat to human life or
property.
(b) Potential ACECs shall be considered for designation during the
preparation or amendment of a resource management plan consistent with
the priority established by FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(3)). The
identification of a potential ACEC shall not, of itself, change or
prevent change of the management or use of public lands. ACECs require
special management attention (when such areas are developed or used or
no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage
to the important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and
wildlife resources or other natural system or process, or to protect
life and safety from natural hazards.
(1) When a draft resource management plan or plan amendment
involves possible designation of one or more potential ACECs, the BLM
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and request written
comments on the designations under consideration. This step may be
integrated with the notice and comment period for the draft resource
management plan or plan amendment (see Sec. 1610.2-2). Any draft
resource management plan or plan amendment involving a potential ACEC
shall include a list of each potential ACEC and any special management
attention which would occur if it were formally designated.
(2) The approval of a resource management plan or plan amendment
that contains an ACEC constitutes formal designation of an ACEC. The
approved plan shall include a list of all designated ACECs, and include
any special management attention, such as resource use determinations
(Sec. 1610.1-2(b)(2)), identified to protect the designated ACECs.
Sec. 1610.9 Transition period.
(a) Until superseded by resource management plans, management
framework plans may be the basis for considering proposed actions as
follows:
(1) The management framework plan must be in compliance with the
principle of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise
specified by law, and must have been developed with public involvement
and governmental coordination, but not necessarily precisely as
prescribed in Sec. Sec. 1610.2 and 1610.3 of this part.
(2) For proposed actions a determination shall be made by the
responsible official whether the proposed action is in conformance with
the management framework plan. Such determination shall be in writing
and shall explain the reasons for the determination.
(i) If the proposed action is in conformance with the management
framework plan, it may be further considered for decision under
procedures applicable to that type of action, including the regulatory
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
(ii) If the proposed action is not in conformance with the
management framework plan, and if the proposed action warrants further
consideration before a resource management plan is scheduled for
preparation, such consideration shall be through an amendment to the
management framework plan under the provisions of Sec. 1610.6-6 of
this part.
(b)(1) If an action is proposed where public lands are not covered
by a management framework plan or a resource management plan, an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, if
necessary, plus any other data and analysis deemed necessary by the BLM
to make an informed decision, shall be used to assess the impacts of
the proposal and to provide a basis for a decision on the proposal.
(2) A land disposal action may be considered before a resource
management plan is scheduled for preparation, through a planning
analysis, using the process described in Sec. 1610.6-6 of this part
for amending a plan.
(c)(1) When considering whether a proposed action is in conformance
with a resource management plan, the BLM shall use an existing resource
management plan approved prior to January 11, 2017 until it is
superseded by a resource management plan or plan amendment prepared
under the regulations in this part. In such circumstances, the proposed
action must either be specifically provided for in the resource
management plan or clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and
decisions of the approved plan.
(2) If a resource management plan is amended by a plan amendment
prepared under the regulations in this part, a future proposed action
must be clearly consistent with the plan components of the provisions
of the approved resource management plan amended under the regulations
in this part and the terms, conditions, and decisions of the provisions
of the approved resource management plan that have not been amended
under the regulations in this part.
(d) If the preparation, revision, or amendment of a plan was
formally initiated by issuance of a notice of intent in the Federal
Register prior to January 11, 2017, the BLM may complete and approve
the resource management plan or plan amendment pursuant to the
requirements of this part or to the provisions of the planning
regulations in 43 CFR part 1600 in effect prior to the effective date
of this rule.
[FR Doc. 2016-28724 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P