Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

Draft Southeastern Oregon 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix N

Planning Guidance

and Processes
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

N-1 

N.1 Planning Criteria

Planning criteria guide the development of the SEORMP Amendment by providing general sideboards for 

the planning effort. These criteria are based upon applicable laws, national and state BLM office 

guidance, compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and public participation.

In accordance with the direction set forth in FLPMA, this planning effort will recognize the following 

principles:

• Use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The commitment to multiple 

use does not mean that all land will be open for all uses. Some uses may be excluded on some 

land to protect specific resource values or uses.

• Use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to integrate physical, biological, economic, and other 

sciences

• Rely, to the extent possible, on available data regarding natural resources

• Consider present and potential uses of public lands

• Consider the relative scarcity of values and availability of alternative means and sites for 

recognizing those values

• Weigh long term benefits to the public against short term benefits

• Assure that consideration is given to state, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the 

development of the Amendment 

• Provide for consistency and coordination with other programs, plans, and policies to the extent 

possible 

N.2 Relationship of Land Use Planning to Laws, 

Policies, Plans, and Programs

A number of laws and Department of Interior (DOI) and BLM policies play a role in defining what 

resource values to manage, what uses to allow, what restrictions or protections to implement, and what 

procedures to follow in developing this RMP Amendment. The following is a list of laws, policies, and 

manuals with particular relevance to this Amendment: 

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 Code [USC] 1701 et seq.) BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

• Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (CEQ 1978, 40 CFR 

1500-1508) 

• Grazing Administration Manual M-4100 (January 2009)

• Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Manual 6310 (March 2012)

• Considering Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process (Public) Manual 

6320 (March 2012)

• Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas Manual 6330 (July 2012)

• Travel and Transportation Management Manual 1626 (September 2016)
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

N-2 

Pertinent BLM decisions that influence this planning area that have occurred since the 2002 

SEORMP/ROD include the following: 

• Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States, April 8, 2016. 

• Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin 

Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, 

Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah, September 2015. 

• Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for Oregon Greater 

Sage-Grouse, March 2019. 

• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon: Record of Decision, Bureau 

of Land Management, October 2010. 

• (West-Wide Energy Corridor) Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of 

Decision for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered 

Lands in the 11 Western States, 2009. 

• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

FEIS (PEIS), 2007.

• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered 

Lands in the Western United States, June 2005. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Manuals and Handbooks

• IM OR-2017-006, Instruction Memorandum for Plan Maintenance on Landscape-Scale, MultiDistrict Resource Management Plans and Plan Amendments, November 2016 

• BLM Manual MS 9113, Roads, May 2015 

• IM 2013-184, Instruction Memorandum on Relinquishment of Grazing Permitted Use on the 

Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands, September, 2013 

• BLM Report, Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Maintenance, March 2013 

• BLM Handbook 8342, Travel and Transportation Handbook, March 2012 

• BLM Manual 8320, Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services, March 2011 

• BLM Manual 4100, Grazing Administration, January 2009 

• BLM Handbook 1790-1, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, January 2008 

• BLM Handbook 1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook, March 2005 

• BLM Manual 1601, Land use Planning, November 2000 

• BLM Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Public Lands in Oregon and Washington, August 1997 

• BLM Oregon State Office (OSO) Wilderness Study Report, October 1991 

• BLM Manual 1623, Supplemental Program Guidance for Land Resources, October 1987 

• BLM Manual 8400, Visual Resource Management, April 1984 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

N-3 

The BLM planning regulations require that BLM plans be consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans of other federal, state, local, and tribal governments to the extent those plans are 

consistent with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. The following plans have been 

reviewed and considered in development of the SEORMP/EIS Amendment. 

State Plans 

• Oregon Conservation Strategy, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016 

County Plans 

• Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Malheur, Harney, Grant, and Baker Counties, Oregon 

N.3 Planning Process 

How BLM Employees Get Direction to Manage Public Lands 

Direction for management of public lands administered by the BLM is multi-tiered.

First, Congress authorized the BLM to manage lands and passed laws that provide overall objectives for 

management of those lands. While one law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, authorizes the 

BLM to manage specific lands, other laws can provide direction to many government agencies. For 

example, the Endangered Species Act establishes guidance that must be followed by all federal agencies 

to protect threatened and endangered species. 

The Department of the Interior or the BLM then creates regulations and policies that describe how the 

BLM will act to implement the direction of Congress. Regulations are initially published in the Federal 

Register and subsequently in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Policy direction is provided in the form of manuals and handbooks. For teams preparing resource 

management plans, the primary references are the NEPA Manual and Handbook and the Land Use 

Planning Manual and Handbook. 

Executive Orders can also direct and guide management. These orders are issued under the authority of, 

and signed by the President. An executive order generally recognizes one or more laws and provides 

instructions for implementing those laws to one or more federal agencies. 

Laws created by Congress (legislative guidance) and executive direction (executive guidance) provided 

through Department of the Interior or BLM regulations and policy and executive orders that apply to this 

planning process are listed and briefly described in Section 1.5 Relationship to Laws, Policies, Plans, and 

Programs. 

Resource management plans establish specific objectives and guidance for managing lands within a 

defined planning area or describe specific project-level stipulations. This guidance is described in Chapter 

2 of this document (Alternatives). The No Action Alternative represents a continuation of current 

management, while the “Action Alternatives” analyze changes to current management.

Implementation-level (project-level) guidance is the equivalent of a blueprint set of instructions. 

Depending on the size and type of project, planning at the project level may be almost as complex as 

developing a resource management plan or may result in a very simple document. Project-specific, 

implementation-level guidance will not be addressed nor described in this document.

A final note is that certain regulations generated by the BLM and other agencies provide guidance that 

directly applies to day-to-day BLM activities. These include regulations for the management of cultural 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

N-4 

resources, protection of endangered species, many lands procedures, and several other activities. This 

planning process does not have the authority to modify such guidance. 

Planning regulations set forth in 43 CFR 1600 and the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

guide the planning process. The following is a summary of the steps (see Figure N-1 below) for the RMP 

Amendment/EIS planning process. 

Figure N-1. Amending the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix N

N-5 

N.4 Data Standards

The Vale District has continued to update local data through such means as field inventories and 

monitoring and has continued to collect resources and land use information since the original 2002 

SEORMP and ROD. Minor changes in numbers, acreages, and mapping between the 2002 SEORMP 

ROD and SEORMP Amendment/EIS are a reflection of using updated information. During the planning 

effort which led to the 2002 SEORMP, the BLM updated its wilderness characteristics inventory for 

some, but not all, public lands in the planning area. The BLM now has an updated inventory for all public 

lands within the planning area.

There are no known significant gaps of data pertinent to the RMP. However, the BLM will incorporate 

appropriate new or updated information at applicable stages of the analysis. The data used is available for 

public access. 

All data used for this Amendment have complete documentation and accuracies defined. This 

documentation will be accessible through the metadata associated with each dataset. Because much of the 

data is in a digital spatial format, the BLM uses geographic information system (GIS) technology for 

analysis and mapping. GIS provides the means to more fully understand the geographic relationships of 

the alternatives and opportunities for resource management.

N.5 Decision Criteria

BLM regulations explain that planning activities are a preliminary step in the overall process of managing 

public lands. RMPs are “designed to guide and control future management actions and the development 

of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses” (43 CFR 1601.0-2). 

RMP alternatives will include both land use planning and implementation decisions. Land use planning

decisions consist of desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and the allowable uses (allocations, levels, 

and restrictions). Implementation decisions constitute requirements that must be met leading to on-theground actions, and which may require site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. These decisions 

normally require additional steps (such as permit approvals) before the BLM would carry out activities. 

Both types of decisions provide management with direction and guidance on future actions. 

BLM planning policy prescribes that an RMP will emphasize management direction for allowable uses 

and management actions needed to achieve desired outcomes. The SEORMP alternatives incorporate all 

required analysis for any proposed activity, as identified in the 2010 Settlement Agreement. The BLM 

will consider how the alternatives would be integrated into existing management and has assessed to what 

degree the alternatives meet the Purpose and Need. The decision maker bases his or her ultimate approval 

of actions on how the effects of the proposed actions in the alternatives address the issues (Section 1.3). 

The Environmental Consequences section of Chapter 3 describes the specific analysis completed for each 

resource. The decision maker will consider the following:

Costs: What are the comparative costs/benefits of the various OHV, livestock grazing management, and 

management strategies for areas found to possess wilderness characteristics, compared to other 

methods/alternatives?

Environmental Risk: Potential effects on the human environment with alternatives of protecting (or not 

protecting) areas with wilderness characteristics, various OHV allocations, and livestock grazing 

management.

Effects to Cultural and Social Uses and Identity: Awareness of the potential management actions on the 

financial, social, and spiritual well-being of the tribes, general public, permit holders, local governments 

and communities, and adjacent landowners.