U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–992 2017

S. HRG. 114–471 

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGMENT’S PLANNING 

2.0 INITIATIVE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FOREST, AND 

MINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

STEVE DAINES 

BILL CASSIDY 

CORY GARDNER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

JEFF FLAKE 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

ELIZABETH WARREN 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

MICHELLE LANE, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SPENCER GRAY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from Alaska ............................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Kornze, Hon. Neil, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 7 

Magagna, Jim, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Stock Growers Association ........................................................................................................................ 15

Ogsbury, James, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association ............... 20 

Sgamma, Kathleen, Vice President of Government & Public Affairs, Western 

Energy Alliance .................................................................................................... 27 

Squillace, Mark, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School ............. 33 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

American Exploration & Mining Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 88 

American Petroleum Institute: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 122 

Barrasso, Hon. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Washington Post article dated June 20, 2016 entitled ‘‘Interior chief 

warns 70,000 employees: Sexual harassment is ‘completely out of line 

with our values’ ’’ .......................................................................................... 52 

Kane County, Utah Board of Commissioners, et al: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 125 

Kornze, Hon. Neil: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 7 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 10 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 72 

Magagna, Jim: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 15 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 17 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 3 

Ogsbury, James: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 20 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 22 

Response to Question from Senator Gardner ................................................. 58 

Sgamma, Kathleen: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 27 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 29 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 86 

Squillace, Mark: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 33 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 35 

Supplemental Letter for the Record ............................................................... 132 

(1) 

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT’S 

PLANNING 2.0 INITIATIVE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. This Subcommittee meeting will come to 

order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the Bureau of Land 

Management’s proposed rule which is called Planning 2.0. 

Before I give my opening statement I would like to turn the time 

over to the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso, thank you. I apologize to our 

witnesses and to those in attendance today. I have a commitment 

with the Inter-parliamentary group from Canada, and I am supposed to speak over there as well. 

I would like to, if I may, take a couple moments and just enter 

this statement into the record, but first thank all the witnesses for 

joining us here this afternoon. 

As you state, Mr. Chairman, the focus of today’s hearing is to 

provide oversight on the BLM’s proposed land use planning rule, 

Planning 2.0, which will make broad changes to how the agency 

will issue resource management plans moving forward. 

For an initiative that claims to engage state and local governments early in the process, Planning 2.0 is certainly taking a lot 

of heat right now. 

The BLM outlines its engagement process online including a 

webinar and two public meetings that occurred prior to the development of the proposed rule. While the agency may feel that they 

met the FLPMA requirements for outreach, our state governments, 

especially my colleagues in Alaska, largely disagree. Instead they 

have told me their voices have been ignored as evidenced by the 

product BLM noticed in the Federal Register. 

2 

BLM is currently obligated to establish management plans that 

are consistent with state, local and tribal management practices. 

Under the proposed rule the time period for consistency review is 

limited to 60 days and the scope is restricted to officially approved 

and adopted. 

This is particularly troublesome for folks in Alaska as the BLM 

has yet to fulfill Alaska’s entitlement requirements, thus making it 

impossible for the state to adopt and improve plans for lands it has 

yet to receive. 

As written, the proposed rule makes some sweeping changes to 

both the current resource management planning process and the 

opportunities for public engagement. The drastic changes in the 

process and the elimination of opportunities for formal, public comment, along with the exclusion of several transparency requirements are alarming to say the least. 

While BLM attempts to justify many of these changes in the 

name of streamlining, I am concerned the long-term result may be 

a longer process with state, local and tribal governments, as well 

as interested stakeholders, deprived of opportunities to engage in 

the process in a meaningful way. 

In its proposed rule, BLM includes the definition of mitigation. 

To explain that mitigation includes the sequence of avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts and compensating for remaining unavoidable impacts. 

For the first time in a proposed planning regulation, BLM specifically states, ‘‘By including this proposed definition in the planning regulations, the BLM acknowledges that this sequence also 

applies to the planning process.’’ 

The emphasis on mitigation, specifically as a means of compensating for unavoidable impacts, is problematic as it moves the 

agency away from its mission of multiple use. 

Finally, I would like to speak to one of the purported primary 

goals of the proposed rule which is to enable the BLM to readily 

access landscape scale resource issues. While I concur with the 

BLM that the current planning process is far from perfect, I am not 

convinced that the solution to all present planning issues lie in 

landscape scale plans as we have seen in the sage grouse plan of 

late. 

I am particularly concerned about including Alaska in multiple 

state plans. While Alaskans certainly love our neighbors in the 

lower 48, there are certain Federal laws that apply only to Alaska 

that do not apply elsewhere and specifically cover Federal lands. 

Thus, this could prove quite problematic in developing a broad 

RMP that covered say our migratory bird plan for the Western 

United States. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to say a few words. I thank you for conducting this very, 

very important hearing on these issues and thank the witnesses 

again. 

[The written statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21992.001

Statement of Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Oversight Hearing on the BLM Planning 2.0 Initiative 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

June 21,2016 

Thank you Chainnan Barrasso for holding this hearing, and I'd like to thank all of 

the witnesses for joining us here today as well. 

As you know, the focus of this hearing is to provide oversight on the BLM's 

proposed land use planning rule-known as "Planning 2.0"-which will make 

broad changes to how the agency will issue resource management plans moving 

forward. 

For an initiative that claimed to engage state and local govemments early in the 

process, Planning 2.0 sure has taken a lot of heat. The BLM outlines its 

engagement process online, including a webinar and two public meetings that 

occurred prior to the development of the proposed rule. 

While the agency may feel that they met the FLPMA requirements for outreach, 

our state governments, especially my colleagues in Alaska, largely disagree. 

Instead, they have told me that their voices have been ignored, as evidenced by the 

product BLM noticed in the Federal Register. 

BLM is currently obligated to establish management plans that are consistent with 

state, local, and tribal management practices. Under the proposed rule, the time 

period for consistency review is limited to 60 days, and the scope is restricted to 

officially approved and adopted. This is particnlarly troublesome for my state of 
4 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21992.002

Alaska, as the BLM has yet to fulfill Alaska's entitlement requirements, thus 

making it impossible for the state to adopt and approve plans for lands it has yet to 

receive. 

As written, the proposed mle makes sweeping changes to both the current resource 

management planning (RMP) process and the opportunities for public engagement. 

The drastic changes in the process and the elimination of opportunities for fom1al 

public comment, along with the exclusion of several transparency requirements, 

are alarming to say the least. While BLM attempts to justifY many of these 

changes in the name of streamlining, I am concemed that the long-term result may 

be a longer process, with state, local, and tribal govemments, as well as interested 

stakeholders, deprived of opportw1ities to engage in the process in a meaningful 

way. 

In its proposed mle, BLM includes the definition of mitigation "to explain that 

mitigation includes the sequence of avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and 

compensating for remaining unavoidable impacts. For the first time in a proposed 

planning regulation, BLM specifically states, "by including this proposed 

definition in the planning regulations, the BLM acknowledges that this sequence 

also applies to the planning process." The emphasis on mitigation, specifically as a 

means of compensating for ''unavoidable impacts" is problematic, as it moves the 

agency away from it mission of multiple-use. 

Finally, I would like to speak to one of the purported primary goals of the proposed 

rule, which is to "enable the BLM to readily address landscape-scale resource 

issues." While l concur with the BLM that the current planning process is far from 

perfect, I am not convinced that the solution to all present planning issues lie in 
5 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21992.003

landscape-scale plans, as we have seen in the sage grouse plan oflate. I am 

particularly concerned about including Alaska in multiple-state plans. While 

Alaskans certainly love their neighbors in the lower 48, there are certain federal 

laws that apply only to Alaska that do not apply elsewhere, and specifically cover 

federal lands. This could prove quite problematic in developing a broad RMP that 

covered, say, a migratory bird plan for the western United States. 

Again, I appreciate you all taking the time to be here today, and I look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

I'll now tum things back over Chairman Barrasso. 
6 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

appreciate you taking the time to be here. I think it is going to be 

an interesting hearing because the BLM has been describing this 

Planning 2.0 as a simple initiative to so-called increase public involvement and incorporate the most current data and technology 

into its land use planning. 

There is no doubt that the BLM’s current planning process is 

often cumbersome. It is inefficient. But I am concerned that instead 

of actually increasing public involvement and streamlining the 

planning process, this Planning 2.0 process will be less efficient, 

will be more costly and will marginalize experts who are integral 

to public land management. Those are real concerns, and I hear 

them in Wyoming. 

The agency seems to think that the proposed rule is a simple 

clarification of the planning process but this is not the case. What 

Planning 2.0 proposes would fundamentally alter the way that 

state, local, tribal, local governments, stakeholders and general 

public engage in the public land management planning process. 

As written, Planning 2.0 will effectively ignore expert knowledge 

in both local agency offices and among local land users, and I believe, compromise the ability of state and local governments to represent the people and the resources in their own districts. 

In an effort to make its goal of a transition to what is called, 

‘‘landscape scale planning,’’ BLM proposes to shift authority from 

local and district offices to Washington, DC. Now I appreciate that 

the BLM wants to make management plans more cohesive among 

local offices, but developing sweeping landscape-scale plans from 

the Director’s office in Washington, DC, I believe, is going to result 

in a failure to utilize valuable, localized knowledge of ecosystems 

and resources. This change would result in plans that do not reflect 

the on the ground realities and ultimately, will disenfranchise 

knowledgeable, local agency employees. 

It won’t just be agency personnel who are overlooked. In the proposed rule, BLM seems to recognize the need for improved stakeholder involvement in the planning process, but unfortunately, the 

proposed changes will, in my mind, decrease stakeholder involvement at crucial points in the planning process and will further extend planned development times that are already much too long. 

The BLM seems to think that the addition of the ‘‘planning assessment’’ period at the beginning of the planning process would 

help agency officials understand how the public feels. What the 

agency clearly fails to realize, however, is that if planning is kept 

at the local and the state offices’ level, then officials developing the 

plans should already be aware of public opinion before the process 

even begins. 

Formalizing this preemptive planning assessment period seems 

to be a justification for regional or Federal agency employees to implement a top-down land management agenda. 

Introduction of public comment on preliminary alternatives before a draft resource management plan is published will only increase the time it takes to complete a resource management plan 

and, in my view, will provide no added benefit. How can the public 

or any relevant stakeholder be expected to comment on proposed 

7 

alternatives when the details of the plan have yet to be determined? 

I am not sure if Senator Wyden is a bit delayed. He may come, 

and I will give him an opportunity at that point to make opening 

remarks. 

Senator Daines, at this time, would you like to add any opening 

remarks or to wait until the questioning? 

Thank you. 

I appreciate the wonderful witnesses who are here with us today. 

We are going to have Mr. Neil Kornze, who is the Director of the 

Bureau of Land Management; Jim Magagna, who is the Executive 

Director of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association; Mr. James 

Ogsbury, who is the Director of the Western Governors’ Association; Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, who is the Vice President of Public 

and Government Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance; and Mr. 

Mark Squillace, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School. 

Before turning to our first witness, I would like to take a moment to thank my friend, Jim Magagna, for being here today. A native of Rock Springs, Wyoming, Jim has served as the Executive 

Director for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association since 1998. 

He is a veteran witness before congressional Committees. He provides an invaluable perspective on all things related to agriculture 

and public land management. So I am happy, Jim, that you could 

join us today to share your thoughts with us and with the rest of 

the panel. 

I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. Please keep 

your statements to five minutes so that we may have time for questions. 

Director Kornze, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL KORNZE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on 

the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed update to its land use 

planning rule. 

The BLM manages ten percent of the land in the United States 

and 30 percent of the nation’s minerals and soils. 

Land use plans form the basis for every on-the-ground action 

that the BLM authorizes or undertakes. That’s why it’s critical, not 

just to the BLM but to communities throughout the nation, that we 

have an effective land use planning process that includes meaningful public process. 

Since the BLM first implemented its land use planning rule in 

1979, pressures on BLM-administered lands have increased and 

management conflicts have grown. As a result, the current land 

use planning process encounters more delays, higher expenses and 

expanded legal challenges. 

We have heard from numerous governments and individuals that 

the BLM’s notoriously long planning processes make them feel disconnected from the agency’s work. 

8 

One of the first meetings I took as the head of this agency was 

with Governor Herbert of Utah. In that conversation he told both 

me and Secretary Jewell that the BLM’s planning process is broken 

because completing the land use plan could take a decade or more. 

He said something must be done to make these processes more 

timely and transparent. I understand his concerns, and I agree. It’s 

essential that we have a planning process that is timely, open and 

focused on issues that matter to the people of each of the communities that are impacted. 

That’s why we started the Planning 2.0 initiative. Input from 

Governor Herbert and many others served as a catalyst for the 

BLM to modernize its land use planning process. 

The proposed rule under consideration today is the culmination 

of over two years of outreach and discussion with state and local 

governments, communities and the public. During those two years 

the BLM held public meetings and accepted comments from more 

than 6,000 local governments, groups and individuals. With this 

updated rule the BLM aims to address the concerns of governments 

and the public by accomplishing two primary goals. 

First, the proposed rule would establish more meaningful opportunities for governments and the public to be involved earlier and 

more often in the land use planning process. By providing earlier 

and more regular check-ins and opportunities for dialog, we believe 

that our planning process will be more transparent and more relevant to the challenges facing counties and towns across the country. 

Second, by building our planning efforts on a more complete set 

of information, we are confident that the need for late in the game 

supplementation will be greatly diminished. In turn, we will be 

able to finish our planning efforts in a timelier fashion and put our 

energy and staff time into on-the-ground projects with our partners. 

Under the proposed rule, government entities that have either 

relevant jurisdiction or special expertise would continue to be invited to participate as cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies 

work closely with BLM in every stage of the planning process to 

identify issues that should be addressed, to collect and analyze 

data, to develop and evaluate alternatives and to review preliminary documents. 

This unique partnership ensures that the BLM has all the information necessary to develop a land use plan that is responsive to 

the needs and concerns of local communities. The BLM is committed to continuing its close collaboration with these government 

entities as part of the land use planning process. 

Now our stakeholders told us that there was room for improvement in the way that we work, and we agree. Without close working relationships with communities that we serve, the BLM cannot 

develop and maintain appropriate and effective plans. The updated 

approach that we have in front of us today would provide for more 

public involvement earlier in the process, allow the BLM to better 

address local needs and to deal with changing land and resource 

conditions. 

Updating our process will more fully involve local governments 

and the public and ensure that the BLM will have a stronger hand 

9 

in maintaining and living up to its multiple use and sustained 

yield mission. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today, and 

I would be glad to answer questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21992.004

Testimony of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Regarding 

The BLM's Proposed Planning Rule 

June 21, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior regarding 

the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed planning rule. The proposed planning rule 

is part of the BLM's ongoing efforts to improve the way that the BLM develops land use plans 

that guide the management of the public lands administered by the Bureau as authorized by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 

This proposed new rule is the culmination of over two years of outreach and discussion with 

state and local governments, communities, stakeholders, other governmental partners, and the 

public and reflects many of the lessons learned and best practices developed over the last 40 

years of land use planning. This proposed rule responds to the recommendations and concerns 

raised by state and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to modernize and improve 

our land use planning process in ways that make our efforts more collaborative, transparent, and 

efficient. 

Background 

The BLM manages ten percent of the land in the United States and 30 percent of the nation's 

minerals. Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to develop land use plans in partnership with 

state, local, and tribal govemments, as well as the public, to manage these diverse public land 

resources in accordance with the BLM' s multiple-use and sustained yield mission unless 

otherwise provided by law. BLM land use plans establish goals and objectives to guide future 

land and resource management actions implemented by the BLM. 

The regulations governing the BLM's land use planning process are more than 30 years old. 

Pressures are increasing on ELM-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, have also experienced an increased number of practical 

challenges, including unexpected delays, higher expenses, and expanded legal issues in 

managing these lands. Resource issues such as invasive species, wildfire, energy transmission, 

and wildlife conservation cross traditional administrative and jurisdictional boundaries making 

current planning less efficient and more costly to implement. 
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21992.005

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 land and resource management planning process. We have heard the process 

described as one characterized by long waiting periods punctuated by short periods in which 

stakeholders have to digest and respond to large volumes of infom1ation. This can be 

exacerbated by the need to supplement draft plans that have been in process 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. 

We understand and share many of these concerns. These factors, combined with the changing 

nature of the demands on public lands and the increasingly complex and conflicting issues that 

result, served as a catalyst for the BLM to update its land use planning process. The effort was 

launched in 2014. 

Current Planning Process 

The current land use planning process begins with a formal public scoping process to identify 

planning issues that should be considered in the land management plan. The BLM analyzes 

these and uses them to develop a range of alternative management strategies. 

The range of alternatives is initially presented in a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

draft environmental impact statement (EIS), in which the BLM must identify a preferred 

alternative. The release of the draft RMP and draft EIS is followed by a 90-day public comment 

period. Once comments have been reviewed and evaluated, the BLM revises the draft plan, as 

appropriate, and then releases a proposed RMP and final EIS. 

Release of the proposed RMP and final EIS initiates a 30-day protest period for any person who 

previously participated in the planning process and has an interest that is (or may be) adversely 

affected by the proposed plan. At the same time, the BLM provides the proposed plan and final 

EIS to the governors of those states included in the RMP for a 60-day consistency review period 

to identify inconsistencies with state and local plans. After inconsistencies and protests have 

been considered, the BLM State Director can approve the final RMP. 

The Proposed Rule 

The proposed planning rule includes some important updates and improvements to the current 

process. These changes, consistent with FLPMA, are intended to: (1) respond to specific, 

articulated issues with the current planning process; (2) improve opportunities for state and local 

governments, stakeholders, and the public to better provide input to plans from the outset; and 

(3) reduce time delays, costs, and, we believe, the chance of litigation. 

For example, the proposed rule would add a requirement for the development of a planning 

assessment as a first step. This planning assessment would provide an opportunity for the BLM, 

state, tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to work together before any 

scoping or drafting takes place to better understand the existing conditions in the planning area, 

and to identify the types of data and information that will be necessary during the planning 

process. Gathering relevant data and information would be an important part of the assessment 

2 
12 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21992.006

and would improve understanding of key resource issues and conditions, and other issues in the 

planning area. During this phase, participants would also be able to provide early input into 

identifying the planning area boundary, and would help identify data to use during the planning 

process. 

State, tribal, and local government entities would also be invited to participate as cooperating 

agencies at this time. The special role of state, tribal, and local government entities is fully 

preserved in the proposed rule, and is discussed in more detail below. 

The rule would also add the opportunity for a public review of and input on preliminary 

alternatives before the draft RMP is written. We believe that the production of a planning 

assessment and additional opportunities for input into development of the plan alternatives would 

help to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of land use plans. We believe these measures 

could also reduce delay and the chances of litigation as concerns and potential conflicts between 

competing land and resource users and uses would surface earlier, and opportunities to address 

these concerns could be initiated sooner. The need for supplemental analyses and data gathering 

would be reduced. 

These planning process improvements would provide new opportunities for public input early in 

the planning process. However, they would not change the special status currently atTorded to 

state, local, and tribal governments. Opportunities for more frequent check-ins with 

governments and stakeholders during the development of the draft plan would also help the BLM 

identify errors or missing information earlier in the process. 

Under the proposed rule, after an RMP has been adopted and is being implemented, the BLM 

would publish a summary report on the effectiveness of the plan. This summary report would 

enable state, tribal, and local governments and the public to track implementation progress. It 

would also enable the BLM to determine whether implementation strategies need to be adjusted, 

or if the RMP needs to be amended or revised to more effectively achieve management goals. 

The BLM believes that these changes will contribute to a more efficient and cost-effective 

planning process that should reduce the amount of time and resources the BLM would have to 

spend to develop and maintain land and resource management plans. The BLM would be able to 

react more quickly to address local needs, and amend land use plans in ways that may be critical 

to enabling local economies to adapt to changing circumstances. 

Affirming the U nigue Role of State, Local, and Tribal Governments in the Planning 

P1·ocess 

FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the proposed rule provide state, tribal, and 

local governments a special role in the BLM's land use planning process. This role is important 

to the BLM in ensuring the best quality plans are prepared. 

First, FLPMA directs the BLM to coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to assist in 

resolving inconsistencies between BLM's land use plans and local land use plans, to the 

maximum extent consistent with Federal law and the purposes ofFLPMA. Specifically, Section 

3 
13 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21992.007

202(c)(9) provides, in part, that, in the development and revision ofland use plans, the BLM 

shall: 

to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public 

lands, 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 depatiments and agencies and of the States and local governments within 

which the lands are located ... In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, 

to the extent the he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land 

use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans 

that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in 

resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and nonFederal government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement 

of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the 

development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions 

for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may 

have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. 

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, of course, review preliminary documents. This unique partnership is provided only to 

governmental entities and helps the BLM develop a land use plan that is responsive to the needs 

and concerns oflocal communities. 

For example, after the public scoping period, the BLM would collaborate with cooperating 

agencies to develop a preliminary range of alternatives and rationales, and to identify the 

preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used in the analysis. The BLM would 

make preliminary versions of these key planning documents available to state, tribal, and local 

governments and interested stakeholders for review. The BLM would use feedback gained from 

this opportunity to develop alternatives in the draft land use plan that more fully address local 

needs and the concerns and information shared by various stakeholders during the early stages of 

the planning process. 

There are no changes to the status or role of cooperating agencies being considered as part of this 

draft rule. The BLM is committed to continuing its collaborative relationship with state, tribal, 

and local governments, as it has, consistent with FLPMA. 

Public Participation in Development of the Proposed Planning Rule & After Publication of 

the Proposed Rule 

In 2014, the BLM launched a campaign to garner feedback on the initial ideas for updating its 

land use planning rules. The capstone of that campaign was a series of public listening sessions 

in Colorado and California in the fall of 2014. Through that listening process, stakeholders 

submitted more than 6,000 written comments; those comments provided invaluable feedback and 

formed the backbone for the development of the proposed rule. The BLM also presented 

information on its efforts to improve the planning process and the proposed rule at multiple 

stakeholder events, including: the 2014 and 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural 

4 
14 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21992.008

Resources Conference, webinars hosted by the National Association of Counties, and Western 

Governors Association meetings. 

Since the release of the proposed rule on February ll, 2016, the BLM extended the comment 

period by 30 days in response to requests from the public; hosted a public meeting in Colorado in 

March 2016; and conducted multiple webinar outreach sessions in March and April2016. 

Recordings of all of these events are available for viewing on the BLM' s website. 

In addition to outreach to the general public, the BLM has had several conversations with 

National Association of Counties (NACo) members and hosted a question and answer session 

with county and state governments. The BLM hosted a question and answer session for county 

representatives at the NACo Western Interstate Region conference on May 27. Finally, the BLM 

conducted government-to-government consultation with Federally-recognized tribes and hosted 

an informational webinar specifically for tribal representatives in May 2016. Recently, BLM 

leadership briefed staff of the Western Governors' Association this past weekend on the 

proposed planning mle and answered questions that they posed. 

Conclusion 

In recent years, the BLM has received valuable feedback from state, local, and tribal 

governments, other stakeholders, and the public that its existing planning process takes too long, 

is too costly, and is ditlicult to follow. We take this feedback seriously, and recognize the need 

for improvements in our current planning process. The Planning 2.0 Initiative was developed to 

assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current planning process; identify state, local, and 

other stakeholder and public concems, and to develop "fixes" for the issues identified in order to 

make the BLM planning process more efficient, cost-effective, and relevant to the issues 

affecting public land management today- nearly 30 years since the current planning rules were 

formulated. The proposed BLM planning rule incorporates lessons learned from the 

development of hundreds ofland use plans and feedback received through numerous public 

meetings, webinars, briefings, and conversations over the past two years. 

Fostering close working relationships with local communities and increasing transparency and 

opportunities for state and local officials, stakeholders, and the public to participate in the 

planning process earlier and more often would allow the BLM to develop and maintain 

meaningful and effective land use plans. This updated approach to planning would also allow 

the BLM to react more quickly to amend land use plans to better address local needs and 

changing land and resource conditions, to enhance local communities' ability to adapt to 

changing circumstances, and ensure that the BLM can meet its legal mandate to manage the 

public lands for mnltiple-use and sustained yield for generations to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department 

of the Interior regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed planning rule. I am 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

5 
15 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Kornze. 

Mr. Magagna? 

STATEMENT OF JIM MAGAGNA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your kind words of introduction. 

I believe it’s useful to our discussion of our concerns with the 

planning rule to place it in the context of the evolution of the relationship between the BLM and the public land ranching industry. 

Prior to the middle of the last century, grazing was considered 

just a use of the land. As we evolved during the 1960’s and beyond 

with some of the environmental laws that were passed in this country, we came to recognize grazing, not just as a use of the land, but 

as a tool for managing the land and real strong partnerships developed between public land ranchers and local BLM range personnel 

and BLM decision makers based on bringing some new science to 

the practice of grazing and working together on the land, not on 

paper, but on the land. And it, livestock grazing, was recognized 

within the agency itself as being an important tool in meeting the 

resource management goals of the agency. 

We are very concerned as an industry that several of the changes 

proposed in Planning 2.0 will further erode this partnership with 

the agency that worked toward achieving sustainable resource 

management. 

A central component of Planning 2.0 includes a concept of landscape level planning. We find several dangers inherent in this approach. Attempts to implement broad management plans will necessarily often result in less attention to the resource management 

needs of a particular land area. Landscape level planning moves 

the input in decision-making process further from those agency 

personnel with a working knowledge of the resource, the resource 

challenges and the resource dependent community. The removal of 

well-defined roles of BLM state directors and field office managers 

in favor of ‘‘deciding officials’’ and responsible officials, only serves 

to increase the uncertainty and distrust that had been growing 

among resource dependent constituencies. Landscape level planning will significantly reduce the ability of local governments, resource dependent users such as grazing permittees, and the local 

public to engage in and influence the planning process. 

A second component of Planning 2.0 addresses so-called improved 

opportunities for public input. While Planning 2.0 may engage a 

greater breadth of the public to provide input, it actually significantly lessens the ability of those most directly involved in multiple 

use of the resource and, therefore, most significantly impacted to 

have meaningful substantive impact. One example of this is the reduction in the minimum formal comment periods from 90 days to 

60 days in terms of the draft proposed plan. Even today with 90 

days there are typically requests for extended periods of time. 

Those are often granted. If we reduce this to 60 days, those requests will increase. 

We’re expediting the process but only in terms of the opportunities for public input. In part because grazing permittees, many of 

whom who have multiplied generational commitments to stewardVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:49 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 021992 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21992\C21992.TXT C21992
16 

ship for the public lands, have been relegated to no greater opportunity for engagement than that of the public. We have become increasingly dependent on state and local governments to represent 

our interest in the planning process. While the rule acknowledges 

the role of these local entities, it is filled with undefined terms that 

provide BLM multiple escape routes from full cooperation. These 

include cooperation where possible and appropriate, collaboration 

as feasible and appropriate and consistency to the maximum extent 

that the BLM finds practical. 

Another goal of Planning 2.0 is to increase the agency’s ability 

to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner, 

we find it very difficult to reconcile this stated goal with the BLM’s 

mandate to manage for multiple use and sustained yield. 

Finally, BLM Planning 2.0 replaces the requirement that BLM 

identifies a single, preferred alternative with the opportunity to 

identify one or more preferred alternatives. This, again, will further burden affected constituencies in providing input and will actually extend rather than shorten that process. 

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, beyond Planning 2.0 will complicate effective resource planning while 

reducing opportunities for meaningful public and local government 

input and lessening local agency decision-making authority. It will 

further challenge the public land rancher while eroding our partnership with local BLM personnel in ensuring resource sustainability that contributes to the long term viability of our industry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magagna follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21992.009

SENATE ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEECOMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTRY & MINING 

HEARING ON BLM PLANNING 2.0 

TESTIMONY OF 

JIMMAGAGNA 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Magagna, a life-long Wyoming 

public land rancher. For the past 17 years I have held the position of Executive Vice 

President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA). The Association has 

been a voice for Wyoming's ranching industry since 1872. I have also served as 

President of the National Public Lands Council and as President of the American Sheep 

Industry Association. I am currently serving on a F ACA Committee where we have 

spent the past four years advising the U.S. Forest Service on implementation of their 

2012 Planning Rule. To the extent that there are similarities between these two rules, my 

comments will reflect that experience. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you 

today. 

Livestock grazing is perhaps the earliest and most widespread use of public lands in the 

west since the founding of our nation, predating the establishment of the Bureau of Land 

Management I believe it is useful to understanding our concerns with the planning rule 

to place it in the context of the evolution of the relationship between the BLM and the 

public land rancher. Prior to the mid-201

h century, public land grazing was viewed 

primarily as "a use of the land". The role of BLM was focused on the issuance of permits 

and assuring general compliance with their terms and conditions. 

Beginning in the 1960's, BLM range professionals became more active as "partners" 

with ranchers in on-the-ground management. This partnership led to more intense 

management of livestock and increased productivity of the land. Advances in range 

science influenced livestock management. As we moved toward the 21st century, 

livestock grazing came to be recognized not only as a use of the land but as an important 

tool in meeting the resource management goals of the agency. 

Today, increased federal regulatory burdens and incessant legal challenges to agency 

decisions from a radical element within the environmental community threaten this 

partnership. While we commend the BLM for considering the need to make their 

planning process more responsive to the public, WSGA is very concerned that several of 

the changes proposed in Planning 2.0 will further erode our partnership with the agency 

in achieving sustainable resource management 

A central component of Planning 2.0 introduces the concept oflandscape level planning. 

We find several dangers inherent in this approach. For those most knowledgeable about 

the resources in any given area, individual areas are most notable for their uniqueness and 

their unique management challenges. Attempts to implement broad management plans 

pg. 1 
18 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21992.010

will necessarily often result in less attention to the resource management needs of a 

particular area. 

Landscape level planning moves the input and decision-making processes further from 

those agency personnel with a working knowledge of the resource and resource 

challenges. These same individuals best understand current multiple uses of these 

resources and the potential social and economic impacts of plan components. The 

removal of the well-defined roles ofBLM State Directors and Field Office Managers in 

favor of"Deciding Officials" and "Responsible Officials" only serves to increase the 

uncertainly and distrust that has been growing among resource-dependent constituencies. 

Landscape level planning will significantly reduce the ability oflocal governments, 

resource dependent users such as grazing permittees and local publics to engage in and 

influence the planning process. For all of these reasons, WSGA urges that effective 

planning be conducted at the smallest scale compatible with effective use of resources. 

In Wyoming that is the field office level. 

A second component of Planning 2. 0 addresses improved opportunities for public input. 

WSGA's analysis confirms our early concern that, while Planning 2.0 may encourage a 

greater breath of the public to provide input, it actually lessens the ability of those most 

directly involved in multiple uses of the resource and therefore most significantly 

impacted to have meaningful substantive impact. Furthermore, we find no recognition of 

the particular need for agency planners to reach out to constituencies that have a more 

formal relationship on the affected lands through permits, leases, rights of way and other 

legal instruments including, in our case, the Taylor Grazing Act. 

In addition to the challenges imposed by the landscape scale approach discussed above, 

minimum formal comment periods have been significantly reduced-from 90 days to 60 

days on draft resource management plans and from 90 days to 45 days on draft plan 

amendments. This becomes even more problematic as plans become more generic due to 

the landscape level approach. As planning documents have become more complex and 

lengthy, even under the current planning rule we are most often compelled to seek 

extensions to the comment periods to allow for adequate analysis. 

In part because grazing permittees, many of whom have multiple generational 

commitments to stewardship of the public lands, have been relegated to no greater 

opportunity for engagement than that of"the public", we have become increasingly 

dependent on the unique opportunities of state and local governments to represent our 

interests in the planning process. Their "toolbox" has included cooperating agency status 

and coordination as granted by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). 

While the proposed rule acknowledges the role of cooperating agencies, the need for 

collaboration and the requirement to seek consistency with local plans, it is filled with 

undefined terms that provide BLM multiple escape routes from full cooperation. These 

include cooperation "where possible and appropriate"; collaboration "as feasible and 

appropriate" and consistency "to the maximum extent the BLM finds practical". The 

pg. 2 
19 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21992.011

insertion of these terms makes the proposed rule inconsistent with both the spirit and 

requirements ofFLPMA. These changes provide the opportunity to eliminate or 

minimize local governmental input at the discretion ofBLM. 

One of the cited goals of Planning 2.0 is to "improve the BLM's ability to respond to 

social and environmental change in a timely manner". While timeliness may be a virtue 

to be commended, WSGA finds it difficult to reconcile response to social change" with 

the BLM's mandate to manage for multiple use and sustained yield. The agency should 

be cautious in responding to social change without careful analysis of the impact of such 

changes on local communities and established resource users including grazing 

permittees/lessees. Meaningful discussion of the need to address economic impacts is 

noticeably absent from the proposed rule. 

In an apparent effort to simplify and expedite the planning process and minimize the need 

for plan amendments, Planning 2.0 segregates the outcomes of the current planning 

process into two distinct categories-Plan Components and Implementation Strategies. 

While WSGA does not disagree with this classification, we strongly object to the lack of 

opportunity for tbrmal and meaningful public and local/state governmental input into the 

development oflmplementation Strategies. The rule requires no more than a 30 day 

notice with no opportunity for public input prior to implementation. Otherwise acceptable 

plan components can have significant unacceptable impacts on resource users dependent 

upon the implementation strategies selected. 

In an another significant departure from the current planning rule, Planning 2.0 replaces 

the requirement that the BLM identify a single preferred alternative with the opportunity 

to identify "one or more" preferred alternatives. This will serve to further burden 

affected constituencies such as public land ranchers in providing meaningful responses to 

draft RMP' s. It will increase the uncertainly that surrounds identification of the 

anticipated components of the final RMP and the ability to make timely business 

management decisions to adjust to expected changes. Finally, WSGA believes that this 

change will only serve to enable the agency to put forth often very biased "citizen 

alternatives" as alternate preferred alternatives. 

In summary, BLM Planning 2.0 will complicate effective resource planning while 

reducing opportunities for meaningful public and local governmental input and lessening 

local agency decision making authority. It will further challenge the public land rancher 

while eroding our partnership with local BLM personnel in assuring resource 

sustainability that contributes to the long-term viability of our industry. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns. [ look forward to your questions. 

pg. 3 
20 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Magagna. 

Mr. Ogsbury? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee, 

my name is Jim Ogsbury. I’m the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association, an independent, bipartisan association, 

representing 19 Western Governors and three U.S. flag islands. 

When it comes to the development of an administration of Federal public policy, Western Governors are duly concerned and often 

frustrated when they are regarded or treated as common stakeholders. 

Governors, the Chief Executive Officers of their states, are much 

more than that. States are sovereigns. Governors have constitutional responsibilities, delegated authorities and on-the-ground 

knowledge about their state’s economies and cultures and environments. Their expertise and their perspectives should be brought to 

bear in the design and execution of Federal programs. 

The governors are particularly anxious to operate as authentic 

partners with Federal agencies in the implementation of programs 

that have demonstrable impacts on state authority. States, for example, possess primary police powers to manage most fish and 

wildlife within their boundaries. Likewise, states have primary authority over the management over water resources within their borders and they possess plenary authority over groundwater. 

Because of the management of Federal lands implicates these authorities and because the Bureau of Land Management owns such 

a vast amount of land in the West, the governors are deeply invested in the agency’s processes for the development of resource 

management plans. 

Moreover, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

FLPMA, recognizes this investment and mandates a substantial 

role for governors in the BLM planning process. Unfortunately, the 

proposed Planning 2.0 rule fails to honor the role of governors in 

this process and instead diminishes it in significant respects. 

With respect to states, FLPMA says in relevant part that the 

Secretary of Interior shall, ‘‘coordinate the land use inventory, 

planning and management activities of or for such lands with the 

land use planning and management programs of states. The Secretary shall provide for meaningful public involvement of state officials in the development of land use programs, land use regulations 

and land use decisions for public lands. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with state plans to the 

maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law.’’ 

Planning 2.0 changes the existing implementing regulations in 

ways that diminish gubernatorial authority and influence. Whereas, current regulations provide that BLM shall strive for consistency between resource management plans and resource-related 

policies, plans, programs and processes of states. The proposed regulation would only consider consistencies between RMPs and officially adopted land use plans, significantly narrowing the influence 

of Governors. 

21 

Furthermore, the proposal eliminates the existing regulatory directive the BLM accept a governor’s recommendations submitted as 

part of his or her consistency review if they provide for a reasonable balance between the Nation’s interest and that of the state. 

Under 2.0 the Director is directed to simply consider governors’ 

views. By eliminating the current provision and failing to provide 

criteria or standards for the review of gubernatorial input, it appears that BLM is investing itself with great, perhaps unfettered, 

discretion to disregard governors’ recommendations. 

Western Governors are concerned about several provisions that 

shorten timelines for public comment and obviate the need to publish notices in the Federal Register. The agency has suggested that 

comment periods are appropriately reduced because the proposed 

rule includes new opportunities for the public to participate early 

on in the planning process, such as the new planning assessment 

phase. These additional opportunities, however much they may operate to elevate the role of the public and non-government organizations in resource planning, do nothing to promote coordination 

between the states and the agency rather, governors are treated 

like any other stakeholder. 

Planning 2.0 includes new provisions calling for the use of high 

quality information. It is disappointing that the proposal fails to acknowledge the value of state science, data and analysis despite the 

congressional directive. For the past three years the Federal land 

management agencies use state information, at least with respect 

to wildlife data as a principle basis for land management decisions. 

There is little disagreement that the resource management planning process of BLM could be greatly improved. Accordingly, Western Governors are prepared to work with BLM as authentic and invested partners in the development and execution of a planning 

process that redounds the benefit of individual states, the American West and our great nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21992.012

Testimony of James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director 

Western Governors' Association 

Before the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Oversight Hearing on the Bureau of Land Managemenf s Planning 2.0 Initiative 

June 21, 2016 

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 

Committee. My name is James D. Ogsbury. I serve as Executive Director of the Western 

Governors' Association. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization representing the 

Governors of 19 western states and three U.S.-flag islands. I am honored to be here to share 

perspectives of Western Governors regarding the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 

recently released proposal, Resource Management Planning or, Planning 2.0. 

In Planning 2.0, BLM proposes a number of changes in how it develops and implements 

resource management plans (RMP). The stated purposes of these changes are to clarify existing 

language, address landscape-scale management issues, and more effectively involve 

governmental and stakeholder partners. 

Upon review of the proposal, Western Governors have concluded that what the agency has 

proposed will have quite opposite effects from what it intended: confusion rather than clarity, 

less transparency rather than more. This proposal, if instituted, will siguifie<mtly reduce the 

opportunity for Governors, state regulators, local governments and the public to engage in 

what needs to be a collaborative land management planning process for huge swaths of the 

American West. 

State Consultation 

Western Governors have very clear expectations regarding how federal agencies should interact 

with them when developing regulatory programs impacting states. To quote WGA Policy 

Resolution 2014-09 Respecting State Authority and Expertise, "Western Governors support early, 

meaningful and substantial state involvement in the development, prioritization and 

implementation of federal environmental statutes, policies, rules, programs, reviews, budget 

proposals, budget processes and strategic planning." The rationale behind this position is a 

logical one: states have statutorily and Constihttionally-recognized authority to manage lands 

and resources within state borders. 
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21992.013

Governors expect federal land management agencies to respect states as sovereigns and full 

partners. As the chief executive officers of their states, Governors also expect to play the 

principal role in determining the best-situated state governmental entity with which an agency 

should consult on any given issue. 

Governors have been very explicit in delineating what, in their opinion, qualifies as "early, 

meaningful and substantial" consultation: 

Predicate Involvement: agencies' taking into account state data and expertise to use as a 

basis for federnl regulatory action; 

• Pre-publication I Federal Agency Decision-making: pre-rulemaking consultation with 

Governors and state regulators, including substantive consultation with states during 

development of regnlations- and prior to lnunch of formal rulemakings; 

Post-publication I Pre-finalization: Governors and state regulators should have the 

ability to engage with agencies on an ongoing basis to seek refinements to proposed 

regulations again, prior to rule finalization; and 

Rule I Policy Implementation: agencies should defer to states to formulate 

implementation and compliance plans where statutorily-recognized delegated programs 

exist. 

The process BLM engaged in with states during development of Planning 2.0 falls short of the 

Governors' definition of consultation. In September of 2014, BLM representatives briefed the 

WGA's Staff Advisory Council on preliminary efforts related to Planning 2.0. That briefing 

focused on matters such ns an explanation of BLM' s interest in landscape-scale planning and 

the agency's general timcline and project leadership for the initiative. BLM representatives 

were not able to respond to substantive questions from Governors' representatives during that 

briefing. 

BLM later noted in its proposal that it had consulted with WGA during rule development. 

Western Governors view this preliminary briefing- and a subsequent exchange of 

correspondence between WGA leadership and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell- as short of the 

consultation contemplated in WGA Policy Resolution 2014-09. Secretary Jewell did state "[a]s 

new information becomes available on the [2.01 Initiative, BLM will provide updated briefings 

to state and local representatives through ... the WGA. .. and other venues as appropriate." 

These updated briefings did not take place. 

Central to the Western Governors' position is that agency/state consultation should be 

substantive and should take place on an early and ongoing- basis. The two preliminary 

communications from BLM and DOl failed to achieve this standard. 

James D. Ogsbury, Page 2 
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21992.014

Governors' Consistency Reviews 

BLM' s Planning 2.0 proposal includes a number of provisions that weaken the value and impact 

of Governors' Consistency Reviews in the RMP development process: 

It states that RMPs must be consistent with officially approved or adopted land use 

plans of other agencies, state governments, local governments, and tribal governments 

only "to the maximum extent practical..." Yet, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)'s Section 1712(c)(9) states, "Land use plans of the 

Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum 

extent I the Secretary 1 finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act." FLPMA 

clearly does not permit BLM to limit the consistency requirement merely because the 

agency thinks consistency would be impractical. 

• The time allotted for Governors to conduct their Consistency Reviews is limited to 60 

days. The clock alone would forestall states from exercising their statutory right to 

provide meaningful review of RMPs. Western states have extensive experience working 

with federal RMPs. These len~:,>thy documents contain extremely nuanced resourcespecific and often site-specific information. Federal RMPs guide federal planning 

decisions for their designated area for up to several decades. Western Governors argue 

vigorously that development of foundational documents such as federal RMPs should 

include significant input from Governors and state regulators. That simply cannot occur 

under the structure suggested by the Planning 2.0 proposal. 

Not only does BLM propose to severely limit the time allotted, it also seeks to limit the 

scope of Governors' Consistency Reviews. The rule would narrow the scope of 

Governors' reviews by removing the words "policies, programs, and processes" from 

the definition of officially approved and adopted land use plans. 

Governors would no longer be afforded an opportunity to raise concerns based on 

inconsistencies between BLM RMPs and the very "state policies, programs, and process" 

that guide state planning efforts and decision-making but are not part of officially 

approved and adopted state land use plans. This would clearly limit Governors' 

participation in RMP review and is especially problematic for states engaged in shared 

management of threatened and endangered species with vast ranges that span multiple 

planning areas and multiple states. This change could preclude BLM's consideration of 

various kinds of state-endorsed plans for instance State Wildlife Action Plans and 

multi-state agreements. 

Governors have primary decision-making authority for management of state resources. 

They therefore must be afforded an opportunity to raise any concerns that arise, not just 

those concerns that arise from inconsistencies between BLM and state plans. 

James D. Ogsbury, Page 3 
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21992.015

The proposed rule states BLM may consider whether to adjust the timeline or appeal 

process for a Governor's Consistency Review. To endow an agency with the flexibility 

to simply change the process - particularly the mechanism for states to appeal BLM' s 

decision regarding a Governor's Consistency Review-would operate to the clear 

disadvantage of states. 

Planning Assessment 

BLM proposes to establish a new step in the RMP development process: the planning 

assessment. This assessment would occur during the scoping process, before BLM begins work 

on an RMP. The goal is to, "combine and revise existing steps for inventory data and 

infonnation collection and the analysis of the management situation." 

This portion of the rule needs to clarify: the process for states to be substantially and 

meaningfully involved in development of a planning assessment; BLM's obligation to use state 

data and information; how state data and information will be gathered; and how-and when 

information supporting assessments will be made available to the public. 

Proposed Changes to Public Involvement Processes 

Early, meaningful and substantive engagement of Governors and their designated state 

regulators is crucial to the RMP development process. Western Governors also believe that any 

open and collaborative federal regulatory process must involve adequate opportunity for 

engagement of the public. BLM's proposal falls short in this regard. The agency proposes to 

shorten two key procedural aspects of RMP development: 

BLM proposes to shorten comment periods for draft RMPs- and the draft 

environmental impact statements whicl1 must accompany RMP development- by a full 

one-third, from 90 days to 60 days; and 

BLM proposes a 45-day minimum comment period- a full 50 percent reduction from 

the current 90-day minimmn- for ElS-level amendments. 

Reductions in public comment time lines will greatly limit input of stakeholders, many of whom 

are likely to be directly affected by RMPs for an extended period of time. Additionally, 

significant changes can take place between the time that RMPs and environmental compliance 

documents are drafted. BLM should retain the existing minimum public comment period 

timcframes so that states, local governments and other stakeholders will have adequate time to 

fully analyze proposed changes and provide meaningful feedback on foundational, long-term 

land management decisions. 

BLM has based its proposed reduced public comment timelines on a premise that doing so will 

reduce the overall decision-making timeline. Western Governors, however, are concerned that 

James D. Ogsbury, Page 4 
26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21992.016

reducing the opportunity for stakeholder input early in the planning process will ultimately 

result in increases to the overall planning and RMP implementation timeframes as stakeholder 

concerns are raised later in the process. Potential litigation stemming from these stakeholder 

concerns could further extend planning and implementation timelines. 

Transparency 

Any process that reduces BLM's responsibility to actively engage with stakeholders represents a 

retreat from openness and transparency. Yet that is what BLM suggests in Planning 2.0. 

Currently BLM publishes RMP documents exclusively in the Federal Register. The Planning 2.0 

proposal, however, would permit the agency to forego formal publication of many RMP-related 

documents. Those documents could instead be posted to the BLM website and at BLM offices 

within an RMP planning area. This change would significantly impair the ability of affected 

stakeholders, local governments and states to monitor, understand and participate in the RMP 

development and amendment processes. 

Summary 

In summary, BLM's Planning 2.0 proposal, as drafted, presents serious challenges and contains 

significant shortcomings. This is unfortunate, not only for states, but also for local governments 

and stakeholders. In WGA's estimation, much of the opposition to this proposal would have 

been mitigated had BLM engaged in "early, meaningful and substantial" consultation with 

Governors in the formative stages of the rule's development. 

Madam Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for the 

opporttmity to testify today and to provide the Committee with the viewpoints of the Western 

Governors l serve. I hope my testimony has been helpful to the Committee. I welcome any 

questions you or your colleagues may have. 

james D. Ogsbury, Page 5 
27 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Sgamma? 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE 

Ms. SGAMMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Western Energy Alliance. We represent oil and natural gas 

producers all across the West. 

We believe Planning 2.0 will upend the balance enacted by Congress in FLPMA. It’s converting it away from principles of multiple 

use and sustained yield and into those of conservation or preservation, excuse me, only. 

A preservation only agenda is about locking public lands away 

from human uses, other than recreation. It’s meant to drive out activities like energy development and grazing, and it treats people 

who live and work in the West as inconvenient and their livelihoods as unimportant. Simply put, it is about putting wildlife and 

other resource values above people. 

Of course, we all know that wildlife, rivers and ecosystems don’t 

respect state borders. Stating such has been a primary talking 

point from the Interior Department, as if that is some new revelation. 

Asserting a new buzz word, landscape level planning, is also not 

particularly enlightening. The implication of this messaging is that 

the Federal Government is needed to step in and do something that 

the states aren’t doing. In actuality, Western states have been conserving resources on a landscape level for decades, well before the 

term was coined. 

Since at least 1954 states have been working together on the 

greater sage grouse. They’ve been working since the 1920’s on 

many other non-boundary respecting species through WAFWA, the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. They’ve been 

working together for over 100 years to manage water in rivers that 

obviously flow across state boundaries. 

Clearly, the Federal Government is late to the game. In fact, it’s 

as if the Federal Government is coming—arriving late to the game 

and not knowing the unwritten rules that everyone follows, then 

suddenly comes up with new rules and then complains that everybody isn’t following those rules. 

In reality the states have been balancing conservation with economic opportunity for its citizens, but it’s being treated by the Federal Government as if it doesn’t know how to handle those affairs. 

Let me be clear. I’m talking about the political leadership that 

is promoting the environmental lobby’s preservation only agenda. 

Many of the personnel actually in the field and on-the-ground have 

been working in Western states for decades, collaborating with 

state fish and wildlife agencies, county land planners and other 

local stakeholders and trying to do the right thing. 

However, BLM and other agencies are being pushed away from 

that practical Western collaboration by Washington and those ascribing to the preservation only agenda are being pushed further 

down the hierarchy. 

28 

We appreciate the frankness of one such BLM employee at the 

March 25th meeting in Denver, the outreach meeting on Planning 

2.0, who said that Planning 2.0 is 21st century conservation, that 

is preservation only. 

BLM is conducting Planning 2.0 as if it can just wipe the slate 

clean and plan without respecting the realities on-the-ground and 

prior commitments such as oil and natural gas leases, grazing permits, community access roads and other inconvenient human uses. 

It’s about upending the balance that Congress created in FLPMA. 

That balance has conserved many millions of acres while enabling 

productive activities on appropriate multiple use lands. Those productive uses sustain Western rural communities while providing 

Americans with the food, fuel and fiber upon which their lives are 

based. 

My full testimony and our comments on the proposed rule contains several details on how the initiative will result in many new 

layers of overlapping NEPA analysis that BLM is not equipped to 

handle, particularly with all the other rules and mitigation policies 

that it’s working on and how the proposed rule would actually diminish and not expand the level of public participation. 

I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:] 

29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21992.017

Kathleen Sgamma 

Vice President of Government & Public Affairs 

Western Energy Alliance 

Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

The Bureau af Land Management's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

June 21, 2016 

BlM's Planning 2.0 initiative would elevate wildlife and preservationist values over the needs of people; 

it redefines the concept of multiple use, prioritizes preservation over responsible development of the 

food, fuel and fiber that support human life, limits public involvement in the planning process, and 

further strains overburdened BlM staff. The primary justification of landscape-level planning seems 

compelling, but represents an attempt to treat the West as a blank slate that can simply be written on 

anew, ignoring realities on the ground, state borders, congressional mandates, prior commitments, 

community economic needs, and individual livelihoods. BlM should withdraw the proposed rule and 

reconsider this approach to resource management planning. 

Western Energy Alliance represents over 300 companies engaged in all aspects of environmentally 

responsible exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West. The Alliance represents 

independents, the majority of which are small businesses with an average of fifteen employees. 

Landscape-Level Planning 

land use planners tend to look at each new planning effort as a chance to start anew and reshape public 

lands management according to what they see as the pressing issues of the day, or dare I say current 

fashion. It's always easier to start with a blank slate and rework everything in accordance with a new 

concept, in this case "landscape level," than it is to take into consideration all the intricate and often 

conflicting details on the ground. The landscapes at issue reflect decades of management decisions and 

on-the-ground realities that must be taken into account in new land use plans. It would be easier to wish 

all those decisions and commitments away, such as leases and grazing permits, but that is neither legally 

feasible nor democratic. We all understand that wildlife, rivers and ecosystems don't respect state 

borders, but our Constitution does, and it does so within a federalist structure that allows us to think at 

the larger scale but within a democratic system that balances the needs of the People. 

The ecosystem concept that ecologists have advanced for several decades has now morphed into the 

"landscape-level" term that has taken hold of the imagination of many environmental groups, public 

land managers and some academics. Of course looking at broad ecosystems is a very valuable 

perspective that can help land managers across large areas enact management strategies and on-theground measures suited for the particular ecosystem or "landscapes" at issue. But humans are part of 

the ecosystem as well, and a landscape-level planning approach cannot simply be imposed over realities 

on the ground and prior commitments. 

That is the beauty of the balance achieved through the Federal land Policy and Management Act 

(FlPMA). That balance arose from a democratic process that was enshrined into law by Congress and 
30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21992.018

Page 2 of 4 

the President in 1976. Is it perfect? Of course not. But did it achieve a reasonable balance between 

conservation and productive uses of public lands? Absolutely. 

BLM is attempting to upset that balance with Planning 2.0. Updates to FLPMA-based regulation and 

guidance are appropriate, but updates that simply rewrite the law are not. If fully enacted as proposed, 

it would be a significant rewrite of Congressional intent, upending the multiple-use balance that 

Congress and replacing it with management for conservation only. 

Obviously, there are lands that are appropriate for preservation only or limited use. The 110 million 

acres of wilderness lands are one example. The 85 million acres of National Parks are another. But these 

lands were designated through the democratic process by Congress. (I'll set aside designations of 

millions of acres of National Monuments as abuses of the Antiquities Act tangential to this testimony.) 

BLM protects 32 million additional acres for conservation only in the National landscape Conservation 

System, removing those lands from multiple-use management. BLM continues to create additional 

designations administratively in land use plans, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, lands 

with wilderness characteristics, wildlife emphasis areas and others. 

But the vast majority of BLM's 245 million acreage is appropriate for productive multiple uses like 

grazing, mining, and energy development. These productive activities are important not only for 

supplying Americans with the basics of modern life, but also sustain rural communities across the West. 

Many will view these communities as inconvenient, and downplay their right to control their destinies 

by saying with a wave of their hand that all Americans own public lands. But the reality is that those East 

of the Mississippi were given their lands, and have control over how they are used, whether for state 

parks, productive uses, or in private ownership. Western states were deprived of much of their land. 

Yes, all Americans do own federal lands, but they also own the energy and minerals beneath those 

lands. And all Americans are not as invested in those lands as are western states, tribes and 

communities. FLPMA recognized the needs of states, tribes and local communities, and granted them 

cooperating status and a bigger voice in their lands, while still considering the interests of others. 

State and Local Representation 

Planning 2.0 aims to downplay the voice of communities that derive their livelihoods from appropriate 

multiple-use lands in the West by elevating certain conservation-only special interests over the broad 

public interest as represented by state governors, tribal councils, county commissioners, and other 

elected officials. Someone from New York cavalierly sending in a Sierra Club generated email opposing a 

rancher's grazing permit or a local oilfield worker's project simply is not invested as deeply as those 

living in western communities. Certainly, they have a say, and are often represented by various specialinterest groups. Of course, they are also represented by their congressional representatives who do not 

have to worry that their constituents' livelihoods are directly impacted. But state governors, tribal 

councils, county commissioners, city councilmen, local groups and other stakeholders directly involved 

in the community should be afforded a higher level of deference than outside special interests. 

That's the beauty of FLPMA and the cooperating agency status that has been given to local and state 

governments for decades. State and local governments do not represent just one interest. They must be 

responsive to all concerns of their citizens, from economic to conservation. They understand that their 

citizens need protected public lands for recreation, clean water, and wildlife, and they balance that with 

the need for jobs and economic opportunity. Planning 2.0 upends that balance. 
31 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21992.019

Page 3 of 4 

Western Energy Alliance shares the goal of better public involvement. We more than many others 

understand how the federal government can dump obligations on the public, as we've had to wade 

through 49,226 pages of government documents over 47 proposed rules, policy changes, and land use 

plans in just the last year in an attempt to keep up with all the changes that affect responsible energy 

development. It's hard for the public to stay up on every public land action; thousands of bureaucrats 

can churn out tens of thousands of pages of dense documents, and short deadlines close off deliberative 

engagement. But Planning 2.0 would actually hamper public engagement by reducing the time available 

for public comment, and diminishing the ability of elected representatives of the People to engage 

effectively as full cooperating agencies. 

BlM's messaging on the rule asserts that it will increase public engagement. But if it only serves to give 

special interests more power in the process at the expense of elected representatives of the People, 

then it will serve to diminish public participation. One example of how Planning 2.0 diminishes the role 

of elected officials is by ignoring state and county lines. BlM will have the discretion to ignore one 

governor's input if another governor's is more in line with its preferred approach, even though it will 

affect the first governor's state. The input of county commissioners is watered down even further, as an 

RMP amendment that covers several field offices also covers numerous counties, and one county's input 

can be drowned out by others. Another example is the new requirement that state, tribal and local 

agencies demonstrate expertise before being designated as cooperating agencies. State, local and tribal 

governments represent the citizens primarily affected by BlM planning decisions, and they should have 

every right to participate in the planning process as cooperating agencies, regardless of expertise. 

But actually, in many instances, states, tribes and counties have more expertise and relevant data than 

the federal government. Planning 2.0 would result in numerous overlapping RMP amendments for 

various natural resource values, as modeled on the recent sage-grouse amendments. But sage grouse 

represents an area of landscape-level planning that states have been doing since at least 1954, well 

before the federal government got involved or the buzzword "landscape level" was coined. last week, 

the 30'h biennial Sage and Columbia Sharp-Tailed Grouse Workshop took place in lander, Wyoming. An 

effort of the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), an inter-state body that has 

been cooperating across state boundaries since the 1920s, the workshops are but a visible manifestation 

of the immense work that WAFWA and the states have been doing to conserve sage grouse for 

generations. There are many other examples of state cooperation across boundaries on other resource 

values such as water. 

Additional Layers of NEPA 

Another problem with landscape level planning is that it is not at the level of detail necessary for on-theground land management. The intent to have multiple, overlapping RMP amendments focused on 

particular resource values would lead to many areas being subject to several amendments depending on 

the number of resource values present. Counties, tribes and states would be caught in a never-ending 

web of RMP amendments. The result will amount to yet more layers of National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis before any meaningful public lands management decisions can be made. BlM will 

become trapped in paralysis by analysis while not reaching the level of detail needed by planning area to 

make project-specific decisions. Project approvals that create jobs and economic opportunities already 

take many years, which Planning 2.0 will only exacerbate. 
32 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21992.020

Page 4 of 4 

BLM has a system of planning areas that respect state boundaries and are determined based on various 

factors such as number of federal acres; dispersal of that acreage; topography; and county, tribal and 

state boundaries. Planning areas boundaries are established with the intention of setting appropriately 

sized areas that can be reasonably managed by staff connected to the land who know the local 

stakeholders and understand the land, wildlife, cultural resources, and other on-the-ground resource 

values. Taking the process out of the hands of local land managers and concentrating it in Washington 

breaks that connection to actual conditions on the ground, elected officials, and local stakeholders. 

Distant, centralized control hardly seems conducive to managing the land wisely. Adding yet more layers 

of NEPA is especially counterproductive as BLM already struggles to conduct timely land use planning 

and follow it up with monitoring in the field to ensure the plans are properly implemented and 

resources values are protected. Yet more NEPA analysis will continue to keep BLM staff out of the field 

and behind their desks pushing paper. 

In addition to more multi-year planning processes, BLM is struggling to formulate and implement new 

mitigation policies, onshore orders, sage grouse land use plan amendments for 68 planning areas, 

Master Leasing Plans, and rules. These significant policy changes would be difficult to implement in a 

perfect world, but are becoming nearly impossible when BLM already struggles to meet existing project 

planning, permitting, and inspection obligations. As the White House attempts to jam in as many policy 

changes as possible before January 2017, there are simply too many moving parts for one agency to 

manage in a short period of time. These policy changes are highly interrelated, and should be carefully 

crafted in a deliberative manner. Instead, confusion reigns on how these policies will interact without 

massive contradictions, much less implemented in the field by the very staff charged with protecting the 

land and its resources. The result will be even more delays on permitting for productive activities, 

creating job loss and economic stagnation in affected communities. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. There are many other aspects of Planning 2.0 deserving of 

attention, but that time does not permit me to address. Please refer to Western Energy Alliance's full 

Planning 2.0 comments for additional information. I welcome questions on these and other aspects of 

the proposed rule. 
33 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Squillace? 

STATEMENT OF MARK SQUILLACE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. SQUILLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Mark Squillace. I’m a Professor of Law at the 

University of Colorado Law School, and I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts with you today about the Planning 

2.0 initiative. 

Let me begin by congratulating the BLM on undertaking this 

land use planning effort. I think it’s an important initiative that, 

frankly, is long overdue. But despite my general support for this 

initiative, I think there’s much that could be improved. 

I want to focus my testimony on two particular matters. The first 

being the landscape level planning issue that’s been discussed by 

several witnesses. 

I also want to talk about something that has not really been discussed yet today, and that is the efforts toward adaptive management which, I think, are an important part of any reform in land 

use planning. 

When I think of landscape level planning I think about Major 

John Wesley Powell. If you go back and think about Powell, he was 

the guy who did the original exploration of the Colorado River and 

wrote a report about the Western United States in which he included a map that suggested that the West be divided up according 

to river basins. I’d like to think of Powell as, maybe, the first landscape ecologist, although he didn’t talk in those terms. 

But Powell, I think, understood the importance of bringing our 

political geography in harmony with our natural geography, and I 

think that’s something that’s missing today out of our land use 

planning process. I think this initiative by the BLM at least has 

the potential to try to move us farther in that direction. 

I want to highlight one important advantage of landscape level 

planning that I think has been overlooked so far in the testimony. 

If you think about what would happen with landscape level planning it’s going to bring the BLM into an analysis, not only of the 

BLM landscape, but of other land use plans by state and local officials at the same time. And so, the concerns about consistency reviews could be basically played out and understood right at the beginning of the planning process before we ever got to unit level 

planning. I think that’s a huge advantage because the BLM would 

then proactively be identifying conflicts and working with the 

states to try to resolve those conflicts before we even got to unit 

level planning. 

I want to emphasize that landscape planning is only one part of 

the process. I’ve, sort of, suggested that there might be four different levels in which we think of planning. There’s the landscape 

level, there’s the unit level, there’s the resource level, and then 

there’s the project level. At least four different ways in which we 

think about different decision-making. 

But I do want to emphasize something that’s important here 

which has been brought up by Chairman Barrasso and others 

about the complexity of the process. It’s not working. I think GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:49 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 021992 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21992\C21992.TXT C21992
34 

ernor Herbert is right that the planning process is broken the way 

that it works. 

What our plans need to do is they need to be able to adapt and 

they need to be able to engage the public in a meaningful way. 

When it takes five years or more to develop a land use plan, that 

just isn’t happening. 

I’ve used the word nimble. I think our land use plans need to be 

nimble. When they take so long to develop they are simply not nimble, and they need to be improved. 

These uncluttered plans will also really, I think, offer an opportunity to better engage the public. Right now it’s only professionals 

that can really participate in land use planning processes. We really need a simpler process that allows the public to be engaged. 

Let me briefly turn to the issue of adaptive management before 

closing my oral testimony. Adaptive management is this idea that 

the scientists talk about as learning by doing. It’s an important, I 

think, advance in the way we think about land use planning because it allows us to, sort of, give up some of the detail and complexity at the front end in terms of the environmental assessment 

and the plan itself in exchange for committing ourselves to adapting at the back end after the plan is implemented, agreeing to 

make changes to the plan as we learn more information from the 

experience of actually implementing the plan. 

I think the proposed rules that the BLM has promoted take us 

part of the way in the direction of adaptive management. They do 

talk about various kinds of plans having provisions that are specific and measurable and time bound objectives that can help for 

us to get part of the way. 

What the current proposed rules do not do, however, is to focus 

on the importance of monitoring and evaluating and determining 

whether or not these objectives are actually being met. I think if 

we go that additional step, we will have taken a big, a leap toward 

better adaptive management. 

I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to 

speak today. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Squillace follows:] 

35 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21992.021

CoLoRADo 

UN1V£RSi fY OF COLORADO BOULDER 

22 June 2016 

Testimony of Professor :Mark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School 

on the Bureau of Land :Management's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

to the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

114!1' Cong., znd Sess. 2016 

Sen:Jtor Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

t Jnited States Senate 

Wa.<hington, D.C. 20510-6150 

Dear Cliairman Murkowski: 

fvlark5quiUace 

Thank you (or the opportunitv to :;!nn: this stakment on the BurC"au of L'md Management';:; 

(BLM) Planning 2.0 initiative with the Subcommittee on Public L:tnds, Forests, ::md Mining or the 

Senate Committee (Wl Energy and N::J.tuml Resources. name is Mark Squilhce. I am a 

prof~·ssor of law at the t lnivt."rsity of Color::ulo I teach in tht." lldd of 

em·ironmo::ntal ::>.nd natural rc>sourco::s law and have \Vrittc'n extensively lm lands ::md land 

use planning. I am ::tbo a former employee of the BLM and the Interior Solicitor's OtHce and a 

author of comments suhrnittt:'d on hdmlf of myself and 26 other lmv professors from 

the countrv on the BLM's dralt planning ruks. I have appended a copy of those 

cpmments t(1 this .-.takm<:'nt. The testimony I ofl~r here is my own and does not necessarily rd1ect 

the' views of the' University of Colorado or its l'."mployec:>s. 

My testim(1ny focuses on three' items: (1) the structural prohl.:ms with thf' current land use 

planning framework; (2) the Cor the BLM to incorporak landscape level 

its planning re.gime; and for the BLM to e::;tablish an ei'l~ctive program 

anll adapting to new inionnation or changed circurnstance:>. 

L The Structural Problems with BLAIS Land Uo;e Planning Program 

In 1890 Major John Weslt."y Powell, the 1-,lTeatAmerican explorer, publislwd n 

western United States to support his to divide the \Ve:"tern states mongwo1ersneu 

boundaries. 11th Annual \ J.S. Geob.r.,>ical Survey, Part II, PL LXIX (1890). Looking 

at PO\vdl's map today, it is not h::m{ to apprt"ciate Powell as our t"irst bndsc1pe ecolo,dst. While 

Powell's focus was on finding ways to make western irr~gation more ehicient, it was not lost on 

him that watersheds respected landscapes, and that it is easier to manage these landscapes 

are contained in coherent political unit. Powell's approach, of course did not carry 

and the west was up into bnxy ..-hapes that brgely ignore the natural geo,t,'Taphy of the 
36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21992.022

we,<:tcrn bndscape. And while the BLM has heen ::;omcwhat better in before 

designating r~:'source management ::m;>as, the inclinatinn to identifv 

boundaries, much likt: the division of western states, has seemed hard to 

The BLM's current pbnning initiative 

for the age>ncv to break 

patterns. As proposed, 

however, the "Pb.nning 2.0" effort seems like a 

missed opportunity to rethink in fundmnental 

ways land use pbnnin,g on BLM lands, A bi.f! 

part of this rethinking should involve 

incnrporating landscape~level the 

process as described more 

IL Landscape Level Planning 

The BLM has 

it is difficult to set how 

proposal will allow the ELM to move toward a 

model that !oob beyond poUtkal 

and its traditional resource 

management areas. This is particularly 

disappt)inting in light of Secretarial Order 

:n 10, which established a Department~wide 

mitigation strate_l,l'\' and dire\ted agencies to u:;e 

a landscape-5mle approach to resource m:magement. 

I arn not suggesting that the BLM move away fw1n its current unit planning process in favor 

of lanch:cape-level planning altogether, although it might make sense to move in this direction over 

the long term. Rather l support a BLM effort to prepare a relatively simple and streamlined 

landscapt>levd plan before commencing unit planning so that the context for unit pbnning is 

better undo:.'rstood. One simple way for the BLM to address this problem within the frarnework of 

the proposed rules would be to require that the new "planning assessment" process (proposed 43 

CFR § 16 10.4) be carried out at the landscape leveL 

The BLM has mo.de good 

ecological assessments (REAs), 

experimenting with larulscapc'~levd Among many 

change would make it fur easier and the intert':'teJ public to 

jurisdictional issut's. Such issues might include wikllift' corridors, utility or devetomn•ent 

and opportunities for protecting lands with important conservation v:::th.JC·s that cross rt'source 

management area boundaries. Indeed, it is hard to see how cross~jurisdictional issues can he 

effeC'tivdy identi(ied and understood without some fC1rm of land~cape~level analysis. 

lJn1versityofColoradoLawSchool 
37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21992.023

levd ass.es.::mtent is. completed, tlw BLM can tacklc- the unit levd res.ource 

For various rea,'<on;;;, the RMP s.hould be and streamlined 

plan. reasom RM P stand out 

be dis\ussed more hdow, the BLM should employ an adaptive 

once it" plans art: complt:ted. For adaptiw mana,r;ement to work, 

however, plans nimble. In this context that means change 

when new in(ormation or changed circunvtances demonstrate change is 

\Varranted. Rapid t'hangt' is simply not feasible if the plans are too complt'x and take 

too lon,g to develop. 

(2) Second, the current planning process. undulv saps the BLM's re:::ources and makes it 

for the BLM to commit suffident resources to a new level ot planning 

level, not to mentiun a robust nwnitoring and adaptation 

has become so complex and onlv 

urcne'""''"" and those with a direct stah' in the outcome have the ability to participate 

in a meaning(ul way. 

Simplifying the process at both the landscape and unit kvds. likdy means focusing on just 

three tl>it\gS: 

(1) Making basic land u:;e ded:;ion::; for each tract of l:md within tho::- mono.,:ement 

(2) Setting specifk, measurable, and time~hound ,goals or objectives 

planning area; and 

(3) Establishing specific and comprehensiw metrics that wil! form the basis lor a rnhust 

fiH'nitoring program to detennine whether the goals and objectives are being met. 

The RMP level need not and should not address resource specitk matters that can he addressed at 

a k'wer plannin,g level, a_q is often done with travd management plans and, mnre recently, oil and 

&ras master leasing plans. 

To suntmarize and describe visually, 

I imagine four plannin,g layers in an 

inverted triangle: ( 1) the lan(bcape, 

ecosy,<;tem, or '\-Yatershed la~'er; (2) a 

management unit layer; en a resource 

laver; and (4) laver. Each 

successive narrower and 

more specific than the layer above it. 

While at fin-t blush, a lavered 

agency's attention 

of issues that 

!eve!, and on/y those issues. 

Resource Specific 

Plans 

Layered Planning 

Strean1lining 

the Permitting 

Act (FAST Actl. 

establishing a Planning Dashboard alon.l; the lines of 

XLI \)f tht• Fixing America's Surface Transportation 

!ill]l;SCLYCIYYWll:illJlr&llhllQl:!llilll£.<Cl:DlL· The pennittin,g dashboard 

nmasu·unure project~, its basic requirement that 

UnivN>ItyofColoradoLawSchool 
38 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21992.024

agenc-ies maintain an on-line system for trarking projects, with sped fie timetables, dates 

for rompleting stages and issuance of decisions, could be adapted to 

the planning context, and muld define and scheduk· their work so that they can 

better m<;"d tlwir target dates. Incentives might he introduced to r<;"w::ml o!Tkes and agencv 

officials who consi;:;tcntly met't their targets while also :1voiding conflict and controversY. 

IlL Adaptive j\fanagement 

Adaptive management is often described as a ::;imple idea 

adaptive management is de:>i~'11ed to he more forgiving on the 

terms of complexity and detail because it a program Cor re,t,rubrly evaluatin,g 

performance and then changing or original decision to rdlect the lessons learned 

from :1ctual experienre. The dia,t,:rmm bdnw offer.'\ a visual repre.«ent:J.tion of adaptive management 

in the land use planning context. 

Public Land Use Planning Cycle 

Some\vhat like landscape-level 

management, the BLM appear,; to 

adaptive management but never 

refer~ to the term in the 

propost:>d rule. Moreover, the proposed 

rule:< do not establish any clear process 

for ensuring that adaptive management 

be used to adapt plan:< 

bY new int'onnation or 

changed circumstances. 

The propo:'ed rules do, however, 

make an important nod in the direction 

of adaptive management hy requiring 

that plans include "goals" and 

"objectives." Propo.-;ed 43 CFR §1610.1-

2(a). Obiectives in particular are 

described as being sped fie and 

measurable, with time-frames for 

achieve1nent. I d. l Jnrortunately, 

rul..:s ties these g0als and obje-ctives to the itsdL 

commit the BLM to actuallv adapting their plans. 

lan.l,'tJag.; rdating to "monitoring and .;valuation" is a ;:;ingle paragraph that oilers 

about how those vital tasks will he carried out. Proposed 4 3 CFR § 1610.6-4. 

The BLM made substantial prugress in developing a framework for 

management with its various sage h'Touse plans. 

that program \Vill work, the BLM should use 

This is particularly critical for any final 

when it comes to robust monitl)ring, and assessment of monitoring data. 

critical element" of anv prot-:,"fam that promises to implement an adaptive strategy. 

lanhYll::tge such as in the pn)posed rules i;:; it does not 

Cidd Whatis 

UniV<H>ItyofColoradoLawSchool 
39 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21992.025

standanb that can inform the BLM about the• state of the resout-ces it is seeking to manage and 

protect; (2) a robust and that monitors the status of these resource with 

metric:>. that tht" agencv established; (3) a tramparent process for evaluating the 

\Vith public input and a report describing the 

pbns at every appropriatl:" to reflect the 

the monitoring and evaluation process. 

Be lore ck•:dng let me orfer a fev,r thou,c;hts about two issues that have generated some 

nm.troversv during the public c~ll1ltnent process. The first concerns the consistencv reviews 

mandated bv FLPMA to ensure that the BLM's RMPs are consistent to the maximum extent 

practical with other Federal, State, local, and Tribal !and use plans. While the tenor of the 

bn.L,ruage both in FLPMA and the propmed rules suggests a 

consistenc~' review might ulso offer un 

strategic,::,. 

understand no,::,s-iurisdictinnal issues and thereby and resolve 

other pbns. I share tht' conco::.'rn raised in the commo::.'nt~ suhmittt:-d Govemors 

Association about tht" oC consistencv ·with state and plans if :1 Governor tails to 

respond within 60 days from date a proposed plan i.s received. But rather th:tn extending the 

review this concern might be better addressed hv a commitment from the BLM to work 

with and other governmental entities to identit~, and resolve con!licts us the 

planning pwcess unfolds anrl we!! be10rc- the pbn is submitted lor the 

A similar approach mip;ht be used for public participation 

engage interested parties in a meaningful wa~' as plans evolve and well they are approved. 

Early en.~>agement wil! not neces:.;arik resolve a!l of the con!1icting views about the 

lay them out in the open and thereby take pressure off both the agencv 

formal comment period. Impnrt~mtly, the BLM should also recognize that 

discrete phase ensure more effective public engagement than a 

len,c;thy comment period. a robust adaptive man~gement pro,grarn ulso provides 

assmances that planning is an ongoing, cyclical process that affords the public multiple 

om""'~nn1t1e.< to engage the agency, not only during the: development of the plan, but also as it 

in re$ponse to new inf(mnation and changed circmnstances. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee one.: again for the opportunity to ofrer this testimony. 

am grateful (or F~ur careful consideration of tlwse cnmnlt:"nts and urge the Subcomlllittee to 

the BLM with constructive guidance as to how tlwv cun best movt> forward to improve 

land use planning progmm Cor our public domain lands. 

Mark s\lUillace 

IJniW!SityoFColoiadoLawSchool 
40 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21992.026

Mr. Neil Kornze 

Director (630) 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW. 

Room 2134LM 

Washington, DC 20240 

Attention: 1 004-AE39. 

May 24,2016 

RE: RIN: 1004-AE39, CFR: 43 CFR Part 1600, Federal Register Number: 2016-03232 

Comments on the ELM's Proposed Planning Rules 

Dear Director Kornze: 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the Bureau of Land 

Management's proposal to amend existing regulations governing the procedures used to prepare, 

revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA). As professors who have taught a variety of public lands and natural resources 

law courses, we support the goal of modernizing public land planning to encompass planning at 

appropriate scales and across jurisdictional boundaries. But we urge the BLM to consider 

significant changes that will improve the rule and better reflect FLPMA's goals as the BLM 

largely does in the preamble to the proposed rule. We think it is especially important that the 

final rule better implements FLPMA's requirement that the BLM give priority to the 

identification and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

On June 30, 2015, we sent you a letter encouraging the BLM to issue modern guidance 

that would make ACEC management more consistent and expand the ACEC concept to 

encompass landscape conservation more explicitly. That letter observed that despite the priority 

status granted to ACECs in FLPMA, ACECs are not in fact given priority in the BLM planning 

process, are haphazardly and inconsistently managed, and poorly monitored. 

In these comments we highlight several particular concerns over how the proposed rules 

treat ACECs, and we also offer comments about the BLM's approach to planning more 

generally. In our view, the proposed rules need substantial improvements, and we make some 

specific suggestions as to how BLM can improve them. 

Although we appreciate the BLM's commitment to modernize its planning program, as 

currently proposed, the "Planning 2.0" effort is a missed opportunity to rethink in fundamental 

ways land use planning on BLM lands. For too long, the BLM has been stuck in a box of 
41 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21992.027

managing public lands in planning units that primarily reflect political boundaries rather than 

ecosystems and other relevant geographical features. The preamble to the proposed rule 

recognizes this problem, repeatedly describing the importance of "landscape-scale planning." In 

fact, the preamble used some permutation of that phrase 52 times. Yet the phrase never appears 

even once in the proposed rule itself. Moreover, the proposal would not even require BLM to 

adopt a planning model that looks beyond political boundaries. The BLM's failure to incorporate 

landscape-level planning into the proposed rule explicitly is especially disappointing in light of 

Secretarial Order 3330, which established a Department-wide mitigation strategy directing 

agencies like BLM to use a landscape-scale approach to resource management. 

One simple way the BLM might begin to address this problem would be to require the 

new "planning assessment" process (proposed 43 CFR § 161 0.4) to be carried out at the 

landscape level. BLM has made good progress doing landscape-level inventories through its 

rapid ecological assessments (REAs). The BLM could build on that work done by requiring or 

at least experimenting with landscape-level planning assessments. (The preamble mentions 

REAs only once.) Among many other benefits, this change would facilitate identification of 

potential ACECs that cross jurisdictional boundaries by the public and BLM. Cross-jurisdictional 

ACECs can only be identified effectively through some form of regional assessment. 

The proposed rule fails to tackle planning issues that arise after an RMP is completed. In 

particular, the proposed rule fails even to mention resource-level planning (such as Master 

Leasing Plans) and activity planning (such as assessing individual applications for permits to 

drill for oil and gas). Addressing these different levels of planning in a substantive way, and 

committing the agency to a robust and integrated process at these different planning levels would 

likely require that the RMP process itself be streamlined. Such a commitment would better 

accommodate adaptive management, as described in more detail below. In the end, a better, more 

layered planning process, will enhance decision making and save administrative resources. 

We see at least four planning layers that the BLM should highlight for the public: (1) the 

landscape, ecosystem, or watershed layer; (2) a management unit layer; (3) a resource layer; and 

( 4) a project layer. While at first blush, a layered approach might appear to impose more work 

on the agency, it could actually streamline the planning process by focusing the agency's 

attention on the narrower suite of issues that present themselves at each level. A layered process 

might also make it easier to identify, manage, and, if necessary, adapt ACECs to achieve the 

protections that Congress intended they provide. 

The rules could facilitate streamlining by establishing a Planning Dashboard along the 

lines of the Permitting Dashboard mandated by Title XLI of the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act). See hrtps://www.pcrmits.perfonnancc.go>l. Although the Permitting 

Dashboard required under the FAST Act applies only to large infrastmcture projects its basic requirement 

that federal agencies maintain an on-line system for tracking projects, with specific timetables. projected 

dates for completing stages of the review process, and issuance of decisions, could be readily adapted to 

the planning context. 

Another significant problem with the proposed rules concerns their weak provisions for 

monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management. Like landscape-level management, the 

preamble mentions adaptive management often-20 times, in fact-but there's no mention at all 

in the proposed rule. The proposed language relating to "monitoring and evaluation" in a single 

paragraph offers nothing specific about how those vital tasks will be conducted (proposed rule, 

2 
42 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21992.028

43 CFR §1610.6-4). Although the proposed rules require plans to include "goals" and 

"objectives" (proposed 43 CFR §1610.1-2(a)), nothing in the proposal ties these goals and 

objectives to the monitoring program. 

The BLM made substantial progress in developing a framework for monitoring and 

adaptive management with its various recent sage grouse management plans. We urge the 

agency to use that experience to inform its final planning rules. This is particularly critical for 

these rules because the BLM has a weak track record when it comes to robust monitoring, 

evaluation, and assessment of monitoring data, to say nothing about its inability to adapt its 

management strategies to reflect new information. The BLM's new planning rules offer the 

agency an opportunity to improve on its record for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation but 

vague language that afford field personnel little guidance is not adequate. We offer specific 

lan~:,ruage below that we think would improve prospects of establishing an effective monitoring, 

evaluation, and adaptive management program for BLM land use plans. 

Turning to provisions in the proposed rule that relate specifically to ACECs, we are 

pleased with several improvements to the way the BLM plans would identify ACECs. For 

example, the proposal quotes FLPMA in defining ACECs (proposed 43 CFR §1601.0-5) and 

would require the BLM to look for potential ACECs during the agency's initial planning 

assessment activities preparatory to initiating a plan revision (proposed 43 CFR §§ 161 0.4(a)(l) 

and (c)(S)(vii). We welcome those changes and BLM's other efforts to increase opportunities for 

public participation and comment. 

We remain puzzled, however, by the proposed rule's failure to reiterate the statutory 

responsibility to give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs, as required by 

§202(c)(3) of FLPMA. We note that the proposal's Principles statement (proposed 43 CFR 

§1601.0-8) directs plans to "be consistent with the principles described in Section 202 of 

FLPMA," and the preamble does expressly acknowledge FLPMA's mandate that the BLM give 

priority to ACECs. But the failure to include similar language in the mle itself raises questions 

about the BLM's commitment to ACECs. This failure is particularly notable because the 

proposed mle adds a new provision explicitly quoting FLPMA's definition of sustained yield 

(proposed 43 CFR §1601.0-5), and it also restates the statutory language regarding consistency 

with the land use plans of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes 

(proposed 43 CFR §1610.3-2). 

As you know, FLPMA's authority to designate and manage ACECs was a deliberate 

decision by Congress, one preceded by substantial congressional, executive, and Public Land 

Law Review Commission deliberations for much of the decade prior to enactment of the law. 

ACECs are the only conservation designation other than wilderness expressly named and given 

priority in FLPMA. The language requiring BLM to give priority to the inventory, designation, 

and protection of ACECs in public land planning and management is a unique directive in 

multiple use land management law. To fulfill the statutory directive, BLM must aggressively 

embrace ACECs in this rule. 

The proposed rule would grant functional priority to ACECs in the planning assessment 

phase (proposed 43 CFR §1610.4(a)(J)), as would the provision concerning designating ACECs 

(proposed 43 CFR §1610.8-2). We are concerned, however, that the failure to explicitly restate 

FLPMA's priority status for ACECs could undermine the priority that Congress intended. The 

3 
43 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21992.029

statement that all planning activity must be consistent with §202 of FLPMA is not sufficient to 

overcome this concern. 

We also suggest that you clarify the public's opportunity to nominate new ACECs 

between planning cycles if as is increasingly likely with accelerating climate change new 

information indicates an immediate need for special management attention to protect the 

resources and values eligible for ACEC protection. FLPMA's requirement that BLM maintain an 

ongoing inventory of lands, resources, and values suggests that BLM has a duty to consider such 

nominations. We urge you to add language to proposed 43 CFR §1610.8-2 clarifying the 

procedures available in such a situation. 

We anticipate that your response to many of the concerns raised in these comments will 

be that you intend to address these issues in the land use planning manual and handbook. In our 

view this is entirely inadequate. The rule is mandatory and enforceable. The manual and 

handbook are not. Likewise, while the preamble contains important explanations of the BLM's 

goals for these rules, which may influence a reviewing court, a preamble commitment does not 

by itself establish an enforceable commitment. If the BLM is committed to promoting high 

quality public land management if it is committed to landscape-level planning, adaptive 

management, and giving priority to ACECs then it must promulgate a rule that reflects that 

commitment. The public will accept nothing less, and neither should the BLM. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to offer our views on BLM's proposed changes to 

the planning rule. We have included specific proposals for new language for the BLM's final 

rules below in the hope that you will find some or all of our recommendations persuasive. 

Specific suggested changes to the proposed rule 

§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. The will 

designation, 

Resource management plan means a land use plan as described under section 202 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), including plan revisions. 

be issue under 

~ 

§1610.3-2 Consistency Requirements 

(a) Resource management plans will be consistent with officially approved or adopted 

land use plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes to the 

4 
44 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21992.030

maximum extent the BLM finds practical and consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other 

Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies, and programs 

of such 

laws and regulations. 

§1610.4 Planning assessment. 

Before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan the BLM will, consistent 

with the nature, scope, scale, and timing of the planning effort, complete a planning assessment 

(a) Information gathering. The responsible official will: 

(1) Arrange for relevant resource, environmental, ecological, social, economic, and 

institutional data and information to be gathered, or assembled if already available, ill@huiit g 

to the identification of potential ACECs .. 

§1610.8-2 Designation 

(b) to of pllotential ACECs during the 

preparation or amendment of a resource management plan. The identification of a potential 

ACEC does not, in of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public lands. 

Potential 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. will 

resource management plan or plan amendment involving a 

potential ACEC, the BLM will notify the public of each potential ACEC and any special 

management attention which would occur if it were formally designated. design of 

the that 

(2) The approval of a resource management plan or plan amendment that contains an 

ACEC constitutes formal designation of an ACEC. The approved plan will include a list of all 

designated ACECs, and include any special management attention identified to protect the 

designated ACECs. 

§1610.1-2 Plan components. (Add red) 

(a) Plan components guide future management within the planning area. Resource 

management plans will include the following plan components: 

(l) Goals. A goal is a broad statement of desired outcomes addressing resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, or economic characteristics within a 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 

developed to guide progress toward one or more goals. An objective is specific, measurable, and 

realistic, and should include specific time-frames for achieving the objectives. 

to allow 

§1610.4 Planning assessment. 

5 
45 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21992.031

Before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan the BLM will, consistent 

with the nature, scope, scale, and timing of the planning effort, complete a planning assessment. 

possible, will carried 

(c) The responsible official will assess the resource, environmental, 

economic conditions of the planning area, to 

43 CFR §1610.5-1. Identification of planning issues. 

* * * 

(b) The public, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes 

will 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, the of potential 

43 CFR §1610.5-5. Selection of the proposed resource management plan and preparation 

of implementation strategies. in 

(a) After publication of the draft resource management plan and draft environmental impact 

statement, the responsible official will evaluate the comments received and prepare the proposed 

resource management plan and final environmental impact statement, giving 

6 
46 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21992.032

Possible preamble explanation: Almost eve1yone agrees that the public land use planning 

process takes too long. An important goal of any new planning rules should therefore be to 

promote more streamlined planning. Planning might be streamlined, jbr example, if specific 

criteria.fbr managing particular resources could he put off to a later phase of planning. So, .fiH' 

example, plans must decide where oil and gas leasing will be allm!.'ed and not allowed, but the 

details of how leasing and development might occur can be decided at a later phase of planning 

7 
47 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21992.033

as is done through a master leasing plan. These details are important, but they do not 

necessarily need to be decided when/and use choices are being made. Streamlining planning in 

this way could greatly expedite the timelinefor planning. 

To that end and to encourage ejji>rts to streamline planning, the BLM will establish an 

online "planning dashboard" that will establish timelines for completing each phase of the 

planning process. Although not mandated by the FAST Act, the planning dashboard borrows the 

concept finm that law as a way to promote more streamlined planning. 7he dashboard serves 

several important purposes. First, it provides interested parties with infbrmation about how the 

planning process will evolve, when the various stages fbr public engagement are likely to open, 

and when various stages of the planning process are expected to be completed. This will allow 

these parties to better schedule their own participation in the planning process. Second, it 

provides the BIM with a target date for completing each stage of the planning process. 

Experience with the permitting dashboard under the FAST Act suggests that targets work to 

move agency decisions along, even !f those targets are not strictly el?forceable. Finally, strict 

time lines can assist the BIM in identifYing ways to streamline planning so that target dates can 

be more readily achieved. 

8 
48 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21992.034

Possible preamble explanation: Just as the ElM intends that land use plans be adaptive, so too, 

the process jbr developing and implementing such plans should adapt as the ELM learns more 

about how to develop and implement effective planning. Adaptive management is sometimes 

described by the phrase "learning by doing," and pilot projects offer the perfect opportunity for 

the ElM to learn about superior management strategies by actually testing them in planning 

areas. The intent of this provision is to provide the ElM with the .flexibility to experiment with 

new planning approaches and strategies that may deviate somewhat .from the .1pecijic 

requirements of the planning rules while ensuring that the basic goals and principles setforth in 

those rules are honored Pilot projects may be approved only where they meet strict criteria and 

only where they stand a reasonable chance of promoting better and more innovative planning 

practices. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Michael Blumm 

Jeffrey Bain Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law 

Lewis and Clark Law School 

Additional signers listed in alphabetical order below 

Is/ Mark Squillace 

Professor of Law 

Natural Resources Law 

University of Colorado Law School 

Titles and qffiliations /istedfor identification purposes only and do not represent the 

endorsement of the signers' institutions. 

9 
49 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21992.035

Nadia B. Ahmad, Assistant Professor 

Barry University Dwayne 0. Andreas School of Law 

Hope Babcock, Professor of Law 

Co-Director, Institute for Public Representation 

Georgetown University Law Center 

Myanna Dellinger, Associate Professor 

University of South Dakota School of Law 

Debra L. Donahue, Professor of Law 

University of Wyoming College of Law 

Tim Duane, Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Diego 

Professor of Environmental Studies 

University of California, Santa Cruz 

Stephen Dycus, Professor 

Vermont Law School 

David Favre, Nancy Heathcote Professor of Property and Animal Law 

Editor-in-Chief, Animal Legal & Historical Web Center 

Michigan State College of Law 

Robert L. Fischman, Richard S. Melvin Professor of Law Professor of Public and 

Environmental Affairs (adjunct) 

University of Indiana Bloomington Maurer School of Law 

Victor B. Flatt, Thomas F. and Elizabeth Taft Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law 

Director, Center for Climate, Energy, Environment & Economics (CE3) 

University of North Carolina School of Law 

John Freemuth, Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow 

Environment and Public Lands 

Cecil D. Andrus Center for Public Policy 

Boise State University 

Robert L. Glicksman, J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law 

George Washington University Law School 

Dale D. Goble, University Distinguished Professor 

Schimke Distinguished Professor of Law 

University of Idaho 

Hillary M Hoffmann, Professor of Law 

Vermont Law School 

10 
50 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21992.036

Oliver Houck, Professor of Law 

Tulane University Law School 

Blake Hudson, Interim Director, John P. Laborde Energy Law Center 

Burlington Resources Professor of Environmental Law 

Edward J. Womac, Jr. Professor of Energy Law 

Joint Appointment 

LSU Law Center 

LSU School of the Coast and Environment 

Sam Kalen, Winston S. Howard Distinguished Professor of Law 

Co-Director, Center for Law & Energy Resources in the Rockies 

University of Wyoming College of Law 

Robert B. Keiter, Wallace Stegner Professor of Law 

University Distinguished Professor 

University of Utah SJ. Quinney College of Law 

Christine A. Klein, Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law 

University of Florida Research Professor 

Director, LL.M. Program in Environmental & Land Use Law 

University of Florida Levin College of Law 

Sarah Krakoff, Professor and Schaden Chair 

University of Colorado Law School 

Joel A. Mintz, Professor of Law, 

Nova Southeastern University College of Law 

Michael Pappas, Associate Professor of Law 

University of Maryland 

Francis King Carey School of Law 

James R. Skillen, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies 

Calvin College 

Stephanie Tai, Associate Professor of Law 

University of Wisconsin Law School 

Mary Christina Wood, Philip H. Knight Professor 

Faculty Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center 

University of Oregon School of Law 

Sandra Zellmer, Robert B. Daugherty Professor 

University of Nebraska College of Law 

11 
51 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for being here. Thank 

all of you for your testimony, your time, and your thoughtfulness. 

I am going to turn to my colleagues in a second for questions. 

Mr. Kornze, first, there was an article I was surprised to see in 

the Washington Post today, on page A15. The Interior Secretary 

warns staff about harassment, a pretty large article in the Post. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

52 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21992.037

Interior chief warns 70,000 employees: Sexual harassment is 'completely out of line with... Page l of3 

tr:l)t t\ltlS(Jington flost 

PowerPost 

Congress 

'1!1 Fol!ow@powerpost 

~Get The Da1!y 202 Ne·.vsietter 

Interior chief warns 

70~000 employees: 

Sexual harassment is 

'con1pletely out of line 

with our values' 

By Usa Rein Juoe 70 

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell sent a warning to 70,000 agency employees last week to "comply with the 

ethical responsibilities expected ofall Federal employees" and said she is troubled by reports of se>:ual 

harassment in the National Park Service. 

The unusual email came a day after Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis was lambasted by Democrats and 

Republi<;ans on Capitol Hill for his response to allegations of sexual harassment at two parks. La\\'lnakers 

accused ,Jarvis -who has been embroiled in his own ethic~ scandal- of a slmv response to what they. called 

a culture of harassment and said they suspect the problem is \videspread. 

,Jewell wrote that "s.rstematicaily addressing sexual harassment at the Interior Departri1ent" is a "priority." 

"I am particularly troubled by reports of sexual harassment and mistreatment of people in 

the workplace. As a Department, we have no tolerance for this type of conduct, which is 

poisonous to the workplace, demeaning and damaging to the affected individuals, and 

https:l/www. washirtgtonpost.co11i/news/powerpostlwp120 16/06/20/interior-chief·warning·t... 6/21/2016 
53 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21992.038

Interior chief wams 70,000 employees: Sexual harassment is 'completely out of line with,.. Page 2 of 3 

completely out of line with our values. I have spoken with senior Department and Bureau 

leadership about ways to better understand the scope of this problem within the 

Department." 

The email, obtained by The Washington Post, also refers.to other misconduct and lapses in judgment 

disclosed by the Interior Departmenfs watchdog. 

In a report released last week, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall found that a researcher at the U.S. 

Geological Sm'vey committed scientific misconduct and data manipulation that affected two dozen research 

projects worth more than $100 million. 

BUt the Park Service's sexual harassment cases have draV>il the most attention from the public. 

A high-profile im·estigation by Kendall's office released in January documented e>odence of a long-term 

pattern of harassment and a hostile work environment at the Grand Canyon, where boatmen and a 

supervisor pressured female colleagues for sex on long river trips, bullied them, then retaliated against 

some who rejected their advances or reported the problems, investigators fo~nd. 

The report from last week disclosed that the chief park ranger at CanaYeral National Seashore in central 

Florida 1vas found to have sexually harassed women on his staff in three substantiated cases in less· than two 

years. The l'anger is still working at the parkf although not in a law enforcement job, prompting criticiSm 

from lawmakers that Jal"\os should be pursuing discipline more aggressively, 

""\Vhile the vast majority.of the Departmenfs 70,000 employees work hard and play by the rules," Jewell 

'V.'l'Ote, "such lapses in judgment or outright misconduct ret1ect poorly on the Departlnent us a V•'hole. dfvert 

resources from our important missions, and are not acceptable.,. 

She urged employees to report "ethical violations and misconduct" and warned them that retaliating against 

\Yhistleblowers who bring problems to light is Rexpress1y prohibited by the law." 

The Interior Department is one of the largest federal agencies. and includes the U.S. Fish and \Vildlife 

Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land ~1ana,gement. 

The Park Service is ·conducting an anonYmous survey of all 22.,000 full-time; seasonal and temporary 

employees across the country to gauge their perception of harassment and \vhether it is 'videspread. 

https://wv·rw.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06120/interior-chief-warning·t... 6/21/2016 
54 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21992.039

Interior chief warns 70,000 employees: Sexual harassment is 'completely out of line with ... Page 3 of 3 

The inspector general found last year that Jan is broke the rules when he failed to seek perinission from the 

Interior Department's· ethics office to write a book for a publishm· that does business with the agency. 

Lisa Rein covers the federal workforce and issues that concern the management of government. 

;I' Follow @Reinlwapo 

https:/1\Vww.washingtonpost.com/news/powerposVwp/2016106120/interior-chief-warning-t... 6121/2016 
55 

The article says that Secretary Jewell apparently warned 70,000 

Federal employees to ‘‘comply with the ethical responsibilities expected of all Federal employees.’’ According to the article, this is a 

result of sexual harassment, scientific misconduct and data manipulation affecting research projects worth more than $100 million 

and other violations of ethics standards. 

I was just wondering what you are doing to address this issue 

at the BLM and ensure that your agency employees uphold their 

ethical responsibilities? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, I appreciate the question and these are very 

serious issues. 

A number of weeks ago, perhaps a month ago, I sent out my own 

note to all 10,000 BLM employees noting the importance of promoting an ethical culture within our organization. Folks have 

known the importance of transparency, following the rules, respecting one another, and these are issues in conversations that are continuing in a very real way within all of the agencies within the Department. 

Senator BARRASSO. It seems that the National Park Service is 

conducting an anonymous survey of all their full time, seasonal, 

and temporary employees to get a handle on the problem. Is that 

something you are considering for BLM as well? 

Mr. KORNZE. We are considering it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing today. 

I am an avid sportsman, as are most Montanans. I enjoy our 

public lands with my kids, and it is something I want to pass that 

legacy down to as well. 

I am also just struck as I sit here today and looked at a quick 

little map here and probably should have brought a map around 

where the BLM lands are. It is very, very white as it relates to— 

I have a map here that shows BLM lands as yellow. If you look, 

draw a line north and south basically on the eastern border of 

Montana, go down the east border of Wyoming, east border of Colorado and the east border of New Mexico, there is nothing as relates 

to BLM lands going to the east with just a little bit of smidgen in 

North Dakota, South Dakota. 

It is no coincidence, perhaps, we sit here. It is Wyoming, it is 

Alaska, it is Utah, it is Idaho, it is Montana, it is Colorado, it is 

Arizona that are here today. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. I was struck with Mr. Ogsbury’s comment as 

well on the importance of our Governors, the frustration we have 

out West that our voices are not being heard. 

With all due respect, we have many members in this Committee, 

the full Committee, from Vermont, from Massachusetts, from 

states that do not have lands that are classified as BLM. That is 

why you see a lot of interest here today, I think, from those who 

are affected every day, who hear from our ranchers, our sportsmen, 

our farmers, those in the energy business as well. 

As I have said in Montana, we are a blend of John Denver and 

Merle Haggard. You have to find that melody that we want to be 

56 

able to raise our kids in our state and allow them to get jobs so 

they can stay in our state. Our number one export in Montana is 

our children. We educate them and then they have to leave because 

we are 49th in per capita wages, and so that is why these discussions really, really matter. 

I was in the software business for a number of years. Anytime 

there was an upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 oftentimes customers would 

be excited about that. Other customers would run for cover knowing here comes the upgrade. What is going to happen here as 

things will break or the upgrade was not as it was promised to be. 

The decisions that are made by BLM have wide ranging implications for our farmers or ranchers and others’ use of land and our 

sportsmen as well. That is why I think transparency, local engagement throughout the process is of utmost importance. 

We have heard from Director Kornze today that the new BLM 

2.0 plan gives added participation for vested interested groups. But 

when I am talking to folks who work in the energy and ag businesses in Montana, multigenerational Montanans, listening to the 

other testimony today and reading the comments from the BLM 

comment period, I tell you, I am hearing something a little bit different. 

That is why, again, it is pretty quiet here on the other side of 

Senator Barrasso because most of states do not have BLM lands. 

It is pretty active over here because we all do. 

Thousands of jobs can be at stake because the BLM does not always give due consideration to the people who responsibly use the 

land every day and have been doing so for generations. 

Ms. Sgamma, can you address the discrepancies that I heard between Montanans and Director Kornze and what you think needs 

to be done in order to ensure the impacts of BLM 2.0 planning rule 

on the people who use the land are reflected and adequately addressed in this process? 

Ms. SGAMMA. Well, I would reverse the diminishment of elected 

officials in the process, first and foremost. County commissioners, 

city councils, those directly in rural communities and local communities in the West affected should have a greater voice, just as Mr. 

Ogsbury has pointed out, the governors’ roles are diminished as 

well. 

When you look at things landscape scale and ignore things like 

counties and put conditions on their participation, that is diminishing the role of the public and giving it more to special interests, 

frankly. 

When you take away the local elected officials and the state 

elected officials and give it to special interests, you know, you’re 

really just taking away from those who actually represent the public in all facets of life, from conservation to economic. 

Thank you for the question. 

Senator DAINES. Director Kornze, I obviously want to get your 

input here. As grazing permittees and lessees have contractual relationships with the BLM, makes their livelihoods off the land, 

they are integral partners with BLM in managing and improving 

ranges across Montana and the West. They have a distinctive and 

integral role to play in this. 

57 

With that in mind, do you view grazing permittees as having a 

vested interest in BLM’s RMP development process and a unique 

relationship with BLM relative to other interested stakeholders or 

the public at large? 

Mr. KORNZE. Okay. Well, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity 

to reply on some of this. And one thing I want to point out is we’ve 

had some fantastic engagement with we’re piloting this effort at a 

number of places. One of them is our Missoula plan. We’ve recently 

received very positive, glowing remarks from the Missoula County 

Commissioners and from Lewis and Clark County Commissioners. 

So there are Montanans on all sides of this issue, and we’ve had 

some real progress that we’re making an example of this working. 

Senator DAINES. Right, and thank you for that. I will just say 

you have touched two counties. There are 54 more to go. 

Mr. KORNZE. There are. 

Senator DAINES. If you look at a balanced view here of making 

sure you are getting all counties represented in the voice. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. With all due respect, thank you. 

Mr. KORNZE. But there are three counties that are involved in 

the planning process, and we’ve heard from two and it’s been 

thumbs up. So that’s the point that I’m trying to make. 

Related to grazers, grazers are playing an important role in the 

land. There are some very important tools that come with grazing, 

sometimes when it comes to fire and other management programs 

that we have. So, you know, we’ve considered that an important relationship. 

If grazers want to be part of resource management planning, 

which we hope they do, we want them at the table. We see them 

and talk to them, you know, very regularly, as you know. So that’s 

a relationship that’s important to us. 

Senator DAINES. Okay, thank you, Director Kornze. 

I am out of time. Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

all the witnesses for being here today, particularly the number 

from Colorado. So welcome to the Energy Committee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Kornze, I wanted to just follow up with a few of the things 

that you had talked about in your opening comments. 

You talked about local communities, local leaders, farmers, local 

ranchers, feeling disconnected from the agency, and you mentioned 

Governor Herbert and his concern with the BLM planning process. 

Now Governor Herbert does not support this rule as it is written 

today, does he? 

Mr. KORNZE. We’ve received comments from the State of Utah 

with some concerns, but, you know, this is—— 

Senator GARDNER. But I mean, that is why—it sounds like in 

your opening statement when you talk about I agree with Governor 

Herbert. It is a little bit misleading to say that this rule, then, is 

a result of a conversation you had with Governor Herbert because 

I think they have the same objections that you are going to hear 

from Wyoming, from Colorado, from Montana, and from Arizona. 

And I also—— 

58 

Mr. KORNZE. We’ve received comments from a lot of government, 

governors, governments, saying that we need a more transparent 

process. So the average BLM planning process takes eight years. 

Senator GARDNER. To—— 

Mr. KORNZE. Eight years, and that’s the average. 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Ogsbury, how many governors in the 

Western Governors’ Association support the rule as written today? 

Mr. OGSBURY. I would have to—Chairman Barrasso, Senator 

Gardner, members of the Committee, I would ask leave to respond 

for the record so I could give a thoughtful and accurate answer. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Response for the record from Mr. Jim Ogsbury to Senator Garner’s Question: 

No governors have communicated their support of BLM’s proposed Planning 2.0 rule to the Western Governors’ Association. 

Senator GARDNER. But I think it is fair to say that the majority 

of Western governors do not support the plan, the rule, as it is 

written. Is that correct? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Western Governors’ Association has submitted detailed comments on the rule that express very serious concerns and 

reservations about it, about its provisions. 

Senator GARDNER. And some of those reservations the governors 

do not believe that they are authentic partners, that it allows room 

for consistency with state plans and I believe, it creates unfettered 

discretion by BLM to ignore the governors’ comments. That is some 

of the testimony you provided, correct? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Those are among the concerns, yes, sir. 

Senator GARDNER. That sounds like a pretty strong condemnation of the rule. I have to tell you I have traveled throughout Colorado, Dolores County, Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, 

Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, and Rio Blanco, Club 20, 

Western Governors’ Association, a number of people who are very 

concerned about this rule as it is written. 

Some of their overarching themes of concern, prioritization of single use of multiple use, proposed change for cooperating agency status qualifying—I mean, Mr. Kornze, do you think that a Garfield 

County Commissioner should have more say in Garfield County 

than an NGO in New York City over what happens on BLM lands? 

Mr. KORNZE. So there is no change to cooperating agency status 

proposed here. 

Senator GARDNER. I think some would disagree with you here. I 

think a number of people would disagree with you on how that cooperating agency status works. 

But do you think, from a standpoint of philosophy, that an NGO 

in New York City should not have as much opinion or sway or clout 

over what happens on BLM land in Garfield County than a Garfield County Commissioner? 

Mr. KORNZE. So the Organic Act that we have for the agency 

tells us that counties and states, other local governments should be 

the closest to us. 

Senator GARDNER. Right. 

59 

Mr. KORNZE. So, but let me lay out the challenge that we have 

here. The average BLM resource plan takes eight years, average. 

It can take 10, 12, 13 years to complete one of these plans. 

What Governor Herbert commented to me was that you could 

have two or three turnovers in your county commission during that 

time. Right? So the folks that come into the scoping process don’t 

have the time to track the 12 or 13 years later that their comments 

have been successfully incorporated into what we’ve been working 

on. 

So that’s a lot of time. It’s too much time. It’s also a lot of money 

that we’re spending on that process that I would prefer to spend 

on projects on the ground, working with your constituents. 

So that question that we asked our team is how do we make this 

go faster? And the answer that they brought back to us is we 

should add more process up front because where we get caught up 

and where we trip very often is people bring new information to 

the table and we have to supplement and it adds years and years 

to the process. 

So what you see in front of you and what all of us have in front 

of us with this proposal, this is an honest, genuine effort and an 

open effort, right? We are not, these are not final answers. This is 

a proposal that we’re seeking comment and input on. So we’re very 

happy to have this hearing today. But this is an honest effort to 

figure out how do we go faster? How do we make this more transparent? 

I think the gentleman’s comment about this, about planning documents which can be a thousand to many thousands of pages long, 

turning this more into professionalized business is relevant. And 

so—— 

Senator GARDNER. We are running out of time here. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes, yes. 

Senator GARDNER. I have a couple of questions here. 

Mr. KORNZE. Very quickly, we’re essentially, there’s two big 

changes here. 

One, we want to start with a process where we ask all our local 

partners, towns, counties, others, to bring the best science and best 

data forward. That’s the new foundation we want to build. We 

think it will be stronger. 

And the second piece is between our scoping process and our 

draft EIS we want to be more transparent. We want to take a document to your county and others and say, these are the basic concepts we’re exploring. Are we headed in a good direction here? Because if we’re not we want to understand how you’re thinking 

about it different. 

Senator GARDNER. Can you give me a definition of what high 

quality information means? 

Mr. KORNZE. So high quality information relates to guidance 

from OMB. It encapsulates best available science. It relates to, let’s 

see, I’ve got a note here. 

You know, information that is yes, reliable—— 

Senator GARDNER. Well, here is the thing, I mean—— 

Mr. KORNZE. Accurate. 

60 

Senator GARDNER. So we have the length of time it takes to get 

a plan. You have counties that maybe have one employee trying to 

address these issues. 

Mr. KORNZE. Exactly. 

Senator GARDNER. They are having to rely on bigger counties to 

address these issues. There is very little turnover in the agencies 

that are having to deal with this. I think this is putting tremendous stress on so many of our counties in Colorado and beyond that 

are heavily, heavily outnumbered in terms of private acres versus 

public acres. In terms of public acres more, far more, than private 

land. 

This is not something that I have people calling my office and 

saying please embrace this rule. Maybe there are one or two people, one or two organizations, not from Colorado. Maybe a few organizations in Colorado, but the vast majority of those public land 

counties that I speak to have grave concerns with this. 

We were looking at a map here about the BLM, the public lands 

in the Western United States. Do you think it is time that we move 

the BLM headquarters to the Western part of the United States? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KORNZE. I would be open to that conversation. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Flake? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Director Kornze, could you tell me what the role of the Resource 

Advisory Councils are? 

Mr. KORNZE. Our Resource Advisory Councils play an important 

role in terms of the folks that we sit down with usually, two, three, 

four times a year. We go out on tours. We bring them, somebody 

put it to me recently, inside the tent, and we show them the processes we’re working through. We show them the tough questions 

we’re asking. 

You know, we’re able to consult with them in a way on an ongoing basis that’s meaningful for us and that is over and above some 

of their—it washes away some of the restrictions we have with 

members of the public, right? 

Senator FLAKE. Well, that is a concern I have. We know what 

they are supposed to do, but in a letter last month to you I listed 

some of the concerns that we have coming out of Arizona about the 

proposed rule. One of the things that I found most troubling was 

that I heard from the Arizona Resource Advisory Council that the 

proposed rule was not brought up by the BLM or discussed at any 

of their meetings prior to being promulgated in September. 

I received a letter from you, yesterday, that detailed the interaction that BLM has had with the Arizona RAC. It consisted of an 

initial communication two years ago. Another providing a fact 

sheet after the proposed rule was published, and then an invitation 

to a webinar during the public comment period. Is that sufficient 

interaction and is that using the RAC as it was intended? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, we have had, what we think, is, you know, 

some fairly good engagement with the RAC in Arizona, and we’ve 

taken a number of other approaches to get word out about this proposal. 

61 

I, myself, have spoken to the National Association of Counties, 

at least three times in the last few years, heavily focused on this 

issue. Some of my deputies have done similar engagement. We’ve 

been to the North American Wildlife Conference. We’ve sat down 

with Western Governors’ Association. We’ve had webinars. All of 

this information is available online. You know, we’ve recorded. 

We’ve broadcast. 

We’ve had, you know, we have some limited resources, so have 

we been everywhere in every town? We have not, but have we 

done, I think, a significant and honest outreach with the basic 

questions of how do we improve our planning process? We have, 

and have we taken that input and turned it into a product? We 

have, and that’s where we are today. 

So, the additional information that we have from the Arizona 

RAC, from other state RACs is very valuable to us and is going to 

continue to shape this proposal as it moves forward. 

Senator FLAKE. Well don’t you think that it would have been 

wise, before the rule was promulgated, to seek some of that input 

because it seems, given the communication that you outlined and 

what we hear from them, that their advice and counsel was not 

sought in the promulgation or the formulation of the rule. 

Wouldn’t it have been better to have sought their counsel before 

promulgation of the rule rather than simply informing them, here 

is what it is and come to a webinar? 

Mr. KORNZE. So we are happy to, you know, double down on our 

engagement with the Arizona RAC and we look forward to hearing 

their thoughts and concerns. 

Senator FLAKE. The purpose is to seek their input before the 

issue, before the rule was promulgated. I think we could have 

avoided a lot of the substantial negative input that we have received had the RACs been used for their intended purpose. 

But when it is a letter two years ago providing them the fact 

sheet after the proposed rule was promulgated and then an invitation to a webinar—that is it. That is about the only communication 

that they received, so I do not blame them for feeling left out. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. 

Senator FLAKE. And can you blame them? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well I think, you know, if your perspective is that 

the outreach here could have been better, then I would ask you to 

think about this rule as an effort for us to formulize making outreach stronger. 

The point here is to have more upfront engagement so that even 

before we have a scoping meeting we’ve engaged with counties and 

towns and, you know, universities and others, you know, local 

grazers, citizen scientists, making sure that we’re bringing data together and we’re having a good conversation about what foundation 

should we be building this plan upon? 

So, you know, I’m happy to take criticism about our outreach efforts on this rule. You know, we may disagree about the quality of 

that outreach, but what this rule, proposed rule, is about is making 

sure that we’re talking to folks, local folks, early and often, because 

right now the criticism, they may not be calling Senator Gardner’s 

office but they call my office. 

62 

And when I’m out West I very frequently hear from folks where 

they say, yes, look, we went to a scoping meeting for your plan and 

then you disappeared into a cave for four or five years and then 

suddenly we’ve got a 1,500 page document on our desk that we 

have to work through. That’s not an ideal process. Right? We want 

folks to feel like they’ve been with us through multiple steps and 

that they’re part of a live conversation, and that’s what we’re seeking to give them. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, I would just suggest, I mean, you have this 

organization, this RAC, that is there for that purpose. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. 

Senator FLAKE. It would behoove BLM to reach out. 

Mr. KORNZE. Okay. 

Senator FLAKE. While it still matters while the rule is being formulated and we could avoid some of the negative feedback that we 

have received. That is my two cents, and I yield back. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

Senator Lee? 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an issue that is very important to me and to my state. 

BLM manages nearly 23,000,000 acres of public lands in Utah. 

Now 23,000,000 acres is an enormous amount of land. I live in a 

relatively big state and within my state that covers an astounding 

42 percent of the surface area of the state. 

Utahans depend on these lands for their way of life, for farming, 

livestock grazing, mining, energy development and also in many, 

many instances for recreation. It goes without saying that BLM’s 

land management plans have very substantial and very lasting 

consequences for Utah’s economy and for the well-being of individual families, individual citizens within my state. 

That is why I am troubled by the proposed planning rule’s disregard for state and local involvement in the planning process. The 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, as it is commonly known, requires BLM to give state and local governments a 

prominent seat at the land use planning table to ensure that plans 

are in harmony with local needs and with local values, with local 

customs and things that the land is commonly used for. 

The proposed rule that we are discussing today, however, flouts, 

I believe, BLM’s legislative mandate by undermining coordination 

between BLM and local officials, relaxing consistency standards 

and watering down state and local input and doing so in the early 

planning stages. 

Furthermore, the proposed rule threatens to circumvent BLM’s 

own field managers and state directors at later stages of the planning process through the introduction of so-called landscape level 

planning which transfers decision-making to a deciding official, 

hand-picked by the BLM director in Washington, DC. In the case 

of my state, that is a couple thousand miles away from where the 

affected people live and work and are trying to raise their families. 

Effective land management depends on collaboration and trust 

between the Federal Government and local officials at every step 

of the process. I therefore strongly urge BLM to carefully consider 

the public comments submitted by state and local leaders and to 

incorporate their recommendations into the final rule. 

63 

But Mr. Kornze, Utah’s local leaders and I are especially concerned about the new planning assessment step in the proposed 

rule. As you are aware, last month Utah’s Governor, the Office of 

Governor Gary Herbert, sent you a letter expressing concern that 

the planning assessment does not meaningfully involve state and 

local governments, even though that is required by FLPMA. The 

letter recommends, among other changes, two amendments to the 

planning assessment. The first would direct the BLM to ‘‘identify 

state and local plans with which BLM plans must be consistent to 

the maximum extent consistent with FLPMA and Federal law.’’ 

The second would require BLM to ‘‘coordinate with state and local 

governments and Indian tribes to formulate BLM planning and 

management objectives in the planning area.’’ 

Now these are modest and, I think, very reasonable requests that 

would more closely align the planning assessment with FLPMA 

and with what FLPMA already requires and I think, would alleviate concerns justifiably shared by states and local governments 

across the West. 

So, Mr. Kornze, does the BLM plan to incorporate these recommendations into the final rule? 

Mr. KORNZE. So we are receiving a lot of really excellent comments right now from the State of Utah, from many states, from 

counties, from other stakeholders and other governments. We plan, 

I think we have a path to accepting a number of comments. I can’t 

tell you specifically, you know, where we are in terms of working 

through those two pieces, but I will say, in terms of the planning 

assessment and the role of state and county governments, if they 

are cooperating agencies they are sitting with us. Right? 

So the point of a planning assessment is to bring in a whole 

mass of information and figure out what data, what information 

you’re going to build your plan upon, right? What are the core— 

what’s the core information you’re going to use? You know, who sits 

next to us? The state and the counties, if they want to. They have 

to opt in to be a cooperating agency, but they sit with us and they 

help us work through that data that comes through the door. 

So I’m confident that that is going to be, continue to be, a close 

relationship. 

Senator LEE. Now I am out of time, but just to clarify. Is there 

anything about the two recommendations I outlined, the two proposed changes that strikes you as unworkable or something that is 

likely to be rejected or do they sound like sound recommendations 

to you, recommendations that presumably could be and perhaps 

should be incorporated into the final rule? 

Mr. KORNZE. You know, we are going to take those seriously and 

see if there’s something that we can incorporate there. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

It does not sound like there is anything that is categorically, that 

would strike you as unreasonable about those recommendations? 

Okay, thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Warren? 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative has the laudable goal of modernizing the agency’s planning process and to increase public inVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:49 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 021992 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21992\C21992.TXT C21992
64 

volvement in the management of 245,000,000 acres of public lands 

directed by the agency. The vast majority of these, of course, are 

out in the Western states. While BLM does not manage any lands 

in Massachusetts, I am very concerned about stakeholder involvement and public outreach across all Federal agencies. 

In Massachusetts there have been a number of times when Federal outreach has just clearly fallen short, whether it’s FERC, the 

FAA, NOAA, HUD or the BLM. An agency cannot insulate themselves from public engagement. 

Now I should note that some agencies such as the National Park 

Service and the Department of Agriculture have done a good job of 

reaching out to communities in Massachusetts while others simply 

have not. 

So I would like to start today by asking, Director Kornze, the 2.0 

initiative is the BLM’s first resource plan update in over 30 years. 

The agency has stated in the Federal Register that the goal of the 

proposed rule and I’m going to quote here, ‘‘is to affirm the important role of other Federal agencies, state and local governments, 

tribes and the public during the planning process and enhance opportunities for public involvement and transparency during the 

preparation of resource management plans.’’ 

I would just like you, if you would, to explain what steps the 

BLM is taking to determine the best practices to accomplish outreach and public participation goals? 

Mr. KORNZE. Great. Well a few of the pieces that we’re trying to 

pull together, one is our sister agency, the U.S. Forest Service, has 

gone through a number of revisions to their own land use planning 

regulations in recent years. In fact, I think they’ve done it three 

or four times. 

One of the pieces that they have found to be the greatest success 

in their new process is the planning assessment, making sure that 

they’re doing a wide call for information and building on top of 

that. So that’s one of the pieces. 

We’re also, you know, we have nearly 40 years of experience in 

working through these planning processes. So we’re really—we’ve 

relied on our sister governments, the governors, counties. We’ve 

also turned to our own folks who have a lifetime of experience in 

helping us understand what counties and local governments and 

others really have been asking for over these many years. 

Senator WARREN. So thank you. 

I am pleased that the BLM has made early public participation 

a goal. But I have got to say I am concerned that the agency is 

working against itself by proposing to reduce the minimum public 

comment period for a draft EIS level plan amendment from 90 days 

to 45 days and additionally proposing to reduce the minimum public comment period for draft resource management plans from 90 

days to 60 days. 

I just have to say, oftentimes I have been contacted by my constituents asking me to request that the Federal Government extend 

the period of time so that they can comment so that they have a 

chance to have their voices heard. 

So let me ask this. Mr. Ogsbury and Ms. Sgamma, in your respective testimony you also cited concerns with the BLM’s proposed 

reduction in the comment period. Would this proposed reduction 

65 

likely limit community participation and what do you believe would 

be an appropriate comment period? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Barrasso, Senator Warren, members of 

the Committee, yes, Western Governors do share your concern 

about the reduction in time period for public comment and feel that 

the additional opportunities for input at the front end of the process are probably not a good substitute for those comment periods 

which are necessary to wade through extremely lengthy, complex 

materials and materials that might become all the more lengthy 

and complex if the agency does move to more of a landscape level 

analysis. 

So I think there’s been a lot of comment, commentary from the 

Western Governors to the effect that, rather than shortening those 

public comment periods, they should be extended. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Ms. Sgamma? 

Ms. SGAMMA. Thank you for the question, Senator Warren. 

I really think that the public comment period should be about 

180 days because these documents are thousands of pages and they 

can include technical documents on wildlife, water, wild and scenic 

rivers, very complex issues. So I think the public should have a 

good chunk of time. 

Thank you. 

Senator WARREN. Alright. 

This is very important. Look, I understand BLM’s desire to move 

these plans in a timely fashion but I think it is important to get 

them done right and that everyone has a chance to have their voice 

heard in this process. Modernizing the planning process is a very 

important goal, but I do not think that shortening the comment period at the expense of public input is the way to accomplish that. 

I hope that BLM hears and acts on these concerns before issuing 

a final rule. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Hoeven? 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Kornze, I have several questions regarding the Planning 

2.0 initiative. It moves to what is called landscape scale planning 

which is much broader and more ambiguous context than currently 

exists. 

Talk to me about oil and gas development under that approach. 

How is it going to change? 

Mr. KORNZE. You bet. So I don’t see any major change for oil and 

gas, specifically. So we talk about landscape level planning a number of times in the preamble to the rule. I think we may have been 

better served to talk about appropriate scale, right? 

So at the agency, working with our partners, we have to figure 

out issues, you know, perhaps there’s a real recreation driver for 

an individual town. And then maybe in that same quadrant or half 

of a state there’s a change in economies. Let’s say one resource extraction is going in, one is going out and there’s a need to figure 

out on that scale how to work with those folks and how to serve 

those communities best. 

66 

And then you may have on that same landscape a bigger landscape that perhaps goes across state boundaries. Think about the 

way that fire is changing ecosystems and invasive species are coming in and how we’re planning for transmission lines and how are 

we working through other large scale changes or challenges. 

So right now at the Bureau of Land Management we have about, 

more than 160 different plans. If I gave either of you a map of the 

West and said, you know, here’s a sharpie and here’s a map of all 

the public lands, I would be very surprised if you came up with 160 

different units as the best way to approach management of Western public lands. 

So what we’re trying to do here is to—it’s not prescribing something that is necessarily bigger. It could end up being bigger and 

incorporating multiple field offices into a single plan, but it’s really 

asking the question, you know, perhaps it’s, you know, the answer 

might be, Senator, in practical application that it’s better for oil 

and gas. 

You could have a scenario in which our planning is better and 

more effective because we’re looking at multiple scales; therefore, 

our plans are less susceptible to successful challenge. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well I would also recommend that you make 

sure—it looks to me like you expedite the timeline for input and 

this is a very complicated issue and I would recommend that you 

make sure that you provide adequate time for input and you may 

get requests for extensions. I think you need to consider those very 

carefully given the significance of the change and the complexity. 

I want to move on to leonardite. BLM is trying to decide whether 

leonardite is coal or humade. But in the meantime we have a plant 

in Williston, North Dakota that is producing leonardite and paying 

royalties and that matters. This classification matters because if it 

is classified as coal then they have to pay royalties, and if not, they 

do not. In the meantime, they are paying royalties. When are you 

going to make a decision on this? 

Mr. KORNZE. Okay. 

So very quickly on the public comment period that a number of 

folks have mentioned, we will be paying very significant attention 

to making sure that we get that right. 

I think we had put together a, you know, a broader concept that 

with more information up front, perhaps comment periods would 

not need to be as long on the back end. But I—we are hearing a 

strong message from our partners that they still want that time 

and that makes sense to us. Right, so you’ve got my ear on that. 

On leonardite, which is I want to know who Leonard is. [Laughter.] But on leonardite my understanding is that the lease in question has been in place for about 50 years. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is a long time. 

Mr. KORNZE. Right. 

And so the new company that has the lease that took over ownership a few years ago is looking for a change in the position of the 

Federal Government in terms of the status of those minerals. 

I believe our team will be visiting with the company later this 

week, so we should be able to move that process along. 

Senator HOEVEN. So relatively soon? 

Mr. KORNZE. Relatively soon. 

67 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. 

The last story I want to ask you about is coal leases. Right now 

companies are hearing from the BLM that it will take a decade to 

get approval on a coal lease. Remember in a lot of these instances 

you do not own the surface acres. What is happening is you are either having to try to mine around you or you are holding up that 

mine, but it creates a real problem because they are still mining 

that area, they just have to skip the coal. So you actually create 

more disruption, more cost and the Federal Government gets no reimbursement out of it. 

Now you have got a three-year moratorium and my question is 

how are you going to address it and fix it? This does not make any 

sense. 

Mr. KORNZE. So in terms of the, I mean, we are, as you know, 

you know, doing a top to bottom look at the coal program, and all 

questions are on the table, you know, so this is a legitimate question of how long does it, should it take x amount of time to go 

through a coal lease process? 

If there are new ways to think about that and work through it, 

we are open to them and now is a perfect time to be bringing that 

to the table and we will consider that brought to the table via comments. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, and I am just encouraging you to address 

it because again, you do not accomplish any environmental benefit 

and instead you are raising costs and for the companies affecting 

private owners and actually losing revenue in terms of what the 

Federal Government takes. It seems to me this ought to be figured 

out sooner versus later, like having a three-year moratorium to get 

a resolution of the problem. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. You know, similar to land use plans that 

take eight to ten years, ten years for a coal process is too long. 

Senator HOEVEN. Too long. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Mr. Kornze, following up. 

The NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, requires 

every Federal agency to assess the environmental impacts that 

would result from major actions that are taken by that agency, actions like issuing a permit or new regulation. A Federal agency assesses environmental impacts in what is known as the EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement. 

But your agency, the BLM, has effectively exempted itself from 

complying with NEPA for the Planning 2.0 proposed rule because 

prior to issuing the proposed rule BLM stated that Planning 2.0 

qualified for what is known as a categorical exclusion. 

Given the significance of the changes that Planning 2.0 proposes, 

why has your agency decided not to issue an Environmental Impact 

Statement for its own proposed rule? 

Mr. KORNZE. So we’re getting into the fine details here, so bear 

with me. But the Department of the Interior has a categorical exclusion available to us for efforts that are procedural in nature 

which this rule fits. Right? 

68 

So, let me give you a parallel example. Annually, when we put 

out our budget, that is a high level document that comes with a 

CX, the same CX is used because it is not the implementation. It’s 

not hitting the ground. It’s high level and it’s procedural in nature. 

So we’re taking a similar approach here. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think some folks may question that in 

terms of whether it is procedural or if it actually impacts on the 

ground. So there may be additional questions about that. 

Mr. KORNZE. Sounds good. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Warren asked a question about how 

long comments ought to be and Ms. Sgamma, you mentioned 180 

days may be necessary just because of the complexity of trying to 

deal with that. 

I am just going to ask Mr. Magagna and Mr. Ogsbury what your 

thoughts are on the amount of time. 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We certainly think the time, based on the experience of extensions being granted, that it should be longer than it is today rather 

than shorter. 

I would add to that the other important component of this proposal that allows the agency to put out more than one proposed action during that comment period. Until this point in time I am not 

aware of any agency that puts out multiple alternatives. 

So the fact that we may have two or more in some cases of alternatives to analyze and comment on to me, would add even another 

element of meeting a larger—a longer comment period. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Ogsbury, from the standpoint of the governors? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Barrasso, thank you very much for the 

question. 

Western Governors do not have a specific policy on the amount 

of time that they would request for public comments; however, 

they’ve expressed very serious concerns about any reduction in the 

amount of public comment periods. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Kornze, the agency has chosen to include several new terms 

and objectives in the Planning 2.0 proposed rule. The BLM identified the need to respond more quickly to something called social 

change as part of the justification for Planning 2.0. How does the 

BLM define, ‘‘social change’’ and do you believe social change is 

part of the agency’s multiple use management directive? 

Mr. KORNZE. So the term social does find its way into the document, and what we were trying to encapsulate was the human element, right? 

So it’s the economic side. It’s the community side. So we used a 

broad term and that’s something we’re going to think about improving to be a little bit more specific and clear in the final. 

Senator BARRASSO. Getting back to this categorical exclusion and 

the procedural way that you described it. The Forest Service did include and issued an EIS on their similar proposed rule. So why 

would the exception apply to BLM but then not to the Forest Service? 

Mr. KORNZE. So there’s two pieces to that. One is my understanding is that they do not have a parallel categorical exclusion 

69 

available to them that matches what we have. And then the second 

piece is that the larger framework that they have for their similar 

land use regulation related to plans calls out specific standards on 

the ground that must be met. So ours is about how we work. Theirs 

is about how they work but also what they expect to see in their 

plans and on the ground. 

So they are, as a result of what’s in their rule, they are seeing 

impacts on the ground. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, some may view this as a double standard in that the rules that apply to everybody else do not apply to 

the BLM. 

Mr. Magagna, in your testimony you state the BLM’s proposed 

rule ‘‘introduces the concept of landscape level planning.’’ You go on 

to say that your organization finds several dangers inherent in this 

approach. Do you have a clear idea of what the term landscape 

scale planning actually means and would you expand a little bit 

about your concerns about this landscape scale planning? 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s undefined in 

the proposal, so I can only suppose what it means. 

The way we have necessarily interpreted it is that it gives the 

agency the ability, in any given case, to allow that to be whatever 

they choose it to be. It could be narrow. It could be very, very 

broad. There’s no limitation on it, and in that context, perhaps the 

distinction worth making, incidentally, I’ve spent the last four 

years serving on a national advisory committee to the Forest Service, on their new planning rule. There are some fundamental similarities that are practical, a lot of differences. But in terms of that 

particular component of landscape scale, the Forest Service, I 

think, more appropriately talks about not doing plans on a landscape scale but assessing the landscape scale impacts of the plans 

that they do do. They’re doing their plans based on forest units as 

they’ve always done, but they’re sensitive to what the landscape 

scale impacts are, not only on other forest lands, but on private 

lands, on state lands, etcetera. 

That seems to make some sense to us. Whereas, landscape scale 

planning, per se, does not and creates real concerns that you’re 

moving further away from being able to look at the local impacts 

on local people on local resources. The broader you become, the 

more generic you necessarily become. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. 

Ms. Sgamma, is there anything you would like to add on this 

term landscape scale planning and concerns you might have with 

that phrase? 

Ms. SGAMMA. Well, I think the biggest problem with it is by 

crossing state borders and county borders. It’s just watering down 

the input of those counties and states. 

When you’ve elevated a deciding official, who could be in Washington, who could be in another state, who certainly is not looking 

at the county’s specific interests. I think that’s problematic and 

really getting away from the specific resources on the grounds. 

I mean, I sympathize with Director Kornze’s point about there 

being a lot of planning units, but in order to do good planning you 

do have to take into effect those details on the ground. 

70 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to thank all of you for being here to 

testify today. 

Decisions about the future of public lands should involve, I believe, the best science, meaningful and ongoing coordination with 

local stakeholders, with state and local governments, with tribal officials and then discretion that reflects a true understanding of the 

resource needs. 

I think Planning 2.0 fails in all these categories. Director Kornze, 

given the feedback we have received here today and other serious 

concerns raised during the public comment period, it seems clear 

to me that the BLM must withdraw Planning 2.0. 

Any future proposed rule should meet clear, defined standards 

for improving the planning process without compromising the basic 

tenants of public land management. 

If there are no further questions, members may submit written 

follow up questions for the record. 

The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21992.040

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21,2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Questions from Chairman Murkowski 

Question 1: To ensure that the Planning 2.0 final rule can be appropriately administered 

in Alaska, will the final rule incorporate accommodations that account for Alaska-specific 

federal requirements contained in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

and other federal mandates? 

Response: All regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior, including the 

planning rule, must comply with Federal statutes. The proposed planning rule describes the 

procedures for the preparation or amendment of resource management plans and is consistent 

with existing statutes, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

Question 2: Will the Handbook, which will implement the final rule, be subject to formal 

public review and comment? If not, will the development of the Handbook nevertheless be 

a transparent process? 

Response: Revisions to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook will be conducted in a 

transparent manner and will be available for public review and feedback. Following the 

approval of the final rule governing land use planning, the BLM intends to finalize and release as 

interim policy a draft Land Use Planning Handbook for provisional use and public 

review. Interim policy is necessary to provide guidance to in-progress plans while still giving 

the public an opportunity to offer feedback on the final policy. The BLM will consider all public 

comments received in preparing the final handbook. 

Question 3: Under what circumstances, if any, do you see Alaska being included in a multistate landscape scale plan in the future, as allowed for under the proposed rule? 

Response: The proposed rule supports the application of a landscape-approach to land use 

planning, meaning that it provides for an open and transparent process, supports assessment and 

management at appropriate scales, supports the use of the best available scientific information in 

planning, and applies principles of adaptive management. Key to this process is developing land 

use plans at a scale that makes the most sense based on the relevant management concerns and 

the issues being addressed. Given Alaska's unique geographic features, the BLM cannot foresee 

any reasonable circumstance in which Alaska would be included in a multi-state planning effort. 

Question 4: Did the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seek and incorporate input from 

Governors of the Western States when it sought to shorten the formal review and comment 

period? Did you consult the Governor of Alaska when you reduced the scope of the 

Governor's Consistency Review from programs, policies and plans to "adopted and 

approved" plans? 

Response: The BLM is currently in the process of considering input provided by the Governors 

of Western States during the formal public comment period for the proposed planning rule. 
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21992.041

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Question 5: You indicated in your testimony that the opportunity for the BLM to receive 

constructive information from the public early in the planning process would benefit the 

planning process. What assurances can you provide that my constituents will be given a 

meaningful voice if they provide comments to the BLM during the early stages of the 

planning process such as during the planning assessment? How will the agency be 

transparent in the informal planning assessment process, and will you publish the source of 

comments upon which you base agency decision-making? 

Response: The proposed planning rule requires that the results of the planning assessment be 

summarized into a written report, which must be made available to the public prior to initiating 

the scoping process. This report would include a summary of information provided by the public 

as a part of the assessment process. The results of the planning assessment will be used to 

inform the development of the preliminary alternatives and, eventually, the Draft Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). 

Question 6: How can you be assured of local understanding and knowledge necessary for 

sound planning decisions if you replace the State Director with a "deciding official?" 

Response: The BLM will continue to select line-officers who are highly qualified for any given 

decision-making process. The BLM takes seriously the responsibility of a line-officer to make 

well-informed decisions and consider the impacts such decisions have on the public lands. The 

BLM's commitment to qualified and well-informed decision-making will not change under the 

proposed planning rule. The term "deciding official" is not meant to imply that a line-officer 

who is unfamiliar with local understanding and knowledge would be designated to make 

planning decisions. Instead, this term is intended to reflect the fact that for decisions that may 

affect geographic areas larger than traditional BLM administrative boundaries, an individual with 

knowledge related to the particular issues of concern within that landscape may be designated to 

be the "deciding official". 

Question 7: The proposed rule suggests that Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) will not necessarily be subject to a public comment period. As you know, ACECs 

play a very large role in the State of Alaska, and in many instances, they significantly 

impact access to federal land. It is of utmost importance to me that ACECs are subjected 

to a formal public review and comment period. Will the BLM continue to require a formal 

review and comment period for ACECs under the proposed rule? 

Response: The proposed planning rule would provide for public comment on ACEC 

designation consistent with the type of planning process (amendment vs. revision) and the level 

of NEP A analysis required for the designation. We are considering the input we received on this 

question in determining the public comment periods in the final rule. 

Question 8: Under what legal authority would BLM issue a categorical exclusion for this 

planning rule? Please provide specific citations and analysis. 

2 
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21992.042

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21,2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Response: The legal authorities relevant to the BLM's use of a categorical exclusion for the 

proposed planning rule include: 

• The National Environmental Policy Act; 

• The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1508.4 and 1507.3; 

and 

• The Department of the Interior regulations for implementing NEPA at 43 CFR 46.205 

and specifically 46.210(i), and 46.215. 

As described in the preliminary categorical exclusion for the proposed rule, the existing planning 

rule is 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 with the statute's public involvement elements. The proposed modifications of this rule 

are entirely procedural. 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. 

3 
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21992.043

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21,2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Questions from Sen. Barrasso 

Question 1: During the hearing, we discussed an email that Secretary Jewell recently sent 

to all DOT employees warning them to "comply with the ethical responsibilities expected of 

all federal employees". You stated that approximately one year ago, you also sent a similar 

email to all Bureau of Land Management (BLM) staff. 

Please provide a copy of this email for the record. In addition, please outline the specific 

steps you are taking to ensure all BLM employees are complying with their ethical 

responsibilities. 

Response: Director Kornze emailed all BLM employees a memorandum on promoting an 

ethical culture, and the 14 principles of ethical conduct on May 23, 2016. (This email and those 

two documents are attached.) Director Kornze also arranged for ethics training for all Executive 

Leadership Team members and their staff. This training was conducted by the Department's 

Ethics Office, and took place on June 3, 2016. 

Since fiscal year 2013, annual ELM-specific ethics training has been mandatory for all 

employees, including the BLM's seasonal workforce. 

Question 2: The National Park Service (NPS) appears to be working on an anonymous 

survey of all employees (including full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees) regarding 

violations of ethical standards within the agency. During the hearing, you indicated you 

are considering administration of a similar survey. Are you coordinating with NPS to 

ensure consistency, and when do you expect such a survey may be administered to BLM 

employees? 

Response: The BLM is coordinating with NPS and plans to issue the same survey to BLM 

employees as soon as possible. 

Question 3: The BLM has described Planning 2.0 as an attempt to clarify the planning 

process and increase public involvement. Your written testimony stated that changes to the 

planning process would "provide new opportunities for public input early in the planning 

process." However, the agency did not hold public information or comment sessions for 

several months after the Planning 2.0 initiative was launched in early 2014. Did anyone 

outside the agency advise the BLM from the time the initiative was announced until the 

first public session in October 2014? Please provide a list of all meetings and attendees 

related to the 2.0 Planning Initiative prior to October 2014. 

Response: The BLM announced the Planning 2.0 initiative on May 5, 2014, and requested 

public input on how the BLM' s land use planning process might be improved. In advance of this 

formal announcement, the BLM met with representatives from the U.S. Forest Service on May 

11, 2013, to discuss lessons learned from the development of the 2012 U.S. Forest Service 

Planning Rule. During the months between announcing the initiative and the public listening 

4 
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21992.044

Senate Enet·gy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

sessions, the BLM convened a team ofBLM staff to develop recommendations for how the 

existing planning rule might be improved. The results of this internal process were presented at 

the public listening sessions in October 2014; a recording of these meetings is available on the 

Planning 2.0 website. The BLM did not host any meetings with external participants during this 

time period, other than the FACA-chartered Resource Advisory Councils (RAC), nor did anyone 

outside the agency advise the BLM. The BLM responded to questions from members of the 

public and met with all members of the public that requested meetings with agency 

representatives. During these meetings, which took place in person or via conference call, the 

BLM answered questions regarding the new initiative and listened to public input or concerns. 

Meetings (in-person or conference call) in which questions about Planning 2.0 were discussed 

with agency representatives between May 2014 and October 2014 include: 

• Eastern Arizona Counties Organization Workshop & Study "Cooperating Agency & 

Coordination with Federal Land Managers," held at the County Supervisors Association 

(May 20, 2014) 

• Idaho Falls District RAC (May 20, 2014) 

• Outdoor Alliance (May 21, 2014) 

• BLM Alaska RAC (May 24, 2014) 

• Boise District RAC (June 5, 2014) 

• Trout Unlimited (June 10, 2014) 

• BLM Alaska RAC Members (June 11, 2014) 

• Outdoor Alliance Member Organizations (June 11, 2014) 

• Twin Falls District RAC (June 24, 2014) 

• Wyoming RAC (June 27, 2014) 

• Conservation Lands Alliance (July 2, 2014) 

• Pew Foundation (July 17, 2014) 

• US. Forest Service (August 8, 2014) 

• EMPSi Consulting (August 7, 2014) 

• Western Governors' Association Natural Resources Committee (September 30, 2014) 

• Shooting Sports Roundtable (October 1, 2014) 

• Interstate Mining Compact Commission (October 15, 2014) 

• American Wind Energy Association (October 30, 2014) 

Question 4: The Federal Land Management and Policy Act requires that the BLM conduct 

ongoing coordination, and also requires that BLM lands should be managed for multipleuse. With this in mind, please explain why the proposed rule removes the phrase 

"maximize resource values for the public" when setting out BLM land management 

objectives. 

Response: The BLM proposed to revise the stated objectives of resource management planning 

to reflect the language used in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and to 

remove vague language. In the first sentence, we proposed removing the phrase "maximize 

5 
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21992.045

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and 

procedures." The term "maximize resource values" is vague, making it inappropriate in 

regulations. The rest of the phrase, "a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and 

procedures" is an objective of developing planning regulations; however, it is not an objective of 

resource management planning. The proposed objectives include to "promote the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield on public lands unless otherwise provided by law" and to 

"ensure participation by the public, State and local governments, Indian tribes and Federal 

agencies in the development of resource management plans." The proposed language is 

consistent with FLPMA while avoiding vague terminology that is diftlcult to interpret. 

Question 5: Should Planning 2.0 be finalized as currently proposed, would the final rule 

allow the BLM to eliminate or preclude entire use-categories like grazing, mining, or 

recreation, on broad tracts ofland? If yes, do you intend to use that authority? 

Response: The proposed planning rule would not change the BLM' s authority under FLPMA to 

manage for multiple use and sustained yield on the public lands. As defined in FLPMA, 

"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 ... the use of some land for less than all of the resources." Multiple use 

management often requires that specific uses are excluded in some areas to account for "the 

long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources." Pursuant to 

our statutory obligations under existing law, the BLM will continue to manage for multiple use 

and sustained yield under any current or future planning rule. 

Question 6: Significant concerns have been raised about the ability for a local government 

to achieve cooperating agency status under Planning 2.0. Given the proposed process 

changes and shorter timelines proposed under this rule, how can you expect local 

governments to provide meaningful comments on proposals that will undoubtedly need 

local perspective when Planning 2.0 effectively demotes them from a cooperating agency to 

part of the "general public"? 

Response: The proposed planning rule does not change the requirements for participating as a 

cooperating agency in the planning process. These requirements are derived from the CEQ 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR §1501.6) as well as the DOI NEPA implementing regulations (43 

CFR §46.230) and provide that any agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 

respect to any environmental issue are eligible to participate as a cooperating agency concerning 

those issues relating to their jurisdiction and special expertise. The BLM values the participation 

oflocal governments as cooperating agencies in the NEPA and land use planning processes and 

will continue to collaborate with them in the development, revision, and amendment of resource 

management plans. Furthermore, the requirement for the preparation of a planning assessment, 

including input from locally-elected officials and relevant stakeholders, and a report to be made 

available at the outset of the planning process is expected to improve opportunities for 

cooperating agencies to participate earlier in the process. 

6 
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 21992.046

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Questions from Sen. Wyden 

Question 1: Director Kornze, are you aware of how many opportunities that State and 

local governments are currently afforded to participate in BLM land use planning? And do 

you know how many additional opportunities that Planning 2.0 would create for 

governments to participate in the land use planning process? 

Response: Under FLPMA, state, local, and tribal governments may request to coordinate with 

the BLM at any time in the planning process. This affords the privilege of coordinating in the 

development of resource management plans, with the goal of increasing consistency between 

Federal, state, local, and tribal land use plans. 

State and local governments that have special expertise or jurisdiction by law (see 40 CFR 

§1501.6 and 43 CFR §46.230) are also invited to partner with the BLM in developing resource 

management plans as cooperating agencies. Cooperating governments have access to 

preliminary and deliberative draft documents that are not made available to the public. 

Under existing rules, any State and local governments that do not participate as cooperating 

agencies may only review planning documents when they are made available to the general 

public with the draft resource management plan. The proposed rule provides additional 

opportunities to these State and local governments to review planning documents, including: (l) 

the planning assessment report; (2) the preliminary statement of purpose and need; (3) the 

preliminary range of alternatives; (4) the preliminary rationale for alternatives; and (5) the 

preliminary basis for analysis. 

Question 2: Director Kornze, it is my understanding that BLM is already applying the 

principles of planning 2.0 in three resource management plans. Where are these 'early 

adopter' locales, and what has their response been to Planning 2.0, have they been 

supportive of what BLM is trying to do? 

Response: The BLM has begun applying some principles of Planning 2.0 in several new 

planning starts, particularly the principle of early and frequent public involvement and planning 

at appropriate scales. These new planning starts include the Eastern Colorado RMP, the 

Missoula RMP, and the Northwestern California Integrated RMP. The response to these RMPs 

has been extremely supportive. Local governments and the public have expressed strong support 

for the up front engagement of the public during the planning assessment phase. 

Question 3: Director Kornze, in your view, how does Planning 2.0 increase the 

transparency of the BLM land use planning process? How does Planning 2.0 help to ensure 

that the draft RMP more closely meets the expectations of stakeholders? 

Response: Planning 2.0 increases the transparency of the land use planning process by 

establishing more frequent check-ins with stakeholders. These frequent check-ins provide 

stakeholders the opportunity to review preliminary documents before they are formalized and 

7 
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 21992.047

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lauds, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

provides the BLM the opportunity to engage in ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to better 

understand their needs, concerns, and expectations. By working closely with stakeholders 

throughout the duration of the planning process, the BLM will be better able to respond to 

stakeholder interests. 

Question 4: Director Kornze, as you know, Oregon's O&C lands present unique forest 

management challenges, which I've worked closely with the BLM on in recent years as I 

developed my O&C bill. How would the Planning 2.0 impact the management of O&C 

lands? lf it hasn't done so already, does the BLM plan on working with Oregon to address 

the unique circumstances of the O&C lands and the ways in which the Planning 2.0 would 

impact them? 

Response: Planning 2.0 would not impact the management of O&C lands. The proposed 

planning rule would make changes to the general process and procedures for developing an 

RMP, but would not prescribe management policy for the public lands, or make changes to any 

other existing legal authorities governing the public lands. 

8 
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 21992.048

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21,2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Question from Sen. Lee 

Question: The planning phase relies heavily on a public data call that adopts a 

crowdsourcing model for introducing inputs that are off-topic and amorphous-such as 

"social conditions"-into the planning process. 

Beyond its further demotion of State and local officials' role, this crowd sourcing model is 

especially concerning since the proposed rule also appears to lower the standard across the 

board for the quality of inputs accepted into the planning process. For example, the public 

data call departs from several authorities dictating data quality used in analogous 

situations. Executive Order 13563, signed in 2011, provides that regulations "must be 

based on the best available science." This best available scientific information standard (or 

"BASI") is common sense. 

However, the proposed rule appears to allow the BLM to rely on an inferior standard of 

"high quality information (including the best available scientific information) to inform the 

planning process." Why should Utahans settle for planning assessments based on anything 

less than the 'best' information, and what types of information other than science and the 

inputs that have traditionally been factored into planning do you now envision being part 

of the planning phase under this proposed rule? 

Response: The proposed planning rule affirms the existing statutory requirement from the Data 

Quality Act that the BLM use high quality information. The proposed planning rule has defined 

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." The BLM 

is required by NEPA to use the best available information, and when available and as applicable, 

the BLM uses the best available scientific information. In situations where scientific information 

is not available or applicable, the BLM relies on other types of best available information such as 

expert opinion. The proposed rule affirms that all types of information, including expert opinion 

if that is the best available information, must meet high quality standards consistent with the 

Data Quality Act in order to be utilized in the planning process. We are considering the input we 

received on this topic as we develop the final rule. 

9 
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 21992.049

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative: June 21, 2016 

Questions Submitted to Director Neil Kornze 

Questions from Sen. Daines 

Question 1: As you know, electric energy production and delivery from public lands, 

including BLM lands, has been and is becoming an increasingly important function. Do 

you have any objections to adding this function as a specifically listed objective of BLM 

lands, alongside other listed uses of helping provide domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber and fiber? 

Response: The proposed rule specifically identifies the management objectives provided to the 

BLM in section 102 ofFLPMA (see subsections (a)(9) and (a)(l2)). These management 

objectives include providing for "human occupancy and use", a broad category which 

encompasses the many multiple uses not explicitly identified in FLPMA. As these uses are 

included in this category, the BLM believes that it is appropriate to use the precise language 

provided in FLPMA in the planning regulations. 

Question 2: BLM Planning 2.0 all but eliminates the requirement that Federal land-use 

planning achieve consistency with State and local plans, instead requiring only 

"consideration" of those plans. Elsewhere, current opportunities for public input are 

replaced by opportunities for "review" instead. Can you explain how these changes will 

promote the "meaningful" opportunities for involvement the proposed rule claims to seek? 

Response: The proposed planning rule would require that RMPs be consistent with established 

State and local plans to the extent practical and consistent with Federal laws, including the 

FLPMA This proposed change was intended to align with the BLM's mandates under 

FLPMA. The proposed rule also would establish new opportunities for the public to review 

preliminary planning documents in advance of formal public comment periods. These new steps 

would afford the public additional opportunities to track the BLM planning process as it 

develops, and would provide them with more time to review interim draft documents before 

formal drafts are issued. The BLM believes that these new engagement opportunities will 

strengthen the dialog between BLM and our stakeholder and promote meaningful involvement in 

the planning process by increasing the transparency of the process. We are considering the input 

we received on these topics as we develop the final rule. 

10 
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 21992.050

7/26/2016 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail- Promoting an Ethical Culture 

Promoting an Ethical Culture 1 message 

Kornze, Neil <nkornze@blm.gov> 

To: Neil Kornze <nkornze@blm.gov> 

Bee: blm_all_emp!oyees@blm.gov 

Please take a few minutes to review the attached memo and materials. 

Sincerely, 

Nell Kornze 

Director 

2 attachments 

t'!j ~~orandum_Promoting an Ethical Culture.pdf 

14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct.pdf 

670K 

Dicerbo, Adrienne <adicerbo@blm.gov> 

Man, May 23, 2016 at 1:50PM 

https:i/mail.google.com/mail/u'O/?ui=2&ik=327cfc5d40&view=pt&q=from%3Akornze&qs=lrue&search=query&th=154dec057c82c9be&siml=154dec057c82c9be 1/1 
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21992.051

Memonmdurn 

To: 

From: 

All 1:mplo~1ees 

Nei!Komze 

Director 

May20, 20!6 

Promoting an Ethical Culture 

M!mage1ne11t(BLM), it is our goal to serve the public and 

it is incumbent upon each of us to 

the BLM. It important that we 

that demonstrate our to the 

re<monsJ.tHlltV for the public interest. 

Accordingly, aU BLM employees are expected to be thomughly familiar with and to observe all 

ethics and regulations. all BLM must be thoroughly familiar with 

and observe all ethics laws the Federal conflict of interest 

statutes and applicable The in the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for arc 

conduct 

Coun1sel<)r as well as your State 

underst<md and to with 

and their contact mt.C}multinn_ 

to fhlfitl the annual BLM ethics training requirement, and to 

We should remember that even the of 

on the 

the 

and exccl!enceofthe BLM, and l expect 

leadcr·shin in this regard. 
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21992.052
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21992.053
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21992.054

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on June 21, 2016: BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

Question for the Record Submitted to Ms. Kathleen Sgamma 

Question from Senator Mike Lee 

Question: Ms. Sgamma: the proposed rule introduces into the Resource Management Plan 

something called 'adaptive management'. This appears to be a euphemism for transforming the 

resource management plan into a living document, subject to unilateral change at the whim of 

BLM, and without the opportunity for public notice and comment. In practical terms, the 

management plan could be rewritten midstream based on alleged changes to difficult to 

quantify factors, such as social conditions. I assume this provides cold comfort to companies 

who drive energy production on public lands by making enormous front loaded investments in 

exploration and development with necessarily long time-horizons for expected return. Is it fair 

to say that the mere possibility of having a management plan unilaterally revised after 

reliance interests have been staked could significantly chill energy development investment 

on public lands? 

Answer: The concept of adaptive management is being corrupted by the Administration. It was 

originally intended to enable BLM to monitor actual conditions on the ground and make 

adjustments to conserve wildlife, cultural, land, and other resource values on a project-specific 

basis. Adaptive management was intended to enable land use managers on the ground with the 

ability to address project-specific issues to ensure reasonable uses of public lands were 

protecting the land and other resource values. There could be significant value in adaptive 

management if it is about tailoring implementation actions to actual conditions on the ground 

within a range of alternatives addressed and analyzed in RMPs. 

On the other hand, BLM's proposed Planning 2.0 rule would transform RMPs into constantly 

changing documents at the whim of BLM in Washington without the opportunity for public 

notice and comment. The rule is attempting to set in regulation a process whereby several 

implementation issues are left until after RMPs are finalized, kicking the can down the road, and 

leading to potentially perpetual plan updates without an open and public process. The changes 

being contemplated after plans are finalized amount to major modifications that would 

otherwise require public notice and comment. Divorcing the planning from how management 

decisions will be implemented is antithetical to deliberative policymaking and prudent land use 

planning. leaving major aspects unresolved until after a plan is finalized does not give the public 

the certainty of how public lands will be managed and is not good policy. Implementation 

strategies should be vetted through the same process and at the same times as the rest of the 

RMP, with the same review, public involvement, protest, and appeal rights of the final action. 

We have seen this play out with the sage grouse RMP amendments. The amendment Records of 

Decision (ROD) were released, but major aspects of implementation were left for the following 

year. We're seeing now that the implementation issues BLM is contemplating are major policy 

adjustments such as mitigation standards. They are not simply "adaptive management." It's as if 

BLM is creating a loophole for avoiding public scrutiny while putting in place policies and major 

plans. 
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21992.055

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hearing on June 21,2016: BLM's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

Question for the Record Submitted to Ms. Kathleen Sgamma 

The result would be to sow even greater regulatory uncertainty into energy development on 

public lands. Important operational aspects could be changed after companies have acquired 

leases and started projects, such as changes to hours of operation, sound level limits, 

seasonality, density and disturbance limitations, and vegetation standards. Companies consider 

all these types of regulatory compliance factors when determining whether to acquire leases 

and initiative projects. If major aspects change after development has begun, the projects may 

fail to achieve economic objectives, or even become uneconomic. When that happens, the 

uncertainty causes operators to just avoid public lands. Changing conditions on leases after they 

have been issued and hence become valid property rights seems to raise questions of legality as 

well. 

2 
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21992.056

May 24,2016 

Director (630) 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW, 

Room2I34LM 

Washington D.C. 20240 

Attention: 1 004-AE39 

Attention: OMB Control Number I 004-XXXX 

Via FEDERAL eRULEMAKING PORTAL: 

http sf /www.regulati ons. gov/11! document Detail; D=B LM-20 16-0002-0044 

Re: Comments on Proposed Amendments to Resource Management Planning Regulations 

(BLM2.0) 

Dear Director Kornze: 

American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) hereby submit the following unique 

comments in response to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) notice of proposed 

amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations, which was published in 

the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9674) 

AEMA is a 2, I 00-member national association representing the minerals industry with members 

residing in 42 U.S. states. AEMA represents the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to 

reclamation and closure, and is the recognized national voice for exploration, the junior mining 

sector, and maintaining access to public lands. Our broad-based membership includes many 

small miners and exploration geologists as well as junior and large mining companies, 

engineering, equipment manufacturing, technical services, and sales of equipment and supplies. 

More than 80 percent of our members are small businesses or work for small businesses. Most of 

our members are individual citizens. 

AEMA has routinely provided comments and other input during BLM land use planning 

activities. As such, AEMA has an interest in ensuring that BLM's resource management planning 

regulations continue to provide for multiple-use, meaningful public involvement, and are based 

on the best available scientific information. 
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21992.057

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 2 of 13 

As described below, AEMA is extremely concerned due to the significant impact the proposed 

amendments contained in the proposed mle will have on AEMA members. Specifically, AEMA 

is concerned the proposed mle will establish a method for prioritizing largescale, value-based 

decision making instead of resource based decision making, which is a fundamental shift in 

traditional land use planning, and will have significant impacts to principal uses (defined under 

43 U.S.C. § 1702(1)). AEMA also is concerned that the proposed mle diminishes coordination 

between local governmental entities and the Federal government, fails to acknowledge statntory 

obligations related to multiple-use, mineral exploration and production, and ensuring access to 

public lands. AEMA' s comments focus on a number of areas in which the proposed rule fails to 

comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and planning procedures, and overall 

responsibilities to manage our public lands, especially related to minerals. AEMA has identified 

several deficiencies and statutory violations in the proposed mle including those associated with: 

-y Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S. C. 21a et seq., hereinafter General Mining Law); 

-y Mining and Minerals Policy Act (30 U.S. C. §21a; hereinafter MMPA); 

-y Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1701 et seq., hereinafter 

FLPMA); 

>- National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 el seq., hereinafterNEPA); and 

-y Data Quality Act (Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat 2763, 2764a-153-l54 (2000), 

hereinafter DQA). 

AEMA contends the following issues must be addressed before the proposed mle is finalized: 

> Prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with NEPA; 

>- Ensure compliance with FLPMA; 

> Ensure compliance with the General Mining Law; 

>- Ensure compliance with the MMPA; 

> Ensure compliance with the DQA. 

In response to our comments, BLM must eliminate all elements of the proposed rule that 

do not comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and planning procedures, and 

prepare an ElS, then allow the public an opportunity to comment 

I- THE PROPOSED RULE MUST COMPLY WITH FLPMA 

BLM must ensure that the proposed rule complies with FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained 

yield mandate under§ 102(a)(7), and in the land use planning title ofFLPMA at§ 202(c)(l), and 

the directive under§ I 02(a)(l2), to recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of 
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 21992.058

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 3 of 13 

minerals. Under the proposed rule(§ 1610.0-2 Objective; 81 FR 9725), BLM unlawfully prefers 

preservation values to the exclusion of other uses and values, including grazing, agriculture, and 

mineral development. FLPMA's land use planning requirements mandate the Secretary consider 

the relative scarcity of values, weigh long-term benefits, and use and observe principles of 

multiple-use and other applicable laws (such as the General Mining Law and MMPA), rather 

than subordinate all other uses of public land in order to make conservation and preservation 

values the dominant focus of public land management. 

A. The proposed rule fails to comply with FLPMA §§ l02(a)(7), 102(a)(l2), and 103(c); 

In enacting FLPMA in 1976, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to consider a 

broad range of resource issues, land characteristics, and public needs and values in 

determining how public lands should be managed. FLPMA directs BLM to manage 

public lands for multiple-uses and to consider a wide range of resource values including 

the need to protect wildlife and quality of habitat in the context of the Nation's needs 

for minerals, energy, food, fiber, and other natural resources ( 43 U.S.C. 170l(a)(12)). 

Section I 02(a)(8) requires BLM to manage the public lands in a "manner that will protect 

the quality of scientific, scenic historical, ecological, environmental. .. values ... and 

human occupancy and use" (43 U S.C. 170l(a)(8)). 

Section 1 02(a)(7) establishes multiple use and sustained yield land management 

directives and requires the Secretary to develop" ... goals and objectives [that are) 

established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on 

the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law" (U.S. C. 

170l(a)(7)). In defining the term ''multiple use" FLPMA § 103(c) directs the Secretary to 

ensure: 

... 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 

land for some or all of these resources ... to conform to changing needs and 

conditions; the use of some land 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 nonrenewable 

resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, 

minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and 

historical values. (43 U.S.C § 1702(c), emphasis added). 

Under the multiple-use requirements, minerals and other values are on equal footing. 

Consequently, BLM must strike an appropriate balance between potentially competing 

interests and land management objectives. For BLM, this balance is to be achieved in the 

§ 202land use planning process and the resulting resource management plans (RMPs). 

FLPMA does not authorize the prioritization of any of these uses outside the 

requirements under§ 202(c)(3). 
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 21992.059

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the ELM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 4 of l3 

Under the proposed rule(§ I 601.0-2 Objective) BLM does not fully represent the policy 

directives under FLPMA, and therefore, the proposed rule is not in compliance with the 

specific directive pertaining to minerals in FLPMA § 102(a)( 12): 

... the public lands [shall] be managed in a manner that recognizes the 

Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber 

from the public lands including the implementation of the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970 [at]30 U.S. C. 21a ... (43 U.S C. 

1701(a)(l2)). 

Specifically, BLM proposes language that is nearly verbatim from § 1 02(a)(8), and (12); 

which establishes the policy of the United States in governing the public lands under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM. However, conspicuously absent from the proposed objective is 

the language directing implementation of the MMPA (43 U.S.C. § 1708(a)(12)). 

Instead, the proposed rule unlawfully prefers preservation values to the exclusion of other 

uses and values, including grazing, agriculture, and mineral development. FLPMA's land 

use planning requirements mandate the Secretary consider the relative scarcity of values, 

weigh long-term benefits, and use and observe principles of multiple-use and other 

applicable laws (such as the General Mining Law and Mining and MMPA) rather than 

subordinate all other uses of public land to make conservation and preservation values the 

dominant focus of public land management. BLM must reconcile this significant 

omission in the proposed objective, by adding reference to the MMPA as established 

under FLPMA's declaration of policy. 43 U.S.C. § 1708(a)(l2). See Table I at 1 for 

additional comments regarding proposed§ 1601.0-2. 

BLM has not documented its rationale for its decisions regarding the management of 

minerals. Specifically those decisions associated with how the proposed objective will 

help achieve the required balance in managing the public lands, or comply with § 

I 02(a)(7) multiple-use mandate, or respond to the directive under FLPMA § 1 02(a)(12), 

to recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals. For the reasons 

discussed herein, AEMA objects to the proposed rule, specifically proposed§ 1601.0-2. 

B. The proposed rule must comply with FLPMA § 1732(b) 

FLPMA expressly provides that none of its land use planning provisions, among others 

"shall in any way amend the Mining Law ofl872 or impair the rights of any locators or 

claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress" ( 43 

U.S.C. § 1732(b ), emphasis added). 

In enacting FLPMA, Congress explicitly acknowledged the continued vitality of the 

Mining Law of 1872. Section 302(b) ofFLPMA states 

Except as provided in Section 1744, Section 1782, and Subsection (f) of 

Section 1781 of this title and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no 

provision of this section or any other section of this act shall in any way 

amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or 
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 21992.060

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management plamring regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 5 of 13 

claims under the act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and 

egress (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)). 

The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs described this provision more 

particularly when it stated: 

This section specifies that no provision of the Mining Law of 1872 will be 

amended or altered by this legislation except as provided in Section 207 

(recordation of mining claims), Subsection 40 I (f) (regulation of mining in 

the California desert), Section 311 (wilderness review areas and 

wilderness areas), and except for the fact that the Secretary of the Interior 

is given specific authority, by regulation or otherwise, to provide that 

prospecting and mining under the mining law will not result in 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. The secretary is 

granted general authority to prevent such degradation (H.R. Rep. No. 94 

1163 at 6 (1976)). 

As such, BLM cannot in any way impair the rights of locators or mining claimants, or 

interfere with ingress and egress rights through the land use planning process. 1 Therefore, 

the proposed rule must ensure compliance with the explicit statutory language in 

FLPMA, and § 22 of the General Mining Law. 

AEMA is concerned that under the proposed rule BLM has not adequately considered the 

rights oflocators, including rights of ingress and egress. Specifically, under the proposed 

formalization of the mitigation hierarchy (avoid-minimize-compensate), BLM indicates 

that during preparation of a land use plan they will: 

first and foremost appl[y] 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) (81 FR 9686). 

Based on the language above, the proposed rule injects bias into the land use planning 

process from the outset, and allows for early decisions to be made about alternatives that 

will at the very least limit allowable uses or "designations." BLM must tread lightly, and 

recognize they have a statutory obligation to ensure the rights of ingress and egress of 

locators under FLPMA and the General Mining Law. 

In response to our comments, BLM must revise the proposed rule to ensure compliance 

with the FLPMA mandate to balance a wide range of resource values and uses of public 

lands including the directive in the MMPA at 43 US.C. §!70l(a)(I2) and 30 US.C. § 

2l(a) to recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals. BLM must also 

1 An example of the continued strengtlr of the General Mirring Law is observed in roadlcss areas. The USFS 200 I 

Roadless Rule prolribits new roads in inventoried roadless areas. However. the Rule specifically recognizes General 

Mirring Law Rights and new roads in inventoried roadlcss areas llllve been approved for mineral exploration 

activities under interim management approved by Agriculture Secretary Vilsack. 
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 21992.061

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management pl,mning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 6 of 13 

preserve the rights of ingress and egress to locators and claims under§ 1732(b ). Because 

the proposed rule fails to ensure compliance with FLPMA, it cannot be implemented and 

thus, is fatally flawed. 

C. The proposed rule fails to ensure compliance with§ 202(c)(9) 

Section 202( c )(9) mandates that the Secretary coordinate the land use planning process 

with State and local governments and that the resulting federal land use management 

plans must be substantially consistent with State and local land management plans. 

Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with 

State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with 

Federal law and the purposes of this Act (43 U.S. C. 1712(c)(9)). 

FLPMA § 202(c)(9) gives State governments a specific statutory role in the federal land 

use planning process: 

Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the 

Secretary with respect to the development and revision ofland use plans, 

land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public 

lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as 

may be referred to them by him. 

In enacting this FLPMA provision, Congress recognized the unique expertise of state and 

local governments in land use planning and the scope of the States' long-established 

police powers over land use within its borders. AEMA contends there are several 

amendments in the proposed rule that significantly diminish consistency and coordination 

with governmental entities, prevent meaningful public involvement, and marginalize the 

expertise oflocal officials, both State and local, which violate§ 202(c)(9) (See Table at 5, 

11-14, 17-18).ln response to our comments, BLM must revise the proposed rule to 

comply with FLPMA § 202( c )(9), and restore the role of stakeholders and local 

governmental entities in land use planning. Because the proposed rule violates FLPMA, it 

cannot be implemented and thus, is fatally flawed. 

IT. THE PROPOSED RULE MUST COMPLY WITH THE MINING LAWS AND 

AGENCY POLICY FOR MANAGING MINERALS 

A. The proposed rule must ensure compliance with § 22 of the General Mining Law 

AEMA contends that several of the an1endments (see Table I) contained in the proposed 

rule are not consistent with rights under the General Mining Law which allow citizens of 

the United States the opportunity to enter, use and occupy public lands open to location to 

explore for, discover, and develop certain valuable mineral deposits (30 U.S.C. §22), 

subject to the FLPMA mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public 

lands. The General Mining Law authorizes and governs the exploration, discovery, and 

development of valuable minerals: 
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 21992.062

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 7 of 13 

Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands 

belonging to the United States, both surveyed and un-surveyed, shall be 

free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are 

found to occupation and purchase ... (!d.) 

30 U.S. C. § 22 ensures pre-discovery access, use, and occupancy rights to enter lands 

open to location for mineral exploration and development. BLM's proposal to base land 

use planning "first and foremost" on the principles of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. avoidminimize-compensate (81 FR 9686), and unlawful resource prioritization through 

"designations" (see proposed 1610.4), among others (see Table I), is contrary to the rights 

granted by§ 22 of the General Mining Law. Therefore, the proposed rule is in violation 

of the General Mining Law and cannot be implemented. 

1. BLM's proposed imposition of the mitigation hierarchy is in violation of§ 22 of 

the General Mining Law and BLM's surface management regulations 

As previously discussed, under the proposed rule BLM will formalize the mitigation 

hierarchy into several steps of the land use planning process. Surprisingly, under the 

proposed rule BLM fails to recognize its surface management regulations at 43 CFR 

§ 3809. AEMA contends that BLM does not have the authority outside of the 

regulations at 43 CFR § 3809 to impose mitigation-especially compensatory 

mitigation- on operators exercising their rights under the General Mining Law. First, 

FLPMA does not authorize BLM to impose prescriptive mitigation or offset outside 

the requirement to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation (hereinafter UUD): 

no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any 

way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any 

locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights 

of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, 

by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands (43 U.S. C. 1732(c)). 

In adopting the UUD standard for managing the public lands, Congress 

understood there would be degradation of those lands. In other words, FLPMA 

authorizes necessary degradation and due degradation, meaning that some 

degradation of the public lands will be necessary and due or reasonable under the 

circumstances. Congress could have, but did not require the public lands to be 

managed for a net resource benefit, or to a no net loss of resources standard or to 

standard that elevates conservation and preservation above other values. As 

Justice Scalia explained in his concurrence in Whitman v. American Trucking, 

"Congress ... does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in 

vague terms or ancillary provisions it does not, one might say, hide elephants 

in mouse holes." (531 U.S 457,468 (2001)). 

While there is not a lot of guidance in FLPMA or its legislative history as to the 

meaning ofUUD, with respect to locatable mineral activities authorized by the 

General Mining Law, BLM has defined UUD to mean conditions, activities, or 

practices that: 
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 21992.063

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 8 of 13 

(1) Fail to comply with one or more of the following: the performance 

standards in §3809.420, the terms and conditions of an approved plan of 

operations, operations described in a complete notice, and other Federal 

and state laws related to environmental protection and protection of 

cultural resources; 

(2) Are not "reasonably incident" to prospecting, mining, or processing 

operations as defined in §3715.0-5; or 

(3) Fail to attain a stated level of protection or reclamation required by 

specific laws in areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, ELM-administered portions of the National 

Wilderness System, and ELM-administered National Monuments and 

National Conservation Areas. (43 CFR § 3809.415). 

Outside of the special management areas in (3) above, ELM, under the General 

Mining Law and FLPMA, simply has no authority to require locatable mineral 

operations on the public lands provide a level of protection or reclamation great than 

preventing UUD. Furthermore, FLPMA does not authorize ELM to require 

compensatory mitigation that goes beyond the direct impacts from mining activities, 

or to require offsite mitigation including advanced mitigation. 

The preamble to the November 21, 2000 amendments to ELM's 43 CFR 3809 

Surface Management Regulations for activities under the General Mining Laws 

clarifies that neither the Mining Law, FLPMA nor the 3809 regulations require 

compensatory mitigation (65 Federal Register 70012). The preamble goes on to state: 

"ELM will approach mitigation on a mandatory basis where it can be performed 

onsite, and on a voluntary basis, where mitigation (including compensation) can be 

performed offsite" (ld Emphasis added). 

For the reasons cited herein, proposed§ 160l.l-2 (a)(2) must be modified to 

remove "(i) identify standards to mitigate undesirable effects to resource 

conditions" and the definition of"mitigation" at proposed§ 1601.0-5 must be 

removed. FLPMA does not authorize the inclusion of mitigation standard5 in the 

land use planning process. 

Even if ELM retains the language in the proposed rule for some uses, the rule 

should recognize that ELM has no authority beyond the UUD standard for 

activities under the General Mining Law. ELM's planning authority, set forth in 

§ 202 ofFLPMA, is not included in the expressly limited list ofFLPMA 

provisions that amend the General Mining Law (43 U.S. C. 1732(c)). Therefore, 

ELM has no authority to impose these new requirements, through land use plans 

or otherwise, on activities authorized under the Mining Law. 

2. The proposed rule must eusure compliauce with§ 21(a) MMPA 

As previously discussed, ELM must recognize the need for mineral development to 

reduce the Nation's reliance on foreign sources of minerals, to maintain our way of 

life and defend the country. As such, ELM must demonstrate its compliance with the 
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 21992.064

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 9 of l3 

mandate under theMMPA (30 US. C. §2l(a)), and FLPMA (43 US C. 

§ 170l(a)(12)) to recognize the Nation's need for domestic minerals, (see also, Table 

I at 1, 17-18). 

BLM has not explained the rationale for its decisions regarding the management of 

minerals. Specifically, those decisions associated with how the amended "objective" 

(§ 160 l.0-2), prioritization of conservation and preservation values (proposed rule 

generally), "Guidance"(§ 1610.1-1 ), "plan components"(§ 1610.1-2), and "planning 

assessment"(§ 1610.4) recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of 

minerals. BLM is in violation of§ 2l(a) of the MMPA. For the reasons described 

herein, the proposed rule is unlawful; it cannot be implemented and thus, is fatally 

flawed. 

III. BLM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NEPA 

The primary purpose ofNEPA is to provide for informed decision-making and to publically 

disclose the potential impacts of various management strategies under consideration by the 

Federal government. The Council on Environmental Policy (CEQ) reb'l.!lations at 40 CFR 

§§ 1500-1508 implement the statutory mandates under NEP A. CEQ reb>ulations require Federal 

agencies to the ofNEPA with other and environmental review 

procedures by law or agency practice so that all procedures mn concurrently 

rather than consecutively" (40 CFR § 1500.2). BLM implementing procedures establish a 

framework for complying with NEPA. CEQ regulations require that agency implementing 

procedures, among other things, identify critelia for actions: 

(i) Which normally do require environmental impact statements. 

(ii) Which normally do not require either an environmental impact statement or an 

environmental assessment (categorical exclusions (Sec. 1508.4)). 

(iii) Which normally require environmental assessments but not necessarily 

environmental impact statements. 

40 CFR 1507.3(b )(2) 

A "categorical exclusion" is category of actions that do not typically result in individual 

or cumulative significant environmental effects or impacts, and allow Federal agencies to 

expedite the environmental review process. The CEQ regulations define "categorical exclusion" 

as: 

a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 

effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such 

effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these 

regulations(§ 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. An agency may 

decide in its procedures or otherwise, to prepare environmental assessments for 

the reasons stated in§ 1508.9 even though it is not required to do so. Any 

procedures under this section shall provide for extraordinwy circumstances in 

which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental e.ffect ( 40 

CFR § 1508.4, emphasis added.) 
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 21992.065

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 10 of 13 

In its NEPA implementing procedures, BLM addresses the use of categorical exclusions (43 

CFR § 46.205), identifies actions categorically excluded (43 CFR § 46.210), and "extraordinary 

circumstances" in which a categorical exclusion is not permitted for those actions (43 CFR § 

46.215) 

BLM asserts that the actions taken to amend the land use planning regulations at subparts 1601 

and 1610 are subject to the categorical exclusion found at 43 CFR § 46.21 O(i): 

Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, 

financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects 

are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful 

analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or caseby-case. 

BLM explains that the categorical exclusion is applicable because "the proposed modifications 

of [the proposed rule] are entirely procedural" and future planning decisions will be subject to 

compliance with NEPA (81 FR 9724). 

Unfortunately, BLM failed to consider the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the proposed 

amendments to the land use planning regulations. In its NEPA implementing procedures, BLM 

identifies the circumstances in which a categorical exclusion would not be appropriate including 

those circumstances that 

(c) Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section I 02(2)(E)]. 

(d) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve 

unique or unknown environmental risks. 

(e) Establish a precedent for jitture action or represent a decision in principle about 

.fit lure actions with potentially significant environmental effects. 

(f) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insign(fzcant hut 

cumulatively sign(ficant environmental effects ... (43 CFR 46.215, emphasis added). 

Under the proposed rule, BLM establishes a method for prioritizing largescale, value-based 

decision-making instead of resource based decision-making. It is a fundamental shift in 

traditional land use planning that will have significant impacts to principal uses (defined under 

43 U.S.C. § 1702(1)). Clearly, BLM's proposed shift in land use planning from principal uses to 

a preservation centric focus creates conflict "concerning alternative uses of available resources." 

Moreover, it is astonishing that BLM has failed to recognize that by finalizing the proposed rule 

BLM will be "establishing precedent for future action" and presents a "decision in principle" 

about future plans that will have potentially significant environmental effects. Finalization of the 

proposed rule necessarily leads to the content of plans and plan amendments on all BLM lands in 

the future, and has a "direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant 

environmental effects." As such, BLM has not accurately applied its own NEPA implementing 
98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 21992.066

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the ELM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page ll of l3 

procedures, concerning "extraordinary circumstances" in which a categorical exclusion will not 

apply. 2 BLM must conduct NEPA analysis consistent with prior BLM actions. 3 

IV. BLM MUST COMPLY WITH THE DQA 

The proposed rule at §§1610.1-1(c) and 1610.4(a)(b) fails to comply with the DQA. The DQA 

requires that information used by agencies, including the BLM, be based upon verifiable data 

and reproducible results, and not based upon opinion. Under DQA, Congress directed the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidelines to "provide policy and procedural 

guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and 

integrity of information" disseminated by the federal agencies (DQA §515(a)), as a result of the 

federal governments recognition that "[b ]ecause the public disclosure of government 

information is essential to democracy, the management of Federal information resources should 

protect the public's right of access to government information."4 

The final OMB guidance was issued in 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), (hereafter 

OMB Guidance). The OMB provided further guidance with respect to proper peer review 

procedures and public transparency in a 2004 memorandum (hereafter, OMB Bulletin). 5 The 

OMB Guidance defines four substantive characteristics for information disseminated by federal 

agencies: quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity (67 Fed. Reg. 8453, 58, 59). 

"Quality" is defined by OMB as the all-encompassing term of which utility, objectivity, and 

integrity are a part of (I d. at 8453). "Utility" is defined by OMB as "the usefulness of the 

information to its intended users, including the public," and states: 

... the agency needs to consider the uses of the information not only from the 

perspective of the agency but also from the perspective of the public. As a result, 

when transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information's 

usefulness from the public's perspective the agency must take care to ensure that 

the transparency has been addressed in its review of the information (!d. at 8453). 

"Objectivity" involves whether "disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, 

clear, complete, and unbiased manner. This involves whether information is presented within 

proper context" (!d. at 8459, emphasis added). An additional requirement of the "objectivity" 

standard, among other things, includes a high level of transparency and reproducibility, which is 

defined as "the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable 

degree of imprecision" (!d. at 8460, emphasis added). 

2 See generallv. California v. Norton. 311 F.3d 1162. 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 See Fimll Rulcmaking: Public Lands and Resources: Planning, Progmnuning. and Budgeting, 44 Fed. Reg. 46386 

(Aug. 7. 1979): Final Rulemaking: Planning Programming. Budgeting: Amendments to the Planning Regulations: 

Elimination of Unneeded Provisions, 48 Fed. Reg. 20364 (May 5. 1983): and Final Rule: Land Usc Planning. 70 

Fed. Reg. 14561 (March 23. 2005). 4 OMB. Circular No. A-130 Revised. Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: 

Management of Federal Information Resources, 7.f. ( ori1,>inally issued Feb. 8, 1996) 5 OMB. Memomndum for Heads of Department and Agencies: Issuance of "OMB's Final Information Quality 

BullctinforPeerReview" (Dec. 16. 2004). 
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 21992.067

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management planning regulations (BLM 2.()) 

Page 12 of 13 

If an agency is responsible for disseminating influential scientific, financial, or 

statistical information, agency guidelines shall include a high degree of 

transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such 

information ... (Jd). 

The OMB Guidance requires federal agencies to issue its own DQA implementing guidelines; 

BLM responded by issuing its own 2012 Guidelines6 BLM's 2012 Guidelines require a higher 

level of scrutiny including transparency and reproducibility (See BLM DQA Guidelines at 8-9) 

for information characterized as "influential" which is defined as information: 

... [T]hat which is expected to have clear and substantial impact at the national 

level for major public and private policy decisions as they relate to Federal public 

lands and resources. The accuracy of this information is significant due to the 

critical nature of these decisions ... (BLM DQA Guidelines at 7). 

BLM considers information to be influential when: 

> Information is disseminated in support of top BLM actions (i.e.; substantive 

notices, policy documents, studies, guidance) that demand the ongoing 

involvement of the Director's office; 

> Information used in cross-bureau issues that have the potential to result in major 

cross bureau policies and highly controversial information that is used to advance 

the BLM's priorities (!d. at 7-8). 

AEMA contends that resource management plans fall under the definition of "influential 

information" as they meet the BLM criteria pursuant the 2012 Guidance. As such, a higher 

degree of scrutiny in terms of quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity would be applied. AEMA 

further contends that the inclusion of non-traditional information sources, including but not 

limited to "traditional ecological knowledge," which is purely anecdotal, and "other high quality 

information," described in the proposed rule (see proposed§§ 1601.0-5, 1610.4; see also Table 

I), fails to meet the standards of"utility" and "objectivity" pursuant the DQA and subsequent 

guidance documents. 

BLM must ensure that its planning procedures will not improperly inject opinion rather than data 

into the land use planning process. Data and science must inform land use planning, not opinion, 

or other non-traditional sources of information that is anecdotal and cannot be verified. AEMA 

recommends that all references to "high quality information" as it is defined, be removed from 

the final rule. Any information that does not comply with the criteria described under the DQA 

will lead to poorly informed land use planning, and will be subject to "correction'' under the 

DQA (DQA §515(a)(2)(B)). 

6 BLM, Assistant Director, Information Resources Management, Peer Review of Influential Scientific Information 

(June 6, 2013). 
100 


Insert offset folio 68 here 21992.068

AEMA Comments on proposed amendments to the BLM's resource management plamring regulations (BLM 2.0) 

Page 13 of 13 

V. OTHER COMMENT LETTERS 

AEMA incorporates by reference as though fully set out herein the Comment Letters submitted 

by the Arizona Mining Association and National Mining Association. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

As discussed above and in Table I (attached), tbe proposed rule is fraught with substantial 

procedural and legal flaws. The flaws are so serious and numerous they cannot be addressed and 

cured in the final rule. BLM must prepare a revised rule with the necessary NEPA analysis, and 

then allow the public to comment upon both documents. 

AEMA appreciates tbe opportunity to provide these comments on the Proposed Amendments 

to Resource Management Planning Regulations (81 FR 9674). We believe that the proposed 

rule needs to be substantially modified and improved, as described above, and re-issued as 

another draft document for public review. For AEMA's comments specific to subparts, please 

see Table I (attached hereto). 

Respectfully submitted, 

iiY)M-<iL·~· 

Executive Director 

LES/mm/mg 
101 


Insert offset folio 69 here 21992.069

Table I 

AEMA COMMENTS BY SUBPART 

Insert offset folio 70 here 21992.070

maximiz..e 

public through a rationaL 

consistentJy applied set of 

regulations and procedures which 

promote the concept of multiple usc 

management and ensure 

participation 

and local govemments. 

tribes and appropriate Federal 

agencies. Resource manngement 

plans arc designed to guide and 

control future management actions and the development of subsequent 

more detailed and limited scope 

plans for resources and uses. 

1 I e 

The objective of resource management 

planning by the BLM is to promote the 

principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield on public lands unless othenvise 

provided by law, ensure participation 

by tl1e public, State and local 

govenunents, Indian tribes and Federal 

agencies in the development 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 

enviroruncntal, air and atmospheric, 

water resource. and archeological 

values; that. where appropriate. will 

preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; that 

\Vill provide food and habitat for fish 

and \vildlife and domestic animals; that 

vvill provide for outdoor recreation and 

human occupancy and usc, and which recognizes the Nation's need for 

domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber, and fiber from the public lands. 

The language of the proposed change is almost verbatim from -13 U.S. C. § 170l(a)(

(12); "\Vhich establishes the policy of the United States in governing the public lands 

the jurisdiction of the BLM. However. conspicuously absent from the proposed obje

the language directing implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act 43 U

l708(a)(l2) states in full: 

The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States thatthe public lands be n:tanaged in a mmmer \Vhich recognizes 

for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber. and fiber from the public lands 

including implementation (?[the ,\lining and J.Jinerals Policy Act(?! 1970 (8-1. 

Stat 1876, 30 U.S.C. 2la) as it pertains to the public lands... (emphasis 

added). 

Congress expressly provides in its declaration of policy under FLPMA that the Min

Minerals Policy Act (MMPA) is to be implemented/recognized through FLPMA. C

·would not have singled-out the MMPA if it did not intend to establish a relationship 

between the policy under MMPA ('"to foster and encourage private enterprise in ... th

development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal an

mineml reclamation industries,'· and to promote ''the orderly and economic develop

domestic mineral resources Iandi resen:es'') with land management and platming. 

AEMA contends that BLM has a legal obligation to comply with the MMPA and FL

to recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, and the right to exp

is at best careless, and at vmrst remarkably disingenuous. to omit reference to the M

from the proposed objcctiYe given that the remainder of the objective is taken direct

FLPMA. This omission represents a fundamental paradigm shift from traditional lan

planning to that \Yith a preservation focus which AEMA contends is unlawfuL 

The proposed objective tmlawfully prefers preservation values to the exclusion of ot

uses and values. includitlg grazing, agriculture, and mineral development. FLPMA '

use planning requirements mandate the Secretary consider the relative scarcity of va

weigh long-tcnn benefits, and usc and observe principles of multiple-use and other 

applicable hnvs (such as the General Mining Law and Mining and Minerals Policy A

rather than subordinate all other uses of public land to make conservation and presc

values the dominant focus of public land management. BLM must reconcile tills sig

omission in the proposed objective, by adding reference to the MMPA as establishe

Insert offset folio 71 here 21992.071

§ 1601.0-4 Rcs)>Onsibilities 

(a) National level policy and 

procedure guidance for 

shall be provided by the 

and the Director. 

(b) State Directors will 

provide quality control and 

supervisory review, including plan 

approval, for plans and related 

enviromncntal impact statements 

and provide additional guidance. as 

ncccssarv. for use bv Field 

Managers. slate DirectOrs w-ill file 

draft and final environmental 

impact statements associated with 

rcsomcc management plans and 

amendments. 

(c) Field Managers will prepare 

resource managcmcn1 plans. 

amendments. revisions and related 

environmental impact statements. 

State Directors must approve these 

documents. 

21 a e 

§ 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 

prcpamtion of each resource 

The Director also iding official and the 

planning area for plan amendments that 

cross State boundaries. 

(b) Deciding officials provide quality 

con1rol and supervisory revie\v, 

including approval, for the preparation 

and mnendmcnt of resource 

environmental assessments. The 

deciding official detennincs the 

planning area for plan amendments that 

do not cross State boundaries. 

(c) Responsible officials prepare 

resource management plans and plan 

amendments and related environmcn: 

impact statements or environmental 

assessments. 

issues). 

in 

national micromanagcment of local resource issues

(with presumably greater understanding of local resour

The changes proposed in§ 1601.0-+ seem to be consistent with BLM's intent to exp

traditionally drawn administrative boundaries (i.e. field office) to that of landscape s

planning. However, AEMA objects to this formal change in administrative boundar

because BLM already has the ability to establish a larger planning area under existin

regulations as noted at 8l FR 968..!-. 

_ modified current § 

administrative boundaries'' 81 FR 9

In making these changes. the BLM acknovvledges thal conscn'ation, resource 

management deYelopmcnt activities. or other priori tie,<,· such as landscapescale mitigation may benefit from platllling area boundaries that cross 

traditional BLM administrative boundaries and may require greater 

coordination of land usc planning across BLM States and nationallcyel 

programs. 81 FR 968+, emphasis added. 

The explanation provided by BLM makes clear the intent of these changes are not si

to •·improve the land use planning procedures'· 81 FR 9674; but rather to establish a 

method for prioritizing largescale, value-based decision making instead of resource 

decision making_ lt is a fundamental shift in tmditionalland use planning that \viii h

significant impacts to principal uses (defined under U.S.C. § 1702(1)). See also_ 

comment relating to§ 16l0.1-2(a)(ii)(2). 

Moreover, FLPMA directs BLM to manage public lands for multiple uses and to co

wide range of resource values- including the need to protect wildlife 

the context of the Nation·s needs for minerals. energy, food. fiber. 

resources. § 1708(a)(7)(8)( 12). In defining the tenn "multiple use- FLPMA directs 

Secretary, among other things, to balance resources 43 U.S.C § 1702(c). 

Therefore. under the multiple use requirements. minerals and cotlScrv·ation values ar

Insert offset folio 72 here 21992.072

§ 1601.0-5 Definitions 

No similar definition 

No similar definition 

No similar definition 

§ 1601.0-5 Definitions' 

High (JUality information means any 

.... ,. such as 

\Vhich 

is accurate. reliable_ and unbiased, is 

not compromised through corruption or 

falsHication, and is useful to its 

intended users. 

ImJllementation strategies means 

strategies that assist in implementing 

future actions consistent with the plan 

components of the approved resomcc 

management plan. An implementation 

stratef,1)' is not a plan component. 

Mitigation means the sequence of 

avoiding impacts. minimizing impacts, 

and compensating for remaining 

unavoidable impacts. 

equal footing. Consequently. BLM must strike an appropriate balance between pote

competing interests and land management while considering the needs o

including the needs of for domestic sources of minerals. Tills balance is 

achieved in Section 102 land use plamling process and the resulting resource manag

plans (RMPs). F'LP.\1. 1 does not authorize the subordination of any ofthese uses in 

preference.fiJr a single land use. AEMA contends th._'\t prioritizing resources outside 

requirements under§ 202(c)(3), and BLM's planning regnlations at 43 C.F.R. § 161

is not consistent \vith FLPMA 

In addition, setting .. landscape scale'' planning as the standard and 

likely complicate the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

associated with plan development/amendments. delay decision-making associated w

implementation level proposals and result in the imposition of excessive mitigation 

obligations. 

See conm1ents relating to§§ 16lO.l-l(c), and S'ee cmmncnts relating to§ 1610.1-3 

that the addition of the term and definition ·'mitigatio

··acknowledges that this sequence also applies to the planning process. For 

during 

1 The BLM proposes to and the definitions of 14 new terms; revise five terms, and remove six tem1s from § 160 l.0-5. Only the terms at issue arc repres

table 

3 I a e 

Insert offset folio 73 here 21992.073

41 P e 

dc\'cloping alternati\'CS that avoid those potential impacts). During the 

preparation of a resource management plan, the BLM also identifies 

mitigation stand..'lrds, which help to guide the future 

principles of minimization and then compensation.--

added. 

policies such as the 

framcvvork, in accordance with the law, through section§ 

regulations. AEMA contends that ELM does not have the 

regulations at -B CFR §3809 to impose the mitigation hierarchy 

operations. 

In enacting FLPMA, Congress explicitly acknowledged the continued vitality of the 

Mining Law of J 872. Section 302(b) of FLPMA states: 

Except as provided in Section 17-l4. Section 1782, and Subsection(!) of 

Section 1781 of this title and in the last sentence of tills paragraph. no 

provision of this section or any other section of this act shall in any way 

amend the Mining Law of 1872 or imoair the rights of anv locators or 

claims under the act, including, 

egress (-l3 U.S.C. § 1732(b)). 

The House Conunittee on [ntcrior and Insular Affairs described this provision more 

particularly when it stated: 

This section specifies that no provision oft he Mining Law of 1872 vvill be 

amended or altered by this legislation except as provided in Scction207 

(recordation of mining claims), Subsection 401(0 (regulation of mining in the 

California desert), Section 311 (wilderness review areas and wilderness areas). and except for the fact that the Secretary of the Interior is gi,·en specific 

authority, by regulation or othenvisc, to provide that prospecting and mining 

under the mining law will not result in unnecessary or undue degradation of 

the public lands. The secretary is granted general authority to prevent such 

degradation (H.R. Rep. No. 94 1163 at6 (1976)). 

Insert offset folio 74 here 21992.074

(j) Oflicially ap1>roved and 

adoJJted resource related plans 

means plans. policies, progrdiUS and 

processes prepared and approved pursuant to and in accordm1cc with 

authori.t:ation provided by FederaL 

State or local constitutions. 

legislation, or charters which have 

the force and effect of State law. 

SIP 

Officially approved and adopted land 

usc plans means land use plans 

prepared and approved by other Federal 

agencies. State and local govcrrunents, and Indian tribes pursuant to and in 

accordance with autl10rization provided 

by FederaL State, or local constitutions. 

legislatioa or charters \vhich have the 

force and effect of State law. 

the proposed inclusion of mitigation into the planning regulations is contr&ry to exp

statutory language inFLPMA and§ 22 of the Mining Law of 1872 (which allov\ cit

the United States the opportunity to enter, use and occupy public lands open to loca

explore for, discover, and develop certain valuable mineral deposits). 

See also conunents relating to§ 1610.1-2(a)(ii)(2) 

The proposed change would mean there ·would no longer be a regulatory requiremen

consistency with the "'policies, programs. and processes" of other Federal agencies, 

and local governments. and Indian tribes. BLM claims that the proposed change is 

consistent with§ 202(c)(9) of FLPMA 81 FR 9686. Hmvever, by removing the lan

''policies, programs and processes·' BLM marginalizes the role of the public and sta

local govenunents, and violates the spirit of FLPMA which seeks to be consistent w

other resources related marogement (polic_y and programs) of other governmental e

("'coordinate the land usc inventory, planning, and management activities ... with the 

use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies 

the States and local governments within which the lands arc located ... considering th

policies of approved State and tribal land resource management progmms.'') 43 U.S

l7l2 (c)(9). 

arc 

and \vhere State polic

prognuns \VCre largely ignored leading to three States (ldaho. Nevada. and Utah), as 

local govenuncntal entities suing the Federal govenunent for, in part, failing to cons

existing plans and policies related to Greater 

AEMA opposes the removal of'·policies, progmms. and processes" from the propos

because in doing so BLM creates important Federalism Implications, \Vhich \<rould r

a Fedemlism Assessment pursuant to Executive Order 13132, and violates § 202(c)(

FLPMA which requires BLM to seck consistency \Vith policies and progmms of oth

govenunental entities. 

See also cmmnents relating to§ 

Insert offset folio 75 here 21992.075

No Similar Definition 

(m) Resource area or field oftice 

resource or field office area basis_ 

unless the State Director authorizes 

a more appropriate area. 

6 I i' a£ e 

Planning assessment means an ! See conm1ents relating to§ 1610.-1- et seq. 

evaluation of relevant resource, 

environmental, ecological, sociaL and 

economic conditions in the plaruting 

area. A planning assessment is developed to inform the preparation and, as appropriate. the implementation of a resource management plan. 

Eliminated I The proposed rcmoYal of the term .. Resource area or field office" 

Plan COIDJlOnents means the clements 

of a resource management with which 

future management actions will be 

consistent. 

be consistent with BLM's intent to expand traditionally dr.nvn ad 

field office) to that of landscape scale planning. However. AEMA objects to thi

in administrative boundaries because BLM alreadY has the ability to 

at8l 

See also cormncnts relating to§§ 1601.0-4; existing l6lO.l(b) See conunents relating to§§ 1610.1-2 and 1610.1-3. 

Because BLM already has the authority to exp;md planning area boundaries beyond 

traditional bmmdaries (i.e. field office/State), the only potential change that could b

to the regulations is changing the label of the responsible parties from State Director 

Field Manager to that of the proposed Deciding Official or Responsible Party, and r

the proposed duties of those titles. 

Insert offset folio 76 here 21992.076

§ 1610.1(c) Resource 

management planning t,ruidancc 

An intcrdisciplii1:1ry approach shall 

be used in the preparation. 

amendment and revision of 

resource management plans as 

provided in -10 CFR 1502.6. The 

disciplines of the preparcrs slmll be appropriate to the values involved and the issues identified during the 

issue identification tmd 

scoping 

process. 

usc any necessary combination 

Bureau of Land Management staf[ 

consultants, contractors. other 

and 

interdisciplinary approach. 

No similar regulation 

7J i' a e 

Guidance and general requirements§ 

1610.1-l(b) 

The BLM \\'ill usc a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach in the 

preparation and amendment of resource 

management plans to achieve integrated 

consideration of physical, biological, 

social, economic. and other 

c of the prcparcrs 

the resource 

values involved. the issues identified 

during the issue identification and 

enviromnental impact statement 

scoping stage of the plarming process. 

and the principles of multiple usc and 

sustained yield, or other applicable law. 

The responsible official may use 

necessary combination of ELM 

consultants, contractors, other 

governmental pcrsotmcl, and advisors to 

achieve an intcrdiscipliital)' approach. 

Guidance and general requirements§ 

1610.1-l(e) 

infonnation to 

amendment and maintcn.,1JlCC of 

resource management plans. 

S'ee also conuncnt relating to§ 

AEMA believes the addition of the lanf,ruage '"principles of multiple use and sustt1.in

or other applicable law'' is an appropriate change to the regulations. especially 

is the first criteria listed in FLPMA follm.ved by the requirement to usc an 

interdisciplinary approach.§ 202(c)(l-2). However. AEMA believes the reference t

multiple use and sustained yield is oddly placed. AEMA proposes the 

in order to provide for inclusion of geologic data, reduce confusion. increase 

and better reflect the direction tmderFLPMA: 

(b) The ELM vvill use a systematic interdisciplinary approach in the 

preparation and amendment of resource management plans to achieve 

integrated consideration of physical, geological. biological. ecological, sociaL 

economic. and other sciences, ·while abiding to the principles use 

and sustained yield, or other applicable law. The expertise of the prcparcrs 

\Yill be appropriate to the resource values involved. the issues identified 

during the issue identification and environmental impact statement scoping 

stage of the planning process. The responsible official may usc any ncccssal) 

combination of BLM staff. consultants, contractors, other govennncntal 

personnel, and advisors to achieve an interdisciplinary approach (emphasis 

added). 

AEMA is concerned that the way in which BLM has \voven the definition of ''high 

Insert offset folio 77 here 21992.077

§§ 1601.0-5(n)(l)-1601.0-(4) 

and 1601.0-5(n)(8)). 

resource management 

generally 

document: 

(1) Land areas for limited. 

restricted or exclusive usc: 

ACEC 

Bureau of Land Management 

Administration: 

or in combination) 

els of production or 

use to be maintained: 

(3) Resource condition goals 

and objectives to be attained: 

(4) Program constraints and 

gcneml management practices 

needed to achieve the above items; 

8 a e 

§ 1610.1-2 Plan components 

(a) Plan componenis guide future 

management actions within the 

management of the land and resources 

should be directed. 

(2) Ohjectives. An objective is a 

concise statement of desired resource 

conditions developed to guide progress 

tmvard one or more goals. An objective 

is specific_ measurable, and should have 

established time-frames for achievement. To the extent practical, 

objectives should also: 

(i) Identify standards to mitigate 

undesirable effects to resource 

conditions: and 

(ii) Provide integrated consideration 

of resource, environmental, ecological, 

sociaL and economic factors. 

infonnation" (§ 160 1.0-5), in with the proposed § 16 10.4(a),(b ), will result in an incr

reliance on sources of information such as TEK. a

.. professional judgement'" in place of actual scientific studies. The inclusions of thes

traditional sources are not reproducible. As such, these infonnation types violate the 

Quality Act. 

Further, despite BLM's proposal to require the responsible official to Yet informatio

supplied to the BLM from outside sources (sec proposed§ 1610.-l(b)), to ensure 

quality"" \Vill only politicize information gathering, lead to of sourc

cts to suit pre-conceived theories or desired outcomes. ins

to responsible, non-biased decision-making. 

S'ee also comments relating to§ 1610.-4-(a)(b) 

The proposed mle will establish ·'plan components" (goals, objectives, designations

resource use determinations. monitoring and evaluation standards. and lands identifi

disposal). that arc distinguished from "implementation stratq,rics" (see comments re

to 1610.1-3). As BLM explains iuthe preamble, the plan components w

provide planning-level direction \Yhich future management actions and decisions m

consistent with: while implementation strategies would contain detailed guidance on 

the BLM intends to implement future actions consistent with the planning-level 

management directioll such as withdrawals. 81 FR 9689-90. The proposed distincti

purportedly afford BLM ''increased flexibility'' and opportunities to engage in '"ada

management'' 81 FR 9689-90. 

Plan components and changes to plan components beyond what qualifies as nu'lin

would be to NEPA and protest procedures (see proposed§ 1610.6-2): h

implementation strategies \.Yould not which AEMA contends substantially dimini

role of stakeholders, and could have devastating impacts to public land users. M

1 to provide a reasonable opportunity for comm

FLPMA proYidcs: 

ln exercising his authorities under tills Act, the Secretary. by 

shall establish procedures.. to t,rive the FederaL State. 

govenunents and the public adequate notice and an 

rnulation of standard\· and criteriafhr, 

and execution 

Consequently, division of plan components into plan content and ··implementation 

stmtegies"' (which arc exempt from public comment, not subject to protest and chan

at any time) is unlawful, and the proposed mlc must be revised. ,)'ee also comment r

to§ 1610.1-3. 

In addition, proposed § l610.l-2(a) establishes and defines "Goals" and .. Objective

Insert offset folio 78 here 21992.078

9 I "' 

management is directed toward one or more priority resource values or uses. 

(i) Planning designations are 

identified through the ELM's laud use 

planning process in order to achieye the 

goals and objectives of the resource 

management plan or applicable 

requirements or policies such a! 

designation of areas of critical 

environmental concem (ACEC) (see 

§ 16!0,8-2), 

(ii) designations arc 

designated by the President, Congress, 

or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant 

to other legal authorities. 

(2) Resource use determinations. A 

resource usc determination identifies 

areas of public lands or mineral estate 

where specific uses arc excluded, 

restricted, or allowed. in order to 

achieYe the goals and objectives of the 

resource Ill1lnagcmcnl plan or applicable 

requirements 

lucludcd in "goals'' is reference to desired outcome

economic, social, and environmental conditions. Hovrcver, under the related ··c 

BLM fails to include economic and social conditions. AEMA suggests that the 

revised to clarify that ''objectives .. 

and social outcomes, as well as 

including, 

1732(b), emplmsis added. Sim

ELM cannot remove lands from opercttion of the General Mining Lm.\. Sec 43 U.S.C

17 i 2(e)(3): such an action may only be accomplished by an Act of Congress or by 

Secretary pursuant to the requirements and procedures ofFLPMA § 20-f(c) for a per

to exceed 20 years. <3 U.S, 17!-L 

Insert offset folio 79 here 21992.079

§ 1601.0-S(n) Resource 

management IJJan 

(4) Progrmn constrain1s and 

general management practices 

needed to achieve the above items: 

(5) Need for an area to be 

covered by more detailed and 

specific pians; 

(6) Support action, including 

such measures as resource 

protection, access development 

realty action, cadastral surYcy. etc .. 

as nccessaty to achieve the above: 

(7) General implementation 

sequences. where carrying out a 

planned action is dependent upon prior accomplislunent of another 

planned action; 

10 I 

disposal from BLM administration 

under section 203 ofFLPMA. 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 data. 

§ 1610.1-3 Implementation strategies 

(a) A resource nmnagement 

also include, 

involvement and interagency coordination process described under 

§§ 16!0.2 and 1610.3. The BLM will 

Proposed § 1610.1-3 describes 1\vo types of implementation strategies: m.ana.gcment 

measures and monitoring procedures. Management measures would replace several 

existing elements of a "resource management plan·· (sec existing § 160 1.0-5(n)). 

uentation strategies will not be subject to public notice, NEPA. cotmnent or p

changes \vill putportedly afford BLM '·increased flexibility'· and opportunitie

engage in .. adaptive mamgement;· 81 FR but substantiallY diminish the ro

stakeholders including other govenunental entities. 

Despite BLM's proposal to make implementation strategies available for public '"

at the time a RMP is subject to conunent, there is no opportunity for involvemen

formulation of standards or criteria for the execution of a plan. While it may be con

for BLM to lmve the ··flexibility" to change implementation strategies at any giv

without public involvement, it is contra!) to FLPMA. 

FLPMA requires BLM coordinate land use planning and management with State an

efforts, provide for "meaningful public involvement of State and local government 

officials, both elected and appointed in the development of land use programs, land 

regulations and land u.'1e decisions for public lands, including early public notice of 

proposed decisions which may have a significant impact and all

State officials to 'furnish advice to the Sccrctal}· \Vith respect to the development a

revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules. and land use regulatio

the public lands within such State:· .!3 U.S.C. § 1732 (b)(9). emphasis added. As 

previously discussed, FLPMA also requires BLM to establish procedures to allow f

stakeholders to comment upon "the formulation of standards and crileria for. and ro 

participate in, the preparation and execution (4 plans and programs for, and the 

management of. the public lands." 43 U.S.C. § 1739 (c). 

AEMA opposes the proposed mle and specifically the distinction between ··pian 

components" and '·implementation strategies'· because as the proposed ndc is writte

implementation strategies will be developed and modified at the sole discretion of th

ELM-discretion unintended by and \Vill not be subject to formal public 

involvement procedures. The division of plan components into ·'plan content" and 

""implementation strategies .. is not permissible and should be revised in the fitml rule

Insert offset folio 80 here 21992.080

1610.2 Public particijJation 

111 p CJ '" 

review at 

1610.2-2 Public comment periods 

1610.2-3 Availability of the resource 

management vlan 

The proposed mle vdll distinguish bct\Yccn a process for making planning documen

"available for public review "and specifically requesting public comments. BLM wi

some documents available for public review at varied points during the planning pro

BLM explains in the preamble that tvhcn documents are made available for "public 

review,·' it is merely BLM's way of providing a progress update to the public. BLM 

further that the public may offer input at this point, and clarifies that they (

est public comment, will not establish any public comment period, and 

respond to comments for these documents. 81 FR 9694. 

scale 

to contact dozens of BLM offices. Under the exis

blic to stay apprised of BLM activities. Ho\v

for staying apprised of activities under the ex

Federal Register of certain BLM activities. 

Insert offset folio 81 here 21992.081

§ 1610.3-1 Coordination of 

planning effotis 

121 

§ 1610.3-1 Coordination of planning I Proposed§ cstablisl.lcs coordination requirements behvecn BLM and ot

dforts governmental entities. However.§ 16l0.3-l(c)(3) is inconsistent with§ 1610.3-Ja(-

which requires BLM to ''!plrovide for meaningful public involvement of other Fede

agencies, State and local government officials, both elected and appointed ... in the 

development of resource management plans ... " 81 FR 972S. emphasis added. In co

16l0.3-l(c)(3) improperly narrows coordination with local officials by limiting 

coordination to "elected heads of county boards. other local government units, and e

govcmmcnt officials of Indian tribes that have requested to be notified or that the 

responsible official has reason to believe ·would be interested in the resource manag

plan or plan amendment." 81 FR 9729. 

Further, FLPMA expressly provides that: 

Secretary] shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and 

government officials. both elected and appoinred. in the development of 

land use regulations, and land use decisions fOr public 

inc/ud,fn<•ear/v of proposed decisions ,.vhich may have a 

on Such officials in each State arc 

the S'ecrefarV11'ith the de,·PinnmPnl land use guideline.<,·, 

lands within such State and with respect to such 

be referred to them by him 43 U.S.C. 

BLM cannot dismiss the importance of coordination vvith local governmental entitie

elected and appointed, or deny the opportunity of these officials to furnish advice ea

the land use planning process. AEMA contends that BLM must coordinate, which 

necessarily includes notification, with both elected and appointed officials. The pro

rule must be revised to include appointed officials, and/or clarify what is meant by "

local government units." 

In addition, BLM proposes to remove language 

notification to the State Director when coo 

Insert offset folio 82 here 21992.082

1610.3-2 Consiste.ncy 

requirements 

(a) Guidance and resource 

management plans and amendments 

to management frame1York plans 

shall be consistent with officiall; 

approved or adopted resource 

related plans, and tl1e policies and 

programs contained therein. of 

other Federal agencies, State and 

local govennncnts and Indian 

tribes, so long as the guidance and 

resource management plans are also 

consistent \Yith the purposes, 

policies and programs of Federal 

laws and regulations applicable to 

public lands, including Federal and 

State pollution control Jaws as 

Federal 

131 

1610.3-2 Consistency requirements 

inter .alia 

(a) Resource management plans \\·ill 

be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted land use plans of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes to the maximum 

extent the BLM finds practical and 

consistent with the purposes of FLPMA 

and other Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands. and the 

pmposes, policies and progmms of such 

laws and regulations. 

( l) The BLM \\ill, to the extent 

practical, keep apprised of officially 

approved and adopted land usc plans of 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes and give considcmtion to those 

plans that arc germane in the 

development of resource management 

plans. 

Section 202(c)(9) mandates that the Secretary must coordinate the land use 

process \Yith State and local governments and tlmt the resulting federal 

management plans must be substantially consistent with State and 

plans. 

Land usc plans of the Secretary under tllis section shall be consistent with 

,)'tate and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with f/ederal 

law and the purposes of this Act. 43 U.S. C. l712(e)(9). emphasis added. 

Pursuant to FLPMA and existing S l6l0.3-2(a). the Secretary carmotlawfully ignor

reject state and local plans found to be consistent with Federal law. HO\vevcr, 

§16l0.3-2(a) onl) requires BLM to ensure consistency with State. local 

to the extent tlmt BLM finds it to be "practical,"-discrction not 

in FLPMA. Jd. FLPMA docs not authorize BLM 

:ansc BLM finds that they arc in 

unhwful and must be rcyiscd to 

Insert offset folio 83 here 21992.083

(b) ln the absence of officially 

approved or adopted resourcerelated plans of other Federal agencies. State and local 

governments and Indian tribes, 

resource management 

the maximum extent 

policies, prognm1s and provisions 

of Federallmvs and regulations 

applicable to public lands. 

including. but not limited to, 

Federal and State pollution control 

laws as implemented by applicable 

Federal and State aiL vYatcc noise 

and other pollution standards or 

implementation plans. 

§ 1610.3-l(c) 

§ 1610.4-2 Development of 

planning criteria 

141 ° a e 

Eliminated 

§ 1610.3-l(b) 

Eliminated 

may not be officially approved or adopted by the Federal agencies, State and local 

govcmments, and Indian tribes. I d. AEMA recommends BLM retain the existing ru

re\'isc the proposed rule to address the flaws cited herein, 

AEMA opposes the removal of existing§ 1610.3-2(b) for the reasons cited above, a

because not all local governmental entities may have the ability or resources to have 

comprehensive resource management or land usc plans that arc ·'officially approved 

inclusion of§ l6l0.3-2(b) is necessary because in the absence of an officially appro

plan this prO\·ision carries fonvard and ensures that BLM \Yill continue the policy o

coopemtive federalism. and provide assurance to the public, and other govcnunenta

entities. that to the maximum extent oractical. RMPs \Yill be consistent ·with 

govenunental entities: 

.. to the extent consistent with the l;nvs governing the administration of the 

public lands. coordinate the land usc inventory, planning. and management 

activities of or for such lands \Vith the land use planning and rnanagcment 

progrmns of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and 

local govcnnnents \Vithin \\ hich the lands are located, including. but not 

limited to. the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of 

Scptember3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897). as amended [16 U.S.C. 4601-4 cl seq. note]. 

and of or for lndian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of 

approved 5)tate and tribal/and resource management program5:. 43 U.S.C. 

l7l2(c)(9). emphasis added. 

Insert offset folio 84 here 21992.084

§1610.4-J Im·entory data and 

information collection 

§1610.4-3 Im·entory data 1U1d 

information collection; 

lSI 

§1610.4-4 of the 

management situation. 

No similar regulation 

Eliminated 

§ 1610.4(a)(l-4) 

The 

3) Provide opportunities for other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, Indian tribes, and the 

public to provide existing data and 

infonuation or suggest other policies, 

guidance, strategies, or plans described 

under pamgraph (a)(2) of this section, 

for the BLM' s consideration in the 

,)'ee comments relating to proposed§ 1610.4 et seq. 

any representation of knowledge such as facts or data. 

available scientific information, \vhich is accumtc, 

not compromised through corruption or falsification, 

intended users. 81 FR 9686. 

its 

BLM' s definition of ''high quality'' shares similarities to the requirements pursuant 

to the Data Quality Act (DQA); however. BLM cherry-picked those aspects whicll 

appear to be consistent with BLM's proposal to include non-traditional sources of 

information. BLM's definition of"high quality .. and the related regulations for 

proposed l6l0.101(c). and lGlOA(b) do not meet the standards pursuant the DQA 

and guidelines, including those for objectivity-specifically reproducibility. 

Reproducibility means that the information is capable of being substantially 

reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision." S'ee OMB Guidelines 

VlO. The more important the information disseminated, the more rigorous the 

standard. S'ee OMB Guidelines VlO. The DQA requires that information used by 

agencies, including the BLM. be based upon verifiable data and reproducible 

results, and not hased upon opinion. 

Insert offset folio 85 here 21992.085

§1610.4-4(a) 

The types of resource use and 

protection authorized by the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act 

and other relevant legislation 

§1610.4-4(i) 

Critical threshold levels \\hich 

should be considered in the 

formulation of planned altcmatives 

161 

§ 1610.4(c) Assessments 

Inter alia 

resource. 

cnvironmcnl.al, ecological. social, and 

economic conditions of the plamring 

area. At a minimum, the responsible 

official will consider and document the 

following factors in tills assessment 

\vhcn they arc applicable: 

(1) Resource management authorized 

by FLPMA and other relevant 

authorities; 

(:i) Current resource. environmentaL 

ecologicaL sociaL and economic 

conditions, and any known trends 

related to thcsC conditions; 

§ 1610.4(c)(4) 

Knuwn resource thresholds, constraints. 

or limitations; 

must be Jdcntlltcti early 

to ensure that BLM adequately considers 

planning area. 

Insert offset folio 86 here 21992.086

§1610.4-4(c)(d)(g) 

§1610.4-l(c) 

Specific requirements and 

constraints to achieve consistency 

with policies. plans and programs 

of other Federal agencies, State and 

and 

§ 1610.4-5 Formulation of 

Alternatives 

17 I P a e 

importance \Vitltin the planning area.. I include areas \Yith mineml 

considered a principal usc 

§1610.4(c)(7) The various goods and 

services, including ecological services, 

that people obtain from the planning area 

such as: 

(i) The degree of local, 

intcrnation: 

(iii) The estimated levels of these goods 

and setvices U1at may be produced on a 

sustained yield basis. 

Eliminated 

§ 1610.5-2(a) (c) Alternatives 

development 

S'ee a/.<;o comments relating to orooosed § 1610-:f (c)( .f) 

BLM proposes to replace the terms ''usc .. and ·'uses .. with ''goods and services.'' BL

explains in the preamble that tills change is appropriate because .. usc'' -including 

"principal uses'·- arc included in the term "goods and services'· 81 FR 9708. AEMA 

contends that as the rule is wlittcn it is not inherent that '·goods and services'' includ

·'principal uses'' or traditional thinking concerning land use. In order to provide clar

AEMA recommends that BLM either add a definition of '·goods and seiViccs" whic

specifically identifies "principal uses'' in addition to ''ecological setvices" or revise

l610.4(c)(7) as follows: 

sctvices, 

ln addition, BLM proposes to expand consideration to the degree of regional. nation

intemational dependence on goods and services. AEMA is concemed the proposed 

may lead to a marginali:tlltion of local and regional dependence/importance factors i

of national or international considerations. Rr .M tCl tie:fine: '·tmnmi:llU'e: 

tenn importance as it applies to land u 

stakeholders-will likely ditier to those 

the factors that will inform'' hethcr na 

considerations \Vill take precedence, as tl1ere is 

perspectives on resource use and "goods 

international perspectives. 

AEMA opposes the elimination § 16 10.-1-f(e). A primary tenet of FLPMA is to coor

and seck consistency vvith locnl policies, plans, and programs. As such, 

necessarily related to the coordination and consistency requirements under existing 

§1610.3 and proposed§§ 1610.3-1. and 1610.3-2. Moreover. proposed§ 16!0.4(a)

requires BLM to "[ijdcntify relevant national, regional, or locnl policies. guidance. 

slmtcgics or plans for consideration in the planning assessment." It is important to i

conflicts in consistency early in the land use planning process in order to develop vi

plmming alternatives, and avoid conflicts late in the process. ignoring early identific

of conflicts undermines FLPMA 's mandate to seck consistency. Instead early identiof potential conflicts should be cncoumgcd, as such the existing rule should be retai

Under proposed§ 1610.5-2(a) formulation of the management altemativcs will be 

'·informed by the Director and deciding official ,b'llidance (see§ 1610.l(a)), the 

assessment (see§ 1610A), and the plamting issues (see§ 1610.5-1).'' For this 1 

of critical importance that the planning assessment contains comprehensive evaluati

the variety of resources in the platming area, which includes the "principal uses.,. Se

comments relating to proposed §1610.4. 

Insert offset folio 87 here 21992.087

§§ 1610.4-6 Estimation of eff<>cts 

of .alternatives 

1610.4-2 Planning Criteria 

§ 1610.4-7 Selection of preferred 

alternatives 

181 P a 

§ 1610.5-3 Estimation of cff'<>cts of 

alternatives 

§ 1610.5-4 Pret>aration of draft 

resource management vtan and 

selection of tlrcferrcd alternatives 

previously discussed, there is no assurance that comments made on documents mad

available for "public review'' will be given adequate consideration, and included in 

administmtivc record. BLM needs to clarify and delineate a timeframc for supplying 

comments m.adc available for public review in order to ensure adequate consideratio

resolve any potential standing or other administrative issues. 

In the first sentence of paragraph (b) BLM proposes to replace, "physicaL biologica

economic, and social effects'' with ''environmental, ecological, economic. and socia

effects'' For the reason cited herein, BLM must include reference to "geology," Min

ltion and production is not only a principal usc, but FLPMA directs BLM to 

lands for multiple uses and to consider a"' ide range of resource Yalucs in the 

context of the Nation's needs for minerals. energy. food. fiber, and other natuml res

As such§ 1610.5-3(b) must be revised to include reference to geology, which necess

includes mineralization. 

Proposed§ 1610.5-3 encompasses aspects of existing§ 1610.4-2(a)(2) '·Piamring cr

BLM proposes to eliminate the existing regulation relating to pl<uming criteria becau

planning assessment and "basis for analysis'' established under§ 1610.5-3 ''provide 

appropriate information to guide the effects analysis .. , 81 FR 9712. AEMA disagree

because important aspects of§ 1610.4-2 haYe not been properly absorbed in the pro

mle, significantly narrowing public involvement. coordination, and guidance. 

Specifically.§ l610.4-2(c) requires BLM to make '"proposed plarming criteria. 

any sJgnificant changes, available for public comment prior to being approved by 

Manager:· Hmvever, the proposed plamting assessment(§ 1610.4), :md the "prclimi

basis for analysis"(§ 1610.5-3(a)) arc only available for "'public review.'' As discus

throughout ·'public review" is not analogous to oublic conunent. Even \Vorse is EL

proposal to make the preliminary basis 

a\"ailable ·'as practical." The proposed 

public and other stakeholders to provide 

U.S.C. 1712(c)(9), for use in the planning process. 

In addition, ELM's proposal to replace the planning criteria under existing§ 1610.-J

the planning assessment(§ 1610.4) and the basis for analysis(§ 1610.5-3), is inappr

because neither of the proposed sections start the basis of analysis with applicable la

required under existing § 1610...J.-2(b ). BLM must initiate any analysis or informatio

gathering effort with identification of applicable law first, then move on to secondar

authorities and sources, such as guidance documents. and oublic ooinion or inout. A

contends that BLM has a duty to comply \Vith law 

Law, and the MMPA, before any policy or guidance 

Insert offset folio 88 here 21992.088

§ Sek'Ction of resource 

management plan 

Generally §1610.4-1 

§ 1610.5-2 Protest (>rocedurcs 

191 

§ 1610.5-5 Selection of proposed 

resource management plan and 

preparation of imtJiementation 

strategies 

When a key piece of information comes late and is not subject to fair comment. 

the mandatorv '"meaningfulness'' of this NEPA process. 40 C.P.R. 

lll "[pjroYide public notice ofNEPA-related hearings.] 

of environmental documents so as to inform those persons and 

may be interested or affected'" by proposed actions of the United Stales.'' See also, C

Citi:t_en's Guide to the NEPA at 26 "Agencies are required to make efforts to provid

meaningful public involvement in their NEPA processes. 

See also conuncnts relating 

§ 1 Identification of planning I BLM proposes to prepare a preliminary statement of purpose and need,. provide noti

issues the document is available for "public review.'' As previously discussed. documents 

proposed to be available for "public review'' arc not subject lo the same type of resp

from BL.M, and it is unclear 'Whether comments received on these documents will be 

the administratiye record, leading to standing issues. 

§ 1610.()-2 Protest Ilrocedures I On its face. the proposed changes to the protest procedures seem to reflect 

However, the changes to the protest procedures must be considered in the' 

proposed changes. Under the proposed rule BLM modifies what is considered a '·ya

protest.'' Under the existing mle, protests can include: 

any issue or issues that were submitted during the plarming process by the 

protesting party·· and must include ''a concise statement explaining what the 

State Director's decision is believed to be wrong. -B CFR § 1610.5-2 

(a)(2)(Y). 

Insert offset folio 89 here 21992.089

§ 1610.5-4 M:tintenance 

§ 1610.7-2 Designation of areas of 

critical environmental concern 

20 I P a 

§ 1610.6-5 Maintenance 

§ 1610.8-2 Dl'Signation of areas of 

critical environmental concern 

However. under the proposed mle. protests must .. identify 

to be inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations applicable to public 

purposes, policies and programs of such lmvs and regulations.'· 81 Fed. Reg. at 9732

By limiting protest to ·'plan components'' (goals, objcctiYes, designations, resource 

determinations, monitoring and evaluation standards, and lands identified for dispos

BLM eliminates the ability of the public to protest other important issues such as, bu

limited to: the planning area boundary; implementation stmtcgies; underlying data a

"information .. used in preparing the planning assessment and plan components; and 

of BLM to identify issues or other relevant infonnation in the planning assessment 

plan components. 

For the reasons cited herein, AEMA opposes the proposed changes to the protest 

procedures, because they improperly narrow the scope of what may be protested. As 

AEMA recommends the existing protest procedures arc retained. 

BLM proposes to remove the following language with respect to "maintenance:" 

maintenance must not result in the expansion in the scope of resource 

uses or restrictions, or change the tenus, conditions, :md decisions of the 

approved plan. Existing§ 1610.5-4. 

AEMA is concerned that removing this language will allo\v BLM unfettered discret

impose '·implementation strategies" 

amendment. As previously disc 

de }Octo prescriptions, can have 

opposes§ 16 to.6-5, and recommends 

at§ 1610.5-4. 

BLM needs to resolve 

attention This is 

reference to "special management.'' 

rules, 

BLM must include a 

on any EA prepared for an RMP that includes changes 
122 


Insert offset folio 90 here 21992.090

American Petroleum Institute 

Independent Petroleum Association of America 

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natt1ral Resources 

Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

June 21, 20I6 

API is a national trade association representing over 650 member companies involved in all aspects of the 

oil and natural gas industry. API' s members include producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators, 

and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the 

industry. 

IP AA is the national association representing the thousands of independent crude oil and natural gas 

explorer/producers in the United States. It also operates in close cooperation with 44 unaffiliated 

independent national, state, and regional associations, which together represent thousands of royalty 

owners and the companies which provide services and supplies to the domestic industry. 

Access to affordable energy gives U.S. manufacturers a competitive edge, putting downward pressure on 

power and materials costs for producers of steel, chemicals, refined fuels, plastics, fertilizers and 

numerous other products. According to a recent study from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), 1 U.S. 

industrial electricity costs are now 30-50 percent lower than those of our foreign competitors. BCG also 

found that American manufacturing costs are I 0 to 20 percent lower than those in Europe and could be 2 

to 3 percent lower than China's by 2018. 

API and IPAA provide this statement regarding Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management of 

public lands, in particular BLM's proposed rule entitled "Resource Management Planning," 81 Fed. Reg. 

9673 (Feb. 25, 2016) (the ''Proposed Planning Rule''). Many of API's and IPAA's member companies 

have a direct interest in how BLM plans to manage public lands. These companies hold valid existing 

leases and are interested in future oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, and production activities in 

areas that will be directly affected by BLM' s management decisions. These companies are also dedicated 

to meeting environmental requirements, while economically developing and supplying affordable energy 

to consmners. Issues raised by the Proposed Planning Rule will have a direct impact on the fhture 

viability of oil and natural gas development on public lands throughout the United States. 

BLM stated in the prean1ble to the Proposed Planning Rule that the agency '"initiated this mlemaking as 

part of a broader effort known as 'Planning 2.0' to improve the land use planning procedures required by 

FLPMA [the Federal Land Policy and Management Act].'' 81 Fed. Reg. 9674. Under this Planning 2.0 

initiative, "'the BLM aims to improve the land use planning process in order to apply this policy and 

strategic direction and to complement related efforts within the BLM." !d. BLM has described the goals 

of its Planning 2.0 initiative as: 

(I) Improve the BLM's ability to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner: 

(2) provide mcaningfhl opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian 

tribes, and the public to be involved in the development ofBLM resource management plans; and 

(3) improve the BLM's ability to address landscape-scale resource issues and to apply landscape 

scale management approaches. 

Our general comments on the Proposed Planning Rule are as follows: 

1 BCG, America's Unconventional Energy Opportunity (June 2016). 
123 


Insert offset folio 91 here 21992.091

BLM must explain how the Proposed Planning Rule-as a whole-changes the agency's resource 

management planning process and must allow the public to review, understand, and comment on 

all elements ofBLM's new planning approach together at one time. 

The Proposed Planning Rule introduces significant uncertainty into the resource management 

planning process by proposing numerous provisions that create ambiguous standards or otherwise 

expand agency discretion. 

API and IPAA are concemcd that a process redesigned by the Proposed Planning Rule would 

disfavor multiple use interests, including the development of oil and natural gas resources on 

public lands, by potentially subjecting each step in the process to a new round of objections by 

parties committed to opposition of resource development. 

The Proposed Planning Rule violates other federal requirements because BLM has put it forward 

without engaging in National Environmental Policy Act analysis or completing a Statement of 

Energy Effects, both of which arc required. 

API and IPAA believe the Proposed Planning Rule shows a bias against oil and gas interests 

For exan1ple, the Proposed Plam1ing Rule would remove the phrase "maximize resource values 

for the public" from the objectives of resource management planning, 81 Fed. Reg. 9683, a step 

that appears to be a thinly-veiled effort to bias the planning process against resource extraction. 

BLM' s proposed objective '·recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber, and fiber from the public lands," 81 Fed. Reg. 9684, but fails to provide any commitment 

to protecting valid existing mineral rights and interests. The Proposed Planning Rule must clearly 

state that BLM \Yill honor these rights and interests in carrying forward resource management 

planning. 

While BLM concedes that "mineral exploration and production" are "principal or major uses·' 

under FLPMA, 8! Fed. Reg. 9708, the Proposed Planning Rule would dilute the value of such 

congressionally designated uses by placing them into a newly concocted basket of goods and 

services including such vague tenns as ''ecosystem services," id. 

Specific programs like oil and gas development, which are facilitated by FLPMA, must not be 

excluded, delayed, or obstructed in favor of vague objectives. 

America's emergence as a global energy leader has fundamentally reordered the world's energy markets. 

It has elevated the importance of North American energy production and reduced what had been the oncedominant roles of OPEC and Russia. This unique American moment is the result primarily of American 

ingenuity and technological advancements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, with marketbased leasehold access to the privately held subsurface estate and - at least up to now access on 

reasonable tenns and under a predictable regulatory regime to the mineral estate held by the government. 

This ''energy renaissance" has resulted in cost savings for American consumers and good paying jobs 

here at home; provided renewed opportunities for the U.S. manufacturing sector: and strengthened our 

economy and strategic alliances abroad. In the Western states where most of the government-held mineral 

estate is found, the share of the energy renaissance from BLM-managcd lands has proven to be a major 

benefit to state and regional economies, and an important contributor to our national energy secnrity. 

API and IP AA arc concerned that a process redesigned by the Proposed Planning Rule would disfavor 

multiple use interests, including the development of oil and natural gas resources on public lands, by 

potentially subjecting each step in the process to a new round of objections by parties committed to 

opposition of resource development. The overhauled resource management planning process that the 

Proposed Planning Rule envisions would lead to regulatory and legal uncertainty, delays, and costs. l11c 

Proposed Planning Rule and its prean1ble mark a shift from BLM's historic conformity to the principles 

outlined in FLPMA that include support for balanced multi-use resource development and recognition of 
124 


Insert offset folio 92 here 21992.092

the benefit from such development for local and regional economies where BLM administers lands and 

minerals for which it is responsible. 

If BLM intends to develop a new mle to revise its resource management planning process, it should do so 

only when the agency has completed its work on the supporting policies, guidance documents, and other 

tools discussed in the Proposed Planning Rule that have not yet been prepared or published. The regulated 

community and the public need to understand how the different elements of BLM' s resource management 

process will work as a coherent whole, and fulfill the statutory mandate ofFLPMA that America's public 

lands be managed under the principle of multiple use and sustained yield and in a manner that docs not 

close off access to the resources that a robust national economy will continue to require. 

For these reasons the Proposed Planning Rule as published should be withdrawn. 
125 


Insert offset folio 93 here 21992.093

Kane County, Utah Board of Commissioners 

Garfield County, Colorado Board of Commissioners 

Chaves County, New Mexico Board of Commissioners 

Big Horn County, Wyoming Board of Commissioners 

Custer County, Idaho Board of Commissioners 

Modoc County, California Board of Supervisors 

Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District, Arizona 

Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Arizona 

Doiia Ana Soil and Water Conservation District, New Mexico 

May 24,2016 

ViA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND 

U.S. MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Ms. Kristen Bail 

Acting Assistant Director 

Resources and Planning 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665 

Washington DC 20240 

Re: Coordination Request; 8300 (W0200) 

Dear Ms. Bail: 

We arc writing you on behalf of Kane County, Utah; Garfield County, Colorado; Chaves 

County, New Mexico; Big Hom Cotmty, Wyoming; Custer County, Idaho; Modoc County, 

California; Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District, Arizona; Hereford Natural 

Resource Conservation District, Arizona; and, Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District, 

New Mexico (the Coordinating Local Governments) in response your letter of May 10, 2016. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Coordinating Local Governments are extremely disappointed 

by your letter, which glosses over their request for coordination pursuant to Section 202(c)(9) of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. § 17!2(c)(9). 

The Coordinating Local Governments have written to the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Director on two occasions, requesting that the Director coordinate on the BLM's 

Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (Feb. 25, 2016) (the Proposed 

Planning Rules). Our first letter requesting coordination was dated April 12, 2016, and was sent 

to Director Komze by Federal Express and by certified mail. Our second letter was dated May 4, 

2016. It was also sent to the Director by Federal Express and by certified mail. 

Both letters requested coordination on the Proposed Planning Rules, not a "webinar" or 

someone to answer questions. As explained in our prior letters, under FLPMA Section 

202(c)(9), the BLM is required to coordinate its "land use inventory, planning, and management 

activities" pertaining to the public lands "with the land use and planning programs" of State and 
126 


Insert offset folio 94 here 21992.094

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May 24,2016 

Page2 

local governments. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9). Among other things, this provision requires the 

BLM to "assure that consideration is given" to relevant State and local government plans and 

programs, to attempt to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies between BLM land use plans and 

State and local government land use plans, and to provide State and local governments with 

meaningful involvement "in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and 

land use decisions for public lands." !d. 

Thus, coordination under FLPMA requires far more than allowing comments on a 

proposal. The verb "coordinate" means "to put in the same order or rank" or "to bring into 

common action, movement, or condition: HARMONIZE." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 

Dictionary 255 (1Oth ed. 2000). In other words, the requirement to "coordinate" requires that the 

BLM treat the land use planning and management activities of State and local governments as 

equal in rank and harmonize its land use inventory, planning, and management activities with the 

activities of State and local governments. 

The requirements imposed by FLPMA Section 202(c)(9) were not an accident. fn its 

seminal report to the President and to the Congress, which provided the underpinning for much 

of FLPMA, the Public Land Law Review Commission recommended that State and local 

governments have an integral role in federal agency land use planning. The Commission 

explained that these units of government "represent the people and institutions most directly 

affected by Federal programs growing out of land use planning." One Third of the Nation's Land 

61 (1970). 1 The Commission felt so strongly about this point that it recommended: 

To encourage state and local government involvement in the planning process in a 

meaningful way, as well as to avoid conflict and a55ure the cooperation necessary 

to effective regional and local planning, the Commission believes that 

consideration of state and local impacts should be mandatory. To accomplish 

this, Federal agencies should be required to submit /heir plans to state or local 

government agencies . ... 

The coordination [between federal agencies and State and local governments] 

which will be required if the Commission's recommendations are adopted is so 

essential to effective public land use planning that it should be mandatory .... 

The Commission recommendv, therefore, that Congress provide by statute that 

Federal action programs may be invalidated by court orders upon adequate proof 

that procedural requiremenls for planning coordination have not been observed. 

!d. at 63 (italics in original). 

1 Available at https:{@rchi.ye_,grg/detl!ilslonethirs.!..Qfrmti9JlJ.:iJJJJJ1i! (visited May 21, 2016). The Public 

Land Law Review Commission was established as an independent federal agency by an act of 

September 19, 1964 (78 Stat. 982). Its function was to review the federal public land laws and 

regulations and recommend a public land policy. For more background see National Archives, Records 

of the Public Land Law Review, available at Pll!rf/ww~cl:!iY<'es·g!lsfresean,;bjg)lide,fe\1: 

reg_m)s/Jl,!:Qillls/:'t02JJ1m!. 
127 


Insert offset folio 95 here 21992.095

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May 24,2016 

Page 3 

The Proposed Planning Rules are subject to these coordination requirements. The 

development of the Proposed Planning Rules are a "land use inventory, planning, and 

management activit[y]"-indeed, the rules are intended to change the way the BLM manages the 

public lands. The Proposed Planning Rules also constitute "land use regulations" for the public 

lands and "land use guidelines, land usc rules, and land use regulations for the public lands" 

within the meaning of the statute. They must be coordinated with State and local governments. 

And, as explained in our previous requests for coordination, each of the Coordinating 

Local Governments are "local governments" within the meaning of FLPMA Section 202(c)(9). 

They are recognized units of local government, and their respective areas of jurisdiction contain 

substantial amounts of public lands managed by the BLM. As such, the BLM is legally 

obligated to coordinate its land use planning and management activities, including the 

development of rules governing land and resource management planning, with the Coordinating 

Local Governments. To date, however, the BLM has ignored this requirement. 

Your letter, unfortunately, continues to ignore the plain language of FLPMA Section 

202( c )(9). You state that the "BLM takes seriously" its responsibility under FLPMA "to provide 

for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials in the development of 

land use regulations." However, you then assert that the BLM's obligations were satisfied by 

hosting public "listening sessions" in Denver and Sacramento in 2014, which were attended by 

just over I 00 persons in total. These sessions involved a very general presentation by a BLM 

employee followed by "small group" meetings led by facilitators to control the discussion. A 

total of 50 unique written comments were subsequently provided, according to your agency's 

summary report. To our knowledge, ensuring consistency with State and local land use plans 

and policies was not addressed, nor did the BLM engage in any specific coordination efforts 

directed at State and local governments in developing the Proposed Planning Rules. 

You also state that the BLM conducted two public "webinars" on March 21, 2016, and 

April 13, 20 16--after the Proposed Planning Rules were issued·-and hosted a public meeting in 

Denver on March 15, 2016--again, after the Proposed Plarrning Rules were issued. FLPMA 

Section 202(c)(9) requires that State and local governments be provided "early public notice of 

proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands," which allows 

meaningful input to be provided before the decision-making process has proceeded beyond the 

point where coordination cannot be accornplished.2 Finally, you note that the BLM extended the 

public comment deadline on the Proposed Planning Rules by 30 days. 

Your letter states that "the BLM" will be attending a meeting sponsored by the National 

Association of Counties, being held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on May 25-27, 2016, and that 

"we look forward to engaging in dialogue." Putting aside the fact that most of our coalition 

members will not be attending this event, coordination is not a casual discussion. Effective and 

2 Representatives of our coalition members watched these "webinars" and also attended the meeting in 

Denver. Again, there was no mention of coordinating the development of the Proposed Planning Rules 

with State and local governments, and no discussion about potential contlicts with State and local land 

use plans and policies or how these conflicts would be resolved in connection with this rulemaking. 
128 


Insert offset folio 96 here 21992.096

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May 24,20!6 

Page4 

meaningful coordination requires serious effort and necessarily involves face-to-face meetings 

between the decision-makers on both sides. 

Finally, you have offered to set up a conference call or "webinar" with representatives 

from our coalition. The purpose of this ca!l would be to "listen to their concerns and answer any 

questions regarding the proposed rule." Again, this is not coordination. Coordination isn't a 

listening session or opportunity to comment. Instead, it involves a meaningful government-togovernment dialogue. For this reason, we have requested a meeting with the Director in a major 

western city, preferably Albuquerque, New Mexico. This will allow the elected officials from 

the members of our group to attend the meeting and participate in the discussion. 

The bottom line is that none of these activities described in your letter satisfies the 

requirements of FLPMA Section 202(c)(9). In fact, what your letter demonstrates is that the 

BLM believes that State and local governments are just like any other member of the public, 

with, at most, a right to comment on proposed rules affecting the management of the public 

lands. This belief conflicts with the plain language of FLPMA Section 202(c)(9) and would 

effectively read the coordination requirements imposed by that provision out of the Act. 

Margaret Byfield, who is serving as the facilitator for the Coordinating Local 

Governments and has previously contacted Director Kornze regarding coordination logistics, 

was told by an agency representative that a coordination meeting cannot take place because the 

BLM is very busy. We don't doubt that Director Komzc and other senior agency officials arc 

very busy-the local government officials representing our coalition members are also very 

busy. However, if the decision-makers cannot find time for coordination, the BLM will be 

unable to finalize the Proposed Planning Rules without violating FLPMA. Our members' 

officials are committed to working with Director Komze to effectively coordinate. 

Accordingly, we urge the Director to set aside time for coordination. As stated in our 

prior letters, we will do our best to accommodate his schedule. In the alternative, we urge the 

BLM to put the Proposed Planning Rules on hold until the Director's schedule permits him to 

devote time to meaningful coordination. There is no compelling need for an immediate revision 

of the current resource management rules, and none has been provided in the preamble of the 

Proposed Planning Rules. 

We appreciate your assistance in responding to our previous coordination requests. 

Please confirm the Director's willingness and availability to conduct coordination within 14 

days, and advise us of your preferred meeting day. Also, please contact Ms. Byfield as soon as 

possible so that we can make the necessary meeting arrangements. 

Alternatively, please confirm that this rulemaking will be postponed tmtil coordination 

has been properly completed. 
129 


Insert offset folio 97 here 21992.097

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May 24,2016 

PageS 

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. We look forward to working with you. 

Robert Com. Chairman 

Chaves County Board of Commissioners 

Very truly yours, 

Board of Supet·vison; 

County of Modoc 

William Dunn. 

Chairman, 

Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District 

JAMES LINDSEY 

Chairman 

Hereford Natural Resources 

Conservation District 

Do . Ana Soil and Water Conservation Distriet 

NewMexieo 
130 


Insert offset folio 98 here 21992.098

Wayn 

Custer 

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May24,2016 

Page6 

cc: The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chainnan, House Natural Resources Committee 

The Honorable John Barrasso, M.D., Chairman, Senate Western Caucus 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski. Chainnan, Senate Environment and Related Agencies 

The Honorable Steve Pearce, Chainnan Emeritus, Congressional Western Caucus 

Leah Baker, Acting Branch Chief, Planning and NEPA (BLM WO) 

Shasta Ferranto, Planning 2.0 Project Manager (BLM WO) 
131 


Insert offset folio 99 here 21992.099

COORDINATING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Kane County Board of Commissioners 

76 North Main Street 

Kanab, UT 84741 

Garfield County Board of Commissioners 

I 08 81h Street, Suite 1 0 I 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 

Chaves County Board of Commissioners 

I St. Mary's Place 

Roswell, NM 88203 

Big Hom County Board of Commissioners 

420 West C Street 

Basin, WY 82410 

Custer County Board of Commissioners 

801 E. Main Avenue 

Challis, ID 83226 

Modoc County Board of Supervisors 

204 South Court Street, Suite 100 

Alturas, CA 96!01 

Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District 

P.O. Box486 

Kearny, AZ 85!37 

l Iereford Natural Resource Conservation District 

P.O. Box 3361 

Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 

Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District 

760 Stem Drive, Suite 118 

Las Cruces, NM 88005 

11647094 

Ms. Kristin Bail 

May 24,2016 

Page 7 
132 


Insert offset folio 100 here 21992.100

24 June 2016 

Testimony of Professor 1\fark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School 

on the Bureau of Land 1v1anagement's Planning 2.0 Initiative 

to the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

114th Cong., znd Sess. 2016 

Senator Lisa MurkO\:vski 

Chair, Senate Committee on Ener~ry & N:J.tural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washincton, D.C. 20510~6150 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

MdrkSquil!ace 

Pleas~:_' accept this supplemental testimony, which aCfords me an opportunity to address an 

issue that was raised by several witnesses and Senators during the hearing. The issue concerns the 

sufficiency of the conuncnt periods and consistencY review period a..'< proposed in the BLM's dr::dt 

Planning 2.0 initiative. 

Mv re:1Sl>nS prlm:1rily to explain why the leng..,-'th 

of a comment period alone does not resolvc whether puhlic's opportunities for C1.)mment are 

sufficient. Tv,'o othEr aspects role in tlw planning process art' ar,guably far more 

import:utt to the sufficiency of the to meaningfully engage the BLM than the 

of time allowed for public comnwnt. fir:>t nmcern:> the extent to whkh the public has 

a opportunity to engage the agency throughnut the of land u:::e plans. t ln!ike 

other tvpe::: oi notice and comm.::nt rules, planning documents 

involvement throughout th.._~ period of tim~· that the agency is formulating the 

should cncourage participation throughout the devd(•pment proce:::< and wdl an actual 

plan i,'< proposed or consistency determination is made. I( the BL1v1 were to develop an effective 

and the devdopment of th(' 

have idea what the proposed pbn is 

lih \Vdl before it i,'< actually publi,'<hed. In such a cast', a lengthit•r romment period 

mav 

Moreover, BLM d~ddes to ernhrare l::mdscopl:'-scale planning, consi;;;tency reviews 

should prove much more robust and meoningful. This is because a landscape-scale plan will 

necessarily encompass a!l related state and local plans within the region. Thus, the ELM will not 

be rdiant on tbe States to identil~' cont1icts but instead will ho;; in a position to identit~, and 

hope(u!ly resolve potentlal n•nl1icts and issues among the various state, local and federal plans well 
133 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 101 here 21992.101

before the federal plan is proposed. This too should minimize the need (or an extended 

p<:'riod for consistency revio::w. 

mol' heoppcopriate 1n many rases. minimum 

look Cavorabl\' on ro::que.«ts to extend comments 

are mise-d. 

tl'r co1nment. 

watJttc>thank the· Subconmdtte·e otaceagain for the opportunitv to offer this testimony. I 

amgrat:eful for your c·areful ce<meideration ol· the"e t·om meats .and ur;te the Sulxommittee to 

BLM with nmstructive guidance as to how thcv can hest move fmward to improve 

u:::.e planning program Cor our public domain lands. 

Mork Squillace' 

Umvc>rSityofColoradotawSrhool