H-1601-1 – LAND USE PLANNI NG HANDBOOK – (Pub lic)



## United S t ates Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management



# Land Use Planning Handbook

BLM Handbook H-1601-1H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) TC - 1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

............................................................................................................. ..............1 A. The Purpose of This Handbook and the Need for Planning Guidance ............................1 B. The Basic Planning P r ocess .............................................................................................2 C. For m s of Public and In tergovernmental Involvem e nt ......................................................2 D. Collaborative P l anning

..................................................................................................... 4 E. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies and State and Local Governm e nts .........................................................................................5 F. Government-to-Governm e nt C oordination with Indian Tribes ........................................9 II. Land Use Plan Decisions................................................................................................... .....11 A. Introduction

............................................................................................................... .......11 B. Types of Land Use Plan Decisions ..................................................................................12 C. Geographic Areas

........................................................................................................... ..14 D. Scale of Planning

.......................................................................................................... ...14 E. Multijurisdictional P l anning .............................................................................................15 F. Establishing Managem e nt Di rection for Lands that May Com e Unde r the BLM Jurisdiction in the Future. .................................................................15 III. Land Us e Planning P r ocess and P r oducts ..............................................................................16 A. Planning for Environm ental Im pa ct Statem ent-level Efforts ...........................................16 B. Planning for Environm ental Assessm ent-level Efforts ....................................................25 IV. Im ple m e n tation

............................................................................................................. .........29 A. I m plem e n ting Land Use Plans .........................................................................................29 B. Defining Im ple m entation Decisions .................................................................................29 C. Making Implem entation Decisions ..................................................................................30 D. Making Land Use Plan and Im plem entation Decisions in the Sam e Planning Effort ...................................................................................................3 0 E. Developing Strategies to Facilita te Im ple m entation of Land Use Plans ..........................31 V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Managem e nt .............................................................32 A. Monitoring

................................................................................................................. ......32 B. Evaluation................................................................................................................. ........33 C. Adaptive Managem e nt .....................................................................................................36 VI. Determ ining if New Decisions are Required .........................................................................37 A. Specific Regulatory Requi rem e nts for Considering New Inform ation or Circum stances................................................................................................37 B. Considering New Proposals, Circum stances, or Inform ation ..........................................37 C. Deciding W h ether Changes in Decisions or the Supporting NEPA Analyses are W a rranted ..............................................................................................38 D. Docum e nting the Determ ination to Modify, or Not to Modify, Decisions or NEPA Analysis ........................................................................41 E. Evaluating New Proposals ................................................................................................41 F. Plan Confor m a nce

........................................................................................................... .42 G. Plan Confor m a nce and Ongoing NEPA Activities ..........................................................42 H. Determ i n ing W h en t o Update Land Use Plan Decisions Through Maintenance Actions ...............................................................................................44

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5TC - 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

VII. Am ending and Revising Decisions ......................................................................................44 A. Changing Land Use Plan Decisions .................................................................................44 B. Determ i n ing W h en i t is Neces sary to Am end Plans and How it is Accom p lished

......................................................................................................... 45 C. Determ i n ing W h en i t is Necessary to Revise an RMP or Replace an MFP.....................46 D. Changing Im ple m entation Decisions ...............................................................................46 E. Status of Existing Decisions Duri ng the Am e n dm ent or Revision Process .....................47 F. Coordinating Sim u ltaneous Planning/NEPA Processes ...................................................47

Glossary of Term s and Acronym s .......................................................................Glossary - 1 Term s .............................................................................................................Glossary - 1 Acronym s .......................................................................................................Glossary - 9

Appendix A: Guide to Collabora tive Planning ...................................................Appendix A, page 1 I. Principles ...................................................................................................Appendix A, pa ge 1 II. Practices ...................................................................................................Appendix A, pa ge 2 III. Benefits ...................................................................................................Appendix A, pa ge 3 IV. Tools .......................................................................................................Appendix A, pa ge 3

Appendix B: Federal Advisory Committee Act Considerations .........................Appendix B, page 1 I. Purpose ......................................................................................................Appendix B, pa ge 1 II. Im plem e n ting FACA ................................................................................Appendix B, page 1 A. Avoiding Violations ...........................................................................Appendix B, page 1 B. Determ i n ing if FACA Applies ...........................................................Appendix B, page 2 C. FACA Requirem e nts ..........................................................................Appendix B, page 2

Appendix C: Program -Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance ......Appendix C, page 1 I. Natural, Biological, and Cu ltural Resources .............................................Appendix C, page 2 A. Air ......................................................................................................Appendix C, page 2 B. Soil and Water ....................................................................................Appendix C, page 2 C. Vegetation ..........................................................................................Appendix C, page 3 D. Special Status Spec ies ........................................................................Appendix C, page 4 E. Fish and W ildlife ................................................................................Appendix C, page 6 F. W ild Horses and Burros......................................................................Appendix C, page 7 G. Cultural Resources .............................................................................Appendix C, page 8 H. Paleontology.......................................................................................Appendix C, page 10 I. Visual Resources .................................................................................Appendix C, page 11 J. W ildland Fire Managem e nt .................................................................Appendix C, page 11 K. W ilderness Characteristics ..................................................................Appendix C, page 12 L. Cave and Karst Resources ..................................................................Appendix C, page 13 II. Resource Uses ...........................................................................................Appendix C, page 13 A. Forestry ..............................................................................................Appendix C, page 13 B. Livestock Grazing ..............................................................................Appendix C, page 14 C. Recreation and Visitor Services .........................................................Appendix C, page 15 D. Com p re hensive Trails and Trav el Managem e nt ................................Appendix C, page 17 E. Lands and Realty ................................................................................Appendix C, page 20

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) TC - 3

F. Coal .....................................................................................................Appendix C, page 2 1 G. Oil Shale......................................................................Appendix C, page 23 H. Fluid Minerals: Oil and Gas, Tar Sands, and Geotherm al Resources...........................................................Appendix C, page 23 I. Locatable Minerals ......................................................... Appendix C, page 24 J. Mineral Materials

......................................................... ...Appendix C, page 25 K. Non-energy Leasable Minerals ...........................................................Appendix C, page 26 III. Special Designation s ................................................................................Appendix C, page 27 A. Congressional Designations ...............................................................Appendix C, page 27 B. Adm i nistrative Designations ..............................................................Appendix C, page 27 IV. Support .....................................................................................................Appendix C, pag e 28 A. Cadastral.............................................................................................Appendix C, page 29 B. Interpretation and Environm en tal Education .....................................Appendix C, page 29 C. Transportation Facilities.....................................................Appendix C, page 30

Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in L a nd Use Planning Decisions...............................................................................................Appendix D, pa ge 1 I. Using Social Science in La nd Use Planning .............................................Appendix D, page 1 II. Incorporating Socio-econom ic Infor m ation .............................................Appendix D, page 2 A. The Planning Process .........................................................................Appendix D, page 2 B. Objectives of the Analysis..................................................................Appendix D, page 2 C. The Scope of Analysis........................................................................Appendix D, page 4 D. Deliverables in Contracting ...............................................................Appendix D, page 8 E. Analytic Guidelines ............................................................................Appendix D, page 8 III. Public Involvem e nt .................................................................................Appendix D, page 10 A. Integrating Social Science into P ublic Involvem e nt ..........................Appendix D, page 10 B. Econom i c Strategies Wo rkshop .........................................................Appendix D, page 10 IV. Environm ental Justice Requirem e nts .....................................................Appendix D, page 11 A. BLM’s Environm ental Justi ce Principles ..........................................Appendix D, page 11 B. Incorporating Environm ental Justice Efforts in the RMP/EIS Process .....................................................................................Appendix D, page 12 C. Docum e ntation and An alysis .............................................................Appendix D, page 13 V. Data Managem e nt ....................................................................................Appendix D, page 13 A. Types of Data .....................................................................................Appendix D, page 13 B. Data Quality and Analytic Soundness ................................................Appendix D, page 13 C. Paperwork Reduction Act Requirem e nts for New Data Collection ................................................................................Appendix D, page 14 VI. Data Sources ...........................................................................................Appendix D, page 14 A. Use of t h e Econom i c Profile System .................................................Appendix D, page 14 B. References ..........................................................................................Appendix D, page 15 C. Environm ental Justice References .....................................................Appendix D, page 17 VII. Further Guidance ...................................................................................Appendix D, page 17

Appendix E: Summ ary of Protest and Appeal Provisions ..................................Appendix E, page 1 I. Land Use Plan Protests ..............................................................................Appendix E, page 1 A. W a shington Office Initial Evalua tion of Protests ..............................Appendix E, page 1

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5TC - 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

B. State Office Evaluation and Determ ination .......................................Appendix E, page 4 C. W a shington Office Final Review .......................................................Appendix E, page 6 D. Receivin g, Managing , and Responding to Electron ic Mail and Faxed Protests ...................................................................................Appendix E, page 12 E. State Director’s Protest Analysis ........................................................Appendix E, page 13 II. Governor’s Consistency Review Appeal Process .....................................Appendix E, page 14 III. Adm i nistrative Rem e dies of Im pl em entation Decisions ........................Appendix E, page 14

Appendix F: Standard F o rm ats for Land Use Plan Docum e nts ..........................Appendix F, page 1 Appendix F-1: Recommended Format for Preparation Plans .......................Appendix F, page 1 Appendix F-2: Recommended Format for Scoping Reports ........................Appendix F, page 4 Appendix F-3: Annotated Outline of the Analys is of the Managem e nt Situation ...................................................................................Appendix F, page 6 Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline fo r a Draft and Final RMP (Am e ndm e nt )/EI S .......................................................................Appendix F, page 14 Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline fo r Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP (Am e ndm e nt ) ..........................................................Appendix F, page 20 Appendix F-6: Recommended Ad m i nistrative Record File Plan for Land Use Planning Projects .............................................................Appendix F, page 24

Appendix G: Managing and Applying Data and Infor m ation ............................Appendix G, page 1 I. Metadata Standards and Re quirem e nts ......................................................Appendix G, page 1 II. Identifying Data Needs for a Land Use Plan............................................Appendix G, page 1 III. Data Sources ...........................................................................................Appendix G, page 2 IV. Managing Data During Land Use Plan Developm ent ............................Appendix G, page 2 V. Integrating Data Applicati on and Display ...............................................Appendix G, page 3

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 1

I. Introduction

A. The Pur p ose of This Handbook and the Need for Planning Guidance

This Handbook provides supplem ental guidance to the Bureau of Land Managem e nt (BLM)

em ployees for im ple m enting the BLM land use pl anning requirem ents established by Sections 201 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Managem e nt Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1711- 1712) and the regulations in 43 Code of Fede ral Regulations (CFR) 1600. Land use plans and planning decisions are the basi s for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes. Land use plans include both resource m a nagem e nt plan s (RMPs) and m a nage m e nt fra m ework plans (MFPs).

Land use plans ensure that the public lands ar e managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as stated in FL PMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), under the princip l es of m u ltiple use and sustained yield. As required by FLPMA and BLM policy, the public lands m u st be m a naged in a

m a nner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical , ecological, environm ental, air and atm o spheric, wa ter r e source, and archaeo logical va lues; that, where a ppropria te, will
preserv e and protect certain publ ic lands in their natural cond ition ; that will prov ide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic anim al s; that will provide fo r outdoor recreation and hum a n occupancy and use; and that recognizes the Nation’s need for dom estic sources of

m i nerals, food, tim ber, and fiber from the public lands by encouraging collaboration and public participation throughout the planning process. Land use plans are one of the prim ary

m echanism s f o r guiding BLM activities to achie v e the m i ssio n and goals outlin ed in the Departm e nt of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan.

This Handbook provides guidance f o r preparing, revising, am ending, and m a intaining land use plans. This Handbook also provides guidance for developing subse quent implem e ntation (activity-lev e l and pro j e c t-spe c if ic) plans and decisions. It build s on field experience gained in im ple m enting the 1983 planning regulations (43 CFR 1600), subsequent BLM Manual guidance, and the 2000 Handbook. This guidance does not, however, change or revise the planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600, whic h take precedence over this Handbook. Definitions for term s used in this Handbook are found in the glossary a nd in the B L M planning regulations in 43 CFR 1601.0-5.

Any interpretation of the guidan ce contained in this Handbook is subservient to the legal and regulatory m a ndates contained in F L PMA, 43 CFR 1600, t h e National Environm ental Policy A c t of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), th e Co uncil on Env i ronm ental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and other applicab le Federal laws and regulations. This planning guidance:

1. Encourages planning on a variety of scal es, including both local and regional, in partnership with other landowners and agencies;

2. encourages active public participation throughout the pl anning process and facilitates multiju risd ic tiona l plann i ng;

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 52 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
3. clarifies the relationship between land use plans and im plem entation plans (im p le m e ntation plans include both activ ity-level and proje c t-specific p l an s);

4. provides procedural requirem e nts for co m p leting land use plans and implem entation plans;

5. clarifies the relationships between la nd use and im ple m e n tation planning and NEPA requirem e nts;

6. addresses new requirem e nts and approach es f o r m a naging public lands or resources; and

7. addresses the consideration of new info rm ation and circum s t ances, e.g., new listings of threatened and endangered species, and new requirem e nts and standards for the protection of air and water quality, etc.

B. The Basic Planning Process

The BLM will us e an on going plann i ng process to ensure th at land use p l a n s and im plem entation decisions rem a in consistent with applicable laws , regulations, orders, and policies. This process will invo lve public part icipation, assessm ent, decision-m a ki ng, im ple m entation, p l an monitoring, and evaluation, as well as adjustm e nt through m a intenance, am endment, and revision. This process allows for continuous adjustm e nts to res pond to new issues and changed circum stances. The BLM will m a ke dec i sions us ing the bes t inf o rm ation available. The s e decis i ons may be modified as the BLM acquires new infor m ation a nd knowledge of new circum stances relevant to land and resource values, uses, and environm enta l concerns. Modifying land use plans through

m a intenance and am endm ent on a regular basis should reduce the need f o r m a jor revisions of land use plans.

C. Forms of Public an d Intergovernmental Involvement

Planning is inherently a public process. The BLM uses a number of involvem e nt methods to work with mem b ers of the public, inte rest groups, and governm e ntal entities.

• Public in volvement entails “The opportunity for particip ation by affected citizens in rule

m a king, decision m a king, and planning with respect to the public lands , including public

m eetings or hearings . . . or advisory m ech anis m s , or other such procedures as m a y be necessary to provide public comm ent in a par ticu l ar ins t ance” (FLP MA, Section 103(d)). Several laws and Executive orders set fort h public involvem e nt requirem ents, including

m a intaining public pa rtic ipation reco r d s. The BLM planning regul ations (43 CFR 1601- 1610) and the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) both provide for specific points of public involvem e nt in the environm ental an alysis, land use planning, and im ple m entation decision-m a king processes to address local, re gional, and national in terests. The NEPA requirem e nts associated with planning ha ve been incorporated into the planning regulations.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 3

• Coordination , as required by FLPMA (Section 202(c)(9)), involves on-going communication between BLM m a nagers and st ate, local, and Trib al gov ernm ents to ensure that the BLM considers pertinent provisions of non-BL M plans in m a naging public lands ; seeks to re solve in cons isten c ie s between such plans; and provides am ple opportunities for state, local, and Tribal govern m e nt representatives to comment in the developm ent of BLM’s RMPs (43 CFR 1610.3- 1). The CEQ regulations im ple m enting NEPA further require tim e ly coordinati on by Federal agencies in dealing with interagency issues (see 40 CFR 1501.6), and in avoiding duplication w ith Tribal, state, county, and local procedures (see 40 CFR 1506.2). See Secti ons I(E)(1), Coordination under FLPMA; and I(F ), Governm e nt-to-Govern m e nt Coordination with Indian Tribes.

• Cooperation goes beyond the coordination requirem e nt of FLPMA. It is the process by which another governm e ntal entity (Federal, st ate, local, or T r ibal) works with the BL M to develop a land use plan and NEPA analys is, as defined by the lead and cooperating agency provisions of the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6). Nor m ally the BLM serves as the lead agen cy, though in some cases other governm e ntal entities serv e with the B L M as join t leads. Coop erating agen cy and related roles should be for m alized through an agreem ent. See Section I(E)(2), Cooperating agency status under NEPA.

• Consultation involves a for m al effor t to obtain th e advice or opinion of another agency regarding an aspect of land use m a na gem e nt for which that agency has particular expertise or responsibility, as required by statute or re gulation. For example, the Endangered Species Act requires the BLM to consult with the U.S. Fish and W ildlif e Service (USFW S ) or Na tional Oceanic and Atm o spheric Adm i nistration (NOAA)- Fisheries regarding land use act ions that m a y affect listed species and designated critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14).

• Collaboration is a process in which interested partie s, of ten with widely varied inte re sts, work together to seek soluti ons with broad support for m a na ging public and other lands. Collaboration m a ndates m e thods, not outcom e s; and does not im ply that parties will achieve consensus. Depending on local circ um stances and the judgm ent of the Field Manager, varying levels of collaboration m a y be used in specific involvem e nt processes. See Section I(D), Collaborative Planning.

Section 309 of FLPMA ( 43 U.S.C. 1739) requires that resource advisory councils (R ACs) or their functional equivalent be involved in the land use plan ning process. RACs, whic h are advisory groups chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (F ACA) (86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2), m a y advise the BLM regarding the preparation, am endment, and im ple m entation of land use plans for public lands a nd resources within a ju risdictional area. In addition, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environm e n tal Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Incom e Popul ations (Envi ronm ental Justice), February 11, 1994, requires the BLM to f i nd ways to communicate with the p ublic that are germ ane to community-specific needs in areas with low incom e or minority populations or Tribes.

Comm ents or prote s ts su bm itted to th e BLM f o r use in its plan ning ef f

o rts, includ ing n a m e s and hom e addres ses of individual(s ) sub m itting the c o mm ents, are subjec t to disclosu re u nder the

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 54 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Freedom of Inform ation Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552); however, nam e s a nd hom e addresses of individuals m a y be protected from disclosure un der exem ption 6 of FOI A . In order to protect

nam e s and hom e address e s from publ ic rev i ew or disclosu re, the indiv i dual(s) subm itting comments must request that their nam e s and addresse s be held in confidence. Offices m u st place the following or a sim ilar statem ent in all notic es requesting public i nput or announcing protest opportunities, including public m eet ing “sign-in” sheets, notices in newspapers, on the Internet, in Federal R e gister Notices of Intent and Notices of Availa bility, and in “Dear Interested Party” letters in the planning/NEPA documents:

FREED OM O F I N F O RM AT IO N ACT C O NSI D ER ATI O NS: Pu blic co m m e nts subm itted f o r

this
p l ann i ng rev i ew, i n clud ing na m e s an d street ad dresses of respo n d e n t s, will b e av ailab l e for p u b lic rev i ew at t h e X Y Z Fi el d Of fi ce d u r i n g r e gul a r busi n ess h o u r s (x: x x a. m

. t o x: xx p

. m

. ), M o n d ay t h r o ug h Fri d ay , ex cep t ho lid ay s. Ind i v i d u a l respo n d e n t s m a y requ est co nf i d en tiality. If y o u wish t o with ho ld you r n a me o r add r ess f r om p ubl i c revi e w or fr om di scl o su r e u nde r t h e F r e e dom of I n f o r m at i on Act

, y o u m u st st at e t h i s p r o m in en tly at th e b e g i nn i n g o f you r co mm e n ts. Such req u ests will b e hon ored to th e exten t allo wed by l a w. Al l s ubm i ssi ons fr om or gani zat i o ns o r busi n esses , a n d fr om i ndi vi d u al s i d e n t i f y i n g t h em sel v es a s represen tativ es or o f ficials o f o r g a n i zatio n s or b u s i n e sses, will b e m a d e av ailab l e for p u b l i c in sp ectio n in th eir en tirety.

D. Collaborative Planning

Collaboration as a general term describes a wi de range of external and internal working relationships. Early id entification of the m o st appropriate, efficient, and productive type of working relationships is desirabl e to achieve m eaningful results in land use planning initiatives.

W h ile the ultim ate respo n sibility reg a rding land use plan decisions on BL M-adm i nistered lands rests with BLM officials

, it is recogn ized th at ind i viduals, co mmunities, and govern m e nts working together toward commonly understood obj ectives yields a significant im provem e nt in the stewardship of public lands. Benefits of building collaborative partnerships include im proving comm unication, developi ng a greater understanding of different perspectives, and finding solutions to issues and problem s.

A collaborative approach to planning entails BLM working with Trib al, state, and lo cal
governm e nts; Federal agencies; a nd other interested parties; from the earliest stages and continuing throughout the planning process, to address com m on needs and goals within the planning area. At the sam e ti m e , BLM should cons ider existing plans of Tr ibal, state, and local
governm e nts and other Federal agencies. The BL M official m u st identify the decision space (i.e., regulations, policies, and local, regional a nd nationa l in te rests ) with in which the B L M m u st operate, but the comm unity or gr oup working with the BLM m a y he lp focus the planning effort.

Although the initial st ages of developing an open and inclus ive process are tim e consum ing, the potential returns from re lationship b u ilding, cost savings, an d durability of decisions more than

com p ensate for this effort. To provide for e f f

ective public p a rticipa tion in any collab orative planning process, it is impor tan t to co mmunicate effectivel y with the public and invite participation in all aspects of the plan ning effort. Outreach to distan t in tere sts is also important. An effective outreach strategy will infor m distan t publics as well as local residents. Appendix A of this Handbook provides additional guidelines on collaborative processes. Also see E x ecutive Order 13352 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 5

The strategies associated with BLM’s national Alterna tive Dispute Res o lution (ADR)/Collaborative A c tion Program are valu able resources for providing support to collaborative planning processes. The principa l objective of the Program is to foster or streng then ADR-based collabo rativ e engagem e nt with com m unities an d other s t ake holders, focusing prim arily on helping to ensure succ essful outcom e s on the ground through ADR-based collaboration.

Although the prim ary emphasis is on prevention of conflicts or disputes in the planning process through early engagem e nt and convening to ensu re up-front comm unicati on and consultation, the ADR/Collaborative Action Program ’s initia tives also addr ess more for m al conflicts or disputes that m a y arise during the planning process, as well as those associated w ith protests and litigation. T h e Program ’s goal is to p r event, re so lve, or m itigate adverse impacts to th e Bureau before a protest or judicial ac tion is filed wherever possible a nd to address all the parties’ inte rests.

In using the collaboration and ADR processes, it is im portant to be aware of the situations where FACA does or does not apply so that an inform ed decision can be m a de to either avoid conflict with FACA, to utiliz e th e resour ces of a RAC, or pursue a F A CA charter for any advisory groups (see Appendix B). Failure to review collaborative planning e fforts and the requirem e nts of FACA coul d result in land use plans being overt urned if challenged in court. The Congress passed FACA in 1972 to reduce na rrow, special-interes t group influence on decision m a kers, to foster equal access for th e public to the deci sion-m a king process, and to control costs by preventing the estab lish m ent of unnecessa ry adv i sory comm ittee s

.

E. Coordination and Cooperation w i th Oth er Federal Agencies and State and Local Governmen t s

FLPMA and NEPA provide BLM m a nagers w ith com p le m e nt ary directives regarding coordination and cooperation with other agenci es and governm e nts. FLPMA e m phasizes the need to insure coordination and consistency wi th the plans and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. NEPA provides fo r what is essen tia lly a coop er ative relatio n ship betwe e n a lead agency (here, norm a lly BLM) and cooperati ng agencies in the NEPA process.

(Consultation requirem e nts for specific resources and program s are outlined in Appendix C, under the N o tices, Consultations, and Hearings subsections.)

1. Coordination under FLPMA

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, as paraphrased, requ ires the BLM to provide for involvem e nt of other Federal agencies and stat e and local gov ern m ent officials in developing land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions that m a y have a significant effect on lands other than BLM-administered Fede ral lands (for coordinati on with Indian Tribes, see Section F f o llowing this se ction). Note that F A CA does not apply to m eetings with other
governm e ntal entities. Coordinati on m u st start as early in the land use planning process as is practical and m u st continue thr oughout the planning effort. This process of early coordination and involvem e nt by other Federal agencies and state and local governm e nts is often, but not

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 56 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
always, form alized through various m e moranda of understanding (MOUs) between the State Directo r and the state o r regiona l heads of other Federal agencies , between the State Directo r and the Governo r , or between BLM Field Managers a nd local municipalities

, communities, counties, or burroughs. The intent of a MOU is to establish points of cont act and protocols for coordination between BLM and its partners. Regard less of whether an MOU is used as a tool for consistency, the principles of collaborative pl anning m u st be used in coordinating with these entities. Th e BLM can also seek in volvem e nt and coordination from ass o ciations of elected officials.

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA also re q u ires, to the extent p r actical, th at BLM keep itself infor m ed of other Federal agency and state and local land use plans, assure that consideration is given to those plans that are germ ane to th e developm ent of BLM land use plan d ecisions, and assist in resolving inconsistencies between F e deral and non-Federal plans. The key is ongoing, long-term rela tionsh i ps where inf o r m ation is continually shared and updated.

Many m unicipalities, co mmunities, and counties ha ve established comm unity adv i sory boards, county comm issions, planning boards, public land use advis o ry comm ittees, or oth e r sim ilar planning and advisory groups. In som e cases a st ate m a y have a Federal lands or policy liaison. These organizations and officials should be ac tively engaged f r om the beginning of the planning effort. The BLM m a y invite other F e deral agen cies and state and local governm e nts to be involved as for m al cooperating agencies. In planning efforts led by another agency or
governm e nt entity, the B L M can be a cooperating agency.

Involving state and local governm e nt in developi ng land use decisions may require the BLM to be “at the table” with th e various land use boards of the state or lo cal governm ent. In principle, coordination with and involvem e nt of other Fe deral ag encies and state an d local gov ernm ent goes far beyond m e rely providing briefings on the st atus of any planning effort. In practice, however, staffing and resource constraints by ot her agencies and local governm ents may lim it their involvem e nt. BLM ’ s plans sh all be consistent with other Fe deral agency, state, and local plans to the m a xim u m extent con s is tent with Federal law and FLPMA provisions. All BLM land use plans or plan am endm ents and revisions m u st undergo a 60-day Governor’s consistency review prior to final approval. BLM’s procedur es for the Governor’s consistency review are found in the planning regulati ons in 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e).

When other Federal agencies and state and local governm e nts initiate planning efforts that m a y affect or be affected by BLM’s m a nagem e nt decisions, the B L M should collaborate in such planning efforts to the extent possible.

2. Cooperating agency status under NEPA

Cooperating agency status provides a for m al fr am e w ork for governm e ntal units—local, state, Tribal, or Federal—to engage in activ e collaboration with a lead Federal agency to im plem ent the requirem ents of NEPA. This guidance s upplem ents CEQ regulations on cooperating agency
status.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 7

In principle, a cooperating agency shares the responsib ility with the lead agency for organizing the planning process. Within the constraints of tim e and resources, cooperating agency staff should be encouraged to participate fully with BL M staff as mem b ers of the plan/E IS team

. Responsibilities of a cooperating agency m a y include:

• Form al involvem e nt in scoping and sharing the responsibility for defining and fram ing the issu es to be exam ined in the NE PA process;

• developing infor m ation and analysis for whic h the agency h a s particu l ar expertise;

• contr i buting staf f to enhance the inte rd isc i plinary team' s capabilitie s; and

• bearing the costs of its own participation.

When properly conducted, the lead agency/coope rating agency relationship provides mutual benefits. From the BLM’s perspective the goals of the cooperating agency relationship include:

• Gaining early and consistent involvem e nt of key governm e ntal partners;

• incorpor atin g local kno wledge of econom i c, social, and political cond itio ns;

• addressing intergove rnmental issues;

• avoiding duplication of effort;

• enhancing the loca l cred ibility of the review process; and

• building relationships of trust and colla boration f o r long-term m u tual gain.

a. Criteria f o r cooperating agency status . The CEQ defines cooperati ng agency in regulations im ple m enting NEPA, pa rticularly at 40 CFR 150 1.6 and 1508.5. CEQ regulations specify that a Federal agency, state ag ency, local g overnm e nt, or Tribal governm e nt may qualify as a cooperating agency because of “. . . juri sdiction by law or special expertise.”

1) Jurisdiction by law means “. . . agency au thority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the proposal .” (40 CFR 1508.15)

2) Special expertise m eans “. . . statut ory responsibility, agen cy m i ssion, or related
program experience.” (40 CFR 1508.26)

BLM has interpreted the definition of special expe rtise broadly. For example, county or Tribal
governm e nts potentially affected by a BLM plan ning effort would qualif y on this basis through their knowledge of local social, econ o m i c, and political cond itions.

Cooperating agency status is at the request of th e lead Federal agency. A nother Federal agency having “jurisdiction by law” in the m a tters s ubject to the N E PA process m u st serve as a

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 58 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
cooperating agency when so requested. A Federa l agency qualifying thro ugh “special expertise,” or a state, local, or T r ibal gove rnm e nt qualifying under either cr iterion m a y accept or decline a request to serve as a cooperat ing agency (40 CFR 1501.6, 1508.5).

Whether or not a federally-rec ognized Tribe enters into a cooperating agency relationship, its funda m e ntal connection to the BLM is based on Tribal sovereignty, m a nifested through the
governm e nt-to-governm e nt relationship.

b. Responsibilities of BLM m a nagers . Before BLM begins the scoping process to develop, revise, or am end (EIS-level am endm ents only) an RMP, the State Director or Field Manager will invite qualifying Federal agencies and state, lo cal, and Tribal governm e nts to participate as cooperating agencies. State Directo r s and Field Managers w ill consider any reques t s from other Federal agencies and state, local, and Tribal governm ents for cooperating agency status. Field Managers w ho deny suc h requests will inf o rm th e State Dire ctor of the d e nial. The S t ate Directo r will dete rm ine if th e denial is appropriate.

c. Role of cooperating agencies in the RMP/EIS process . It is BLM policy to encourage the involvem e nt of cooperating agencies throughout the planning/EIS process, although practical lim itations in cooperating agencies’ tim e , resour ces, and expertise m a y make full involvem ent im practical. Field Managers s hould encourage the collaboration of cooperating agencies in identifying issues, developing planning criteria, co llecting inventory data, analyzing data for the analysis of the m a nage ment situation, for m ula tin g alte rnative s , and es timating the effects of alternatives. Field Managers s hould also collaborate with cooperating agenci es in evaluating the alternatives and developing a preferred alternativ e. Notwithstanding such collaborative efforts, the designation of a preferred a lte rnative and th e f i nal de cis i on rem a ins the exclus ive responsibility of the BLM.

Roles and responsibilities of each party should be for m alized and clearly describ e d in a MOU. The key elem ents of a c ooperating agency MOU are outlined below.

Introduction:

• Describes the planning/E IS effort, a nd the m a jor statutory and regulatory requir e m e nts it f u lf ills

• Identifies the governm e nt entities assum i ng cooperating agency status through the MOU, and their qualifications as defined at 40 C F R 1508.15 and 1508.26: jurisdiction, special expe rtise, or jurisdiction and special expertise

Purpose ( d escribes what will be ac co mplished by the MOU) :

Authorities :

• Identifies th e principal s t at u t ory au th orities f o r th e BLM to en ter into th e MOU

• Identifies the principal statut ory authorities for the coopera ting agencies to enter into the MOU

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 9

Roles and responsibilities:

• The roles of each party in the plann i ng pro cess, including co ntractors if applicab le

• Particular interests and areas of expertise of the cooperati ng agencies relative to the plan

• Procedures f o r inform ation sharing and confidentiality

• How the cooperating agencies’ comm ents, r ecommendations, and data will be us ed in the planning process

• Resource co mmit m ents

• Anticipa t ed schedule

• How final decisions will be adopted by th e cooperating agencies (as applicable)

• Any other expectati ons of the parties

Agency repr esenta tives (usually enu m erated in a n attachmen t ) :

Administration of the MOU:

• How disagre e m e nts will be resolv ed

• How the MOU m a y be modified or term inated

• Acknowledgem e nt that the authority and re sponsibilities of the parties under their
respec tive ju risdictions a r e not altered by the MOU

F. Govern ment-to-Government C oordination w i th Indian Tribes

The BLM will p r ovide g overnm e nt officials of fe derally-reco gnized Tribes with opportunities to comment on and to par t icipate in th e developm ent of land us e plans. The BLM will c onsider comments, notify consulted Tribes of final deci sions, and inform them of how their comments were addressed in those decisi ons. At a m i ni m u m, officials of federally-recognized Tribal
governm e nts m u st be offered the sam e level of invol vem e nt as state and count y officials. It is

recomm ended that coordination tak e place as early as pos sib l e and before official notifications

are m a de. Land use plans and coordinati on a c tiv ities m u st ad dress th e f o llowing:

1. Consistency with Tribal plans

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA requires the BLM to coordinate plan prepar ation for public lands with plans f o r lands controlled by Indian Tribes , so that the B L M’s plan s are consistent with Tribes' plans for m a naging Tribal re sources to the extent possible, cons iste nt with Fede ral law. This coord i n a tion a llows the BLM an d Tribes to develop m a nagem e nt prescriptions for a larger land base th an eith er age n cy can address by itself.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 510 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

2. Protection of treaty rights

Land use plans m u st address the protection of tr eaty rights assured to In dian Tribes concerning Tribal uses of public lands and resources (such treaty rights in the W e st are generally lim ited to Northwestern Tribes who were subject to the Stevens Treaties of the 1850s).

3. Observan ce of specific pla nning coordination authorities

In addition to the FLPMA consistency provi sions discussed above, the land use planning process, wh ere app licab le, m u st comply with the following statutes and Executive orders:

a. Section 101(d)(6) of the Nati onal Historic Preservation Act. This ac t r e quires the BLM to consult with Indian Tribes when historic properties of traditio nal re lig ious or cultural importance to a Tribe would be affected by BLM decision-m a king.

b. The Am e r ican Indian Religious F r eedom Act. This act requires the BLM to protect and
preserv e the freedom of Am erican In dians and Al aska Nativ es in exercis i n g their traditional religions, including access to sites and the freedom to wo rship through cerem onials and trad ition a l r i tes.

c. Executive Order 13007 (Indian S acred Sites). This requ ires the BLM to accomm odate access to and use of sacred sites and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integr ity of sacred sites to the extent pr acticable, p e rm itted by la w, and not inconsistent with essen t ial agency f u nctions. The BLM must ensure reasonable notice is provided to Tribes, through governm ent-togovernm e nt relations, of proposed actions or land m a nage m e nt policies that m a y restrict future
access to or cerem onial uses of, or adversely a ffect th e physical in tegrity of, sacred sites, including proposed land disposals.

d. Executive Order 12898 (Environm ental Justice). This requires the B L M to take into account the relevant CEQ guidelines and Departm e nt of the Interior policies and goals (see Appendix D, Table D-4).

In som e cases, Native A m erican or Tribal inte rests are represented by certain advocacy groups that have a “quasi-governm e ntal” authority or interest, but that are not federally recognized. There is no statutory, fiduciar y trust, or governm e nt-to-govern m e nt relationship with these groups that requires consultation. These groups are consulted by BLM on the sam e level as any other nongo vernm e ntal organization or advocacy group using the princip l es of collabo ration.

See BLM Manual 8120 and BLM Ha ndbook H-8120-1 for specific guidance on Native Am erican consultation. See Departm e ntal Manua l 512 DM 2 (Departm ental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources).

Land use plans and their accom p anying EISs m u st iden tify potential effects on Indian trust resources, trust assets, or Tribal health and safety . Any effect must be explicitly identified and docum ented in the land use plan, inc l uding app r o p ria t e m itiga tion where p o ssible.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 11

II. Land Use Plan Decisions

A. Introduction

Decisions in land use plans guide future land m a nagem e nt actions and subsequent site-specific im ple m entation decisions. These land use plan decisions establish goa ls and objectives for

resource m a nagem e nt (desired ou tco m es) and the m easures n eeded to ach i eve th ese g o als and objectives (m anage m ent actions and allowable us es). Section 202(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712) requires that in developi ng land use plans, the BLM:

1. Use and observe th e princ i ples of m u ltiple u s e and susta i ned yield ;

2. use a system atic interdisciplinary approach to integ r ate ph ysica l , biological, econom i c, and other sciences;

3. give priority to designa ting and protecting areas of cr itical environm ental concern (ACECs);

4. rely, to the extent availa ble, on an inventory of public lands, their resources, and other values ;

5. consider present and poten tial uses of public lands;

6. consider the relative scarc ity of th e values inv o lved and th e availability of alterna t ive

m eans and sites for realizing thos e v a lues ;
7. weigh long-term benefits to the public against shor t- term benef its;

8. provide for com p liance with applicable Tribal, Federal, and state pollu tion con t rol laws, standards, and im plem entation plans; and

9. to the extent consistent with the laws governing the adm i nistration of public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and m a nage m e nt activit ies of public lands with land use planning and m a nagem e nt program s of other Federal departm e nts/agencies and state/local governm e nts, as well as th e policies of approved Tribal and state land

resource m a nagem e nt program s. The BLM m u st, to the ex te nt prac tic al, assure that consideration is given to those Tribal, state, and local plans th at are germ ane in the developm ent of land use plans for public lands . Land use plans m u st be consistent with state and loc a l plan s to the m a xim u m extent co nsisten t with Federal law

. Ref e r to FLPMA for the full text of Federal respons ibilities detailed unde r Section 202(c)(9).

Where there are com p eting resource uses and values in the sam e area, Section 103(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)) requires th at the BLM m a nage the public la nds and their various resource values so th at they are u tilized in the com b ination that will b e st m eet m u ltiple use and sustain e d yield m a ndates.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 512 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Land use plan decis i ons are m a de according to th e procedu r es in the BLM ’ s plann i ng regulations in 43 CFR 1600 and the im ple m enting regulations for NEPA in 40 CFR 1500-1508. Before land use plan decisions are finalized and selected, th ey m u st be presented to the public as proposed decisions and can be protested to the BLM Director under 43 CFR 1610.5 -2 (see Appendix E).

B. Types of Land Use Plan Decisions

Land use plan decisions for public lands fall into two categories: desired outcom e s (goals and objectives) and allowable (includi ng restricted or prohibited) us es and actions anticipated to achieve desired outcom e s.

1. Desired outcom es

Land use plans m u st identify desired outcom e s expressed in term s of specific goals and objectives. Goals and o b jectives d i rect th e BL M’s actions in most ef f

ectively m eeting legal

m a ndates; num e rous regulatory responsibilitie s; national policy, includ in g the DOI Strateg i c Plan goals; State Director gui dance (see 43 CFR 1610.0-4(b)); and other resource or social needs. Desired outcom e s should be identified fo r and pertain to resources (such as natural, biological, and cultural), resource uses, (such as energy and livestock graz ing), and other factors (such as so cial and econo m i c conditio ns). Def i nitions and exa m ples of goals and ob je ctive s are listed below :

Goals are broad statem e n ts of desired outco m e s (e.g., m a intain ecosystem health and productivity, prom ote community stability, ensure sustainable developm ent) that usually are not quantifiable. Since the releas e of the original Handbook, the BL M has worked with RACs to develop Land Health Standards applicable to all ecosystem s and m a nagem e nt actions. These Land Health Standards must be expressed as goals in the land use plan. Goals can also be drawn from the Departm e ntal and/or th e DOI Strategic Plan or other s ources. A sam p le goal for a Land Health Stan dard is : “M aintain healthy, produc tive plant and anim al co mmunities of native and other desirable species at viable population levels comm ensurate with the species and habita t’s potential.” A sam p le goal f r om the Strategic Pl a n is: “Sus tain desired b i ologica l co mmunities on Department of the Interior-m anaged and -influ enced lands and waters in a m a nner consistent with obligations regard ing the allocation and use of water. ” These goals, or m odifications thereof, could be used in a land use plan.

Objectives identify specific desired outcom e s for reso u r ces. Objectiv es are usually q u antifiab l e and m easurable and m a y have established tim ef ram e s for achievem e nt (as appropriate). A

sam p le objective is: “M anage vegetative commun ities on the upland portion of the C l ear Creek Watershed to achieve, by 2020, an average 30 to 40 percent canopy cover of sagebrush to sustain sagebrush-obligate species.” W h en quantified, the indicators associated with Land Health Standards are one possible source of objectives.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 13

2. Allowable uses and m a nage m e nt actions anticipated to achieve des i red outcom e s (goals and objectives)

After establishing desired outcom e s, the BLM id e n tif ies a llow a ble uses (la nd use alloc a tions ) and m a nage m e nt actions for different alternatives that are an ticipated to achieve th e go als and objectives.

a. Allowable uses . Land use plans must identify uses, or allocation s , that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited on the public lands and m i neral estate. These allo cations identify surface lands and / or subsurface m i neral interests where us es are allo wed, including any restrictions that

m a y be needed to m eet goals and objectives. Lan d use plans also id entify lands where specific uses are excluded to pro t ect res ource values. Certain lands m a y be open or closed to specific uses based on legislative, regul atory, or policy requirem ents or criteria to p r otect sens itive resource values. If land use plan decisions cl ose areas of 100,000 acres or greater in size to a principal or m a jor use for 2 y ears or more, Congress m u st be notified of the closure upon its im ple m entation as prescribed in 43 C F R 1610.6.

The land use plan m u st set the stage f o r iden tif yin g site -spec i f i c resou r ce u s e leve ls. Sitespecific us e levels are no rm ally identified dur ing subsequent implem e nt ation planning or the
perm it authorization process. At the land use plan level, it is important to identify reas onable developm ent scenarios f o r allowable uses such as m i neral leasing, locatable m i neral developm ent, recreation, tim ber harv est, utility c o rrido rs, and lives tock gr azing to ena b le the orderly im plem entation of future actions. Thes e scenarios provide a co n t ext f o r the la nd use plan’s decisions and an analytical base for th e NEPA analysis. The BLM m a y also establish criteria in th e land use p l an to guide the identifi cation of site-specific us e levels for activities during plan implem e ntation.

b. Managem e nt actions . Land use plans m u st identify the ac tions anticipated to achieve desired
outcom e s, including actions to m a intain, restore, or im prove land health. These actions include proactive measures (e.g. , m easures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and condition), as well as m easures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities occurring on public land. Land use plans also establish adm i nistrative designations such as ACECs, recomm end proposed withdrawals, land tenure zones, and recom m e nd or m a ke findings of suitability for congres sional d e sig n ations (s uch as com ponents of the National W ild and Scenic River System ).

While protection and restorati on opportunities and priorities are often related to m a naging specific land uses (such as commodity extraction, recreation, or rights-o f-way corridors), they can be independent of these types of uses as well. In certain inst ances, it is insuf f i cien t to sim p ly

rem ove or lim it a certain use, because unsatis factory resou r ce conditions m a y have de veloped over long periods of tim e that wi ll not correct them selves without m a nagem e nt intervention. For

exam ple, where exo tic in vasive species are exte nsive, active restoration m a y be necessary to allow native plants to re esta blish and prosper. In these cases, identifyin g resto r ation opportunities and setting restoration pr iorities are critical parts of the land use planning process.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 514 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix C provides ad dition a l pro g ram

- specif i c guidance f o r develop i n g land use p l an decisions.

C. Geographic Areas

A variety of different ge ographic areas are associat ed with planning:

Planning Area. The geo g raphic area within whic h the BLM will m a ke decis i ons dur ing a planning effort. A planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction; however the BLM will only m a ke decis i ons o n lands th at fall under th e BLM’s jurisdiction (in c luding subsurface m i nerals). Unless the S t ate Director determ ines otherwise, the planning area for a RMP is the geographic area associ ated with a particular field office (43 CFR 1610.1(b)). State Directo r s may also es tab lish regi onal planning areas that encom p a ss several field offices and/or states, as necessary.

Decision Ar ea . The lands within a planning area for which the BLM has authority to m a ke land use and m a nagem e nt decisions. In general, th e B L M has jurisdiction over all BLM-adm i nistered lands (su r face and subsu r face) and o v er the sub s urface m i nerals only in areas of split estate (areas where the BLM ad m i nisters Federal sub s urface m i nerals, but the su rface is owned by a non-Federal entity, such as Stat e Trust Land or private land).

Analysis Area . Any lands, regardless of jurisdiction, for which the BLM synthesizes, analyzes, and interprets data and infor m ation that relates to planning for BLM-adm i nistered lan d s. Analyses that extend beyond the planning area boundary allow m a nage me nt decisions to be

m a de within the contex t of overall resource cond itions and trends with in the surrounding area, considering local, state, other Fede ral, and Tribal plans. Exampl es of such inform ation include the relative significance of BLM lands for a certa in resource (such as a threatened or endangered species), or the anticipated im p acts to resources (such as air quality, socio-econom ics) based on activ ities on BLM-adm i nistered lands . The analys is areas can be any size, can vary according to resource, and can be located anywhere within, around, partially outside, or com p letely outside the planning or decision areas.

D. Scales of Planning

Planning and decision making m a y vary geographi cally (regional versus site-specific) or
tem porally (short-term versus long-term ) , pr oviding a com p rehensive basis for im plem enting

resource m a nagem e nt actions.

Planning a t multiple sca l es m a y be necessa ry to resolve issue s for a geographic a r ea th at is different from the planning area for the RMP. Fo r exam ple, if broad-sc ale (region al) analysis identifies issues such as invasive weeds that cross BLM field o ffice boundaries or other jurisdictional boundaries, desired ou tcom es and m a nage m e nt actions in a planning area m a y be described and addressed in the co ntext of the broader landscape.

Inform ation presented at multiple scales also help s the BLM to understan d priority resource issues, tailor decisions to specific needs and ci rcu m stances, and analyze cu mulative impacts.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 15

When establishing goals and objec tives and m a king m a nagem e nt decisions, it is also im portant to consider tem poral scales. Som e natural pr ocesses affected by decisions m a y occur over very long tim efram e s. For e x am ple, complete rest oration of a degraded habitat m a y take m u ch longer than the typical tim e span of a land use plan.

E. Multiju r isdic t ional Planning

W ithin a planning area, the BLM surface lands and subsurface m i neral estate in terests are often interm ingled with non-Federal m i neral estate, or with lands that are m a naged by or under the jurisdiction of Tribal, state, or local governm e nts or other Federal agencies. As an outgrowth of these landownership patterns a nd responsibilities, other gover nm ental entities and B L M have increasingly sought to coordina te their decisions and plans.

Multijurisdictional planning a ssists land use planning effort s where there is a m i x of landownership and governm e nt authorities and th ere are opportunities to develop com p lem e ntary decisions across jurisdic tional boundaries. P l anning can be accom p lished for subbasins, entire watersheds, or other land scape units. A m u ltijur i s d ictional p l a n m a y inclu d e both land use and im ple m entation decision s that are germ ane to each jurisd ictio n involved in the plann i ng effort. However, the BLM still reta ins au th ority f o r de c i sions affecting the publi c lands it ad m i nisters. The BLM off i ce lead ing or partic ipating in a m u ltijur i sdiction a l plan m u st assure conf orm a nce with the BL M’s plann i n g regula tion s , as well a s a ll other applicable laws and regulations for the BLM-adm i nistered lands. This can b e accom p lished by completing the n o tification, p ublic review, and procedural requirem e nts of 43 CFR 1600 and 40 CFR 1500- 1508 as part of the multiju risd ictional plann i ng effort. Wher e BLM becom e s a cooperating agency for im ple m entation actions in confor m a nce with th e existing land use pla n, the lead agen cy ’s planning process m a y be followed provide d that NEPA requirem e nts are m e t.

In cases where the BLM-adm i nistered lands m a ke up a sm all part of the planning area for a multiju risd ic tiona l plann i ng ef f

o rt, it m a y be desirabl e f o r othe r jur i sdictio nal in tere sts to lead the planning effort. The BLM m a y act as a cooperati ng agency’s facilitator, convener, leader, or participan t, as appropr ia te, to encourage positive relationshi ps and to develop a m u tual understand ing of resource condition s and m u ltiple-u se m a nagem e nt options. In some cases, law

m a y de fine the lead role. In m o st cases, pl anning procedures of Tr ibal, state, or local
governm e nts and other Federal agencies will di ffer from those of the BLM. Therefore, successf ul multiju risd ic tiona l plann i ng ef f

o rts ar e norm a lly guided by M OUs, which clea rly delineate lines of authority and roles and responsibilitie s for all participants , including the BLM.

F. Establishing Management Direction fo r Lands That May Come Under the BLM Jurisdiction in the Future

If it is fores e eable that th e BL M will acquire m a nagem e nt respons ibility f o r certain p a rcels of land through purchase, exchange, withdrawal revocation, adm i nistra tive transfers, or som e other

m eans, then the BLM can establish m a nage m e nt direction for these lands , contingent on their acquisition, in conjunction with plan ning efforts on adjacen t or sim ilar B L M-adm i nistered lands.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 516 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
If acquired lands are surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands, th e BLM can extend applicable land use plan decisions, through plan m a intena nce (see 43 CF R 1610.5-4), to these lands after they are acq uired withou t com p leting a plan am endm ent, as lo ng as there are no unreso l ved

m a nage m e nt issues associated with the newl y acquired lands. In som e cases, regulatory requirem e nts m a y dictate a plan am endm ent be com p leted, such as when establishing or modifying boundaries of ACECs.

III. Land Use Planning Process an d Products

Planning requirem ents vary depending on the type of planning efforts and the level of environm ental analysis needed. There are three types of planning efforts:

1. New plans. A set of decis i ons f o r an area p r ev iously m a naged by an en tity o t her tha n the BLM, or for an area previously m a nage d by the BLM under a MFP (the land use plan predecessor to the p r esen t-day RMP).

2. Plan revisions. A complete or near-com plet e rewrite of an existing RMP.

3. Plan amendments. A modification of one or mo re parts (e.g., decisions about livestock grazing) of an existing RMP.

The level of environm ental analysis differs by the type of planning effort, as shown in Table III1.

Table III -1.— Pl

anni n g e f f

o r

t s an d re qui r e d NE PA an al ysi s Type of plann i ng e f fort Type of associ ate d NE PA document requir e d New pla n s ▪ EIS Plan revisions ▪ EIS Plan am endm e n ts ▪ EIS o r E A / F ON SI: De pe n d s on t h e sco p e o f t h e pl a nni n g e f f o rt a n d on t h e anticipated impacts.

A. Planning for Environmental Im pact Statement-level Efforts

Figure 1 shows required planning st eps for EIS-level planning efforts, followed by a description of each step.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 17

F igure 1.— EI S-level pl anni ng e f forts: Re quire d step s for new plans , re visions, and amendments 3 Issue NOI 1 to prepare the RMP(amendment)/EIS and star t sc opi n g An al yz e the Manageme nt Situation

▪ Docu m e n t resu lts in an anal y s i s o f t h e m a nagem e nt situ atio n (AM S ) Conduc t Sc op ing

▪ Pr ovi de a m i ni m u m 30- day

com m e nt peri o d on i ssue s a n d pl an ni n g c r i t e ri a

▪ Docu m e n t resu lts in a scop ing r e po r t

Prepare a Dr aft RMP ( Ame ndment ) /Dra ft EI S Formul a te Alternatives

An al y ze Ef f e ct s o f A l t e rn at iv e s

Publish NO A 1 & pr ovide a 90+ -d ay pu blic comme nt pe riod

Publish NO A 1 , pr ovide a 30-day protest period, and res ol ve protests Pro v i d e a 60

- d a y G o vern or ’s Co nsi s tenc y R e vi ew peri od 2 NOTES

1) T h e c h art s h ows

m i nim u m pl anni n g requirem ents according t o law, regu latio n, or BLM pol i c y

. B L M m a nagers can go bey o nd these requirem ents as nee d e d or desi re d.

2) B o xes ar ou nd st eps indicate re quired doc um ent s

.
3) I n vent ory o f re so urce

ex ten t an d co nd itio n shou ld

occur as nee d e d

, but is

m o st useful pri o r t o t h e analysis of the

m a nagem e nt si t u at i on.

Ab brevi at i o ns:

EIS ~ En v i ronmen tal Im pact State m ent NOI ~ No tice o f In ten t NO A ~ No tice of Av ailab ility RM P ~ Res o urce M a nagem e nt P l an

1 BL M m u st publish a notice in the Fed e ra l Reg i st er. 2 States can negotiate a shorter

r e view per i od with the Gover nor

. 3 If

changes are sig n if icant, issue a notice of signi ficant change and
pr ovide a 30- day co m m ent per i od.

Implement, Monitor, and Ev a l ua t e Plan D ecisions Select a Pre f e rred Al ternati v e Prepare t o Pl an

▪ Write a prep aratio n p l an

Prepare Rec o rd of Decision/Appr ove d RMP (Ame ndment) Prepare a Pr oposed RMP ( Ame ndment ) /Fina l EIS

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 518 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

1. Prepare to plan

The preparation plan is more than merely a vehicle to secure pla nning funds. A properly prepared preparation plan provides the foundatio n for the entire planning process by identifying the prelim inary issues to be addressed, the ski lls needed to address them , a prelim inary budget that can be used for the cost estim a te, prelim inary planning criteria, and data and m e tadata available and needed. If the plan is to be contra cted, the p r ep aration plan also form s the basis for the statem ent of work. Offices shou ld use a fu ll inte rdisc i plinary te am to develop a r ealistic preparation plan. If the plan is to be contracted, include the procurem ent staff on the inte rdisc i plinary te am

.

It is im portant that the preparation plans use th e principles of project m a nagem e nt and address the findings in the existing plan evaluation. A comprehensive preparation plan provides

m a nage m e nt direction, oversight, structure, cost estim ate, and focus for the planning process.

Preparation plans should be as br ief and concise as possible.

PRODUCT: PREPARATION PLAN— Appendix F-1 (Recomm e nded Form at for Preparation Plans) contains a m o re detailed outline and disc ussion of specific com p onents for a preparation plan.

2. Issue a n o tice of in tent to prepare th e RMP (am e ndment)/EIS and start scoping

At the earliest opportunity, the BLM should not ify the public, Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governm e nts about its intent to engage in land use planning for a given area. BLM m a nagers should take whatever m easures they feel necessary to ensure all interested parties are notified of upcom ing planning actions. At a m i ni m u m, however, the BLM must distribute two types of notices.

a. Publish a notice of intent (NOI ) in the Federal Register

. The BLM m u st publish a NOI in the Federal Register prior to scoping to announce it s decision to prepare an EIS (and associated planning docum ent) ( 40 CFR 1501.7). The NOI should identify prelim inary issues and planning criteria (s ee the f o llowing Conduct Scoping section).

b. Distribute scoping notices. Sim u ltaneous ly with the Federal Register NOI, the BLM should submit a scoping notice to Federal agen cies, state agencies, the heads of county boards, other local governm e nt units, and Tribal chairm en or Alaska Native leaders and any other entities/individuals who have requested such noti ce or the Field Manager has reason to believe would be concerned with the planning effort (43 CFR 1610.3-1(d)). BLM should request the curren t statu s of governm e nt entities’ officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, and the policies and program s contained therein.

Publica tion of the NOI in the Federal Register form ally initiates the plan developm ent, revision,

or am endm e n t process and begins the scoping proce ss. Inform ation discussions with cooperators (or potential cooperators), RA Cs, Tribes and other groups m a y occur before form al scoping begins.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 19

3. Conduct scoping

Scoping is a requirem e nt of both the NEPA re gulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and the BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.2 and 43 CFR 1610.4-1). The land use pl anning process is issuedriven. Scoping is a collabora tive public involvem e nt process to identif y planning issues to be addressed in the planning proce ss. P l anning issues are disputes or controversie s abou t exis ting and potential land and resource allocations, leve ls of resource use, production, and related

m a nage m e nt practices. Issues include resource use, developm ent, and protection opportunities for consideration in the prepara tion of the RMP. These issues m a y ste m from new i n for m ation or changed circum stances, and the need to rea ssess the appropriate m i x of allowable uses. Planning issues are addressed in and provide m a jor f o cus f o r the deve lop m ent of alternative s (se e Section III(A)(5), Formulate alterna tives ).

Scoping also involves the introduction of prelim inary planning criteria to the public for comment. Planning criteria guide developm ent of the plan by helping define the decision space (or the “sideboards” that define the scope of the planning effort); they are generally based upon applicable laws, Director and St ate D i rector gu idance, and the re sults of public and governm ental participation (43 CFR 1610.4-2). Exam ples of pl anning criteria include but are not lim ited to the following:

a. The plan will be com p leted in co mplian ce with FLPMA, NEPA, and all o t her rele vant Federal law, Executive orders, and m a nagem e nt policies of the BLM;

b. where existing planning decisions are still valid, those decisions m a y rem a in unchanged and be incorporated into the new RMP (or am endm ent);

c. the plans will recognize valid exis ting rights ; and

d. Native Am erican Tribal consu ltations w ill be conducted in accord an ce with policy and Tribal concerns will b e g i ven due con s idera tion. The plannin g process will in clude th e consideration of any im pact s on Indian trust assets.

PRODUCT: SCOPING REPORT— The BLM m u st doc um ent the results of scoping (43 CFR 1610.2(d)). Field offices m u st either write a scoping report to capture public input in one docum ent (recomm ende d), or include the results of scoping in the Analysis of the Managem e nt Situation (A MS) (see following Section III(A)(4)). The docum entation must summ arize the individu al comm ents received du rin g the form al scoping period of the planning process. It m u st also describe the issues and m a nage m e nt con cerns from public scoping meetings, internal scoping m eetings, and those included in the prep aration plan. See A ppendix F-2 (Recommended Form at for Scoping Reports).

4. Analyze the m a nagement situation

The BLM must analyze available inventory data and other in for m ation to characterize the resource area profile, portra y the existing m a nagem e nt situation, and identify m a nagem e nt opportunities to respond to iden tified issues. This analys is pro v ides, cons is tent with m u ltip le use

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 520 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
principles, the basis for for m ula ting reasonab l e alternatives, incl uding the types of resources for developm ent or protection (43 CFR 1610.4-4).

The analysis should (as briefly and concisely as possible) describe the current conditions and trends of the resources and the us es /activ ities in the plann i ng ar ea to prov ide inf o rm ation f o r the affected environm ent, provide the basis for the no action/present m a nagem e nt alternative, and to create a fram e w ork from which to resolve th e planning issues through the developm ent of alternatives. The analys is should des c ribe the s t atus, or pres en t characteris tics and con d ition of the public land; the status of physical and biologi cal processes that affect ecosystem function; the condition of individual com ponents such as soil, water, vegetati on, and w ildlife habitat; and the relative value and scarcity of the resources. The analysis shou ld also address social and

econom ic conditions that influence h o w people, comm unities, and economies in teract with the ecosystem . Appendix D provides ad dition a l de ta il on add r ess i ng social sc ience and ec onom i c considerations in the land use planning proce ss in the context of th e larger landscape.

PRODUCT : ANAL YS IS OF THE MANAGE M ENT SIT UATION— Field offices should produce a report called the analysis of the mana gement situation (AMS). Field offices are encouraged to m a ke a summary of the AMS findings (or the entire report) av ailable to the public. Parts of the AMS should easily tr anslate into the introduction ch apter, the no action and action alternatives, and the affected env i ron m ent chapter of the EIS.

Form ulation of the AMS can begin as soon as th e planning project is ap proved. Docum e ntation supporting the AMS should be m a intained in th e field office for public review. The AMS docum ent can be m a de a v ailable to the public during or after scoping. The scoping report can also be included in a published summary of th e AMS if desired. See Appendix F-3 (A nnotated Outline of th e Analysis o f the Manag e m e nt Situation) f o r additiona l guida nce.

5. Form ulate alternatives

Considering a reasonable range of alternatives helps the BLM and its partners understand the various ways of addressing the planning issues and different scenarios for m a nage m e nt of the resources and uses in the planning area. Deve lopm ent of alternatives should draw on the

m a nage m e nt opportunities identified in the AMS

. Each alternative includes desired outcom e s (goals and o b jectives ), and the allowable uses an d actions anticipated to achieve those outcom e s. It is im portant to keep in m i nd the f o llowing abo u t alterna tiv e f o rm ulatio n:

a. The BLM m u st consider all reas onable a lte r n ative s , inc l uding the no action alter n ative (the continuation of present levels or syst em s of r e source use). Som e alternatives, including the no action a lternative, may be developed for detailed study, w h ile others are considered but not analyzed in detail. Both types of alternatives are described in the RMP/EIS. Rationale should be briefly desc ribed to docum ent why certain alternatives were not studied in detail (43 CFR 1610.4-5). An exam ple m a y be that one alternative is a reasonable variation of an existing alternative analyzed in d e tail.

b. Reasonable altern atives analy z ed in deta il m eet the purpose and need of the project and can be feasibly carried out based on estim ated cost, logistics, technology, and social,

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 21

and environm ental factors. An alternative m a y be considered reasonable even if it is outside the legal ju risd iction of the B L M becau se it m a y serve as the b a sis for m odifying congressional approval in light of the an alysis (40 CFR 1502.14(c) ; Forty Questions No. 2(b)).

c. Each fully-develop e d alternative represen ts a different land us e plan that addresses and/or resolves the identified plan ni ng i s s u e s i n di fferent ways.

d. Each alternative will include a d i ffer ent suite of potential planning decisions to address the issues. Some potential p l anning de cisions m a y be common to m u ltiple, o r all alte rnatives.

e. Goals typ i cally per t a i n to all alter n ative s (will not vary by alte rnative). Objectiv es, allowable uses, and m a nagem e nt actions m a y (1 ) be consistent across alternatives, and/or (2) vary by alternative. A plan could include som e objectives that vary by alternative, and other ob jectives that are c onsistent across alternatives.

f. Goals typically apply to the entire pl anning area. Objectives, allowable uses, and

m a nage m e nt actions m a y (1) apply to the planni ng area as a whole, and/or (2) be specific to certain geographic areas, su ch as those listed below:

1. Landscape-level system s (such as ecosystem s and watersheds);

2. specific resources (su c h as threaten ed and endangered species and cultural sites ) ;

3. areas (such as allotm ents and special m a nagem e nt units); and

4. areas needing restoration or m a intenance in order to m eet land health standard s.

g. All com p onents of an individual alte rnative must be com p lem e ntary. Desired
outcom e s, allowable uses, and m a na gem e nt act ions can (and probably will) conflict from one alternative to the next. However, they m u st not conf lic t within any o n e alternativ e. For exam ple, an alternative should not allow all lands open to oil and gas leasing while having all lands designated as Visual Re source Managem e nt Class I or II.

h. W h en identifying allowable uses in a lternatives, consider resource developm ent potential, levels of use, and re strictions to best achieve th e identified goals and objectives (see Analysis of the Managem e nt Situation abov e). These uses and restrictions are based on resource protection needs a nd social and econ o m i c factors

, and represent the m o st appropriate m i x of uses and protections for th e resources in the pla nning area. Different protection and restoration m easures and the availability of area s for certain uses, levels of uses, and restrictions are pr esented in alternatives.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 522 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
i. In developing alternatives , th e BLM m u st consider the re lative scar city of the valu es involved and the availability of alternative m eans and sites fo r realizing those values (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(6)).

j. Alternatives should be developed in an open, collabora tive m a nner, to the extent possible.

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

The BLM must estim a te and describe the physi cal, biological, econom ic, and social effects of im plem enting each altern ative consid ered in d e tail, including the no action alte rnative (43 CFR 1610.4-6). This analysis should provide adequate inform ation to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cum u lative im pacts of each alternative in ord e r to determ ine the bes t m i x of potential planning decisions to achieve th e identified goals and objective s (the analysis should also specifically address the attainm e nt, or non-attainm e nt, of Land H ealth Standards expressed as goals). The assum p tions and tim efram e s used for analysis purposes (such as reasonably foreseeable developm ent scenarios) should be do cu m e nted. The effects are describ e d in the d r aft RMP (am e ndm ent)/draft EIS (see Section 8).

7. Select a preferred alternative

By evaluatin g the altern atives in the EIS, the BLM m u st determ ine which com b ination of potential p l a nning decisions conta i ne d in the a lte r n ative s best m eets m u ltiple use and sustain e d yield m a ndates of Section 103(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). If any one alternative contains the desired combination of potential planning decisions, then that altern ative should be identified as the preferred alte rnative. If the combination of potential planning decisions is drawn from different alternatives, then those potential planning decisions should be com p iled into a new a lte rnative ( i dentif ied a s the pref erred alternative) and the impacts an alyzed accord ingly.

The preferred alternative should:

a. Meet statutory requirem ents;

b. represent the best combination of decisi ons to achieve the goals and policies of the BLM as reflected throug h the DOI’s Strategi c Plan and State Director guidance; and

c. best respond to the purpose and need a nd best resolve the issu es pertinent to the planning effort.

These and other agreed-to selection criteria should be used in selecting the preferred alternative. Developm ent of criteria and eval uation of alternatives should include the involvem e nt of RACs, cooperators, and interested m e mbers of the public to the extent practical. The final decision to select a preferred alternative, however, rem a ins the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 23

The Field Manager recommends th e preferred alternative to th e State Director. The S t ate Directo r app r oves the selection of the preferred alternative alo ng with the other a lte rna tives under consideration.

8. Prepare a draft RMP (am e ndm e nt) and draft EIS

PRODUCT : DRAFT RMP (AMENDME N T ) /DRAFT E I S— This docum ent describes the purpose and need for the plan, the affected env i ro nm ent, the a lte rnativ es for m a naging public lands with in the plann i n g area (i ncluding the preferred alternative) , the environm ental im pacts of those a lte rna tives, and th e c onsultation and coordination in which the BLM engaged in developing the plan. See Appendix F-4 (A nnotated Outline fo r a Draft and Final RMP [A mend men t ]/ EIS).

9. Publish a notice of av ailab i lity and provide a public com m e nt period

The BLM must provide at least 90 days fo r the p ublic to comm ent on the draf t RMP (am e ndm e nt ) and draft E I S. This public comm e n t per i od of ficia lly s t ar ts with the Env i ronm ental Protection A g ency’s (EP A ’s) publication of a NOA for the docum ent in the Federal R e gister (43 CFR 1610.2 (e)). The BLM also publishes a NOA in the Federal Register to provide inform ation not contained in the EP A’s NOA ab out the proj ect, comm ent period, contact inform ation, and other supplem e ntal inform ation. The BLM m a y also announce the start of the comm e n t period (and the dates, tim es, and locations of public m e e tings) through other m echanism s , such as press releases, planning bulletins or ne wsletters, direct m a ilings and e-m a ilings, and Internet postings.

Public com m e nts m a y be subm itted in a var i ety of f o rm s, including wr itten, electron i c, and or al. The BLM must assess an d consider all comm ents received (s im ilar or “lik e” comm ent s m a y be grouped for analysis). T h e BLM responds to public comm e n ts by one of the following ways (40 CFR 1503.4):

a. Modifying alternatives, including the proposed plan;

b. developing and evaluating a lte rna tives no t pre v iously gi ven serious consideration;

c. supplem enting, im proving, or m o difying analysis;

d. m a king factual corrections; and

e. explaining why comm ents do not warra nt further response, citing the sources, authorities, or reason s th at support th e agency ’s p o sition, and, if appropriate, ind i cate those circum stances that would trigge r reappraisal or further response.

Although the BLM is not required to write to individual comm enters to explain how their comments were addressed, it is required to res pond to substantive comm ents and include the response in the proposed RMP (am e ndm ent) and fi nal EIS. N onsubstantive comm ents are those that include opinions, assertions , and unsubstantiated claim s

. Substantive comments are those

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 524 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

that reveal new infor m ation, m i ssing inform ation, or flawed analysis th at would substantially change conclusions.

10. Prepare a proposed RMP (am e ndm ent) and final EIS

PRODUCT : PROPOSED RMP ( A MENDM ENT)/FINAL EIS— The proposed RMP (am e ndm e nt ) and final E I S builds on the draft R M P (am e ndm e nt) and draft EIS to include appropriate responses to public com m e nts receiv e d on the draft RMP (am e ndment) and draft EIS as well as a descrip tion (either ve rb atim or summary) of the comm ents received. It also corrects errors in the draft RMP/EIS identified thr ough the public comment pro cess and internal BLM review. The proposed RMP and final EIS m a y also contain modification to the alternatives and the accom p anying im pact analy s is co ntained in th e draft RMP/EIS. However, substantial changes to the proposed action, or significant new infor m ation/circum stances collected during the comm ent period would require supplem ents to either the draft or final EIS (40 CFR 1502.9(c)). The proposed RMP (am e ndm e nt)/final EIS should clea rly show the changes from the draft R M P (am e ndm e nt)/draft EIS. The pr oposed RMP/final EIS should also display land use plan and im ple m entation decisions (and cl early distinguish betw een the two types of decisions). One way of doing this is in the De ar Reader Letter. Se e Appendix F-4 (Annotated Outline f o r a Draf t and Final RMP [ A m e ndm e nt] / EIS).

11. Publish a notice of availability, provide a protest period, and resolve protests

Issuance of the proposed RMP (am e ndm ent)/EIS offi cially occurs with th e EPA’s publication of a NOA for the docum en t in the Federal Register . The BLM publishes a NOA as wel l , which contains inform ation about the project, protest period and filing instructions, contact inform ation, and other supplem ental infor m ation not contained in the EPA’s NOA.

Individuals and entities have 30 da ys from the publication of EPA’s NOA of the docum ent to file a protes t with the BLM Directo r . T h e protes t period cannot be exte nded. The BLM must resolve any protests on a propos ed RMP (am e ndm e nt)/final EIS before issuing a record of decision (R OD). A ROD m a y be issued on any portion of the proposed RMP not protested, in coordination with the Washington O ffice. See Appendix E (Summ a ry of Protest and Appeal Provisions).

12. Provide a Governor’s c onsistency review period

In addition to a 30-day protest period, the BLM mu st also provide a 60-day review period to the Governor of the state in which the R M P (am e nd m e nt) is being proposed to ensure consistency with state and local plans, policies, and program s. The protest period and the Governor’s review period should occur sim u ltaneousl y in order to save tim e. Sending a print-ready copy to the Governor at the sam e time the docum ent goes to the printer will allow both periods to end at about the sam e ti m e . BLM state offices can pot entially negotiate a shorter review period with the Governor.

Any responses from a Governor on consistency must be resolved before the BLM issues a ROD. If the Governor does not respond within the review period, the BLM can assum e that the

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 25

proposed land use plan (am e ndm e nt ) decisions are consistent (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)). If the Governor recommends changes in the proposed pl an (am e ndm ent) that were not raised during the public participation process, th e State Director shall provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the recommendations (43 CFR 1610.3-2( e)). This public comment opportunity will be offered for 30 days and m a y coincide with the 30-day comment period for the notice of significant change (see Section III(A)(13) below). If the Stat e Directo r do es not accep t the Governor’s recomm endations, the G overnor has 30 days to appeal in writing to the BLM Director (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)).

13. Determ ine need for a notice of significan t change and provide a com m e nt period if
necessary

The protest letters and comments from the Gover nor could result in the need to significantly modify the proposed RMP (am e ndm e nt)/final EIS

. For planning purposes, “significant” is the equivalent of “substantial” as used in 40 CFR 1502.9(c). If the change is significant, the BLM must announce the intended changes to the public and provide a 30-day comm ent period. W ithout this step, the public would not have an opportunity to understand and respond to the potential change (43 CFR 1610.5-1(b) and 40 CF R 1505.2). The BLM must then respond to the comments as described in prev ious S ection III(A)(9).

Should the BLM issue a notice of significant ch ange, it m a y also be necessary to issue a supplem ental proposed R M P (am e ndm e nt)/ final EIS (see 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1-4)).

14. Prepare a reco rd of decis i on and approved RMP (am e ndm e nt)

PRODUCT : RECORD OF DECI SI ON /APPROVED RMP (AMENDMENT) —The ROD /approved R M P (am e ndm e nt) serves as a m o re c oncise and useful tool to land m a nagers and stakeho l ders than a cum b ersom e EIS. It is typically the proposed RMP (am e ndm e nt) as modified in response to protests, the Governor’s consistency review , or other considerations. It describes the goals, objectives, and m a nage m e nt actions for fulfilling the m a nage m e nt direction developed w ithin the land use planning process.

An RMP (am e ndment) is officially approved when the State Directo r sig n s a ROD adopting th e RMP (am e ndm ent). The ROD should precede or coincide w ith the adoption of the RMP (40 CFR 1506.1(a)). The ROD, which pr ovides the rationale for the deci sion (this should parallel the rational for the preferred alternative, using the sa m e criteria), should be published and released in the sam e docum ent with and reference the approved RMP (am e ndment). See Appendix F-5 (Annotated Outline for a Record of D ecision /Approved RMP (Am e ndment)).

15. Im ple m ent, m onitor, and evaluate plan decisions

See Sections IV and V of this Handbook.

B. Planning for Envir o nmental A ssessment-level Effo rts

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 526 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

The BLM com p letes en vironm ental assessm ent (EA )-level planning efforts m a inly for certain types of plan am endm e n ts. In general, there are fewer plann i ng steps inv o lved in EA -level planning. T h e num ber of steps and extent of wo rk involved with each step varies with the

com p lexity of identified planning issues. Figure 2 shows the required and optional steps associated w ith EA-level planning. S t eps are required unless noted as optional (designated by italics ).

1. Prepare to plan (op tio nal)

It is highly recomm ende d that fi eld offices engage in preplanni ng activities, though they are not required. Field offices should com p lete preplanni ng steps necessary to help ensure efficient and effective planning efforts. For example, field offices cou l d write preparation plans s i m ilar to those required for EIS-level planning efforts (see Section III(A)(1), Prep are to P l an and Appendix F-1).

2. Issue a n o tice of in tent (NOI) to prepar e the RMP a m endm ent and review planning criteria

The BLM must publish an NOI in the Federal Register to in itiate the s t ar t of the plann i ng ef f

o rt (43 CFR 1610.2 (c)). T h e BLM can include the dr aft planning criteria in the NOI to solicit public revie w of the criteria. Altern ative l y, th e BLM can make the p l an ni ng criteria available to the public at a later date if desired (see following Section II I(A)(3), Conduct Scoping). Note, however, that public review of pl anning criteria is required at som e point, whether at the tim e of the NOI or a t a la ter d a te

.

3. Conduct scoping

Field offices m u st engage in an appropriate level of scoping activities. A t a m i ni m u m, the BLM must offer a 30-day public comm ent period on is sues and planning criteria. Depending on the local situation and planning issu es, the BLM can also conduct a m o re involved scoping effort and include a series of pub lic m eetin gs, for example.

The BLM must docum ent the results of scoping either in a scoping report, the draft plan

am endm ent and EA or the proposed am endm ent/ EA (if a draft plan am endm ent and EA is not prepared).

4. Analyze the m a nage ment situation (optional)

The BLM is not requ ired to analy ze the m a nageme nt situation or produce a report that describes it. However, prior to formulating alternativ es, th e BLM should unders tan d curren t co nditions and trends o f the resour c e s and the u s es/ac tiv ities that will r e late to po tential de cis i ons in the p l an

am endm ent. It is h i ghly recomm ended that th e B L M begin the process of gathering existing data, and supplem enting data as needed, early in the plan amendm ent process. This infor m ation will create a solid bas e for analys is to suppor t am ending planning decisions. This co uld be

accom p lished by referen ce to and / or augm enting the existing AMS.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 27

Prepare to Plan

• Write a Prepara tion Plan NOTES

Fi gure 2.

— EA-level planni ng e f forts: Re qu ire d and opt ional planning steps 4 Iss ue NOI 1 to p rep are th e RM P Ame ndme n t and r e v iew planning c r i te r i a 1) The chart shows required and optional st e p s for EA-level planning efforts.

Cond uc t Sc oping

• Provide a minimum 30-day

comment period on issues and planning criter ia

Formu l ate Alte rn atives

Prep ar e a Prop os ed RMP Ame ndme n t/EA/F ONSI Provide a m i nimum 30-day

p u b lic commen t p eriod 2

Provide a 30-da y protest period a nd resolve
pr ote s ts Provide a 60-da y Governor’s Consiste nc y Review pe riod 3 2) Steps in italics may be
approp riate in some ca se s but are not req u ired for EA-level amendment s . Steps in boxe s indicate re quired document s
. 3) Inventory o f resource exte nt and condition should occur as needed, but is m o st useful prior to the analy s is of the

m a nage m e nt sit u ation.

Abbreviatio ns:

• EA ~ Environ m ental

Ass e ssm ent

• EIS ~ Environm e n tal I m p act State m ent

• FONSI
~ Finding of No

Significant I m p act

• NOI
~ Notice o f Intent

• NOA
~ Notice of

Availability

• RMP
~ Reso urc e

Mana ge m e nt Plan

1 BLM m u st pu blish a notice in the Feder a l Regis t er

. 2 For decision s involving area s of critical environ m ental concern, provid e a 60-day

co mm ent perio d and publish a NOA in the Federal Regi ster (required).
3 States can ne g o tiate a shorter review period with the Governor.
4 If changes are significant, issu e a notice o f significant change and pro v ide a 30-day

co mment perio d

.

Imple m e n t, M o nitor , and Evaluate Plan Decisions Prep ar e De cis i o n Record / RMP Amendment An alyz e Effects of Alt ern atives Analyze the Management Situat ion

• Doc u me nt re sults in the analy sis

of th e managem e nt situation (A M S )

Prepare a Draft RMP Amendment and EA/FONSI • Doc u me nt re sults in a

Scoping Report

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 528 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

5. Form ulate alternatives

The BLM must form ulate appropriate alternatives for EA-level planning efforts. The process is sim ilar to th at f o r EIS-le vel am endments.

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

The BLM must also analyze the effects of alternatives.

7. Prepare a draft RMP am endm ent and EA/FONSI (option a l)

The BLM must prepare a draft RMP am endm en t and EA/finding of no significant im pact (FONSI) when it is deter m ined that a public re view and comm ent period are appropriate (for

exam ple, when proposed ACEC designations ar e being considered per 43 C F R 1610.7-2(b) or to

m eet NEPA requirem e nts under certain lim ite d circum stances per 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2). Otherwise, a draft plan am endment is not requ ired, and the B L M can sim p ly go from analyzing the effects of alternatives (step 6) to prepar ing a proposed RMP am endm ent/EA/FONSI (step 9). The FONSI should be unsigned.

8. Provide a public com m e nt period (optional)

If the BLM prepares a d r aft RMP am endment and EA/FONSI, it m u st offer a m i ni mum 30-day public com m e nt period. The BLM must offer a 60-day comm ent period for potential decisions regarding ACEC designation.

9. Prepare a proposed RMP am endm ent/EA/FONSI

The BLM must prepare a proposed RMP am en dm ent/EA/FONSI for all EA-level planning efforts. The proposed RMP am endm ent/EA/FONSI is typically arranged in an EIS for m at (with chapters). T h e FONSI should be signed (i f a FONSI cannot be signed, an EIS should be initiated).

10. Provide a protest peri od and resolve protests

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 30- day protest period. The protest period cannot be extended. Si nce a NOA is not published in the Federal Register for EA-level

am endm ent, field offices are encouraged to wi dely notify the public (i ncluding publication of legal notices in local newspapers) to announce th e protest period. The BLM m u st resolve these protests before issuing a decision record/RMP am endment. A decision record m a y be issued on any portion of the proposed RMP am endment not pr otested, in coordination with the Washington Office.

11. Provide a Governor’s c onsistency review period

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 60-da y Governor’s consistency review period.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 29

12. Issue a notice of sig n ifican t change and provide a 30-day public comment period (if necessary)

This step is identic al to that f o r EIS-level ef f

o rts.

13. Prepare a decis i on record/RMP am endment

The BLM issues the decision reco rd/RMP am endm ent af ter it resolve s all protests and any potential consistency issues received from the Governor’s office. Th e decision record should precede (or coincid e with) the RMP am endm ent (40 CFR 1506.1).

14. Im ple m ent, m onitor and evaluate plan decisions

See Sections IV and V of this Handbook.

IV. Implementation

A. Implementing Land Use Plans

When an approved land use plan or land use pl an am endm ent decision docum e nt (i.e., ROD or decision record) is signed, m o st of the land us e p l an decis i ons in the p l an are effective imm e diately and require no additi onal planning or NEPA analysis. See A ppendix C for a listing of program

- s pecific land use plan decisions.

Som e program s have specific require m e nts that must be taken in or der to m a ke certain decisions effective. An exam ple of a land use plan de cision that requires an additional action for im ple m entation would be a recomm e ndation to withdraw lands from entry under the m i ning laws. Formal action requiring Secretarial-leve l review and decision m a king would follow if the BLM planning process results in a w ithdrawal re commendation and the applicable regulations in 43 CFR 2300 are follow e d.

Upon approval of the land use pla n, subsequent implem e ntation deci sions are put into effect by developing implem e ntation (activit y-level or project-specific) pl ans. An a c tiv ity- l eve l plan typically des c ribes m u ltiple pro j ect s in detail that will lead to on-the-g r ou nd action. T h ese plans trad ition a lly f o cused on single resou r ce prog rams (habitat m a nagem e nt plans, a llotm ent

m a nage m e nt plans, recreation m a nagem e nt plans, etc.). However, ac tiv ity-leve l plan s are incre a sing ly inte rdisc i plinary and a r e f o cused on multiple res ource prog ra m areas to r e f l ect th e shift to a m o re watershed-based or landscape-ba sed approach to m a nage ment. These types of plans are so m e ti m e s referred to as “integ rated o r inte rdisc i plinary plans, ” “coordinated resource

m a nage m e nt plans,” “landscape m a nagem e nt plan s,” or “e co system m a nagem e nt plans.” A projec t-sp ec if ic plan is typically prepared for an individual project or several related projects.

B. Defining Implementation Decis i ons

Im ple m entation decision s generally constitu te BL M’s final ap proval allow i ng on-th e-g r ound actions to proceed. These types of decisions require appropriate site -specif i c planning and

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 530 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
NEPA analysis. Unlike land use plan decisions , im ple m entation decision s are not sub j ect to protest under the planning regulations. Instead, implem e ntation decisions are subject to various adm i nistrative rem e dies, particularly appeals to th e Office of Hearing and Appeals (In terior Board of Land Appeals). W h ere im plem entation d ecisions are m a de as part of the land use planning process, they are still su bject to the appeals process or other adm i nistrative review as prescribed b y the specific resource p r ogram regul ations af ter the BLM res o lves th e pr otests to land use plan decisions and m a kes a decision to adopt or am end the RMP. The proposed plan /final EIS should display land use plan and im pl em entation decisions (and clearly distinguish between the two types of decisions). One way of doing this is in the Dear Reader Letter. See Appendix C for a listing of program

- s p ecific im plem entation decis i ons.

C. Making Implementation Decis i ons

Im ple m entation decisions are m a de with the appropr ia te leve l of NEPA an alysis along with any procedural and regulatory requirem e nts for individual program s. See 40 CFR 1500-1508, the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), and 516 DM 1-7 for detailed descriptions of NEPA procedures. An EA, EIS, or EIS supplem e nt m u st be prepared for subsequent im plementation planning unless the decisions and actions c ontained in the im pl em entation plan are:

1. Identified as exceptions to the B L M NEPA r e quirem e nts (e.g., actions specifically

exem pted fr om NEPA by Congress);

2. categorically excluded (refer to Depa rtm e ntal Manual 516 DM 2, Appendix 1; and 516 DM 6, Appendix 5.4, for a current listing (M ay 19, 1992) of categor ical exclusions); and

3. fully covered by a previously prepared EA or EIS that does not need to be updated as docum ented by a documentation of land use plan confor m a nce and NEPA adequacy (DNA).

D. Making Land Use P l an and Implementation Decisions in the Same Planning Effort

The BLM may use a single land use planning/N EPA process to m a ke both land use plan and im ple m entation decisions, provided both types of decisions are adequately addressed with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. This m a y be appropriate in RMPs or plan am endm ents covering relatively sm all geographic areas or wher e th ere are a num ber of activ ity -lev el pro j ects such as tim b er sales being addressed sim u ltane ously with land use planning efforts. When describing the protest procedures for proposed RM Ps, the BLM m u st m a ke clear which decisions are land use plan decisions a nd thus protestable under the pl anning regulations and which decis i ons are im plem entation decis i o n s that are n o t protestable. At the decision-m aking stage, the BLM can separate the two categories of deci sions into two decision docum e nts, one adopting the RMP (or am endm ent ) and the o t h e r approv ing the im plementation decisions; or the BLM

m a y use a single decision docum ent that adopts the RMP (or am endm ent) and approv es the im ple m entation actions. If a si ngle decision docum ent is used, th e BLM must clearly distinguish the land use plan decisions from the implem e nta tion decisions and describe the adm i nistrative

rem e dies for both.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 31

When considering land use plan and im ple m entation decisions in the sam e land use planning/NEPA process, the im plem e n tation decisi ons are usually approved at the same tim e or after the d e cision to approve the RM P (or am en dm ent). An e x ception m a y occur when som e /all of the im plem entation decisions are in conform a nce with decisions in the current RMP. In this case, th e BLM m a y issue a ROD/decision reco rd on the im plem entation decis i ons that are consistent w ith the current plan prior to appr oving the ROD/decision r ecord on the new RMP (or

am endm ent) . This situation m a y occur when there is a need to approve high priority im ple m entation decisions before the protests to the proposed RM P (or amendm ent) are resolved.

Making im plem entation decisions as part of th e land use planning proces s and analyzing them concurrently with land use plan decisions does no t change their adm i nistrative rem e dies or the tim ing of those rem e dies. See Appendix E (Sum m a ry of Protest and Appeal Provisions).

E. Developing Strategies to Facilitate Implementation of Land Use Plans

A docum ented, well-organized thought process is e ssentia l to the succ essf ul im ple m entation of land use plans. An im pl em entation strategy lists pr ioritized decisions that (1) will help achieve the desired outcom es of one or m o re land use pl ans and (2) can be im plem ented given existing or anticipated resources. D e veloping implem e ntation stra tegies enables the BLM to prio ritize the preparation of i m ple m entation decisions.

There are no procedural or approval requirem e nts for an im plem entation strategy. Im ple m entation strategies m a y be de veloped in conjunction with de veloping land use plan decis i ons, b u t strateg i es are not la nd use plan decisions and are not subject to protest or appeal. As a rule, they should not be included in the RMP. A well thought-out implem e ntation strategy should prio ritize each d e cision for funding and imp lem e ntation. The strategy should also be interdisciplinary (not program by pr ogram ). De veloping an im ple m entation strategy creates an im portant opportunity for continued collaboration with the public, Tr ibes, state and local
governm e nts, and other Federal agencies.

Described below is a suggested collaborative f our-step m e thod for developing an im plem entation strategy with partners involved in developing the land use plan:

1. Develop framework to portray th e work. Identify specific p r ojects to (a) achieve desired natural resource conditions, (b) achieve desired heritage and cultural resource conditions, (c) address anticipated dem a nds for recreation, (d) address anticipated dem a nds for forage and forest products, (e ) address anticipate d dem a nd for direct community services, and (f) addres s dem a nd for energy and m i nerals.

2. Identify p r iorities for the nex t 3 to 5 years. Using the fram ework in step 1, and considering current budget capab ilities, identify priorities within each workload (a. through f. in step 1) and priorities across workloads. Factors that influence decision priorities are:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 532 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
a. Statutory m a ndates, including, but not lim ited to, com p liance with the Clean Air and Clean W a ter Acts, the Endangered Spec ies Act, the National His t oric Preserva tion Act, the Ta ylor Grazing Act, and FLPMA;

b. goals listed in the D O I’s Strate gic Plan and Annual Perform a nce Plan;

c. present risks to resour ces, with resources at high risk ranking above resources without known or substantial risks;

d. likelihood of success, with m a nagem e nt actions using proven techniques possibly ranking higher than m a nage m e nt actions using experim e ntal techniques;

e. cost-effectiveness of m a nage m e nt actio n s ; th e r e is no requ irem ent to d e velop a cost/benefit analysis , but m a nagem e nt actions th at have a high likelihood of im proving resource conditions for relati vely small expenditures of tim e and money should receive relati vely higher priority;

f. willingness and availability of cooperato rs to m eet si m ilar resource ob jectives for adjacen t non-Federal lands and resour ces; th is would inclu d e opportun i ties to cooperate on a watershed basis a nd to leverage lim ited resources;

g. willingn e ss and availa bility of part ners in terested in help in g accom p lish priority m a nagem e nt actions needed to m eet desired outcom e s;

h. budgetary and staff resources requir ed to im plem ent the decisions; and

i. socio econ o m i c analys is of the local comm unity.

3. Develop a 3 to 5 year budget. Identify specific tasks to accom p lish each project and associated f unding needs, including labor and op erations costs. Identify potential funding sources including base, flex ible, and contributions.

4. Develop an outreach strateg y

. Identify a strategy for bot h internal and extern al communications needed to support implem e ntation. This could be in the for m of annual plan updates and website developm ent, etc.

V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that la nd use plans establish in tervals and standards f

o r m onitoring and evalu a tions, b a se d on the sen s itiv ity of th e resour ce d ecis i ons inv o lved.

A. Monitoring

Land use plan m onitoring is the process of (1 ) tracking the implem entation of land use planning decisions (implem e ntation m onitoring) and (2) co llecting data/inform a tion necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (e f f

ectiveness monitoring ). In Appendix C, each

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 33

resource program identifies desired land use plan decisions. BLM field offices m u st determ ine what m a nagem e nt actions are needed to im ple m ent those decisions. Som e ti m e s actions occur just once, e.g., the developm ent of an im ple m entation plan; or actions occur on a fairly regular basis, e.g., steps taken to repair a dam a ged wate rshed. Monitoring is the process of following up on these m a nagem e nt actions and docum e nting BLM’s progress toward full im ple m entation of the land use plan and the achievem e nt of desire d outcom e s. Field offices are encou r aged to involve Tribes, state and local governm ents, and the public if th ey express an interest in participa ting in this p r oc ess.

Im ple m entation m onitoring is the process of tracking and docum enting the im ple m entation (or the progress toward im plem entation) of land use pl an decisions. This should be done at least annually and should be docum ented in the form of a tracking log or report. The report m u st be available for public review (one way to accom p lis h this is an annual plann i ng update which can be sent to those who participated in the pla nning process or have expressed an interest in receiving the report). T h e report should describe m a nage m e nt acti ons proposed or undertaken to im ple m ent land use plan decisions and can form the basis for annual budget docum ents. In subsequent years, reports should docum ent which m a nagem e nt actions w e re com p leted and what further actions are needed to continue im ple m enting land use plan decisions.

Ef f

ectivenes s m onitoring is the p r oce ss of collec t ing data and inform ation in order to determ ine whether or not desired outcom es (expressed as g o als and ob jectiv es in th e land use p l an) are being m e t (or progress is being m a de toward m eeting th em ) as the a llowable uses and

m a nage m e nt actions are being im plem ented. A mon itoring strategy m u st be developed as part of the land u s e plan that identifies indicators of change, accep table th resholds, m e thodologies, protoco l s, a nd tim ef rames tha t will be used to e v aluate and determ ine whether o r not desired
outcom e s are being achieved.

The m onitoring process should collect inform ati on in the m o st cost-effective m a nner and m a y involve sampling or remote sensing. Monitoring could be so costly as to be prohibitive if it is not carefully and reasonably desi gn ed . Therefore, it is not necessary or desirable to m onitor
every m a nagem e nt action or direction. Unn ecessary detail and unaccep table costs can be avoided by focusing on key m onitoring questions and proper sam p ling methods. The level and intens ity of monitoring will va ry, de pending on th e sensitiv ity of the reso urce or area and the scope of the proposed managem e nt activity.

B. Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land us e plan and the periodic plan m onitoring reports to determ ine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA a n alysis are still valid and whether the plan is being im plemented. Land use plan s are evaluated to dete rm ine if : (1) d e cisions

rem a in relev a nt to cu rren t issue s , (2) decis i ons are effective in achieving (or m a king progress toward achieving) desired outcom e s, (3) any decisions need to be revised, (4) any decisions need to be dropped from further consideration, a nd (5) any areas require new decisions.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 534 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

In m a king these determ inations, the e v aluation sh ould consid e r whether m itiga tion m easures a r e satisfactory, whether th ere are s i gnificant chang e s in the related plans of other entities, and whether there is new data of significance to the plan.

The plan should be periodically evaluated (at a m i ni m u m every 5 years) as docum ented in an evaluation schedule. Plan evaluations should also be com p leted prior to any plan revisions and for m a jor plan am endm ents. Special or unschedu l ed evaluations m a y also be required to review unexpected m a nage m e nt actions or significant cha nges in the rela ted plan s of Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governm ents, or to eval uate legislation or litigation that has the potential to trigge r an RMP am endm ent or revision.

Evaluations m a y identify resource needs and m eans for correcting deficien cies and add r essing issues through plan m a intenance, am endments, or new starts. They should also identify where new and emerging resource issues and other values have surf aced. Evaluations m a y also identify new and innovative practices that improve effectiven ess and efficiency so that other of fices m a y benefit.

1. Process for com p leting land use plan evaluations

The f o llowing section o u tlin es the r ecomm ended process f o r com p leting land use p l a n evaluations.

a. State offices, with inp u t from the fiel d, identify reasons for evaluating the RMP.

b. W h ere appropriate, state and field offices identify la nd use plans that can be grouped/batched in a geographic region or planning area to look at issues th at cut across boundaries (state and field offices). E ach plan should have its own evaluation docum entation as well as a com b ined (grouped/batched) evaluation for all RMPs identified in the geograp hi cal region or planning area.

c. State and field offices identify what the evaluation is to m easure. In so m e cases, the RMP/ROD m a y have identifie d both m onitoring and eval uation m easures, units, and
program s, and m a y even have specified th e m onitoring/evaluation questions to be answered.

The state office m a y develop and send questionnai res to field offices (specific to th e state and field offices) to focus the evaluation, al ong w ith instructions for com p l e ting it. Evaluations must be tailore d to individual land use plan s; however, a com p rehensive evaluation must address the following questions:

1. Are m a nagem e nt actions outlin ed in the p l an being im plem ented?

2. Does the plan establish desired ou tcom es (i.e., goals and objectives)? 3. Are the a lloca tions, c onstra i nts, o r m itigation m easures ef fectiv e in ach ieving (or m a king progress towards achieving) the desired outcom es? This

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 35

determ ination is often made based on inform ation obtained from resource

assessm ents.

4. Have there been significant changes in the related plans of Indian Tribes, state or local governm ents, or other Federal agencies?

5. Are there new data or analyses that significantly affect th e planning decisions or the validity of the NEPA analysis ?

6. Are there unm e t needs or new opport unities that can best be m e t through a plan am endm ent or revision, or will current m a nagem e nt practices be suf f icient? For exam ple, are th ere o u tstand ing reque sts for ACEC designations to protect resource values? Note: ACECs must be designated through the land use planning process.

7. Are new inventories warranted purs uant to the BLM’s duty to m a intain inventories on a continuous basis (FLPMA, Section 201)?

8. Are there new legal or policy m a nd ates as a result of new statu t es, proclam a tions, Executive orders, or cour t orders not addressed in the plan?

d. The state and field office estab lis h/iden tif y an inte rdisc i plinary te am that will

com p lete the evaluation(s). If available, th e team should include specialists from state and field offices as well as adjo ining st ate(s), and representatives from Washington Office, and Tribes, other Fede ral agencies, state and local governm ents, and the public. The interdisciplinary team s hould represent the m a jor resour ces/program s present in the land use plan evaluation area and should be en co uraged to in corpor ate other (technical procedures) evaluations or analyses that a ddress and provide useful inform ation on the

sam e resources.

e. The evaluation team should review bot h published and unpublished docum e nts that im ple m ent or support the RMP decisions a nd NEPA analysis (e.g., AMS, area-wide

m i neral repo rts, socio-econom i c stud ies/an alys es, reasonab l y foreseeable developm ent scenarios, ACEC reports, docum ents inco rporated by reference/adoption, and other studies [wild and scenic river, threatened and endangered sp ecies, water, etc.]). The evaluation reports should also cite exam pl es of i m plem entation plans (at the activity level) that incorporate new infor m ation, a ddress new issues, and provide either m o re detailed decisions or additional protective m a nagem e nt direction. These m a y include for m al decision-m a king docum ents as well as watershed-level analyses and other landscape units or plans.

f. The evaluation team should review NE PA compliance and procedural confor m a nce records within the land us e plan evaluation (e.g., docum entation of land use plan confor m a nce and NEPA adequacy, which typi cally relies o n the RMP and associated NEPA docum ents [categorical exclusions]).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 536 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
g. The State Director should approv e or concur with all evaluations.

2. Evaluation report

An evaluation report docum e nting the findings of the evaluation m u st be prepared. Following State Director approva l or concur ren ce, the re por t will b e m a de available to the pub lic . The following report form at is recomm ended. If appr opriate, use charts, diag ram s , and m a trixes to display or summarize inform ation.

a. Introduction

b. Purpose

c. Method and Scope

d. Results and Findings

1. Docum e nt conclusions regarding achie vem e nt of desired outcom e s as well as any individual program or resource m a na gem e nt issues asso ciated with p l an im plem entation

2. Identify decisions to be carried fo rward (i.e., no change needed), decisions needing to be m odified, decisions ne eding to be dropped, and new decisions needed

e. Recommendations, including any resource - or program -specific m a nagem e nt actions needed and other follow

- up opportunities fo r the BLM field and state offices or interagency consideration

f. Approval/Concurrence

Also see Section VI for more information on determ ining when new decisions are required.

C. Adaptive Management

The Office of Environm e n tal Policy and Com p lia nce (OEPC) issued ESM03-6 providing initial guidance to all Department of the Interior agencies on im plem enting adaptive m a nagem e nt practices in NEPA compliance. W h i l e this guidance does not pr ovide specifics on the process and procedu r es for integ r ating adaptive m a na ge ment into the NEPA and l a nd use planning process, it does form ally define adaptive m a nagem e nt as:

. . . a sy st em of m a nagem e nt p r act i ces base d on cl earl y i d e n t i f i e d o u t c om es, m oni t o ri n g t o det e rm i n e i f

man a g e m e n t actio n s are m eet in g ou tco m es, an d, if no t, faci litatin g m a n a g e m e n t ch an g e s th at will best

ens u re t h at out c om es are m e t or to re-e valuat e the outc o m e s

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 37

The BLM has initiated an effort to develop pol icies and procedures to integrate adaptive

m a nage m e nt into the NEPA and land use plan ning processes. W h en those policies and procedures are developed, they will be in corporated into this section of the Handbook.

VI. Determining if New Decisions are Required

A. Specific Regulatory Requirements for Consid ering New Information or Circumstances

New infor m ation, updated analyses, or new reso urce use or protection proposals m a y require

am ending or revising land use plans and updatin g im ple m entation decisions. The prim ary requirem e nts for considering new inform ation are as follows:

1. The BLM planning regulati ons require evaluating whethe r there is new data of significance to the land use plan (see 43 CF R 1610.4-9) and w h ether plan am endm ents (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) or revisions (see 43 CFR 1610.5-6) are required;

2. the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) require the BLM to prepare supplem ents to draft or final EISs if the agency m a kes subs tantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environm ental concerns, or if there are significan t new circum stances o r inform ation relevant to environm ental concer ns and bearing on the proposed action or its im pacts; and

3. joint agency Endangered Species Act regulations (see 50 CFR 402.16 (b)) require consultation to be reinitiated if new infor m a tion reveals that decisions m a y affect listed species o r critical hab i tat in a way or to an extent not previously considered, including exceeding th e incid e ntal take for a particular actio n.

B. Considering New Proposals, Circumstances, or Information

New data or inform ation can include, but is not lim ited to:

1. Changes in status, new listings or new critical habitat designations for endangered, threatened, and other special status or sens itive sp ecies (see A ppendi x C, Section (I)(G));

2. changes in intensity of use or im pact leve ls for a particular resource (e.g., increased recreation use as a result of urban expansion);

3. changes in social and econom ic conditions res u lting from urban expan s ion or bro a d conservation efforts (e.g., open space m a nagem e nt);

4. public comment or staff assessm e n ts i ndicating that new infor m ation or changed circum stances warrant a reconsideration of the appropriate m i x of uses on particular
trac ts of public lands;

5. a biological opinion issued by the US FWS or NOAA-Fisheries on actions in the planning area;

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 538 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

6. inform ation from Tribes, elected county o fficials, state agencies, or other Federal agencie s on signif i can t c h anges in th eir r e la ted plans or re sou r ce cond itio ns that are critical to the BLM land use plans and/or subordinate im plementation plans;

7. new state listings of wate r-qu a lity-lim ited str eam s (Clean W a ter Act, Section 303 ( d )), total m a xi mum daily load (TMDL) developm ents, or non-attainm e nt area designations (Clean Air Act) tha t m a y lead to the iden tification of new m a nage m e nt practices that would require additional NEPA complianc e and could require new land use plan decisions;

8. new geochem i cal, geologic, or geophysical data;

9. new cultural resource data;

10 environm ental disturban ces that significantly change natural conditions (e.g., wildfires, floods, or noxious weed infestations);

11. m onitoring data and resource assessm ents associated with im ple m enting resource

m a nage m e nt actions designed to achieve reso urce objectives and Land Health Standards;

12. Land use plan evaluations that w e igh a nd interpret inform ation gathered through

resource m o nitoring;

13. determ inations as to whether m itigation m easures outlined in the p l an are effectiv e;

14. new national policy or a change in lega l duties resulting from laws, regulations, Executive orders, or the BLM directives . An example would be congressional designation of a river segm ent under the W ild and Scenic Rivers Act that m a ndates a protection and enhancem ent standard that, in turn, m a y affe ct resource m a nage m e nt objectives, conditions, or uses (e.g., livestoc k grazing, tim ber sales, or other proposed projec ts) ou tlined in the land use plan; and

15. inform a tion from the public or others re garding conditions or uses of resources on public lands.

C. Deciding Whether Changes in Decision s or the Supporting NEPA Analyses are Warranted

The determ ination whether to am end or revise an RMP based on new proposals, circum stances, or inform ation depends on (1) the nature of new proposals, (2) the significance of the new inform ation or circum stances, (3) specific word ing of the existing land use plan decisions, including any provisions for flexib ility, and (4) th e leve l and d e ta il of the NEPA analysis. A “yes” answer to any of the following questions suggests the need to re visit existing decisions and/or the NEPA analysis:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 39

1. Does the new infor m ation or circum stan ce provide for interpretations not known or considered at the tim e existing d ecisions we re m a de that could significan tly affect ongoing actions? For exam ple: Current land use plan decisions m a y require that all wildland fires be suppressed to lim it the fire to the sm allest acreage possible and m a ke no provision for wildland fire use. This conflicts with new Secretarial policy guidance that wildland f i r e , as a c r itic al natu ral p r ocess, m u st be reintroduced into fire-dependent ecosystem s;

2. Are the decisions in the current land us e plan no longer valid, based on significant new infor m ation or chan ged circum stances ? If decisions are not vali d, the decisions need to be vacated, replaced, or changed through plan am endm ent or revision. Exam ples of situations that m a y require new or changed land use plan decisions include, but are not lim ited to, the f o llowing :

a. Monitoring inform ation m a y show the need to discontinue m a naging a herd in an exis ting h e rd m a nagem e nt area because it is n o t practical to preserv e o r

m a intain a thriving ecological b a lan ce with th e multiple u s e rela tionsh i p s in tha t area; conversely, new herd m a nage ment areas could be established if an analysis of m onitoring data show s that a viable herd could be established and m eet the requirem e nts for m a intaining a thriving ecological balance;

b. the inability to achieve Land Health Standards under any level or m a nagem e nt of livestock use m a y affect the d ecis i on identifying that allotm ent as being available for lives tock us e;

c. consultations resulting in new requ irem ents or action s tha t are not in confor m a nce with the existing land use plan to p r otec t th reat ened or endangered species or critical habitats m a y require new land use plan decisions, including new or supplem ental NEPA analysis;

d. new requirem e nts or actions that a ffect land u s e allocation s or are a wid e constraints or restrictions established at the land use plan level would require

am endm ent of land use plan decisions;

e. current scientific knowledge, as re f l ected in s c ientif ic lite ratur e , could highlight a need to change plan decisions; and

f. public comment or a staff assessm e nt supporting a different m i x of uses on the lands th at will be tte r pro m ote the lon g -term health and sustainability of the lands and their res ources cou l d require an am endment.

3. Are im plem entation decisions no longer valid, based on new infor m ation or changed circum stances ? Site-specific resource-use levels or m a nage ment actions norm ally do not require a lan d use plan am endment if the la nd use plan decisions pr ovide broad direction for these uses and action s ; however, they m a y require appropriate NEPA analysis. For

exam ple:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 540 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
a. The level of livestock use perm itted in an a llo tm ent m a y no rm ally be modified based on allotm ent-specific resource a ssessm ent, condition, and trend-m onitoring data.

b. Resource use leve ls o r m a nagem e nt prac tic es, such as per m itted lives tock use
or pre-comm ercial forest thinning, m a y nor m a lly be m odifie d or elim inated on a site-specific or project-leve l bas i s to satisf y th e n e eds of threatened or endangered species o r th eir c r itica l h a bita t, as de tailed in biological opinions or approved recovery plans. Elim ination of livesto ck graz ing on an entire allo tm ent is a

m a nage m e nt decision that should be thoroughly analyzed through the plan

am endm ent process and not through a m a intenance action.

4. Are the effects of proposed or ongoing act ions substantially different from those projected in the existing NEPA analyses asso ciated with the existing RMP ? If “yes,” conduct a new or supplem ental NEPA analysis to the extent necessary to address the differences and docum e n t the findings. De term ine whether the new NEPA analysis should be conducted as part of a RMP plan am endm ent.

a. Consider direct and indirect effects and their s i gnificance.

b. Consider cum u lative effects and whethe r th e new infor m ation or circu m stances identify or produce in crem ental im pacts a dded to those resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable f u ture m a nagem e nt actions. Does the additional ef fect, in the context of the ongoing action, requ ire further m itig ation o r new RMP decisions?

For exam ple, upon receipt of a proposal to de velop an oil and gas field, the BLM would evaluate the proposal for confor m a nce with the R M P. If the proposal is consistent with the reasonab l y foreseeab le development analyzed in the RMP / EIS and the proposal is consistent w ith the RMP decisions, changes to th e RMP/EIS are prob ably not necessary. In this ins t a n ce, the BL M would work with the lease holders to obt ain appropriate sitespecific inform ation, then prepar e an activity-lev el EA or EIS to approve som e or all of the wells in the f i eld and set th e stag e f o r subseq uent applica tion f o r per m it to drill approvals.

If the proposal exceeds the reason ably foreseeable developm ent analy zed in the current RMP/EIS, a new reasonably foreseeable de velop m ent scenario and NEPA analys is supplem enting the RMP/EIS would be wa rranted. If the proposal exceeds and is substantially different from the reason ably foreseeable develop m ent analyzed in the RMP/EIS, and the new NEPA analysis could reasonabl y be expected to result in changes to RMP decisions, a plan am endm ent m a y also be warranted. When it is not certain whether th e projec t prop osal and r e s u lting NE P A analysis will r e sult in the need to

am end the RMP, conside r able tim e and cost sav i ngs will be a c hieved by b e ginning the process as a plan am endm ent (issuin g a NOI). If it is la ter de term ined tha t a plan

am endm ent is not warranted, the amendm en t m a y be cancelled and the supplem ental NEPA analysis continued.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 41

The supplem ental EIS/RMP a m endm ent could also address site-specific review for som e or all of the proposed wells and related facilities so that decisions on the field developm ent could be m a de sequentially with the decisions regarding the proposed RMP

am endm ent. W h ere site-specific de velopm ent proposals are known, such a planning/NEPA effort would prom ote efficien t N E PA analysis and result in both planlevel and implem entation-level decisions in the sam e docum e n t, thus reducing the need f

o r addition a l NEPA analysis.

5. In light of new infor m ation or circum st ances , are th ere n o w inconsistencies b e tw een the ongoing action and the resource-related pl ans of Indian Tribes, state and local
governm e nts, or other Federal agencies that re nder earlier consistency findings invalid? Changes in land use plan decisions through am endm ent or revision m u st be accom panied by new consistency determ inations.

Further NEPA analysis m a y be conducted to help determ ine whether decisions are still valid. It is possib l e to conduct ad dition a l NEPA analysis a nd reach a conclus i on that no chang e is need ed in decisions, but the decisions cannot be changed without additional NEPA analysis.

D. Documenting the Deter m inatio n to Modify , or Not to Modify, Decisions or N E PA Analysis

It is im portant to docum ent decisions to m odi fy or not m odify the land use plan or NE PA analys is when these d e cisions are reached as part of the formal land use plan evaluation process (Section V). In reviewing new inform ation or circ um stances that are con t r oversial or of interest to the pub lic , it is also important to provide all interested part ies with written documentation of the BLM’s d e term ination

. In response to an outside application or intern al proposal, a decision not to change land use decisions will be docum ented in the case file and/or in the response to the applicant. C a se file docum entation of decisions to not am end must be signed and dated by the Field Manager and State Director. If the decision not to am end the plan was m a de through a NEPA analysis, then that decision can be docum ented in the Plan Conf orm a nce section of the N E PA document. If the decision is to change decisions or re visit the NE PA analysis, the rationale to m odify, revise, or further evaluate decisions or NEPA analysis m a y be docum e n ted in a N O I prepared during scoping ac tivities or in the planning or NE PA docum e nt. Also see Sectio n VII(B).

E. Evaluating Ne w Proposals

New proposals can stem from specific BLM im pl em entation actions, such as a proposal to prepare a livestock grazing allo tm ent m a nagem e nt plan, or fr om non-BLM

- initiated proposals, such as a rights-of-way request for a new powerline. A new proposal should provide enough detail to allow the B L M to determ ine whether it confor m s to existing land use plan decisions an d to f acilita te screen ing f o r adequa te NEPA

com p liance (See Figure 3). The NEPA Handbook (H -1790-1) describes the screening process in more detail.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 542 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

F. Plan Conformance

The term “plan conform a nce,” as defined in the B L M planning regulations, m eans either that the plan spec if ic ally identif i e s a re source m a nage m e nt action or (if not ) the action is consistent with the term s, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan (43 CFR 1601.0-5(b)). Key considerations in m a king and docum enting confor m a nce determ inations include the following:

1. Do land use plan decisions allow, c onditionally allow, or preclude the action?

2. Do land use plan decisions call for a new decision to accommodate the action?

3. If the plan does not specifically m e nti on the action, how clearl y consistent is the action with plan objectives, te rm s, conditions, and decisions?

G. Plan Conformance and Ongoing NEPA Ac tivities

After the RMP is approved, any authorizations and m a nage m e nt actions approved based on an activ ity -lev el or pro j ect-s p ecific EIS (or EA) m u st be specifically provided for in the R M P or be consistent w ith the term s , conditions, and deci sions in the approved RMP. A land use plan

am endm ent m a y be necessary to con s ider m on itoring and evaluation findings, substantive new data, new or revised policy, changes in circum st ances or a proposed action that m a y result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the term s, conditions, and decisions of the approved RMP. If the BLM determ ines that a pl an am endm ent m a y be necess a ry, preparation of the EIS (or EA) and the analys is necessary fo r the am endm ent m a y occur sim u ltaneously (43 CFR 1610.5).

In those instances when activ ity -lev el or pro j ect- s p ecific EISs (or EAs) ar e being used to analyze an action that m a y not confor m to the current land use plan, the BLM has se vera l optio ns: adjus t the actions or condition the author ization to conform to the plan or achieve consistency with the
term s, conditions, and decisions in the approve d RMP; or prepare the EIS (or EA) as a RMP

am endm ent, as described in Section VII.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 43

Key for Evaluating New Proposals

Th is key po ses th e six critica l screen ing qu estio n s (1 th rou g h 6 b e lo w) fo r a n y propo sa l or action (see BLM NEPA Handbook [H- 1790-1 ] f o r additional det a il)

.

1. If t h e pr o posal or act i o n co nf o r m s to ex istin g lan d use p l an s, go to 2

. 1. If t h e pr o posal or act i o n d o es not , go to 1 a .

1a

. If p r o p o sal o r a c tion war r ants fu rthe r c onsi d e r ation

, then amend pl an 1 or modi fy
prop os al t o c o nfo rm. 1a

. If p r o p o sal o r a c t i on doe s not , then den y acti on.

2. I f pr opo s a l or ac tio n is an ex ce p tio n fro m BLM/NEPA requ irem en ts, the n n o addi ti on al NE PA an al ysi s i s necessar y . 2. If n o t, then g o to 3

.

3. I f pr opo sal or actio n n o r m all y r e qu ir es an EIS, go t o 3 a . 3. If n o t, go t o 4.

3a

. If im pacts are expecte d t o be significa nt, go t o 8. 3a

. If n o t, go t o 7.

4. If propo sal or categ o ry of acti o n is listed as a Categ o rical Ex clu s i o n, go t o 4 a . 4. If n o t, go t o 5.

4a

. If a n y of t h e 1 0 e x cept i o ns a ppl y , go t o 7. 4a

. If n one ap pl y , then the pr op osal or ac ti on i s Ca te gori c al l y E x cl uded

.

5. If ex isting an alysis an d do cumen t atio n is sufficien t, t h en D o cu m e n t N E P A Adeq uac y . 5. If i n su fficien t , then g o to 6

.

6. If e n vironm ental im pacts are expect e d t o be si gni fi ca nt , go t o 8. 6. If i n sign ifican t, go to 7

.

7. Co m p lete EA; if no si g n i ficant i m p acts are iden tified

, the n i ssue F O NS I. 7. Co m p lete EA; if sign ifican t i m p acts are id en tified

, go t o 8.

8. Prop os al or a c ti on requi res an E I S.

1 This m a y also be acco m p lished through a new pl an, plan revision, or pla nning analy s is.

Fi gure 3— Key for ev aluatin g new pr oposals (an overview)

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 544 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

H. Determining When to Update Land Use Plan Decisions Through Maintenance Actions

The BLM regulation in 43 CFR 1610.5-4 provides that land use plan decisions and supporting

com ponents can be m a intained to reflect m i nor changes in data. Maintenance is lim ited to further refining, docum e n ting, or cl arifying a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. Maintenance m u st not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the
term s, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.

Plan m a intenance is not considered a plan am endm ent and does not require for m al public involvem e nt, interagency coordination, or the N E PA analysis required for m a king new land use plan decisions. Maintenance actions m u st be docum ented in the plan or supporting components (i.e., record ed so that the cha nge and Field Manager concurrence are evident). Exam ples of

m a intenance action s inc l ude:

1. Correcting m i nor data, typographical, m a pping, or tabular data errors in the planning records after a plan or p l an am endm ent has been com p leted;

2. refining the boundary of an archaeologica l district based on new inventory data;

3. applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area p r ior to the lease sa le based on new inventory data (e.g., apply an ex isting protective stipulation for sage-grouse to a newly discovered sage-grouse lek);

4. refining the known habitat of a special stat us species addressed in the plan based on new infor m ation;

5. m odifying or waiving the lease stipulati on language in the RMP consistent with the criteria outlined in the land use plan; and

6. refining or adjusting the boundary of a fire managem e nt unit (FMU) or other equivalent fire-related polygon through inte ragency coordination based on updated fire regim e condition class inventory, fire occurr ence, m onitoring data, and/or dem ographic changes.

Plan m a intenance m u st occur con tinuously so that the RMP and its supporting reco rds reflect the current status of decision im ple m entati on and knowledge of resource conditions.

VII. Amending and Revising Decisions

A. Changi ng Land Us e Plan Decisions

Land use plan decisions are chan ged through either a plan amendm ent or a plan revision. The process for conducting plan am endm e n ts is basica lly the sam e as the land use planning process used in creating RMPs. The prim ary difference is that circu m stances may allow for com p leting a plan am endm ent through the EA process, rather than through the EIS or supplem ental EIS process. The process for preparing plan revisions is the sam e as for preparing new RMPs, and an

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 45

EIS is always required. Refer to Section III for an overview of the EIS-level and EA-level planning processes.

B. Determining When it is Necessary to Amen d Plans and How it is Accomplished

Plan am endm ents (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or m o re of the term s, conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions m a y include t hose relating to desired
outcom e s; m easures to achieve desired outcom e s, including resource rest rictions; or land tenure decis i ons. Plan am endments are m o s t often prompted by the need to:

1. Consider a proposal or action th at does not confor m to the plan;

2. im ple m e n t new or revised policy that ch anges land use plan decisions, such as an approved conservation agreem ent be tween the B L M and the USFWS;

3. respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on public land; and

4. consider significant new infor m ation fr om res ource assessm e nts, m oni toring, or scien tif ic s t u d ies th at cha nge land use plan decisions.

The BLM regulations in 43 CFR 1600 and the NEPA process detailed in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1500 guide preparation of plan am endm e n ts . The pro cess is ta ilor e d to the anticipa ted level of public interest and potential f o r significant im pacts. In sim p le, routine cases, it is possible to c o m p lete the am endm ent process in le ss than 6 m o nths. See Se ction III for procedures for preparing la nd use plan decisions.

Plans needing am endm e n t m a y be grouped geographi cally or by type of decision in the sam e

am endm ent process. Sim ilarly, one am endm ent process m a y am end the sam e or related decisions in more than one land use plan. The am endment process m a y also be used to update plans adopted from another agency.

In reaching a decision to am end a land use plan, the BLM m u st not only consider the resource, but also other workload prioriti es, budgetary constraints, and st aff capabilities. In situations where available budgets allow and s t aff capabilities ar e res t ricted, cons ider contracting for all or portions of the plan am endm ent’s NEPA analysis, including baseline data acquisition. If the

m a nager decides not to am end, then nonconfor ming actions cannot be taken. Any proposal requiring an activ ity -lev el or pro j ect-s p ecific a nd programm a tic EIS that could result in new or modified RMP decisions, or the need to am e nd the current R M P prior to im ple m entation, should be prepared as a RMP am endment whenever feasible.

Activity-lev e l or pro j ect-specific EISs that add r ess significant new inform ation or circum stances not considered in the E I S for the current land use plan should be prepared as supplem ents to the EIS for the RMP whenever feasib le. In m o st cas es, if a supplem ent to the RMP/EIS is necessary, the BLM should also consider whether or not a sim u ltaneous plan am endm ent is necessary.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 546 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Where a proposal is not in confor m a nce with the land use plan, the Field Manager m a y deny the proposal without further review . The decision to deny is subject to appeal to IBLA.

An applicant m a y request that BLM am end th e land use plan to allow an otherwise nonconfor m i ng proposal. If the Field Manager determ ines that the request is warranted, a plan

am endm ent is initiated. If not warranted, the F i eld Manager subm its to the State Director a

recomm endation to deny, along with appropriate supporting docum en tation. Denial of a request
to am end the plan is a plan level decision m a de by the State Directo r and is protestable to the BLM director under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) ( Carrasco, 90 IBLA 39 (1985) )

.

The State Director m a y term inate an ongoing plan am endm e n t at any point if the Field Manager provides docum e ntation that the amendm ent is no l onger necessary or appropriate. T h is is also a protestable decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a).

In either case, whether an appealable or prot estable action is taken, the Field Manager should provide public notice of the action and the applicable protest or appeal procedures through news rele ase, lette r to m a iling list, o r other appropriate m eans. No Federal Register notice is required.

C. Determining When it is Necessary to Revise an RMP or Replace an MFP

RMP revisions (see 43 C F R 1610.5-6) involve prepar ation of a new RMP to replace an existing one. RMP revisions are necessary if monito ring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or changes in circum stances indicat e that decisions for an entire plan or a m a jor portion of the plan no longer serv e as a useful guide for resource m a nagem e nt. Plan revisions are prepared using the sam e procedures and docum entation as for new plans.

As funding and capability perm it, all MFPs will be replaced by RMPs. The priority f o r replacing MFPs will b e guided by the extent to which thos e plans f a il to m eet the s t a t utory requir e m e nts for land use planning in FLPMA (s ee Section II(A)), and the need to m o dify decisions to m e et

resource m a nagem e nt needs.

D. Changi ng Implementation Decisions

Im ple m entation decisions are cha nged through an interdisciplinar y NEPA process in conjunction with the BL M resource program -specific guidance.

Any NEPA analys is tha t will be us ed to approve on-the-g r ou nd action s in conf orm a nce with the current RMP should include the ap propriate level of site-speci fic inform ation to facilitate approval of as m a ny of the im pl e m e n tation actions as possible and reduce the need for additional NEPA analysis.

During an on-going RMP revision, it is possible to am end the current RMP to im ple m ent an action analy zed in an activity -lev el o r project- specific EA or EIS. The BLM m u st carefully consider the im plications of the inform ation and an alysis being prepared for either docum e nt. At

a m i ni m u m, the docum ents m u st be carefully coor dinated to ensure cons istent utilization of available inform ation and analysis.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 47

E. Status of Existing D ecisions During the Amendment or Revision Process

Existing lan d use plans decis i ons re m a in in e f f

e ct dur ing an am endm ent or revision u n til the

am endm ent or revision is com p leted and approve d. The decisions of existing land use plans do not change. For exam ple, if current land use pl ans have designated lands open for a particular use, they rem a in open for that use. Land us e plan decisions m a y be changed only through the

am endm ent or revision process.

During the am endment or revision process, the B L M should review all proposed im plem entation actions through the NEPA process to determ in e whether approval of a proposed action would harm resource values so as to lim it the choice of reasonable alternative act ions relative to the land use plan decisions being reexam ined. Eve n though the current land use plan m a y allow an action, the B L M m a nager has the discretion to de fer or m odify proposed implem e ntation-level actions and require appropriate c onditions of approval, stipulations , relocations, or redesigns to reduce the effect of the action on the values being considered through the am endment or revision process. The appropriate m odification to the pr oposed action is subject to valid existing rights and program -specific regulations. A decision to tem porarily defer an action could be m a de where a different land use or allocation is currentl y being considered in th e preferred alternative of a draft or proposed RMP revision or am endm ent. These decisions would be specific to individual projects or activi ties and must not lead to an area-wide m o ratorium on certain activ ities du ring th e planning process.

F. Coordinating Simultaneous Planning/NEP A Processes

When preparing an activity-level or projec t-sp ec if ic EIS (or EA ) during an on-going RMP revision (with its accom p anying EIS), there m a y be opportunities to consolidate som e

com ponents of the NEPA process, such as the cum u lative ef fects analysis, and public involvem e nt activ ities, s u ch as public m eetings and m a ilings, to reduce o v erall cos t s and sim p lify the overlapping processes for the public. Depending on the tim i ng of the two decisions (one for the activ ity -lev el or pro j ect-s p ecific EI S or EA and one for the on-going RMP revision), and the conf orm a nce of t h e m a nage ment actions to be approved in the E I S or EA, the BLM m a y chose to am end the RMP in order to im ple m ent the proposed actions being analyzed in the EIS or EA prior to com p leting the on-going RMP revision. In such cases, the BLM m u st consider the effect of am ending the RMP on the on-goi ng RMP revision process. Depending on the nature of the new land use plan decisions, the alte rnatives to be considered in the on-going RMP revisions process, such as the no action alternativ e, m a y nee d to be m odified. Any land use plan decision changed during the on-goin g RMP revision process could also have a “ripple” effect on

m a ny ele m e n ts of the analysis being prepared for the on-going RMP, such as the purpose and need, affected environm ent, and environm ental effects section.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Glossary - 1

Glossary o f Terms and Acronyms

Following are the acronym s and definitions fo r term s used in this Handbook. Also see definition s for term s used in Section 103 of FLPMA and the planning reg u lations at 4 3 CFR 1601.0-5. This gloss a ry does not sup e rsede thes e definition s o r those in other laws or regulations.

Terms

Activity p l a n ~ a type of im ple m entation plan (see Implementation plan ); an activity p l an usually d e sc ribes m u ltiple proje c ts an d applie s be st m a nagement pra c tices to m eet land use plan objectives. Exam ples of activ ity p l ans includ e in terd iscip lina r y m a nage ment plans, habitat

m a nage m e nt plans, recreation area m a nagem e nt plans, and allotm ent m a nagem e nt plans.

Alternativ e dispute res olution ~ any process used to prevent, m a nage, or resolve conflicts using procedures other than trad ition a l cour troo m litigation or form al agency adjud i cation.

Amendment ~ the process for considering or m a ki ng changes in the term s, conditions, and decisions of approved RMPs or MFPs. Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area.

Assessment ~ the act of evaluating and interpreting data and inform ation for a defined purpose.

Be ne f i c i al out c om e s ~ also referenced as “Recreati on Benefits”; im proved conditions,

m a intenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired experiences.

Best manag e ment prac tices (BMPs ) ~ a suite of techniques that guide, or m a y be applied to,

m a nage m e nt actions to aid in achieving desire d outcom es. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are no t considered a land use plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that th ey are m a ndatory. They m a y be updated or m odified without a plan am endm ent if they are not m a ndatory.

Broadscale data ~ broadscale data sets are intended to support state, m u lti-state, or regional inform ation needs. Such data could be used for bioregional assessm ents and conservation strategies, and typically em ploy a map scale of 1:250,000.

Categorical exclusion (CX) ~ a category of actions (identifie d in agency guidance) that do not individually or cum u latively ha ve a significant effect on th e h u m a n environm ent, and for which neither an environm ental assessm e nt nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4).

Closed ~ generally denotes that an area is not ava ilable for a particular use or uses; refer to specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for a pplication to individual
program s. For exam ple, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets fo rth the specific m eani ng of “closed” as it relates to off-highway vehicle us e, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and restriction orders.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Glossary - 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Collaboration ~ a cooperative process in which interest ed parties, often with widely varied interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support f o r m a naging public and other lands.

Collaborative partnerships ~ refers to people w o rking together, sharing knowledge and

resourc e s, to achieve d e s i red ou tcomes f o r public lands and c o mm unities within statu t ory and regulatory fram e works.

Community recrea tion-tourism ma rket ~ a co mmunity or communities dependent on public lands recreation and/or related t ourism use, growth, and/or devel opm ent. Major investm e nts in facilities an d visito r ass i stance are authorized wi thin SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to ta rget dem onstrated community recreation-tourism m a rket dem a nd. Here, recreation m a nagem e nt action s are g eared toward m eeting prim ary r ecreation-tourism m a rket demand for specific activity, experience, and bene fit opportunities. These opport unities are produced through

m a intenance of prescribed na tural resource and/or commun ity setting character and by structuring and im ple m e n ting m a nagem e nt, m a rk eting, m onitoring, and adm i nistrative actions accord ingly.

Conformance ~ m eans that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not specifically m e ntioned, shall be clearly consiste nt with the goals, objectives, or standards of the approved land use plan.

Conservation agreement ~ a for m al signed agreem ent betw een the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries and other p a rties that im plem ents specific action s , activities, or program s designed to elim inate or reduce threats to, or otherwise im prove the st atus of a species. Conservation agreem ents can be develope d at a s t ate, r e gional, o rn a tiona l le v e l and genera lly inc l ude multip le agen cies a t both the state and Federal lev e l, as well as Tribes . Depending on the types of comm it m e nts the BLM

m a kes in a conservation agreem ent and the lev e l of signatory authorit y, plan revisions or

am endm ents m a y be required prior to signing th e conservation agreem ent, or subsequently in order to im plem ent the conservation agreem ent.

Conservation strategy ~ a stra tegy outlin ing cu rrent activities or th rea t s that a r e con t ributing to the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategi es needed to reverse or elim inate such a decline or threats. Conservati on strategies are generally devel oped for species of plants and anim als that are des i gnated as BLM sensitive sp ecies or that have been determ ined by the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries to be F e deral candi dates under the Endangered Species Act.

Consistency ~ m eans that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved plans, program s , and policies of Tribes, other Fe deral agencies, and stat e and local governm e nts (to the extent practical w ith Fe deral law, regulation, and policy).

Cooperating agency ~ assis t s the lead Federal agency in developing an E A or EIS. The CEQ regulations implem e nting NEPA de fine a cooperati ng agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals c overed by NEPA ( 40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal, state, local governm e nt jurisdic tion with such qualifications m a y becom e a cooperating agency by agreem ent with th e lead agency.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Glossary - 3

Designated roads and trails ~ spe c if ic roads an d tra ils identif i ed by the BLM (or oth e r agencies) w h ere som e type of m o torized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally or year-long.

Desired outcomes ~ a type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective.

Destination recrea tion-tourism ma rket ~ national or regional re crea tion

- tour ism visitors and other constituents who value public lands as recr eation-tourism destinatio ns. Major investm e nts in f acilities and visitor a ssi stance are authorized within SR MAs where BLM’s strategy is to target dem o nstrated destination recreatio n-tourism m a rket dem a nd. Here, recreation

m a nagem e nt action s are geared toward m eeti ng prim ary recreation-tour ism m a rket dem a nd for specific activity, experience, and benefit oppor tunities. These opportunities are produced through m a intenance of prescrib ed natural resource setting ch aracter and by structuring and im ple m enting m a nagem e nt, m a rketing, m onitorin g, and adm i nistrative actions accordingly.

Director (BLM Directo r ) ~ the national Director of the BLM.

Documentation of Land Use Plan conformance and NEP A adequacy (DNA) ~ a worksheet for determ ining and docum enting that a new, site -specific proposed action both conform s to the existing lan d use plan(s) and is adeq uately anal yzed in existing NEPA docum e nts. The signed conclusion in the worksheet is an interim step in BLM’s inte r n al ana l ysis process and is not an appealable decision.

Environmental Justice ~ the fair treatm ent and m eaningful involvem e nt of all people regardless of race, colo r, national o r igin, o rincom e with respect to the developm ent, im ple m entation, and enforcem ent of environm ental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatm ent m eans that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or so cio-econom ic group should be ar a disproportionate share of the negative environm ental consequen ces resulting from industrial, m unicipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal program s and policies (see Executive Order 12898).

Evaluation (plan evalu a tion) ~ the process of reviewing the la nd use plan and the periodic plan monitoring reports to determ ine whether the land us e plan decisions and N E PA analysis are still valid and w h ether the plan is being implem e nted.

Explicit recreation ma nagement o b jectiv e ~ s p ecifically targeted recreation activity, experience, and benefit opportuni ties (i.e., recreation opportunity outputs) and their attainm e nt (i.e., recreation outcom e s).

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA) ~ a public lands unit identified in land use plans con t aining all acreage not id en tified as a SRMA. Recreation m a nagem e nt actions within an ERMA are lim ited to only those of a custodial nature.

Fine-sca le d a ta ~ fine-scale data sets s upport local inform ation needs and represent the highest them atic detail and spatial accu racy. Data at this scale are intended for pr oject-specific planning, monitoring, and evaluation, and would be typi cally represented at the 1:24,000 m a p scale.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Glossary - 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK
Geographic informa t io n system ~ a system of com puter hardware, software, data, people and application s that capture, store, ed it, analyze, and graphically display a potentially wide array of geospatial infor m ation.

Goal ~ a broad statem e n t of a desired outcom e ; usually not quantifiable and m a y not have established tim e fra m es for achievement.

Guidelines ~ actions or m a nage m e nt pract ices that m a y be used to achieve desired outcom e s,

som e ti m e s expressed as best m a nagem e nt practic es. Guidelines m a y be identif ied du ring the land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory. G u idelines for grazing adm i nistrati on must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2.

Implementation decis i ons ~ decisions that take action to im plem ent land use plan decisions; generally appealable to IBLA under 43 CFR 4.410.

Implementation plan

– an area o r site-specific p l an writte n to im ple m ent decisions made in a land use plan. Im ple m e n tation plans include both activity plans and project plans (they are types of i m ple m entation plans).

Indian Tribe (or Tribe) ~ any Indian group in the conterm i nous United States th at the Secretary of the Interior recognizes as possessing Tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal Register ).

Land use allocation ~ the identification in a lan d use plan o f the activ ities and fores eeable developm ent that are allowed, rest ricted, or excluded for all or pa rt of the planning area, based on desired f u ture conditions.

Land Use P l an ~ a set o f decisions that es tablish m a nagem e nt direction for land within an adm i nistrative area, as p r escribed un der the p l anning provisions of FLPMA; an assim ilation of land-use-plan-level decisions developed thr ough the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regard less o f the scale at which the d ecis i ons were developed. The term includes both RMPs and MFPs.

Land Use P l an bounda ry ~ a BLM land use plan boundary is de fined as the geographic extent of a RMP or MFP.

Land Use Plan decision ~ establishes desired outcom e s and actions needed to achieve them

. Decisions are reach ed using the p l an ning proce ss in 43 CFR 1600. W h e n they are presented to the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealab le to IBLA.

Limited ~ generally den o tes th at an area o r road s and trails are availab l e for a particu l ar use o r uses. Refer to specific program definitions f ound in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual program s. For exam ple, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific m eaning of

“lim ited” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Glossary - 5

Management decision ~ a decision m a de by the BLM to m a nage public lands. Managem e nt decisions include both land use plan d ecisions and im ple m e n tation decisions.

Midscale data ~ m i dsc a le data sets support inform ation needs at scales between the local and state/regional. Such a level is usually represen ted at the 1:100,000 scale. Typical usage includes land use planning, rangeland m onitoring, and assessm ent.

Monitoring (plan monitoring) ~ the process of tracking the im ple m entation of land use plan decisions and collecting and assess ing data/inform a tion necessary to evaluate th e effectiven ess of land use planning decisions.

Multijurisdictional planning ~ collaborative planning in w h ic h the purpose is to address land use plann i ng issues for an area, su ch as an en tire watershed or other landscape unit, in which there is a m i x of public and/or private land ownerships and adjoin ing or overlapping Tribal, state, local governm ent, or other Federal agency authorities.

Objective

~ a description of a desired outcom e for a re source. Objectives can be quantified and

m easured and, where possible, have es tablished tim e fra m es for achievem e nt.

Off-highw a y vehicle (off-road vehicle) ~ any m o torized veh i cle capab le of, or designed for, travel on or imm e diately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any

nonam phibious registered m o torboat; (2) any m i litary, fire, em ergency, or law enforcem ent vehicle while being used for e m ergency purpos es; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized b y the autho r ized officer , or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any com b at or com b at support vehi cle when used for national defense.

Open ~ generally denotes that an area is available fo r a particular use or uses. Refer to specific
program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for appl ication to individual
program s. For exam ple, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific m eaning of “open” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use.

Planning analysis ~ a process using appropriate resource data and NEPA analysis to provide a basis for decisions in areas not yet covered by an RMP.

Planning criteria ~ the standards, rules, and othe r factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary team s for their use in for m i ng judgm e nts about decision m a king, analysis, and data collection during planning. Planning cr iteria stream line and si m p lify the resource

m a nage m e nt planning actions.

Project p l an ~ a type of im ple m entation plan (see Implementation plan ). A project plan typically addresses individual proj ects or several related projects. Exam ples of project plans include p r es cribed bu rn plans, trai l plans, and recreation site plans.

Public land ~ land or interest in land owned by th e United States and ad m i nistered b y the Secretary of the Interior thr ough the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Glossary - 6 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK
ownership, except lands located on the Outer Contin ental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskim o s.

Recreation experiences ~ psychological outcom es reali zed eithe rby re crea tion- tou r ism participan ts as a dir ect re sult of the i r onsite leisure engagem e nts and recreation-tourism activity participation or by non-participati ng community residents as a resu lt of their in teraction with visitors and guests within their community and/or interactio n with the B L M and other public and priva t e re cre a tion

- tour is m pr oviders and their actions.

Recreation manageme nt z o nes (RMZ ) ~ subunits with in a SRMA m a naged for distinctly different recreation products. Recreation products are com p rised of recreation opportunities, the natural resource and comm unity settings with in which they occur, and the adm i nistrative and servic e environm ent created by a ll a f f

ecting recr eation

- tou r is m providers, within whic h recreation p a rticipation occurs.

Recreation niche ~ the place o r position with in the stra teg i cally targeted recreation

- to urism

m a rket for each SRMA that is m o st suitab l e (i.e ., capable of p r oducing ce rtain sp ecific kinds of recreation opportunitie s) and appropriate (i.e., m o st responsi ve to identified vi sitor or resident
custom ers), given available suppl y and current dem a nd, for the produc tion of specific recreation opportunities and the sustainab l e m a intenance of accom p anying natural resource and / o r community setting cha r a c ter.

Recreation opportunities ~ favorable circum stances enab lin g visitors’ engagem e nt in a leisure activity to realize imm e diate psychological experiences and attain m o re lasting, value-added beneficial outcom es.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) ~ one of the existing tools for classifying recreation environm ents (exis ting and desired ) along a co n t inuum ranging from prim itive, low-use, and inconspicuous adm i nistration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. This continuum recognizes variation am ong vari ous com pone nts of any landscape’s physical, social and adm i nistrative attrib utes; and resulting de scriptions (of existing conditions) and prescriptions (of desired future conditions ) define recreation setting character.

Recreation setting ch aracter conditions ~ the distinguishing recr eational qualities of any landscap e, o b jectively d e f i ned along a continuu m ranging f r om prim itive to urban la ndscapes, expressed in term s of the nature of the com ponent parts of its physical, social and administrative attributes. T h ese recreational qualities can be both classified and m a pped. This classif i cation and m a pping process should be base d on varia tio n that e ithe r exists (i.e., setting descriptions) or is desired (i.e., setting prescriptions) am ong com ponent parts of the vari ous physical, social, and adm i nistrative attribu t es of any landscape. Th e recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the existing tools for doing this.

Recreation settings ~ th e collective, distingu ishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and

som e ti m e s actually determ ine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Glossary - 7

Recreation -tourism ma rket ~ rec r e a tion

- tour is m visitors

, affected community res i d e nts, affecting local governm e nts and private sector businesses, or other constituents and the communitie s or othe r places where these custom er s origina t e (loca l , reg i o n al, national, or international). Based on analysis of supply and dem a nd, land use plans strategically identify prim ary recreation

- tou r ism m a rkets for each SRMA—destin ation, community, or un developed.

Resource advisory cou n cil (RAC) ~ a council established by the S ecretary of the Interior to provide advice or recomm endations to BLM m a nage m e nt. In som e states, provincial advisory councils (P ACs) are functional equivalents of RACs.

Resource use level ~ th e leve l of use allowed within an area, based on the desired outcom e s and land use a llo cation s in th e land use plan. Targets or goals for res ource use levels are established on an area-wide or broad watershe d level in the land use plan. S ite-sp ecif i c resou r ce u s e levels

are norm a lly determ ined at the im plem entation le vel, based on site-specific resource conditions and needs as determ ined through resource m onitoring and assessm ents.

Revision ~ the process o f com p letely rewriting th e land use plan due to changes in the planning area affecting m a jor portions of the p l an or the en tire plan.

Scale ~ refers to the geographic area and data resolution under exam ination in an assessm e nt or planning effort.

Setting cha r acter ~ the condition of any recreation sy stem , objectively defined along a continuum ranging from prim itive to urban in te rm s of variation of its co mponent physical, social, and adm i nistra tiv e attribu t es.

Social scien c e ~ the study of society and of individual re lation ships in and to society, generally includ ing on e or m o re of the acad em i c disciplin es of sociolog y, econom ics, political science, geography, history, anthr opology, and psychology.

Special recreation man agement area (SRMA) ~ a public la nds unit ide n tif ied in lan d use plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill comm it m e nts m a de to provide specific, structured recreation opportunitie s (i.e., activity, experience, a nd benefit opportunities). Both land use plan decisions and subsequent im plem e n ting action s for recreation in each S R MA are geared to a strategically identified prim ar y m a rket—destination, co mmunity, or undeveloped.

Special sta t us species ~ includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act; state- lis t ed species ; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive species (see BLM Manual 6840, Spec ial S t atus S p ecies Policy).

Standard ~ a descriptio n of the physical and bio l ogica l cond itions o rdeg r ee of function required for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., L a nd Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired
outcom e (goal).

State implementation plan (SIP) ~ a strategic docum ent, pr epared by a state (o r other authorized air quality regulato r y agency) and ap proved by th e EPA, that thoroughly d e scrib e s

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Glossary - 8 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK
how require m e nts of the Clean Air Act will be imp lem e nted (inc luding s t andards to be achiev e d, control m e a s ures to be applied, enforcem ent actions in case of violation, etc.).

Strategic plan (DOI strategic p l an) ~ a plan that establishes th e over a ll d i rec tion f o r all DOI Bureaus, including the BLM. This plan is guided by the requirem ents of the Governm e nt Perform a nce and Results Act of 1993, covers a 5-year period, and is updated every 3 years. It is consistent w ith FLPMA and other laws affecting the public lands.

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) ~ an estim a te of the total quan t ity of pollutants (f rom all sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that m a y be allowed in to waters without exceed ing applicable w a ter qu ality criteria.

Travel man agement areas ~ polygons or delineated areas wh ere a rational approach has been taken to classify areas open, closed, or lim ited, an d have identified and/or designated network of roads, trails, ways, and other ro utes that provide for public acce ss and travel across the planning area. All designated travel routes within tr avel m a nage m e nt areas should have a clearly identified need and purpose as well as clearl y def i ned activity types, m odes of travel, and seasons or tim e fram es for allowa ble access o rother lim itatio ns.

Tribe ~ see Indian Tribe.

Undeveloped recreatio n -touris m market ~ national, regional, and/ or local recreation-tourism visito rs, co mmunities, or other con s titu ents wh o value public land s for the distinctiv e kinds of dispersed recreation produced by the vast size an d largely open, undeveloped character of their recreation settings. Major invest m e nts in facilities are excluded within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target dem o nstrated undevel oped recreation-tourism market dem a nd. Here, recreation managem e nt actions are geared towa rd m eeting prim ary recreation-tou r ism m a rket dem a nd to sustain distinctive re creation setting characteristics; however, m a jor investm e nts in visito r services are auth orized bo th to sustain tho s e distinc tiv e setting characteristics and to

m a intain visitor freedom to choose w h ere to go a nd what to do—all in re sponse to demonstrated dem a nd for undeveloped recreation.

Visual reso u rce manag e ment class e s ~ catego r ies assign ed to public lands based on scenic quality, sens itiv ity leve l, and distance zones. The r e ar e f our c l asses. Ea ch class ha s an objective which prescribes the am ount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape.

Watershed approach – a fram ework to guide watershed m a nagem e nt that: (1) uses w a tershed

assessm ents to dete rm ine existing and ref e rence c onditions ; (2 ) incorpo r a t es asses s m e nt resu lts into resource m a nage m e nt planning; and (3) fo sters collaboration with all landowners in the watershed. The fram e w ork considers both ground and surface water flow within a hydrologically defined geographical area.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Glossary - 9

Acronyms

ACE C area of critical e nvironmental concern ADR alte rnative d i spute reso lu tion AML appropriate m a nage m e nt level AMS analysis of the m a nage ment situation APD applic ation f o r perm it to drill AUM anim al unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Managem e nt BMP best m a nagem e nt practice

CEQ Council on Environm ental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CX catego r ical exclusion

DM Departm e ntal Manual DNA docum entation of land use plan conf orm a nce and NEPA ade quacy DOI Departm e nt of the Interior DR decision record (for an EA)

EA environm ental assessm e n t EFH essential f i s h habita t EIS environm ental im pact statem ent EPA Environm ental Protection Agency EPS Econom ic Profile System EPSC Econom ic Profile System for Communities ERMA extensive recreation m a nagem e nt area ESA Endangered Species Act

FACA Federal Adv i sory Committee Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Managem e nt Act FLTF A Federal Lan d Transac tio n Facilita tio n Act FOIA Freedom of Inform ation Act FONSI finding of no significant im pact

GIS geographic infor m ation system GSA Governm e nt Services Agency

HA herd area HMA herd m a nagem e nt area

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals IDT inte rdisc i plinary te am

LAC lim its of acceptable chan ge

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Glossary - 10 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

MFP m a nage m e nt fra m ework plan MOA m e morandum of agree m ent MOU m e morandum of understanding

NEPA National En vironm ental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLCS National Landscape Conservation S y stem NMFS National Ma rine Fish er ie s Service NOA notice of av ailab i lity NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm i nistration NOI notice of intent

OEPC Office of Environm en tal Policy and Com p liance OEPR Office of Environm ental Policy Review OHV off-highway vehicle (also re fers to off-road vehicles) OMB Office of Managem e nt and Budget

PAC provincial advisory council PILT paym ents-in-lieu-of-taxes PSQ probable sale quantity

RAC resource advisory council RMP resource m a nagem e nt plan RM Z recreation managem e nt zone ROD record of decision (for an EIS) ROS recreation opportunity spectrum ROW right-of-way

SHPO State His t oric Preserv a tion Office SRMA special recreation m a nagem e nt area

T&E threatened and endangered TMDL tota l m a ximum daily loa d

U.S.C. United States Code USDA U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture USFWS U.S. Fish and W ildlif e Servic e

VRM visual resource m a nagem e nt

WO Washington Office

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Appendix A, page 1

Appendix A: Guide to Collaborative Planning

I. Principles

Collaboration im plies that Tribal, state, and local governm e nt s, other Federal agencies, and the public will be involved well before the planning process is officially initiated, rather than only at specific points stipulated by regulation and po licy. The first-hand experience of BLM Field Managers and staff has resulted in the following suggested gu idelines for collaboration.

A. Recognize Tribal, state, and local gover nments’ role in the planning process. FLPMA, Se ction 202(c)(9), as paraphrased, re quires m e aningful pa rticip ation by loc a l officials and consistency, to the extent prac ticable, with officially approved plans of Tribal, state, and local govern m e nts so long as the plans are consistent with Federal laws and regulations. Early involve m e nt will help ens u re that the BLM develo ps land use decisions that are supported by and confor m to other jurisd ictions in the area to the

m a xi m u m e x tent possible.

B. Be inclusive and explicitly acknow ledge the interests of distant groups, individuals, industry, corporations, and other agencies. An effective collabor ative process for public land planning assures that local, regional, a nd na tional in tere sts are in teg r a t ed. Distant interests are sought out and enc ouraged. Effective outreach is the best way to get beyond the barriers to successful pa rticipation

. Ensure m u ltip le option s for particip ation.

C. Clearly cite the authority of collaborativ e groups, including t hat of the BLM, and ensure accountability. Participants must understand th e roles of all parties in the planning effort. If the planning effort incl udes other participants with jurisdictional responsib ilities or decision-m a king authority, th e responsib ilities of each must be clearly identified. Decisions m a de by each jurisd icti on must be within their ow n authorities

. The BLM retains decision-m aking authority for all decisions on BLM lands. The BLM does not need to be the lead agency f o r agen cy personnel to participate in collaborative effort s.

D. Use collaboration to enhance and comp lement standard public involvement requirements. Individuals or groups that were unable or chose not to participate in a collaborative process are sti ll entitled to full input through legally required public review and comm e n t processes.

E. Recognize that co llab o rative processe s may n o t be effective everywhere. The BLM

m a nager retains th e auth ority to m a nage th e planning process and m a y choose to m o ve f

o rward with trad ition a l planning p r o cesses if collaborative ef f

o rts a r e in ef fectiv e or becom e una cceptab l y lengthy.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix A, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

II. Practices

A. Face-to-face or one-on-one communication prov ides the best means of building trust and good working relationships. Be sure to ask yourself and others questions such as the following:

1. W ho else should I talk to? W ho e l se should be involved? W h om do I need to approach to ensure th e b e st con t act s are m a de? How can the BLM assure sufficiently diverse participation to adequa te ly re f l ect loc a l, r e gional, and nationa l inte rests ?

2. W h at form al and inform al opportuniti es for comm unication could be used to relay the BLM’s m e ssage?

B. On a local level, postings on local bulle tin boards and face-t o-face communication may best serve community needs when pr esented in both English and local languages, depending on the unique characte ristics of each community. Consider the following questions:

1. How does this community receiv e and send infor m ation ? W ould the use of Internet technology, such as webs ites and e-m a il, be effective?

2. Are there community m eetings where inform ation and ideas are ex chan ged?

Although this approach m a y see m tim e consum i ng at first, it is eventually very effective in communicating efficiently with a large num ber of people, m o tivating people to im plem ent the agreed upon strategy, building trus t, and encouraging broad-base d participation. It m a y seem daunting in urban settings, but the sam e approach can be effective once the above questions are answered. This approach provides the BLM with a techniq u e to m o re effectively en gage the public in the decision-making process, which norm a lly leads to increased support for the decisions ultim a tely reached. This approach al so provides an early alert to em erging issues, giving a BL M m a nager more tim e and flexibility to resolve issues up front. As issues are resolved dynam i cally, conflict dim i nishes. These m e thods can be used in advance of, and are

com p le m e nt ary to, a standard comm unications pl an that defines what communications products are needed, who is responsible for producing them, and whe n specific products m u st be delivered.

BLM offices should m a intain m a ilin g lists of ind i viduals and organization s that reques t involvem e nt in specific activities or areas, su ch as rangeland developm ents or ACECs. NOIs and NOAs for planning/NEPA processes, along with other materials shou ld be provided as requested. Offices should also m a intain a listing of planned or ongoing planning/NEPA processes, make these lists available to the public, and encourage public participation throughout the decision-m aking process.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Appendix A, page 3

III. Benefits

Benefits of collaboration include the following:

A. Better decisions are made. Concerns are heard and addressed, inform a tion and technical knowledge are shared, m u tual goals an d action s to achieve thes e goals are agreed upon, and plans are easier to implem e nt as a result. Solutions tend to be m o re long-term and hold up to legal scrutiny. Thr ough collaboration with different landowners and jurisdictions, BLM can m o re effectivel y plan for the protection and use of the resources it adm i nisters.

B. Resources are lever aged more effectively. T h ere are a variety of cost-share
arrang em ents and grants available for collabo rative and partnership initiatives that can help im plement on-the-ground projects.

C. Relationships are improved. Collaboration encourages p e ople to con tinue to ta lk despite differences and changing circum stan ces, thus im proving the ability to resolve conflict and build trust among participants.

IV. Tools

It is highly recomm ende d that tr aining on collaborative skills be com p leted before undertaking initiatives to work with priva t e citize ns and gr oups. The BLM National Training Center offers a series of courses, “The P a rtnership S e ries,” which can be taught in BLM locations to m i xed public -priv a te audiences rathe r than at the Na tio nal Training Center. Visit their website at www.ntc.blm.gov/partner for m o re infor m ation.

Innovative partnerships a nd assistance agreem ents are very helpful to launching collaborative efforts. The BLM W a shingt on Office’s Planning, Assessm ent, and Community Support Group (WO-210) can provide more information.

The BLM and the Sonoran Institute have pr epared “A Desktop Reference Guide to Collabora tiv e, Comm unity-Based Pl anning” which is available at BLM state and field offices. This guide provides suggestions and ex am ples for collaborative planning.

Also see Executive Order 13352 (Facilita tion of Cooperative Conservation).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Appendix B, page 1

Appendix B: Federal A d visory Committee Act Considera tions

I. Purpose

The Federal Advisory Comm ittee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.A. App. 2 (86 Stat. 770, as am ended), was enacted on October 6, 1972, to reduce narrow special-interest group in fluence on decisionm a kers, to foster equ a l access to the decis i on-m a king process for the general public, and to
contro l costs by preventing the es tablishm ent of unnecessa ry a dvisory com m ittees. The FACA applies whenever a s t atu t e or an agency offici al estab lishes o r utilizes a comm ittee, b o ard,

comm ission or sim ilar group for the purpose of obtaining advice or recom m e ndations on issues or policies within the agency official’s responsibility.

The BLM’s m a nagers and staff m u st understand the provisions of FACA both when they are gathering public input for decisi on-m a king processes and when they are working in collaborative efforts, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, to ensure BLM’s collaborative efforts com p ly with FACA. In essence, any tim e a gr oup will b e consulted or will b e providing

recomm endations to a B L M official, the BLM s hould verify whether FACA applies and, if so, ensure th at the FACA requirem e nts are followed

. If the BLM f a ils to co mp ly with FACA, it will leave its decisions and products open to challenge in court.

II. Implementing FACA

A. Avoiding Violations

To avoid violating the F A CA, BLM m a nagers should:

1. Consider whether FACA applies to a ny current or proposed collaborative or group activ ity. FA CA will apply if a group is es tablishe d or utiliz ed by the BLM f o r the purpose of obtain i ng adv i ce. In reac hing d ecisio n s whether FACA will apply, m a nagers should refer to the General Se rvices Adm i nistration’s (GSA ) regulations at 41 CFR 102-3 and consult with the Office of the Solicitor. Further in form ation about w h en FACA applies, including the F A CA regulations, can be found at www.policyworks.gov/o r g/m a in/m c/ linkit.htm or in the Comm ittee Managem e nt Secretariat s ection of the GSA website.

a. If FACA applies, es tablishing a committee requires consultation with GSA, filing a charter, publishing a notice in the Federal Register , and opening meetings of the group to the pub lic. Also see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Comm ittees).

b. Existing groups are covered by F A CA if they are “utilized” by a Federal agency. A group is “utilized” whenever a Federal agency exercises actual

m a nage m e nt or control over its operation.

2. For those groups covered by FACA, veri fy that its requirem ents are followed, including the filing of an appropriate charte r, balancing the m e mbership, inform ing the public of its m eetings (tim e, place, purpose, etc.) through Federal Register publication,

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix B, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
and opening the m eetings to the public. Consult with FACA experts to ensure

com p liance with its p r ocedures. Als o see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Comm ittees).

Collaborative groups that are not initiated by the BLM can avoid application of FACA and can continue to have active BLM participation by m a inta ining th eir indepe nd ence from BLM actual

m a nage m e nt or control.

B. Determining if FACA Applies

Figure 4 outlines the basic requirem ents to determ ine if the provisions of FACA appl y. If there is any doubt, the BLM field office should consult its Solicitor. The field office m u st determ ine whether FACA applies to a particular collaborat ive effort, and if it does, whether it would be beneficial to pursue the effort by chartering the group under FACA or m a king it a subgroup of a RAC (see 43 CFR 1784.6-2). Answers to the follow ing questions can be helpful in determ ining whether FACA does or does not apply:

1. Does the group include individuals who are not em ployees of Trib al, state, or local
governm e nts or other Federal agencies?

2. Does the group have a for m al organizational structure?

3. How was the group or m eeting initiated? Specifically, was the group established by the BLM ?

4. Is the group subject to agency actual m a nage ment or control?

5. W h at is the function of the group? Is it providing consensus advice or

recomm endations as a group to the agency?

FACA will not apply to any m eeting of m o re th an one indiv i dual in itiate d by the Pre s ident o r Federal official(s) to obtain the a dvice of individual attendees, pr ovided that the Federal official does not exercise actual m a nage m e nt or contro l over the group. FACA does not apply to

m eetings held exclusively between Federal official s and Trib al, state, and local elec ted officials, or their designated em ployees, where such m ee tings are solely for the purpose of exchanging views, inform ation, or advice relating to th e m a nagem e nt or implem entation of Federal intergovernm e ntal program s (see Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534).

C. FACA Requirements

If a group is subject to F A CA, there are a num ber of requirem e nts that must be in p l ace in order to proceed. Subcomm ittees of established FACA comm ittees m a y, under som e circum stances, be subject to these requirem e nts as we ll. Specific requirem e nts include:

1. A charter describing the comm ittee’s func tion, duration, mem b ers, duties, frequency of m eetings, and costs.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK Appendix B, page 3

2. A designated Federal em ployee to atte nd all m eetings and to approve m eeting agendas.

3. Notices of m eetings that are published in the Federal Register and other appropriate

venues.

4. Meetings that are open to the public, with detailed m i nutes prepared for public review.

Further explanation is provided in the BLM’s Natura l Resour ce Alte rnative Dispute Resolution Initiative Strategic Plan and Tool Kit, Se ptem ber 11, 1997, available at BLM state offices.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix B, page 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)



### Do Federal Advisory Commi ttee Act (FACA) Considerations Apply?

1. Is there a g r oup pr ovi di n g ad vi ce t o

a Federa l ag ency which is no t m a de up entirely of Fe deral, T r i b al , sta t e, or l o cal go vern m e nt al o ffi ci al s ad vi si ng on i n terg o v ernm e nt al pr ogr am s? 1

3. D o es the gr oup pr ovi de a d vi ce as a group (r ather than as in divi duals )? 2. Is the gr ou p established , man a ged,

or c o n t rol l e d by a Feder a l a g enc y?

If yes to a ll questio ns: FAC A co n s i d eration s m o st lik ely appl y

.

No te: Th is chart is fo r g e n e ral g u i d a n c e; fina l d e termi n a tion s rega rd ing th e a p

p licab ility o f

FACA sho u l d b e mad e i n co nsu lta tion with t h e Office o f

th e So licito r.

1 See 2 U. S. C

. 1534 for details.

Fi gure 4.

— Fed e ra l Ad viso ry Co mmittee Act (FACA) fl o w cha r t: Do es F ACA a p

p l

y?

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 1

Appendix C: Program/Resource -Specific Decision Gu idance

This appendix provides three categories of pl anning inform ation for BLM program areas: (1) Land Use Plan Decisions , (2) Implementation D ecisions , and (3) Notices, Consultations, and Hearings . Each program/resource heading contai ns resource-specific gu idance for each catego r y. The guidance presented for each resou r ce should b e addressed in conjunction with the guidance presented for other resources to m a intain an in tegr ated, in terd is ciplinary approach to planning.

1. Land Us e Plan Decisions. Thes e broad-s cale decis i ons guide future land

m a nage m e nt actions and subsequent site-s pecific implem e ntation decisions. Land use plan decisions fall into two categories: de sired outcom e s (goals and objectives), and allowable uses and actions to achieve outcom e s. Proposed land use plan decisions are protestable to the BLM Director but are not reviewable by the Of fice of Hearings and Appeals.

The applic ation of progr am -specif i c guidance f o r

land use p l a n decis i ons will va ry, depending on the decision category, and m u st be applied as follows:

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources: Decisions identified m u st be

m a de during the land use planning process if the resource exis ts in the planning

area.

II. Resource Uses: Decisions identified m u st be m a de during the land use planning process if the B L M anticipates it m a y authorize or allow a resource use. If uses are allowed, decisions m u st also be m a de regarding intensity and lim its or restric tions.

III. Special Designations: Special designation decisions identified m u st be m a de during the land use planning process when the BLM anticipates it m a y authorize or allow uses which could disqualify inventoried resource values from designation. Special designation decisi ons m a y be m a de during the land use planning process when there is no th reat to the inventoried resource.

IV. Support: Support needs and decisions m a y be determ ined through the land use planning process, based on individual planning situations.

2. Implementation Decisions. Im plem entation decis i ons ge nerally cons titu te th e BLM’s final approval allowing on-th e-ground actions to proceed. T h ese types of decisions require site-specific planning and NEPA anal ysis. They m a y be incorporated into im ple m entation plans (activity or p r o j ect p l ans ) o r m a y exist as stand

- alo n e decis i ons

. Where im pl em entation decis i ons are m a de as pa rt of the land use planning process, they are still subject to the ap peals pro ces s or other adm i nistrative revi ew as p r escrib ed by specific reso urce prog ram regulation s after th e BLM resolves the protests to land use plan decisions and m a kes a decision to adopt or am end the RMP ( H igh Desert Multiple Us e Coalition, In c. et al. Keith Collins, 1 42 IBLA 285 (1998))

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

3. Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. This section iden tifies resou r ce-specific requirem e nts and suggestions for notices, cons ultations, and hearings when developing Land use plan decisions that are in addition to tho s e iden tif ied in Section I II of this Handbook. Note: Som e laws or regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Air Act, ha ve notice, consultation, or hearing requirem ents that apply to most reso urce program s, resource uses, or activities. These requ irem ents are identified in the prim ary program narrative but are not repeated for each res ource prog ram, resource use, or activ ity th at m a y be affected.

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources

A. Air

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify desired outcom es and ar eawide criteria or res t rictions, in cooperation with the appropriate air quality regulatory agency, that apply to direct or authorized

em ission-generating activities, including the Cl e a n Air Act’s requir e m e nts f o r com p liance with :

1. Applicab le Nation a l Am bient Ai r Quality Standards (Section 109); 2. State Im plem entation Plans (Section 110); 3. Control of Pollution from Fe deral Facilities (S ection 118); 4. Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility im pacts to m a ndatory Federal Class I Areas (Section 160 et seq.); and 5. Confor mity Analyses and De term inations (Section 176(c)).

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify site-specific em ission c ontrol strategies, processes, and actions to achieve desired air quality conditions from direct or author ized em ission-generating activ ities.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consult, coordinate, and co m p ly with applica b le Trib al, Federal, state, and local air quality regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act, Execu tive Order 12088, and Tribal, Federal or state im ple m entation plans. Each field office should work closely with counties or states on the developm ent or am endment of state implem e ntation plans.

B. Soil and Water

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify desired outcom es (inc luding standards or goals under the Clean W a ter Act). Identify watersheds or specif ic soils tha t m a y need special protection from the standpoint of hum a n health c oncerns, ecosystem health, or ot her public uses. For riparian areas, identify desired width/d e pth ratios, s t re am bank conditio n s, channel substrate co nditions, and large woody m a terial characteris tics. Identify areawide use re strictions or other protective

m easures to m eet Tribal, state, and lo cal water qu ality requ ire m ents. Identify m easures, including filing for water rights under applicable state or Federa l perm it procedures, to ensure
water ava ila bility f o r m u ltip le use m a nagem e nt and f unctionin g, healthy riparian and u p land system s.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 3

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify site-specific m a nage m e nt opportunities and priorities by using a watershed approach and watershed assessm e nt inform ation. Identify the site-specific or basin-specific soil, riparian, or nonpoint-source best m a nagem e nt practices and rehabilitation techniqu es n eeded to m eet Trib al, s t at e, and local water quality requirem e nts.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consult and coordinate with other Federal, state, and local agencies, as directed by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prev ention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), and the Clean W a ter Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) (see B L M Manual 7000). Collaborate with local watershed groups when developing activity plans.

C. Vegetation

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify desired outcom es for ve getative resources, including the desired m i x of vegetative types, structural stag es, and landscape and riparian functions; and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife hab ita ts and liv esto ck f o ra ge. Desired outcom e s (goals and o b jectives ) may be established at m u ltiple s cale s . Identif y area s of ecologic a l im portance and designate priority plant species a nd habitats, including spec ia l sta t us s p ecies and populations of plant species recogni zed as significant for at leas t one factor such as density, diversity, size, public interest, re m n ant character, or age. Id entify the actions and areawide use restrictions needed to achieve desired vegetative conditions.

Reference materials for establishing desired outcom es for vegetati ve resources include:

1. National Range and Pasture Handbook (1997): Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) Methodology of Ve getation Inventory, Monitoring, Analysis and Managem e nt of Grazing Lands.

2. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health: BLM Technical Reference 1734-6.

3. Ecological Site Inventory: BLM Technical Reference 1734-7.

4. Rangeland Health Standards: H-4180-1.

5. W e bsite exam ples of ecological site descriptions (use In ternet Explorer):

• http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov

• http://www.n m .nrcs.usda.gov/techni cal/fotg/section-2/ESD.htm l

• http://www.m t .nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/range/ecolsites/

In areas where Healthy Forests Res t o r ation Act au thorities are to be used, identify old growth forest stands or describe a pro cess for identifying old growth fore st stands in the land use plan based on the structure and com position characterist ic of the forest type . Provide m a nagem e nt direction to m a intain, or contri bute toward the restoration of, the structure and com position of old growth forest stands in areas where thes e auth orities will b e us ed. This m a nagem e nt direction should consider the pre-fi re exclusion old growth conditions characteristic of the forest

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
type, taking into account the cont ribution of the stand to landscap e fire adaptation and watershed health, and r e tain ing the large tre e s c ontributing to old growth structure.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify site-specific vegetati on m a nage m e nt practices such as allotm ent grazing system s, vegetation treatm ents , or m a nipulation m e thods (including fuels
trea tm ents) to achieve d e sired p l ant c o mm unities, as well as integra t ed ve getation m a nagem e nt techniques to rehabilitate weed infestations or otherwise control noxious and invasive weeds.

Identify old-growth stands and m a na gem e nt practices to achieve old-growth m a nagem e nt direction wh ere app licab le. Id entify old-growth stands and m a nagem e nt practices to achieve old-growth m a nage m e nt direction w h ere applicable.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered S p ecies Act with the USFW S and/or NOAA-Fisheries f o r all action s tha t m a y af f

ect listed spec ies or designated critical habitat or confer if action s are likely to jeop ar dize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in the destruction of adverse m odificati on of proposed critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific laws, agre e m ents, or polic ies, th ere m a y be additiona l requ ir em ents to conf er with sta t e wild lif e agencies if Federal actions m a y a ffec t sta t e- lis ted species o r th eir hab ita ts.

D. Special Status Species

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify desired outcom es, stra tegies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and m a nage m e nt actions to conserve and recover special st atus species. Desired
outcom e s may incorporate goals and objectives fro m recovery plans and c onservation strategies or identify ecologically important areas or scarce, lim ited habitats . Goals and objectives m a y be species o r h a bita t spec if ic and can b e estab lish e d at m u ltiple scales (i. e ., f i ne, m i d, and broad) to fully understand the context of the larger landscape.

Given the legal m a ndate to conserve threaten ed or endangered species and BLM’s policy to conserve all special statu s speci es, land use planning strategies, desired outcom es, and decisions should result in a reasonable c onservation strategy for these speci es. Land use plan decisions should be clear and sufficiently detailed to enha nce habitat or prevent av oidable loss of habitat pending the developm ent and im plem entation of im ple m entation-level plans. This may include identif y ing s tipulation s o r crite r ia tha t woul d be applied to implem entation actions. Land use plan decisions should be consiste nt with BLM’s m a ndate to recove r listed species and should be consistent w ith objectives and recom m e nded actions in approved recovery plans, conservation
agreem ents and strategies, MOUs, and applicab le biological opinions for threatened and endangered species.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify the programm a tic and si te-specific actions needed to im ple m ent planning decisions for conserving and recovering special stat us species. These decisions may be identified in im plem entation pl ans for habitat m a nage ment areas, A C ECs, and grazing allo tm ents, etc.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 5

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consultation with the US F W S or NOAA-Fisheries is required by the Endangered Species Act for actions that m a y affect listed species and designated critical habitat, and conf erencing is needed if actions are likely to jeopa rdize the con tin ued existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse m odification of proposed critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Manual Section 6840). Depending on state-specific agreem ents or policies, there m a y be additional requirem e nts to conf er with sta t e wildlif e age n cies if Federal a c tion s m a y af f ect state

- listed sp ecies o rtheir habitats.

1. Interagency Agreem ents on Consultation . T h e BLM has entered into a variety of Mem o randa of Agree m ent and Mem o randa of Understanding rega rding consultation on agency actio ns to help s t ream line an d bring greater efficiency to the con s u ltation pro c ess. A key elem e n t of these includes utilizing early involvem e nt of regulatory agency personnel in the planning process. Including representatives from these agencies on the planning team during developm ent of alterna tives could im prove the BLM’s ability to address and discuss the effect s of m a nagem e nt direction on listed and proposed species and their critical habitats. For additional di rection and guidance, consult the m o st current versions of these Mem o randa.

2. Initial Effects Determination. During preparation of draft land use plan decisions and associa t ed N E PA analysis, the BLM m a kes an initia l dete rm ination of ef f

e cts to lis ted or proposed species. If the BLM m a kes a dete rm ination of “no effect” on the preferred alte rnative, inf o rm al consulta tion is n o t requ ired.

3. Informal Consultation. Inform a l consultation should be initiated on the preferred alte rnative with the USFW S or the NOAA-Fisher ies if the initial BLM determ inatio n is “not likely to adversely affect” lis te d species o r designa ted c r itic al habitat. .“Not likely to adversely affect” determinations are reached when effects of the action are insignifican t, discountable, or com p letely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contem poraneous positive effects with out any long -term advers e effects to the species. Insignifican t effects re la te to the size of the im pact and cannot be m eaningfully m easured. Discountable effects are those that have an extrem ely low probability of occurring.

Inform al consultation is concluded if the Se rvices concur with th e BLM determ ination. This concurrence m u st be docum ented in th e p l an ning reco rd by a written letter of concurrence fro m the USF W S or NOAA-Fisherie s. If the Services do not concur with the BLM determ ination, for m al c onsultation m u st be initiated.

3. Formal Consultation . Form al consultation is required when proposed m a nagem e nt direction and resource allocations in the pref er

re d alte rnative are de term ined to be “ l ikely to advers ely affect” to lis t ed species o r designated critical habitat. The Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR 402.16 outline criteria for re-initiating consultation when there has been sig n ificant ch ange since th e orig inal consultation w a s com p leted. Based on these criteria, consultation on land use plan and implem e ntation decisions m u st be reinitiated for any of the following reasons:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 6 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
a) New inform ation shows that the plan decisions m a y a ffect listed or proposed species o r critical hab i tat in a way or to an extent not previously considered;

b) land use plan and/or implem e ntation d ecisions are m odified in a way that m a y cause adverse effects to the listed or proposed species or critical habitat that were not considered in the biological opinion;

c) im plem e n tation of existing land use pl an decisions could affect a newly listed species or newly designat ed c r itica l habita t; o r

d) the am ount or extent of incidental take is exceeded.

4. Conferen cing. The BLM will con f erence with the Serv ices on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existen ce of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modifi cation of proposed critical habitat. The conference is designed to assist the Federal agency and any app lican t in ide n tif ying and resolv ing potential co nflicts at an early s t age in th e planning process. Conferencing includes inform al discussions concerning an action th at is like l y to jeo p ardize the continued existence of the proposed species or results in the destruction or a dverse modification of the proposed critical habitat at issue.

5. Consultation under E ndangered Species Act with Indian Tribes. Departm e nt of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3206, American I ndian Tribal Rights; Federal-Tribal T r ust Responsibilities; and the Endangered Species Act; requires Interior agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed sp ecies, as a result of

com p liance with Endang ered Species Act, affect or m a y affect Indian lands, Tribal trust resources, or the exercise of Am erican Indi an Tribal rights. Consultation under this Order should be closely coordi nated with regional or field offices of the U S FW S and/or NOAA-Fisheries for gam e and non- gam e species.

E. Fish and Wildlife

Land Use Plan Decision s . Designate priority species and hab ita ts, in ad dition to spe c ial sta t us species, for fish or wildlife sp ecies recognized as signi ficant for at least one factor such as density, diversity, size, public in teres t , rem n ant character, o r ag e. Identify desired outcom es using BLM strategic plans, state agency stra tegic plans, and other sim ilar sources.

Describe desired habitat conditions and/or population for m a jor habitat types that support a wide variety of gam e , non-ga m e , and m i gratory bird species; acknowledging the states’ roles in

m a naging fi sh and wildlife, working in close coordination with state wild life agencies , and drawing on state com p rehensive wi ld lif e conse r v a tion s t ra teg i es. Iden tif y action s and areawide use restrictions needed to achieve desired popu lation and habitat conditio ns while m a intaining a thriv i ng natural e c ological ba lance and m u ltiple -use re la tion s hips. (Also see prev iou s Section D, Special S t atus Species. ) Identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally m a naged fish species (Oregon, Washington, C a lifornia and Idaho only).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 7

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . In coordination with state wildli fe agencies, identify site-specific actions, such as riparian fencing, guzzler placem ent, fuels managem e nt, etc., needed to m a nage ecosystem s for all species and habitat for special status species. Identify specific m easures to conserve and enhance E F H.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered S p ecies Act with the USF W S and/or NOAA-Fisheries, for a ll action s tha t m a y af f

ect listed spec ies or designated critical habitat or confer if action s are likely to jeop ar dize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse m odificati on of proposed critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific laws, agre e m ents, or polic ies, th ere m a y be additiona l requ ir em ents to conf er with sta t e wild lif e agencies if Federal actio ns m a y affect state-lis te d species o r th eir hab ita ts. Consult with the NOAA-Fisheries on any action auth orized, funded, or undertaken that m a y im pact EFH (through existing environm ental review processes in a ccordance with NEPA). Comply with Executiv e Order 13186 for the conservation of m i gratory birds.

F. Wild Ho rses and Burros

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify the following (see 43 CFR 4700):

1. Herd Areas. Herd are a s (HAs) are lim ited to a r eas of the p ublic lands identif ied a s being habitat used by wild horses and burros at the tim e of the passage of the W ild Horse and Burro Act, as am ended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340). HA boundaries m a y only be changed when it is determ ined that (1) areas once listed as HAs are later found to be used only by privately-owned horses or burros, or (2 ) the HA boundary does not correctly portray where wild horses and burros were f ound in 1971.

2. Herd Management Area Designation . Herd m a nage m e nt areas (HMAs) are established only in HAs, within which wild horses and/or burros can be m a naged for the long term . For HMAs, identify the following:

a) Initial an d estim ated herd size that could be m a naged while still preserving and

m a intaining a thr i ving na tura l ecolog i cal ba lance and m u ltiple -use re la tion s hips for that area. b) Guidelines and criteria for adjusting herd size.

3. Herd Areas Not Designated as Herd Management Areas . W h ere appropriate, the land use plan m a y include decisions rem oving horse s from all or part of a HA. Exam ples include interm ingled and unfenced lands w ithin HAs where private landowners do not
want to m a ke them available for wild horse or burro use; or essential habitat com ponents are not available for wild horse or burro use within a HA.

4. Wild Horse and Burro Ranges . An HMA may be considered for designation as a wild horse or burro range when there is a signifi can t p ublic va lue pres ent, such as unique characteristics in a herd or an outst anding opportunity for public viewing.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 8 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

5. Areawide Restriction s N eeded to Achieve Objectives . For exam ple, if dom e stic horses in HMAs are not com p atible with wild horse m a nagem e nt policies, then, dom e stic horse grazing m u st not be pe r m itted in HMAs or adja cent to HM As if dom e stic and wild horses are likely to inte rm ingle.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify and set objectives for herd com position, anim al characteristics, and habitat development needs. E s tablish appropriate m a nagem e nt levels (AMLs) based on m onitoring and evaluations, in cluding the population range within which the herd size will be allowed to fluctuate. (Commission for the P r eservation of Wild Horses, et al., 139 IBLA 24 (1997)

. )

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . The W ild and Free-Roa m ing Horses and B u rros Act, as

am ended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340) requires BLM to consult with Federa l and state wildlife agencies an d all o t her af fected interests dur ing land use and implem e ntation planning for the

m a nage m e nt of wild horses and burros.

Public hearings are required when anticipat ed m a nagem e nt activ ities inv o lve the u s e of helicopters to capture, or the use of motor vehi cles to transport, wild horses and burros. Hearings are held in the state where the activit ies are proposed and are norm ally conducted on an annual basis (see 43 CFR 4740).

G. Cultura l Resources

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify special cultural resou r ce restrictions that m a y affect the location, timing, or m e thod of developm ent or us e of other resources in the planning area. Identify site -specific use restri c tions f r om cultura l resou r ces c u rrently being actively m a naged. Identify area wide criteria for recognizing pot ential cultural resour ce conflicts, such as geographic characteristics of sacr ed sites, historic properties, or cultural landscapes (springs, ridges, peak s, caves, and rock shelters, for exam pl e). Consider these rest r i ctions and cr ite ria in all proposed land and resource use decisions. Identif y m easures to pro-actively m a nage, protect, and use cultural r e sour c e s, inc l uding trad ition a l c u ltur a l prop erties.

The scope and scale of cultural resou r ce id entific ation are m u ch m o re general and less intensive for land use planning than for pro ces sing site-sp e cific use p r o posal s. Instead of new, on-theground inventory, the appropriate identification level for land use planning is a regional overview: (1) a com p ilation and analysis of re asonably available cultura l resource data and literature, (2) a m a nagem e nt-ori ented synthesis of the resulti ng inf o rm ation that inclu d es priorities an d a strategy for accom p lishing needed invento r y (see Manu al Section 811 0.) If land use decis i on s, however, are m o re specific in term s of i m pacts, they m a y require a m o re detailed level of identification of the scope and nature of cultura l resources during land use planning.

RMPs will include a t lea s t the f o llowing two goals:

1. Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 9

(c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources P r otection Act, Section 14(a)).

2. Seek to reduce imm i nent threats and reso lve po te ntia l conf lic ts f r om natural or hum a n-caused deterioration, or potential conflic t with other resource uses (FLPMA Sec. 103(c), NHPA 106, 110 (a) (2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will com p ly with the N H PA Section 106.

All cultural properties in the RMP area, whether already recorded or projected to occur on the basis of exis ting-d a ta sy nthesis, inc l uding cultur al land scape s , will be allocated to the uses listed in Table C-1 accord ing to their natu re and relativ e preservation value. T h ese use allo cation s pertain to cultural resources , not to areas of land.

Ta ble C-1

. — Cultura l use allo ca tio ns and d e sired outcomes Use a llo ca tion 1 Desired outcomes a. Scien tific u s e Preserv e d un til research po tential is realized b

. C o n s erv a tion for fu t u re u s e Preserv e d un til con d ition s for u s e are m e t c. Trad ition a l use Lon g -term p r eserv a tion d

. Pub lic use Lon g -term p r eserv a tion

, on-site in terpretatio n e. Ex p e rim e n t a l u s e Pro t ected u n til u s ed f. Di scha r g ed f r om m a nagem e nt No use aft e r re cor d at i o n; n o t prese r ved

1 The m a jority of the cu ltural properti e s in a given geographic area will fall into categories (a ) and (f). The less-co mm on pro pertie s in categories (b)–(e) are likely t o be associat ed wit h particular setting s that can be deline a ted geographically in th e planning process. As the plan is developed, properties in categ ories b–d will require the m o st attenti on to balance their proactive uses wit h other land and re source uses.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify site-specific inform ation needs, im pacted resources, protection m easures and opportunitie s to use cultural properties for scientific, educational, recreational, and trad itio nal purposes. Evaluate whether intende d uses would result in changes to cultural properties’ significance or preservation value, and if so, how resource condition should be m onitored, m easured, and m a intained at an acceptab l e lev e l.

1. Cultural properties al located to us es are sub j ect to th e m a nagem e nt actions lis ted in Table C-2 to realize their use poten tial.

Ta ble C-2

. — Cultura l use allo ca tio ns and ma nag e ment actio ns Use a llo ca tion Manageme nt a. Scien tific u s e Perm it ap p r opriate research , i n clud ing d a te reco v e ry b. C o nser vat i o n fo r fut u re use Pro p o se pr ot ec t i v e m easures/ d esi g nat i o ns 1`
c. Trad ition a l use Co n s u lt with Trib es; d e term in e li m ita tio n s 1
d

. Pub lic use Determ in e p e rmit ted u s e 1
e. E xpe ri m e nt al use Det e rm i n e nat u re o f e xpe ri m e nt f. Di scha r g ed f r om m a nagem e nt R e m ove pr ot ec t i v e m easures

1 Safeguar d s again s t inco m p atible lan d and r e sour ce uses m a y be i m posed thr ough withdr awals, sti pulations on l eases and perm its, design

r e quir e m e nts, and sim ilar m e asur es which ar e developed and r eco m m ended by an appr opr ia tely staffed interdisciplinary tea m

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 10 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
2. Categorize geographic area as high/m e dium /low priority for future inventory of cultu ral p r o p erties.

3. All authorizations for land and resource use will com p ly with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservati on Act, consistent with and subject to the objective estab lished in the RMP for the pro active use of cu ltur a l prop er ties in the p ublic inte res t (NHPA Sec. 106, 101(d)(6), 110(a)(2)(E); national BLM-ACHP-NCSHPO Programm a tic Agreem ent of March 1997).

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs .

1. Consistent with the na tiona l Prog ramm atic Agreem en t and individual state BLMSHPO protocols, invite the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to participate from the outset of planning in order to reduce the potential for cultural resource conflicts with other resource uses as plans are im ple m ented.

2. For states not operating unde r a BLM-SHPO protocol, such as Eastern states, consult with the SHPO before plan approval con cerning any actions that m a y be directly im ple m ented upon plan approval and could affect a cultural property list ed in or eligible for the Natio nal Register of Hist oric P l aces (see 36 CFR 800).

3. Form al consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act usually take place du ring im plem entation pl annin g ; however, consult with the SHPO during land use planning regarding cultura l resource evaluation recomm e ndations (36 CFR 800.4( c)).

4. Consult Tribal leaders and traditional religious practitioners under the Am erican Indian Religious Freedom Act about any m a na ge m e nt objectives and actions that m i ght affect Nativ e Am erican religious p r actices, in cluding access to sacred sites. Consult Tribal leaders under the Nati onal Historic Preservation Act about any m a nagem e nt objectives or actions that m i ght affec t prope r t ies of traditiona l cultural importance.

H. Paleontology

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify criteria or use restricti ons to ensure that (a) areas containing, or that are likely to contain, ve rtebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils are id entified and evaluated prio r to authorizing surface-d i sturbi ng activ ities ; (b ) m a nagem e nt

recomm endations are developed to prom ote the scie ntific, ed ucation a l, an d recreation a l uses of f

o ssils; and ( c ) thr eats to paleonto l ogical r e sourc e s are id entif i ed and m itigated as appr opria te.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify appropriate protection m eas ures and scien tif ic, ed ucation a l, and recreational use opportunities f o r paleon tolo gical loca lities.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts exist.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 11

I. Visual Resources

Land Use Plan Decision s . Manage visual resource values in accordance with visu al res ource

m a nage m e nt (VRM) objectives (m anagem ent classes). Designate VRM m a nage m e nt classes for all areas of BLM land, based on an inventory of visual resources and m a nagem e nt considerations for other land uses. VRM m a nage ment classes m a y differ fr om VRM inventory classes, based

on m a nagem e nt priorities for land uses (see BLM Handbook H-8410-1 for a description of VRM classes).

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Manage resource uses and m a na gem e nt activities consistent with the VRM objectives e s ta blished in th e land use plan. Design all BLM resource uses,

m a nage m e nt activities, and other im plem entation decisions to m eet VRM objectives established in the land use plan. Utilize visu al resource design techniques a nd best m a nagem e nt practices to

m itigate the potential for short- and long-term im pacts. Contrast ratin g s are required for all

m a jor projects proposed on public lands that fall within VRM Class I, II, and III areas which have high sensitiv ity lev e ls (s ee Han dbook H- 8341-1 for contras t -rating procedures).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearin gs. No additional specific requirem e nts exist.

J. Wildlan d Fire Man agement

Land Use Plan Decision s . Fire m a nagem e nt strategies m u st recognize the role of wildland fire

as an essen t ial eco logical process and natural cha nge agent. Fire m a nagem e nt strategies m u st result in m i nim u m suppression costs, considerin g firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected; consiste nt with resource objectives. F i re m a nagem e nt decisions (goals and objectives, and allowable uses and m a nagem e nt actions) m u st reflect that the p r o t ection of hum a n lif e is the sing le, overrid i ng p r ior ity. Ot h e r prio ritie s (prote cti ng hum a n communities an d community infrastructure, other property and im pr ovem e nts, and natura l a nd cultu ral r e sources ) are based on the values to be protected, hum an h ealth and safety, and the costs of protection.

Consisten t with thes e p r inc i ples, id entif y lands cape-level fire m a nage ment goals and objectives, which would be achieved through allowable us es and m a nage m e nt actions. Use fire regim e /condition class methodology to identify desi red wildland fire conditions. W ildland fire

m a nage m e nt goals and objectives m u st be cl osely coordinated with vegetation m a nagem e nt goals and objectives.

Identify allowable uses and m a nagem e nt actions to achieve the fire m a nagem e nt goals and objectives, and support the goals and objectives f o r vegetation, wildlife, and other resources.

As part of identifying allowable uses, identify th e geographic areas that ar e suitable f o r wildland fire use, provided conditions are appropriate. Also, identify the geograph i c areas where wild land fire use is not appropriate due to social, econom i c , political, or re source constraints (e.g., wildland u r b a n interface ar eas); and where suppression actio n would be taken.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 12 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
As part of identifying m a nagem e nt actions to ach ieve goals and objectives, identify the types of fuels m a nagem e nt or vegetation m a nagem e nt treatm e nts (e.g., m echanical, biological, and chem ical treatm ents and prescribed fire) that would be im ple m ented.

Allowable uses and m a nagem e nt actions includ e the identification of restrictions on fire

m a nage m e nt practices (including both wildfire suppression and fuels m a na gem e nt) needed to protect natural or cultural resource values. Restrictions m a y be st ruc t ured to allow f l exibility to apply restrictions on a seasonal or annual basis, based on resour ce conditions, weather factors, and operational capability.

Establish landscape-scale fire m a nagem e nt priorities or provide criteria that will guide m o re sitespecific priorities at the f i re m a nagem e nt plan level.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s. Identify site-specific fire m a nagem e nt practices and fuels treatm ent action s need ed to m eet the broad-s c ale land u s e plan goals and objectives (such as wildland fire use, prescribed fire, m echanical thinning, biolog ical, and chem ical trea tments) including their location, size, and specific layout and project design features, as we ll as any m easures needed to protect sensitive resources.

For additional guidance, see the DOI and BLM Fire Manage ment Manuals and Handbooks.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs .
1. Consult, coordinate, and com p ly with Tr ibes, Federal agencies, and s t ate and local
governm e nts regarding smoke m a nagem e nt wh e r e required by the Clean Air Act, Executive O r der 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control St andards), and State Im ple m entation Plans.

2. Consult and coordinate with adjacent Tr ib es, F e deral agencies, and s t ate and local
governm e nts to establish protection a nd fuels m a nagem e nt priorities.

K. Wilderness Characteristics

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify decisions to protect or p r eserve wild erness characteris tic s (naturalness, outstand i ng opportunities for so litu de, and outs t anding oppo rtunities for prim itive and unconfined recreation). Include goals a nd o b jectives to protec t the resource and

m a nage m e nt actions necessary to achieve these goa ls and ob jectives. Fo r author ized activ ities, include conditions of use that would avoid or m i nim i ze im pa cts to wilderness characteris tics.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify site-specific protection m easures to insure protection of wildernes s c h arac ter i stic s.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts exist.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 13

L. Cave and Karst Res o urces

Land Use Plan Decision s. Identify significan t caves as m a ndated by the Federal Cave Resources P r otection Act of 1988. Criteria for iden tification of significant caves is set forth in 43 CFR 37.11(c). If it is determ ined that a cave m eets thes e criteria, it must be designated as significant as set forth in 43 CFR 37.11(f).

For each designated sign ificant cave, consider wh ether o r not an adm i nistrative d e sign ation (e.g., ACEC) is needed to prov ide ade quate protection f o r si gnifican t cave resources (see III. Special Designations). Regardless, it is vital that both m a nagem e nt object ives and setting prescriptions be set for each designated significant cave. Managem e nt objectives should be outcome-based (i.e., no t facility - or p r oject-bas e d). S e tting pr es criptions shou ld specify conditions n e eded to facilitate achievem ent of the m a nagem e nt objectives.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Address four basic but broad types of cave and karst resource

m a nage m e nt actions for all significant caves:

1. Managem e nt (resources, vi s ito rs and f acilitie s );

2. m a rketing (outreach, inform ation and education, prom otion, interpretation, and environm ental education);

3. m onitoring (social, environm ental and ad m i nistrative indicators and standards); and

4. adm i nistration (regulatory, perm it/fee/fiscal, data m a nage ment, and custom er liaison).

All BLM implem enting actions m u st be condition ed by the specific m a nagem e nt objectives and

accom p anying setting prescrip tion s incorporated within land use plan decisions for each significant cave.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Certain actions involvi ng im pacts to cave an d karst resources may require consultation and coordi nation with other Federal, state and local
governm e nt agencies, and nongovernm e ntal organizat ions or individuals as m a ndated by Section 4 of the Federal Cave R e sources P r otecti on Act; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered S p ecies Act; and Section 8 of the Public Rangeland Improvem e nt Act.

II. Resource Uses

A. Forestry

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify characteristics (indicat ors) to describe healthy forest conditions (i.e., desired outcom es) for fores t/woodland types found with in the planning area (also see I(C), Vegetation). Identify the su ite of possible m a nagem e nt actions (including appropriate harvest, reforesta tion, and forest developm ent me thods), and associated best

m a nage m e nt practices, that can be ap plied to m e e t desired outcom e s.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 14 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Identify areas that are av ailab l e and h a ve the ca pacity for planned, sustained-yield timber harvest or special forest product harvest. A probable sale quantity (PS Q ) should be determ ined, if possible, for those areas determ ined to be avai lable for harvest. The PSQ is the allowable harvest level that can be m a intained without decline over the long term if the schedule of harvests and regeneration are follow e d. PSQ r ecognizes a level of uncer tainty in m e e ting the determ ined level; this un certainty is typically ba sed on other environm ental factors that preclude harvesting at a particu l ar tim e (for exam ple, becau se of watershed or habitat con c erns ). A PSQ is not a comm it m e nt to offer for sale a specific level of tim ber volum e every year.
Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify individual timber or sp ecial forest product sale locations and schedules; site-specific intensive m a nage m e nt practices, locati ons, and schedules; and restric tions associa t ed w ith f o res t ry a c tiv ities . Id entif y indiv i dual f o rest h ealth tre a tm ent activities by location and schedule (Headwaters, Inc., 116 IBLA 129 (1990)).

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . There are no additio n al specific requirem e nts.

B. Livestock Graz ing

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify lands available or not availab l e for liv estock grazing (see 43 CFR 4130.2(a)), considering th e following factors:

1. Other uses for the land; 2. terrain ch aracteristics; 3. soil, vegetation, and wa tershed characteristics; 4. the presence of undesirable vegetation, including significant invasive weed infestations; and 5. the presence of other resources that m a y require special m a nagem e nt or protection, such as special s t atu s species, special recr eation managem e nt areas (SRMA s ), or ACECs.

Decisions identifying lands availabl e, or not available, for live stock grazing m a y be revisited through the am endm ent or revision process if the grazing preferen ce or perm it on those lands has been voluntarily relinquished, or if there are out s t anding requ ests to vo lun t ar ily r e linq u ish the grazing preference or perm it. If an evaluation of Land Health Standards identif ies an allo tm ent or group of allotm ents where Land Health St andards cannot be achieved under any level or

m a nage m e nt of livestock use, then decisions id en tifying those areas as available for livestock grazing need to be revisited.

For lands available for livestock grazing, id entify on an areaw ide basis both the am ount of existing forage available for lives tock (expres sed in anim al unit m onths) and the future anticipated amount of for a ge avai lable for livestock w ith full im ple m entation of the land use plan while m a intaining a thr i ving natu ral ecological b a lance and multiple -use rela tionsh i p s . The land use plan ne e d s to desc rib e how these public lands will be m a naged to beco m e as productive as feasible for livestock grazing, including a descri ption of possible grazing m a nage m e nt practices such as grazing system s, range im provem e nts (incl uding land treatm ents), changes in seasons of use and/or stocking rates. In addition, identify guidelines and criter ia f o r f u ture a llo tmentBLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 15

specific adjustm e nts in the am ount of forage available for livest ock, season of use, or other grazing m a nagem e nt practices (Joel Stamatakis, Steve S t am atakis; 98 IB LA 4 (1987)).

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . For areas available f o r grazing, id entify allotm ent-specific (for one or several allotm ents) grazing m a nagem e nt pr actices and livestock forage am ounts based on monitoring and assessm ent inform ation, as well as constraints and needs related to other resources. Grazing m a nagem e nt pr actices and levels of livestock grazing use m u st achieve the desired ou tc om es outlin ed in the lan d use pl an, including ran g eland hea l th standard s ( o r

com p rehensive Land Health Standards), or m u st result in sign if icant prog r e ss toward f u lf illing rangeland health standards; they m u st also c onform to the guidelines required under 43 CFR 4180.2(b).

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Conduct appropriate consultation, cooperation, and coordination actions as required under 43 CFR 4130.2(b). Copies of proposed decisions on grazing use are sent to interested m e mbers of the public in accordance with 43 CFR 4160.1.

C. Recreation and Visitor Services

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify special recreation m a nagem e nt areas (SRMAs).

Each SRMA has a distinct, prim ary recreation-tourism m a rket as well as a corresponding and distingu ish i ng recreatio n m a nagem e nt strategy. For each SRMA selected , determ ine whether that p r im ary m a rket-ba s ed stra tegy will be to manage f o r a destina tion r ecrea tion

- to urism

m a rket, a community recreation-tourism market, or an undeveloped recreation-tourism m a rket, and state that determ ination in the land use pla n. Then describe the m a rket that corresponds to that sp ecific recreation managem e nt strategy (who they are an d where they are lo cated ). Divide recreation areas that have m o re than one dist inct, prim ary recreation m a rket into separate SRMAs.

For each SRMA identified, delin eate discrete re creation m a nagem e nt zone (RMZ) bo undaries. Each RMZ has four defining charact eris tic s - it: (1) se rves a dif f

e rent recreation nich e within the prim ary recreation m a rket; (2) produces a different set of recreation opport unities and facilitates the attainm e nt of different experience and benefit outcom e s (to individuals, households and communities, econom ies, and the en vironm ent); (3) has d i stinctive recreation s e tting character; and (4) requires a different set of recreation pr ovider actions to m eet th e s t rateg i ca lly- t argeted prim ary recreation m a rket dem a nd. To address th ese four variab les with in each RMZ, m a ke the following land-use allocation decisions:

1. Identify the corresponding re creation niche to be served;

2. write explicit recreation m a nagem e nt objectives for the s p ecific recreation opportunities to be produced and the outcom e s to be attained (activi ties, experiences, and benefits);

3. prescribe recreation setting characte r conditions required to produce recreation opportunities and facilitate the attainm e nt of both recreation experiences and beneficial

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 16 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

outcom e s, as targeted above (the recreati on opportunity spectrum is one of the existing tools for both describing existing setting character and prescribing desired setting character); and

4. briefly describe an activity planni n g fram ework that add r es ses recreatio n

m a nage m e nt , m a rketing, monitoring, and adm i nistrative support ac tions (e.g., visitor services, perm its and fees, recreation conce ssions, and appropriat e use restric tions )

necessa ry to achieve exp lic itly -stated recr eation m a nagem e nt obj ectives a nd setting prescription s (see Im plem entati on Decisions subsection below).

Visual resou r ce m a nagem e nt classes need to be correlated with the recreation m a nagem e nt objectives and setting prescriptions that have been set for each RMZ delineated.

Anything not delineated as an SRMA is an ex tensive recreation m a nage m e nt area (ERMA). Managem e nt within all ERMAs is restricted to custodial actions only. Therefore, actions within ERMAs are generally im plem ented directly from land use plan decisi ons and do not require activity-level planning. Land use plan decisions must, theref ore, include recreation managem e nt objectives f o r all ERMAs. Consider addressing visitor health and safety, user conflict and resource protection issues in particular th rough these recreation m a nagem e nt objectives. However, land use plan decisions for ERMAs n eed to also id entify im plem enting recreation

m a nage m e nt , m a rketing, monitoring, and adm i nistra tive support actions of the kinds listed for SRMAs under Im plem entation Decis i ons below (because no f o llow-up im plem entatio n decis i ons at the activity plan lev e l are required for ERMAs) Note: If recreation demand (i.e., from an undeveloped recreation-tourism market) requires maintenance of setting character an d/or production of associated activity , experience, and benefit oppor tunities/outcomes, the area should be identified and managed as an SRMA, ra ther than being custodially managed as an ERMA.

Recognition of singularly dom i nant activ ity -based recreation dem a nd of and by itself (e.g., heavy of

f

- highway vehicle use, river raf ting

, etc.), howe v er gre a t, ge nerally cons titu tes insuf f i cien t rationale for the identification of an S R MA and the subsequent expenditure of m a jor recreation
program investm e nts in facilities and/or visi tor assistance. This does not mean that the expenditure of substantial cust odial f unding is unwarranted when circum s t ances require it, but such expenditures should be geared to take care of the land and its associ ated recreation-tourism use and not to provide stru ctured recreation opportunities which characterize SRMAs.

Identification, but not form al designation, of both SRMAs and ERMAs is required (see Manual Section 8300).

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s. For all SRMAs, address four b a si c but broad type s of recreation action s :

1. Recreation m a nagem e nt (of resources, vi sitors, and facilities [i.e., developed recreation sites, road s an d trails , recreation concessions, etc.]);

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 17

2. recreation m a rketing (inc luding outreach, inform ation and education, prom otion, interpretation, environm ental educa tion; and other visitor services);

3. recreation m onitoring (inc luding social, environm ental, and adm i nistrative indicators and standards); and

4. recreation adm i nistration (r egulatory; perm its and fees , including use restrictions where neces sary and app r opriate; recreation concessions ; fiscal; data m a nagem e nt; and
custom er liaison).

All BLM implem enting actions for SRMAs m u st be conditioned by both the identified prim ary recreation market s t rateg y and the sp ecifi c RMZ land use allo ca tion objectives and

accom p anying setting prescrip tion s incorporated w ithin land use plan decisions. Sin c e the BLM is not the sole-source provider of public lands re creation, be sure to address any actions of other key recreation-tourism providers within lo cal s e rvice communities (i.e., local gov ern m ents and private recreation-tourism businesses). The BL M cannot dictate to its local governm e nt and private business providers. Yet, without their co llaborative engagem e nt as m a naging partners in plan design and im ple m entation, recreation opportunities targeted by land use plan m a nagem e nt objectives cannot be produced over the long run, nor can prescribed recreation settings be sustain e d.

To the greatest ex tent po ssible, and appropriate to the setting prescription s for the area involved, all new construction and modifications to recrea tion facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any related prog ram s and activities will b e acces sible to people with disab i lities in acco rda n ce with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and S ection 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

am ended, and in conform a nce with relev a nt building stand a rds, accessible outdoor program guidance, and program regulations.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts exist.

D. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Land Use Plan Decision s. Delineate travel m a nagem e nt ar eas and designate off-highway vehicle m a nagem e nt areas.

1. Delineating Travel Management Areas. Comprehensive travel m a nagem e nt planning should address all resou r ce use aspects (su c h as recreational, trad ition a l, casual, agricultural, commercial, and educational) and accom p anyi ng m odes and conditions of travel on the public lands, not just m o torized or of f-highway vehicle activities. In the RMP, travel m a nagem e nt areas (po l y gons) should be delin eated. Identify acceptable modes of access and travel for each travel m a nagem e nt area (including o v er-land, ov erwater, over-snow and fly-in access [ r em ote airs trips and float planes]). In developing these areas, consider the following:

a. Consistency with all resour ce program goals and objectives; b. prim ary travelers;

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 18 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
c. objec tive s f o r allowin g trave l in th e area ; d. setting ch arac ter i stics that a r e to be m a intained (including recreation opportunity system and VRM settin gs); and e. prim ary m eans of travel allowed to accom p lis h the objectives and to m a inta in the se tting c h arac ter i stic s.

2. Designation of Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas. All public lands are required to have off-highway vehicle area de signations (see 43 CFR 8342.1). Areas must be class i fied as open , limited , or clos ed to m o torized tr avel a c tivitie s. Criteria f o r open , lim ited, and closed area designa tions are established in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g) and (h), respectively.

For areas classified as lim ited consider a fu ll range of possibilities, including travel that will be lim ited to type s o r m odes of travel, su ch a s f oot, eques t rian, bicyc l e, m o torized, etc.; lim ited to exis ting r o ads and tr ails; lim ited to tim e or season of use; lim ited to certain types of vehicl es (OHVs, m o t o rcycles, all-terrain vehicles, hi gh clearance, etc.); lim ited to lic e nsed or pe r m itted vehic l es or us ers ; lim ited to BLM adm i nistra tive us e only; or other types of lim itations. In a ddition, provide specific guidance about the process for m a naging motorized veh i cle acces s for authorize d, perm itted, or otherwis e approved vehicles for those specific categories o f m o torized vehicle uses that are exempt from a lim ited designation (see 43 C F R 8340.0-5(a)(1-5).

At a m i ni m u m, the travel m a nagem e nt ar ea designation for wilderness study areas (WSAs) m u st be lim ited to ways and trails ex isting at the tim e the area becam e a WSA. Open areas within W S As are appropriate only for sand dune or snow areas designated as such prior to October 21, 1976. Existing roads, w a ys and trails m u st be fully docum ented and m a pped. This applies to both m o torized and m echanized transpo r t (see Interim Managem e nt Policy and Guidelines fo r Lands Under W ilderness Review H-8550- 1(I.)(B.)(11) for m echanized transport). In addition, future designations may be m a de for a W S A if it is released from study.

Except as otherwise provided by law (e .g., the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act), congressionally designated wildernes s areas are s t atutorily closed to motorized and m echanized use. These areas should be shown in the land use plans along with the acreage affected.

Existing law s , proclam a tions, regulations or Exec utive o r ders m a y lim it the use of the open area designation or im pose additional requir em ents relating to travel m a nage m e nt in specific circum stances.

For RMP provisions related to national scenic , historic and national recreation trails, national back country by ways, or oth e r byway designations (s ee Appendix C, III. Special Designations).

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s. Com p lete a defined travel m a nage m e nt network (system of areas, roads and/or trails) during the deve lopm ent of the land use plan, to the extent practical. If it is

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 19

not practical to define or delin eate the travel m a nagem e nt ne twork during the land use planning process, a prelim inary network m u st be identifi ed and a process establis hed to select a final travel m a nagem e nt network. Possible reasons for not com p leting the final network m i ght be size

or com p lexity of the area, controversy, incom p lete data, or other constraints.

If the final travel m a nagem e nt network is to be deferred in the RMP, then the RMP should docum ent the decision-m a king process used to deve lop the initial network, provide the basis for future m a na gem e nt decisions, and help set guidelines for m a king ro ad and trail network adjustm e nts throughout the life of the plan. Th e identification of th e uncompleted travel

m a nage m e nt networks should be delineated in the land use plan and the following tasks

com p leted for each area:

1) Produce a m a p of a prelim inary road and trail network;

2) define sh ort-term m a nagem e nt guidan ce for road and trail access and activ ities in

areas o r sub-areas no t co mpleted;

3) outline a ddition a l da ta needs, and a stra tegy to colle ct nee d ed inf o rm ation;

4) provide a clear planning sequence, in cluding public colla boration, criteria and constraints for subsequent road and trail selectio n and identification;

5) provide a schedule to com p lete the area o rsub

- are a road a nd tra il se lec tion pro cess ; and

6) identify any easem ents and rights-of-ways (t o be issued to the BLM or others) needed
to m a intain the prelim inary or ex isting road and trail network.

If the decision on delineating travel m a nage m e nt ne tworks is deferred in the land use plan to the im ple m entation phase, the work normally should be com p leted within 5 years of the signing of the ROD f o r the RMP.

At the im plem entation phase of the plan, establis h a process to identify specific areas, roads and/or trails that will be availa ble for public use, and specify lim itations placed on use. Products from this process will include:

1) A m a p of roads and trails for all travel m odes.

2) Def i nitio ns and additional lim itations f o r specif i c roads an d tra ils (def ined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(g)).

3) Criteria to select or re jec t spec if ic roads and trails in the final travel m a nagem e nt network, add new roads or trails and to specify lim itations.

4) Guidelines for m a na gem e nt, m o n itoring, and m a intenance of the system

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 20 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
5) Indicators to guide future plan m a inte nance, am endments, or revisions related to travel m a nagem e nt network.

6) Needed easem ents and rights-of-ways (to be i ssu ed to the BL M or othe rs) to m a intain the existing road and trail ne twork providing public land access.

In addition, travel m a nagem e nt networks should be reviewed periodically to ensure that current resource and travel m a nagem e nt objec tives are being m e t (see 43 CFR 8342.3).

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts exist.

E. Lands a nd Realty

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for
natura l re so urces with in the plann i n g area :

1. Lands for reten tion (4 3 CFR 2400), pr oposed disposal, o r acquis ition (based on acquisition criteria identi fied in the land use pl an; FLPMA Sec tion 205(b)) (Oregon Natural Resources Council, 78 IBLA 124 (1983)) . Lands are to be retained in Federal ownership, unless it is d e term ined th at dispos al o f a particu l ar parce l will serve th e national interest (FLP MA Section 102(a)(1)). L a nd us e plans should avoid prescribing the m e thod of disposal, acquis ition, or property interes t to b e acquired.

2. Lands or interest in lands that are available for disposal under a variety of disposal authorities, provided they m eet the criteria outlined in FLPMA (Sales, Section 203, 43 U.S.C. 1713(a); Exchanges, Section 206, 43 U.S.C. 1716(a); and Reservation and Conveyance of Minerals, Section 209, 43 U.S.C. 1719(a)) or ot her statutes and regulations. Lands available for disposal m u st be identified by parcel or by specific areas (on a m a p or by legal description).

3. Lands available for disposal under the Fe deral Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA). The FLTFA a m ended FLPMA to allow retention by th e BLM of receipts received from sale of land or interest s in land under Section 203 of FLPMA or conveyance of m i neral interest under Section 209(b) of FLPMA provided a land use plan

was com p leted prior to July 25, 2000. The FLTFA currently does not apply to lands identified for disposal after July 25, 2000. In Nevada, the FL TFA does not apply to lands eligible for sale under the Southern Neva da Public Land Managem e nt Act, SantiniBurton Act, Mesquite Lands Act, or Lincoln County Land Act.

4. Proposed withdrawal areas including existing withdrawals to be continued, m odifie d, or revoked (including how th e lands would be managed if the withdrawal were relinquished and an opening order issued) (see 43 CFR 2300).

5. Land Classifications under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as am ended (43 U.S.C. 315f). The procedures applicab le to S ection 7 outlined in 43 C F R 2400 m u st be followed. The following actions require clas sification : Recreation and Public

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 21

Purposes Act sales (see 43 CFR 2740) and leases (see 43 CFR 2912); agricultural entries (see 43 CFR 2520, 2530, 2610); and state grants (see 43 CFR 2620). To the extent that the land use planning procedures pursuant to 43 C F R 1600 differ from applicable classification procedures under 43 CFR 2400, the latter procedures shall be followed and applied. The analysis that s upports classification decisions is norm a lly the sam e analysis utilized in the land use planning/NEPA pr ocess to m a ke decisions concerning the disposal or retention of pub lic lands. For any classificat ion decision m a de through the land use plan, initiate the classification d ecision requirem e nts (i.e ., proposed and initial decisions required under 43 CFR 2400) at the tim e the decision docum e n t is issued for the land use plan.

6. W h ere and under what circum stances au thorizations for use, occupancy, and developm ent (such as major leases and la nd use perm its) m a y be granted (see 43 CFR 2740, 2912, 2911, and 2920, respectively).

7. Existing and potential right-of-way corri dors (potential corr idors include existing right-of-way routes with the potential for at le ast one additional faci lity and thus can be considered a corrido r if n o t already d e si gnated) to m i nim i ze adverse environm ental im pacts and the proliferation of sepa rate right-of-ways (see 43 CFR 2806).

8. Existing and potential developm ent area s for renewable energy projects (e.g., wind and solar), comm unication sites, and other uses.

9. Right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas (areas to be avoided but m a y be available for location of right-of-ways with special sti pulations and areas which are not available for location of right-of-w ays under any conditions).

10. Term s a nd conditions that m a y apply to ri ght-of-way corridors or developm ent areas, including best m a nage ment practices to m i nim i ze environm ental im pacts and lim itatio ns on other uses which would be necessary to m a in tain the corridor and right-of-way values.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Identify exchange ag reem ents, land sale plans, approvals of leases and perm its, and all subsequent phases of case processing. Identify issu ance of site-specific right-of-way grants and authorizat ions. Identify authorization notices for those actions that require classification or other no tices, including sales, exchange s, state selections, R ecreation and Public P u rposes Act sales and leases, agricu ltural entries, and othe r land disposal actions.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Consult with parties to Interagency Agreem e n ts or MOUs relating to corrid or iden tification or us e. The W e stern Utility Group m u st be consulted when developing decisions affecti ng utility use. Consult with I ndian Tribes and state and local
governm e nts having an interest in or jurisdiction over lands propos ed for disposal or acquisition.

F. Coal

Land Use Plan Decision s . The land use plan is the chie f process by which public land is reviewed to assess whether there are areas su itab le for leasing or unsuitable for all or certain

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 22 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
types of coal m i ning operations under Section 522(b) of the Su rface Min i n g Control an d Reclam ation Act. Identif y the f o llowing consisten t with th e go als and ob je ctive s f o r na tura l resources within the planning area:

1. Unleased coal lands that are acceptable fo r fu rther consid eration for coal le asing and developm ent and those that are not (see 43 CFR 3461).

2. Areas un suitab l e for surface m i ning of co al (4 3 CFR 1610.7-1) under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 3461.5.

3. For acceptable lands, areas su itab le for develo pm ent by all m i ning m e t hods or by o n ly certain stipulated m i ning m e thods, such as surface or underg round m i ning (see 43 CFR 3461).

4. Any special conditions that m u st be m e t during m o re detailed pla nning, lease sale, or post-lease activities, including m easures required to protect other resource values (see 43 CFR 3461).

5. An estimate of the amount of coal re coverab l e by either surface or u nderground

m i ning operations or both (43 CFR 3420.1-4( d)). Only those areas that have developm ent poten tial may be iden tified as acceptable for further consid eration for leasing.

6. Areas that have developm ent potential fo r coal leas ing accordi ng to the screening process outlined in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1–4).

7. Areas to be withdraw n from further consid eration for leasing to protect other resource values and land uses that are locally, regionally or nationally important or unique and that are not included in the unsuitability criteria discu ssed in 43 CFR 3461.5.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Offer leases with appropriate conditions and stipulations, process lease exchan ges, proces s preference right lease applications, and delinea te coal tracts for disposal.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . 1. Prior to or as part of the initiation or update of a land use plan or land use analysis, a call for coal and other resource information shall be m a de to for m ally solicit indications of interest and inform ation on coal resource developm ent potential and on other resources which m a y be affected by coal developm ent fo r land in the planning un it. Industry, state, and local governm e nts and the general publ ic m a y subm it inform ation on lands that should be considered for coal leasing, in cluding statem ents describing why the lands should be considered fo r leasing (43 CFR 3420.1-2).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 23

The Call for Coal and other Resource Inform ation m a y be combined with the notice of intent to conduct land use planning publis hed in accordance with 43 CFR 1601.3(g) or with the issu e identification pro cess in accordan ce with 43 CFR 1600.

2. Publish in the Federal Register a notice under 43 CFR 3461.2- 1(a)(2), providing f o r a

m i ni m u m 30-day comment period on the resu lts of the applic ation of uns uitab ility criteria, exemptions, and exceptions.

3. Consult as required under 43 CFR 3461.5 for unsuitability criteria 7 through 11, criteria 13 through 15, and criterion 17.

4. Consult q u alified su rface owners as required under 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4) and 1610.2(j) to determ ine th eir preference for or against surface m i ning. If a significan t

num b er of qualified su rface owners in an area do not support surface m i ning, BLM can consider only underground m i ning unle ss one of the exceptions in 43 CFR 3420.1- 4(e)(4 )(ii) or (iii) app lie s.

5. Consult Indian Tribes, other Federal ag encies, and states as required under 43 CFR 3420.1-6 and 3420.1-7.

6. Hold a public hearing as require d under 43 CFR 1610.2(k) and 43 C F R 3420.1-5 if requested.

G. Oil Shale

Ref e r to the Fluid Min e r a ls se ction (Appendix C, Section II.H be low) for applicable decision guidance, m a king decisions that consider the uni que developm ent aspects of oil shale, from underground m i ning to in-situ production techniques.

H. Fluid Minerals: Oil and Gas, Ta r Sands, and Geothermal Resources

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for natural resources with in the planning area (refer to H-1624-1):

1. Areas open to leasing, subject to existi ng laws, regulations, and for m al orders; and the
term s and conditions of the standard lease form

. 2. Areas open to leasing, subj ec t to moderate co nstra i nts su ch as seasonal and controlled surface use restrictions. (These are areas wher e it has been determ in ed that m oderately restric tive le ase stipula t ions m a y be requir e d to m itigate im pacts to othe r land uses o r resource values.)

3. Areas op en to leasing

, subject to m a jor constraints su ch as no-surface-occupancy stipulations on an area more than 40 acres in size or m o re than 0.25 m ile in width. (These are areas where it has been determ ined that highly restrictive le ase s tipulation s a r e requir e d to m itigate im pacts to othe r lands or res ource va lues . This categ ory also

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 24 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
includes areas where overlapping moderate c onstraints would severely lim it developm ent of fluid m i neral resources.)

4. Areas clo s ed to leasin g. (These are area s where it has been dete rm ined that other land uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the m o st restrictive lease s tipu l ations; appro p riate pro t ection can be ensured only by closing the lands to leasing.) Identify whether such closures are discretionary or nondiscretionary; and if discre tion a r y, the ra tion a le.

5. Resource condition objectives that ha ve been established and specific lease stipulations and general/typi cal conditions of approval and best m a nage ment practices that will be em ployed to accom p lish these ob jectives in areas open to leasing.

6. For each lease stipu l ation, th e circum stances for granting an exception, waiver, or modification. Identify the general do cum e ntation requirem e nts and any public notif ica tion associa t ed w ith gr anting exceptions, waivers, or modifications.

7. W h ether the leasing and developm ent deci sions also apply to geophysical exploration.

8. W h ether constraints identified in the land us e plan for new leases also apply to areas currently under lease.

9. Long-term resource condition ob jectiv es for areas cu rren t ly under dev e lopm ent to guide reclam ation activities prior to abandonm e n t.

A plan-level decision to open the lands to leas ing represents BLM’s determ ination, based on the inf o rm ation available a t the tim e, that it is a ppropriate to allow developm ent of the parcel consistent w ith th e te rm s of the lease, laws, regulations, and orders, a nd subject to reasonable conditions of approval. When a pplying leasing restrictions, the l east restrictive constraint to

m eet the resource protection objective should be used.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Offer leases with appropriate st ipulations. Addr ess site-specific actions such as geophysical exploration, approval or disapproval of app lications for perm it to drill (APDs) with attached re strictions or conditions of a pproval, well siting, tank battery placem ent, and pipeline routing.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Public notice shall be given 45 days before offering lands for lease and 30 days before approving APDs or substantially m odifying the term s of any lease (43 CFR 3101.1-4).

I. Locatable Minera ls

Land Use Plan Decision s . For lands that a r e ope n to the loca tion of lode, place r , and m ill claim s , the claim a nt has statu t ory authority under the m i ning la ws to ingress, egress and developm ent of those claim s . This authority m ean s that those areas op en to m i neral en try for the purposes of exploration or developm ent of locatab le m i nerals cannot be unreasonably restricted.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 25

Identif y the f o llowing co nsisten t with the goals an d objectives of locatab le m i neral exploration and developm ent in concert with the protection of natural resources w ithin the planning area.

1. Areas recomm ended for closure to the m i ning laws for locatable exploration or developm ent (that m u st be petitioned for withdrawal).

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special cons iderations needed to protect other resource values while conducting activities unde r the operation of the m i ning laws.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s .

1

. Process notices and plans of operations according to the 43 CFR 3809 r e gulations.

2. Manage the use and occupancy on public lands for the devel opm ent of l o catab le

m i neral deposits to that which is reasonably incident to prospecting, m i ning or processing operations under the m i ning laws (43 CFR 3715).

3. After a resource m a nagem e nt plan or pl an am endm ent in which lands are designated unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer sha ll take all ne cessary step s to im plement the resu lts o f the unsuita bility rev i ew as it applies to locatable m i nerals.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Recomm end proposed withdraw als to th e Secretary of the Interior for appropriate ac tion pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Com p ly with the congressional notice provisions of Secti on 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for withdrawals of 5,000 acres or m o re.
Areas that are petitioned for designation as uns uitable f o r m i neral d e velop m ent shall r e ceive public review and hearings as appropriate.

J. Mineral Materials

Land Use Plan Decision s. Identify the following consistent w ith the goals and objectives for the exploration, developm ent, and disposal of m i nera l m a terials in concert with the protection of natural reso urces with in the plann i n g area.

1. Areas open or closed to m i neral material disposal.

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect resource values while operating under the m i neral m a terials regula tion s

. Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s .

1. Establish common us e areas and community pits and process and approve disposal of

m i neral m a t e rials through prospecting perm its, free use perm i t s, and com p etitive and

noncom petitive perm its and sales.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 26 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

2. After a resource m a nagem e nt plan or plan am endm ent in which lands are designated unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer sha ll take all ne cessary step s to im plement the resu lts o f the unsuita bility rev i ew as it applies to m i neral m a terials.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Recomm end proposed withdr awals to th e Secretary of the Interior for appropriate ac tion pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Com p ly with the congressional notice provisions of Secti on 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for withdrawals of 5,000 acres or m o re.

Areas that are petitioned for designation as uns uitable f o r m i neral d e velop m ent shall r e ceive public review and hearings as appropriate.

K. Non-energy Leasables

Land Use Plan Decision s. Applies to m i nerals leased under the m i neral leasing acts and to hardrock m i nerals leasable under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946. Identif y the f o llowing consistent w ith the goals and objectives for exploration, developm ent, and disposal of nonenergy leasables in concert with the protection of natural res ources with in the plann i ng area.

1. Areas open or closed to non-en ergy leasing and development.

2. Any area wide term s, conditions, or othe r special considerations needed to protect other resource values while exploring or developing m i nerals under the non-energy leasable regulations.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s .

1. Issue m i neral use author izations for prospecting pe rm its, exploration licenses, pref erence right lea s e, co mpetitiv e le ases, le ase modif i cation s , and use pe rm its.

2. After a resource m a nagem e nt plan or pl an am endm ent in which lands are designated unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer sha ll take all ne cessary step s to im plement the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to non-energy leasables.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Recomm end proposed withdr awals to th e Secretary of the Interior for appropriate ac tion pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Com p ly with the congressional notice provisions of Secti on 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for withdrawals of 5,000 acres or m o re.

Areas that are petitioned for designation as uns uitable f o r m i neral d e velop m ent shall r e ceive public review and hearings as appropriate.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 27

III. Special Designation s

A. Congressional Designations

Land Use Plan Decision s . Develop stand-al one RMP/EIS-level pl an s f o r all na tiona l

monum e nts and congressionally designated natio nal conservation areas, national recreation areas, cooperative m a nagem e nt and protection areas, outstanding natura l areas, and forest

reserv es (in accordan ce with the establishi ng statute or Presid ential proclam a tion).

For designated national scenic and historic trails:

1. Identify goals, objectives and m easures to achieve th em , as well as allowable use s and surface res t rictions to av oid poten tial adve rse affects. Land us e plans m u st also reference, incorporate, or be am ended with provisions from applicable comprehensive

m a nage m e nt plans required by the Na tiona l Trails System Act.

2. Establish VRM designations; identify SRMA s, recreation m a nagem e nt zones, and offhighway vehicle designations; identify tr ail-related lands for retention, acquisition, withdrawals, avoidance, and exclusion ar eas ; iden tif y appropr iate spe c ia l leasing conditions, term s, constraints, or stipulati ons; designate trail segm ents as ACECs; and identify interpretive m easures.

3. Concentrate on high potential sites and segm ents along national hist oric trails, national regis t er elig ible segm ents, and the pr im itive char acte rand co nnection of nationa l sce n ic trail segm ents. Consider the historic cont ext and/or current an d future land scape condition along the trails.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Develop site-specific im ple m entation actions and plans for congressionally designated areas.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts.

B. Administrative Designations

Land Use Plan Decision s . Consistent with the goals and ob jectives for the planning area, m a ke the f o llowin g determ inations:

1. Manage WSAs unde r the interim m a nage m e nt policy (H-8550-1) until they are designated wilderness or releas ed by Congress. Identify m a nagem e nt direction for WSAs should they be released f r om wild erness consideration by Congress.

2. Assess all eligible river segm ents and de term i n e which are suitable or non-suitable per Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as am ended (see BLM Manual 8351).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 28 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
3. Designate ACECs and identify goals, standa rd s, and objectives for each area, as well
as gener a l managem e nt practices and uses, inc l uding necessa r y constra i nts and m itigation

m easures (also see BLM Manual 1613). This direction should be specific enough to

m i ni m i ze the need for subsequent A C EC m a nagem e nt plans. ACECs must m eet the relevance and im portance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a) and m u st require special

m a nage m e nt (43 CFR 1601.0-5(a)) to:

a) Protect the area and prevent irrepa rable damage to resources or natural system s.

b) Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exis t.

4. Designate research natural areas and out standing natural areas as types of ACECs using the A C EC designation process.

5. Designate BLM Scenic or Back C ountry Byways. Detailed procedural guidance for

nom i nation and designation of BLM byways, as well as other byway designations occurring on BLM lands (such as All Am eri can Roads, Nation a l Scenic Byways, State Scenic Byways, Forest Scenic Byways, and sim ilar) can be found in Handbook 8357-1: Byways, 12/17/93.

6. Designate national recreation trails, watcha ble wildlif e vie w ing s ites, wild horse and burro ranges, or other B L M adm i nistrative designations.

Subject to valid existing rights, avoid approval of proposed actions that could degrade the values of potential special des i gnations. Proposed actio ns will be reviewed on a case-by

- cas e basis and im pacts to a n area ’s valu es will b e as sessed. The standard f o r this r e view is the pro t ec tion of the area’s resources and values so that the area will not be disqualified from designation. Subject to valid existing rights, proposed actions that can not m eet this standard should be postponed, reloc a ted, m itig ated, o r d e nied until the planning f o r the are a is com p leted.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Develop site-specific m a nagem e nt actions and constraints. Evaluate and issue perm its for scientific, educational, or re crea tiona l ac tivitie s, a nd develop project plans for trails, interpretive exhibits, resource rehabilitation, and other site-specific activities. Protective m a nagem e nt provisions must be followe d to enhance or protect identified resource values and / o r characteris tics.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . Publish a Federal R e gister notice providing a 60-day comment period on proposed ACEC recomm endati ons and resource use lim itations (see 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b)).

IV. Suppor t

The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)(6 ) provide that land use plans m a y identify support needs. These are based on individual planning situations.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix C, page 29

A. Cadastral

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify planning boundaries so the geographic extent of land use decisions is clearly understood. The plan m a y identify areas where additional cadastral survey work is needed to locate and m a rk boundaries on the ground, including those areas identified for disposal. T h e plan m a y also identif y the need to com p lete more detailed boundary m a nage m e nt plans.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . If necessary, develo p a boundary m a nagem e nt plan for locating and

m a rking priority areas. Identify ar eas needing imm e diat e trespass resolution.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts.

B. Interpretation and Environmental Education

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify m a nage m e nt goals and/ or objectives for interpretation and environm ental education, and describe the signi ficant resources or areas that will be m a de available for interpretation/envir onmental education. For units of the NLCS, significant resource or area descriptions should be based on the designation or proclam a tion language establishing each area.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Determ ine what m a nagem e nt actions are necessary to achieve identified interpretive and environm ental ed ucation goals and/or objectives. Address the techniques to be used, and the partners and vol unteers needed, to im ple m ent these m a nagem e nt actions. The following factors shou ld be considered for relevant ac tivity

- leve l in terp retive and environm ental education plans:

1. Key stories unique to the area;

2. prim ary m e ssages or them es;

3. educational goals which support m a nage m e nt objectives;

4. prim ary recreation opportunities;

5. distin ctiv e recreat ion setting character;

6. key resource as well as r ecreation-tourism attractions; and

7. adm i nistrative services and controls.

The key interpretive stories and educational them es are b e st identif ied by collabo ratin g with: 1) community groups; 2) service provide rs and other interested partners ; and 3) other federal, state, and local governm e nt agencies. These key storie s and them es are often about unique historical, biological, geological, or other resource and hum a n values found within the planning area. The inte rpre tive and educatio nal them es r e late to th e prim ary values of the areas and/o r th eir

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix C, page 30 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

associated resources. L U P m a nage m e nt goals shoul d be incorporated into prim ary interpretive

m e ssages where appropriate.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts.

C. Transportation Facilities

Land Use Plan Decision s . Identify land areas av ailab l e or su itab l e f o r tr a n sporta tion f a cilities. Identif y types of transpo r ta tion f acilities that are appropriate for the planning area. Identify lim itations, if any, on the types or locations of facilities for specified areas.

Identify the area(s) hav i ng in-place transportatio n facilities that should b e rem oved. Identify road repair, road rehabilitati on, road construction, and m a inte nance standards appropriate to specific areas. Identify lim itations, if any, on ro ad repair, road rehabili tation, road construction, and m a intenance actions. Identify lim itations, if any, on road density (i.e., m iles/section) for specific areas.

Also refer to Appendix C(II)(D), Co mpre hensive Trails and Travel Managem e nt.

Imple m enta tion Decis i o n s . Develop a m a p or other type of specification docum ent that displays and describes the intended use of the individual geographic units within the planning area. In conjunction with the process of identifying a road network (see Appendix C, Section II.D, (Com prehensive Trails and Travel Managem e nt )), develop a transportation plan outlining specific road types and designations such as Fe deral, state, county, and T r ibal roads, BLM adm i nistered/m aintained roads, and BLM public roads. Identify road s in congressionally designated conservation units, Presidential conservation desi gnations, and adm i nistrative conservation designations such as back country byways.

Notices, Co nsultations, and Hearin gs . No additional specific requirem e nts.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 1

Appendix D: Social Science Considerati ons in Land Use Planning Decisions

I. Using Social Science in Land Us e Planning

Appendix D provides guidance on in tegra ting so cial scien ce inf o rm ation into th e plan ning process. Any inform ation gathered in support of a planning effort m u st be considered in the context of BLM’s legal m a ndates.

The BLM is requir e d to m a nage the public lands on the bas i s of m u ltiple use and sustained yield and to m eet the needs of present and future ge nerations. As the hum an population continues to increase and social values evolve, resource conflict s are likely to increase. More im portantly, the Am erican p ublic is increasing l y aware of the im portance of the public lands to its well-being and is dem a nding a larger voice in resource m a nage me nt decisions. Given these realities, the planning p r o cess can rep r esent a con s tant b a lanci ng of com p e ting needs, interests, and values. The effective use of social science can be cr itical to understanding and reconciling these differing perspectives.

Social science inform ation in land use planning can include the econom ic, political, cultural, and social structure of communities, regions, and the Nation as a whole; soci al values, beliefs, and attitudes ; ho w people interact with th e landscape; and sense-o f -place issues. The social sciences integrate a wide variety of di sciplines, generally includi ng econom ics, sociology, demography, anthropology, archaeolo gy, political science, geography, hist ory, and landscape architecture. Though the infor m ation appropriate to a given an alysis depends upon the specific issues being assessed, the social scien ce inform ation usually important for res ource planning decisions can be grouped in the following catego r ies :

• De m ography and Social Indicators

• Social Organization and Institutions

• Attitud e s an d Values

• Hum a n Geography

• Econom ic Value

• Em ploym e nt, Incom e , and Subsistence

• Public Finance and Governm e nt Services

• Environm ental Justice

By statute, regulation, and Ex ecutive order the BLM m u st util ize social science in the preparation of infor m ed, sustainable land use planning decisions. Section 202(c)(2) of FLPMA requires BLM to integrate physical , biological, econom ic, and other sciences in developing landuse plans (43 USC 1712(c)(2)). FLP M A regula tions 43 CFR 1610.4-3 and 1610.4-6 also require BLM to analyze social, econom ic, and institut ional inform ation. Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA requires Fed e ral agencies to “insu r e the integ r ated use of the natural and social sciences . . . in planning and decision making” ( 42 USC 4332(2)(A)). Federal agen cies are also required to “identify and address . . . disproportionately hi gh and adverse hum a n health or environm ental effects of its program s, polic ies, and activities on m i nority populations and low-incom e populations in the United States” in accordan ce with Executive Order 12 898 on Environm ental Justice.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
II. Incorporating Soci o-economic Informatio n

A. The Pla nning Process

To be effective, social scientific data and m e t hods should be integrated into the entire planning process, from preparing the pre- plan to im ple m entation and monitoring. T h e m a in social science activities for the various planning st eps are outlined in Table D-1.

Ta ble D-1

. — So cia l science activities in la nd use p l a nning

Plannin g s t ep s Social science acti vities
Steps 1 & 2—Identify Iss u es and De velop Pl anni ng C r i t e r i a ▪ Identify publi c s and st rategi es to reach the m

▪ Ide n tify s o cia l and econom i c issues

▪ Ide n tify s o cia l and econom i c planning c r iteria

St ep 3— In ve nt ory Dat a ▪ Ide n t i f y i n ve nt o r y m e t hods

▪ Collect neces sary social and econom ic data

St eps 4— A n al y ze M a nagem e nt Si t u at i o n ▪ Conduct s o cial and econom i c assessm en t, in clud ing ex istin g cond itio n s and t r e nds an d t h e i m pact s of cont i n ui n g cu rr ent m a nagem e nt

▪ Docum e nt as sessm ent m e th ods in an ap pe ndi x or t ech ni cal su ppl em ent

Step 5—Formulate Alternatives ▪ Id en tify so cial an d econo m i c op portun ities an d con s trai n t s to h e lp form ulate alter n atives

Step 6—Estimate Effect s of Altern ativ es ▪ Ide n t i f y a n al y s i s m e t hods

▪ Analyze the s o cial and ec onom i c effects of the alternative s

▪ D o cum e nt im pact anal y s i s m e t hods i n a n appe n d i x o r t e chni cal supplem e nt

▪ Assess m i t i g a tio n o ppo rt u n i t i es to en h a n ce altern ativ es’ po sitiv e effects and m i nimize their ne gative e ffects
Step s 7 & 8

— Id en tify Preferred Altern ativ e and Finalize Plan ▪ Id en tify p o t en tial so cial and econ o m ic f actors to help sele ct the preferred altern ativ e

St ep 9—M oni t o r an d E v al uat e ▪ Trac k s o cial and econom i c indicators

B. Objectives of the An alysis

Beyond contributing to the public involvem e nt st rategy (see Appendix D, Section III), socioeconom ic input to BLM’s resource managem e nt planning has three m a in elem ents: baseline

assessm ent, im pact analysis, and m itigation.

1. Baseline assessm ent

Characte r iz e existing con d itions and trends in loca l comm unities and the w i der r e gion that m a y affect and be affected by land use planning de cisions. This baseline assessm e nt should be

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 3

included or summarized and referenced in the A ffected Environm ent section of the E I S. In particular, the baseline assessm ent should:

a) Review and summarize the relevant published and unpublished literature on the history, econom y, and social sy stem (s) of the s t u dy area;

b) characterize the econom i c structure and ac tivity of communities and groups within the study area that are affected by the managem e nt of BLM lands; and

c) cha r acter ize th e socia l stru ctu r e, a c tiv ities, and values of su ch communities and
groups.

When preparing RMP am endments for activ ity- or im ple m entation-level projects, the social science and econom ic portions of the Affected Environm ent chapte r m a y be referenced to the original RMP or reduced in com p lexity, based on the actual issues associated with the proposed action s

.

2. Im pact analysis

In the Environm ental Consequences section of the EIS, characterize im pacts to exis ting conditions and trends fro m each of the altern atives under considerati on, in cluding the no action alte rnative, r e lative to th e baseline as sessm ent. Impacts include direct, indirect, and cum u lative effects for all resou r ces that m a ke up the hum an environm ent. In particular, im pact analyses should:

a) Analyze the positive and negative econom ic effects of each alternative developed within th e RMP on those communities and groups ;

b) analy ze the positive and negativ e social effects of each alternative dev e loped with in the RMP on those communities and groups; and

c) in fulfillm ent of Environm ental Justic e requirem ents, identif y any disproportionate negative effect on low-incom e or m i nority populations associated with one or m o re proposed alternatives (see Appendix D, Section IV).

3. Mitig atio n m easures

As appropriate, identify m easures that m a y reduce or avoid potential adve rse econom i c or social ef

f

ects of the alterna tive s , and m a xim i ze their p o sitiv e ef f

ects. Determ ination of the pref erred alternative as expressed in the RMP ROD should re flect this analysis. No te that the preferred alternative is not required to be the a lte rnative with the leas t c u m u lative a dverse im pacts or that provides full m itigation to all so cial and econom i c im pacts.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

C. The Scope of Analysis

There is no standard sco p e of work for socio

- eco nom i c analy s is becau se the key topics and

m e thods are shaped in part by the social context and potential resource a llocation decisions of a given resource m a nage ment plan. The social and econom ic assessm ent (affected environm ent) and im pact analysis (environm ental consequen ces) should assist the r eader to understand the hum a n context of the planning effort, and in pa rticula r to ide n tif y the potentia l ef f

ects, constraints, and opportunities a ssociated with planning alterna tives. Table D-2 presents 27 topics of socio-econom ic inform ation. W e suggest ranking topics as follows:

1 ~ Basic : topic should be addressed (exam p le: population trends) 2 ~ Optional : address if warranted by context and issues 3 ~ Not currently indicated : address if indicated by new inform ation

In Table D-2 som e topics considered basic to al l socio-e c ono m i c analyses are as signed a priority of 1 . Field office staff responsible for direct ing the socio-econom i c aspect of a resource

m a nage m e nt plan can use the list of topics to define an appropriate sc ope of work, identifying which topics should be included in the analysis by ranking as 1 (basic), 2 (optional), or 3 (not

curren tly in dicated). These topics are availab l e as a stand alone Checklist for Socio-Econom ic Analysis , available on the BLM social scien ce website (see Appendix D, S ection VII). For ea ch topic the checklist a l s o includes a field for “plan

- specific guidance” to p r ovide BLM staff or contracto r s with more precise direction as to which gr oups, issues, and activities should receive particular attention. Note also th at the required Econom i c Strate gies Workshop (see Appendix D, Section III[B]) provides an excellent opportunity to discuss with inte rested g overnm e nt leaders and the public what topics should be emphasized in the socio-econom ic analysis.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 5

Ta ble D–2 .— To pi cs f o r soci o-ec on omi c an al ysi s To pic Planning rele v ance E xam pl es Priority Po pul at i on Po ten tial dem a n d on BLM l a nds an d res o urces Po pul at i o n t r e n ds;

m i grat i on, di st ri b u t i o n by
age a n d ge nder 1

In equ a lity Differen ces in v i sib ility an d i n fl ue nce; i d e n t i f y vul nera bl e po p u l a t i ons (E nvi ro nm ent a l Justice) Inc o m e di st ri b u t i on; perce n t of h o u s eh ol ds i n po ve rt y 1

S o c i a l d ifference B a rri ers t o p u b l i c i nvol vem e nt ; di ffe re nt use r n eeds a n d val u e s ; id en tify d i stin ctiv e po pu lations ( E nv iron m e n t a l Ju stice) Et hni ci t y ; l a ng uage s spo k e n i n ho us ehol d; Trib al affiliatio n Dem ogr ap hy

a n d So cia l Indicator s

Soci a l i n di cat o rs C a n i n di cat e c o m m uni t y strengths and weaknesse s tha t

m a y have i m pl i cat i ons f o r pl an ni n g i s s u es Crim e rates, divorce rates, u n e m p loy m en t, educat i o n, l e n g t h o f resi de nce

Gove rn me nt Po ten tial co operatin g ag en cies;
cont act s fo r pl an c o o r di nat i o n (i de nt i f i e d i n p r e- pl an ) M uni ci pal a n d cou n t y go ve rnm e nt s i n / n ea r planning a r ea; special districts; Tribal
go ve rnm e nt s 1

No n- go vern

ment al in stitu tio n s Potential p a rtn e rs fo r plan im pl em ent a t i o n; s o u r ces of

eco no m i c an d so cial resilien c e Cham ber of C o mmerce; chu r c h gr ou ps; et hni c advocacy orga nizations

Co mmun ities of pl ace Lo cal an d reg i o n a l po pu lation

cen ters relativ e to p l ann i ng area effects m a y differ by

co mm u n ity Gateway co mm u n ities;

n a tural resou r ced e p e nd en t co m m u n ities 1

S o c i a l group s

an d net w ork s Oppo rt u n ities fo r in form al
cont act s i n see k i n g pu bl i c

com m e nt an d c o m m uni cat i ng pl ans an d pr o p o sal s Net w or ks l i n ki ng

ranc her s or ret i r ees Social Orga niza t i on and Institutions

O ccupa tio na l

an d i n t e rest g r oup s Provi d e ra nge of pe rs pectives

o n po ten tial lan d u s e d ecision s, effects m a y differ by distinct
g r ou p W i l d erness advocates; oil and ga s pr od uc ers, Cattle man ’ s Asso ciatio n 1

At titude s and M e anings Attitu d e s and b e liefs regardi n g loc a l

en vironm en t an d its u s e Local un der s t a ndi ng s m a y sha p e acce ptabilit y of propose d l a nd use deci si ons [ f

o r ma l t e c h n i q u e s : s u rv ey s, interviews, focus groups] 1 Survey t o clari f y local

un de rst a n d i n g of ef fect s of coal be d m e thane tech no log y on g r ou nd

water con d ition s

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 6 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

To pic Planning rele v ance E xam pl es Priority S i gn ifica n c e o f
p r opo sed land

ma n age me nt

a c tio ns fo r various publics Wh ile p u b lic attitu d e s are elicited in scopin g , fo rm al d a ta collection ca n i d entify im port a nt di f f e r ences bet w een gr o ups , pr o v i d i n g f u rt her in fo rm atio n to h e lp i d en tify im pacts and m i tigation strategies [ f

o r ma l t e c h n i q u e s : s u rv ey s, interviews, focus groups] 1 In terv iews to assess social im pacts of
p r e s cr ib ed bu rn ing

Qua lity o f

life C a n i n di cat e c o m m uni t y perce p t i o ns t h a t m a y have im pl i cat i ons f o r pl an ni n g i s s u es Perceive d acce ss to

comm unity resources; satisfactio n with

co mm u n ity co n d ition s , su ch as op portu n ities for

em pl oym ent

Di st ri but i o n of

co mmu n ities,

roa d s , an d

resources Clarify g e o

- spatial co n t ex t; can p r ed ict po ten t i a l co nflicts and i m p acts o v e r pr opo sed land use allo catio n s W i l d land -u rb an in terface,
recreat i o nal de m a nd fr om

n earb y cities 1

La nd ow ners hi p

an d access Can p r ed ict poten tial co nflicts and i m pact s ov er pr op ose d l a nd

u s e allo cation s Sp lit estate own e rsh i p of sub-s u rface m i nerals Hum a n Geograph y

Cu ltu ra lly a n d

so cia lly sig n ifican t pl aces a n d are a s Id en tify con s train t s on sitesp ecific activ ities, h e lp t o id en tify m i t i g a tio n (m ay be devel ope d i n c u l t u ra l

resource a n alysis) [ f

o r ma l t e c h n i q u e s : s u rv ey s, interviews, focus groups] 1 Lo cally v a lu ed bu ild ing s , sites, and lands capes; sense of place; traditional relig iou s /cu ltural u s e

areas

In terrel a tio nshi p s a m on g p r odu cing
sectors Regional econom i c sectors a n d th eir in terrelatio n as a con t ex t fo r B L M m a nagem e nt deci si o n s (w he n al l o cat i o n decisions a r e of s u fficient sca l e to ha ve m acroe conom i c effects, consider nati onal–level

eco no m i c in terrelatio n s h i p s ) Annual purcha s e and sales by ec onom ic sector (transactio n matrix )

1 E c on omi c Value

Non-market values of resources and

a c tivities Consi d er the si gni ficance of t h e

non-m a rket val u es ass o ciated

w ith r e sour ces man a g e d or im pacts by BL M whe n fo rm ul at i ng t h e m a nagem e nt altern ativ es Esti m a te th e valu e of
ope n space , i m pr o v ed riparia n a r eas, im proved wild life h a b itat

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 7

To pic Planning rele v ance E xam pl es Priority Depe ndence on BLM land s and

resources Un de rst a n d a n d qua nt i f y t h e p o t en tial lo cal an d reg i on al im pacts of la nd use decisions Valu e of BLM ti m b er sales, visitor-day

ex p e nd itu r e s, gr azing an d min i n g to th e lo cal

econom y

Em pl oy ment Qu an tify th e an ticip ated

em pl oym ent i m pact s by sect or to d e term in e th e po pu lation changes and t h e associated dem a nd o n t h e i n fra st ruct ure i n the study area Tem porary jo b s fr om oi l and ga s devel o pm ent

vers us ser v i ce jo bs created by inc r eased recreation a l o p p o rtun ities 1

Persona l in come Forecasting the anticipated change i n income, occurri ng as

a resu lt of th e BLM altern ativ es No n-la b o r i n co m e ( d iv id en d s , tr an s f er pay m ent s ) 1

Econ om ic d i versity an d resilien ce Ab ility o f stakeh o l d e r

co mm u n ities t o respon d to external cha nge Level of de pe n d ence o n si ngl e ec o nom ic sect or

Reg i ona l economic

o r

gan iza tion Id en tify am o u n t an d
g e ogr aph i c d i str i bu tio n of n e w i ndi rect a n d i n duce d

e m p l o y m en t resu ltin g fro m ad d ition a l lo cal in v e stm e n t New lo cal j o b s resu ltin g from proposed increase i n oi l an d gas pr o duct i o n o n p u b lic land s Employment, Income , and Subsiste nce

Su bsi s t e nce

a c tivities No n-m a rket pr od uct i o n fr om BLM lands for local use Am ount a n d v a l u e o f

su bsisten ce hun tin g b y local residents

Gove rn me nt revenues and expenditures Fiscal cap acity and resilien ce

un de r c h an ge C h an ge i n t a x r e ven u es and county PILT recei pts Public Financ e and Governme nt Services Pub lic in

fra s tru c tu re

an d s e rvi ces Co mm u n ity se rv ices m a y b e im pacted by re source or recreat i o nal de vel o pm ent of
p u b lic land s Expenditure s on sc hools,

roa d s, social services

C

har act e ri ze Environment a l Justice
p opu la tion s i n pl a nni ng a r ea See Dem o graphy and Social Ind i cato r s: in eq u a lity, so cial diffe re nce Mu ch of th e commercial har v est i n g of n o n

- t i m ber fo rest pr od uct s i n Paci fi c Northwest is orga nized th ro ugh ethn ic n e two r k s 1 Environmental Jus t ice

Assess pote n tial fo r di spr o port i on a t e impa cts to Environment a l Justice
p opu la tion s I d en tif y wh ether Env i ron m en tal Ju stice issu es req u ire f u rthe r m odification o f altern ativ es, or fu rth e r

m i ti gat i on of i m pact s Oi l an d gas de vel o pm ent in areas whe r e Am erican In di an p o pul at i ons c o l l ect

m e di ci nal pl an t s 1

1 Pr i m ary ( n ew) data collection m e thods m a y be subject to r e quir e m e nts of the Paper w or k Red u ction Act. See Planning Handb ook, Appendix D, Section V( C)

. Secondar y data m a y also be available.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 8 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

D. Delivera bles in Contracting

It is recommended the field offices contrac ting f o r socio

- eco nom i c analy s es in resource

m a nage m e nt plans require the following deliverables.

1. Baseline social and econom ic assessm en ts, for inclusion in the AMS docum ent.

2. Abbreviated baseline social and econom ic assessm ents, for inclusion in the Affected Environm ent chapter of the plan/E IS.

3. Proposed im pact analysis strategy, descri bing the social and ec onom ic variables, the key data sources, and the analytic m e t hods proposed. These should be based on requirem e nts provided by the contracting officer ’s rep r esen ta tive, issues identif ied in the pre-plan, inf o rm ation obtained through sc oping and other public involvem e nt, guidance from cooperating agencies, and the social and econom i c baseline assessm ents.

4. Social and econom ic im pact analyses, for inclusion in the Environm e n tal Consequences chapter of the plan/EIS.

5. Analysis of Environmental Justice com p liance.

6. A brief m e thodological statem ent, presen ted as an appendix to the plan/EIS, summarizing the significant analytic assum p ti ons and m e thods utilized in preparing the
statem ent of social and econom ic i m pacts.

E. Analytic Guidelines

Social science inform ation provided for resource m a nage m e nt plans should be consistent with the following guidelines.

1. Scale and level of effort. The scope of analysis and level of effort should be commensurate with the importance o f the part icular resource issues. In other words, focus data collection and analysis on those is sues and sectors that are im portant for the agency’s decision-m aking or im portant for the publics, as iden tified through scoping and other form al and inform a l form s of public involvem e nt.

For exam ple, a regional programm a tic plan would likely provide a broad characterization of comm uni ties within and n ear the planning region as we ll as an exam ination of national-scale public land prio rities. A single RMP would likely focus on a m u ch s m aller area and include a m o re detailed analysis for each community. At the im plem entation plan level, the analysis would focus on m o re site-specific infor m ation, such as the groups, networks, or individuals affected by the decision under consideration.

2. Assessment area . Th e assessm ent (study ) are a for econom i c and social analysis m a y be larg er th an the des i gn ated plannin g area (for exam ple, because of a m a jor retail cen ter outside but near the planning area). Depending on the issues , the boundaries of the social

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 9

and economic study areas m a y not be identical. T h e analysis m a y also require describing populations that do not reside pr im arily in the assessm ent area , such as recreational users

com i ng from m e tropolitan areas.

3. Schedule . Inform ation should be gathered ear ly enough to be included throughout the discussion and decision-m a king phase s of the planning effort.

Note that the econom ic analysis (and indir ectly, the social anal ysis) is dependent on sound outpu t projections for each sig n ificant reso urce, over each alternative to be evaluated. For exam ple, the econo m i c analysis of recreation-related impacts (changes in

assessm ent area pay r oll and em ploym e nt) cannot be done un til the recreation specialists have determined the changes in visitor days , by alternative. The economic analysis of

m i neral developm ent cannot be done until the geologists have developed an analysis of the changes in m i neral availabil ity and production, by alternative.

4. Dimensions of impact analysis . Impact analy s es m u st m a ke clear how the social and

econom ic effects of each m a nagem e nt al ternativ e—both positive and negative—are distributed among the communities and groups in the assessment area, and am ong othe r relevant populations (for exam ple, recreati onal users who live outsi de the study area). Potential im pacts hav e multiple asp ects r e le v a nt to decision- m a king; a well-craf t ed im pact analysis should describe th e aspects listed in Table D

- 3.

Ta ble D-3

. — D i mensi o ns of impa ct ana l ysis relevant to decision-making Aspec t Describe
Space ▪ Im p acts across m u ltip le g e og raph ic scales: ind i v i du al, hou seh o l d

, co mmu n ity, reg i o n , and whe r e a p propriate, n a tional so ciety.

Tim e ▪ Im p acts across m u ltip les ti me scales: short-term v e rsu s l o ng-term

.
So cial id en tity ▪ W h o w o u l d b e af f ected

, and in wh at w a ys. I f d i ff er en t gr oup s o r pub lics ( f or ex am p l e, d i stin gu ish e d by in co m e , eth n icity, g e n d er, or o ccup a tion ) will b e u n e qu ally affected

, d e scr i b e an d ex p l ain wh y. W h er e l o w in co m e , m i n o r ity, or Tr ib al p opulatio n s w o u l d b e d i spropo rtion a t e ly affected, ensu re th at th is is do cu m e n t ed i n th e En v i ronmen tal Ju stice

assessm ent (see Section IV).

M a gni t u de ▪ Th e m a g n itud e an d sign ifican ce of project ed im pacts.

Prob ab ility ▪ The l i k el i h oo d of a pr oject e d i m pact occu r r i n g.

C a usat i on ▪ Th e d i rect, ind i rect, and cum u la tiv e p r oj ected im p acts.
Accepta bility ▪ The anticipat ed desira bility or accep ta bilit y of proj ected i m pacts.

5 . Analysis of no-action alternative . For the Environm ental C onsequences section of the EIS, characterize im pacts to exis ting econom ic conditions and trends from each of the alternatives under considerati on, relative to the no action alte rnative. While the no action alternative assum e s no new actions within the RMP’s scope of decisions, it should

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 10 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
include other changes reasonabl y an ticipated to a ffect the study area within the planning tim ef ram e

.

6. Non-market valu e . The analysis of econom ic impacts for each plan a lternative should consider not m e rely anticipated expenditures (m arket trans actions), but w h ere feasib le

, the anticipated consum er surplus generated by the proposed activity, as determ ined by estim ates of willingn ess-to-pay (non -m arket values). To estim ate non- market v a lues for activities proposed under a plan alternative, it is often m o re practical to utilize benefit transfe r m e thods than to undertake new research w ithin the study area, by applying soundly derived non-m a rket values established for com p arable sites and activities.

III. Public Involvemen t

A. Integrating Social S c ience Into Public Involvement

Developm ent of the social and econo m i c analys is should tak e place as part of a larger collaborative dialogue between BLM and the public. Staff or contractors responsible for social science contributions to the RMP should inte grate inform ation from public involvem e nt processes with technical data co llection and analysis. Moreover , social and econom ic analysis can provide inform ation about affected groups th at can im prove plans for public involvem e nt.

To the exten t feasible, BLM' s public involvem e nt process sho u ld seek no t only attitud e s and values relevant to planning issues and alternatives , but also suggestions re garding sources of data and m e thods of analysis. Involvi ng local publics in discussions of appropriate data and m e thods early in a planning process increas es the likelihood that the resul ting analysis of effects will be considered credible and useful. State and fiel d o ffices are en couraged to engage potential and existing partners in the collection, preparation, a nd analysis of social and econom ic data leading to the form ulation of alternatives, th eir an tic ipated im pacts, and potential m itigation.

Partners include other Federal agencies and st ate, Tribal, county, a nd m unicipal governm ents. Inform ation-sharing with partne rs is c r ucia l to the f o rm ulation of cum u lativ e socia l and

econom ic impacts from alternativ es that span jurisdictional/ regional boundaries. Consider cooperating agency status where appropriate and look for opportunities to com b ine analysis with partne rs' pla nning proce sses. Other participan ts , such as universitie s, co mmunities, r e lig ious institutions, industry representa tives, and non-governm e ntal organizations m a y also share vital inform ation not obtainable th rough standard data sources.

B. Economic Strategies Workshop

The public involvem e nt effort on all new RM Ps, RMP revisions, and RMP a m endm e n ts

accom p anied by EISs must include at least one econom ic strategies work shop. Such workshops provide an opportunity for local governm ent offi ci als, community leaders, and other citizens to discuss regional econo m i c conditio ns, trends, a nd stra tegies with BLM m a nagers and staf f

. Such workshops must m eet three objectives:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 11

1. Im parting skills on analyzing local and re gional econom ic and social conditions and trends ;

2. assisting community m e mbers to identify desired econom ic and social conditions; and

3. collaborating with BL M staff to identify opportunities to advance local econom ic and social goals through planning and policy deci sions within the aut hority of BLM, its cooperating agencies, or other partners.

Field Managers are welcom e to select appropriate workshops from qualified vendors, or to work with State Office or W a shington Office social sc ience staff to design a workshop appropriate to their situations. The cost of such workshops should be included in the R M P planning budget and indicated in the pre-plan. For sources of furt her infor m ation on such workshops, see Section VI, Further Guidance.

IV. Environmental Ju stice Requirements

Environm ental Justice involves th e fair treatm ent and m eaningful involvem e nt of all people regard less o f race, colo r, national origin, or in co m e with res p ect to the d e velopm ent, im ple m entation, and enforcem ent of environm en tal laws, regulations, and policies. Fair
treatm ent means that no group of people, incl uding racial, ethnic, or socio-econom ic group should bear a disproportionate sh are of the negative environm enta l consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal program s and policies.

Executive O r der 12898, issued in 1994, requires that “. . . each Federal agency shall make achieving Environm ental Justice part of its m i ssi on by identifying and addr essing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and advers e hum a n health or environm en tal effec t s of its program s , policies, and activities on m i nority populations and low-incom e populations.”

A. BLM’s Environmental Justice Principles

1. The BLM will determ ine if its proposed actions will adv e rsely and disproportionally im pact m i nority populations, low-incom e co mm unities, and T r ibes (reference Executive Order No. 12898, Environm ental Justice) and consider aggregate, cum u lative, and synergis tic e f f

ects, inclu d ing resu lts of actions taken by other parties. W h ile Environm ental Justice analysis is specifically concerned with disp roportionate effects on the three populations, the soci al and econom ic analysis produced in accord with NEPA considers all potential so cial and eco nom i c e ffects, positive and negative, on any distinct
group.

2. The BLM will prom ote and prov ide opportu n ities for full involvem e nt of m i nority populations, low-incom e communities, and Trib es in BLM decisions that affect their lives, livelihoods, and health.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 12 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

3. The BLM will in corporate Env i r o nm ental Ju stic e consid erations in land use plan ning alternatives to adequately respond to Environm e n tal Justice issues and problem s facing

m i nority populations, lo w-incom e comm unities, and Tribes living near p ublic lands, working with, and/or usi ng public land resources.

4. W h ere disproportionately h i gh ad verse im pacts are an ticip ated, th e BLM will work with local comm unity groups/associations, gover nm ents, and Tribal leaders to determ ine if land disposition and/or acquis ition polic ies af f

ect re al es tate values and real incom e of

m i nority and low income communities, and Tribes.

5. The BLM State and Field Of f i ces will co n tin ue to m a ke Environm ental Jus t ice a

m a ndatory critica l elem ent f o r consid er ation in all land use planning and NEPA docum ents.

B. Incorporating Environmental Justi ce Effo rts in the R M P/EIS Process

1. Consult with other Federal agencies, Tribal leaders, s t ates and local governm e nts, community groups/associations, churches, etc ., to identify minority and low-incom e communitie s, and rese rv ations, inclu d ing m i grant and/o r seas onal worker s. W o rk with the above groups to determ ine any potential disproportionately high and adverse im pacts posed by the proposed action. W ith the coopera tion of the partners, affected m i nority populations, low-incom e communities, and Tribes, adopt and im ple m ent creative

m easures to elim inate, minim i ze, and/or corr ec t identif ied En vironm ental Justic e im pacts.

2. Through collaboration, identify potential planning areas where proposed action(s) could have disproportionately high and a dverse impacts on the health of m i nority populations, low-incom e communities and Tribes or their surrounding env i ronm ent, and docum ent fi ndings and recomm ende d solutions.

3. Share appropriate inform ation about poten tial high and adverse im pacts with m i nority populations, and/or low-incom e communities, an d/or Tribes through workshops, inform al

m eetings, or other forums and soli cit feedback an d recomm endations.

4. Publish NOIs and NOAs announcing scoping/i ssue identification m e etings in the local

m e dia (newspaper, radio, or television ) of identified m i nority and low-incom e communitie s and Tribes inf o rm ing them of such m eetings.

5. Develop m a iling lists of identified m i nor ity p opulations, low-incom e communities, and Tribes. Becom e knowledgeable of the ge ographic areas of proposed actions and the people that live there (m inority and low-inco m e including those in transitory status).

6. W h en appropriate, schedul e scop ing/issue ide n tif ica ti on m eetings in m i nority and low-incom e communitie s or on Trib al res e rva tio ns; and

7. Consider the need to translate to other languages planning and NEPA docum e nts

m a iled/circulated to identified m i nority populations, low-incom e communities, and

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 13

Tribes. Consider also the need to have an in terpr e ter p r esen t at all schedu led m eetings if there are po tential langu age problems.

C. Documentation and Analysis

1. Pre-plans should identify known low-incom e , m i nority, and Tribal populations within the assessment area, and should indicate what m easures will be taken to encourage their participa tion in the p l ann i ng proces s.

2. Data and analyses needed to ensure Environmental Justice com p liance should be incorporated in work plans for so cial and economic im pact analyses.

3. Environm ental Justice considerations s hould be docum ented by the R M P/EIS social and economic analyses in (a) the Analysis of the Managem e nt Situa tion, (b) the Affected Environm ent chapter, an d (c) th e Im pact Analysis (Environm ental Consequences) chapter. An explanation of how any Environm ental Justice issues have been considered and, where possible, m i tigated should be includ ed in the description and rationale for the preferred alternative.

V. Data Management

A. Types of Data

The type of data to be collected and analyzed sh ould be appropriate to the planning scale and the issues identified through the scoping process.

There are num e rous sources of data available at the nation a l, state, and local levels from
governm e nt, university, and private sources. Utilize BLM sources as well as other governm e ntal agencies that routinely collect and report econom ic and social data. Much of the governm e nt data is easily available online. Locally and re gionally produced reports on social and econom ic conditions that are produced on a one-tim e ba sis (such as county or community planning docum ents and university extensi on studies) m a y also be usef ul.

Use existing data to the extent possible: planning docum ents and environm ental im pact statem ents do not routinely require prim ary data collection. N onetheless, collecting prim ary data

m a y be necessary, particularly for social im pact assessm ent, using techniq u es such as surveys, focus groups, or key inf o rm ant interviews. Any plan to include prim ar y data collection should be justified in term s of gaps in ava ilable data or special circum stances.

B. Data Quality and Analytic Soundness

Social and econom ic analyses should be perform e d in a m a nner consistent with professionally recognized approaches, m e thods, and techniques. In addition, the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554, §515) requires Federal agencies to ensure that influential inform ation, such as that used in th e p r eparation o f re source m a nagem e nt plans, be characterized by reproducibility and transparency.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 14 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM recognizes that influential inform ation should be subject to a high de gree of transparency about data and m e thods to facilitate the reprodu cibility of such inform ation by qualified third parties, to an acceptable degree of precision. It is im portant th at analytic results h a ve a high degree of transparency regardi ng (1) the source of the data used, (2) the various assumptions

em ployed, (3) the analytic m e thods applied, and (4 ) the statistical procedures em ployed. It is also im portant that the d e gree of rigo r with which each of thes e factors is p r esented and discussed be scaled as appropria te, and that all factors be presented and discussed. (See BLM’s “Inform a tion Quality G u idelines,” available at: http://www.blm .gov/nhp /efoia/data_quality/.)

Data sources and m e thods of analysis m u st be cl early and briefly describe d in the text of the RMP/EIS and described in m o re detail in a technical supplement or RMP appendix.

C. Paper w ork Reduction Act Requirem ents for New Data Collection

RMP/EIS te am s must ensure tha t any new (prim a ry) data collection com p lies with the requirem e nts of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13).

If answers to identical q u estions are to be coll ected from 10 or m o re m e mbers of the public—for

exam ple, through a survey questionnaire—the Paperwork Reduction Act requires Office of Managem e nt and Budget (OMB) approval for the study. Note that for purposes of the Act, “public” also applies to state, local, and Tribal governm e nt employees, though not to em ployees of the Federal governm e nt. OMB review is norm a lly a lengthy process, which m u st be initiated through the BLM W a shington Office. Unless the proposed data collection can be processed by expedited review under the term s of an existing generic OMB aut horization (such as that for Custom er Satisfaction S u rveys), approval is likely to be tim e consum ing.

VI. Data Sources

A. Use of the Economic Profile System

Developed by the Sonoran Institute under an agreem ent with the BLM, the Econom ic Profile System (EPS) and its companion, EPSC (for Community), produce standardized econom i c and dem ographic profiles for a selected region, county, or comm unity in any of the 50 states. EPS and EPSC simplify the s o cio-econo m i c research required for land use planning by gathering and presenting, in a variety o f useful for m ats, data from m u ltiple Federal d a tabases. These inform ation tools were created to im prove pl ann i ng and m o re efficiently accom p lish the tim econsum ing task of gathering im portant social and econom ic data. EPSC uses the Decennial Census to provide in-depth comm unit y -level pr ofiles. EPS draws upon a variety of governm e ntal databases to produce tho r ough and multi-faceted pr ofiles of econom ic and dem ographic changes over the past 30 years.

Field offices are encouraged to use E PS and EPSC as tools for characterizing econom ic and social baseline conditions. EPS and EPSC prof iles can be provided in an appendix to the AMS or RMP/EIS, while selected figur es and tables can easily be inco rpora t ed in the m a in RMP/EIS text. W h ere a plan or N E PA analysis will be p r e p ared by co ntrac t ors, p l anning le ads are encouraged to have con t racto r s utilize EPS in plan preparation, and to seek commensurate cost

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 15

savings in contracted w o rk. Note that EPS a nd EPSC are not im pact m o dels: they cannot be used to quantify the econom i c im pacts of a pr oposed activity or planning alternative.

For further infor m ation on EPS and EPSC, see Section VI, F u rther Guidance.

B. References

The following references are provided as potential sources for social and econom ic infor m ation. Data and inf o rm ation from these and other sources m u st be used within th e contex t of the laws governing B L M’s m a na gem e nt of the public lands.

The Federal Interagency Council on Statistical P o licy. Fedstats W e bsite: http://www.fedstats.gov/. This website provides access to a wide vari ety of data produced by over 70 Federal agencies for public use. It pr o v ides access to sta tistics for de m ographics,

econom ics, natural resources, th e environm ent, energy, health, education, and m a ny other areas. Much of this data is available at the county, state, and/or regional level.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service . The USDA Forest Se rvice’s course 1900-03, Social Impact Analysis: Pr inciples and Procedures , includes a helpful student m a nual. This source is available through Ecosystem Mana gement Coordination (EMC), USDA Forest Service, but is not availabl e online. [Yates Bldg. 3CEN, 201 14th Street, SW , Washington DC 20250; 202-205-0895]

The Hum a n Di m e nsions website contains m u ch useful information about hum a n dim e nsions analysis and includes sites from which econom ic and dem ogr aphic data can be downloaded. Source: http://www.fs.fe d.us/em c /nris/hd/ or http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/ hd/software/hdm odule/index.shtm l

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . Census data includes the econom i c characteristics of cities, towns, counties, and st ates, as well as a wide variety of social and dem ographic inform ation such as population, age, and m i gration rates. T h e Census Bureau also presents inform ation on county governm e nts including financial characteristics [W ebsite: http://www.census.gov].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis . Includes data for states, counties, and economic regions for such factors as pe rsonal incom e and em ploym e nt by industry, gross state product, and more [W eb site: http://www.bea.do c.gov/].

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics . This F e deral agency collects and reports data on the labor m a rket, including labor tr ends, detailed inform ation on employm e nt by industry, and unem p loym ent rates. It also repo rts price indices such as the consum er price index and the producer price index [Website: http://www.stats.bls.gov].

U.S. Department of the Interior, BL M . The BLM collects data on a wide variety of commercial uses of public lands. This data is useful for puttin g public lan d uses in th e context of o v erall use in a planning area. Exam ples of t h e da ta collected include gr azing use, m i ning, timber product sales, coal, oil and ga s leases, recreation, rights of way, and paym ents-in-lieu-ofBLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix D, page 16 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

taxes (P ILT). To obtain this data, co ntact resou r ce specialists for those u s es or refer to BLM’s annual Public Land Statis tics publication [ W ebsite: http://www.blm .gov/publications/ ].

The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment : Principles and guidelines for social impact asses s m e nt in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(3), Septem ber 2003. This docum ent provides a clear m odel, as well as principles and steps for so cial im pact assessm e nt. [http://www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/G uidelines_Principles/US%20principles%20fin al%20IAPA%20version.pdf]

Local sources of data . There are many local go vernm e nt agen cies and organizations that collect data that can be useful in la nd use planning. Such sources of data include state and local

em ploym e nt departm e nts, city and count y governm e nts (e.g., building departm e nts, departm e nts of m o tor vehicles, or county ta x assessors), local and state C h am bers of Comm erce, local and state econom ic developm ent comm issions, etc.

Resource-specific sources of data . T h ere are m a ny state and Fede ral agencies that co llect and report data on specific industries, such as agriculture (farm i ng and ranching), m i ning, forestry, and recreation. Fo r agricultural data, the USDA Economic Research Service (W ebsite: http://www.ers.usda .gov/ http://www.econ.ag.gov) and the National Agricultural Statis tics Se rvice (W ebs ite: http://www.usda.gov/ nass/) are two good sources of inform ation. The Economic Research Service also conducts studies on rural conditions and trends.

The following text citations are provided as ex amples of possible sources for field offices:

Branch, K., et al. 1984. Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing Social Change. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Rabel J. Burge, R.J., et al. 2004. The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment. Social Ecology Pr ess, Middleton, 2004.

Goldm a n, L.R., ed. 2000. Social Impact Analysis: An A pplied Anthropology Manual . Be r g Publishing, New York, NY.

Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B. 2000. Benefit Tr ansfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Docum e nt Supporting the Forest Serv ice Strategic Plan. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General T ech nical Repo rt RMRS-GTR-72, Fort Collins, CO.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix D, page 17

C. Environmental Jus t ice Referen ces

Ta ble D-4

. — Web-bas ed Environme n tal Justice sources The C E Q has p r epa r ed det a i l e d gui dance

o n co m p lyin g with Env i ron m en tal Ju stice objectives in t h e NE PA proce ss: “Env iron m e n t al Ju stice: Gu idan ce Und e r th e Nation a l En v i ron m en tal Po licy Act, 199 7,” av ailab l e at: http://ceq.e h. doe. gov/ne pa/ regs/ej/justice. pdf

Th e I n ter a g e n c y W o rk ing G r ou p on En vi ro nm ent a l Just i ce, o r ga ni zed by EP A, has use f ul g u i d ance a n d ot her reso u r ces: ht tp: //www. epa . g o v / compliance/en v i ronmenta lj ust i ce/int erag e ncy /index.h t ml.

Fo r assistan ce in id en tifyin g Trib al,

m i nori t y , an d l o w

- i n c o m e po pul at i o ns wi t h i n a pl a n ni ng area: “Environm e ntal Justice Ge ographic Asse ssment T ool,” avai lable at: ht tp: //www. epa . g o v / env i ro /ej /

The De partm e nt o f t

h e I n teri or ’s Of fice of Environm ental Policy and C o m p liance has in fo rm atio n on Env i ro n m en tal Ju stice
p o licy and pr ojects: ht tp: //www. doi. g o v / o e pc/j ustice. ht ml

VII. Further Guidance

For further infor m ation on the topics in Appendi x D, contact your state office social science staff, or social science staff at the Pl anning, Assessm e nt, and Community Support Group, Washington Office (WO-210). Eff ective use of other agencies’ plans and reports, including, but not lim ited to local gov ernm ent, state agencies , and community developm ent organizations is strongly encouraged.

A website to provide social science guidance, tools, and inform ation resources is under developm ent.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 1

Appendix E: Summary of Prot est and Appeal Provisions

The BLM must distinguish between land use plan and im ple m entation decisions in all proposed RMP documents (new R M Ps, revisions, or am endm ents) and related decisions (records of decision [ROD] and dec i sion records [DR]), and clearly describe f o r th e public the adm i nistrative rem e dies for each typ e of decision . The Dear Reader Letter or th e Ex ecutiv e Summ ary could be used to communicat e th is inf o r m ation to the public.

I. Land Us e Plan Protests

The protest procedures in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 provide the public an adm i nistrative review of the State Director’s proposed land use plan decisions . The BLM Director determ ines through this process whether the State Director followed es tablished procedure, considered relevant inform ation in reaching proposed decisions, and whether the proposed deci sions are consistent with BLM policy, regulation, and statute.

The Director has delegated signing of response le tters to protests to the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Pla nning (AD-200). Acting in suppor t of the Director, the Group Manager for Planning, Assessm ent, and Comm un ity Support (WO-210) is responsible for the oversight of the entire process once a protest is filed through final resolu tion. Each protest is considered in close coordination with the invo lv ed State Director and affected W a shington Office groups, other W a shington Office policy offi cials, and as appropriate, the Office of the Solicitor. T h e W O -210 Group Manager m a kes reco mmendations to the A ssistant Director for final resolution of the protest.

It will be the BLM’s goal to resolve all protests within 90 days. If it is not possible to resolve and respond to the protest(s) within 90 days , the WO-210 Gr oup Manager should send a letter acknowledging receipt of the protes t to the originating party, indi cating that a m o re detailed response will follow. Refer to Figure 5 for a summ ary of the protest process.

A. Washington Off i ce Initia l Evaluation of Protests

When possible, all actio ns in this section will be com p leted within 5 bus iness days o f receipt of the pro t est lette rs:

1. The Protest Coordin a tor will establish a cas e file for ea ch protest received

. Each protest will be con s ecutiv ely se r i alized us ing the f o llowin g coding: PP -SO-PN-FY-#

a) “PP” m e ans Plan Pro t est, b) “SO” m e ans the resp onsible State Office, c) “PN” m e ans a plan n a m e iden tif ier of up to s e vera l le tte r s , d) “FY” m e ans the last two digits of the fiscal year, e) “#” is a sequential number assign ed as the filings are received.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Protest P ro cess F low C hart

WO-210 Protes t Coordinator 1) Establishes cas e f ile f o r each prot est. 2) Dete r m ines if protests are ti m e ly filed. 3) Dete r m ines wh ether protests ar e “ c o m plet e”. 4) Sends copies of tim e ly

- f iled and “co m plete” pr otests to r e sponsible state and field of fice.

State Offic e and F i eld Offic e 1 1) Dete r m ine “ s tanding” for each pr otest. 2) Deter m ine whether issues have been r a ised pr eviously in the planning pr ocess. 3) Dete r m ine whe t her issues are germ ane to the planning pr ocess.

1 These ste p s o c cur in co ord ina ti on/ int era c t ion wit h W O -2 10

.

WO-210 Lia i son 1) Reviews stat e o ffice initial determination of issues. 2) Works with stat e of f i ce/f i eld of f i c e to finalize list of issues and co mm e n ts.

State Office Prepares and Provides WO-210 1) Detail ed issue a n alysis. 2) Draft pr otest r e sponse ( d ecision letter s )

.

WO-210 State Liaison Conduc ts Final Rev i ew 1) Drafts pr otest response letter ( s ) b a sed on fiel d/state of fice input and in dependent evaluati on of the planning pr oce ss ( w hether to uphold, r e m a nd plan, or uphold/r e m a nd in par t )

. 2) Circulates dr af t letter( s) for W a sh ington Of fice sur n am ing. 3) W o r k s with pr o t est coor dinator to pr epar e final pr otest r e sponse letter ( s )

.

Assistant Director (AD-200) 1) Signs letter( s) d i s m issing all pr otests, or 2) Re m a nds pr otest( s) to State Dir e ctor to cor r e ct flaws in pr oposed plan d ecisions and/or under l y i ng NE PA docu m entation. 2

2 ROD ma y b e app roved b y th e S t a t e Di rect or co ver ing ju st thos e par ts of th e p lan tha t a r e up held in th e pr ot es t

r e vi ew p r o c es s; r e m a n d ed d e ci sio n s ar e r e eval uat ed an d/o r s ubject to f u r t

h e r

NEPA an al ys is and sub s equ e n t p r

ot est pro c es s an d sepa ra te ROD.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5 Fi gure 5.

— Pr ot

est pr ocess fl ow ch artH-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 3

2. The Protest Coordin a tor will check to ensure that each protest was filed within the protest period (see 43 C FR 1610.5-2(a)(1)). Plan protests are deem ed tim e ly if the postm ark is not later than the last day of the protest period (s ee Receiv i n g, Managing , and Responding to Electronic Mail and F a xed Protests at the end of this section). Norm ally, BLM does not need to actually receive a pr otest by the end of the protest period—the protest letter m u st only be postm arked by that date. In certain instances, the BLM m a y require that protests be recei ved by the end of the protest period. This requirem e nt may only occur if the public is widely and o fficially notified (at a m i ni m u m, in the Federal Register notice and Dear Reader Letter). In all cases, the protest period shall be 30 days and always end on a business day. If the 30th day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the protest period shall end the following Monda y. The protest period m a y not be extended for any reason. Due to security screeni ng delays, som e protests m a y arrive in Washington, D.C., 3 wee k s after the pr otest period ends, or later.

The f o llowing strict s t an dards will d e term ine tim eline ss:

a) If the originator filed a protest af ter the protest period, the Washington Office will dism iss it and respo nd to the o r iginato r in w r iting.

b) If the originator filed a protest tim ely, proceed to the next steps.

c) The publication of the EPA’s Federal Register NOA starts the protest period for EIS-level plans and am endments. The in itiation of the protest period for EAlevel p l an a m endments is the pub lic ation of the notice of the am endm ent’s effective date (generally, this notice woul d be in cluded in th e Dear Read er Letter for the am endm ent).

3. The Protest Coordin a tor will exa mine each p r otest to se e if it is complete (s ee 43 CFR 1610.5 -2(a)(2)(i)-(v)). The term “com p lete” m eans th at the following five protest

com ponents are subm itted in the p r otest filing:

a) The name, m a iling address, telep hone num be r, and in terest of the person filing the pro t est;

b) a statem ent of the iss u e or issues being protested;

c) a statem ent of the part or parts of the plan or am endment being protested;

d) a copy of all docum ents addressing th e issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issu es were discussed for the record ; and

e) a concise statem ent explain i ng why the State Directo r’s d e ci sion is believed to be wrong.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

The BLM will no t dism iss a protest s o lely be caus e the pro t es t om its som e of the docum entation required by item (3) above. If BL M is uncertain about standing (see B.1.a below) and the m i ssing m a terials are necessary for BLM to m a ke this determ ination, BLM shall request, in writing, the protesting pa rty to provide the m i ssing m a terials to the protest coordinator. Requested m a terials m u st be postm arked no later than 10 days after BLM’s requ est for thes e m a terials is receiv ed by the protesting party (return receipt verified). If following BLM’s request for m i ssi ng m a terials, the protest does not m e et the five protest com ponents and if standing cannot be determ ined by this additional step, the protesting party will be denied standing. Case-by-case cons ideration will be given to appropriate actions for incom p lete subm issions . Minor om issions will not be used as a reason to dism iss a protest.

The requirem e nts for filing a pro t est in acco rd an ce with th e regulations apply to each protesting party. Merely attach ing or referencing another prot esting party’s protest is not sufficient to qualify as a valid protest.

4. The Protest Coordin a tor will forward a c opy of protest letters mee tin g the above five components to the responsible state and fi eld office(s) for fu rther evaluation and a detailed analysis. P r otes ts that m eet the requ irem ents noted above will be forwarded to the af f

ected state as soon as prac tic ab le ra ther tha n waiting un til the end of the pro t est period. W a shington Office liais ons should also ensure that copies of the protests are distributed to all affected W a shington Office program staffs.

B. State Office Evaluation and Determination

1. The State Directo r an d field office(s) will use the f o llowin g criter ia to determ ine th e validity of the protest as docum ented on the “S tate Directo r ’s Protes t Analysis ” form at the end of this section:

a. Does the protesting party have standi ng? The protesting party m u st have an interest which is or m a y be adversely aff ected and m u st have participated in the planning process by:

1. Sending written comm ents; 2. m a king oral comm ents (at a hearing or m eeting); 3. attending a public m eeting; 4. calling the BLM field office; and/or 5. discussing the project with BLM em ployees in the field.

The adm i nistrative record should be check ed for appropriate docum entation of the protesting party’s participation in order f o r BLM to substan t ia te the p r ote s ting party’s standing. The responsible field office m a nager will review the planning records to make this determ ination. If th e record does not support the protester’s allegations of participation, the field o ffice shall attem p t to verify the alleged participation with the protesting party, gi ving the protester the benefit of doubt if there is a d i s pute. If the determ inatio n is m a de that no partic ipation has occurred,

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 5

no further review of the protes t is required. The AD-200 will issue a written decision that dism isses the protest for lack of standing. Even though the protest is dism issed, the AD m a y address a ny comments that were raised.

Individual m e mbers of an organization do not obtain standing solely because their organization has participated in the planni ng process. To file a protest as an individual, the individual has to m eet th e requirem ents for standing (they m u st have participated in the planning process) . Conversely, an organization does not obtain standing solely because one of its m e m b ers has standing (an officer or official rep r esentative of the organ i zation m u st have participated in the planning process on behalf of the organization in order for the organization to have standing).

b. Have the issues been raised before in the planning process? Issues raised on protest m u st have been previously raised for the record in the planning process. The issue does not need to have been ra ised specifically by the protesting party. If

som e of the issues we re prev iously raised, the State Director’s ana l ysis will indicate which issues were raised previ ously and which are newly introduced. If the respon sible state/field office determ ines that one or m o re issues have not been raised b e f o r e , those issu es will b e tr eated a s co mments.

c. Are the is sues raised g e rm ane to the planning process? An issue is not
germ ane to the planning process if it is beyond the scope of a particular planning effort, or if it involves a m a tter norma lly addressed in plan implem e ntation. Issues that a r e not ge rm ane to the p l a nning proce ss will no t b e conside r ed as protest issues but treated as comm ent s

. If the answers to the questions in a., b., and c. above are all yes , the State Directo r should continue the analysis starting with St ep 2 below. If the answers to one or more of the questions is no , the State Director should com p lete a draft response and forward the docum ent to th e app r opriate W O -210 state liaison who will

com p lete a response that dism isses the protest wholly or in part.

2. A detaile d analys is will b e prepa r ed for each issue or com m e nt raised (see Sec tion E, State Director’s Pro t est Analysis) in a prot est letter. The following factors m u st be addressed in the State Directo r’s analysis:

a) Facts con s idered ; b) procedures followed; c) autho r ities cited; d) references from applicable docum ents; and e) applicable BLM policies.

When citing published d a ta from the planning record, the docum ent, date of publicatio n, and page number(s) m u st be part of the analysis used in the response to the protest issue.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 6 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
When citing m a terial fro m unpublish e d BLM records, sufficient inform ation m u st be included to show that the m a terial existed a nd was relevant during the planning process.

3. The State Director will docum ent the detaile d analysis of each protest using the format in the State Director’s P r otest Analysis. Th e preparation of prelim inary draft responses will exped i te the pro t es t resolu tion p r ocess. Oth e r per tinen t inf o rm ation that would h e lp resolve the p r otes t should also be included. Completed p ackages will b e s e nt to the Group Manager, WO-210, no later than 60 days af ter the protest is re ceived in the state offi ce.

4. The State Directo r , in c onsultation with the W a shington O f f i ce, m a y determ ine tha t discussion and negotiation with protesting part ies are appropriate if these discussions

m a y lead to resolution of one or m o re issues . W h en these d i scussi ons r e su lt in reso lution of protest issues, advise the protesting pa rty to give the Dire ctor a written notice withdrawing the protest. The protesting part y m a y decline to withdr aw the protest, but

m a y be willing to accep t a clar ificatio n or m i nor change to th e proposed plan that effectively resolves the contested iss u es. This type of change m u st not trigger a “notice of significant change” required by 43 CFR 1610.5-1(b). For larg e num bers of protests or

com p lex protests, the Washington O ffice m a y se nd a team to work with the state office and field office in analyzing issues and preparing dr aft respon ses.

C. Washington Office Final Review

1. W O -210 state liaison s , in coord i n a tion wi th th e respectiv e state/field of fice, will evaluate each protest for content. 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2)(v) requires that protests include a “concise statem ent explain i ng why the Stat e Director’s decision is believed to be wrong.” Statem ents that m e rely reflect disagreem ent, express opinions, or m a ke dem a nds or allegations without the support of this c oncise statem ent will be addressed as comments and will not c a use a chang e in the p l an being pro t e s ted.

2. The Group Manager, WO-210, wi ll prepare a draft response and decision on each protest. Decisions should have standard organization and phraseology. T h e decision will:

a) Inco rporate th e resu lts of the W a sh ington Office and Stat e Office evalu a tions ;

b) incorporate the State Office and WO- 210 analyses of the protest points; and

c) provid e a clear statement of the acti on taken on the protest (dism i ssed, denied, returned to the State Director for furthe r consideration, or uph eld in total or in part).

The bases for upholding protests include:

a) Approval of the proposed plan or am endm ent would be contrary to the Directo r’s p o licy gu idan ce;

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 7

b) significant aspects of the proposed plan or am endm ent are based upon invalid or incom p lete inform ation; or

c) the proposed plan or am endment doe s not com p ly with app licab le laws, regulations, policies, and planning procedures.

Protests uph eld on any o f the three b a ses above will be retu rned, in w hole or in part, to the State Director for:

a) Clarification; b) further planning or consideration; or, c) change, in whole or in part, of the proposed managem e nt decisions.

3. As the pr otest respon ses are d r af ted, W O -210 will coo r din a te with o t h e r W a shington Office program staffs. Program offices are consulted when a protest involves one or more of the following:

a) Preceden t-setting dep a rt ures from the existing resource m a nagem e nt practices; b) f a ilur e to com p ly with nationa l policy guidance and legal requirem e nts; c) a m a jor change in the use of resources in the area covered by the plan; and/or d) subject areas or m a tters wh ere special expertise is required.

4. The W O

- 210 state liaison will forward th e draft proposed response(s ) for surnam ing to the app r o p ria t e Assis t ant Dire ctor s. The f o llo wing stra teg y will be us e d f o r expediting the surnam ing process :

a) Use of staff from appropriate groups and directorates to p r epare draft protes t responses.

b) WO-210 will prov ide “heads up” to AD-200 when draft protest respon ses are ready for surnam ing.

c) AD-200 will prov ide “heads up” at sta ff m eetings to alert Group Managers of the ava ilab i lity of draf t p r otes t respo n ses.

d) WO-210 will prov ide briefings for Group Managers as n e eded (including Group Managers from ot her Directorates as needed) 2 to 3 days prior to obtaining
necessary surnam es. Re quested change s should be substantive rather than edito ria l

. e) WO-210 will conduct “working briefi ngs” with the AD-200, Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, etc. (including Departm e ntal staff as necess a ry), early in the process as possible and prior to approval of protest responses.

5. A for m al surnam ing package sho u ld be prep ared for each protes t resp onse. The for m at and content of the folder should include the following:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 8 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
a) Cover sh eet prepared for surn am i ng by the following individuals:

1) Protest Coordinator 2) Author (generally the W O -210 state liaison) 3) Deputy Group Manager (DGM) 4) Group Manager (at the disc retion of the DGM or author) 5) W a shington Office Group Managers w ho have an interest in the EIS, plan, or issues raised in a protest 6) Deputy Assistan t Director (DAD) 7) Assistant Director (AD) at the discretion of the DAD 8) Director (at the discretion of the AD) 9) Others at the discretion of the author

b) The letter of protest.

c) A Summary Brief (one or tw o pages) in the following form at:

1) Background concerning the plan (or plan am e n dm ent) and the NEPA docum ent (EA, EIS)—including what ki nds of docum e nts were prepared, when were they com p leted, etc. ;

2) date the protest period closed;

3) requirem e nts statem ent as to whether all of the NEPA, FLPMA, regulatory, and policy requirem e nts we re followed by the B L M State/Field Office;

4) position of constitue n ts or oth e r sensitivitie s

— f actual, p o litica l

, litigation, etc;

5) summ ary of the m a jor issues in the protest and responses to issues;

6) recomm e nded decision or if you are recomm e nding rem a nd (return) in whole or part, why and what are the circum stances;

7) state/field office collaboration, w ho you worked with in the state/field office and whether they revi ewed the draf t le tte r; and

8) W a shington Office coordinati on, who you worked with in the Washington Office (m ake sure th ey a r e on the su rnam ing sheet).

Note: for large numbers of protests, the above informa tion m a y be arranged in a tabular format rather than preparing indi vidual summary briefs for each protest.

d) Response letter.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 9

These are ty pical respon ses to pro t es ts where th e State Director’s propo sed decision is being upheld. Protests where the State Director’s proposed decision is being returned in whole or in part, or the boilerplate paragr aphs below do not fit the pro t est, will require a different response.

1) Standard Paragraphs

Each letter of response should contain the following paragraphs:

Paragraph 1 : “The Bureau of Land Managem e nt (BLM) has carefully reviewed and considered your letter dated [insert date], regarding the [insert nam e of plan]. As the Assi stant Director f o r Renewable Resources and Planning, I am responsible to the BLM Director for reviewing and resolving all protests of BLM land use pl ans. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of m y review.”

Paragraph 2 : For protests that are determin ed to be invalid because the protesting party does not have standing:

"As outlin ed in the Dear Reader Letter for the p r oposed plan, the plann i n g regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I find that you do not m eet these requirem e nts because you hav e not participated in the planning process or you do not have an interest that is or m a y be adversely affected. Ther efore, I am dism issing th e protes t.” ( Optional: Even though your protest is being dism issed, you provided a comment(s), which is (are) addressed below.)

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed after the pro t est p e riod :

“As outlin ed in the Dear Reader Letter for the p r oposed plan, the plann i n g regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I find that you do not m eet these requirem e nts because your letter was not filed by the required date. The regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 do not allow for an extension of the prot est period for any reason. Therefore, I am dis m issing the protest.” ( Optional: Even though your protest is being dism issed, you provided a com m e nt(s), which is (are) addressed below.)

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed electronically or by fax and not fo llowed with an original letter:

"As outlin ed in the Dea r Reader le tte r f o r the pro posed plan, the planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I fin d that you d o not m eet these requ irem ents because your letter was filed electronically (or by fax) and you did not provide the original

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 10 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
letter by the close of the protest peri od. Therefore, I am dis m issing the protest." ( O p tional: Even though your protest is being dism issed, you provided a comm ent(s), which is (are) addressed below.)

For all protests that contain only issues:

“As outlin ed in the Dear Reader Letter for the p r oposed plan, the plann i n g regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I find that you m eet these requi rem e nts. Your protest issue(s) is (are) addressed below.”

For protests that contai n both issues and comments :

“As outlin ed in the Dear Reader Letter for the p r oposed plan, the plann i n g regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I find that you m eet these requirem e nts, in part, and therefore portions of your protest letter are con s idered a va lid protest. I have determ ined that your letter also cont ained a com m e nt(s) which is (are) not considered a valid protest issue(s) because . . . ” ( Explain why: “the comment(s) represent opinions or obse rvations n o t substan t ia ted with a concise s t atem ent of why the State Director’s proposed decision is believed to be wrong, contai ns issues not previously raised in the planning process, or the issues you raised ar e not germ ane to the planning process”, etc.). “The issue(s ) and co mment(s) are add r essed below.”

For protests that co ntain only comments:

“As outlin ed in the Dear Reader Letter for the p r oposed plan, the plann i n g regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirem e nts for filing a valid protest. I find that you do not m eet these requirem e nts because . . .” ( see above ). “Therefore, your protest is no t valid and is hereby dism issed.” ( Optional: Even though your protest is being dism issed, your letter contain e d a comment(s). That (tho se) comm ent(s) is (are) add r essed below.)

2) Issues Identified by the Protesting Party

In the response letters, issues should be addressed within separate paragraphs for the issue and respons e, in the same order as in the subm itted protest letter. Issues shou ld be quoted wherever po ssible. Where issues cannot reasonably be quot ed (e.g., they are long, ram b ling or contain m a terial not pertinent to th e issues), they should be clearly summarized. It is sufficient to have som e issues summ arized and others quoted. The statem ent of the issue m u st capture all pertinent points addressed in the response. If comme nts are addressed (optional), they

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 11

should be addressed at the end of th e response letter. Use the following for m at for addressing issues and comments:

Issue/Comment #:

Response:

Protest response letters should clearly docum ent whether BLM followed the correct procedures in arriving at the proposed decision(s). Authors should identify any regulatory basis fo r responding to a protesting party’s assertion. D o not argue or be defens ive in the response. BLM’s response to each issue should cite page num be rs, where po ssible, in th e NEPA docum ent that spec if ically rela te to the issue or comment and not rely solely on what was said in m eetings or derived from notes, files, or phone calls. Focus on what was in writing or in the form al planning process.

3) Comm ents

If comm ents are add r ess e d (optional) they are ad dressed in th e sam e

m a nner as protest issues. The respon se le tte r m u st cle a rly ide n tif y why comments are not treated as protes t issues, either in the opening paragraphs of the letter or the response to the comment. If comm ents that are part of a valid protest are not addressed, they should be responded to separately b y the state o r field office.

Letters addressed to the pr otest coordinator stating “this is n o t a le tte r of protest” should be forwarded to the re spective s t ate office. A letter shou ld be sent to the sender from WO-210, inform ing the sender that BLM has forwarded the letter to the respectiv e state office for consideration as a
comment.

4) Standard Paragraphs after the Issues

Decision : For protests in which the State Director’s proposed decision is being upheld (protests in which the deci sion is being returned, in whole or in part, will require a different response) :

“After caref ul review of your protes t letter, I conclude that the BLM [insert s t ate] State Director and th e [insert fi el d offi ce] fi el d offi ce

m a nager followed the applicable pla nning procedures, laws, regulations, and policies and considered all rele vant resource infor m ation and public input in developing the [ins ert nam e of plan] proposed RMP/am endm ent/final EIS. There is no basis for changing the Proposed RMP/am endm ent as a result of your protest.”

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 12 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

“This decision is the final decision of the Departm e nt of the Interior on your protest letter (43 CFR 1610.5-2(b)). The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IB LA) does not hear appeals from a decision by the Director of the BLM on protests concerning RMPs . Any party to a case who is adversely affected by a decision of a BLM official to im plement som e portion of an RMP m a y appeal such action to the IBLA at the tim e the action is im plem ented.”

“Thank you for your participation (if th e protest is being dism issed for lack of standing, substitute “inter est” for “participation”) in the developm ent of the [insert nam e of plan] proposed RMP/am e n dm ent/final EIS, and for your interest in the publi c lands. Land use plans are designed to balance the public dem a nds for various land uses while ensuring appropriate levels of resource protec tion. W h ile there m a y be tim es when BLM cannot m eet the needs of all those interested in the public lands, BLM strives to address all public input in a conscientious m a nner. I
encourage y ou to rem a in activ ely (fo r protests being dism issed for lack of standing, su bstitu te “b ecom e” for “rem ain actively”) invo lved in BLM’s

resource m a nagem e nt activities and to provide infor m ation and input during the implem e ntation of the plan. If you have any questions, or wish to further discuss any issues regardin g the plan, please call [insert nam e ], field office m a nager, [insert phone num b er].”

When the revised draft response is surnam e d, the W O -210 state liaison and the Protest Coordinato r will finalize each pro t est respons e an d prepare a letter for sign ature by the Assistant Direct or (AD), W O -200.

Once the AD has signed the protest response, the Protest Coordinato r will send it to the protes ting p a rty by certified m a il, return receip t requested. A copy will also be sen t to the appropriate State Director a nd Field Manager(s). The Stat e D i rector m a y sign the land use plan decision docum ent only after all prot est response letters have been signed and

m a iled, and any other requirem e nts for approval have been met.

Portions of the proposed plan not under prot est or rem a nded for reconsideration m a y be approved and im ple m ented. In such cases, th e state office sh ould consult with the Washington Office for further direction.

If the proposed decision and its s upporting analysis are returned in whole or in part to the State Director, WO-210 will nego tiate the necess ary follow-u p with the af fected state and field office.

D. Receiving, Managing, and Responding to Electronic Mail and F axed Protes ts

All protest lette rs sen t to BLM via f acsim ile (f ax ) or ele c tron ic m a il (e-m ail) will be co nsidered invalid prote s ts unle ss a properly f i le d protes t is a l so subm itte d. BLM will ref e r to suc h correspond ence as “com m e nts” and respond acco rdingl y. If the protestin g party also provides

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix E, page 13

the original signed copy of the pr otest postm arked by the close of the protest period, then the fax and/or e-m a il correspondence will be considered an advance copy of the protest. Advance copies of protests provide BLM an indication of the num ber of protests that will come in after the close of the protest period.

The planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2) requir e that all protests m u s t be in writing. “Electronic signatures” f o r certa in types of correspondence are now recognized where system s have been es tablished an d m echanis m s are in place to en able the affected parties to verify the authenticity of the electronic si gn atu r e. Such sys t em s and m e chanism s are not in p l ace for BLM protest procedures. Consequentl y, BLM requires protests be sent to the p r otes t coord i nator v i a regular m a il or other delivery service.

New standard language regardi ng e-m a il and fax protests to include in the Agency’s Federal Register NOA and in the Dear Reader Letter is provided below:

“E-m ail and faxed protes ts will no t b e accep ted a s valid p r ote s ts unle ss th e protes ting party a l so provides the original letter by either regular m a il or other de livery service postm arked by the close of the protes t perio d. Under th ese c onditio ns, BLM will consid er th e e-m a il or faxed protest as an advance copy and it will receive fu ll consideration. If you wish to provide BLM with such advance notification, pl ease direct faxed prot ests to the attentio n of the BLM protest coordinator at [insert phone num ber], a nd e-m a ils to [insert e-m a il address].”

E. State Director’s Protest Analy s is

When citing published d a ta from the planning reco rd, the s t ate/field office m u st provide the docum ent, date of publication, and page num ber(s).

State Office Analysis Fo r Protest Nu mber :

1) Plan Nam e :

2) Closing Date for Protest :

3) Nam e of Individual or Organization :

4) State Office Evalu a tion Results :

a. After review of all planning records, the protes ting party has standing through participation in som e phase of th e planning process (check one)? Yes [ ] No [ ] (The protesting party must also show an interest that is or m a y be adversely affected.)

b. Have the issues raised in the protest been raised before by the protesting party or another party in som e phase of the planning process (check one)? Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indicate from the iden tif ied lis t of issues th ose not raised during the planning process with an X.)

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix E, page 14 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

c. Are the is sues raised in the pro t est germ ane to the planning effort (check one)? Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indica te with an X f r om the lis t o f identif ied issues thos e that ar e not germ ane and why.)

5. List of Issues Raised:

6. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Is sues :

7. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Comm ents :

8. State Office Recommendations or Opportunities for Resolution :

II. Govern or’s Consistency Review Appeal Process

The planning regulations in 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) allo w a state Governor an opportunity to appeal to the BLM Directo r if the BLM State Director does not accept the Governor’s recomm endations on plan consistency.

Prior to approval of a pro posed plan, revis i on, or am endm ent, the BLM State Directo rwill subm it the proposed plan, revision, or am endm e n t to the Governor(s) of th e state(s) involved and identify any known inconsistencies with approved state or local plans, policies, or program s. The Governor has 60 days to iden tif y inconsistencies and to provi de written recommendations to the BLM State Directo r

. If the BLM St ate Director does not accept a Governor’s

recomm endations, the B L M State Directo r m u st no tify the G overnor in w r iting; the Governor then has 30 days from re ceipt of the State Directo r’s letter in which to su bm it a writte n appeal to the BLM Directo r

. The BLM Director will accept the Governor’s reco mm endations if the Director d e termines th at the recommendations provide for a reasonable ba lance b e tw een the na tio nal in tere st a nd the state’s interest. The Di rector m u st communicate to the Gove rnor in writing and publish in the Federal Register the reas ons for accepting or rejec ting the Governor’s recomm endations.

III. Administra tive Remedies o f Implemen tation Decisio n s

Im plem entation decision s are sub j ect to the adm i ni strative rem e dies set forth in the regulations that app l y to each resource m a nagement program of the BLM. These ad ministrative rem e dies for final im plem entation decisions usually take the for m of appeals to the Office of He arings and Appeals, though for certain proposed or non-fina l im ple m entation decisi ons, including those af

f

ecting timber sales, oil and gas lease sales, land exchang e s, and proposed grazing decisions, the regulations provide f o r an internal agency revi ew (usually a protes t to the autho r ized officer) which m u st be com p leted before the final im plem entation decis i on can be appealed to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Th is type of protest to the authorized officer should not be confused with the protest of land use plan de cisions to the BLM Dir ector (there is no OHA review of land use planning decisions).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 1

Appendix F : Standard Formats fo r Land Use Plan Documents

Appendix F-1: Recommended Format for Preparation Plans

Preparation plans should contain the follo wing infor m ation and discrete sections.

A. Introduction and Background

B. Anticipated Planning Issues and Management Concerns

Issues are identified by BLM staff a nd m a nagers based on their knowledge of the planning area and its users. Planning issues m a y be based on:

1) Contacts or corresponden ce with u s ers, ad join ing dist ricts or field offices, and inte rested p ublic (inc lud i ng other ag encies ).

2) Ongoing consultation, advisory council m eetings, interagency and intergovernm e ntal coordination, and informal sessions with us ers and interested public. Preplanning does not involve public notices or public participation activities since they are specifically provided for in the RMP and NEPA processe s and key preplanning results are publicly reviewed during scoping.

3) Staff and m a nagem e nt knowledge of re source uses, users, conditions, needs, and trends.

Managem e nt concerns are genera lly of a program -specific nature , and while they m a y not be externally generated or controve rsial, deserve the appropriate level of consideration in the planning process.

C. Preliminary Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the constrai nts or ground rules that guide and direct the developm ent of the plan. They ensure th at p l ans ar e ta ilo red to the id entif ied issu es and ensur e that unn ec essary da ta collection and analyses are avo i ded. They focu s on the decisions to be m a de in the plan and achieve the f o llowing:

1) Provide an early, tentative basis fo r inventory and data collection needs.

2) Enable the m a nager and staff to devel op a prelim inary planning base m a p delineating geographic analysis units.

3) Stim ulate the develo pm ent of planning criteria during public participation.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

D. Data and GIS Needs, Including Data Inventory

Managers of planning efforts are encouraged to use existing data com p iled by other Federal agencies; s t ate, local, and Tribal gov ernm ents; a nd private organizations, if applicable, to address

assessm ent questions. Data com p iled by other agen cies which are used in BLM land use plans should be consistent across adm i nistrative bound aries and landscapes, where available. Regardless of its source, sufficient m e tadata (d ata about data) should be provided to clearly determ ine the quality of the data, along with any lim itations associated with its use. T o define the inform ation requ ired to support each indiv i du al plann i ng effort, each pr eparation plan should :

1) Create a list of cu rren tly ava ilab l e data ( list by them e, data elem ents, and explain how that data will support the plan in deal ing with anticipated issues and planning requirem e nts).

2) Identify the anticipated data gaps in available data require d to deal with the anticipated issues, as well as the planning and analysis requirem e nts.

3) Create a realistic data inventory and collection stra tegy (including work m onths, personnel involved, costs and tim efram e s involve d) for acquiring critically needed data and inform a tion.

See Appendix G for m o re inform ation on m a naging data and inform ation throughout the planning process.

E. Particip ants in the Process

1) Describe and list roles, re sponsibilities, a nd authorities.

2) Provide team lists (including m a nagem e nt team, core team, interdisciplinary, and support team s).

F. Process for the Plan

1) General steps and form at.

2) Alternative for m ulation: Identify prelim inary plan alte rn ative them es that focus on resolv ing an tic ipated iss u es and ref l ect the p r eliminary p l anning criteria.

3) Internal review of the plan.

4) Form of input from the inte rdisciplinary team and reviewers.

G. Plan Preparation S c hedule

The schedule provides estim ated tim efram e s for t h e com p letion of the required plan com ponents. It id entif ie s:

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 3

1) All planning actions (43 CFR 1610.4) and su pport actions expected to be done either consecutively or concurrently.

2) Target com p letion dates for each action.

3) Tim e periods needed for preparation and award of contracts, if any, and preparation costs required for use in the budget process.

H. Public P a rtic ipation Plan

The public p a rticipa tion plan is to be prepared as a part of the preparation plan. Every effort should be made to assure m eaningful public i nvolvem ent throughout the planning process. This includes:

1) Goals and objectives of public participation.

2) A description of the public know n to be in terested or affected and any contributions they m a y make or inform ation they m a y need during the planning process and the involvem e nt techniques most appropriate (including i nvolvem e nt of cooperating agencies).

3) Target dates and other per tinen t details f o r p ublic pa rticipation a c tiv ities, no tic es, and availability of printed infor m ation.

4) Provisio n s for updating the plan, as necessary , during plan preparation.

5) A description of how the results of public participation activities will be summ arized, analyzed, docum e nted, and used by the line m a nager in m a king decisions in the plan.

6) Internet technology that will be used to provide inform ation to the public and/or solic it com m e nts.

I. Budget

The budget includes all costs associated with de velopm ent of t h e plan including, data needs collection, contracting costs, BLM staff work months, Federal Register notices, vehicle, travel, and support costs. It should address the leve l of program sources funding provided by the field or state office, as well as increased funding needs.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 4 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix F-2: Recommended Format for Scoping Reports

The following is a suggested form at for field of fices to prepare scoping reports to achieve a common and consistent approach th at m eets m i nim u m requirem e nts. It is recognized that som e situations (for exam ple scoping reports dealing with an unusually large number of comm ents)

m a y require additional content and detail. Docu m e nts should be as brief, concise, and userfriendly as possible. Authority for the scoping report can be found at 43 CFR 1610.2(d).

A. Cover Letter

Optional; signed by field office m a nager.

B. Introduction

a) Overview/purpose and need for th e plan (tie to planning evaluation) b) Brief description of the planning area (including a m a p) c) Brief description of the scoping proce ss (NOI history, m eetings, contacts, etc.) d) Cooperating agencies/invitees e) Collaboration and co nsulta tion w ith Tr ibes

C. Issue Summary

a) Summ ar y of public comm ents b) Issues identified during scoping c) Anticipated decisions to be m a de d) Issues raised that will notbe addressed (including rationale) e) Valid existing m a nagem e nt to be carried forward f) Special designations , including nom i nations

D. Draft Planning Criteria

Include if not previously publis hed in initial no tic e ; othe rw ise incorporate by reference.

E. Data Summary/Data Gaps

Include if not previously publis hed in initial no tic e ; othe rw ise incorporate by reference.

a) Ref e r to more detaile d lists in p r e p arat ion plan or elsewhere (state that these are available upon request)

b) Identify any relevant data provided or identif ied as available during scoping

c) List data gaps identified during scoping

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 5

F. Summary of Future Steps in the Planning Process

Identify planning process tim elines and opportu nities for public pa rticipation (including webpage address and key contact ad dress and inform ation, etc.)

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 6 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix F-3: Annotated Outline o f

the Analys is of the Ma nagement S ituation

The analysis of the m a na gem e nt situation (A MS) should describe the current conditions and trends of the resources and the us es /activ ities in the plann i ng area in suf f i cient d e ta il to crea te a fra m ework from which to resolve the planning issues through the developm ent of alternatives. This analysis should be short, concise, a nd focused on the issues relevant to resource

m a nage m e nt in the area. It should not be an exhaustive review of everything known about the

area.

CHAPTE R 1. INTRO DUCTION

A. Purpose of Analysis of the Man agement Situation

Describe the role of the AM S in the planning process.

B. General Description of Planning Are a, Geo g raphic Scope, and Resources/Prog rams

C. Key Findings

Summ ary of the m o st important c onclusions drawn from the AMS.

CHAPTE R 2. ARE A PROFILE

This chapter describes the existing condition of th e resources, resource uses, and other features of the planning area (i.e., area pr ofile). It should provide a co ntext for resources and uses by incorpor atin g inf o rm ation com p iled at m u ltiple le vels to desc ribe the la rg e-sca l e eco r e gions associa t ed w ith th e plann i ng are a . The inf o rm ation will beco m e the basis f o r the Af f

e cted Environm ent chapter of the RMP/EIS. Table F- 1 shows the com ponents of the area profile (not

necessa rily all-inc l usive )

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 7

Ta ble F-1.— A r ea pr ofi l e Resources Resource uses Speci al de si gn ati o ns Soci al an d ec o n omi c

 Air qu ality

 Geol ogy

 So il resou r ces

 Water res o urce s (s urface a n d

g r ou nd water )

 Veg e tativ e commu n ities 1

 Fish and wild life

 Special status s p ecies

 W i l d h o r s e and bu rr o s

 W i l d land f i r e eco l og y and

m a nagem e nt

 Cu ltu ral resources

 Pal e ont ol o g i c a l reso u r ces

 Visual res o urc e s

 W i l d erness cha r acteristics

 C a ve a n d ka rst res o u r ces  Facilities

 Fo restr y an d wo od land

pr o duct s

 Li vest oc k graz i ng

 M i nerals (leasa b le, locatable, sala ble)

 Recreation

 R e newa bl e e n e r gy

 Transpo r tation an d

access

 Utility co rrido rs and

com m uni cat i on si t e s

 Land tenu r e

 Land use

au tho r ization s

 Wi t h d r a w a l s  Areas of c r itical envi ro nm ent a l conce r n

 Back co un tr y byw ays

 Natio n a l recreatio n

areas

 Natio n a l t r ails

 W i ld an d s c en ic r i v e r s

 W i l d erness

 W i l d erness study areas  Trib al in terests

 Pub lic safety

( a b a nd on ed m i n e s, d e br is f l ow s, an d hazardous m a terials)

 Social and e c onom ic

co nd itio ns

1 Vegetative co m m unities can be identified at a variet y o f scales and include forests, woodlands, rangelands, rip a rian areas, an d wetlands.

A. Resources

The Resources section should have both an intr oduction com m on to all resources and a section specific to each resource. The inform ation presen ted in the introduction should help the planning
team relate the resources in the planning area to the regional setting, and define the current condition and key features of thos e resources. It should also help the team highlight potential

m a nage m e nt opportunities in Chapter 4 of the AMS by addressing the regional im portance and function of resources within the planning area.

1. Regional Context :

Different agencies and organi zations have com p iled geospati al datasets for larg e-s cale ecoregions such as the Wyom ing Basin and the Colo rado Plateau. Ecoregions of this scale range in size from 3.5 m illion acres to 88 m illion acre s (averag i ng 2 3 m illion acres). Mos t planning areas will fall into one or two ecoregions, dependi ng on the scale at which they were developed. Planning boundaries m a y overlap ec oregional boundaries, so it is im portant for planning areas to coordinate in collecting and sharing inform ation.

These large-scale g e ospatial da tasets provide broad-level bi o l o g ical inf o rmation that

com p le m e nt s local planning efforts by identifying dom i nant patterns on the landscape and threats to resources. Other existing fine and m i dscale data (e.g., state and Heri tage program s, BLM-led

assessm ents such as Lan d Health Assessm ents, Recovery Plans, and Conservation S t rategies) used in com b ination with broad scale inform a tion can provide a com p lete picture of current conditions and key features of th e resources (definitions for broa d, m i d, and fine scale data are provided in the Glossary). For exam ple, BLM- led Land Health Assessm e n ts contain infor m ation on upland, riparian, and s t ream channel condition th at can be u s ed to refin e ecoreg i on conditions f r om larger datase ts. Us e m u ltiscale inf o rm ation to com p lete Table F-2.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 8 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Ta ble F-2.— E c ore g ion/Plan ning Are a I n form ation

Information about the ec ore g ion Inf o rma tio n a b ou t the plan ning are a as it relates to the ecoregi o n Size and gene ral geographic l o cation.  Orien t atio n of th e p l an n i ng area with in th e eco r eg ion

.

 Perce n t o f the ecore gio n t h at (1 ) all lands i n the pla nni ng area

cove r a n d ( 2 ) B L M l a nds i n t h e pl an ni n g a r ea co ver

. Ov erall ecoregio n con d ition (p ast v e rsu s prese n t) and m a jor iss u es a ffe cting fu nctio n a n d re sou r ce t r en ds ( i .e., fire

su ppression , hab itat frag m en tatio n , and i nvasi ve s p eci e s ).  Th e ov erall con d ition o f th e BLM lan d s rel a tiv e to t h e

co nd itio n of t h e ecoreg i o n

.

 Inform atio n rel a tiv e to h o w curren t land u s e allo catio n s and

m a nagem e nt B L M l a nd s m i ght be co nt ri but i n g t o o r hel p i n g t o alleviate the major ec ological is s u e s of th e ec o r eg ion

. Features of t h e ecoregi on that are

u n i q u e or are particu l arly im p o rtan t to ecol o gi cal co n d i t i on (e. g

. , l a r g e bl oc ks of

g r assl an ds o r sa geb r ush )

.  Th e ex ten t t o wh ich th e p l ann i ng area o r portio n s with i n it may b e eco l o g i cally i m p o r tan t to m a in tain in g eco system fu nct i o n. 1

1 T h is inform ation m a y not be availab l e depe nding on th e sour ce of ecor e gion inf o rm ation used.

2. Resource-specific inform ation

The AMS should include resource-specific inform ation organized by the fo llowing five factors:

a. Indicators . Identify factors that describe reso urce condition such as ambient pollutant level, visibility, and fire regim e condition class. Indi cators should be quantitative whenever p o ssible. Th ere are m a ny potential sources for indicators, including Standards for Rangeland Health.

b. Current Condition . Describe the location, extent , and current condition of the resource in the planning area. Condition can be determ ined by com p aring the value of indicator(s) to an established standard (current plan goal or objective) and/or benchm ark. Relate the c ondition ass e ssm ent to Land Health Standards as appropr iate. The scale o f the analysis m a y extend beyond the immediat e planning area boundary and encom p as s a logical land s cape (the an alysis area) . For instan ce, the analysis can occur at different levels such as by watershe d, geographic area, or region.

c. Trends. Describe the degree and direction of change betw een the present and som e point in the past. Explain wh ether the trend is moving toward or away from the current desired condition based on the indicators. Also describe the drivers or agents of change. Note that for som e resources, a desired condi tion has not been esta blished or there will not be enough inform ation to describe trends . When describing trends, note whether the trend is based on quantitative or qualitative inform ation. For exam ple, the trend for

am bient pollutant levels most likely can be described from a quantitative standpoint; that is, based on changes in levels of criteria po llu tan t s over tim e as recorded in published data. For other resources where data are not available, a qualitativ e approach would be used.

d. Forecast . Predict changes in the condition of resources given current managem e nt. Describe the drivers or agents of the anticipated change.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 9

e. Key featu r es . Describe the geographic location, dist ribution, areas or types of resource features that should guide land use allocati on or m a nage m e nt decisions. For exam ple, certain a r eas m a y be particula r ly im portan t to special status species habitat, or som e soil types m a y be better able to suppor t certain land uses than others.

B. Resource Uses

For each res ource use, d e scrib e the f o llowing:

1) Current level (includ i ng potential) and locatio ns of use (map each use).

2) Forecas t, or the an ticipated dem a nd for use (levels and locations )—the reasonab l e foreseeable developm ent.

3) Key features, or the areas of hig h potential f o r the use (t hese areas d o not necess a rily have to be currently m a naged for the use).

C. Special Designation s

Identify the location of existing special de signations such as A C ECs, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and sc enic rivers, and other applicable designations. Also identify

areas m eetin g the relevance and im portanc e cr ite ria to be con s id ered as p o tential ACECs or potentially eligible river segm ents, etc.

D. Social and Economic Features

Listed belo w are the to pics to d e scribe fo r each of the social and economic features.

• Tribal inte re sts—Iden tif y the Trib es with interests in the planning area. Describe features not otherwise descri bed in the cultural resources section, such as treaty-based subsistence uses, traditional us e areas, and rights of access.

• Public safety (abandoned m i nes, deb r is flows, an d hazardous m a terials)— I dentify areas where public s a fety is an is sue.

• Social and econom ic conditions —See Appendix D.

CHAPTE R 3. CURRE NT MANAGEMENT DIRE CTION

This chapter describes current m a nagem e nt direction based on existing land use plans and

am endm ents by program (and later becom e s the basi s for the no action altern ative). P r ovide a list of m a nage ment decisions and their sources fo r each resou r ce or resou r ce use. Identify

m a nage m e nt decisions from all applicable BLM plans (RMP s, MFPs, and am endm e n ts for planning -lev el dec i sions )

. Note that s o m e resourc e s will no t h a ve any m a nagem e nt decisions established.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 10 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

A. Relevant Plans and Amendments

The list of m a nage m e nt decisions should be dr awn from all applicable B L M plans (R MPs and

am endm ents). List all p l ans and am endm ents th at influence current m a nagem e nt. This list can be displayed in a table such as the one below:

Ta ble F-3.— S a m p l

e f o rm at f o r l i s t

o

f

rel e v a nt pl an s and amen dme n t s

Doc u men t title Year Other relevant inform ati o n Adminins trati v e record doc u m e nt number

B. Management Decisions

Describe all m a nage m e nt decisions th at will beco m e the no action a lte rnative in the d r a f t RMP. Table F-4 is a recomm ended for m at.

Ta ble F-4.— C u rrent m a n a ge ment for resou r ces, res o urc e uses, and s o ci al and economic feature s

Current m a nagement decision Plannin g decision number Decision sour ce Status

In sert d ecisio n title and/ or desc ri pt i on. Inse rt deci si on num ber or

o t h e r id en tifier if k nown. Inse rt s o urce docum e nt for the decisi on, s u c h as: Lo wer Gi l a S o ut h R M P Inse rt the statu s o f the decision: whet her it was

co m p leted and wh en , p r og ress if no t co m p leted

, etc.

To the extent possible, docum e nt decisions by logical m a nagem e nt units or zones. Special

m a nage m e nt areas (special designa tions) would be included in this m a nner. Types of special

m a nage m e nt areas include ACECs, back country byways, national recr eation areas, national
tra ils, wild a nd scenic riv e rs, w ilderness, and wilderness study areas.

CHAPTE R 4. MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Identifying m a nage m e nt opportunities is a proce ss of considering changes in m a nagem e nt to respond to (a) inform ation gathered in the area pr ofile (Chapter 2) and (b ) issues and concerns elevated through scoping. It serv es as a starting point for alte rnative formulation by providing a list of possible m a nage ment opportunities for la ter sorting and refining into a fram ewor k of

com p atible alternatives. Consult Appendix C as a guide to the program -specific land use plan decisions that should be m a de as part of th e planning process when identif ying m a nagem e nt opportunities.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 11

A. Analyz e the Ability of Current Manageme nt Directio n to Achieve Desired Conditions and Address Resource Demands

Based on the current condition and tr ends of the resources and the current and trends of de m a nds on those res ources, an alyze the ab ility of curre nt m a nagem e nt direction to achieve desired conditions and address resources an d dem a nds for use of the resour ces. Discuss field office(s) capability in term s of staff, annual budget, summ a r y of workload ranked b y subactivity and/or
program elem ents.

While discussing the m a nagem e nt adequacy of ea ch decision, also discu ss options for changing the m a nagem e nt if the decision does not adequa tely respond to curren t issues, changes in circum stances, new inform ation, etc.

Fill ou t Table F-5 f o r eac h resourc e , r e source us e, specia l m a nagem e nt area and social and

econom ic fe ature. Notice that th e table is sim ilar to Table G-4 in Chapter 3(B), which describes the m a nagem e nt decisions.

Ta ble F-5.— A d eq uacy o f

c u r r ent m a n age m e nt di rect i o n a n d o p t

i o ns f o r chan ge

Plannin g decision Is decision responsive to current issues? Rem a rks (r ati o n a le) Opti ons f o r c h an ge In sert d ecisio n title an d / o r descri pt i o n

. (Y/N ) Descri b e wh y t h e d ecision is/is no t adequate. Inse rt optio ns f o r chan gi n g m a na gem e nt

. As a p propriate, include deci si o n s fr om ot he r j u risd iction s t h at

warran t con s ideratio n.

B. Identify Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide Land Uses and Management

Identifying areas of relative ecol ogical im portan ce enables p l anners to understand tradeoffs whe n establishing land use allocations and m a nage m e nt requirem e nts. Regional knowledge, gained through broad scale assessm ents, can highlight the im portance of an area in the context of the larger ecoregion. This infor m ati on is funda m e ntal to developing a range of alternatives and analyzing th e effects of the alternativ es in the RMP/EIS, and to m a naging for “the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands.”

Understanding relative ecological im portance should guide land use alloca tions and managem e nt approaches, rather than preclude uses. For exam ple, this inform ation should feed into alternative developm ent by helping to identif y opportunities for m a intenance and/ or restoration of habitats. Note that relative ecolog i cal im portance m a y change over time with new infor m ation and changes in land uses and condition.

When assembling inform ation on relative ecologi cal im portance, focus on dom i nant patterns across the ecoregion, and on habitat extent, hab itat condition, species conn ectivity requirem ents

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 12 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
and overall plant and an im al species diversity within the planning area. There are m a ny ways to

assem b le this inform ation. One way is to create m a ps using infor m ation and datasets collected for both the ecoregion or for the preparation of the area profile and AMS. This approach is described in Figure G-1, and can be applied us ing a geographic inform ation system (GIS) or transparencies.

CHAPTE R 5. CONSISTENCY/COORDI NATION WITH OTHER PLANS

Identify plans in areas surrounding the planni ng area and discuss the im plications for the planning area from these plans. Identify resources that are in common, de pendent, or inte rdepend e nt.

1) County/city plans 2) State Com p rehensive W ildlife Conservati on Strategies and S t ate lands plans 3) Other Federal agency plans (including fire planning units)

Identify significant opportunitie s for enhancing coordination or gaining e xpertise through cooperating agency relationships.

CHAPTE R 6. SPECIF IC MANDATES AND AUTHORI T Y

All resource specialists should pr ovide a description of laws, re gulations, and policy applicable to their resources. Inform ation on Federal, st ate, local, as well as BLM policy should be included.

CHAPTE R 7. SCOPING REPO RT OR SUMMARY OF SCOPING REPORT

CHAPTER 8. LIST OF PREP ARERS

Provide th e following in for m ation for each perso n working on the pro j ect: nam e , responsibility, qualifications, and participation.

CHAPTE R 9. GLOSSARY

CHAPTER 10. REFERENCES

Provide references for each resource section acco rd ing to the for m at noted in the p r oject work plan. All references sho u ld be inclu d ed and complete referen ce inform ation should be subm itted with each resource section.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 13

Fi gure F

- 1.— One po tentia l method fo r id entifying are a s of rel a t

i ve ec ol ogi c a l i

m

p o rt a n ce

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 14 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline f o r a Draft a n d Final RMP (Amendment) / EIS

The f o llowing outlin e a pplies to dra f t and f u ll te xt f i nal EISs . If m i nor changes cons isting of technical, editorial, or nonsubstant ive factual corrections are m a de in the draft EIS in response to comments, then an abbreviated final EIS m a y be prepared. An abbreviated final EIS only contain s sub s tantive com m e nts receiv e d on the draft, responses to those co mments, and an errata section with specific m odifications and corrections to the draft EI S in response to comments (see 40 CFR 1503.4).

Contractor logos should not be placed anywhere in the docum en ts (although it is recomm ended that the ro le of the contract or be acknowledged in the list of preparers in C h apter 5).

1. Abstract (Inside fron t cover)

2. Cover sheet or title page

3. Dear Reader Letter (include privacy statem ent)

4. Protest p r ocedures (final EIS)

5. Table of contents

6. Summary (approximately 15 pages)

(Optional Reader’s Guide to help ex plain chapter format and contents)

7. Chapter 1. Introduction (approximately 5–10 pages)

A. Purpose and Need for the Plan

B. Planning Area and Map

C. Scoping/Issues

1. Issues A ddressed

a. Issues u s ed to deve lo p alterna tiv e s 1
b. Issues addressed in other parts of the EIS

2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

a. Issues beyond the scope of the plan b. Issues addressed through admin istrative or policy action

D. Planning Criteria/Le gislative Constraints

E. Planning Process

1 Italics h e re sho w op tion a l categ o ries fo r issu es.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 15

1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Program s

2. Collaboration a. Intergovernm e ntal, inter-age ncy, and Tribal relationships b. Other stakeholder relationships

F. Related Plans : Discuss consideration of state, loca l, and Tribal land use plans that “are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands.” 2

G. Policy : Discuss policies and decisions that exis ted prior to the plan being written that are outside the scope of the p l an but may influence the decisions, constrain the alternatives, or are needed to understand m anagement of the area. Examples include: proclamations, legislative desi gnations, and court settlements.

H. Overall Vision : 3 Identify the overall vision for m anagement of the planning area. This vision should reflect the goal s that are common to all alternatives. This can serve to help integrate programs.

8. Chapter 2. Alternatives 4

A. General Descripti on of each Alternative : Highlight the char acteristics that distinguish each alternative. Rather than naming alternatives, number or letter each alterna tiv e a nd briefly de scribe the th eme of each alterna tiv e.

B. Managem e nt Common to All Alternatives : Primarily goals for resource conditions and resource uses.

C. No-Action Alternative : Description of existing manage ment direction including current decisions from relevant plans and reasonable, foreseeable, management scenarios.

D. Action Alterna tive s : 5 Detailed description of each of th e alterna tiv es, by alte rnative, needed to display a reasonable range of opti ons to meet the stated Purpose and Need and address issues. Each alternative descripti on should address the issues or programmatic areas. The decisions in the alternatives should follow the format for land use plan “Management Decisions” prov ided in Appendix F-5.

2 Fede ral La nd Pol i c y an d M a nagem e nt Act

, Sect i on 2 0 2 ( c) (9 ).
3 Op tio n a l.
4 The r e has bee n s o m e di scuss i on o f re ve rsi n g t h e o r der o f t

h e Al t e rnat i v e s an d Af fect ed En vi ro nm ent chapte rs of the EIS. Howe ver, th e Office o f Env i ron m en tal Po licy an d C o m p li ance i n t h e De part m e nt of
t h e I n t e ri o r has i ssue d gui dan ce st at i ng t h at we m u st fol l o w t h e rec o m m e nde d f o rm at in t h e C E Q
reg u l a t i ons ( 4 0 C F R 1 5 0 2

. 1 0 ) o r obt ai n ap pr oval fr om OEP C t o devi at e fr om i t

. 5 At th e draft stag e in th e preparation of a n E I S, t h e pre f erre d alte rn ativ e is id en tified in C h ap ter 2 o f t

h e dra f t EI S. At t

h e fi nal E I S st a g e, t h e pr o pose d pl an is presen ted with t h e altern ativ es. The pr opo sed p l an sh ou l d b e in a clearly d e lin eated section t o mak e it easily iden tifiab l e an d may also b e pulled ou t as a separat e d o cu m e nt

.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 16 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
E. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

F. Com p arison of Alternatives (table)

G. Com p arison of I m pacts (table)

9. Chapter 3. Affected Environment (keep as short and con c ise as possible) : Limit discussion to what is needed to understand issu es and environmental consequences and provide context for the Goals and Objectives . This chapter may also be formatted in the same way as the Area Profile section of the Analysis of the Management Situation (See A ppendix F-3).

A. Resources : Phys ical, biological, and cultura l resources ( c urrent con d itions an d trends)

. This is not necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Air Quality 2. Geology 3. Soil Resources 4. W a ter Resources 5. Vegetative Comm unities a. Forests and W oodlands b. Rangelands c. Riparian and W e tlands 6. Fish and W ildlife 7. Special S t atus Species 8. W ild Horses and Burros 9. W ildland Fire Ecology and Managem e nt 10. Cultural Resources 11. Paleontological Resources 12. Visual Resources 13. W ilderness Characteristics 14 Cave and Karst Resources

B. Resource Uses : Resource uses ( c urrent conditions and trends)

. This is not

necessar ily a comprehensive lis t.

1. Facilities 2. Forestry and W oodland Products 3. Livestock Grazing 4. Minerals a. Leasable Minerals (e. g. oil, gas, and geotherm al) b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver) c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) 5. Recreatio n 6. Renewable Energy 7. Transportation and Access 8. Utility Corrido rs and Communication Sites

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 17

9. Land Tenure 10. Land Use Authorizations 11. W ithdrawals

C. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environm ental Concern 2. Back Country Byways 3. National Recreation Areas 4. National Trails 5. W ild and Scenic Rivers 6. W ilderness 7. W ilderness Study Areas

D. Social and Econom i c

1. Tribal Interests 2. Public Safety a. Abandoned Mines b. Debris Flows c. Hazardou s Materials 3. Social an d Econom ic Conditions (includ i ng Environm ental Justice and other considerations)

10. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

. Document sufficien t an alysis to sup port all conclusions. This chapter may also be formatted in the same way as the A r ea Profile section of the Analysis of the Management Situation (See A ppendix F-3.)

A. Introduction

1. Analytical assum p tio ns (reasonab l y foreseeab le deve lopment scen ario s for oil and gas, anticipated levels of vegetation treatm ent, etc.) 2. Types of effects to be addresse d (direct, indirect, and cum u lative) 3. Summ arize critical elem ents that are addressed, not affected, or not present 4. Incom p lete or unavailable inform ation

For program areas, include discussions as outlined in 40 CFR 1502.16 for the alternatives by program area listed below.

B. Resources : Physical and biological resources addre ssed in alphabetical order. T h is is not necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Air Quality 2. Cave and Karst Resources 3. Cultural Resources 4. Fish and W ildlife

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 18 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
5. Geology 6. Paleontological Resources 7. Soil Resources 8. Special S t atus Species 9. Vegetative Comm unities a. Forests and W oodlands b. Rangelands c. Riparian and W e tlands 10. Visual Resources 11. W a ter Resources 12. W ild Horses and B u rros 13. W ilderness Characteristics 14. W ildland Fire Ecology and Managem e nt

C. Resource Uses : Resource uses addressed in alphabetical order. This is not

necessar ily a comprehensive lis t.

1. Facilities 2. Forestry and W oodland Products 3. Land Tenure 4. Land Use Authorizations 5. Livestock Grazing 6. Minerals a. Leasable Minerals (e. g. oil, gas, and geotherm al) b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver) c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) 7. Recreatio n 8. Renewable Energy 9. Transportation and Access 10. Utility Corridors an d Communication S ites 11. W ithdrawals

D. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environm ental Concern 2. Back Country Byways 3. National Recreation Areas 4. National Trails 5. W ild and Scenic Rivers 6. W ilderness 7. W ilderness Study Areas

E. Social and Econom ic

1. Tribal Interests 2. Public Safety

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 19

a. Abandoned Mines b. Debris Flows c. Hazardou s Materials

3. Social an d Econom ic Conditions (includ i ng Environm ental Justice and other considerations)

11. Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination

A. Description of specific actions taken to consult and coordinate with :

1. Tribes 2. Intergovernm ental (State , Local, County, and City) 3. Federal Agency 4. Interest Groups 5. National Mailing List

B. Describe additional collaboration

C. Responses to comm e n ts by issue area (FEIS only)

D. List of Preparers

12. Appendices

13. Glossary

14. References

15. Index

16. Abbreviations/Acronyms (ins ide back cov e r): P l acem ent can also occur with the Reader’s Guide, Summary, or in the Glossary.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 20 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline f o r Reco rd of Decision ( R OD)/Approved RMP (Amendmen t )

At the end of the protest peri od on the final EIS and proposed plan and after protests are resolved, the ROD 6 is issued. The ROD m u st be publis hed in the sam e docum ent with and reference the land use plan (proposed plan from th e final EIS as m odified in response to protests or other considerations between the f i nal EIS and issuance of the ROD). The ROD/RMP serves

as a m o re concise and useful tool to land m a nage rs and stakeholders than a cum b ersom e EIS. Separation of the approved RMP from the final EIS and attaching it to th e ROD clarifies the different roles served by a plan and the supporti ng NEPA ana l ysis. Additionally a stand-alone ROD/RMP will im prove internal ag ency and part ner understanding of th e plan and improve our long-term ability to im plem ent the plan.

I. Record of Decision (ROD)

A. Introductory Material: (on a cover sheet or at th e top of the first page)

1) Title 2) Preparin g office and office location 3) Cooperating agencies (if any) 4) Signature and title of responsib le official and c oncurring officials (if any) 7 5) Date of signature (s )

B. Summary: (if ROD exceeds 10 pages)

C. Decision : The primary decision is to approve the attached land use plan

. 8

D. Alternatives : Br iefly discuss the alterna tiv e or altern atives that were considered to be “environmentally preferable.” 9

E. Management Considerations : Provide the rationale for the decision.

F. Mitigation Measures : In addition to iden tifying approved mitiga tio n measures, state whether all practicable means to avoid or mini mize enviro nmental har m from the alterna tiv e

6 Th e fo r m at f o r th e R O D can b e f oun d in t h e N E PA h a nd boo k (H -17 90- 1) , Ch ap ter V

, p a g e s V

- 22 to V23.
7 Signatures a n d date of si gnat u res can occ u r at end of R O D.
8 Exam pl e: “Th e deci si o n i s he reby m a de t o a p p r ove the atta ched pla n as the res o urce m a nagem e nt plan (Plan) for [in s ert title]. Th is Plan was p r ep ared u n d e r th e reg u l ation s im p l e m en tin g t h e Fed e ral Land Pol i c y an d M a nagem e nt Act of 1 9 7 6 ( 4 3 C F R 1 6 0 0 )

. A n e nvi ro nm ent a l im pact st at em ent wa s pre p are d fo r th is Plan in com p l i an ce with th e Nation a l En v i ron m en ta l Po licy Act (NEPA) of 19 69

. Th e Plan is n e arly id en tical to t h e on e set forth in th e [i n s ert title] Propo sed Reso urce Man a g e men t Plan and Fin a l En vi ro nm ent a l Im pact St at em ent p u b l i s he d [ i nsert here]

. S p eci fi c m a nage m e nt deci si o n s f o r p ubl i c l a nd s

un de r t h e j u ri s d i c t i on o f t h e [ i nsert here] Fi e l d O ffi ce a r e p r esen ted in C h ap ter [in s ert] o f th e p l an

. Major decisions incl ude: [inse r t he re].
9 See 4 0 CFR 15 05 .2(b).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 21

selected have been adopted, and if not, why. Summarize any monitoring and enforcement program being adopted for mitigatio n measures. 10

G. Plan Monitoring:

H. Public Involvement : Briefly describe public parti cipation in planning process.

II. Approved Resource Management Plan

A. Introduction. 11

1. Purpose and Need for the Plan

2. Planning Area and Map

3. Scoping/Issues

a. Issues Ad dressed i) Issues used to deve lo p alte rnative s 12 ii) Issues ad dressed in other parts of the EIS

b. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed i) Issues beyond the scope of the plan ii) Issues addressed through adm i nistrative or policy action

4. Planning Criteria/Le g i sla tive Con s tra i nts

5. Planning Process

a. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Program s b. Collaboration i) In tergov e r nm ental, inter-a gency, and Tribal relationships ii) Other stakeholder relationships

6. Related P l ans : Discuss consideration of state, loca l, and T r ibal land use plans that “are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands.” 13

7. Policy : Discuss policies and decisions that existed prior to th e plan being written that are outside the scope of the plan but may influence the decisions, constrain the alternatives, or are needed to understand m anagement of the area. Examples include: proclamations, legislative desi gnations, and court settlements.

10 See 4 0 CFR 15 05 .2(c).
11 Th is i n tro d u c t i o n sectio n is op tio n a l m a terial for th e land use p l an d o c u m en t. 12 Italics h e re sho w op tion a l categ o ries fo r issu es. 13 Fede ral La nd Pol i c y an d M a nagem e nt Act

, Sect i on 2 0 2 ( c) (9 ).

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 22 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

8. Overall Vision: 14 Identify the overall vision for m anagement of the planning area. This vision should reflect the goal s that are common to all alternatives. This can serve to help integrate programs.

B. Management Decisions. 15 List management decisions by issue or programmatic area, making clear how decisions in one issue or programmatic area may affect others.

1. Goals : 16 Identify goals for resource conditions, resource uses, and other goals as appropriate.

2. Objectives : 17 Identify objectives w ith their rationale (include associated goal[s ] )

. Reference which goals are advanced by the objective.

3. Managem e nt Actions : Make these adaptive as appropriate and practical. Relate each decision to all goals and objectives im pacted. This section should address special designations and land tenure decisions.

a. Allowable uses : This should include allowabl e uses, restricted uses, and prohibited uses. Incorporate m a ps where appropriate.

b. Actions : Managem e nt m easures that wi ll guide future and day-to-day activities. P r oject design features, st ipulations, best m a nagem e nt practices, standard operating procedures, and guidel ines should be included in this section as well.

c. Implementation decisions : Include any im plem entation decisions (see appropriate guidance for dis tin ction) rela ted to p a rt icular land use planning decisions.

4. Monitoring (and adaptive m a nagem e nt if applicable) : Describe plans for monitoring to assess progress toward meeting goals and obj ectives. If appropriate, discuss plans of action if monitoring indicates actions are not meeting goals and objectives or if actions are no longer needed.

C. Public Involvement

. Describe how the public and partners can be involved in implementation.

D. Management Plan Implemen tation

. To the extent practical and appropriate, identify priorities and costs of the management program. Costs should be estimated at a scale that is

14 Op tio n a l.
15 Th e fo rm at o f th is sectio n is d e sign ed to (a) cl ari f y t h e di st i n ct i on bet w ee n goal s , ob ject i v es, an d

man a g e m e n t actio n s ; (b) m o ve to ward (or d e m o n s trate) objectiv es and m a n a g e m e n t d eci sio n s th at will work toward m eetin g m u ltip le go als; (c) d e mo n s t r at e th e con n ectiv ity b e tween pro g ram s ; an d (d ) redu ce

co nflicts in ternal to th e do cumen t

. 16 G o al s are b r oa d st at em ent s of desi re d o u t c o m es; and us ual l y not qua nt i f i a

bl e. 17 Ob j ectiv es are sp ecific d e sired co nd itio ns; usu a lly qu an tifi a b l e and m easu r ab le an d m a y h a v e ti m e frames for ac hievem ent.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 23

useful for budgeting (thousands of dollars and whole work months)

. It may be useful to identify priorities into two groups: one time projects and ongoing tasks.

E. Plan Evaluation/Ad a ptive Man agement

. Identify a tentative schedule for land use plan evaluations and the management actions t hat could be taken after an evaluation.

F. Appendi ces

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix F, page 24 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)
Appendix F-6: Recommended Admin is trative Record File Plan for Land Use Planning Projects

For draft EISs, final E I

Ss, and records of decision (ROD)

A. General Informatio n

1) Federal Register Notices 2) Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 3) Planning Criteria 4) Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Membership 5) Project S c hedules 6) Preparation Plan

B. Public Information and Involvement

1) Public Involvem e nt Plans 2) Public Infor m ation Docum e nts, Letters, Notices 3) Mailing Lists 4) News Reports and Clippings 5) General Correspondence 6) Meetings/W orkshops 7) Public C o mm ents: Scoping 8) Public C o mm ents: prior to dra ft EIS 9) Public C o mm ents: draft EIS 10) Protests and Final E I S Comm ent Letters Received 11) Protest Responses 12) Governor’s Consistency Re view Comments/Re sponse (if any)

C. External Communications

1) Other Federal Agencies 2) Cooperating Agencies 3) Tribes 4) State Agencies 5) Local Ag encies 6) Elected Officials 7) Organizations 8) Individuals 9) Freedom of Infor m ation Act (FOIA) Requests and Responses (FOIA officer is responsible for m a intain ing these files)

D. Internal Communications

1) Project Managem e nt Correspondence 2) IDT Correspondence

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix F, page 25

3) IDT Meeting Agendas and Notes 4) FOIA Exem pt Docum e nts 5) Quality Assurance Determ ination

E. Materials (Background/Suppor t ing) Used to Develop Planning Documents (D raft EIS, Final EIS, ROD)

1) Introduction 2) Alternatives 3) Affected Environm ent 4) Environm ental Consequences 5) Appendices

F. Data Used in Suppo rt of Planning Decisions

1) Planning Data 2) Data Standards 3) Metadata

G. Referen ces

H. Planning Documents

1) Scoping Report 2) Analysis of the Managem e nt Situation 3) Draft EIS 4) Final E I S 5) ROD/Approved RMP

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix G, page 1

Appendix G: Managing and Applying Data and Information

A successful land use planning effort always em ploys rigorous standards for m a intaining,

m a naging, and applying data and derived informati on. Standardized, accurate, and reliable data and inform a tion are critical to the developm en t of plan assessm e nts, alternatives, im pact analyses, and planning decisions. All data used in supporting pla nning decisions are considered corporate data. Corporate data are those data and application s that are exchanged acro ss adm i nistrative units, shared with the public, us ed repetitively through tim e, and applied in decision-m a king.

The data and resultant infor m ation for a land us e plan m u st be careful ly m a naged, docum e nted, and applied to withstand public, scie ntif ic, and le gal scru tiny, and at th e s a m e tim e , f a cilita te th e efficient developm ent and operation of the Bu reau’s m a pping and data m a nagem e nt system s such as GIS. For these reasons, the corporat e data used in plans require a high level of consistency, standardizat ion, and established quality control procedures.

I. Metadata Standards and Requirements

Metadata is the term used to describe the cont ent, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. By Executive order, geospatial data used b y the Bureau m u st be: (1 ) accom p anied by

m e tadata in the form at set forth by the Federa l Geographic Data Committee and (2 ) be acces sible to all interested parties. The BLM also re quires that non-spatial planning data m u st be

accom p anied by Federal Geographic Data Committee-com p liant m e tadata

. In developing a plan, a distinction must be m a de between new data and existing data. New data includes both raw data and derived infor m ation or products such as new GIS them es, or applying new analyses or m odeling m e thods . New data may be collected by BLM or contractors, or it

m a y be acquired from external sources. For additional inform ation on metada ta requ irem ents,

m e tadata fields, and standards, refer to the BLM Data Adm i nistration Handbook (H-1283) and the BLM Intranet throug h the IRM Data Man a gem e nt website. The site contains inform ation on project contacts and assistance, frequ e ntly aske d questions, guidelines and directives, a data standards reference library, data qualit y, and a data m a nage ment toolkit.

II. Identifying Data Needs for a Land Use Plan

Data collection and m a na gem e nt are significant costs when developing a land use plan. Data needs are collectively determ ined by planning criteri a, m a nagem e nt concerns, and issues. It is im portant to start identif ying data needs at the inception of a planning project through the developm ent of the preparation plan. The BLM planning project m a nager m u st identify existing data and inform ation sources, and determ ine what additional data m u st be collected. A table of inform ation should be prepared by the planni ng project m a nager and planning team which describes the specific data requir ed to answer planning questions associated with the plan, along with the av a ilab ility and status of th e data. Th e table will reveal data deficiencies and identify strategies to obtain m i ssing or incom p lete data or inform ation.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5Appendix G, page 2 H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

III. Data Sources

Managers of planning efforts are encouraged to use existing data com p iled by Tribes, F e deral, state, and lo cal government agencies , and other en tities where appropriate to fulfill p l anning data needs. Data partnerships are also encouraged to reduce co sts and to ach ie ve data standardization across jurisdictional boundaries.

Regardless of the sources used, all m e tadata shoul d be docum ented to identify the quality of the data, along with its lim itations fo r application. When data or in form ation is extracted from an outside source, the developm ent and m a intenance of the m a terial is th e responsibility of the outside entity. However, the data or inf o rm ation that is ac tually used by BLM in a plan m u st be treated as B L M corporate data. Project pla nners and planning team s also should always judic i ously valida t e a ll data sources for accurac y, reliability , and lim itations. At the very le ast, outside d a ta and inform a tion sources will usua lly require reform atting, which should be taken into account in term s of project costs and tim e.

IV. Managing Data During Land Use Plan Development

Planning data should be stored a nd m a intained for easy access to planning team m e mbers and to ensure that the team is using the same data a nd infor m ation. At a m i ni m u m, data should be updated and archived at the stages of the m a nage m e nt situation analysis , issuance of the draft plan or am endm ent, issuance of the proposed plan, and the f i nal product approved through the ROD. Throughout the duration of a planning project, it is also im por tant for the project planner, planning team, and GIS-data m a na gem e nt staff to routinely ch eck on the quality, consistency, and accuracy of the data that is be in g m a naged, analyzed, an d display e d.

W ith the increased em phasis on co llaborative planning, there is an add itio nal need to m a ke data available to interested publics, both during and upon com p letion of a plan or plan am endm ent. Under the Bureau-wid e e-Plann i ng Initiativ e, co n tinued efforts will help bring the BLM land use planning process into an electr onic b u siness clim ate, reduce p l anning costs, and allow better public access to decision m a king. In the interim

, access to p l an ning data m a y be m a de available through BLM’s state websites or through distribu tion by CDs or hard copies of a planning docum ent.

Although in dividual lan d use plans will have th eir own specific data req u irem ents, s o m e base

m a pping them es are common to all planning effort s. For example, the Public Land Survey System landnet, land status, and adm i nistrative/jur isdictional boundaries ar e base themes needed to define the geographic extent of a given pl anning area. Other them es such as topography, transportation, vegetation, soils, hydrography, and cultural features are also common to m o st analyses.

Maintaining high-quality geospatial data supports the planning pr ocess as well as a variety of other needs. W ith regular updati ng and m a intenance, the same geos patial data that supports the developm ent of plans can be instrumental fo r plan im ple m entation, m onitoring, and periodic

assessm ents.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) Appendix G, page 3

V. Integrating Data Application and Display

The availability of appro p ria t e ana l ytical m odels and tools to apply and display da ta is im portant. Quality da ta that is inap propria te ly a pplied ha s th e sam e disastrous ef f

ect as using poo r or erroneous data. A geographic info rm ation system (GIS) provides the ess e ntia l too l s to bring da ta together at various scales and for m ats for spa tial analysis and display, usually through m a ps and

accom p anying charts an d tables. Spatial m odels, such as thos e used to predict e r osion loss or to determ ine areas suitable or unsuitable for vari ous uses, also allow da ta to be applied in addressing planning and m a nage m e nt issues.

At the beginning of a land use planning project, it is im portant for the project planner to work with the GIS support staff, and identify and agre e on how data and information will be integrated into the developm ent of different displays. This includes, for exam ple, determ ining the desired sets of m a p products that will b e used in a hard copy version of a plan, public exh i bits , website postings, press releases, and public notices. This avoids unnecessary production costs by planning ahead, identifies poten tia l data-d isplay t echnical p r oblem s at the inception of a project, and stream lines and ensures the developm ent of standa rdized data sets and the display of data.

BLM MA NUA L Rel. 1

- 16 93 Sup e r s ed es Rel. 1-1 667 0 3 / 1 1 / 0 5