H-1601-1 – LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public) 

United States 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Land Use Planning Handbook 

BLM Handbook H-1601-1

 

H-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 Process.............................................................................................2 

C. Forms of Public and Intergovernmental Involvement......................................................2 

D. Collaborative Planning.....................................................................................................4 

E. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies 

and State and Local Governments .........................................................................................5 

F. Government-to-Government Coordination 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 Planning.............................................................................................15

F. Establishing Management Direction for Lands that May 

Come Under the BLM Jurisdiction in the Future. .................................................................15 

III. Land Use Planning Process and Products..............................................................................16 

A. Planning for Environmental Impact Statement-level Efforts...........................................16 

B. Planning for Environmental Assessment-level Efforts....................................................25 

IV. Implementation......................................................................................................................29 

A. Implementing Land Use Plans.........................................................................................29 

B. Defining Implementation Decisions.................................................................................29 

C. Making Implementation Decisions ..................................................................................30 

D. Making Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions 

in the Same Planning Effort...................................................................................................30 

E. Developing Strategies to Facilitate Implementation of Land Use Plans..........................31 

V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management.............................................................32 

A. Monitoring .......................................................................................................................32 

B. Evaluation.........................................................................................................................33 

C. Adaptive Management .....................................................................................................36 

VI. Determining if New Decisions are Required.........................................................................37 

A. Specific Regulatory Requirements for Considering New 

Information or Circumstances................................................................................................37 

B. Considering New Proposals, Circumstances, or Information ..........................................37 

C. Deciding Whether Changes in Decisions or the Supporting 

NEPA Analyses are Warranted..............................................................................................38 

D. Documenting the Determination to Modify, or 

Not to Modify, Decisions or NEPA Analysis........................................................................41 

E. Evaluating New Proposals................................................................................................41 

F. Plan Conformance ............................................................................................................42 

G. Plan Conformance and Ongoing NEPA Activities..........................................................42 

H. Determining When to Update Land Use Plan Decisions 

Through Maintenance Actions...............................................................................................44 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
TC - 2 

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

VII. Amending and Revising Decisions ......................................................................................44 

A. Changing Land Use Plan Decisions.................................................................................44 

B. Determining When it is Necessary to Amend Plans and 

How it is Accomplished.........................................................................................................45 

C. Determining When it is Necessary to Revise an RMP or Replace an MFP.....................46 

D. Changing Implementation Decisions...............................................................................46 

E. Status of Existing Decisions During the Amendment or Revision Process.....................47 

F. Coordinating Simultaneous Planning/NEPA Processes...................................................47 

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .......................................................................Glossary - 1 

Terms .............................................................................................................Glossary - 1 

Acronyms.......................................................................................................Glossary - 9 

Appendix A: Guide to Collaborative Planning...................................................Appendix A, page 1 

I. Principles...................................................................................................Appendix A, page 1 

II. Practices ...................................................................................................Appendix A, page 2 

III. Benefits...................................................................................................Appendix A, page 3 

IV. Tools.......................................................................................................Appendix A, page 3 

Appendix B: Federal Advisory Committee Act Considerations.........................Appendix B, page 1 

I. Purpose ......................................................................................................Appendix B, page 1 

II. Implementing FACA................................................................................Appendix B, page 1 

A. Avoiding Violations...........................................................................Appendix B, page 1 

B. Determining if FACA Applies...........................................................Appendix B, page 2 

C. FACA Requirements..........................................................................Appendix B, page 2 

Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance ......Appendix C, page 1 

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural 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 Species........................................................................Appendix C, page 4 

E. Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................Appendix C, page 6 

F. Wild 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. Wildland Fire Management.................................................................Appendix C, page 11 

K. Wilderness 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. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management ................................Appendix C, page 17 

E. Lands and Realty ................................................................................Appendix C, page 20 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

TC - 3

F. Coal.....................................................................................................Appendix C, page 21 

G. Oil Shale......................................................................Appendix C, page 23 

H. Fluid Minerals: Oil and Gas, Tar Sands, and 

Geothermal 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 Designations................................................................................Appendix C, page 27 

A. Congressional Designations...............................................................Appendix C, page 27 

B. Administrative Designations..............................................................Appendix C, page 27 

IV. Support.....................................................................................................Appendix C, page 28 

A. Cadastral.............................................................................................Appendix C, page 29 

B. Interpretation and Environmental Education .....................................Appendix C, page 29 

C. Transportation Facilities.....................................................Appendix C, page 30 

Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in Land Use 

Planning Decisions...............................................................................................Appendix D, page 1 

I. Using Social Science in Land Use Planning .............................................Appendix D, page 1 

II. Incorporating Socio-economic Information.............................................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 Involvement .................................................................................Appendix D, page 10 

A. Integrating Social Science into Public Involvement..........................Appendix D, page 10 

B. Economic Strategies Workshop .........................................................Appendix D, page 10 

IV. Environmental Justice Requirements .....................................................Appendix D, page 11 

A. BLM’s Environmental Justice Principles ..........................................Appendix D, page 11 

B. Incorporating Environmental Justice Efforts in the 

RMP/EIS Process.....................................................................................Appendix D, page 12 

C. Documentation and Analysis .............................................................Appendix D, page 13 

V. Data Management ....................................................................................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 Requirements for 

New Data Collection................................................................................Appendix D, page 14 

VI. Data Sources...........................................................................................Appendix D, page 14

A. Use of the Economic Profile System .................................................Appendix D, page 14 

B. References..........................................................................................Appendix D, page 15 

C. Environmental Justice References .....................................................Appendix D, page 17 

VII. Further Guidance...................................................................................Appendix D, page 17 

Appendix E: Summary of Protest and Appeal Provisions..................................Appendix E, page 1 

I. Land Use Plan Protests..............................................................................Appendix E, page 1 

A. Washington Office Initial Evaluation of Protests..............................Appendix E, page 1 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
TC - 4 

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

B. State Office Evaluation and Determination .......................................Appendix E, page 4 

C. Washington Office Final Review.......................................................Appendix E, page 6 

D. Receiving, Managing, and Responding to Electronic 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. Administrative Remedies of Implementation Decisions ........................Appendix E, page 14 

Appendix F: Standard Formats for Land Use Plan Documents..........................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 Analysis of the 

Management Situation ...................................................................................Appendix F, page 6 

Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline for a Draft and 

Final RMP (Amendment)/EIS .......................................................................Appendix F, page 14 

Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline for Record of Decision 

(ROD)/Approved RMP (Amendment) ..........................................................Appendix F, page 20 

Appendix F-6: Recommended Administrative Record File 

Plan for Land Use Planning Projects.............................................................Appendix F, page 24 

Appendix G: Managing and Applying Data and Information ............................Appendix G, page 1 

I. Metadata Standards and Requirements......................................................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 Development ............................Appendix G, page 2 

V. Integrating Data Application and Display ...............................................Appendix G, page 3 

 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

1

I. Introduction 

A. The Purpose of This Handbook and the Need for Planning Guidance

This Handbook provides supplemental guidance to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

employees for implementing the BLM land use planning requirements established by Sections 

201 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1711-

1712) and the regulations in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1600. Land use plans and 

planning decisions are the basis for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes. Land use 

plans include both resource management plans (RMPs) and management framework plans 

(MFPs). 

Land use plans ensure that the public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of 

Congress as stated in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), under the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. As required by FLPMA and BLM policy, the public lands must be managed in a 

manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air 

and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will 

preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and 

habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; that will provide for outdoor recreation and 

human occupancy and use; and that recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands by encouraging collaboration and public 

participation throughout the planning process. Land use plans are one of the primary 

mechanisms for guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and goals outlined in the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan. 

This Handbook provides guidance for preparing, revising, amending, and maintaining land use 

plans. This Handbook also provides guidance for developing subsequent implementation 

(activity-level and project-specific) plans and decisions. It builds on field experience gained in 

implementing 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, which take precedence over this Handbook. Definitions for terms 

used in this Handbook are found in the glossary and in the BLM planning regulations in 43 CFR 

1601.0-5. 

Any interpretation of the guidance contained in this Handbook is subservient to the legal and 

regulatory mandates contained in FLPMA, 43 CFR 1600, the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and other applicable Federal laws and regulations. This 

planning guidance: 

1. Encourages planning on a variety of scales, including both local and regional, in 

partnership with other landowners and agencies; 

2. encourages active public participation throughout the planning process and facilitates 

multijurisdictional planning; 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
2 

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

3. clarifies the relationship between land use plans and implementation plans 

(implementation plans include both activity-level and project-specific plans); 

4. provides procedural requirements for completing land use plans and implementation 

plans; 

5. clarifies the relationships between land use and implementation planning and NEPA 

requirements; 

6. addresses new requirements and approaches for managing public lands or resources; 

and 

7. addresses the consideration of new information and circumstances, e.g., new listings 

of threatened and endangered species, and new requirements and standards for the 

protection of air and water quality, etc. 

B. The Basic Planning Process

The BLM will use an ongoing planning process to ensure that land use plans and implementation 

decisions remain consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies. This process 

will involve public participation, assessment, decision-making, implementation, plan monitoring, 

and evaluation, as well as adjustment through maintenance, amendment, and revision. This 

process allows for continuous adjustments to respond to new issues and changed circumstances. 

The BLM will make decisions using the best information available. These decisions may be 

modified as the BLM acquires new information and knowledge of new circumstances relevant to 

land and resource values, uses, and environmental concerns. Modifying land use plans through 

maintenance and amendment on a regular basis should reduce the need for major revisions of 

land use plans. 

C. Forms of Public and Intergovernmental Involvement

Planning is inherently a public process. The BLM uses a number of involvement methods to 

work with members of the public, interest groups, and governmental entities. 

• Public involvement entails “The opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule 

making, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public 

meetings or hearings . . . or advisory mechanisms, or other such procedures as may be 

necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance” (FLPMA, Section 103(d)). 

Several laws and Executive orders set forth public involvement requirements, including 

maintaining public participation records. The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1601-

1610) and the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) both provide for specific points of 

public involvement in the environmental analysis, land use planning, and implementation 

decision-making processes to address local, regional, and national interests. The NEPA 

requirements associated with planning have been incorporated into the planning 

regulations. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

3

• Coordination, as required by FLPMA (Section 202(c)(9)), involves on-going 

communication between BLM managers and state, local, and Tribal governments to 

ensure that the BLM considers pertinent provisions of non-BLM plans in managing 

public lands; seeks to resolve inconsistencies between such plans; and provides ample 

opportunities for state, local, and Tribal government representatives to comment in the 

development of BLM’s RMPs (43 CFR 1610.3-1). The CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA further require timely coordination by Federal agencies in dealing with 

interagency issues (see 40 CFR 1501.6), and in avoiding duplication with Tribal, state, 

county, and local procedures (see 40 CFR 1506.2). See Sections I(E)(1), Coordination 

under FLPMA; and I(F), Government-to-Government Coordination with Indian Tribes. 

• Cooperation goes beyond the coordination requirement of FLPMA. It is the process by 

which another governmental entity (Federal, state, local, or Tribal) works with the BLM 

to develop a land use plan and NEPA analysis, as defined by the lead and cooperating 

agency provisions of the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6). 

Normally the BLM serves as the lead agency, though in some cases other governmental 

entities serve with the BLM as joint leads. Cooperating agency and related roles should 

be formalized through an agreement. See Section I(E)(2), Cooperating agency status 

under NEPA. 

• Consultation involves a formal effort to obtain the advice or opinion of another agency 

regarding an aspect of land use management for which that agency has particular 

expertise or responsibility, as required by statute or regulation. For example, the 

Endangered Species Act requires the BLM to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-

Fisheries regarding land use actions that may affect listed species and designated critical 

habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14). 

• Collaboration is a process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, 

work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands. 

Collaboration mandates methods, not outcomes; and does not imply that parties will 

achieve consensus. Depending on local circumstances and the judgment of the Field 

Manager, varying levels of collaboration may be used in specific involvement processes. 

See Section I(D), Collaborative Planning. 

Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) requires that resource advisory councils (RACs) or 

their functional equivalent be involved in the land use planning process. RACs, which are 

advisory groups chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (86 Stat. 770, 5 

U.S.C.A., Appendix 2), may advise the BLM regarding the preparation, amendment, and 

implementation of land use plans for public lands and resources within a jurisdictional area. In 

addition, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (Environmental Justice), February 11, 1994, requires 

the BLM to find ways to communicate with the public that are germane to community-specific 

needs in areas with low income or minority populations or Tribes. 

Comments or protests submitted to the BLM for use in its planning efforts, including names and 

home addresses of individual(s) submitting the comments, are subject to disclosure under the 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
4 

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

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552); however, names and home addresses of 

individuals may be protected from disclosure under exemption 6 of FOIA. In order to protect 

names and home addresses from public review or disclosure, the individual(s) submitting 

comments must request that their names and addresses be held in confidence. Offices must place 

the following or a similar statement in all notices requesting public input or announcing protest 

opportunities, including public meeting “sign-in” sheets, notices in newspapers, on the Internet, 

in Federal Register Notices of Intent and Notices of Availability, and in “Dear Interested Party” 

letters in the planning/NEPA documents: 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CONSIDERATIONS: Public comments submitted for this 

planning review, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at 

the XYZ Field Office during regular business hours (x:xx a.m. to x:xx p.m.), Monday through Friday, 

except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or

address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by 

law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in

their entirety. 

D. Collaborative Planning

Collaboration as a general term describes a wide range of external and internal working 

relationships. Early identification of the most appropriate, efficient, and productive type of 

working relationships is desirable to achieve meaningful results in land use planning initiatives. 

While the ultimate responsibility regarding land use plan decisions on BLM-administered lands 

rests with BLM officials, it is recognized that individuals, communities, and governments 

working together toward commonly understood objectives yields a significant improvement in 

the stewardship of public lands. Benefits of building collaborative partnerships include 

improving communication, developing a greater understanding of different perspectives, and 

finding solutions to issues and problems. 

A collaborative approach to planning entails BLM working with Tribal, state, and local 

governments; Federal agencies; and other interested parties; from the earliest stages and 

continuing throughout the planning process, to address common needs and goals within the 

planning area. At the same time, BLM should consider existing plans of Tribal, state, and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The BLM official must identify the decision space 

(i.e., regulations, policies, and local, regional and national interests) within which the BLM must 

operate, but the community or group working with the BLM may help focus the planning effort. 

Although the initial stages of developing an open and inclusive process are time consuming, the 

potential returns from relationship building, cost savings, and durability of decisions more than 

compensate for this effort. To provide for effective public participation in any collaborative 

planning process, it is important to communicate effectively with the public and invite 

participation in all aspects of the planning effort. Outreach to distant interests is also important. 

An effective outreach strategy will inform distant publics as well as local residents. Appendix A 

of this Handbook provides additional guidelines on collaborative processes. Also see Executive 

Order 13352 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

5

The strategies associated with BLM’s national Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR)/Collaborative Action Program are valuable resources for providing support to 

collaborative planning processes. The principal objective of the Program is to foster or 

strengthen ADR-based collaborative engagement with communities and other stakeholders, 

focusing primarily on helping to ensure successful outcomes on the ground through ADR-based 

collaboration. 

Although the primary emphasis is on prevention of conflicts or disputes in the planning process 

through early engagement and convening to ensure up-front communication and consultation, the 

ADR/Collaborative Action Program’s initiatives also address more formal conflicts or disputes 

that may arise during the planning process, as well as those associated with protests and 

litigation. The Program’s goal is to prevent, resolve, or mitigate adverse impacts to the Bureau 

before a protest or judicial action is filed wherever possible and to address all the parties’ 

interests. 

In using the collaboration and ADR processes, it is important to be aware of the situations where 

FACA does or does not apply so that an informed decision can be made to either avoid conflict 

with FACA, to utilize the resources of a RAC, or pursue a FACA charter for any advisory groups 

(see Appendix B). Failure to review collaborative planning efforts and the requirements of 

FACA could result in land use plans being overturned if challenged in court. The Congress 

passed FACA in 1972 to reduce narrow, special-interest group influence on decision makers, to 

foster equal access for the public to the decision-making process, and to control costs by 

preventing the establishment of unnecessary advisory committees. 

E. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies and State and Local 

Governments

FLPMA and NEPA provide BLM managers with complementary directives regarding 

coordination and cooperation with other agencies and governments. FLPMA emphasizes the 

need to insure coordination and consistency with the plans and policies of other relevant 

jurisdictions. NEPA provides for what is essentially a cooperative relationship between a lead 

agency (here, normally BLM) and cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. 

(Consultation requirements for specific resources and programs are outlined in Appendix C, 

under the Notices, Consultations, and Hearings subsections.) 

1. Coordination under FLPMA

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, as paraphrased, requires the BLM to provide for involvement of 

other Federal agencies and state and local government officials in developing land use decisions 

for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions that may have a significant 

effect on lands other than BLM-administered Federal lands (for coordination with Indian Tribes, 

see Section F following this section). Note that FACA does not apply to meetings with other 

governmental entities. Coordination must start as early in the land use planning process as is 

practical and must continue throughout the planning effort. This process of early coordination 

and involvement by other Federal agencies and state and local governments is often, but not 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
6 

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

always, formalized through various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between the State 

Director and the state or regional heads of other Federal agencies, between the State Director and 

the Governor, or between BLM Field Managers and local municipalities, communities, counties,

or burroughs. The intent of a MOU is to establish points of contact and protocols for 

coordination between BLM and its partners. Regardless of whether an MOU is used as a tool for 

consistency, the principles of collaborative planning must be used in coordinating with these 

entities. The BLM can also seek involvement and coordination from associations of elected 

officials. 

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA also requires, to the extent practical, that BLM keep itself informed 

of other Federal agency and state and local land use plans, assure that consideration is given to 

those plans that are germane to the development of BLM land use plan decisions, and assist in 

resolving inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal plans. The key is ongoing, long-term

relationships where information is continually shared and updated. 

Many municipalities, communities, and counties have established community advisory boards, 

county commissions, planning boards, public land use advisory committees, or other similar 

planning and advisory groups. In some cases a state may have a Federal lands or policy liaison. 

These organizations and officials should be actively engaged from the beginning of the planning 

effort. The BLM may invite other Federal agencies and state and local governments to be 

involved as formal cooperating agencies. In planning efforts led by another agency or 

government entity, the BLM can be a cooperating agency. 

Involving state and local government in developing land use decisions may require the BLM to 

be “at the table” with the various land use boards of the state or local government. In principle, 

coordination with and involvement of other Federal agencies and state and local government 

goes far beyond merely providing briefings on the status of any planning effort. In practice, 

however, staffing and resource constraints by other agencies and local governments may limit 

their involvement. BLM’s plans shall be consistent with other Federal agency, state, and local 

plans to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law and FLPMA provisions. All BLM land 

use plans or plan amendments and revisions must undergo a 60-day Governor’s consistency 

review prior to final approval. BLM’s procedures for the Governor’s consistency review are 

found in the planning regulations in 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). 

When other Federal agencies and state and local governments initiate planning efforts that may 

affect or be affected by BLM’s management decisions, the BLM should collaborate in such 

planning efforts to the extent possible. 

2. Cooperating agency status under NEPA

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units—local, state, 

Tribal, or Federal—to engage in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement 

the requirements of NEPA. This guidance supplements CEQ regulations on cooperating agency 

status. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

7

In principle, a cooperating agency shares the responsibility with the lead agency for organizing 

the planning process. Within the constraints of time and resources, cooperating agency staff 

should be encouraged to participate fully with BLM staff as members of the plan/EIS team. 

Responsibilities of a cooperating agency may include: 

• Formal involvement in scoping and sharing the responsibility for defining and framing 

the issues to be examined in the NEPA process; 

• developing information and analysis for which the agency has particular expertise; 

• contributing staff to enhance the interdisciplinary team's capabilities; and 

• bearing the costs of its own participation. 

When properly conducted, the lead agency/cooperating agency relationship provides mutual 

benefits. From the BLM’s perspective the goals of the cooperating agency relationship include: 

• Gaining early and consistent involvement of key governmental partners; 

• incorporating local knowledge of economic, social, and political conditions; 

• addressing intergovernmental issues; 

• avoiding duplication of effort; 

• enhancing the local credibility of the review process; and 

• building relationships of trust and collaboration for long-term mutual gain. 

a. Criteria for cooperating agency status. The CEQ defines cooperating agency in regulations 

implementing NEPA, particularly at 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. CEQ regulations specify that a 

Federal agency, state agency, local government, or Tribal government may qualify as a 

cooperating agency because of “. . . jurisdiction by law or special expertise.” 

1) Jurisdiction by law means “. . . agency authority to approve, veto, or finance all or 

part of the proposal.” (40 CFR 1508.15) 

2) Special expertise means “. . . statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related 

program experience.” (40 CFR 1508.26) 

BLM has interpreted the definition of special expertise broadly. For example, county or Tribal 

governments potentially affected by a BLM planning effort would qualify on this basis through 

their knowledge of local social, economic, and political conditions. 

Cooperating agency status is at the request of the lead Federal agency. Another Federal agency 

having “jurisdiction by law” in the matters subject to the NEPA process must serve as a 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
8 

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

cooperating agency when so requested. A Federal agency qualifying through “special expertise,” 

or a state, local, or Tribal government qualifying under either criterion may accept or decline a 

request to serve as a cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501.6, 1508.5). 

Whether or not a federally-recognized Tribe enters into a cooperating agency relationship, its 

fundamental connection to the BLM is based on Tribal sovereignty, manifested through the 

government-to-government relationship. 

b. Responsibilities of BLM managers. Before BLM begins the scoping process to develop, 

revise, or amend (EIS-level amendments only) an RMP, the State Director or Field Manager will 

invite qualifying Federal agencies and state, local, and Tribal governments to participate as 

cooperating agencies. State Directors and Field Managers will consider any requests from other 

Federal agencies and state, local, and Tribal governments for cooperating agency status. Field 

Managers who deny such requests will inform the State Director of the denial. The State 

Director will determine if the denial is appropriate. 

c. Role of cooperating agencies in the RMP/EIS process. It is BLM policy to encourage the 

involvement of cooperating agencies throughout the planning/EIS process, although practical 

limitations in cooperating agencies’ time, resources, and expertise may make full involvement 

impractical. Field Managers should encourage the collaboration of cooperating agencies in 

identifying issues, developing planning criteria, collecting inventory data, analyzing data for the 

analysis of the management situation, formulating alternatives, and estimating the effects of 

alternatives. Field Managers should also collaborate with cooperating agencies in evaluating the 

alternatives and developing a preferred alternative. Notwithstanding such collaborative efforts, 

the designation of a preferred alternative and the final decision remains the exclusive 

responsibility of the BLM. 

Roles and responsibilities of each party should be formalized and clearly described in a MOU. 

The key elements of a cooperating agency MOU are outlined below. 

Introduction: 

• Describes the planning/EIS effort, and the major statutory and regulatory 

requirements it fulfills 

• Identifies the government entities assuming cooperating agency status through the 

MOU, and their qualifications as defined at 40 CFR 1508.15 and 1508.26: 

jurisdiction, special expertise, or jurisdiction and special expertise 

Purpose (describes what will be accomplished by the MOU): 

Authorities: 

• Identifies the principal statutory authorities for the BLM to enter into the MOU 

• Identifies the principal statutory authorities for the cooperating agencies to enter into 

the MOU 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

9

Roles and responsibilities: 

• The roles of each party in the planning process, including contractors if applicable 

• Particular interests and areas of expertise of the cooperating agencies relative to the 

plan 

• Procedures for information sharing and confidentiality 

• How the cooperating agencies’ comments, recommendations, and data will be used in 

the planning process 

• Resource commitments 

• Anticipated schedule 

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

• Any other expectations of the parties 

Agency representatives (usually enumerated in an attachment):

Administration of the MOU: 

• How disagreements will be resolved 

• How the MOU may be modified or terminated 

• Acknowledgement that the authority and responsibilities of the parties under their 

respective jurisdictions are not altered by the MOU 

F. Government-to-Government Coordination with Indian Tribes 

The BLM will provide government officials of federally-recognized Tribes with opportunities to 

comment on and to participate in the development of land use plans. The BLM will consider 

comments, notify consulted Tribes of final decisions, and inform them of how their comments 

were addressed in those decisions. At a minimum, officials of federally-recognized Tribal 

governments must be offered the same level of involvement as state and county officials. It is 

recommended that coordination take place as early as possible and before official notifications 

are made. Land use plans and coordination activities must address the following: 

1. Consistency with Tribal plans

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA requires the BLM to coordinate plan preparation for public lands 

with plans for lands controlled by Indian Tribes, so that the BLM’s plans are consistent with 

Tribes' plans for managing Tribal resources to the extent possible, consistent with Federal law. 

This coordination allows the BLM and Tribes to develop management prescriptions for a larger 

land base than either agency can address by itself. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
10 

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

2. Protection of treaty rights

Land use plans must address the protection of treaty rights assured to Indian Tribes concerning 

Tribal uses of public lands and resources (such treaty rights in the West are generally limited to 

Northwestern Tribes who were subject to the Stevens Treaties of the 1850s). 

3. Observance of specific planning coordination authorities

In addition to the FLPMA consistency provisions discussed above, the land use planning 

process, where applicable, must comply with the following statutes and Executive orders: 

a. Section 101(d)(6) of the National Historic Preservation Act. This act requires the BLM to 

consult with Indian Tribes when historic properties of traditional religious or cultural importance 

to a Tribe would be affected by BLM decision-making. 

b. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act. This act requires the BLM to protect and 

preserve the freedom of American Indians and Alaska Natives in exercising their traditional 

religions, including access to sites and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and 

traditional rites. 

c. Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites). This requires the BLM to accommodate access 

to and use of sacred sites and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred sites to 

the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not inconsistent with essential agency functions. 

The BLM must ensure reasonable notice is provided to Tribes, through government-togovernment relations, of proposed actions or land management policies that may restrict future 

access to or ceremonial uses of, or adversely affect the physical integrity of, sacred sites, 

including proposed land disposals. 

d. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). This requires the BLM to take into account 

the relevant CEQ guidelines and Department of the Interior policies and goals (see Appendix D, 

Table D-4). 

In some cases, Native American or Tribal interests are represented by certain advocacy groups 

that have a “quasi-governmental” authority or interest, but that are not federally recognized. 

There is no statutory, fiduciary trust, or government-to-government relationship with these 

groups that requires consultation. These groups are consulted by BLM on the same level as any 

other nongovernmental organization or advocacy group using the principles of collaboration. 

See BLM Manual 8120 and BLM Handbook H-8120-1 for specific guidance on Native 

American consultation. See Departmental Manual 512 DM 2 (Departmental Responsibilities for 

Indian Trust Resources). 

Land use plans and their accompanying EISs must identify potential effects on Indian trust 

resources, trust assets, or Tribal health and safety. Any effect must be explicitly identified and 

documented in the land use plan, including appropriate mitigation where possible. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

11

II. Land Use Plan Decisions 

A. Introduction

Decisions in land use plans guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific 

implementation decisions. These land use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for 

resource management (desired outcomes) and the measures needed to achieve these goals and 

objectives (management actions and allowable uses). Section 202(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 

1712) requires that in developing land use plans, the BLM: 

1. Use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield;

2. use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to integrate physical, biological, economic, 

and other sciences; 

3. give priority to designating and protecting areas of critical environmental concern 

(ACECs); 

4. rely, to the extent available, on an inventory of public lands, their resources, and other 

values; 

5. consider present and potential uses of public lands; 

6. consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative 

means and sites for realizing those values; 

7. weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; 

8. provide for compliance with applicable Tribal, Federal, and state pollution control 

laws, standards, and implementation plans; and 

9. to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of public lands, 

coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of public lands 

with land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments/agencies 

and state/local governments, as well as the policies of approved Tribal and state land 

resource management programs. The BLM must, to the extent practical, assure that 

consideration is given to those Tribal, state, and local plans that are germane in the 

development of land use plans for public lands. Land use plans must be consistent with 

state and local plans to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law. Refer to 

FLPMA for the full text of Federal responsibilities detailed under Section 202(c)(9). 

Where there are competing resource uses and values in the same area, Section 103(c) of FLPMA 

(43 U.S.C. 1702(c)) requires that the BLM manage the public lands and their various resource 

values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet multiple use and sustained 

yield mandates. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
12 

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

Land use plan decisions are made according to the procedures in the BLM’s planning regulations 

in 43 CFR 1600 and the implementing regulations for NEPA in 40 CFR 1500-1508. Before land 

use plan decisions are finalized and selected, they must 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 outcomes (goals and 

objectives) and allowable (including restricted or prohibited) uses and actions anticipated to 

achieve desired outcomes. 

1. Desired outcomes

Land use plans must identify desired outcomes expressed in terms of specific goals and 

objectives. Goals and objectives direct the BLM’s actions in most effectively meeting legal 

mandates; numerous regulatory responsibilities; national policy, including the DOI Strategic 

Plan goals; State Director guidance (see 43 CFR 1610.0-4(b)); and other resource or social 

needs. Desired outcomes should be identified for and pertain to resources (such as natural, 

biological, and cultural), resource uses, (such as energy and livestock grazing), and other factors 

(such as social and economic conditions). Definitions and examples of goals and objectives are 

listed below: 

Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes (e.g., maintain ecosystem health and 

productivity, promote community stability, ensure sustainable development) that usually are not 

quantifiable. Since the release of the original Handbook, the BLM has worked with RACs to 

develop Land Health Standards applicable to all ecosystems and management actions. These 

Land Health Standards must be expressed as goals in the land use plan. Goals can also be drawn 

from the Departmental and/or the DOI Strategic Plan or other sources. A sample goal for a Land 

Health Standard is: “Maintain healthy, productive plant and animal communities of native and 

other desirable species at viable population levels commensurate with the species and habitat’s 

potential.” A sample goal from the Strategic Plan is: “Sustain desired biological communities 

on Department of the Interior-managed and -influenced lands and waters in a manner consistent 

with obligations regarding the allocation and use of water.” These goals, or modifications 

thereof, could be used in a land use plan. 

Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives are usually quantifiable 

and measurable and may have established timeframes for achievement (as appropriate). A 

sample objective is: “Manage vegetative communities on the upland portion of the Clear Creek 

Watershed to achieve, by 2020, an average 30 to 40 percent canopy cover of sagebrush to sustain 

sagebrush-obligate species.” When quantified, the indicators associated with Land Health 

Standards are one possible source of objectives. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

13

2. Allowable uses and management actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes 

(goals and objectives)

After establishing desired outcomes, the BLM identifies allowable uses (land use allocations) 

and management actions for different alternatives that are anticipated to achieve the goals and 

objectives. 

a. Allowable uses. Land use plans must identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, 

restricted, or prohibited on the public lands and mineral estate. These allocations identify surface 

lands and/or subsurface mineral interests where uses are allowed, including any restrictions that 

may be needed to meet goals and objectives. Land use plans also identify lands where specific 

uses are excluded to protect resource values. Certain lands may be open or closed to specific 

uses based on legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements or criteria to protect sensitive 

resource values. If land use plan decisions close areas of 100,000 acres or greater in size to a 

principal or major use for 2 years or more, Congress must be notified of the closure upon its 

implementation as prescribed in 43 CFR 1610.6. 

The land use plan must set the stage for identifying site-specific resource use levels. Sitespecific use levels are normally identified during subsequent implementation planning or the 

permit authorization process. At the land use plan level, it is important to identify reasonable 

development scenarios for allowable uses such as mineral leasing, locatable mineral 

development, recreation, timber harvest, utility corridors, and livestock grazing to enable the 

orderly implementation of future actions. These scenarios provide a context for the land use 

plan’s decisions and an analytical base for the NEPA analysis. The BLM may also establish 

criteria in the land use plan to guide the identification of site-specific use levels for activities 

during plan implementation. 

b. Management actions. Land use plans must identify the actions anticipated to achieve desired 

outcomes, including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. These actions include 

proactive measures (e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and 

condition), as well as measures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities 

occurring on public land. Land use plans also establish administrative designations such as 

ACECs, recommend proposed withdrawals, land tenure zones, and recommend or make findings 

of suitability for congressional designations (such as components of the National Wild and 

Scenic River System). 

While protection and restoration opportunities and priorities are often related to managing 

specific land uses (such as commodity extraction, recreation, or rights-of-way corridors), they 

can be independent of these types of uses as well. In certain instances, it is insufficient to simply 

remove or limit a certain use, because unsatisfactory resource conditions may have developed 

over long periods of time that will not correct themselves without management intervention. For 

example, where exotic invasive species are extensive, active restoration may be necessary to 

allow native plants to reestablish and prosper. In these cases, identifying restoration

opportunities and setting restoration priorities are critical parts of the land use planning process. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
14 

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

Appendix C provides additional program-specific guidance for developing land use plan 

decisions. 

C. Geographic Areas

A variety of different geographic areas are associated with planning: 

Planning Area. The geographic area within which the BLM will make decisions during a 

planning effort. A planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction; however 

the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM’s jurisdiction (including 

subsurface minerals). Unless the State Director determines otherwise, the planning area for a 

RMP is the geographic area associated with a particular field office (43 CFR 1610.1(b)). State 

Directors may also establish regional planning areas that encompass several field offices and/or 

states, as necessary. 

Decision Area. The lands within a planning area for which the BLM has authority to make land 

use and management decisions. In general, the BLM has jurisdiction over all BLM-administered 

lands (surface and subsurface) and over the subsurface minerals only in areas of split estate 

(areas where the BLM administers Federal subsurface minerals, but the surface is owned by a 

non-Federal entity, such as State Trust Land or private land). 

Analysis Area. Any lands, regardless of jurisdiction, for which the BLM synthesizes, analyzes, 

and interprets data and information that relates to planning for BLM-administered lands. 

Analyses that extend beyond the planning area boundary allow management decisions to be 

made within the context of overall resource conditions and trends within the surrounding area, 

considering local, state, other Federal, and Tribal plans. Examples of such information include 

the relative significance of BLM lands for a certain resource (such as a threatened or endangered 

species), or the anticipated impacts to resources (such as air quality, socio-economics) based on 

activities on BLM-administered lands. The analysis areas can be any size, can vary according to 

resource, and can be located anywhere within, around, partially outside, or completely outside 

the planning or decision areas. 

D. Scales of Planning

Planning and decision making may vary geographically (regional versus site-specific) or 

temporally (short-term versus long-term), providing a comprehensive basis for implementing 

resource management actions. 

Planning at multiple scales may be necessary to resolve issues for a geographic area that is 

different from the planning area for the RMP. For example, if broad-scale (regional) analysis 

identifies issues such as invasive weeds that cross BLM field office boundaries or other 

jurisdictional boundaries, desired outcomes and management actions in a planning area may be 

described and addressed in the context of the broader landscape. 

Information presented at multiple scales also helps the BLM to understand priority resource 

issues, tailor decisions to specific needs and circumstances, and analyze cumulative impacts. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

15

When establishing goals and objectives and making management decisions, it is also important 

to consider temporal scales. Some natural processes affected by decisions may occur over very 

long timeframes. For example, complete restoration of a degraded habitat may take much 

longer than the typical time span of a land use plan. 

E. Multijurisdictional Planning 

Within a planning area, the BLM surface lands and subsurface mineral estate interests are often 

intermingled with non-Federal mineral estate, or with lands that are managed by or under the 

jurisdiction of Tribal, state, or local governments or other Federal agencies. As an outgrowth of 

these landownership patterns and responsibilities, other governmental entities and BLM have 

increasingly sought to coordinate their decisions and plans. 

Multijurisdictional planning assists land use planning efforts where there is a mix of 

landownership and government authorities and there are opportunities to develop complementary 

decisions across jurisdictional boundaries. Planning can be accomplished for subbasins, entire 

watersheds, or other landscape units. A multijurisdictional plan may include both land use and 

implementation decisions that are germane to each jurisdiction involved in the planning effort. 

However, the BLM still retains authority for decisions affecting the public lands it administers. 

The BLM office leading or participating in a multijurisdictional plan must assure conformance 

with the BLM’s planning regulations, as well as all other applicable laws and regulations for the 

BLM-administered lands. This can be accomplished by completing the notification, public 

review, and procedural requirements of 43 CFR 1600 and 40 CFR 1500-1508 as part of the 

multijurisdictional planning effort. Where BLM becomes a cooperating agency for 

implementation actions in conformance with the existing land use plan, the lead agency’s 

planning process may be followed provided that NEPA requirements are met. 

In cases where the BLM-administered lands make up a small part of the planning area for a 

multijurisdictional planning effort, it may be desirable for other jurisdictional interests to lead the 

planning effort. The BLM may act as a cooperating agency’s facilitator, convener, leader, or 

participant, as appropriate, to encourage positive relationships and to develop a mutual 

understanding of resource conditions and multiple-use management options. In some cases, law 

may define the lead role. In most cases, planning procedures of Tribal, state, or local 

governments and other Federal agencies will differ from those of the BLM. Therefore, 

successful multijurisdictional planning efforts are normally guided by MOUs, which clearly 

delineate lines of authority and roles and responsibilities for all participants, including the BLM. 

F. Establishing Management Direction for Lands That May Come Under the BLM 

Jurisdiction in the Future

If it is foreseeable that the BLM will acquire management responsibility for certain parcels of 

land through purchase, exchange, withdrawal revocation, administrative transfers, or some other 

means, then the BLM can establish management direction for these lands, contingent on their 

acquisition, in conjunction with planning efforts on adjacent or similar BLM-administered lands. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
16 

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

If acquired lands are surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands, the BLM can extend applicable 

land use plan decisions, through plan maintenance (see 43 CFR 1610.5-4), to these lands after 

they are acquired without completing a plan amendment, as long as there are no unresolved 

management issues associated with the newly acquired lands. In some cases, regulatory 

requirements may dictate a plan amendment be completed, such as when establishing or 

modifying boundaries of ACECs. 

III. Land Use Planning Process and Products 

Planning requirements vary depending on the type of planning efforts and the level of 

environmental analysis needed. There are three types of planning efforts: 

1. New plans. A set of decisions for an area previously managed by an entity other than

the BLM, or for an area previously managed by the BLM under a MFP (the land use plan 

predecessor to the present-day RMP). 

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

3. Plan amendments. A modification of one or more parts (e.g., decisions about 

livestock grazing) of an existing RMP. 

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

Table III-1.—Planning efforts and required NEPA analysis

Type of planning effort Type of associated NEPA document required 

New plans ▪ EIS 

Plan revisions ▪ EIS 

Plan amendments ▪ EIS or EA/FONSI: Depends on the scope of the planning effort and on the 

anticipated impacts. 

A. Planning for Environmental Impact Statement-level Efforts 

Figure 1 shows required planning steps for EIS-level planning efforts, followed by a description 

of each step. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

17

Figure 1.—EIS-level planning efforts: Required steps for new plans, revisions, and amendments

3 

Issue NOI1 to prepare the 

RMP(amendment)/EIS and 

start scoping 

Analyze the 

Management Situation 

▪ Document results in an

analysis of the management

Conduc situation (AMS) t Scoping 

▪ Provide a minimum 30-day

comment period on issues and

planning criteria 

▪ Document results in a 

scoping report

Prepare a Draft RMP 

(Amendment)/Draft EIS

Formulate Alternatives

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Publish NOA1

 & provide a 

90+-day public comment period 

Publish NOA1

, provide a 30-day 

protest period, and resolve 

protests 

Provide a 60-day Governor’s 

Consistency Review period2

NOTES

1) The chart shows 

minimum planning

requirements according to

law, regulation, or BLM 

policy. BLM managers

can go beyond these 

requirements as needed or 

desired. 

2) Boxes around steps

indicate required 

documents. 

3) Inventory of resource

extent and condition should

occur as needed, but is 

most useful prior to the 

analysis of the

management situation. 

Abbreviations:

EIS ~ Environmental 

Impact Statement 

NOI ~ Notice of Intent

NOA ~ Notice of 

Availability 

RMP ~ Resource 

Management Plan 

1

 BLM must publish a notice in 

the Federal Register. 2

 States can negotiate a shorter

review period with the Governor. 3

 If changes are significant, issue a 

notice of significant change and 

provide a 30-day comment period. 

Implement, Monitor, and 

Evaluate Plan Decisions 

Select a Preferred Alternative 

Prepare to Plan

▪ Write a preparation plan

Prepare Record of Decision/Approved RMP 

(Amendment) 

Prepare a Proposed RMP

(Amendment)/Final EIS

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
18 

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

1. Prepare to plan

The preparation plan is more than merely a vehicle to secure planning funds. A properly 

prepared preparation plan provides the foundation for the entire planning process by identifying 

the preliminary issues to be addressed, the skills needed to address them, a preliminary budget 

that can be used for the cost estimate, preliminary planning criteria, and data and metadata 

available and needed. If the plan is to be contracted, the preparation plan also forms the basis for 

the statement of work. Offices should use a full interdisciplinary team to develop a realistic 

preparation plan. If the plan is to be contracted, include the procurement staff on the 

interdisciplinary team. 

It is important that the preparation plans use the principles of project management and address 

the findings in the existing plan evaluation. A comprehensive preparation plan provides 

management direction, oversight, structure, cost estimate, and focus for the planning process. 

Preparation plans should be as brief and concise as possible. 

PRODUCT: PREPARATION PLAN—Appendix F-1 (Recommended Format for Preparation 

Plans) contains a more detailed outline and discussion of specific components for a preparation 

plan. 

2. Issue a notice of intent to prepare the RMP (amendment)/EIS and start scoping 

At the earliest opportunity, the BLM should notify the public, Indian Tribes, other Federal 

agencies, and state and local governments about its intent to engage in land use planning for a 

given area. BLM managers should take whatever measures they feel necessary to ensure all 

interested parties are notified of upcoming planning actions. At a minimum, however, the BLM 

must distribute two types of notices. 

a. Publish a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. The BLM must publish a 

NOI in the Federal Register prior to scoping to announce its decision to prepare an EIS 

(and associated planning document) (40 CFR 1501.7). The NOI should identify 

preliminary issues and planning criteria (see the following Conduct Scoping section). 

b. Distribute scoping notices. Simultaneously with the Federal Register NOI, the BLM 

should submit a scoping notice to Federal agencies, state agencies, the heads of county 

boards, other local government units, and Tribal chairmen or Alaska Native leaders and 

any other entities/individuals who have requested such notice 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 current status of government entities’ officially approved or 

adopted resource-related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein. 

Publication of the NOI in the Federal Register formally initiates the plan development, revision, 

or amendment process and begins the scoping process. Information discussions with cooperators 

(or potential cooperators), RACs, Tribes and other groups may occur before formal scoping 

begins. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

19

3. Conduct scoping

Scoping is a requirement of both the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and the BLM planning 

regulations (43 CFR 1610.2 and 43 CFR 1610.4-1). The land use planning process is issuedriven. Scoping is a collaborative public involvement process to identify planning issues to be 

addressed in the planning process. Planning issues are disputes or controversies about existing 

and potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related 

management practices. Issues include resource use, development, and protection opportunities 

for consideration in the preparation of the RMP. These issues may stem from new information 

or changed circumstances, and the need to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses. 

Planning issues are addressed in and provide major focus for the development of alternatives (see

Section III(A)(5), Formulate alternatives). 

Scoping also involves the introduction of preliminary planning criteria to the public for 

comment. Planning criteria guide development 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 State Director guidance, and the results of public and governmental 

participation (43 CFR 1610.4-2). Examples of planning criteria include but are not limited to the 

following: 

a. The plan will be completed in compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other relevant 

Federal law, Executive orders, and management policies of the BLM; 

b. where existing planning decisions are still valid, those decisions may remain 

unchanged and be incorporated into the new RMP (or amendment); 

c. the plans will recognize valid existing rights; and 

d. Native American Tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy and 

Tribal concerns will be given due consideration. The planning process will include the 

consideration of any impacts on Indian trust assets. 

PRODUCT: SCOPING REPORT—The BLM must document the results of scoping (43 CFR 

1610.2(d)). Field offices must either write a scoping report to capture public input in one 

document (recommended), or include the results of scoping in the Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS) (see following Section III(A)(4)). The documentation must summarize the 

individual comments received during the formal scoping period of the planning process. It must 

also describe the issues and management concerns from public scoping meetings, internal 

scoping meetings, and those included in the preparation plan. See Appendix F-2 (Recommended 

Format for Scoping Reports). 

4. Analyze the management situation

The BLM must analyze available inventory data and other information to characterize the 

resource area profile, portray the existing management situation, and identify management 

opportunities to respond to identified issues. This analysis provides, consistent with multiple use 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
20 

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

principles, the basis for formulating reasonable alternatives, including the types of resources for 

development 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 uses/activities in the planning area to provide information for the 

affected environment, provide the basis for the no action/present management alternative, and to 

create a framework from which to resolve the planning issues through the development of 

alternatives. The analysis should describe the status, or present characteristics and condition of 

the public land; the status of physical and biological processes that affect ecosystem function; the 

condition of individual components such as soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife habitat; and the 

relative value and scarcity of the resources. The analysis should also address social and

economic conditions that influence how people, communities, and economies interact with the 

ecosystem. Appendix D provides additional detail on addressing social science and economic 

considerations in the land use planning process in the context of the larger landscape. 

PRODUCT: ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION—Field offices should 

produce a report called the analysis of the management situation (AMS). Field offices are 

encouraged to make a summary of the AMS findings (or the entire report) available to the public. 

Parts of the AMS should easily translate into the introduction chapter, the no action and action 

alternatives, and the affected environment chapter of the EIS. 

Formulation of the AMS can begin as soon as the planning project is approved. Documentation 

supporting the AMS should be maintained in the field office for public review. The AMS 

document can be made available to the public during or after scoping. The scoping report can 

also be included in a published summary of the AMS if desired. See Appendix F-3 (Annotated 

Outline of the Analysis of the Management Situation) for additional guidance. 

5. Formulate 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 management of the 

resources and uses in the planning area. Development of alternatives should draw on the 

management opportunities identified in the AMS. Each alternative includes desired outcomes 

(goals and objectives), and the allowable uses and actions anticipated to achieve those outcomes. 

It is important to keep in mind the following about alternative formulation: 

a. The BLM must consider all reasonable alternatives, including the no action alternative 

(the continuation of present levels or systems of resource use). Some alternatives, 

including the no action alternative, may be developed for detailed study, while others are 

considered but not analyzed in detail. Both types of alternatives are described in the 

RMP/EIS. Rationale should be briefly described to document why certain alternatives 

were not studied in detail (43 CFR 1610.4-5). An example may be that one alternative is 

a reasonable variation of an existing alternative analyzed in detail. 

b. Reasonable alternatives analyzed in detail meet the purpose and need of the project 

and can be feasibly carried out based on estimated cost, logistics, technology, and social, 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

21

and environmental factors. An alternative may be considered reasonable even if it is 

outside the legal jurisdiction of the BLM because it may serve as the basis for modifying 

congressional approval in light of the analysis (40 CFR 1502.14(c); Forty Questions No. 

2(b)). 

c. Each fully-developed alternative represents a different land use plan that addresses 

and/or resolves the identified planning issues in different ways. 

d. Each alternative will include a different suite of potential planning decisions to 

address the issues. Some potential planning decisions may be common to multiple, or all 

alternatives.

e. Goals typically pertain to all alternatives (will not vary by alternative). Objectives, 

allowable uses, and management actions may (1) be consistent across alternatives, and/or 

(2) vary by alternative. A plan could include some objectives that vary by alternative, 

and other objectives that are consistent across alternatives. 

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

management actions may (1) apply to the planning area as a whole, and/or (2) be specific 

to certain geographic areas, such as those listed below: 

1. Landscape-level systems (such as ecosystems and watersheds); 

2. specific resources (such as threatened and endangered species and cultural 

sites); 

3. areas (such as allotments and special management units); and 

4. areas needing restoration or maintenance in order to meet land health 

standards. 

g. All components of an individual alternative must be complementary. Desired 

outcomes, allowable uses, and management actions can (and probably will) conflict from

one alternative to the next. However, they must not conflict within any one alternative. 

For example, an alternative should not allow all lands open to oil and gas leasing while 

having all lands designated as Visual Resource Management Class I or II. 

h. When identifying allowable uses in alternatives, consider resource development 

potential, levels of use, and restrictions to best achieve the identified goals and objectives 

(see Analysis of the Management Situation above). These uses and restrictions are based 

on resource protection needs and social and economic factors, and represent the most 

appropriate mix of uses and protections for the resources in the planning area. Different 

protection and restoration measures and the availability of areas for certain uses, levels of 

uses, and restrictions are presented in alternatives. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
22 

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

i. In developing alternatives, the BLM must consider the relative scarcity of the values 

involved and the availability of alternative means and sites for realizing those values (43 

U.S.C. 1712(c)(6)). 

j. Alternatives should be developed in an open, collaborative manner, to the extent 

possible. 

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

The BLM must estimate and describe the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of 

implementing each alternative considered in detail, including the no action alternative (43 CFR 

1610.4-6). This analysis should provide adequate information to evaluate the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts of each alternative in order to determine the best mix of potential 

planning decisions to achieve the identified goals and objectives (the analysis should also 

specifically address the attainment, or non-attainment, of Land Health Standards expressed as 

goals). The assumptions and timeframes used for analysis purposes (such as reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios) should be documented. The effects are described in the draft 

RMP (amendment)/draft EIS (see Section 8). 

7. Select a preferred alternative

By evaluating the alternatives in the EIS, the BLM must determine which combination of

potential planning decisions contained in the alternatives best meets multiple use and sustained 

yield mandates 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 alternative should be 

identified as the preferred alternative. If the combination of potential planning decisions is 

drawn from different alternatives, then those potential planning decisions should be compiled 

into a new alternative (identified as the preferred alternative) and the impacts analyzed 

accordingly. 

The preferred alternative should: 

a. Meet statutory requirements; 

b. represent the best combination of decisions to achieve the goals and policies of the 

BLM as reflected through the DOI’s Strategic Plan and State Director guidance; and 

c. best respond to the purpose and need and best resolve the issues pertinent to the 

planning effort. 

 

These and other agreed-to selection criteria should be used in selecting the preferred alternative. 

Development of criteria and evaluation of alternatives should include the involvement of RACs, 

cooperators, and interested members of the public to the extent practical. The final decision to 

select a preferred alternative, however, remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

23

The Field Manager recommends the preferred alternative to the State Director. The State 

Director approves the selection of the preferred alternative along with the other alternatives 

under consideration. 

8. Prepare a draft RMP (amendment) and draft EIS

PRODUCT: DRAFT RMP (AMENDMENT)/DRAFT EIS—This document describes the 

purpose and need for the plan, the affected environment, the alternatives for managing public 

lands within the planning area (including the preferred alternative), the environmental impacts of 

those alternatives, and the consultation and coordination in which the BLM engaged in 

developing the plan. See Appendix F-4 (Annotated Outline for a Draft and Final RMP 

[Amendment]/EIS). 

9. Publish a notice of availability and provide a public comment period

The BLM must provide at least 90 days for the public to comment on the draft RMP 

(amendment) and draft EIS. This public comment period officially starts with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) publication of a NOA for the document in the Federal Register (43 

CFR 1610.2(e)). The BLM also publishes a NOA in the Federal Register to provide information 

not contained in the EPA’s NOA about the project, comment period, contact information, and 

other supplemental information. The BLM may also announce the start of the comment period 

(and the dates, times, and locations of public meetings) through other mechanisms, such as press 

releases, planning bulletins or newsletters, direct mailings and e-mailings, and Internet postings. 

Public comments may be submitted in a variety of forms, including written, electronic, and oral. 

The BLM must assess and consider all comments received (similar or “like” comments may be 

grouped for analysis). The BLM responds to public comments by one of the following ways (40 

CFR 1503.4): 

a. Modifying alternatives, including the proposed plan; 

b. developing and evaluating alternatives not previously given serious consideration; 

c. supplementing, improving, or modifying analysis; 

d. making factual corrections; and 

e. explaining why comments do not warrant further response, citing the sources, 

authorities, or reasons that support the agency’s position, and, if appropriate, indicate 

those circumstances that would trigger reappraisal or further response. 

Although the BLM is not required to write to individual commenters to explain how their 

comments were addressed, it is required to respond to substantive comments and include the 

response in the proposed RMP (amendment) and final EIS. Nonsubstantive comments are those 

that include opinions, assertions, and unsubstantiated claims. Substantive comments are those 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
24 

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

that reveal new information, missing information, or flawed analysis that would substantially 

change conclusions. 

10. Prepare a proposed RMP (amendment) and final EIS

PRODUCT: PROPOSED RMP (AMENDMENT)/FINAL EIS—The proposed RMP 

(amendment) and final EIS builds on the draft RMP (amendment) and draft EIS to include 

appropriate responses to public comments received on the draft RMP (amendment) and draft EIS 

as well as a description (either verbatim or summary) of the comments received. It also corrects 

errors in the draft RMP/EIS identified through the public comment process and internal BLM 

review. The proposed RMP and final EIS may also contain modification to the alternatives and 

the accompanying impact analysis contained in the draft RMP/EIS. However, substantial 

changes to the proposed action, or significant new information/circumstances collected during 

the comment period would require supplements to either the draft or final EIS (40 CFR 

1502.9(c)). The proposed RMP (amendment)/final EIS should clearly show the changes from

the draft RMP (amendment)/draft EIS. The proposed RMP/final EIS should also display land 

use plan and implementation decisions (and clearly distinguish between the two types of 

decisions). One way of doing this is in the Dear Reader Letter. See Appendix F-4 (Annotated 

Outline for a Draft and Final RMP [Amendment]/EIS). 

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

Issuance of the proposed RMP (amendment)/EIS officially occurs with the EPA’s publication of 

a NOA for the document in the Federal Register. The BLM publishes a NOA as well, which 

contains information about the project, protest period and filing instructions, contact information, 

and other supplemental information not contained in the EPA’s NOA. 

Individuals and entities have 30 days from the publication of EPA’s NOA of the document to file 

a protest with the BLM Director. The protest period cannot be extended. The BLM must 

resolve any protests on a proposed RMP (amendment)/final EIS before issuing a record of 

decision (ROD). A ROD may be issued on any portion of the proposed RMP not protested, in 

coordination with the Washington Office. See Appendix E (Summary of Protest and Appeal 

Provisions). 

12. Provide a Governor’s consistency review period

In addition to a 30-day protest period, the BLM must also provide a 60-day review period to the 

Governor of the state in which the RMP (amendment) is being proposed to ensure consistency 

with state and local plans, policies, and programs. The protest period and the Governor’s review 

period should occur simultaneously in order to save time. Sending a print-ready copy to the 

Governor at the same time the document goes to the printer will allow both periods to end at 

about the same time. BLM state offices can potentially 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 assume that the 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

25

proposed land use plan (amendment) decisions are consistent (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)). If the 

Governor recommends changes in the proposed plan (amendment) that were not raised during 

the public participation process, the 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 may coincide with the 30-day comment period for the notice of 

significant change (see Section III(A)(13) below). If the State Director does not accept the 

Governor’s recommendations, the Governor has 30 days to appeal in writing to the BLM 

Director (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)). 

13. Determine need for a notice of significant change and provide a comment period if 

necessary

The protest letters and comments from the Governor could result in the need to significantly 

modify the proposed RMP (amendment)/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 comment period. 

Without 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 CFR 1505.2). The BLM must then respond to the 

comments as described in previous Section III(A)(9). 

Should the BLM issue a notice of significant change, it may also be necessary to issue a 

supplemental proposed RMP (amendment)/ final EIS (see 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1-4)). 

14. Prepare a record of decision and approved RMP (amendment)

PRODUCT: RECORD OF DECISION /APPROVED RMP (AMENDMENT)—The ROD 

/approved RMP (amendment) serves as a more concise and useful tool to land managers and 

stakeholders than a cumbersome EIS. It is typically the proposed RMP (amendment) as 

modified in response to protests, the Governor’s consistency review, or other considerations. It 

describes the goals, objectives, and management actions for fulfilling the management direction 

developed within the land use planning process. 

An RMP (amendment) is officially approved when the State Director signs a ROD adopting the 

RMP (amendment). The ROD should precede or coincide with the adoption of the RMP (40 

CFR 1506.1(a)). The ROD, which provides the rationale for the decision (this should parallel the 

rational for the preferred alternative, using the same criteria), should be published and released in 

the same document with and reference the approved RMP (amendment). See Appendix F-5 

(Annotated Outline for a Record of Decision/Approved RMP (Amendment)). 

15. Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan decisions

See Sections IV and V of this Handbook. 

B. Planning for Environmental Assessment-level Efforts 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
26 

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

The BLM completes environmental assessment (EA)-level planning efforts mainly for certain 

types of plan amendments. In general, there are fewer planning steps involved in EA-level 

planning. The number of steps and extent of work involved with each step varies with the 

complexity of identified planning issues. Figure 2 shows the required and optional steps 

associated with EA-level planning. Steps are required unless noted as optional (designated by 

italics). 

1. Prepare to plan (optional)

It is highly recommended that field offices engage in preplanning activities, though they are not 

required. Field offices should complete preplanning steps necessary to help ensure efficient and 

effective planning efforts. For example, field offices could write preparation plans similar to 

those required for EIS-level planning efforts (see Section III(A)(1), Prepare to Plan and 

Appendix F-1). 

2. Issue a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the RMP amendment and review planning 

criteria

The BLM must publish an NOI in the Federal Register to initiate the start of the planning effort 

(43 CFR 1610.2 (c)). The BLM can include the draft planning criteria in the NOI to solicit 

public review of the criteria. Alternatively, the BLM can make the planning criteria available to 

the public at a later date if desired (see following Section III(A)(3), Conduct Scoping). Note, 

however, that public review of planning criteria is required at some point, whether at the time of 

the NOI or at a later date. 

3. Conduct scoping 

Field offices must engage in an appropriate level of scoping activities. At a minimum, the BLM 

must offer a 30-day public comment period on issues and planning criteria. Depending on the 

local situation and planning issues, the BLM can also conduct a more involved scoping effort 

and include a series of public meetings, for example. 

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

amendment and EA or the proposed amendment/EA (if a draft plan amendment and EA is not 

prepared). 

4. Analyze the management situation (optional)

The BLM is not required to analyze the management situation or produce a report that describes 

it. However, prior to formulating alternatives, the BLM should understand current conditions 

and trends of the resources and the uses/activities that will relate to potential decisions in the plan 

amendment. It is highly recommended that the BLM begin the process of gathering existing 

data, and supplementing data as needed, early in the plan amendment process. This information 

will create a solid base for analysis to support amending planning decisions. This could be 

accomplished by reference to and/or augmenting the existing AMS. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

27

Prepare to Plan 

• Write a Preparation Plan NOTES

Figure 2.—EA-level planning efforts: Required and optional planning steps

4

Issue NOI 1 to prepare the RMP 

Amendment and review planning criteria 

1) The chart shows required 

and optional steps for EA-level 

planning efforts. 

Conduct Scoping 

• Provide a minimum 30-day

comment period on issues and

planning criteria 

Formulate Alternatives

Prepare a Proposed RMP 

Amendment/EA/FONSI 

Provide a minimum 30-day 

public comment period 2

Provide a 30-day 

protest period and resolve 

protests

Provide a 60-day Governor’s 

Consistency Review period 3

2) Steps in italics may be 

appropriate in some cases but 

are not required for EA-level 

amendments. Steps in boxes 

indicate required documents. 

3) Inventory of resource extent 

and condition should occur as 

needed, but is most useful prior 

to the analysis of the 

management situation. 

Abbreviations:

• EA ~ Environmental 

Assessment 

• EIS ~ Environmental Impact 

Statement 

• FONSI ~ Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

• NOI ~ Notice of Intent 

• NOA ~ Notice of 

Availability

• RMP ~ Resource

Management Plan 

1

 BLM must publish a notice in

the Federal Register. 2 For decisions involving areas 

of critical environmental 

concern, provide a 60-day

comment period and publish a 

NOA in the Federal Register 

(required). 3 States can negotiate a shorter 

review period with the 

Governor. 

4 If changes are significant, 

issue a notice of significant 

change and provide a 30-day

comment period. 

Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate 

Plan Decisions 

Prepare Decision Record/ 

RMP Amendment

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Analyze the Management Situation 

• Document results in the analysis 

of the management situation

(AMS) 

Prepare a Draft RMP Amendment 

and EA/FONSI 

• Document results in a 

Scoping Report 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
28 

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

5. Formulate alternatives

The BLM must formulate appropriate alternatives for EA-level planning efforts. The process is 

similar to that for EIS-level amendments. 

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

The BLM must also analyze the effects of alternatives. 

7. Prepare a draft RMP amendment and EA/FONSI (optional)

The BLM must prepare a draft RMP amendment and EA/finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI) when it is determined that a public review and comment period are appropriate (for 

example, when proposed ACEC designations are being considered per 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b) or to 

meet NEPA requirements under certain limited circumstances per 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2). 

Otherwise, a draft plan amendment is not required, and the BLM can simply go from analyzing 

the effects of alternatives (step 6) to preparing a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI (step 9). 

The FONSI should be unsigned. 

8. Provide a public comment period (optional) 

If the BLM prepares a draft RMP amendment and EA/FONSI, it must offer a minimum 30-day 

public comment period. The BLM must offer a 60-day comment period for potential decisions 

regarding ACEC designation. 

9. Prepare a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI 

The BLM must prepare a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI for all EA-level planning 

efforts. The proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI is typically arranged in an EIS format (with 

chapters). The FONSI should be signed (if a FONSI cannot be signed, an EIS should be 

initiated). 

10. Provide a protest period and resolve protests

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 30-day protest period. The protest 

period cannot be extended. Since a NOA is not published in the Federal Register for EA-level 

amendment, field offices are encouraged to widely notify the public (including publication of 

legal notices in local newspapers) to announce the protest period. The BLM must resolve these 

protests before issuing a decision record/RMP amendment. A decision record may be issued on 

any portion of the proposed RMP amendment not protested, in coordination with the Washington 

Office. 

11. Provide a Governor’s consistency review period

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 60-day Governor’s consistency review 

period. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

29

12. Issue a notice of significant change and provide a 30-day public comment period (if 

necessary)

This step is identical to that for EIS-level efforts.

13. Prepare a decision record/RMP amendment

The BLM issues the decision record/RMP amendment after it resolves all protests and any 

potential consistency issues received from the Governor’s office. The decision record should 

precede (or coincide with) the RMP amendment (40 CFR 1506.1). 

 

14. Implement, monitor 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 plan amendment decision document (i.e., ROD or 

decision record) is signed, most of the land use plan decisions in the plan are effective 

immediately and require no additional planning or NEPA analysis. See Appendix C for a listing 

of program-specific land use plan decisions.

Some programs have specific requirements that must be taken in order to make certain decisions 

effective. An example of a land use plan decision that requires an additional action for 

implementation would be a recommendation to withdraw lands from entry under the mining 

laws. Formal action requiring Secretarial-level review and decision making would follow if the 

BLM planning process results in a withdrawal recommendation and the applicable regulations in 

43 CFR 2300 are followed. 

 

Upon approval of the land use plan, subsequent implementation decisions are put into effect by 

developing implementation (activity-level or project-specific) plans. An activity-level plan 

typically describes multiple projects in detail that will lead to on-the-ground action. These plans 

traditionally focused on single resource programs (habitat management plans, allotment 

management plans, recreation management plans, etc.). However, activity-level plans are 

increasingly interdisciplinary and are focused on multiple resource program areas to reflect the 

shift to a more watershed-based or landscape-based approach to management. These types of 

plans are sometimes referred to as “integrated or interdisciplinary plans,” “coordinated resource 

management plans,” “landscape management plans,” or “ecosystem management plans.” A 

project-specific plan is typically prepared for an individual project or several related projects. 

B. Defining Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions generally constitute BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground 

actions to proceed. These types of decisions require appropriate site-specific planning and 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
30 

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

NEPA analysis. Unlike land use plan decisions, implementation decisions are not subject to 

protest under the planning regulations. Instead, implementation decisions are subject to various 

administrative remedies, particularly appeals to the Office of Hearing and Appeals (Interior 

Board of Land Appeals). Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use 

planning process, they are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as 

prescribed by the specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to 

land use plan decisions and makes a decision to adopt or amend the RMP. The proposed plan 

/final EIS should display land use plan and implementation 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-specific implementation decisions. 

C. Making Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are made with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis along with any 

procedural and regulatory requirements for individual programs. 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 supplement must be prepared for subsequent implementation 

planning unless the decisions and actions contained in the implementation plan are: 

1. Identified as exceptions to the BLM NEPA requirements (e.g., actions specifically 

exempted from NEPA by Congress); 

2. categorically excluded (refer to Departmental Manual 516 DM 2, Appendix 1; and 

516 DM 6, Appendix 5.4, for a current listing (May 19, 1992) of categorical exclusions); 

and 

3. fully covered by a previously prepared EA or EIS that does not need to be updated as 

documented by a documentation of land use plan conformance and NEPA adequacy 

(DNA). 

D. Making Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions in the Same Planning Effort

The BLM may use a single land use planning/NEPA process to make both land use plan and 

implementation decisions, provided both types of decisions are adequately addressed with the 

appropriate level of NEPA analysis. This may be appropriate in RMPs or plan amendments 

covering relatively small geographic areas or where there are a number of activity-level projects 

such as timber sales being addressed simultaneously with land use planning efforts. When 

describing the protest procedures for proposed RMPs, the BLM must make clear which decisions 

are land use plan decisions and thus protestable under the planning regulations and which 

decisions are implementation decisions that are not protestable. At the decision-making stage, 

the BLM can separate the two categories of decisions into two decision documents, one adopting 

the RMP (or amendment) and the other approving the implementation decisions; or the BLM 

may use a single decision document that adopts the RMP (or amendment) and approves the 

implementation actions. If a single decision document is used, the BLM must clearly distinguish 

the land use plan decisions from the implementation decisions and describe the administrative 

remedies for both. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

31

When considering land use plan and implementation decisions in the same land use 

planning/NEPA process, the implementation decisions are usually approved at the same time or 

after the decision to approve the RMP (or amendment). An exception may occur when some/all 

of the implementation decisions are in conformance with decisions in the current RMP. In this 

case, the BLM may issue a ROD/decision record on the implementation decisions that are 

consistent with the current plan prior to approving the ROD/decision record on the new RMP (or 

amendment). This situation may occur when there is a need to approve high priority 

implementation decisions before the protests to the proposed RMP (or amendment) are resolved. 

Making implementation decisions as part of the land use planning process and analyzing them

concurrently with land use plan decisions does not change their administrative remedies or the 

timing of those remedies. See Appendix E (Summary of Protest and Appeal Provisions). 

E. Developing Strategies to Facilitate Implementation of Land Use Plans

A documented, well-organized thought process is essential to the successful implementation of 

land use plans. An implementation strategy lists prioritized decisions that (1) will help achieve 

the desired outcomes of one or more land use plans and (2) can be implemented given existing or 

anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables the BLM to prioritize the 

preparation of implementation decisions. 

There are no procedural or approval requirements for an implementation strategy. 

Implementation strategies may be developed in conjunction with developing land use plan 

decisions, but strategies are not land 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 implementation strategy 

should prioritize each decision for funding and implementation. The strategy should also be 

interdisciplinary (not program by program). Developing an implementation strategy creates an 

important opportunity for continued collaboration with the public, Tribes, state and local 

governments, and other Federal agencies. 

Described below is a suggested collaborative four-step method for developing an implementation 

strategy with partners involved in developing the land use plan: 

1. Develop framework to portray the work. Identify specific projects to (a) achieve 

desired natural resource conditions, (b) achieve desired heritage and cultural resource 

conditions, (c) address anticipated demands for recreation, (d) address anticipated 

demands for forage and forest products, (e) address anticipated demand for direct 

community services, and (f) address demand for energy and minerals. 

2. Identify priorities for the next 3 to 5 years. Using the framework in step 1, and 

considering current budget capabilities, identify priorities within each workload (a. 

through f. in step 1) and priorities across workloads. Factors that influence decision 

priorities are: 

 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
32 

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

a. Statutory mandates, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Clean 

Air and Clean Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Taylor Grazing Act, and FLPMA; 

b. goals listed in the DOI’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan; 

c. present risks to resources, with resources at high risk ranking above resources 

without known or substantial risks; 

d. likelihood of success, with management actions using proven techniques 

possibly ranking higher than management actions using experimental techniques; 

e. cost-effectiveness of management actions; there is no requirement to develop a 

cost/benefit analysis, but management actions that have a high likelihood of 

improving resource conditions for relatively small expenditures of time and 

money should receive relatively higher priority; 

f. willingness and availability of cooperators to meet similar resource objectives 

for adjacent non-Federal lands and resources; this would include opportunities to 

cooperate on a watershed basis and to leverage limited resources; 

g. willingness and availability of partners interested in helping accomplish 

priority management actions needed to meet desired outcomes; 

h. budgetary and staff resources required to implement the decisions; and 

i. socioeconomic analysis of the local community. 

3. Develop a 3 to 5 year budget. Identify specific tasks to accomplish each project and 

associated funding needs, including labor and operations costs. Identify potential funding 

sources including base, flexible, and contributions. 

4. Develop an outreach strategy. Identify a strategy for both internal and external 

communications needed to support implementation. This could be in the form of annual 

plan updates and website development, etc. 

V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish intervals and standards 

for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved. 

A. Monitoring

Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of land use planning 

decisions (implementation monitoring) and (2) collecting data/information necessary to evaluate 

the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). In Appendix C, each 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

33

resource program identifies desired land use plan decisions. BLM field offices must determine 

what management actions are needed to implement those decisions. Sometimes actions occur 

just once, e.g., the development of an implementation plan; or actions occur on a fairly regular 

basis, e.g., steps taken to repair a damaged watershed. Monitoring is the process of following up 

on these management actions and documenting BLM’s progress toward full implementation of 

the land use plan and the achievement of desired outcomes. Field offices are encouraged to 

involve Tribes, state and local governments, and the public if they express an interest in 

participating in this process. 

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress toward implementation) of land use plan decisions. This should be done at least 

annually and should be documented in the form of a tracking log or report. The report must be 

available for public review (one way to accomplish this is an annual planning update which can 

be sent to those who participated in the planning process or have expressed an interest in 

receiving the report). The report should describe management actions proposed or undertaken to 

implement land use plan decisions and can form the basis for annual budget documents. In 

subsequent years, reports should document which management actions were completed and what 

further actions are needed to continue implementing land use plan decisions. 

Effectiveness monitoring is the process of collecting data and information in order to determine 

whether or not desired outcomes (expressed as goals and objectives in the land use plan) are 

being met (or progress is being made toward meeting them) as the allowable uses and

management actions are being implemented. A monitoring strategy must be developed as part of 

the land use plan that identifies indicators of change, acceptable thresholds, methodologies, 

protocols, and timeframes that will be used to evaluate and determine whether or not desired 

outcomes are being achieved. 

The monitoring process should collect information in the most cost-effective manner and may 

involve sampling or remote sensing. Monitoring could be so costly as to be prohibitive if it is 

not carefully and reasonably designed. Therefore, it is not necessary or desirable to monitor 

every management action or direction. Unnecessary detail and unacceptable costs can be 

avoided by focusing on key monitoring questions and proper sampling methods. The level and 

intensity of monitoring will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the resource or area and the 

scope of the proposed management activity. 

B. Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan monitoring reports 

to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid and whether 

the plan is being implemented. Land use plans are evaluated to determine if: (1) decisions 

remain relevant to current issues, (2) decisions are effective in achieving (or making progress 

toward achieving) desired outcomes, (3) any decisions need to be revised, (4) any decisions need 

to be dropped from further consideration, and (5) any areas require new decisions. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
34 

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

In making these determinations, the evaluation should consider whether mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes 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 minimum every 5 years) as documented in an 

evaluation schedule. Plan evaluations should also be completed prior to any plan revisions and 

for major plan amendments. Special or unscheduled evaluations may also be required to review 

unexpected management actions or significant changes in the related plans of Indian Tribes, 

other Federal agencies, and state and local governments, or to evaluate legislation or litigation 

that has the potential to trigger an RMP amendment or revision. 

Evaluations may identify resource needs and means for correcting deficiencies and addressing 

issues through plan maintenance, amendments, or new starts. They should also identify where 

new and emerging resource issues and other values have surfaced. Evaluations may also identify 

new and innovative practices that improve effectiveness and efficiency so that other offices may 

benefit. 

1. Process for completing land use plan evaluations

The following section outlines the recommended process for completing land use plan

evaluations. 

a. State offices, with input from the field, identify reasons for evaluating the RMP. 

b. Where appropriate, state and field offices identify land use plans that can be 

grouped/batched in a geographic region or planning area to look at issues that cut across 

boundaries (state and field offices). Each plan should have its own evaluation 

documentation as well as a combined (grouped/batched) evaluation for all RMPs 

identified in the geographical region or planning area. 

c. State and field offices identify what the evaluation is to measure. In some cases, the 

RMP/ROD may have identified both monitoring and evaluation measures, units, and 

programs, and may even have specified the monitoring/evaluation questions to be 

answered. 

The state office may develop and send questionnaires to field offices (specific to the state 

and field offices) to focus the evaluation, along with instructions for completing it. 

Evaluations must be tailored to individual land use plans; however, a comprehensive 

evaluation must address the following questions: 

1. Are management actions outlined in the plan being implemented? 

2. Does the plan establish desired outcomes (i.e., goals and objectives)?

3. Are the allocations, constraints, or mitigation measures effective in achieving 

(or making progress towards achieving) the desired outcomes? This 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

35

determination is often made based on information obtained from resource 

assessments. 

4. Have there been significant changes in the related plans of Indian Tribes, state 

or local governments, or other Federal agencies? 

5. Are there new data or analyses that significantly affect the planning decisions 

or the validity of the NEPA analysis? 

6. Are there unmet needs or new opportunities that can best be met through a 

plan amendment or revision, or will current management practices be sufficient? 

For example, are there outstanding requests for ACEC designations to protect 

resource values? Note: ACECs must be designated through the land use 

planning process. 

7. Are new inventories warranted pursuant to the BLM’s duty to maintain 

inventories on a continuous basis (FLPMA, Section 201)?

8. Are there new legal or policy mandates as a result of new statutes, 

proclamations, Executive orders, or court orders not addressed in the plan?

d. The state and field office establish/identify an interdisciplinary team that will 

complete the evaluation(s). If available, the team should include specialists from state 

and field offices as well as adjoining state(s), and representatives from Washington 

Office, and Tribes, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and the public. 

The interdisciplinary team should represent the major resources/programs present in the 

land use plan evaluation area and should be encouraged to incorporate other (technical 

procedures) evaluations or analyses that address and provide useful information on the 

same resources. 

e. The evaluation team should review both published and unpublished documents that 

implement or support the RMP decisions and NEPA analysis (e.g., AMS, area-wide 

mineral reports, socio-economic studies/analyses, reasonably foreseeable development 

scenarios, ACEC reports, documents incorporated by reference/adoption, and other 

studies [wild and scenic river, threatened and endangered species, water, etc.]). The 

evaluation reports should also cite examples of implementation plans (at the activity 

level) that incorporate new information, address new issues, and provide either more 

detailed decisions or additional protective management direction. These may include 

formal decision-making documents as well as watershed-level analyses and other 

landscape units or plans. 

f. The evaluation team should review NEPA compliance and procedural conformance 

records within the land use plan evaluation (e.g., documentation of land use plan 

conformance and NEPA adequacy, which typically relies on the RMP and associated 

NEPA documents [categorical exclusions]). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
36 

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

g. The State Director should approve or concur with all evaluations. 

2. Evaluation report 

An evaluation report documenting the findings of the evaluation must be prepared. Following 

State Director approval or concurrence, the report will be made available to the public. The 

following report format is recommended. If appropriate, use charts, diagrams, and matrixes to 

display or summarize information. 

a. Introduction 

b. Purpose 

c. Method and Scope 

d. Results and Findings 

1. Document conclusions regarding achievement of desired outcomes as well as 

any individual program or resource management issues associated with plan 

implementation 

2. Identify decisions to be carried forward (i.e., no change needed), decisions 

needing to be modified, decisions needing to be dropped, and new decisions 

needed 

e. Recommendations, including any resource- or program-specific management actions 

needed and other follow-up opportunities for the BLM field and state offices or 

interagency consideration 

f. Approval/Concurrence 

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

C. Adaptive Management 

The Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) issued ESM03-6 providing initial 

guidance to all Department of the Interior agencies on implementing adaptive management 

practices in NEPA compliance. While this guidance does not provide specifics on the process 

and procedures for integrating adaptive management into the NEPA and land use planning 

process, it does formally define adaptive management as: 

. . . a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if

management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best 

ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes.

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

37

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

management into the NEPA and land use planning processes. When those policies and 

procedures are developed, they will be incorporated into this section of the Handbook. 

VI. Determining if New Decisions are Required 

A. Specific Regulatory Requirements for Considering New Information or Circumstances

New information, updated analyses, or new resource use or protection proposals may require 

amending or revising land use plans and updating implementation decisions. The primary 

requirements for considering new information are as follows: 

1. The BLM planning regulations require evaluating whether there is new data of 

significance to the land use plan (see 43 CFR 1610.4-9) and whether plan amendments

(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 supplements to 

draft or final EISs if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are 

relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its 

impacts; and

3. joint agency Endangered Species Act regulations (see 50 CFR 402.16 (b)) require 

consultation to be reinitiated if new information reveals that decisions may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a way or to an extent not previously considered, including 

exceeding the incidental take for a particular action. 

B. Considering New Proposals, Circumstances, or Information

New data or information can include, but is not limited to: 

1. Changes in status, new listings or new critical habitat designations for endangered, 

threatened, and other special status or sensitive species (see Appendix C, Section (I)(G)); 

2. changes in intensity of use or impact levels for a particular resource (e.g., increased 

recreation use as a result of urban expansion); 

3. changes in social and economic conditions resulting from urban expansion or broad 

conservation efforts (e.g., open space management); 

4. public comment or staff assessments indicating that new information or changed 

circumstances warrant a reconsideration of the appropriate mix of uses on particular 

tracts of public lands; 

5. a biological opinion issued by the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries on actions in the 

planning area; 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
38 

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

6. information from Tribes, elected county officials, state agencies, or other Federal 

agencies on significant changes in their related plans or resource conditions that are 

critical to the BLM land use plans and/or subordinate implementation plans; 

7. new state listings of water-quality-limited streams (Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)), 

total maximum daily load (TMDL) developments, or non-attainment area designations 

(Clean Air Act) that may lead to the identification of new management practices that 

would require additional NEPA compliance and could require new land use plan 

decisions; 

8. new geochemical, geologic, or geophysical data; 

9. new cultural resource data; 

10 environmental disturbances that significantly change natural conditions (e.g., 

wildfires, floods, or noxious weed infestations); 

11. monitoring data and resource assessments associated with implementing resource 

management actions designed to achieve resource objectives and Land Health Standards; 

12. Land use plan evaluations that weigh and interpret information gathered through 

resource monitoring; 

13. determinations as to whether mitigation measures outlined in the plan are effective; 

14. new national policy or a change in legal duties resulting from laws, regulations, 

Executive orders, or the BLM directives. An example would be congressional 

designation of a river segment under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that mandates a 

protection and enhancement standard that, in turn, may affect resource management

objectives, conditions, or uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber sales, or other proposed 

projects) outlined in the land use plan; and 

15. information from the public or others regarding conditions or uses of resources on 

public lands. 

C. Deciding Whether Changes in Decisions or the Supporting NEPA Analyses are 

Warranted

The determination whether to amend or revise an RMP based on new proposals, circumstances, 

or information depends on (1) the nature of new proposals, (2) the significance of the new 

information or circumstances, (3) specific wording of the existing land use plan decisions, 

including any provisions for flexibility, and (4) the level and detail of the NEPA analysis. A 

“yes” answer to any of the following questions suggests the need to revisit existing decisions 

and/or the NEPA analysis: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

39

1. Does the new information or circumstance provide for interpretations not known or 

considered at the time existing decisions were made that could significantly affect 

ongoing actions? For example: Current land use plan decisions may require that all 

wildland fires be suppressed to limit the fire to the smallest acreage possible and make no 

provision for wildland fire use. This conflicts with new Secretarial policy guidance that 

wildland fire, as a critical natural process, must be reintroduced into fire-dependent 

ecosystems; 

2. Are the decisions in the current land use plan no longer valid, based on significant 

new information or changed circumstances? If decisions are not valid, the decisions need 

to be vacated, replaced, or changed through plan amendment or revision. Examples of 

situations that may require new or changed land use plan decisions include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

a. Monitoring information may show the need to discontinue managing a herd in 

an existing herd management area because it is not practical to preserve or

maintain a thriving ecological balance with the multiple use relationships in that

area; conversely, new herd management areas could be established if an analysis 

of monitoring data shows that a viable herd could be established and meet the 

requirements for maintaining a thriving ecological balance; 

b. the inability to achieve Land Health Standards under any level or management 

of livestock use may affect the decision identifying that allotment as being 

available for livestock use; 

c. consultations resulting in new requirements or actions that are not in 

conformance with the existing land use plan to protect threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitats may require new land use plan decisions, including 

new or supplemental NEPA analysis; 

d. new requirements or actions that affect land use allocations or areawide

constraints or restrictions established at the land use plan level would require 

amendment of land use plan decisions; 

e. current scientific knowledge, as reflected in scientific literature, could

highlight a need to change plan decisions; and 

f. public comment or a staff assessment supporting a different mix of uses on the 

lands that will better promote the long-term health and sustainability of the lands 

and their resources could require an amendment. 

3. Are implementation decisions no longer valid, based on new information or changed 

circumstances? Site-specific resource-use levels or management actions normally do not 

require a land use plan amendment if the land use plan decisions provide broad direction 

for these uses and actions; however, they may require appropriate NEPA analysis. For 

example: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
40 

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

a. The level of livestock use permitted in an allotment may normally be modified 

based on allotment-specific resource assessment, condition, and trend-monitoring 

data. 

b. Resource use levels or management practices, such as permitted livestock use 

or pre-commercial forest thinning, may normally be modified or eliminated on a 

site-specific or project-level basis to satisfy the needs of threatened or endangered 

species or their critical habitat, as detailed in biological opinions or approved 

recovery plans. Elimination of livestock grazing on an entire allotment is a 

management decision that should be thoroughly analyzed through the plan 

amendment process and not through a maintenance action. 

4. Are the effects of proposed or ongoing actions substantially different from those 

projected in the existing NEPA analyses associated with the existing RMP? If “yes,” 

conduct a new or supplemental NEPA analysis to the extent necessary to address the 

differences and document the findings. Determine whether the new NEPA analysis 

should be conducted as part of a RMP plan amendment. 

a. Consider direct and indirect effects and their significance. 

b. Consider cumulative effects and whether the new information or circumstances 

identify or produce incremental impacts added to those resulting from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions. Does the 

additional effect, in the context of the ongoing action, require further mitigation or

new RMP decisions? 

For example, upon receipt of a proposal to develop an oil and gas field, the BLM would 

evaluate the proposal for conformance with the RMP. If the proposal is consistent with 

the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the RMP/EIS and the proposal is 

consistent with the RMP decisions, changes to the RMP/EIS are probably not necessary. 

In this instance, the BLM would work with the lease holders to obtain appropriate sitespecific information, then prepare an activity-level EA or EIS to approve some or all of 

the wells in the field and set the stage for subsequent application for permit to drill 

approvals. 

 

If the proposal exceeds the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the current 

RMP/EIS, a new reasonably foreseeable development scenario and NEPA analysis 

supplementing the RMP/EIS would be warranted. If the proposal exceeds and is 

substantially different from the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the 

RMP/EIS, and the new NEPA analysis could reasonably be expected to result in changes 

to RMP decisions, a plan amendment may also be warranted. When it is not certain 

whether the project proposal and resulting NEPA analysis will result in the need to 

amend the RMP, considerable time and cost savings will be achieved by beginning the

process as a plan amendment (issuing a NOI). If it is later determined that a plan 

amendment is not warranted, the amendment may be cancelled and the supplemental 

NEPA analysis continued. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

41

The supplemental EIS/RMP amendment could also address site-specific review for some

or all of the proposed wells and related facilities so that decisions on the field 

development could be made sequentially with the decisions regarding the proposed RMP 

amendment. Where site-specific development proposals are known, such a 

planning/NEPA effort would promote efficient NEPA analysis and result in both planlevel and implementation-level decisions in the same document, thus reducing the need 

for additional NEPA analysis. 

5. In light of new information or circumstances, are there now inconsistencies between 

the ongoing action and the resource-related plans of Indian Tribes, state and local 

governments, or other Federal agencies that render earlier consistency findings invalid? 

Changes in land use plan decisions through amendment or revision must be accompanied 

by new consistency determinations. 

Further NEPA analysis may be conducted to help determine whether decisions are still valid. It 

is possible to conduct additional NEPA analysis and reach a conclusion that no change is needed 

in decisions, but the decisions cannot be changed without additional NEPA analysis. 

D. Documenting the Determination to Modify, or Not to Modify, Decisions or NEPA 

Analysis

It is important to document decisions to modify or not modify the land use plan or NEPA 

analysis when these decisions are reached as part of the formal land use plan evaluation process 

(Section V). In reviewing new information or circumstances that are controversial or of interest 

to the public, it is also important to provide all interested parties with written documentation of 

the BLM’s determination.

In response to an outside application or internal proposal, a decision not to change land use 

decisions will be documented in the case file and/or in the response to the applicant. Case file 

documentation of decisions to not amend must be signed and dated by the Field Manager and 

State Director. If the decision not to amend the plan was made through a NEPA analysis, then 

that decision can be documented in the Plan Conformance section of the NEPA document. If the 

decision is to change decisions or revisit the NEPA analysis, the rationale to modify, revise, or 

further evaluate decisions or NEPA analysis may be documented in a NOI prepared during 

scoping activities or in the planning or NEPA document. Also see Section VII(B). 

E. Evaluating New Proposals

New proposals can stem from specific BLM implementation actions, such as a proposal to 

prepare a livestock grazing allotment management plan, or from 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 BLM to determine whether it 

conforms to existing land use plan decisions and to facilitate screening for adequate NEPA 

compliance (See Figure 3). The NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) describes the screening process in 

more detail. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
42 

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

F. Plan Conformance

The term “plan conformance,” as defined in the BLM planning regulations, means either that the 

plan specifically identifies a resource management action or (if not) the action is consistent with 

the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan (43 CFR 1601.0-5(b)). Key 

considerations in making and documenting conformance determinations include the following: 

1. Do land use plan decisions allow, conditionally 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 mention the action, how clearly consistent is the 

action with plan objectives, terms, conditions, and decisions?

G. Plan Conformance and Ongoing NEPA Activities

After the RMP is approved, any authorizations and management actions approved based on an 

activity-level or project-specific EIS (or EA) must be specifically provided for in the RMP or be 

consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP. A land use plan 

amendment may be necessary to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, substantive new 

data, new or revised policy, changes in circumstances or a proposed action that may result in a 

change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the 

approved RMP. If the BLM determines that a plan amendment may be necessary, preparation of 

the EIS (or EA) and the analysis necessary for the amendment may occur simultaneously (43 

CFR 1610.5). 

In those instances when activity-level or project-specific EISs (or EAs) are being used to analyze 

an action that may not conform to the current land use plan, the BLM has several options: adjust

the actions or condition the authorization to conform to the plan or achieve consistency with the 

terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP; or prepare the EIS (or EA) as a RMP 

amendment, as described in Section VII. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

43

Key for Evaluating New Proposals 

This key poses the six critical screening questions (1 through 6 below) for any proposal or 

action (see BLM NEPA Handbook [H-1790-1] for additional detail). 

1. If the proposal or action conforms to existing land use plans, go to 2.

1. If the proposal or action does not, go to 1a.

1a. If proposal or action warrants further consideration, then amend plan1

 or modify

proposal to conform. 

1a. If proposal or action does not, then deny action. 

2. If proposal or action is an exception from BLM/NEPA requirements, then no

additional NEPA analysis is necessary.

2. If not, then go to 3. 

3. If proposal or action normally requires an EIS, go to 3a.

3. If not, go to 4. 

3a. If impacts are expected to be significant, go to 8. 

3a. If not, go to 7. 

4. If proposal or category of action is listed as a Categorical Exclusion, go to 4a.

4. If not, go to 5. 

4a. If any of the 10 exceptions apply, go to 7. 

4a. If none apply, then the proposal or action is Categorically Excluded.

5. If existing analysis and documentation is sufficient, then Document NEPA

Adequacy. 

5. If insufficient, then go to 6. 

6. If environmental impacts are expected to be significant, go to 8. 

6. If insignificant, go to 7. 

7. Complete EA; if no significant impacts are identified, then issue FONSI. 

7. Complete EA; if significant impacts are identified, go to 8. 

8. Proposal or action requires an EIS. 

1 This may also be accomplished through a new plan, plan revision, or planning analysis. 

Figure 3—Key for evaluating new proposals (an overview)

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
44 

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 

components can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited to 

further refining, documenting, or clarifying a previously approved decision incorporated in the 

plan. Maintenance must not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the 

terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.

Plan maintenance is not considered a plan amendment and does not require formal public 

involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions. Maintenance actions must be documented in the plan or supporting components 

(i.e., recorded so that the change and Field Manager concurrence are evident). Examples of 

maintenance actions include: 

1. Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors in the planning 

records after a plan or plan amendment has been completed; 

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

3. applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area prior to the lease sale 

based on new inventory data (e.g., apply an existing protective stipulation for sage-grouse 

to a newly discovered sage-grouse lek); 

4. refining the known habitat of a special status species addressed in the plan based on 

new information; 

5. modifying or waiving the lease stipulation language in the RMP consistent with the 

criteria outlined in the land use plan; and 

6. refining or adjusting the boundary of a fire management unit (FMU) or other 

equivalent fire-related polygon through interagency coordination based on updated fire 

regime condition class inventory, fire occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic 

changes. 

Plan maintenance must occur continuously so that the RMP and its supporting records reflect the 

current status of decision implementation and knowledge of resource conditions. 

VII. Amending and Revising Decisions 

A. Changing Land Use Plan Decisions

Land use plan decisions are changed through either a plan amendment or a plan revision. The 

process for conducting plan amendments is basically the same as the land use planning process 

used in creating RMPs. The primary difference is that circumstances may allow for completing a 

plan amendment through the EA process, rather than through the EIS or supplemental EIS 

process. The process for preparing plan revisions is the same as for preparing new RMPs, and an 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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 Amend Plans and How it is Accomplished

Plan amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, conditions, or 

decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions may include those relating to desired 

outcomes; measures to achieve desired outcomes, including resource restrictions; or land tenure 

decisions. Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to: 

1. Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan; 

2. implement new or revised policy that changes land use plan decisions, such as an 

approved conservation agreement between the BLM and the USFWS; 

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

4. consider significant new information from resource assessments, monitoring, or 

scientific studies that change 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 amendments. The process is tailored to the anticipated 

level of public interest and potential for significant impacts. In simple, routine cases, it is 

possible to complete the amendment process in less than 6 months. See Section III for 

procedures for preparing land use plan decisions. 

Plans needing amendment may be grouped geographically or by type of decision in the same

amendment process. Similarly, one amendment process may amend the same or related 

decisions in more than one land use plan. The amendment process may also be used to update 

plans adopted from another agency. 

In reaching a decision to amend a land use plan, the BLM must not only consider the resource, 

but also other workload priorities, budgetary constraints, and staff capabilities. In situations 

where available budgets allow and staff capabilities are restricted, consider contracting for all or 

portions of the plan amendment’s NEPA analysis, including baseline data acquisition. If the 

manager decides not to amend, then nonconforming actions cannot be taken. Any proposal 

requiring an activity-level or project-specific and programmatic EIS that could result in new or 

modified RMP decisions, or the need to amend the current RMP prior to implementation, should 

be prepared as a RMP amendment whenever feasible. 

Activity-level or project-specific EISs that address significant new information or circumstances 

not considered in the EIS for the current land use plan should be prepared as supplements to the 

EIS for the RMP whenever feasible. In most cases, if a supplement to the RMP/EIS is necessary, 

the BLM should also consider whether or not a simultaneous plan amendment is necessary. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
46 

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

Where a proposal is not in conformance with the land use plan, the Field Manager may deny the 

proposal without further review. The decision to deny is subject to appeal to IBLA. 

An applicant may request that BLM amend the land use plan to allow an otherwise nonconforming proposal. If the Field Manager determines that the request is warranted, a plan 

amendment is initiated. If not warranted, the Field Manager submits to the State Director a 

recommendation to deny, along with appropriate supporting documentation. Denial of a request 

to amend the plan is a plan level decision made by the State Director and is protestable to the 

BLM director under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) (Carrasco, 90 IBLA 39 (1985)). 

The State Director may terminate an ongoing plan amendment at any point if the Field Manager 

provides documentation that the amendment is no longer necessary or appropriate. This is also a 

protestable decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a). 

In either case, whether an appealable or protestable action is taken, the Field Manager should 

provide public notice of the action and the applicable protest or appeal procedures through news 

release, letter to mailing list, or other appropriate means. No Federal Register notice is required. 

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

RMP revisions (see 43 CFR 1610.5-6) involve preparation of a new RMP to replace an existing 

one. RMP revisions are necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or 

revised policy, or changes in circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan or a major 

portion of the plan no longer serve as a useful guide for resource management. Plan revisions 

are prepared using the same procedures and documentation as for new plans. 

As funding and capability permit, all MFPs will be replaced by RMPs. The priority for replacing 

MFPs will be guided by the extent to which those plans fail to meet the statutory requirements 

for land use planning in FLPMA (see Section II(A)), and the need to modify decisions to meet 

resource management needs. 

D. Changing Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are changed through an interdisciplinary NEPA process in conjunction 

with the BLM resource program-specific guidance. 

Any NEPA analysis that will be used to approve on-the-ground actions in conformance with the 

current RMP should include the appropriate level of site-specific information to facilitate 

approval of as many of the implementation actions as possible and reduce the need for additional 

NEPA analysis. 

During an on-going RMP revision, it is possible to amend the current RMP to implement an 

action analyzed in an activity-level or project-specific EA or EIS. The BLM must carefully 

consider the implications of the information and analysis being prepared for either document. At 

a minimum, the documents must be carefully coordinated to ensure consistent utilization of 

available information and analysis. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

47

E. Status of Existing Decisions During the Amendment or Revision Process

Existing land use plans decisions remain in effect during an amendment or revision until the 

amendment or revision is completed and approved. The decisions of existing land use plans do 

not change. For example, if current land use plans have designated lands open for a particular 

use, they remain open for that use. Land use plan decisions may be changed only through the 

amendment or revision process. 

During the amendment or revision process, the BLM should review all proposed implementation 

actions through the NEPA process to determine whether approval of a proposed action would 

harm resource values so as to limit the choice of reasonable alternative actions relative to the 

land use plan decisions being reexamined. Even though the current land use plan may allow an 

action, the BLM manager has the discretion to defer or modify proposed implementation-level 

actions and require appropriate conditions of approval, stipulations, relocations, or redesigns to 

reduce the effect of the action on the values being considered through the amendment or revision 

process. The appropriate modification to the proposed action is subject to valid existing rights 

and program-specific regulations. A decision to temporarily defer an action could be made 

where a different land use or allocation is currently being considered in the preferred alternative 

of a draft or proposed RMP revision or amendment. These decisions would be specific to 

individual projects or activities and must not lead to an area-wide moratorium on certain 

activities during the planning process. 

F. Coordinating Simultaneous Planning/NEPA Processes

When preparing an activity-level or project-specific EIS (or EA) during an on-going RMP 

revision (with its accompanying EIS), there may be opportunities to consolidate some

components of the NEPA process, such as the cumulative effects analysis, and public 

involvement activities, such as public meetings and mailings, to reduce overall costs and 

simplify the overlapping processes for the public. Depending on the timing of the two decisions 

(one for the activity-level or project-specific EIS or EA and one for the on-going RMP revision), 

and the conformance of the management actions to be approved in the EIS or EA, the BLM may 

chose to amend the RMP in order to implement the proposed actions being analyzed in the EIS 

or EA prior to completing the on-going RMP revision. In such cases, the BLM must consider 

the effect of amending the RMP on the on-going RMP revision process. Depending on the 

nature of the new land use plan decisions, the alternatives to be considered in the on-going RMP 

revisions process, such as the no action alternative, may need to be modified. Any land use plan 

decision changed during the on-going RMP revision process could also have a “ripple” effect on 

many elements of the analysis being prepared for the on-going RMP, such as the purpose and 

need, affected environment, and environmental effects section. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05

 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Glossary - 1

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

Following are the acronyms and definitions for terms used in this Handbook. Also see 

definitions for terms used in Section 103 of FLPMA and the planning regulations at 43 CFR 

1601.0-5. This glossary does not supersede these definitions or those in other laws or 

regulations. 

Terms

Activity plan ~ a type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan); an activity plan 

usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat 

management plans, recreation area management plans, and allotment management plans. 

 

Alternative dispute resolution ~ any process used to prevent, manage, or resolve conflicts 

using procedures other than traditional courtroom litigation or formal agency adjudication. 

Amendment ~ the process for considering or making changes in the terms, 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 information for a defined purpose. 

Beneficial outcomes ~ also referenced as “Recreation Benefits”; improved conditions, 

maintenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired 

experiences.

Best management practices (BMPs) ~ a suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in 

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the 

land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a 

plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Broadscale data ~ broadscale data sets are intended to support state, multi-state, or regional 

information needs. Such data could be used for bioregional assessments and conservation 

strategies, and typically employ a map scale of 1:250,000.

Categorical exclusion (CX) ~ a category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which 

neither an environmental assessment nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). 

Closed ~ generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it 

relates to off-highway vehicle use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and 

restriction orders. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Glossary - 2 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Collaboration ~ a cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other 

lands. 

Collaborative partnerships ~ refers to people working together, sharing knowledge and 

resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and 

regulatory frameworks. 

Community recreation-tourism market ~ a community or communities dependent on public 

lands recreation and/or related tourism use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in 

facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management 

actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific 

activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through 

maintenance of prescribed natural resource and/or community setting character and by 

structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions 

accordingly.

Conformance ~ means that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use 

plan or, if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or 

standards of the approved land use plan. 

Conservation agreement ~ a formal signed agreement between the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries 

and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate 

or reduce threats to, or otherwise improve the status of a species. Conservation agreements can 

be developed at a state, regional, or national level and generally include multiple agencies at both 

the state and Federal level, as well as Tribes. Depending on the types of commitments the BLM 

makes in a conservation agreement and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the conservation agreement, or subsequently in 

order to implement the conservation agreement. 

Conservation strategy ~ a strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to 

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a 

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and 

animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the 

USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries to be Federal candidates under the Endangered Species Act. 

Consistency ~ means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved 

plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governments 

(to the extent practical with Federal law, regulation, and policy). 

Cooperating agency ~ assists the lead Federal agency in developing an EA or EIS. The CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal, 

state, local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency 

by agreement with the lead agency.

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Glossary - 3

Designated roads and trails ~ specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other 

agencies) where some type of motorized 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 recreation-tourism market ~ national or regional recreation-tourism visitors and 

other constituents who value public lands as recreation-tourism destinations. Major investments 

in facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to 

target demonstrated destination recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation 

management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for 

specific activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced 

through maintenance of prescribed natural resource setting character and by structuring and 

implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly. 

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

Documentation of Land Use Plan conformance and NEPA adequacy (DNA) ~ a worksheet 

for determining and documenting that a new, site-specific proposed action both conforms to the 

existing land use plan(s) and is adequately analyzed in existing NEPA documents. The signed 

conclusion in the worksheet is an interim step in BLM’s internal analysis process and is not an 

appealable decision. 

Environmental Justice ~ the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and policies 

(see Executive Order 12898). 

Evaluation (plan evaluation) ~ the process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still 

valid and whether the plan is being implemented. 

Explicit recreation management objective ~ specifically targeted recreation activity, 

experience, and benefit opportunities (i.e., recreation opportunity outputs) and their attainment 

(i.e., recreation outcomes). 

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA) ~ a public lands unit identified in land use 

plans containing all acreage not identified as a SRMA. Recreation management actions within 

an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 

Fine-scale data ~ fine-scale data sets support local information needs and represent the highest 

thematic detail and spatial accuracy. Data at this scale are intended for project-specific planning, 

monitoring, and evaluation, and would be typically represented at the 1:24,000 map scale.

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Glossary - 4 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Geographic information system ~ a system of computer hardware, software, data, people and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and graphically display a potentially wide array of 

geospatial information. 

Goal ~ a broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established timeframes for achievement. 

Guidelines ~ actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the 

land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan 

specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 

CFR 4180.2. 

Implementation decisions ~ decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions; 

generally appealable to IBLA under 43 CFR 4.410. 

Implementation plan – an area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a 

land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans (they are types 

of implementation plans). 

Indian Tribe (or Tribe) ~ any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary 

of the Interior recognizes as possessing Tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal Register). 

Land use allocation ~ the identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions. 

Land Use Plan ~ a set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of 

land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, 

regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and 

MFPs. 

Land Use Plan boundary ~ a BLM land use plan boundary is defined as the geographic extent 

of a RMP or MFP. 

Land Use Plan decision ~ establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are presented to 

the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not 

appealable to IBLA. 

Limited ~ generally denotes that an area or roads and trails are available for a particular use or

uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for 

application to individual programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning 

of “limited” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Glossary - 5

Management decision ~ a decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions. 

Midscale data ~ midscale data sets support information needs at scales between the local and 

state/regional. Such a level is usually represented at the 1:100,000 scale. Typical usage includes 

land use planning, rangeland monitoring, and assessment.

Monitoring (plan monitoring) ~ the process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of 

land use planning decisions. 

Multijurisdictional planning ~ collaborative planning in which the purpose is to address land 

use planning issues for an area, such as an entire watershed or other landscape unit, in which 

there is a mix of public and/or private land ownerships and adjoining or overlapping Tribal, state,

local government, or other Federal agency authorities. 

Objective ~ a description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement. 

Off-highway vehicle (off-road vehicle) ~ any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, 

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any 

nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement 

vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly 

authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; 

and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense. 

Open ~ generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning 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 other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and 

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource 

management planning actions. 

Project plan ~ a type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan). A project plan 

typically addresses individual projects or several related projects. Examples of project plans 

include prescribed burn plans, trail plans, and recreation site plans.

Public land ~ land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Glossary - 6 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of 

Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Recreation experiences ~ psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism

participants as a direct result of their onsite leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity 

participation or by non-participating community residents as a result of their interaction with 

visitors and guests within their community and/or interaction with the BLM and other public and 

private recreation-tourism providers and their actions. 

Recreation management zones (RMZ) ~ subunits within a SRMA managed for distinctly 

different recreation products. Recreation products are comprised of recreation opportunities, the 

natural resource and community settings within which they occur, and the administrative and 

service environment created by all affecting recreation-tourism providers, within which 

recreation participation occurs. 

Recreation niche ~ the place or position within the strategically targeted recreation-tourism

market for each SRMA that is most suitable (i.e., capable of producing certain specific kinds of 

recreation opportunities) and appropriate (i.e., most responsive to identified visitor or resident 

customers), given available supply and current demand, for the production of specific recreation 

opportunities and the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource and/or

community setting character. 

Recreation opportunities ~ favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure 

activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added 

beneficial outcomes. 

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) ~ one of the existing tools for classifying recreation 

environments (existing and desired) along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and 

inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. 

This continuum recognizes variation among various components of any landscape’s physical, 

social and administrative attributes; and resulting descriptions (of existing conditions) and 

prescriptions (of desired future conditions) define recreation setting character. 

Recreation setting character conditions ~ the distinguishing recreational qualities of any 

landscape, objectively defined along a continuum ranging from primitive to urban landscapes, 

expressed in terms of the nature of the component parts of its physical, social and administrative 

attributes. These recreational qualities can be both classified and mapped. This classification 

and mapping process should be based on variation that either exists (i.e., setting descriptions) or 

is desired (i.e., setting prescriptions) among component parts of the various physical, social, and 

administrative attributes of any landscape. The recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the 

existing tools for doing this. 

Recreation settings ~ the collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and 

sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Glossary - 7

Recreation-tourism market ~ recreation-tourism visitors, affected community residents, 

affecting local governments and private sector businesses, or other constituents and the 

communities or other places where these customers originate (local, regional, national, or 

international). Based on analysis of supply and demand, land use plans strategically identify 

primary recreation-tourism markets for each SRMA—destination, community, or undeveloped. 

Resource advisory council (RAC) ~ a council established by the Secretary of the Interior to 

provide advice or recommendations to BLM management. In some states, provincial advisory 

councils (PACs) are functional equivalents of RACs. 

Resource use level ~ the level of use allowed within an area, based on the desired outcomes and 

land use allocations in the land use plan. Targets or goals for resource use levels are established 

on an area-wide or broad watershed level in the land use plan. Site-specific resource use levels 

are normally determined at the implementation level, based on site-specific resource conditions 

and needs as determined through resource monitoring and assessments. 

Revision ~ the process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning 

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Scale ~ refers to the geographic area and data resolution under examination in an assessment or 

planning effort. 

Setting character ~ the condition of any recreation system, objectively defined along a 

continuum ranging from primitive to urban in terms of variation of its component physical, 

social, and administrative attributes. 

Social science ~ the study of society and of individual relationships in and to society, generally 

including one or more of the academic disciplines of sociology, economics, political science, 

geography, history, anthropology, and psychology. 

Special recreation management area (SRMA) ~ a public lands unit identified in land use plans 

to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both 

land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are 

geared to a strategically identified primary market—destination, community, or undeveloped. 

Special status species ~ includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under 

the Endangered Species Act; state-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive 

species (see BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy). 

Standard ~ a description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required 

for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired 

outcome (goal). 

State implementation plan (SIP) ~ a strategic document, prepared by a state (or other 

authorized air quality regulatory agency) and approved by the EPA, that thoroughly describes 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Glossary - 8 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

how requirements of the Clean Air Act will be implemented (including standards to be achieved,

control measures to be applied, enforcement actions in case of violation, etc.). 

Strategic plan (DOI strategic plan) ~ a plan that establishes the overall direction for all DOI 

Bureaus, including the BLM. This plan is guided by the requirements of the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, covers a 5-year period, and is updated every 3 years. It is 

consistent with FLPMA and other laws affecting the public lands. 

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) ~ an estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all 

sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding 

applicable water quality criteria. 

Travel management areas ~ polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been 

taken to classify areas open, closed, or limited, and have identified and/or designated network of 

roads, trails, ways, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning 

area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly 

identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and 

seasons or timeframes for allowable access or other limitations. 

Tribe ~ see Indian Tribe. 

Undeveloped recreation-tourism market ~ national, regional, and/or local recreation-tourism

visitors, communities, or other constituents who value public lands for the distinctive kinds of 

dispersed recreation produced by the vast size and largely open, undeveloped character of their 

recreation settings. Major investments in facilities are excluded within SRMAs where BLM’s 

strategy is to target demonstrated undeveloped recreation-tourism market demand. Here, 

recreation management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market 

demand to sustain distinctive recreation setting characteristics; however, major investments in 

visitor services are authorized both to sustain those distinctive setting characteristics and to 

maintain visitor freedom to choose where to go and what to do—all in response to demonstrated 

demand for undeveloped recreation. 

Visual resource management classes ~ categories assigned to public lands based on scenic 

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective 

which prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

 

Watershed approach – a framework to guide watershed management that: (1) uses watershed 

assessments to determine existing and reference conditions; (2) incorporates assessment results 

into resource management planning; and (3) fosters collaboration with all landowners in the 

watershed. The framework considers both ground and surface water flow within a 

hydrologically defined geographical area. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Glossary - 9

Acronyms

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

ADR alternative dispute resolution 

AML appropriate management level 

AMS analysis of the management situation 

APD application for permit to drill 

AUM animal unit month 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CX categorical exclusion 

DM Departmental Manual 

DNA documentation of land use plan conformance and NEPA adequacy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DR decision record (for an EA) 

EA environmental assessment 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPS Economic Profile System 

EPSC Economic Profile System for Communities 

ERMA extensive recreation management area 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

GIS geographic information system

GSA Government Services Agency 

HA herd area 

HMA herd management area 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IDT interdisciplinary team

LAC limits of acceptable change 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Glossary - 10 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

MFP management framework plan 

MOA memorandum of agreement 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOA notice of availability 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI notice of intent 

OEPC Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

OEPR Office of Environmental Policy Review 

OHV off-highway vehicle (also refers to off-road vehicles) 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAC provincial advisory council 

PILT payments-in-lieu-of-taxes 

PSQ probable sale quantity 

RAC resource advisory council 

RMP resource management plan 

RMZ recreation management zone 

ROD record of decision (for an EIS) 

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

ROW right-of-way 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SRMA special recreation management area 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TMDL total maximum daily load

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VRM visual resource management 

WO Washington Office 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Appendix A, page 1

Appendix A: Guide to Collaborative Planning 

I. Principles 

Collaboration implies that Tribal, state, and local governments, 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 policy. The first-hand experience of BLM Field 

Managers and staff has resulted in the following suggested guidelines for collaboration. 

A. Recognize Tribal, state, and local governments’ role in the planning process. 

FLPMA, Section 202(c)(9), as paraphrased, requires meaningful participation by local 

officials and consistency, to the extent practicable, with officially approved plans of 

Tribal, state, and local governments so long as the plans are consistent with Federal laws 

and regulations. Early involvement will help ensure that the BLM develops land use 

decisions that are supported by and conform to other jurisdictions in the area to the 

maximum extent possible. 

B. Be inclusive and explicitly acknowledge the interests of distant groups, individuals, 

industry, corporations, and other agencies. An effective collaborative process for public 

land planning assures that local, regional, and national interests are integrated. Distant 

interests are sought out and encouraged. Effective outreach is the best way to get beyond 

the barriers to successful participation. Ensure multiple options for participation. 

C. Clearly cite the authority of collaborative groups, including that of the BLM, and 

ensure accountability. Participants must understand the roles of all parties in the 

planning effort. If the planning effort includes other participants with jurisdictional 

responsibilities or decision-making authority, the responsibilities of each must be clearly 

identified. Decisions made by each jurisdiction must be within their own authorities. 

The BLM retains decision-making authority for all decisions on BLM lands. The BLM 

does not need to be the lead agency for agency personnel to participate in collaborative 

efforts. 

D. Use collaboration to enhance and complement standard public involvement 

requirements. Individuals or groups that were unable or chose not to participate in a 

collaborative process are still entitled to full input through legally required public review 

and comment processes. 

E. Recognize that collaborative processes may not be effective everywhere. The BLM 

manager retains the authority to manage the planning process and may choose to move 

forward with traditional planning processes if collaborative efforts are ineffective or 

become unacceptably lengthy. 

 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix A, page 2 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

II. Practices 

A. Face-to-face or one-on-one communication provides the best means of building trust 

and good working relationships. Be sure to ask yourself and others questions such as the 

following: 

1. Who else should I talk to? Who else should be involved? Whom do I need to 

approach to ensure the best contacts are made? How can the BLM assure 

sufficiently diverse participation to adequately reflect local, regional, and national 

interests?

2. What formal and informal opportunities for communication could be used to 

relay the BLM’s message?

B. On a local level, postings on local bulletin boards and face-to-face communication 

may best serve community needs when presented in both English and local languages, 

depending on the unique characteristics of each community. Consider the following 

questions: 

1. How does this community receive and send information? Would the use of 

Internet technology, such as websites and e-mail, be effective?

2. Are there community meetings where information and ideas are exchanged? 

Although this approach may seem time consuming at first, it is eventually very effective in 

communicating efficiently with a large number of people, motivating people to implement the 

agreed upon strategy, building trust, and encouraging broad-based participation. It may seem

daunting in urban settings, but the same approach can be effective once the above questions are 

answered. This approach provides the BLM with a technique to more effectively engage the 

public in the decision-making process, which normally leads to increased support for the 

decisions ultimately reached. This approach also provides an early alert to emerging issues, 

giving a BLM manager more time and flexibility to resolve issues up front. As issues are 

resolved dynamically, conflict diminishes. These methods can be used in advance of, and are 

complementary to, a standard communications plan that defines what communications products 

are needed, who is responsible for producing them, and when specific products must be 

delivered. 

BLM offices should maintain mailing lists of individuals and organizations that request

involvement in specific activities or areas, such as rangeland developments or ACECs. NOIs 

and NOAs for planning/NEPA processes, along with other materials should be provided as 

requested. Offices should also maintain a listing of planned or ongoing planning/NEPA 

processes, make these lists available to the public, and encourage public participation throughout 

the decision-making process. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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, information and 

technical knowledge are shared, mutual goals and actions to achieve these goals are 

agreed upon, and plans are easier to implement as a result. Solutions tend to be more 

long-term and hold up to legal scrutiny. Through collaboration with different landowners 

and jurisdictions, BLM can more effectively plan for the protection and use of the 

resources it administers.

B. Resources are leveraged more effectively. There are a variety of cost-share 

arrangements and grants available for collaborative and partnership initiatives that can 

help implement on-the-ground projects. 

C. Relationships are improved. Collaboration encourages people to continue to talk 

despite differences and changing circumstances, thus improving the ability to resolve 

conflict and build trust among participants. 

IV. Tools 

It is highly recommended that training on collaborative skills be completed before undertaking 

initiatives to work with private citizens and groups. The BLM National Training Center offers a 

series of courses, “The Partnership Series,” which can be taught in BLM locations to mixed 

public-private audiences rather than at the National Training Center. Visit their website at 

www.ntc.blm.gov/partner for more information. 

Innovative partnerships and assistance agreements are very helpful to launching collaborative 

efforts. The BLM Washington Office’s Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group 

(WO-210) can provide more information. 

The BLM and the Sonoran Institute have prepared “A Desktop Reference Guide to 

Collaborative, Community-Based Planning” which is available at BLM state and field offices. 

This guide provides suggestions and examples for collaborative planning. 

Also see Executive Order 13352 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05

 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Appendix B, page 1

Appendix B: Federal Advisory Committee Act Considerations 

I. Purpose 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.A. App. 2 (86 Stat. 770, as amended), 

was enacted on October 6, 1972, to reduce narrow special-interest group influence on decisionmakers, to foster equal access to the decision-making process for the general public, and to 

control costs by preventing the establishment of unnecessary advisory committees. The FACA 

applies whenever a statute or an agency official establishes or utilizes a committee, board, 

commission or similar group for the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations on issues 

or policies within the agency official’s responsibility. 

The BLM’s managers and staff must understand the provisions of FACA both when they are 

gathering public input for decision-making processes and when they are working in collaborative 

efforts, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, to ensure BLM’s collaborative efforts comply 

with FACA. In essence, any time a group will be consulted or will be providing 

recommendations to a BLM official, the BLM should verify whether FACA applies and, if so, 

ensure that the FACA requirements are followed. If the BLM fails to comply with FACA, it will 

leave its decisions and products open to challenge in court. 

II. Implementing FACA 

A. Avoiding Violations

To avoid violating the FACA, BLM managers should: 

1. Consider whether FACA applies to any current or proposed collaborative or group 

activity. FACA will apply if a group is established or utilized by the BLM for the 

purpose of obtaining advice. In reaching decisions whether FACA will apply, managers 

should refer to the General Services Administration’s (GSA) regulations at 41 CFR 102-3 

and consult with the Office of the Solicitor. Further information about when FACA 

applies, including the FACA regulations, can be found at 

www.policyworks.gov/org/main/mc/linkit.htm or in the Committee Management 

Secretariat section of the GSA website. 

a. If FACA applies, establishing a committee requires consultation with GSA, 

filing a charter, publishing a notice in the Federal Register, and opening meetings 

of the group to the public. Also see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Committees). 

b. Existing groups are covered by FACA if they are “utilized” by a Federal 

agency. A group is “utilized” whenever a Federal agency exercises actual 

management or control over its operation. 

2. For those groups covered by FACA, verify that its requirements are followed, 

including the filing of an appropriate charter, balancing the membership, informing the 

public of its meetings (time, place, purpose, etc.) through Federal Register publication, 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix B, page 2 

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

and opening the meetings to the public. Consult with FACA experts to ensure 

compliance with its procedures. Also see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Committees). 

Collaborative groups that are not initiated by the BLM can avoid application of FACA and can 

continue to have active BLM participation by maintaining their independence from BLM actual 

management or control. 

B. Determining if FACA Applies

Figure 4 outlines the basic requirements to determine if the provisions of FACA apply. If there 

is any doubt, the BLM field office should consult its Solicitor. The field office must determine 

whether FACA applies to a particular collaborative effort, and if it does, whether it would be 

beneficial to pursue the effort by chartering the group under FACA or making it a subgroup of a 

RAC (see 43 CFR 1784.6-2). Answers to the following questions can be helpful in determining 

whether FACA does or does not apply: 

1. Does the group include individuals who are not employees of Tribal, state, or local 

governments or other Federal agencies?

2. Does the group have a formal organizational structure?

3. How was the group or meeting initiated? Specifically, was the group established by 

the BLM?

4. Is the group subject to agency actual management or control?

5. What is the function of the group? Is it providing consensus advice or 

recommendations as a group to the agency?

FACA will not apply to any meeting of more than one individual initiated by the President or

Federal official(s) to obtain the advice of individual attendees, provided that the Federal official 

does not exercise actual management or control over the group. FACA does not apply to 

meetings held exclusively between Federal officials and Tribal, state, and local elected officials, 

or their designated employees, where such meetings are solely for the purpose of exchanging 

views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of Federal 

intergovernmental programs (see Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534). 

C. FACA Requirements

If a group is subject to FACA, there are a number of requirements that must be in place in order 

to proceed. Subcommittees of established FACA committees may, under some circumstances, 

be subject to these requirements as well. Specific requirements include: 

1. A charter describing the committee’s function, duration, members, duties, frequency 

of meetings, and costs. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK 

Appendix B, page 3

2. A designated Federal employee to attend all meetings and to approve meeting 

agendas. 

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

venues. 

4. Meetings that are open to the public, with detailed minutes prepared for public review. 

Further explanation is provided in the BLM’s Natural Resource Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Initiative Strategic Plan and Tool Kit, September 11, 1997, available at BLM state offices. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix B, page 4 

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

Do Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) Considerations Apply? 

1. Is there a group providing advice to

a Federal agency which is not made up 

entirely of Federal, Tribal, state, or

local governmental officials advising on

intergovernmental programs?1

 

3. Does the group provide advice as a 

group (rather than as individuals)? 

2. Is the group established, managed,

or controlled by a Federal agency? 

If yes to all questions: FACA considerations most likely 

apply. 

Note: This chart is for general guidance; final

determinations regarding the applicability of FACA should

be made in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor. 

1

 See 2 U.S.C. 1534 for details.

Figure 4.—Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) flow chart: Does FACA apply?

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 1

Appendix C: Program/Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 

This appendix provides three categories of planning information for BLM program areas: (1) 

Land Use Plan Decisions, (2) Implementation Decisions, and (3) Notices, Consultations, and 

Hearings. Each program/resource heading contains resource-specific guidance for each 

category. The guidance presented for each resource should be addressed in conjunction with the 

guidance presented for other resources to maintain an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to 

planning. 

1. Land Use Plan Decisions. These broad-scale decisions guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land use 

plan decisions fall into two categories: desired outcomes (goals and objectives), and 

allowable uses and actions to achieve outcomes. Proposed land use plan decisions are 

protestable to the BLM Director but are not reviewable by the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. 

The application of program-specific guidance for land use plan decisions will vary, 

depending on the decision category, and must be applied as follows: 

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources: Decisions identified must be 

made during the land use planning process if the resource exists in the planning 

area. 

II. Resource Uses: Decisions identified must be made during the land use 

planning process if the BLM anticipates it may authorize or allow a resource use. 

If uses are allowed, decisions must also be made regarding intensity and limits or 

restrictions.

III. Special Designations: Special designation decisions identified must be made 

during the land use planning process when the BLM anticipates it may authorize 

or allow uses which could disqualify inventoried resource values from

designation. Special designation decisions may be made during the land use 

planning process when there is no threat to the inventoried resource. 

IV. Support: Support needs and decisions may be determined through the land 

use planning process, based on individual planning situations. 

2. Implementation Decisions. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s 

final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of decisions 

require site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. They may be incorporated into 

implementation plans (activity or project plans) or may exist as stand-alone decisions. 

Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use planning process, they 

are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as prescribed by 

specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to land use plan 

decisions and makes a decision to adopt or amend the RMP (High Desert Multiple Use 

Coalition, Inc. et al. Keith Collins, 142 IBLA 285 (1998)). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 2 

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

3. Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. This section identifies resource-specific 

requirements and suggestions for notices, consultations, and hearings when developing 

Land use plan decisions that are in addition to those identified in Section III of this 

Handbook. Note: Some laws or regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Air Act, have notice, consultation, or 

hearing requirements that apply to most resource programs, resource uses, or activities. 

These requirements are identified in the primary program narrative but are not repeated 

for each resource program, resource use, or activity that may be affected. 

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources 

A. Air

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes and areawide criteria or restrictions, in 

cooperation with the appropriate air quality regulatory agency, that apply to direct or authorized 

emission-generating activities, including the Clean Air Act’s requirements for compliance with: 

1. Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Section 109); 

2. State Implementation Plans (Section 110); 

3. Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (Section 118); 

4. Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility impacts to mandatory 

Federal Class I Areas (Section 160 et seq.); and 

5. Conformity Analyses and Determinations (Section 176(c)). 

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific emission control strategies, processes, and 

actions to achieve desired air quality conditions from direct or authorized emission-generating 

activities. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult, coordinate, and comply with applicable Tribal, 

Federal, state, and local air quality regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act, Executive 

Order 12088, and Tribal, Federal or state implementation plans. Each field office should work 

closely with counties or states on the development or amendment of state implementation plans. 

B. Soil and Water 

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes (including standards or goals under the 

Clean Water Act). Identify watersheds or specific soils that may need special protection from

the standpoint of human health concerns, ecosystem health, or other public uses. For riparian 

areas, identify desired width/depth ratios, streambank conditions, channel substrate conditions, 

and large woody material characteristics. Identify areawide use restrictions or other protective 

measures to meet Tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. Identify measures, 

including filing for water rights under applicable state or Federal permit procedures, to ensure 

water availability for multiple use management and functioning, healthy riparian and upland 

systems. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 3

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific management opportunities and priorities by 

using a watershed approach and watershed assessment information. Identify the site-specific or 

basin-specific soil, riparian, or nonpoint-source best management practices and rehabilitation 

techniques needed to meet Tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult and coordinate with other Federal, state, and 

local agencies, as directed by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 

1001-1009), and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) (see BLM Manual 7000). Collaborate 

with local watershed groups when developing activity plans. 

C. Vegetation

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes for vegetative resources, including the 

desired mix of vegetative types, structural stages, and landscape and riparian functions; and 

provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats and livestock forage. Desired outcomes 

(goals and objectives) may be established at multiple scales. Identify areas of ecological 

importance and designate priority plant species and habitats, including special status species and 

populations of plant species recognized as significant for at least one factor such as density, 

diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age. Identify the actions and areawide use 

restrictions needed to achieve desired vegetative conditions. 

Reference materials for establishing desired outcomes for vegetative resources include: 

1. National Range and Pasture Handbook (1997): Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (USDA- NRCS) Methodology of Vegetation Inventory, Monitoring, Analysis 

and Management 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. Website examples of ecological site descriptions (use Internet Explorer): 

• http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov 

• http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/fotg/section-2/ESD.html

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

In areas where Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorities are to be used, identify old growth 

forest stands or describe a process for identifying old growth forest stands in the land use plan 

based on the structure and composition characteristic of the forest type. Provide management 

direction to maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of 

old growth forest stands in areas where these authorities will be used. This management 

direction should consider the pre-fire exclusion old growth conditions characteristic of the forest 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 4 

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

type, taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed 

health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old growth structure. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific vegetation management practices such as 

allotment grazing systems, vegetation treatments, or manipulation methods (including fuels 

treatments) to achieve desired plant communities, as well as integrated vegetation management 

techniques to rehabilitate weed infestations or otherwise control noxious and invasive weeds. 

Identify old-growth stands and management practices to achieve old-growth management 

direction where applicable. Identify old-growth stands and management practices to achieve 

old-growth management direction where applicable. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

with the USFWS and/or NOAA-Fisheries for all actions that may affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat or confer if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

proposed species or result in the destruction of adverse modification of proposed critical habitat 

(see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific 

laws, agreements, or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state wildlife 

agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats.

D. Special Status Species

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes, strategies, restoration opportunities, use 

restrictions, and management actions to conserve and recover special status species. Desired 

outcomes may incorporate goals and objectives from recovery plans and conservation strategies 

or identify ecologically important areas or scarce, limited habitats. Goals and objectives may be 

species or habitat specific and can be established at multiple scales (i.e., fine, mid, and broad) to 

fully understand the context of the larger landscape. 

Given the legal mandate to conserve threatened or endangered species and BLM’s policy to 

conserve all special status species, land use planning strategies, desired outcomes, and decisions 

should result in a reasonable conservation strategy for these species. Land use plan decisions 

should be clear and sufficiently detailed to enhance habitat or prevent avoidable loss of habitat 

pending the development and implementation of implementation-level plans. This may include 

identifying stipulations or criteria that would be applied to implementation actions. Land use 

plan decisions should be consistent with BLM’s mandate to recover listed species and should be 

consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans, conservation 

agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened and 

endangered species. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify the programmatic and site-specific actions needed to 

implement planning decisions for conserving and recovering special status species. These 

decisions may be identified in implementation plans for habitat management areas, ACECs, and 

grazing allotments, etc. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 5

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consultation with the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries is 

required by the Endangered Species Act for actions that may affect listed species and designated 

critical habitat, and conferencing is needed if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Manual Section 6840). Depending on 

state-specific agreements or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state 

wildlife agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats. 

1. Interagency Agreements on Consultation. The BLM has entered into a variety of 

Memoranda of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding regarding consultation on 

agency actions to help streamline and bring greater efficiency to the consultation process. 

A key element of these includes utilizing early involvement of regulatory agency 

personnel in the planning process. Including representatives from these agencies on the 

planning team during development of alternatives could improve the BLM’s ability to 

address and discuss the effects of management direction on listed and proposed species 

and their critical habitats. For additional direction and guidance, consult the most current 

versions of these Memoranda. 

2. Initial Effects Determination. During preparation of draft land use plan decisions and 

associated NEPA analysis, the BLM makes an initial determination of effects to listed or 

proposed species. If the BLM makes a determination of “no effect” on the preferred 

alternative, informal consultation is not required. 

3. Informal Consultation. Informal consultation should be initiated on the preferred 

alternative with the USFWS or the NOAA-Fisheries if the initial BLM determination is 

“not likely to adversely affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. .“Not likely to 

adversely affect” determinations are reached when effects of the action are insignificant, 

discountable, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive 

effects without any long-term adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects relate 

to the size of the impact and cannot be meaningfully measured. Discountable effects are 

those that have an extremely low probability of occurring. 

Informal consultation is concluded if the Services concur with the BLM determination. 

This concurrence must be documented in the planning record by a written letter of

concurrence from the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries. If the Services do not concur with 

the BLM determination, formal consultation must be initiated. 

3. Formal Consultation. Formal consultation is required when proposed management 

direction and resource allocations in the preferred alternative are determined to be “likely 

to adversely affect” to listed species or designated critical habitat. The Endangered 

Species Act and 50 CFR 402.16 outline criteria for re-initiating consultation when there 

has been significant change since the original consultation was completed. Based on 

these criteria, consultation on land use plan and implementation decisions must be reinitiated for any of the following reasons: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 6 

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

a) New information shows that the plan decisions may affect listed or proposed 

species or critical habitat in a way or to an extent not previously considered; 

b) land use plan and/or implementation decisions are modified in a way that may 

cause adverse effects to the listed or proposed species or critical habitat that were 

not considered in the biological opinion; 

c) implementation of existing land use plan decisions could affect a newly listed 

species or newly designated critical habitat; or

d) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded. 

4. Conferencing. The BLM will conference with the Services on any action which is 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. The conference is 

designed to assist the Federal agency and any applicant in identifying and resolving 

potential conflicts at an early stage in the planning process. Conferencing includes 

informal discussions concerning an action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the proposed species or results in the destruction or adverse modification of 

the proposed critical habitat at issue. 

5. Consultation under Endangered Species Act with Indian Tribes. Department of the 

Interior’s Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights; Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities; and the Endangered Species Act; requires Interior agencies to consult 

with Indian Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of 

compliance with Endangered Species Act, affect or may affect Indian lands, Tribal trust 

resources, or the exercise of American Indian Tribal rights. Consultation under this 

Order should be closely coordinated with regional or field offices of the USFWS and/or 

NOAA-Fisheries for game and non-game species. 

E. Fish and Wildlife

Land Use Plan Decisions. Designate priority species and habitats, in addition to special status 

species, for fish or wildlife species recognized as significant for at least one factor such as 

density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age. Identify desired outcomes 

using BLM strategic plans, state agency strategic plans, and other similar sources. 

Describe desired habitat conditions and/or population for major habitat types that support a wide 

variety of game, non-game, and migratory bird species; acknowledging the states’ roles in 

managing fish and wildlife, working in close coordination with state wildlife agencies, and 

drawing on state comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies. Identify actions and areawide 

use restrictions needed to achieve desired population and habitat conditions while maintaining a 

thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships. (Also see previous Section D, 

Special Status Species.) Identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed fish species 

(Oregon, Washington, California and Idaho only). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 7

Implementation Decisions. In coordination with state wildlife agencies, identify site-specific 

actions, such as riparian fencing, guzzler placement, fuels management, etc., needed to manage 

ecosystems for all species and habitat for special status species. Identify specific measures to 

conserve and enhance EFH. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

with the USFWS and/or NOAA-Fisheries, for all actions that may affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat or confer if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat 

(see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific 

laws, agreements, or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state wildlife 

agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats. Consult with the 

NOAA-Fisheries on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken that may impact EFH (through 

existing environmental review processes in accordance with NEPA). Comply with Executive 

Order 13186 for the conservation of migratory birds. 

F. Wild Horses and Burros

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following (see 43 CFR 4700): 

1. Herd Areas. Herd areas (HAs) are limited to areas of the public lands identified as

being habitat used by wild horses and burros at the time of the passage of the Wild Horse 

and Burro Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340). HA boundaries may only be changed 

when it is determined 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 found in 1971. 

2. Herd Management Area Designation. Herd management areas (HMAs) are 

established only in HAs, within which wild horses and/or burros can be managed for the 

long term. For HMAs, identify the following: 

a) Initial and estimated herd size that could be managed while still preserving and 

maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships 

for that area.

b) Guidelines and criteria for adjusting herd size. 

3. Herd Areas Not Designated as Herd Management Areas. Where appropriate, the land 

use plan may include decisions removing horses from all or part of a HA. Examples 

include intermingled and unfenced lands within HAs where private landowners do not 

want to make them available for wild horse or burro use; or essential habitat components 

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 significant public value present, such as unique 

characteristics in a herd or an outstanding opportunity for public viewing. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 8 

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

5. Areawide Restrictions Needed to Achieve Objectives. For example, if domestic horses 

in HMAs are not compatible with wild horse management policies, then, domestic horse 

grazing must not be permitted in HMAs or adjacent to HMAs if domestic and wild horses 

are likely to intermingle. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify and set objectives for herd composition, animal 

characteristics, and habitat development needs. Establish appropriate management levels 

(AMLs) based on monitoring and evaluations, including the population range within which the 

herd size will be allowed to fluctuate. (Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, et al., 

139 IBLA 24 (1997).) 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340) requires BLM to consult with Federal and state wildlife 

agencies and all other affected interests during land use and implementation planning for the 

management of wild horses and burros. 

Public hearings are required when anticipated management activities involve the use of

helicopters to capture, or the use of motor vehicles to transport, wild horses and burros. 

Hearings are held in the state where the activities are proposed and are normally conducted on an 

annual basis (see 43 CFR 4740). 

G. Cultural Resources 

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify special cultural resource restrictions that may affect the 

location, timing, or method of development or use of other resources in the planning area. 

Identify site-specific use restrictions from cultural resources currently being actively managed. 

Identify area wide criteria for recognizing potential cultural resource conflicts, such as 

geographic characteristics of sacred sites, historic properties, or cultural landscapes (springs, 

ridges, peaks, caves, and rock shelters, for example). Consider these restrictions and criteria in 

all proposed land and resource use decisions. Identify measures to pro-actively manage, protect, 

and use cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties. 

The scope and scale of cultural resource identification are much more general and less intensive 

for land use planning than for processing site-specific use proposals. Instead of new, on-theground inventory, the appropriate identification level for land use planning is a regional 

overview: (1) a compilation and analysis of reasonably available cultural resource data and 

literature, (2) a management-oriented synthesis of the resulting information that includes 

priorities and a strategy for accomplishing needed inventory (see Manual Section 8110.) If land 

use decisions, however, are more specific in terms of impacts, they may require a more detailed 

level of identification of the scope and nature of cultural resources during land use planning. 

RMPs will include at least the following 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 MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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 Protection Act, Section 14(a)). 

2. Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or 

human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict 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 comply with the NHPA Section 106. 

 

All cultural properties in the RMP area, whether already recorded or projected to occur on the 

basis of existing-data synthesis, including cultural landscapes, will be allocated to the uses listed 

in Table C-1 according to their nature and relative preservation value. These use allocations

pertain to cultural resources, not to areas of land. 

Table C-1.—Cultural use allocations and desired outcomes

Use allocation 1 Desired outcomes 

a. Scientific use Preserved until research potential is realized

b. Conservation for future use Preserved until conditions for use are met 

c. Traditional use Long-term preservation

d. Public use Long-term preservation, on-site interpretation 

e. Experimental use Protected until used 

f. Discharged from management No use after recordation; not preserved 1

 The majority of the cultural properties in a given geographic area will fall into categories (a) and (f). The less-common properties in categories 

(b)–(e) are likely to be associated with particular settings that can be delineated geographically in the planning process. As the plan is developed,

properties in categories b–d will require the most attention to balance their proactive uses with other land and resource uses. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific information needs, impacted resources, 

protection measures and opportunities to use cultural properties for scientific, educational, 

recreational, and traditional purposes. Evaluate whether intended uses would result in changes to 

cultural properties’ significance or preservation value, and if so, how resource condition should 

be monitored, measured, and maintained at an acceptable level. 

1. Cultural properties allocated to uses are subject to the management actions listed in 

Table C-2 to realize their use potential. 

Table C-2.—Cultural use allocations and management actions

Use allocation Management 

a. Scientific use Permit appropriate research, including date recovery 

b. Conservation for future use Propose protective measures/designations 1`

c. Traditional use Consult with Tribes; determine limitations 1

d. Public use Determine permitted use 1

e. Experimental use Determine nature of experiment 

f. Discharged from management Remove protective measures 1

 Safeguards against incompatible land and resource uses may be imposed through withdrawals, stipulations on leases and permits, design 

requirements, and similar measures which are developed and recommended by an appropriately staffed interdisciplinary team. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 10 

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

2. Categorize geographic area as high/medium/low priority for future inventory of 

cultural properties. 

3. All authorizations for land and resource use will comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the objective 

established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public interest

(NHPA Sec. 106, 101(d)(6), 110(a)(2)(E); national BLM-ACHP-NCSHPO Programmatic 

Agreement of March 1997). 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. 

1. Consistent with the national Programmatic Agreement 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 implemented. 

2. For states not operating under a BLM-SHPO protocol, such as Eastern states, consult 

with the SHPO before plan approval concerning any actions that may be directly 

implemented upon plan approval and could affect a cultural property listed in or eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places (see 36 CFR 800). 

3. Formal consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

usually take place during implementation planning; however, consult with the SHPO 

during land use planning regarding cultural resource evaluation recommendations (36 

CFR 800.4(c)). 

4. Consult Tribal leaders and traditional religious practitioners under the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act about any management objectives and actions that might 

affect Native American religious practices, including access to sacred sites. Consult 

Tribal leaders under the National Historic Preservation Act about any management 

objectives or actions that might affect properties of traditional cultural importance. 

H. Paleontology

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify criteria or use restrictions to ensure that (a) areas containing, 

or that are likely to contain, vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils 

are identified and evaluated prior to authorizing surface-disturbing activities; (b) management 

recommendations are developed to promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of 

fossils; and (c) threats to paleontological resources are identified and mitigated as appropriate. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify appropriate protection measures and scientific, educational, 

and recreational use opportunities for paleontological localities. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 11

I. Visual Resources 

Land Use Plan Decisions. Manage visual resource values in accordance with visual resource 

management (VRM) objectives (management classes). Designate VRM management classes for 

all areas of BLM land, based on an inventory of visual resources and management considerations 

for other land uses. VRM management classes may differ from VRM inventory classes, based 

on management priorities for land uses (see BLM Handbook H-8410-1 for a description of VRM 

classes). 

Implementation Decisions. Manage resource uses and management activities consistent with 

the VRM objectives established in the land use plan. Design all BLM resource uses, 

management activities, and other implementation decisions to meet VRM objectives established 

in the land use plan. Utilize visual resource design techniques and best management practices to 

mitigate the potential for short- and long-term impacts. Contrast ratings are required for all 

major projects proposed on public lands that fall within VRM Class I, II, and III areas which 

have high sensitivity levels (see Handbook H-8341-1 for contrast-rating procedures).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist. 

J. Wildland Fire Management

Land Use Plan Decisions. Fire management strategies must recognize the role of wildland fire 

as an essential ecological process and natural change agent. Fire management strategies must 

result in minimum suppression costs, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and 

values to be protected; consistent with resource objectives. Fire management decisions (goals 

and objectives, and allowable uses and management actions) must reflect that the protection of 

human life is the single, overriding priority. Other priorities (protecting human communities and 

community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources) 

are based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection. 

Consistent with these principles, identify landscape-level fire management goals and objectives, 

which would be achieved through allowable uses and management actions. Use fire 

regime/condition class methodology to identify desired wildland fire conditions. Wildland fire 

management goals and objectives must be closely coordinated with vegetation management 

goals and objectives. 

Identify allowable uses and management actions to achieve the fire management goals and 

objectives, and support the goals and objectives for vegetation, wildlife, and other resources. 

As part of identifying allowable uses, identify the geographic areas that are suitable for wildland 

fire use, provided conditions are appropriate. Also, identify the geographic areas where wildland 

fire use is not appropriate due to social, economic, political, or resource constraints (e.g., 

wildland urban interface areas); and where suppression action would be taken. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 12 

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

As part of identifying management actions to achieve goals and objectives, identify the types of 

fuels management or vegetation management treatments (e.g., mechanical, biological, and 

chemical treatments and prescribed fire) that would be implemented. 

Allowable uses and management actions include the identification of restrictions on fire 

management practices (including both wildfire suppression and fuels management) needed to 

protect natural or cultural resource values. Restrictions may be structured to allow flexibility to 

apply restrictions on a seasonal or annual basis, based on resource conditions, weather factors, 

and operational capability. 

Establish landscape-scale fire management priorities or provide criteria that will guide more sitespecific priorities at the fire management plan level. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific fire management practices and fuels treatment 

actions needed to meet the broad-scale land use plan goals and objectives (such as wildland fire 

use, prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, biological, and chemical treatments) including their 

location, size, and specific layout and project design features, as well as any measures needed to 

protect sensitive resources. 

For additional guidance, see the DOI and BLM Fire Management Manuals and Handbooks. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. 

1. Consult, coordinate, and comply with Tribes, Federal agencies, and state and local 

governments regarding smoke management where required by the Clean Air Act, 

Executive Order 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), and State 

Implementation Plans. 

2. Consult and coordinate with adjacent Tribes, Federal agencies, and state and local 

governments to establish protection and fuels management priorities. 

K. Wilderness Characteristics

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify decisions to protect or preserve wilderness characteristics 

(naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation). Include goals and objectives to protect the resource and 

management actions necessary to achieve these goals and objectives. For authorized activities, 

include conditions of use that would avoid or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific protection measures to insure protection of 

wilderness characteristics. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 13

L. Cave and Karst Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify significant caves as mandated by the Federal Cave 

Resources Protection Act of 1988. Criteria for identification of significant caves is set forth in 

43 CFR 37.11(c). If it is determined that a cave meets these criteria, it must be designated as 

significant as set forth in 43 CFR 37.11(f). 

For each designated significant cave, consider whether or not an administrative designation (e.g., 

ACEC) is needed to provide adequate protection for significant cave resources (see III. Special 

Designations). Regardless, it is vital that both management objectives and setting prescriptions 

be set for each designated significant cave. Management objectives should be outcome-based 

(i.e., not facility- or project-based). Setting prescriptions should specify conditions needed to 

facilitate achievement of the management objectives. 

Implementation Decisions. Address four basic but broad types of cave and karst resource 

management actions for all significant caves: 

1. Management (resources, visitors and facilities); 

2. marketing (outreach, information and education, promotion, interpretation, and 

environmental education); 

3. monitoring (social, environmental and administrative indicators and standards); and 

4. administration (regulatory, permit/fee/fiscal, data management, and customer liaison). 

All BLM implementing actions must be conditioned by the specific management objectives and 

accompanying setting prescriptions incorporated within land use plan decisions for each 

significant cave. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Certain actions involving impacts to cave and karst 

resources may require consultation and coordination with other Federal, state and local 

government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations or individuals as mandated by Section 

4 of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act; Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and Section 8 of the Public 

Rangeland Improvement Act. 

II. Resource Uses 

A. Forestry

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify characteristics (indicators) to describe healthy forest 

conditions (i.e., desired outcomes) for forest/woodland types found within the planning area 

(also see I(C), Vegetation). Identify the suite of possible management actions (including 

appropriate harvest, reforestation, and forest development methods), and associated best 

management practices, that can be applied to meet desired outcomes. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 14 

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

Identify areas that are available and have the capacity for planned, sustained-yield timber harvest 

or special forest product harvest. A probable sale quantity (PSQ) should be determined, if 

possible, for those areas determined to be available for harvest. The PSQ is the allowable 

harvest level that can be maintained without decline over the long term if the schedule of 

harvests and regeneration are followed. PSQ recognizes a level of uncertainty in meeting the 

determined level; this uncertainty is typically based on other environmental factors that preclude 

harvesting at a particular time (for example, because of watershed or habitat concerns). A PSQ 

is not a commitment to offer for sale a specific level of timber volume every year. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify individual timber or special forest product sale locations 

and schedules; site-specific intensive management practices, locations, and schedules; and 

restrictions associated with forestry activities. Identify individual forest health treatment 

activities by location and schedule (Headwaters, Inc., 116 IBLA 129 (1990)). 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. There are no additional specific requirements. 

B. Livestock Grazing

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify lands available or not available for livestock grazing (see 43 

CFR 4130.2(a)), considering the following factors: 

1. Other uses for the land; 

2. terrain characteristics; 

3. soil, vegetation, and watershed characteristics; 

4. the presence of undesirable vegetation, including significant invasive weed 

infestations; and 

5. the presence of other resources that may require special management or protection, 

such as special status species, special recreation management areas (SRMAs), or ACECs. 

Decisions identifying lands available, or not available, for livestock grazing may be revisited 

through the amendment or revision process if the grazing preference or permit on those lands has 

been voluntarily relinquished, or if there are outstanding requests to voluntarily relinquish the 

grazing preference or permit. If an evaluation of Land Health Standards identifies an allotment 

or group of allotments where Land Health Standards cannot be achieved under any level or 

management of livestock use, then decisions identifying those areas as available for livestock 

grazing need to be revisited. 

For lands available for livestock grazing, identify on an areawide basis both the amount of 

existing forage available for livestock (expressed in animal unit months) and the future 

anticipated amount of forage available for livestock with full implementation of the land use plan 

while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships. The land 

use plan needs to describe how these public lands will be managed to become as productive as 

feasible for livestock grazing, including a description of possible grazing management practices 

such as grazing systems, range improvements (including land treatments), changes in seasons of 

use and/or stocking rates. In addition, identify guidelines and criteria for future allotmentBLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 15

specific adjustments in the amount of forage available for livestock, season of use, or other 

grazing management practices (Joel Stamatakis, Steve Stamatakis; 98 IBLA 4 (1987)). 

Implementation Decisions. For areas available for grazing, identify allotment-specific (for one 

or several allotments) grazing management practices and livestock forage amounts based on 

monitoring and assessment information, as well as constraints and needs related to other 

resources. Grazing management practices and levels of livestock grazing use must achieve the 

desired outcomes outlined in the land use plan, including rangeland health standards (or 

comprehensive Land Health Standards), or must result in significant progress toward fulfilling 

rangeland health standards; they must also conform to the guidelines required under 43 CFR 

4180.2(b). 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. 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 members of the public in accordance with 43 CFR 4160.1. 

C. Recreation and Visitor Services

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify special recreation management areas (SRMAs). 

Each SRMA has a distinct, primary recreation-tourism market as well as a corresponding and 

distinguishing recreation management strategy. For each SRMA selected, determine whether 

that primary market-based strategy will be to manage for a destination recreation-tourism

market, a community recreation-tourism market, or an undeveloped recreation-tourism market, 

and state that determination in the land use plan. Then describe the market that corresponds to 

that specific recreation management strategy (who they are and where they are located). Divide 

recreation areas that have more than one distinct, primary recreation market into separate 

SRMAs. 

For each SRMA identified, delineate discrete recreation management zone (RMZ) boundaries. 

Each RMZ has four defining characteristics - it: (1) serves a different recreation niche within the 

primary recreation market; (2) produces a different set of recreation opportunities and facilitates 

the attainment of different experience and benefit outcomes (to individuals, households and 

communities, economies, and the environment); (3) has distinctive recreation setting character; 

and (4) requires a different set of recreation provider actions to meet the strategically-targeted 

primary recreation market demand. To address these four variables within each RMZ, make the 

following land-use allocation decisions: 

1. Identify the corresponding recreation niche to be served; 

2. write explicit recreation management objectives for the specific recreation 

opportunities to be produced and the outcomes to be attained (activities, experiences, and 

benefits); 

3. prescribe recreation setting character conditions required to produce recreation 

opportunities and facilitate the attainment of both recreation experiences and beneficial 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 16 

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

outcomes, as targeted above (the recreation 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 planning framework that addresses recreation 

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions (e.g., visitor 

services, permits and fees, recreation concessions, and appropriate use restrictions) 

necessary to achieve explicitly-stated recreation management objectives and setting 

prescriptions (see Implementation Decisions subsection below). 

Visual resource management classes need to be correlated with the recreation management 

objectives and setting prescriptions that have been set for each RMZ delineated. 

Anything not delineated as an SRMA is an extensive recreation management area (ERMA). 

Management within all ERMAs is restricted to custodial actions only. Therefore, actions within 

ERMAs are generally implemented directly from land use plan decisions and do not require 

activity-level planning. Land use plan decisions must, therefore, include recreation management 

objectives for all ERMAs. Consider addressing visitor health and safety, user conflict and 

resource protection issues in particular through these recreation management objectives. 

However, land use plan decisions for ERMAs need to also identify implementing recreation 

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions of the kinds listed for 

SRMAs under Implementation Decisions below (because no follow-up implementation decisions 

at the activity plan level are required for ERMAs) Note: If recreation demand (i.e., from an 

undeveloped recreation-tourism market) requires maintenance of setting character and/or 

production of associated activity, experience, and benefit opportunities/outcomes, the area 

should be identified and managed as an SRMA, rather than being custodially managed as an 

ERMA. 

Recognition of singularly dominant activity-based recreation demand of and by itself (e.g., heavy 

off-highway vehicle use, river rafting, etc.), however great, generally constitutes insufficient 

rationale for the identification of an SRMA and the subsequent expenditure of major recreation 

program investments in facilities and/or visitor assistance. This does not mean that the 

expenditure of substantial custodial funding is unwarranted when circumstances require it, but 

such expenditures should be geared to take care of the land and its associated recreation-tourism

use and not to provide structured recreation opportunities which characterize SRMAs. 

Identification, but not formal designation, of both SRMAs and ERMAs is required (see Manual 

Section 8300). 

Implementation Decisions. For all SRMAs, address four basic but broad types of recreation 

actions: 

1. Recreation management (of resources, visitors, and facilities [i.e., developed 

recreation sites, roads and trails, recreation concessions, etc.]); 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 17

2. recreation marketing (including outreach, information and education, promotion, 

interpretation, environmental education; and other visitor services); 

3. recreation monitoring (including social, environmental, and administrative indicators 

and standards); and 

4. recreation administration (regulatory; permits and fees, including use restrictions 

where necessary and appropriate; recreation concessions; fiscal; data management; and 

customer liaison). 

All BLM implementing actions for SRMAs must be conditioned by both the identified primary 

recreation market strategy and the specific RMZ land use allocation objectives and 

accompanying setting prescriptions incorporated within land use plan decisions. Since the BLM 

is not the sole-source provider of public lands recreation, be sure to address any actions of other 

key recreation-tourism providers within local service communities (i.e., local governments and 

private recreation-tourism businesses). The BLM cannot dictate to its local government and 

private business providers. Yet, without their collaborative engagement as managing partners in 

plan design and implementation, recreation opportunities targeted by land use plan management 

objectives cannot be produced over the long run, nor can prescribed recreation settings be 

sustained. 

To the greatest extent possible, and appropriate to the setting prescriptions for the area involved, 

all new construction and modifications to recreation facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any 

related programs and activities will be accessible to people with disabilities in accordance with 

the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, and in conformance with relevant building standards, accessible outdoor program

guidance, and program regulations. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist. 

D. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Land Use Plan Decisions. Delineate travel management areas and designate off-highway 

vehicle management areas. 

1. Delineating Travel Management Areas. Comprehensive travel management planning 

should address all resource use aspects (such as recreational, traditional, casual, 

agricultural, commercial, and educational) and accompanying modes and conditions of 

travel on the public lands, not just motorized or off-highway vehicle activities. In the 

RMP, travel management areas (polygons) should be delineated. Identify acceptable 

modes of access and travel for each travel management area (including over-land, overwater, over-snow and fly-in access [remote airstrips and float planes]). In developing 

these areas, consider the following: 

a. Consistency with all resource program goals and objectives; 

b. primary travelers; 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 18 

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

c. objectives for allowing travel in the area; 

d. setting characteristics that are to be maintained (including recreation 

opportunity system and VRM settings); and 

e. primary means of travel allowed to accomplish the objectives and to maintain 

the setting characteristics. 

2. Designation of Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas. All public lands are 

required to have off-highway vehicle area designations (see 43 CFR 8342.1). Areas must 

be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. Criteria for open,

limited, and closed area designations are established in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g) and (h), 

respectively. 

For areas classified as limited consider a full range of possibilities, including travel that 

will be limited to types or modes of travel, such as foot, equestrian, bicycle, motorized, 

etc.; limited to existing roads and trails; limited to time or season of use; limited to 

certain types of vehicles (OHVs, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, high clearance, etc.); 

limited to licensed or permitted vehicles or users; limited to BLM administrative use 

only; or other types of limitations. In addition, provide specific guidance about the 

process for managing motorized vehicle access for authorized, permitted, or otherwise 

approved vehicles for those specific categories of motorized vehicle uses that are exempt 

from a limited designation (see 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)(1-5). 

At a minimum, the travel management area designation for wilderness study areas 

(WSAs) must be limited to ways and trails existing at the time the area became a WSA. 

Open areas within WSAs are appropriate only for sand dune or snow areas designated as 

such prior to October 21, 1976. Existing roads, ways and trails must be fully documented 

and mapped. This applies to both motorized and mechanized transport (see Interim

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review H-8550-

1(I.)(B.)(11) for mechanized transport). In addition, future designations may be made for 

a WSA if it is released from study. 

Except as otherwise provided by law (e.g., the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act), congressionally designated wilderness areas are statutorily closed to 

motorized and mechanized use. These areas should be shown in the land use plans along 

with the acreage affected. 

Existing laws, proclamations, regulations or Executive orders may limit the use of the 

open area designation or impose additional requirements relating to travel management in 

specific circumstances. 

For RMP provisions related to national scenic, historic and national recreation trails, 

national back country byways, or other byway designations (see Appendix C, III. Special 

Designations). 

 

Implementation Decisions. Complete a defined travel management network (system of areas, 

roads and/or trails) during the development of the land use plan, to the extent practical. If it is 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 19

not practical to define or delineate the travel management network during the land use planning 

process, a preliminary network must be identified and a process established to select a final 

travel management network. Possible reasons for not completing the final network might be size 

or complexity of the area, controversy, incomplete data, or other constraints. 

If the final travel management network is to be deferred in the RMP, then the RMP should 

document the decision-making process used to develop the initial network, provide the basis for 

future management decisions, and help set guidelines for making road and trail network 

adjustments throughout the life of the plan. The identification of the uncompleted travel 

management networks should be delineated in the land use plan and the following tasks 

completed for each area: 

1) Produce a map of a preliminary road and trail network; 

2) define short-term management guidance for road and trail access and activities in 

areas or sub-areas not completed; 

3) outline additional data needs, and a strategy to collect needed information; 

4) provide a clear planning sequence, including public collaboration, criteria and 

constraints for subsequent road and trail selection and identification; 

5) provide a schedule to complete the area or sub-area road and trail selection process;

and 

6) identify any easements and rights-of-ways (to be issued to the BLM or others) needed 

to maintain the preliminary or existing road and trail network. 

If the decision on delineating travel management networks is deferred in the land use plan to the 

implementation phase, the work normally should be completed within 5 years of the signing of 

the ROD for the RMP. 

At the implementation phase of the plan, establish a process to identify specific areas, roads 

and/or trails that will be available for public use, and specify limitations placed on use. Products 

from this process will include: 

1) A map of roads and trails for all travel modes. 

2) Definitions and additional limitations for specific roads and trails (defined in 43 CFR 

8340.0-5(g)). 

3) Criteria to select or reject specific roads and trails in the final travel management 

network, add new roads or trails and to specify limitations. 

4) Guidelines for management, monitoring, and maintenance of the system. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 20 

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

5) Indicators to guide future plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to 

travel management network. 

6) Needed easements and rights-of-ways (to be issued to the BLM or others) to maintain 

the existing road and trail network providing public land access. 

In addition, travel management networks should be reviewed periodically to ensure that current 

resource and travel management objectives are being met (see 43 CFR 8342.3). 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist. 

E. Lands and Realty

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for 

natural resources within the planning area: 

1. Lands for retention (43 CFR 2400), proposed disposal, or acquisition (based on 

acquisition criteria identified in the land use plan; FLPMA Section 205(b)) (Oregon 

Natural Resources Council, 78 IBLA 124 (1983)). Lands are to be retained in Federal 

ownership, unless it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the 

national interest (FLPMA Section 102(a)(1)). Land use plans should avoid prescribing 

the method of disposal, acquisition, or property interest to be acquired. 

2. Lands or interest in lands that are available for disposal under a variety of disposal 

authorities, provided they meet 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 other statutes and 

regulations. Lands available for disposal must be identified by parcel or by specific areas 

(on a map or by legal description). 

3. Lands available for disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 

2000 (FLTFA). The FLTFA amended FLPMA to allow retention by the BLM of receipts 

received from sale of land or interests in land under Section 203 of FLPMA or 

conveyance of mineral interest under Section 209(b) of FLPMA provided a land use plan 

was completed prior to July 25, 2000. The FLTFA currently does not apply to lands 

identified for disposal after July 25, 2000. In Nevada, the FLTFA does not apply to lands 

eligible for sale under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, SantiniBurton Act, Mesquite Lands Act, or Lincoln County Land Act. 

4. Proposed withdrawal areas including existing withdrawals to be continued, modified, 

or revoked (including how the 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 amended 

(43 U.S.C. 315f). The procedures applicable to Section 7 outlined in 43 CFR 2400 must 

be followed. The following actions require classification: Recreation and Public 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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 CFR 1600 differ from applicable 

classification procedures under 43 CFR 2400, the latter procedures shall be followed and 

applied. The analysis that supports classification decisions is normally the same analysis 

utilized in the land use planning/NEPA process to make decisions concerning the 

disposal or retention of public lands. For any classification decision made through the 

land use plan, initiate the classification decision requirements (i.e., proposed and initial 

decisions required under 43 CFR 2400) at the time the decision document is issued for 

the land use plan. 

6. Where and under what circumstances authorizations for use, occupancy, and 

development (such as major leases and land use permits) may be granted (see 43 CFR 

2740, 2912, 2911, and 2920, respectively). 

7. Existing and potential right-of-way corridors (potential corridors include existing 

right-of-way routes with the potential for at least one additional facility and thus can be 

considered a corridor if not already designated) to minimize adverse environmental 

impacts and the proliferation of separate right-of-ways (see 43 CFR 2806). 

 

8. Existing and potential development areas for renewable energy projects (e.g., wind 

and solar), communication sites, and other uses. 

9. Right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas (areas to be avoided but may be available 

for location of right-of-ways with special stipulations and areas which are not available 

for location of right-of-ways under any conditions). 

10. Terms and conditions that may apply to right-of-way corridors or development areas, 

including best management practices to minimize environmental impacts and limitations 

on other uses which would be necessary to maintain the corridor and right-of-way values. 

Implementation Decisions. Identify exchange agreements, land sale plans, approvals of leases 

and permits, and all subsequent phases of case processing. Identify issuance of site-specific 

right-of-way grants and authorizations. Identify authorization notices for those actions that 

require classification or other notices, including sales, exchanges, state selections, Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act sales and leases, agricultural entries, and other land disposal actions. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult with parties to Interagency Agreements or 

MOUs relating to corridor identification or use. The Western Utility Group must be consulted 

when developing decisions affecting utility use. Consult with Indian Tribes and state and local 

governments having an interest in or jurisdiction over lands proposed for disposal or acquisition. 

F. Coal 

Land Use Plan Decisions. The land use plan is the chief process by which public land is 

reviewed to assess whether there are areas suitable for leasing or unsuitable for all or certain 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 22 

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

types of coal mining operations under Section 522(b) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for natural 

resources within the planning area: 

1. Unleased coal lands that are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and 

development and those that are not (see 43 CFR 3461). 

2. Areas unsuitable for surface mining of coal (43 CFR 1610.7-1) under the criteria set 

forth in 43 CFR 3461.5. 

3. For acceptable lands, areas suitable for development by all mining methods or by only 

certain stipulated mining methods, such as surface or underground mining (see 43 CFR 

3461). 

4. Any special conditions that must be met during more detailed planning, lease sale, or 

post-lease activities, including measures required to protect other resource values (see 43 

CFR 3461). 

5. An estimate of the amount of coal recoverable by either surface or underground 

mining operations or both (43 CFR 3420.1-4(d)). Only those areas that have 

development potential may be identified as acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing. 

6. Areas that have development potential for coal leasing according to the screening 

process outlined in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1–4). 

7. Areas to be withdrawn from further consideration 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 discussed in 43 CFR 3461.5. 

Implementation Decisions. Offer leases with appropriate conditions and stipulations, process 

lease exchanges, process preference right lease applications, and delineate coal tracts for 

disposal. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. 

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 made to formally solicit indications 

of interest and information on coal resource development potential and on other resources 

which may be affected by coal development for land in the planning unit. Industry, state, 

and local governments and the general public may submit information on lands that 

should be considered for coal leasing, including statements describing why the lands 

should be considered for leasing (43 CFR 3420.1-2).

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 23

The Call for Coal and other Resource Information may be combined with the notice of 

intent to conduct land use planning published in accordance with 43 CFR 1601.3(g) or 

with the issue identification process in accordance with 43 CFR 1600. 

2. Publish in the Federal Register a notice under 43 CFR 3461.2-1(a)(2), providing for a 

minimum 30-day comment period on the results of the application of unsuitability 

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 qualified surface owners as required under 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4) and

1610.2(j) to determine their preference for or against surface mining. If a significant 

number of qualified surface owners in an area do not support surface mining, BLM can 

consider only underground mining unless one of the exceptions in 43 CFR 3420.1-

4(e)(4)(ii) or (iii) applies.

5. Consult Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and states as required under 43 CFR 

3420.1-6 and 3420.1-7. 

6. Hold a public hearing as required under 43 CFR 1610.2(k) and 43 CFR 3420.1-5 if 

requested. 

G. Oil Shale

Refer to the Fluid Minerals section (Appendix C, Section II.H below) for applicable decision 

guidance, making decisions that consider the unique development aspects of oil shale, from

underground mining to in-situ production techniques. 

H. Fluid Minerals: Oil and Gas, Tar Sands, and Geothermal Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for 

natural resources within the planning area (refer to H-1624-1): 

1. Areas open to leasing, subject to existing laws, regulations, and formal orders; and the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

2. Areas open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints such as seasonal and controlled 

surface use restrictions. (These are areas where it has been determined that moderately 

restrictive lease stipulations may be required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or

resource values.) 

3. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as no-surface-occupancy 

stipulations on an area more than 40 acres in size or more than 0.25 mile in width. 

(These are areas where it has been determined that highly restrictive lease stipulations are 

required to mitigate impacts to other lands or resource values. This category also 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 24 

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

includes areas where overlapping moderate constraints would severely limit development 

of fluid mineral resources.) 

4. Areas closed to leasing. (These are areas where it has been determined that other land 

uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the most restrictive 

lease stipulations; appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the lands to 

leasing.) Identify whether such closures are discretionary or nondiscretionary; and if 

discretionary, the rationale. 

5. Resource condition objectives that have been established and specific lease 

stipulations and general/typical conditions of approval and best management practices 

that will be employed to accomplish these objectives in areas open to leasing. 

6. For each lease stipulation, the circumstances for granting an exception, waiver, or 

modification. Identify the general documentation requirements and any public 

notification associated with granting exceptions, waivers, or modifications. 

7. Whether the leasing and development decisions also apply to geophysical exploration. 

8. Whether constraints identified in the land use plan for new leases also apply to areas 

currently under lease. 

9. Long-term resource condition objectives for areas currently under development to 

guide reclamation activities prior to abandonment. 

A plan-level decision to open the lands to leasing represents BLM’s determination, based on the 

information available at the time, that it is appropriate to allow development of the parcel 

consistent with the terms of the lease, laws, regulations, and orders, and subject to reasonable 

conditions of approval. When applying leasing restrictions, the least restrictive constraint to 

meet the resource protection objective should be used. 

Implementation Decisions. Offer leases with appropriate stipulations. Address site-specific 

actions such as geophysical exploration, approval or disapproval of applications for permit to 

drill (APDs) with attached restrictions or conditions of approval, well siting, tank battery 

placement, and pipeline routing. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Public notice shall be given 45 days before offering 

lands for lease and 30 days before approving APDs or substantially modifying the terms of any 

lease (43 CFR 3101.1-4). 

I. Locatable Minerals

Land Use Plan Decisions. For lands that are open to the location of lode, placer, and mill 

claims, the claimant has statutory authority under the mining laws to ingress, egress and 

development of those claims. This authority means that those areas open to mineral entry for the 

purposes of exploration or development of locatable minerals cannot be unreasonably restricted. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 25

Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives of locatable mineral exploration 

and development in concert with the protection of natural resources within the planning area.

1. Areas recommended for closure to the mining laws for locatable exploration or 

development (that must be petitioned for withdrawal). 

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect other resource 

values while conducting activities under the operation of the mining laws. 

Implementation Decisions. 

1. Process notices and plans of operations according to the 43 CFR 3809 regulations. 

2. Manage the use and occupancy on public lands for the development of locatable 

mineral deposits to that which is reasonably incident to prospecting, mining or processing 

operations under the mining laws (43 CFR 3715). 

3. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated 

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement 

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to locatable minerals. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of 

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the 

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for 

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more. 

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive 

public review and hearings as appropriate. 

J. Mineral Materials

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for the 

exploration, development, and disposal of mineral materials in concert with the protection of 

natural resources within the planning area. 

1. Areas open or closed to mineral material disposal. 

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect resource 

values while operating under the mineral materials regulations. 

Implementation Decisions. 

1. Establish common use areas and community pits and process and approve disposal of 

mineral materials through prospecting permits, free use permits, and competitive and 

noncompetitive permits and sales. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 26 

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

2. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated 

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement 

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to mineral materials. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of 

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the 

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for 

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more. 

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive 

public review and hearings as appropriate. 

K. Non-energy Leasables

Land Use Plan Decisions. Applies to minerals leased under the mineral leasing acts and to 

hardrock minerals leasable under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946. Identify the following 

consistent with the goals and objectives for exploration, development, and disposal of nonenergy leasables in concert with the protection of natural resources within the planning area. 

1. Areas open or closed to non-energy leasing and development. 

2. Any area wide terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect 

other resource values while exploring or developing minerals under the non-energy 

leasable regulations. 

Implementation Decisions. 

1. Issue mineral use authorizations for prospecting permits, exploration licenses, 

preference right lease, competitive leases, lease modifications, and use permits. 

2. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated 

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement 

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to non-energy leasables. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of 

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the 

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for 

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more. 

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive 

public review and hearings as appropriate. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 27

III. Special Designations

A. Congressional Designations

Land Use Plan Decisions. Develop stand-alone RMP/EIS-level plans for all national 

monuments and congressionally designated national conservation areas, national recreation 

areas, cooperative management and protection areas, outstanding natural areas, and forest 

reserves (in accordance with the establishing statute or Presidential proclamation). 

For designated national scenic and historic trails: 

1. Identify goals, objectives and measures to achieve them, as well as allowable uses and 

surface restrictions to avoid potential adverse affects. Land use plans must also 

reference, incorporate, or be amended with provisions from applicable comprehensive 

management plans required by the National Trails System Act. 

2. Establish VRM designations; identify SRMAs, recreation management zones, and offhighway vehicle designations; identify trail-related lands for retention, acquisition, 

withdrawals, avoidance, and exclusion areas; identify appropriate special leasing 

conditions, terms, constraints, or stipulations; designate trail segments as ACECs; and 

identify interpretive measures. 

3. Concentrate on high potential sites and segments along national historic trails, national 

register eligible segments, and the primitive character and connection of national scenic 

trail segments. Consider the historic context and/or current and future landscape 

condition along the trails. 

Implementation Decisions. Develop site-specific implementation actions and plans for 

congressionally designated areas. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements. 

B. Administrative Designations 

Land Use Plan Decisions. Consistent with the goals and objectives for the planning area, make 

the following determinations: 

 

1. Manage WSAs under the interim management policy (H-8550-1) until they are 

designated wilderness or released by Congress. Identify management direction for WSAs 

should they be released from wilderness consideration by Congress. 

2. Assess all eligible river segments and determine which are suitable or non-suitable per 

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (see BLM 

Manual 8351). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 28 

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

3. Designate ACECs and identify goals, standards, and objectives for each area, as well 

as general management practices and uses, including necessary constraints and mitigation 

measures (also see BLM Manual 1613). This direction should be specific enough to 

minimize the need for subsequent ACEC management plans. ACECs must meet the 

relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a) and must require special 

management (43 CFR 1601.0-5(a)) to: 

 

a) Protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural 

systems. 

b) Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist. 

4. Designate research natural areas and outstanding natural areas as types of ACECs 

using the ACEC designation process. 

5. Designate BLM Scenic or Back Country Byways. Detailed procedural guidance for 

nomination and designation of BLM byways, as well as other byway designations 

occurring on BLM lands (such as All American Roads, National Scenic Byways, State 

Scenic Byways, Forest Scenic Byways, and similar) can be found in Handbook 8357-1: 

Byways, 12/17/93. 

6. Designate national recreation trails, watchable wildlife viewing sites, wild horse and 

burro ranges, or other BLM administrative designations. 

Subject to valid existing rights, avoid approval of proposed actions that could degrade the values 

of potential special designations. Proposed actions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and 

impacts to an area’s values will be assessed. The standard for this review is the protection 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 meet this standard should be postponed, 

relocated, mitigated, or denied until the planning for the area is completed. 

Implementation Decisions. Develop site-specific management actions and constraints. Evaluate 

and issue permits for scientific, educational, or recreational activities, and develop project plans 

for trails, interpretive exhibits, resource rehabilitation, and other site-specific activities. 

Protective management provisions must be followed to enhance or protect identified resource 

values and/or characteristics. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Publish a Federal Register notice providing a 60-day 

comment period on proposed ACEC recommendations and resource use limitations (see 43 CFR 

1610.7-2(b)). 

IV. Support

The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)(6) provide that land use plans may identify 

support needs. These are based on individual planning situations. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix C, page 29

A. Cadastral

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify planning boundaries so the geographic extent of land use 

decisions is clearly understood. The plan may identify areas where additional cadastral survey 

work is needed to locate and mark boundaries on the ground, including those areas identified for 

disposal. The plan may also identify the need to complete more detailed boundary management

plans. 

Implementation Decisions. If necessary, develop a boundary management plan for locating and 

marking priority areas. Identify areas needing immediate trespass resolution. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements. 

B. Interpretation and Environmental Education

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify management goals and/or objectives for interpretation and 

environmental education, and describe the significant resources or areas that will be made 

available for interpretation/environmental education. For units of the NLCS, significant resource 

or area descriptions should be based on the designation or proclamation language establishing 

each area. 

Implementation Decisions. Determine what management actions are necessary to achieve 

identified interpretive and environmental education goals and/or objectives. Address the 

techniques to be used, and the partners and volunteers needed, to implement these management 

actions. The following factors should be considered for relevant activity-level interpretive and 

environmental education plans: 

 1. Key stories unique to the area; 

2. primary messages or themes; 

3. educational goals which support management objectives; 

4. primary recreation opportunities; 

5. distinctive recreation setting character; 

6. key resource as well as recreation-tourism attractions; and 

7. administrative services and controls. 

The key interpretive stories and educational themes are best identified by collaborating with: 1) 

community groups; 2) service providers and other interested partners; and 3) other federal, state, 

and local government agencies. These key stories and themes are often about unique historical, 

biological, geological, or other resource and human values found within the planning area. The 

interpretive and educational themes relate to the primary values of the areas and/or their 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix C, page 30 

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

associated resources. LUP management goals should be incorporated into primary interpretive 

messages where appropriate. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements. 

C. Transportation Facilities

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify land areas available or suitable for transportation facilities. 

Identify types of transportation facilities that are appropriate for the planning area. Identify 

limitations, if any, on the types or locations of facilities for specified areas. 

Identify the area(s) having in-place transportation facilities that should be removed. Identify 

road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction, and maintenance standards appropriate to 

specific areas. Identify limitations, if any, on road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction, 

and maintenance actions. Identify limitations, if any, on road density (i.e., miles/section) for 

specific areas. 

Also refer to Appendix C(II)(D), Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management. 

Implementation Decisions. Develop a map or other type of specification document 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, 

(Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management)), develop a transportation plan outlining 

specific road types and designations such as Federal, state, county, and Tribal roads, BLM 

administered/maintained roads, and BLM public roads. Identify roads in congressionally 

designated conservation units, Presidential conservation designations, and administrative 

conservation designations such as back country byways. 

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 1

Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in Land Use Planning Decisions 

I. Using Social Science in Land Use Planning 

Appendix D provides guidance on integrating social science information into the planning 

process. Any information gathered in support of a planning effort must be considered in the 

context of BLM’s legal mandates. 

The BLM is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield 

and to meet the needs of present and future generations. As the human population continues to 

increase and social values evolve, resource conflicts are likely to increase. More importantly, the 

American public is increasingly aware of the importance of the public lands to its well-being and 

is demanding a larger voice in resource management decisions. Given these realities, the 

planning process can represent a constant balancing of competing needs, interests, and values. 

The effective use of social science can be critical to understanding and reconciling these 

differing perspectives. 

Social science information in land use planning can include the economic, political, cultural, and 

social structure of communities, regions, and the Nation as a whole; social values, beliefs, and 

attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues. The social sciences 

integrate a wide variety of disciplines, generally including economics, sociology, demography, 

anthropology, archaeology, political science, geography, history, and landscape architecture. 

Though the information appropriate to a given analysis depends upon the specific issues being 

assessed, the social science information usually important for resource planning decisions can be 

grouped in the following categories:

• Demography and Social Indicators 

• Social Organization and Institutions 

• Attitudes and Values 

• Human Geography 

• Economic Value 

• Employment, Income, and Subsistence 

• Public Finance and Government Services 

• Environmental Justice 

By statute, regulation, and Executive order the BLM must utilize social science in the 

preparation of informed, sustainable land use planning decisions. Section 202(c)(2) of FLPMA 

requires BLM to integrate physical, biological, economic, and other sciences in developing landuse plans (43 USC 1712(c)(2)). FLPMA regulations 43 CFR 1610.4-3 and 1610.4-6 also require 

BLM to analyze social, economic, and institutional information. Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA 

requires Federal agencies to “insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences . . . in 

planning and decision making” (42 USC 4332(2)(A)). Federal agencies are also required to 

“identify and address . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income

populations in the United States” in accordance with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental 

Justice. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 2 

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

II. Incorporating Socio-economic Information 

A. The Planning Process

To be effective, social scientific data and methods should be integrated into the entire planning 

process, from preparing the pre-plan to implementation and monitoring. The main social science 

activities for the various planning steps are outlined in Table D-1. 

Table D-1.—Social science activities in land use planning

Planning steps Social science activities 

Steps 1 & 2—Identify Issues and Develop 

Planning Criteria 

▪ Identify publics and strategies to reach them

▪ Identify social and economic issues 

▪ Identify social and economic planning criteria 

Step 3—Inventory Data ▪ Identify inventory methods

▪ Collect necessary social and economic data 

Steps 4—Analyze Management Situation ▪ Conduct social and economic assessment, including existing conditions

and trends and the impacts of continuing current management

▪ Document assessment methods in an appendix or technical supplement

Step 5—Formulate Alternatives ▪ Identify social and economic opportunities and constraints to help

formulate alternatives 

Step 6—Estimate Effects of Alternatives ▪ Identify analysis methods

▪ Analyze the social and economic effects of the alternatives

▪ Document impact analysis methods in an appendix or technical

supplement 

▪ Assess mitigation opportunities to enhance alternatives’ positive effects 

and minimize their negative effects

Steps 7 & 8—Identify Preferred Alternative 

and Finalize Plan 

▪ Identify potential social and economic factors to help select the preferred 

alternative 

Step 9—Monitor and Evaluate ▪ Track social and economic indicators 

B. Objectives of the Analysis

Beyond contributing to the public involvement strategy (see Appendix D, Section III), socioeconomic input to BLM’s resource management planning has three main elements: baseline 

assessment, impact analysis, and mitigation. 

 

1. Baseline assessment

Characterize existing conditions and trends in local communities and the wider region that may 

affect and be affected by land use planning decisions. This baseline assessment should be 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 3

included or summarized and referenced in the Affected Environment section of the EIS. In 

particular, the baseline assessment should: 

a) Review and summarize the relevant published and unpublished literature on the 

history, economy, and social system(s) of the study area; 

b) characterize the economic structure and activity of communities and groups within the 

study area that are affected by the management of BLM lands; and 

c) characterize the social structure, activities, and values of such communities and 

groups. 

When preparing RMP amendments for activity- or implementation-level projects, the social 

science and economic portions of the Affected Environment chapter may be referenced to the 

original RMP or reduced in complexity, based on the actual issues associated with the proposed 

actions. 

2. Impact analysis

In the Environmental Consequences section of the EIS, characterize impacts to existing 

conditions and trends from each of the alternatives under consideration, including the no action 

alternative, relative to the baseline assessment. Impacts include direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects for all resources that make up the human environment. In particular, impact analyses 

should: 

a) Analyze the positive and negative economic effects of each alternative developed 

within the RMP on those communities and groups; 

b) analyze the positive and negative social effects of each alternative developed within 

the RMP on those communities and groups; and 

c) in fulfillment of Environmental Justice requirements, identify any disproportionate 

negative effect on low-income or minority populations associated with one or more 

proposed alternatives (see Appendix D, Section IV). 

3. Mitigation measures

As appropriate, identify measures that may reduce or avoid potential adverse economic or social 

effects of the alternatives, and maximize their positive effects. Determination of the preferred 

alternative as expressed in the RMP ROD should reflect this analysis. Note that the preferred 

alternative is not required to be the alternative with the least cumulative adverse impacts or that 

provides full mitigation to all social and economic impacts. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 4 

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

C. The Scope of Analysis

There is no standard scope of work for socio-economic analysis because the key topics and 

methods are shaped in part by the social context and potential resource allocation decisions of a 

given resource management plan. The social and economic assessment (affected environment) 

and impact analysis (environmental consequences) should assist the reader to understand the 

human context of the planning effort, and in particular to identify the potential effects, 

constraints, and opportunities associated with planning alternatives. Table D-2 presents 27 

topics of socio-economic information. We suggest ranking topics as follows: 

1 ~ Basic: topic should be addressed (example: population trends) 

2 ~ Optional: address if warranted by context and issues 

3 ~ Not currently indicated: address if indicated by new information 

In Table D-2 some topics considered basic to all socio-economic analyses are assigned a priority 

of 1. Field office staff responsible for directing the socio-economic aspect of a resource 

management plan can use the list of topics to define an appropriate scope of work, identifying 

which topics should be included in the analysis by ranking as 1 (basic), 2 (optional), or 3 (not 

currently indicated). 

These topics are available as a stand alone Checklist for Socio-Economic Analysis, available on 

the BLM social science website (see Appendix D, Section VII). For each topic the checklist also

includes a field for “plan-specific guidance” to provide BLM staff or contractors with more 

precise direction as to which groups, issues, and activities should receive particular attention. 

Note also that the required Economic Strategies Workshop (see Appendix D, Section III[B]) 

provides an excellent opportunity to discuss with interested government leaders and the public 

what topics should be emphasized in the socio-economic analysis. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 5

Table D–2.—Topics for socio-economic analysis

Topic Planning relevance Examples Priority 

Population Potential demand on BLM

lands and resources 

Population trends;

migration, distribution by

age and gender 

1 

Inequality Differences in visibility and

influence; identify vulnerable 

populations (Environmental

Justice) 

Income distribution;

percent of households in

poverty

1 

Social difference Barriers to public involvement;

different user needs and values;

identify distinctive populations 

(Environmental Justice)

Ethnicity; languages 

spoken in household;

Tribal affiliation 

Demography

and Social

Indicators

Social indicators Can indicate community

strengths and weaknesses that

may have implications for 

planning issues 

Crime rates, divorce 

rates, unemployment, 

education, length of

residence 

Government Potential cooperating agencies; 

contacts for plan coordination 

(identified in pre-plan) 

Municipal and county

governments in/near 

planning area; special 

districts; Tribal

governments 

1 

Non-governmental

institutions

Potential partners for plan 

implementation; sources of

economic and social resilience 

Chamber of Commerce; 

church groups; ethnic 

advocacy organizations

Communities of 

place 

Local and regional population

centers relative to planning area 

effects may differ by 

community 

Gateway communities; 

natural resourcedependent communities 1 

Social groups 

and networks

Opportunities for informal 

contacts in seeking public

comment and communicating 

plans and proposals

Networks linking

ranchers or retirees 

Social 

Organization 

and

Institutions 

Occupational 

and interest

groups 

Provide range of perspectives

on potential land use decisions, 

effects may differ by distinct 

group 

Wilderness advocates; oil 

and gas producers, 

Cattleman’s Association

1 

Attitudes and

Meanings 

Attitudes and

beliefs 

regarding local 

environment and 

its use 

Local understandings may

shape acceptability of proposed

land use decisions 

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups] 1

Survey to clarify local 

understanding of effects 

of coal bed methane 

technology on groundwater conditions

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 6 

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

Topic Planning relevance Examples Priority 

Significance of

proposed land

management

actions for 

various publics

While public attitudes are 

elicited in scoping, formal data 

collection can identify 

important differences between

groups, providing further

information to help identify 

impacts and mitigation 

strategies 

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups] 1

Interviews to assess 

social impacts of 

prescribed burning

Quality of life Can indicate community

perceptions that may have 

implications for planning issues 

Perceived access to 

community resources; 

satisfaction with

community conditions, 

such as opportunities for 

employment 

Distribution of

communities, 

roads, and 

resources 

Clarify geo-spatial context; can

predict potential conflicts and 

impacts over proposed land use 

allocations 

Wildland-urban interface, 

recreational demand from

nearby cities 1 

Land ownership 

and access 

Can predict potential conflicts 

and impacts over proposed land

use allocations

Split estate ownership of 

sub-surface minerals 

Human 

Geography 

Culturally and

socially 

significant 

places and areas 

Identify constraints on sitespecific activities, help to

identify mitigation 

(may be developed in cultural

resource analysis) 

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups] 1

Locally valued buildings, 

sites, and landscapes; 

sense of place; traditional 

religious/cultural use 

areas 

Interrelationships among 

producing

sectors 

Regional economic sectors and 

their interrelation as a context

for BLM management

decisions (when allocation 

decisions are of sufficient scale 

to have macroeconomic effects, 

consider national–level 

economic interrelationships) 

Annual purchase and 

sales by economic sector 

(transaction matrix) 

1 

Economic

Value 

Non-market 

values of 

resources and 

activities 

Consider the significance of the 

non-market values associated 

with resources managed or

impacts by BLM when

formulating the management

alternatives 

Estimate the value of 

open space, improved

riparian areas, improved 

wildlife habitat 

 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 7

Topic Planning relevance Examples Priority 

Dependence on 

BLM lands and

resources 

Understand and quantify the

potential local and regional 

impacts of land use decisions 

Value of BLM timber 

sales, visitor-day 

expenditures, grazing and 

mining to the local 

economy

Employment Quantify the anticipated

employment impacts by sector

to determine the population

changes and the associated 

demand on the infrastructure in

the study area

Temporary jobs from oil

and gas development

versus service jobs

created by increased 

recreational opportunities 

1 

Personal income Forecasting the anticipated 

change in income, occurring as 

a result of the BLM alternatives 

Non-labor income

(dividends, transfer

payments) 

1 

Economic 

diversity and 

resilience 

Ability of stakeholder 

communities to respond to

external change 

Level of dependence on

single economic sector 

Regional 

economic 

organization 

Identify amount and 

geographic distribution of new

indirect and induced

employment resulting from

additional local investment

New local jobs resulting

from proposed increase in

oil and gas production on

public lands 

Employment, 

Income, and 

Subsistence 

Subsistence

activities 

Non-market production from

BLM lands for local use 

Amount and value of

subsistence hunting by

local residents

Government 

revenues and 

expenditures 

Fiscal capacity and resilience 

under change 

Change in tax revenues

and county PILT receipts 

Public Finance 

and

Government 

Services 

Public 

infrastructure 

and services 

Community services may be

impacted by resource or 

recreational development of 

public lands 

Expenditures on schools, 

roads, social services 

Characterize 

Environmental 

Justice 

populations in

planning area

See Demography and Social 

Indicators: inequality, social 

difference 

Much of the commercial 

harvesting of non-timber 

forest products in Pacific 

Northwest is organized 

through ethnic networks

1 

Environmental 

Justice 

Assess potential 

for 

disproportionate 

impacts to 

Environmental 

Justice 

populations

Identify whether

Environmental Justice issues 

require further modification of

alternatives, or further 

mitigation of impacts 

Oil and gas development

in areas where American 

Indian populations collect

medicinal plants 1 

1

 Primary (new) data collection methods may be subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. See Planning Handbook,

Appendix D, Section V(C). Secondary data may also be available.

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 8 

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

D. Deliverables in Contracting 

It is recommended the field offices contracting for socio-economic analyses in resource 

management plans require the following deliverables. 

 

1. Baseline social and economic assessments, for inclusion in the AMS document. 

2. Abbreviated baseline social and economic assessments, for inclusion in the Affected 

Environment chapter of the plan/EIS. 

3. Proposed impact analysis strategy, describing the social and economic variables, the 

key data sources, and the analytic methods proposed. These should be based on 

requirements provided by the contracting officer’s representative, issues identified in the 

pre-plan, information obtained through scoping and other public involvement, guidance 

from cooperating agencies, and the social and economic baseline assessments. 

4. Social and economic impact analyses, for inclusion in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter of the plan/EIS. 

5. Analysis of Environmental Justice compliance. 

6. A brief methodological statement, presented as an appendix to the plan/EIS, 

summarizing the significant analytic assumptions and methods utilized in preparing the 

statement of social and economic impacts. 

E. Analytic Guidelines

Social science information provided for resource management 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 of the particular resource issues. In other words, 

focus data collection and analysis on those issues and sectors that are important for the 

agency’s decision-making or important for the publics, as identified through scoping and 

other formal and informal forms of public involvement. 

For example, a regional programmatic plan would likely provide a broad characterization 

of communities within and near the planning region as well as an examination of 

national-scale public land priorities. A single RMP would likely focus on a much smaller 

area and include a more detailed analysis for each community. At the implementation 

plan level, the analysis would focus on more site-specific information, such as the groups, 

networks, or individuals affected by the decision under consideration. 

2. Assessment area. The assessment (study) area for economic and social analysis may 

be larger than the designated planning area (for example, because of a major retail center 

outside but near the planning area). Depending on the issues, the boundaries of the social 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 9

and economic study areas may not be identical. The analysis may also require describing 

populations that do not reside primarily in the assessment area, such as recreational users 

coming from metropolitan areas. 

3. Schedule. Information should be gathered early enough to be included throughout the 

discussion and decision-making phases of the planning effort. 

Note that the economic analysis (and indirectly, the social analysis) is dependent on 

sound output projections for each significant resource, over each alternative to be 

evaluated. For example, the economic analysis of recreation-related impacts (changes in 

assessment area payroll and employment) cannot be done until the recreation specialists 

have determined the changes in visitor days, by alternative. The economic analysis of 

mineral development cannot be done until the geologists have developed an analysis of 

the changes in mineral availability and production, by alternative. 

4. Dimensions of impact analysis. Impact analyses must make clear how the social and 

economic effects of each management alternative—both positive and negative—are 

distributed among the communities and groups in the assessment area, and among other 

relevant populations (for example, recreational users who live outside the study area). 

Potential impacts have multiple aspects relevant to decision-making; a well-crafted 

impact analysis should describe the aspects listed in Table D-3. 

Table D-3.—Dimensions of impact analysis relevant to decision-making

Aspect Describe 

Space ▪ Impacts across multiple geographic scales: individual, household, community, region, 

and where appropriate, national society. 

Time ▪ Impacts across multiples time scales: short-term versus long-term.

Social identity ▪ Who would be affected, and in what ways. If different groups or publics (for example, 

distinguished by income, ethnicity, gender, or occupation) will be unequally affected, 

describe and explain why. Where low income, minority, or Tribal populations would be

disproportionately affected, ensure that this is documented in the Environmental Justice 

assessment (see Section IV). 

Magnitude ▪ The magnitude and significance of projected impacts. 

Probability ▪ The likelihood of a projected impact occurring. 

Causation ▪ The direct, indirect, and cumulative projected impacts.

Acceptability ▪ The anticipated desirability or acceptability of projected impacts. 

5. Analysis of no-action alternative. For the Environmental Consequences section of the 

EIS, characterize impacts to existing economic conditions and trends from each of the 

alternatives under consideration, relative to the no action alternative. While the no action 

alternative assumes no new actions within the RMP’s scope of decisions, it should 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 10 

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

include other changes reasonably anticipated to affect the study area within the planning 

timeframe. 

6. Non-market value. The analysis of economic impacts for each plan alternative should 

consider not merely anticipated expenditures (market transactions), but where feasible, 

the anticipated consumer surplus generated by the proposed activity, as determined by 

estimates of willingness-to-pay (non-market values). To estimate non-market values for 

activities proposed under a plan alternative, it is often more practical to utilize benefit 

transfer methods than to undertake new research within the study area, by applying 

soundly derived non-market values established for comparable sites and activities. 

III. Public Involvement

A. Integrating Social Science Into Public Involvement 

Development of the social and economic analysis should take 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 integrate information from public involvement 

processes with technical data collection and analysis. Moreover, social and economic analysis 

can provide information about affected groups that can improve plans for public involvement. 

To the extent feasible, BLM's public involvement process should seek not only attitudes and 

values relevant to planning issues and alternatives, but also suggestions regarding sources of data 

and methods of analysis. Involving local publics in discussions of appropriate data and methods 

early in a planning process increases the likelihood that the resulting analysis of effects will be 

considered credible and useful. State and field offices are encouraged to engage potential and 

existing partners in the collection, preparation, and analysis of social and economic data leading 

to the formulation of alternatives, their anticipated impacts, and potential mitigation. 

Partners include other Federal agencies and state, Tribal, county, and municipal governments. 

Information-sharing with partners is crucial to the formulation of cumulative social and 

economic impacts from alternatives that span jurisdictional/regional boundaries. Consider 

cooperating agency status where appropriate and look for opportunities to combine analysis with 

partners' planning processes. Other participants, such as universities, communities, religious 

institutions, industry representatives, and non-governmental organizations may also share vital 

information not obtainable through standard data sources. 

B. Economic Strategies Workshop 

The public involvement effort on all new RMPs, RMP revisions, and RMP amendments 

accompanied by EISs must include at least one economic strategies workshop. Such workshops 

provide an opportunity for local government officials, community leaders, and other citizens to 

discuss regional economic conditions, trends, and strategies with BLM managers and staff. Such 

workshops must meet three objectives: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 11

1. Imparting skills on analyzing local and regional economic and social conditions and 

trends; 

2. assisting community members to identify desired economic and social conditions; and 

3. collaborating with BLM staff to identify opportunities to advance local economic and 

social goals through planning and policy decisions within the authority of BLM, its 

cooperating agencies, or other partners. 

Field Managers are welcome to select appropriate workshops from qualified vendors, or to work 

with State Office or Washington Office social science staff to design a workshop appropriate to 

their situations. The cost of such workshops should be included in the RMP planning budget and 

indicated in the pre-plan. For sources of further information on such workshops, see Section VI, 

Further Guidance. 

IV. Environmental Justice Requirements

Environmental Justice involves the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group 

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from

industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and 

Tribal programs and policies. 

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, requires that “. . . each Federal agency shall make 

achieving Environmental Justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

A. BLM’s Environmental Justice Principles

1. The BLM will determine if its proposed actions will adversely and disproportionally 

impact minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes (reference Executive 

Order No. 12898, Environmental Justice) and consider aggregate, cumulative, and 

synergistic effects, including results of actions taken by other parties. While 

Environmental Justice analysis is specifically concerned with disproportionate effects on 

the three populations, the social and economic analysis produced in accord with NEPA 

considers all potential social and economic effects, positive and negative, on any distinct 

group. 

2. The BLM will promote and provide opportunities for full involvement of minority 

populations, low-income communities, and Tribes in BLM decisions that affect their 

lives, livelihoods, and health. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 12 

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

3. The BLM will incorporate Environmental Justice considerations in land use planning 

alternatives to adequately respond to Environmental Justice issues and problems facing 

minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes living near public lands, 

working with, and/or using public land resources. 

4. Where disproportionately high adverse impacts are anticipated, the BLM will work

with local community groups/associations, governments, and Tribal leaders to determine 

if land disposition and/or acquisition policies affect real estate values and real income of 

minority and low income communities, and Tribes. 

5. The BLM State and Field Offices will continue to make Environmental Justice a 

mandatory critical element for consideration in all land use planning and NEPA 

documents. 

B. Incorporating Environmental Justice Efforts in the RMP/EIS Process

1. Consult with other Federal agencies, Tribal leaders, states and local governments, 

community groups/associations, churches, etc., to identify minority and low-income

communities, and reservations, including migrant and/or seasonal workers. Work with 

the above groups to determine any potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

posed by the proposed action. With the cooperation of the partners, affected minority 

populations, low-income communities, and Tribes, adopt and implement creative 

measures to eliminate, minimize, and/or correct identified Environmental Justice impacts. 

2. Through collaboration, identify potential planning areas where proposed action(s) 

could have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on the health of minority 

populations, low-income communities and Tribes or their surrounding environment, and 

document findings and recommended solutions. 

3. Share appropriate information about potential high and adverse impacts with minority 

populations, and/or low-income communities, and/or Tribes through workshops, informal 

meetings, or other forums and solicit feedback and recommendations. 

4. Publish NOIs and NOAs announcing scoping/issue identification meetings in the local 

media (newspaper, radio, or television) of identified minority and low-income

communities and Tribes informing them of such meetings. 

5. Develop mailing lists of identified minority populations, low-income communities, 

and Tribes. Become knowledgeable of the geographic areas of proposed actions and the 

people that live there (minority and low-income including those in transitory status). 

6. When appropriate, schedule scoping/issue identification meetings in minority and 

low-income communities or on Tribal reservations; and 

7. Consider the need to translate to other languages planning and NEPA documents 

mailed/circulated to identified minority populations, low-income communities, and 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 13

Tribes. Consider also the need to have an interpreter present at all scheduled meetings if

there are potential language problems. 

C. Documentation and Analysis

1. Pre-plans should identify known low-income, minority, and Tribal populations within 

the assessment area, and should indicate what measures will be taken to encourage their 

participation in the planning process. 

2. Data and analyses needed to ensure Environmental Justice compliance should be 

incorporated in work plans for social and economic impact analyses. 

3. Environmental Justice considerations should be documented by the RMP/EIS social 

and economic analyses in (a) the Analysis of the Management Situation, (b) the Affected 

Environment chapter, and (c) the Impact Analysis (Environmental Consequences) 

chapter. An explanation of how any Environmental Justice issues have been considered 

and, where possible, mitigated should be included 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 should be appropriate to the planning scale and the 

issues identified through the scoping process. 

There are numerous sources of data available at the national, state, and local levels from

government, university, and private sources. Utilize BLM sources as well as other governmental 

agencies that routinely collect and report economic and social data. Much of the government 

data is easily available online. Locally and regionally produced reports on social and economic 

conditions that are produced on a one-time basis (such as county or community planning 

documents and university extension studies) may also be useful. 

Use existing data to the extent possible: planning documents and environmental impact 

statements do not routinely require primary data collection. Nonetheless, collecting primary data 

may be necessary, particularly for social impact assessment, using techniques such as surveys, 

focus groups, or key informant interviews. Any plan to include primary data collection should 

be justified in terms of gaps in available data or special circumstances. 

B. Data Quality and Analytic Soundness

Social and economic analyses should be performed in a manner consistent with professionally 

recognized approaches, methods, and techniques. In addition, the Information Quality Act 

(Public Law 106-554, §515) requires Federal agencies to ensure that influential information, 

such as that used in the preparation of resource management plans, be characterized by 

reproducibility and transparency. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 14 

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

BLM recognizes that influential information should be subject to a high degree of transparency 

about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third 

parties, to an acceptable degree of precision. It is important that analytic results have a high 

degree of transparency regarding (1) the source of the data used, (2) the various assumptions 

employed, (3) the analytic methods applied, and (4) the statistical procedures employed. It is 

also important that the degree of rigor with which each of these factors is presented and

discussed be scaled as appropriate, and that all factors be presented and discussed. (See BLM’s 

“Information Quality Guidelines,” available at: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/data_quality/.) 

Data sources and methods of analysis must be clearly and briefly described in the text of the 

RMP/EIS and described in more detail in a technical supplement or RMP appendix. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements for New Data Collection 

RMP/EIS teams must ensure that any new (primary) data collection complies with the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13). 

If answers to identical questions are to be collected from 10 or more members of the public—for 

example, through a survey questionnaire—the Paperwork Reduction Act requires Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the study. Note that for purposes of the Act, 

“public” also applies to state, local, and Tribal government employees, though not to employees 

of the Federal government. OMB review is normally a lengthy process, which must be initiated 

through the BLM Washington Office. Unless the proposed data collection can be processed by 

expedited review under the terms of an existing generic OMB authorization (such as that for 

Customer Satisfaction Surveys), approval is likely to be time consuming. 

VI. Data Sources 

A. Use of the Economic Profile System 

Developed by the Sonoran Institute under an agreement with the BLM, the Economic Profile 

System (EPS) and its companion, EPSC (for Community), produce standardized economic and 

demographic profiles for a selected region, county, or community in any of the 50 states. EPS 

and EPSC simplify the socio-economic research required for land use planning by gathering and 

presenting, in a variety of useful formats, data from multiple Federal databases. These 

information tools were created to improve planning and more efficiently accomplish the timeconsuming task of gathering important social and economic data. EPSC uses the Decennial 

Census to provide in-depth community-level profiles. EPS draws upon a variety of governmental 

databases to produce thorough and multi-faceted profiles of economic and demographic changes 

over the past 30 years. 

Field offices are encouraged to use EPS and EPSC as tools for characterizing economic and 

social baseline conditions. EPS and EPSC profiles can be provided in an appendix to the AMS 

or RMP/EIS, while selected figures and tables can easily be incorporated in the main RMP/EIS 

text. Where a plan or NEPA analysis will be prepared by contractors, planning leads are 

encouraged to have contractors utilize EPS in plan preparation, and to seek commensurate cost 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 15

savings in contracted work. Note that EPS and EPSC are not impact models: they cannot be 

used to quantify the economic impacts of a proposed activity or planning alternative. 

For further information on EPS and EPSC, see Section VI, Further Guidance. 

B. References

The following references are provided as potential sources for social and economic information. 

Data and information from these and other sources must be used within the context of the laws 

governing BLM’s management of the public lands. 

The Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy. Fedstats Website: 

http://www.fedstats.gov/. This website provides access to a wide variety of data produced 

by over 70 Federal agencies for public use. It provides access to statistics for demographics, 

economics, natural resources, the environment, energy, health, education, and many 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 Service’s course 1900-03, 

Social Impact Analysis: Principles and Procedures, includes a helpful student manual. This 

source is available through Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC), USDA Forest 

Service, but is not available online. [Yates Bldg. 3CEN, 201 14th Street, SW, Washington 

DC 20250; 202-205-0895] 

The Human Dimensions website contains much useful information about human dimensions 

analysis and includes sites from which economic and demographic data can be downloaded. 

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nris/hd/ or 

http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/hd/software/hdmodule/index.shtml

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census data includes the economic 

characteristics of cities, towns, counties, and states, as well as a wide variety of social and 

demographic information such as population, age, and migration rates. The Census Bureau 

also presents information on county governments including financial characteristics 

[Website: 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 personal income and employment by industry, 

gross state product, and more [Website: http://www.bea.doc.gov/]. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. This Federal agency collects and reports 

data on the labor market, including labor trends, detailed information on employment by 

industry, and unemployment rates. It also reports price indices such as the consumer price 

index and the producer price index [Website: http://www.stats.bls.gov]. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. The BLM collects data on a wide variety of commercial 

uses of public lands. This data is useful for putting public land uses in the context of overall 

use in a planning area. Examples of the data collected include grazing use, mining, timber 

product sales, coal, oil and gas leases, recreation, rights of way, and payments-in-lieu-ofBLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix D, page 16 

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

taxes (PILT). To obtain this data, contact resource specialists for those uses or refer to 

BLM’s annual Public Land Statistics publication [Website: 

http://www.blm.gov/publications/]. 

The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment: 

Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and 

Project Appraisal 21(3), September 2003. This document provides a clear model, as well as 

principles and steps for social impact assessment. 

[http://www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/US%20principles%20fin

al%20IAPA%20version.pdf] 

Local sources of data. There are many local government agencies and organizations that collect 

data that can be useful in land use planning. Such sources of data include state and local 

employment departments, city and county governments (e.g., building departments, 

departments of motor vehicles, or county tax assessors), local and state Chambers of 

Commerce, local and state economic development commissions, etc. 

 

Resource-specific sources of data. There are many state and Federal agencies that collect and 

report data on specific industries, such as agriculture (farming and ranching), mining, 

forestry, and recreation. For agricultural data, the USDA Economic Research Service

(Website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ http://www.econ.ag.gov) and the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (Website: http://www.usda.gov/nass/) are two good sources of 

information. The Economic Research Service also conducts studies on rural conditions and 

trends. 

The following text citations are provided as examples 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 Press, Middleton, 2004. 

Goldman, L.R., ed. 2000. Social Impact Analysis: An Applied Anthropology Manual. Berg

Publishing, New York, NY. 

Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B. 2000. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A 

Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan. USDA-Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-72, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix D, page 17

C. Environmental Justice References 

Table D-4.—Web-based Environmental Justice sources

The CEQ has prepared detailed guidance

on complying with Environmental Justice 

objectives in the NEPA process: 

“Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 1997,” available at: 

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf 

The Interagency Working Group on

Environmental Justice, organized by EPA,

has useful guidance and other resources:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/interagency

/index.html. 

For assistance in identifying Tribal, 

minority, and low-income populations 

within a planning area:

“Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool,” available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ej/

The Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance has

information on Environmental Justice 

policy and projects: 

http://www.doi.gov/oepc/justice.html 

VII. Further Guidance 

For further information on the topics in Appendix D, contact your state office social science 

staff, or social science staff at the Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group, 

Washington Office (WO-210). Effective use of other agencies’ plans and reports, including, but 

not limited to local government, state agencies, and community development organizations is 

strongly encouraged. 

A website to provide social science guidance, tools, and information resources is under 

development. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05

 

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

Appendix E, page 1

Appendix E: Summary of Protest and Appeal Provisions 

The BLM must distinguish between land use plan and implementation decisions in all proposed 

RMP documents (new RMPs, revisions, or amendments) and related decisions (records of 

decision [ROD] and decision records [DR]), and clearly describe for the public the 

administrative remedies for each type of decision. The Dear Reader Letter or the Executive 

Summary could be used to communicate this information to the public. 

I. Land Use Plan Protests 

The protest procedures in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 provide the public an administrative review of the 

State Director’s proposed land use plan decisions. The BLM Director determines through this 

process whether the State Director followed established procedure, considered relevant 

information in reaching proposed decisions, and whether the proposed decisions are consistent 

with BLM policy, regulation, and statute. 

The Director has delegated signing of response letters to protests to the Assistant Director, 

Renewable Resources and Planning (AD-200). Acting in support of the Director, the Group 

Manager for Planning, Assessment, and Community Support (WO-210) is responsible for the 

oversight of the entire process once a protest is filed through final resolution. Each protest is 

considered in close coordination with the involved State Director and affected Washington 

Office groups, other Washington Office policy officials, and as appropriate, the Office of the 

Solicitor. The WO-210 Group Manager makes recommendations to the Assistant 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 Group Manager should send a letter 

acknowledging receipt of the protest to the originating party, indicating that a more detailed 

response will follow. Refer to Figure 5 for a summary of the protest process. 

A. Washington Office Initial Evaluation of Protests

When possible, all actions in this section will be completed within 5 business days of receipt of 

the protest letters: 

1. The Protest Coordinator will establish a case file for each protest received. Each protest 

will be consecutively serialized using the following coding: PP-SO-PN-FY-# 

a) “PP” means Plan Protest, 

b) “SO” means the responsible State Office, 

c) “PN” means a plan name identifier of up to several letters, 

d) “FY” means the last two digits of the fiscal year, 

e) “#” is a sequential number assigned as the filings are received. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 2 

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

 

Protest Process Flow Chart

WO-210 Protest Coordinator 

1) Establishes case file for each protest. 

2) Determines if protests are timely filed. 

3) Determines whether protests are “complete”. 

4) Sends copies of timely-filed and “complete” protests to responsible state and field office.

State Office and Field Office 1

1) Determine “standing” for each protest. 

2) Determine whether issues have been raised previously in the planning process.

3) Determine whether issues are germane to the planning process.

1

 These steps occur in coordination/interaction with WO-210.

WO-210 Liaison 

1) Reviews state office initial determination of issues. 

2) Works with state office/field office to finalize list of issues and comments. 

State Office Prepares and Provides WO-210 

1) Detailed issue analysis. 

2) Draft protest response (decision letters).

WO-210 State Liaison Conducts Final Review 

1) Drafts protest response letter(s) based on field/state office input and independent evaluation of 

the planning process (whether to uphold, remand plan, or uphold/remand in part).

2) Circulates draft letter(s) for Washington Office surnaming.

3) Works with protest coordinator to prepare final protest response letter(s).

Assistant Director (AD-200) 

1) Signs letter(s) dismissing all protests, or 

2) Remands protest(s) to State Director to correct flaws in proposed plan decisions and/or

underlying NEPA documentation. 2 

2

 ROD may be approved by the State Director covering just those parts of the plan that are upheld in the protest

review process; remanded decisions are reevaluated and/or subject to further NEPA analysis and subsequent

protest process and separate ROD. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05

Figure 5.—Protest process flow chart
 

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

Appendix E, page 3

2. The Protest Coordinator will check to ensure that each protest was filed within the 

protest period (see 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)). Plan protests are deemed timely if the 

postmark is not later than the last day of the protest period (see Receiving, Managing, and 

Responding to Electronic Mail and Faxed Protests at the end of this section). Normally, 

BLM does not need to actually receive a protest by the end of the protest period—the 

protest letter must only be postmarked by that date. In certain instances, the BLM may 

require that protests be received by the end of the protest period. This requirement may 

only occur if the public is widely and officially notified (at a minimum, 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 Monday. The protest period may not be extended 

for any reason. Due to security screening delays, some protests may arrive in 

Washington, D.C., 3 weeks after the protest period ends, or later. 

The following strict standards will determine timeliness: 

a) If the originator filed a protest after the protest period, the Washington Office 

will dismiss it and respond to the originator in writing. 

b) If the originator filed a protest timely, proceed to the next steps. 

c) The publication of the EPA’s Federal Register NOA starts the protest period 

for EIS-level plans and amendments. The initiation of the protest period for EAlevel plan amendments is the publication of the notice of the amendment’s 

effective date (generally, this notice would be included in the Dear Reader Letter 

for the amendment). 

3. The Protest Coordinator will examine each protest to see if it is complete (see 43 

CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2)(i)-(v)). The term “complete” means that the following five protest 

components are submitted in the protest filing: 

a) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing 

the protest; 

b) a statement of the issue or issues being protested; 

c) a statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested; 

d) a copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted 

during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the 

issue or issues were discussed for the record; and

e) a concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decision is believed to 

be wrong. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 4 

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

The BLM will not dismiss a protest solely because the protest omits some of the 

documentation required by item (3) above. If BLM is uncertain about standing (see B.1.a 

below) and the missing materials are necessary for BLM to make this determination, 

BLM shall request, in writing, the protesting party to provide the missing materials to the 

protest coordinator. Requested materials must be postmarked no later than 10 days after 

BLM’s request for these materials is received by the protesting party (return receipt 

verified). If following BLM’s request for missing materials, the protest does not meet the 

five protest components and if standing cannot be determined by this additional step, the 

protesting party will be denied standing. Case-by-case consideration will be given to 

appropriate actions for incomplete submissions. Minor omissions will not be used as a 

reason to dismiss a protest. 

The requirements for filing a protest in accordance with the regulations apply to each

protesting party. Merely attaching or referencing another protesting party’s protest is not 

sufficient to qualify as a valid protest. 

4. The Protest Coordinator will forward a copy of protest letters meeting the above five 

components to the responsible state and field office(s) for further evaluation and a 

detailed analysis. Protests that meet the requirements noted above will be forwarded to 

the affected state as soon as practicable rather than waiting until the end of the protest 

period. Washington Office liaisons should also ensure that copies of the protests are 

distributed to all affected Washington Office program staffs. 

B. State Office Evaluation and Determination 

1. The State Director and field office(s) will use the following criteria to determine the 

validity of the protest as documented on the “State Director’s Protest Analysis” form at 

the end of this section: 

a. Does the protesting party have standing? The protesting party must have an 

interest which is or may be adversely affected and must have participated in the 

planning process by: 

1. Sending written comments; 

2. making oral comments (at a hearing or meeting); 

3. attending a public meeting; 

4. calling the BLM field office; and/or 

5. discussing the project with BLM employees in the field. 

The administrative record should be checked for appropriate documentation of the 

protesting party’s participation in order for BLM to substantiate the protesting 

party’s standing. The responsible field office manager will review the planning 

records to make this determination. If the record does not support the protester’s 

allegations of participation, the field office shall attempt to verify the alleged 

participation with the protesting party, giving the protester the benefit of doubt if 

there is a dispute. If the determination is made that no participation has occurred, 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix E, page 5

no further review of the protest is required. The AD-200 will issue a written 

decision that dismisses the protest for lack of standing. Even though the protest is 

dismissed, the AD may address any comments that were raised. 

Individual members of an organization do not obtain standing solely because their 

organization has participated in the planning process. To file a protest as an 

individual, the individual has to meet the requirements for standing (they must 

have participated in the planning process). Conversely, an organization does not 

obtain standing solely because one of its members has standing (an officer or 

official representative of the organization must 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 must have been previously raised for the record in the planning process. 

The issue does not need to have been raised specifically by the protesting party. 

If some of the issues were previously raised, the State Director’s analysis will 

indicate which issues were raised previously and which are newly introduced. If 

the responsible state/field office determines that one or more issues have not been 

raised before, those issues will be treated as comments. 

c. Are the issues raised germane to the planning process? An issue is not 

germane to the planning process if it is beyond the scope of a particular planning 

effort, or if it involves a matter normally addressed in plan implementation. 

Issues that are not germane to the planning process will not be considered as 

protest issues but treated as comments. 

If the answers to the questions in a., b., and c. above are all yes, the State Director

should continue the analysis starting with Step 2 below. If the answers to one or 

more of the questions is no, the State Director should complete a draft response 

and forward the document to the appropriate WO-210 state liaison who will 

complete a response that dismisses the protest wholly or in part. 

2. A detailed analysis will be prepared for each issue or comment raised (see Section E, 

State Director’s Protest Analysis) in a protest letter. The following factors must be 

addressed in the State Director’s analysis: 

a) Facts considered; 

b) procedures followed; 

c) authorities cited; 

d) references from applicable documents; and 

e) applicable BLM policies. 

When citing published data from the planning record, the document, date of publication, 

and page number(s) must be part of the analysis used in the response to the protest issue. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 6 

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

When citing material from unpublished BLM records, sufficient information must be 

included to show that the material existed and was relevant during the planning process. 

3. The State Director will document the detailed analysis of each protest using the format 

in the State Director’s Protest Analysis. The preparation of preliminary draft responses 

will expedite the protest resolution process. Other pertinent information that would help 

resolve the protest should also be included. Completed packages will be sent to the 

Group Manager, WO-210, no later than 60 days after the protest is received in the state 

office. 

4. The State Director, in consultation with the Washington Office, may determine that

discussion and negotiation with protesting parties are appropriate if these discussions 

may lead to resolution of one or more issues. When these discussions result in resolution 

of protest issues, advise the protesting party to give the Director a written notice 

withdrawing the protest. The protesting party may decline to withdraw the protest, but 

may be willing to accept a clarification or minor change to the proposed plan that 

effectively resolves the contested issues. This type of change must not trigger a “notice 

of significant change” required by 43 CFR 1610.5-1(b). For large numbers of protests or 

complex protests, the Washington Office may send a team to work with the state office 

and field office in analyzing issues and preparing draft responses. 

C. Washington Office Final Review

1. WO-210 state liaisons, in coordination with the respective state/field office, will 

evaluate each protest for content. 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2)(v) requires that protests include 

a “concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decision is believed to be 

wrong.” Statements that merely reflect disagreement, express opinions, or make 

demands or allegations without the support of this concise statement will be addressed as 

comments and will not cause a change in the plan being protested. 

2. The Group Manager, WO-210, will prepare a draft response and decision on each 

protest. Decisions should have standard organization and phraseology. The decision 

will: 

a) Incorporate the results of the Washington Office and State Office evaluations; 

b) incorporate the State Office and WO-210 analyses of the protest points; and 

c) provide a clear statement of the action taken on the protest (dismissed, denied, 

returned to the State Director for further consideration, or upheld in total or in 

part). 

The bases for upholding protests include: 

a) Approval of the proposed plan or amendment would be contrary to the 

Director’s policy guidance; 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix E, page 7

b) significant aspects of the proposed plan or amendment are based upon invalid 

or incomplete information; or 

c) the proposed plan or amendment does not comply with applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, and planning procedures. 

Protests upheld on any of the three bases above will be returned, in whole 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 management decisions. 

3. As the protest responses are drafted, WO-210 will coordinate with other Washington 

Office program staffs. Program offices are consulted when a protest involves one or 

more of the following: 

a) Precedent-setting departures from the existing resource management practices; 

b) failure to comply with national policy guidance and legal requirements; 

c) a major change in the use of resources in the area covered by the plan; and/or 

d) subject areas or matters where special expertise is required. 

4. The WO-210 state liaison will forward the draft proposed response(s) for surnaming 

to the appropriate Assistant Directors. The following strategy will be used for expediting 

the surnaming process:

a) Use of staff from appropriate groups and directorates to prepare draft protest 

responses. 

b) WO-210 will provide “heads up” to AD-200 when draft protest responses are 

ready for surnaming. 

c) AD-200 will provide “heads up” at staff meetings to alert Group Managers of 

the availability of draft protest responses. 

d) WO-210 will provide briefings for Group Managers as needed (including 

Group Managers from other Directorates as needed) 2 to 3 days prior to obtaining 

necessary surnames. Requested changes should be substantive rather than 

editorial. 

e) WO-210 will conduct “working briefings” with the AD-200, Deputy Director, 

Chief of Staff, etc. (including Departmental staff as necessary), early in the 

process as possible and prior to approval of protest responses. 

5. A formal surnaming package should be prepared for each protest response. The 

format and content of the folder should include the following: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 8 

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

a) Cover sheet prepared for surnaming by the following individuals: 

1) Protest Coordinator 

2) Author (generally the WO-210 state liaison) 

3) Deputy Group Manager (DGM) 

4) Group Manager (at the discretion of the DGM or author) 

5) Washington Office Group Managers who have an interest in the EIS, 

plan, or issues raised in a protest 

6) Deputy Assistant 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 two pages) in the following format: 

1) Background concerning the plan (or plan amendment) and the NEPA 

document (EA, EIS)—including what kinds of documents were prepared, 

when were they completed, etc.; 

2) date the protest period closed; 

3) requirements statement as to whether all of the NEPA, FLPMA, 

regulatory, and policy requirements were followed by the BLM State/Field 

Office; 

4) position of constituents or other sensitivities—factual, political, 

litigation, etc; 

5) summary of the major issues in the protest and responses to issues; 

6) recommended decision or if you are recommending remand (return) in 

whole or part, why and what are the circumstances; 

7) state/field office collaboration, who you worked with in the state/field 

office and whether they reviewed the draft letter; and 

8) Washington Office coordination, who you worked with in the 

Washington Office (make sure they are on the surnaming sheet). 

Note: for large numbers of protests, the above information may be arranged in a 

tabular format rather than preparing individual summary briefs for each protest. 

d) Response letter. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix E, page 9

These are typical responses to protests where the State Director’s proposed 

decision is being upheld. Protests where the State Director’s proposed decision is 

being returned in whole or in part, or the boilerplate paragraphs below do not fit 

the protest, will require a different response. 

1) Standard Paragraphs 

Each letter of response should contain the following paragraphs: 

Paragraph 1: “The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has carefully 

reviewed and considered your letter dated [insert date], regarding the 

[insert name of plan]. As the Assistant Director for Renewable Resources 

and Planning, I am responsible to the BLM Director for reviewing and 

resolving all protests of BLM land use plans. The purpose of this letter is 

to inform you of the results of my review.” 

Paragraph 2: For protests that are determined to be invalid because the 

protesting party does not have standing: 

"As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because you have

not participated in the planning process or you do not have an interest that 

is or may be adversely affected. Therefore, I am dismissing the protest.” 

(Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, you provided a 

comment(s), which is (are) addressed below.) 

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed 

after the protest period: 

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements 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 protest period for any reason. Therefore, 

I am dismissing the protest.” (Optional: Even though your protest is 

being dismissed, you provided a comment(s), which is (are) addressed 

below.) 

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed 

electronically or by fax and not followed with an original letter:

"As outlined in the Dear Reader letter for the proposed plan, the planning 

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because your letter 

was filed electronically (or by fax) and you did not provide the original 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 10 

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

letter by the close of the protest period. Therefore, I am dismissing the 

protest." (Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, you 

provided a comment(s), which is (are) addressed below.) 

For all protests that contain only issues: 

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you meet these requirements. Your protest issue(s) is 

(are) addressed below.” 

For protests that contain both issues and comments: 

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you meet these requirements, in part, and therefore 

portions of your protest letter are considered a valid protest. I have 

determined that your letter also contained a comment(s) which is (are) not 

considered a valid protest issue(s) because . . . ” (Explain why: “the 

comment(s) represent opinions or observations not substantiated with a 

concise statement of why the State Director’s proposed decision is 

believed to be wrong, contains issues not previously raised in the planning 

process, or the issues you raised are not germane to the planning process”, 

etc.). “The issue(s) and comment(s) are addressed below.” 

For protests that contain only comments: 

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because . . .” (see 

above). “Therefore, your protest is not valid and is hereby dismissed.” 

(Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, your letter 

contained a comment(s). That (those) comment(s) is (are) addressed 

below.) 

2) Issues Identified by the Protesting Party 

In the response letters, issues should be addressed within separate 

paragraphs for the issue and response, in the same order as in the 

submitted protest letter. Issues should be quoted wherever possible. 

Where issues cannot reasonably be quoted (e.g., they are long, rambling or 

contain material not pertinent to the issues), they should be clearly 

summarized. It is sufficient to have some issues summarized and others 

quoted. The statement of the issue must capture all pertinent points 

addressed in the response. If comments are addressed (optional), they 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix E, page 11

should be addressed at the end of the response letter. Use the following 

format for addressing issues and comments: 

Issue/Comment #: 

Response: 

Protest response letters should clearly document whether BLM followed 

the correct procedures in arriving at the proposed decision(s). Authors 

should identify any regulatory basis for responding to a protesting party’s 

assertion. Do not argue or be defensive in the response. BLM’s response 

to each issue should cite page numbers, where possible, in the NEPA 

document that specifically relate to the issue or comment and not rely 

solely on what was said in meetings or derived from notes, files, or phone 

calls. Focus on what was in writing or in the formal planning process. 

3) Comments 

If comments are addressed (optional) they are addressed in the same

manner as protest issues. The response letter must clearly identify why 

comments are not treated as protest issues, either in the opening 

paragraphs of the letter or the response to the comment. If comments that 

are part of a valid protest are not addressed, they should be responded to 

separately by the state or field office. 

Letters addressed to the protest coordinator stating “this is not a letter of

protest” should be forwarded to the respective state office. A letter should

be sent to the sender from WO-210, informing the sender that BLM has 

forwarded the letter to the respective 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 decision is being returned, in whole or 

in part, will require a different response):

“After careful review of your protest letter, I conclude that the BLM 

[insert state] State Director and the [insert field office] field office 

manager followed the applicable planning procedures, laws, regulations, 

and policies and considered all relevant resource information and public 

input in developing the [insert name of plan] proposed 

RMP/amendment/final EIS. There is no basis for changing the Proposed 

RMP/amendment as a result of your protest.” 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 12 

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

“This decision is the final decision of the Department of the Interior on 

your protest letter (43 CFR 1610.5-2(b)). The Interior Board of Land 

Appeals (IBLA) 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 implement some

portion of an RMP may appeal such action to the IBLA at the time the 

action is implemented.” 

“Thank you for your participation (if the protest is being dismissed for 

lack of standing, substitute “interest” for “participation”) in the 

development of the [insert name of plan] proposed RMP/amendment/final 

EIS, and for your interest in the public lands. Land use plans are designed 

to balance the public demands for various land uses while ensuring 

appropriate levels of resource protection. While there may be times when 

BLM cannot meet the needs of all those interested in the public lands, 

BLM strives to address all public input in a conscientious manner. I 

encourage you to remain actively (for protests being dismissed for lack of 

standing, substitute “become” for “remain actively”) involved in BLM’s 

resource management activities and to provide information and input 

during the implementation of the plan. If you have any questions, or wish 

to further discuss any issues regarding the plan, please call [insert name], 

field office manager, [insert phone number].” 

When the revised draft response is surnamed, the WO-210 state liaison and the Protest 

Coordinator will finalize each protest response and prepare a letter for signature by the 

Assistant Director (AD), WO-200. 

Once the AD has signed the protest response, the Protest Coordinator will send it to the 

protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy will also be sent to the 

appropriate State Director and Field Manager(s). The State Director may sign the land 

use plan decision document only after all protest response letters have been signed and 

mailed, and any other requirements for approval have been met. 

Portions of the proposed plan not under protest or remanded for reconsideration may be 

approved and implemented. In such cases, the state office should consult with the 

Washington Office for further direction. 

If the proposed decision and its supporting analysis are returned in whole or in part to the 

State Director, WO-210 will negotiate the necessary follow-up with the affected state and 

field office. 

D. Receiving, Managing, and Responding to Electronic Mail and Faxed Protests

All protest letters sent to BLM via facsimile (fax) or electronic mail (e-mail) will be considered 

invalid protests unless a properly filed protest is also submitted. BLM will refer to such

correspondence as “comments” and respond accordingly. If the protesting party also provides 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix E, page 13

the original signed copy of the protest postmarked by the close of the protest period, then the fax 

and/or e-mail correspondence will be considered an advance copy of the protest. Advance 

copies of protests provide BLM an indication of the number of protests that will come in after 

the close of the protest period. 

The planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2) require that all protests must be in writing. 

“Electronic signatures” for certain types of correspondence are now recognized where systems 

have been established and mechanisms are in place to enable the affected parties to verify the 

authenticity of the electronic signature. Such systems and mechanisms are not in place for BLM 

protest procedures. Consequently, BLM requires protests be sent to the protest coordinator via 

regular mail or other delivery service. 

New standard language regarding e-mail and fax protests to include in the Agency’s Federal 

Register NOA and in the Dear Reader Letter is provided below: 

“E-mail and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also 

provides the original letter by either regular mail or other delivery service postmarked by the 

close of the protest period. Under these conditions, BLM will consider the e-mail or faxed 

protest as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide BLM 

with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of the BLM protest 

coordinator at [insert phone number], and e-mails to [insert e-mail address].” 

E. State Director’s Protest Analysis

When citing published data from the planning record, the state/field office must provide the 

document, date of publication, and page number(s). 

State Office Analysis For Protest Number: 

1) Plan Name: 

2) Closing Date for Protest: 

3) Name of Individual or Organization: 

4) State Office Evaluation Results: 

a. After review of all planning records, the protesting party has standing through 

participation in some phase of the planning process (check one)? 

Yes [ ] No [ ] (The protesting party must also show an interest that is or may be 

adversely affected.) 

b. Have the issues raised in the protest been raised before by the protesting party 

or another party in some phase of the planning process (check one)? 

Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indicate from the identified list of issues those not raised during 

the planning process with an X.) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix E, page 14 

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

c. Are the issues raised in the protest germane to the planning effort (check one)? 

Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indicate with an X from the list of identified issues those that are 

not germane and why.) 

5. List of Issues Raised:

6. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Issues: 

7. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Comments: 

8. State Office Recommendations or Opportunities for Resolution: 

II. Governor’s Consistency Review Appeal Process 

The planning regulations in 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) allow a state Governor an opportunity to appeal 

to the BLM Director if the BLM State Director does not accept the Governor’s recommendations 

on plan consistency. 

Prior to approval of a proposed plan, revision, or amendment, the BLM State Director will 

submit the proposed plan, revision, or amendment to the Governor(s) of the state(s) involved and 

identify any known inconsistencies with approved state or local plans, policies, or programs. 

The Governor has 60 days to identify inconsistencies and to provide written recommendations to 

the BLM State Director. If the BLM State Director does not accept a Governor’s 

recommendations, the BLM State Director must notify the Governor in writing; the Governor 

then has 30 days from receipt of the State Director’s letter in which to submit a written appeal to 

the BLM Director. 

The BLM Director will accept the Governor’s recommendations if the Director determines that 

the recommendations provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the 

state’s interest. The Director must communicate to the Governor in writing and publish in the 

Federal Register the reasons for accepting or rejecting the Governor’s recommendations. 

III. Administrative Remedies of Implementation Decisions 

Implementation decisions are subject to the administrative remedies set forth in the regulations 

that apply to each resource management program of the BLM. These administrative remedies 

for final implementation decisions usually take the form of appeals to the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals, though for certain proposed or non-final implementation decisions, including those 

affecting timber sales, oil and gas lease sales, land exchanges, and proposed grazing decisions, 

the regulations provide for an internal agency review (usually a protest to the authorized officer) 

which must be completed before the final implementation decision can be appealed to the Office 

of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). This type of protest to the authorized officer should not be 

confused with the protest of land use plan decisions to the BLM Director (there is no OHA 

review of land use planning decisions). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 1

Appendix F: Standard Formats for Land Use Plan Documents 

Appendix F-1: Recommended Format for Preparation Plans 

Preparation plans should contain the following information and discrete sections. 

A. Introduction and Background

B. Anticipated Planning Issues and Management Concerns

Issues are identified by BLM staff and managers based on their knowledge of the planning area 

and its users. Planning issues may be based on: 

1) Contacts or correspondence with users, adjoining districts or field offices, and 

interested public (including other agencies). 

2) Ongoing consultation, advisory council meetings, interagency and intergovernmental 

coordination, and informal sessions with users and interested public. Preplanning does 

not involve public notices or public participation activities since they are specifically 

provided for in the RMP and NEPA processes and key preplanning results are publicly 

reviewed during scoping. 

3) Staff and management knowledge of resource uses, users, conditions, needs, and 

trends. 

Management concerns are generally of a program-specific nature, and while they may not be 

externally generated or controversial, deserve the appropriate level of consideration in the 

planning process. 

C. Preliminary Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the development of the 

plan. They ensure that plans are tailored to the identified issues and ensure that unnecessary data 

collection and analyses are avoided. They focus on the decisions to be made in the plan and 

achieve the following: 

1) Provide an early, tentative basis for inventory and data collection needs. 

2) Enable the manager and staff to develop a preliminary planning base map delineating 

geographic analysis units. 

3) Stimulate the development of planning criteria during public participation. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix 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 compiled by other Federal 

agencies; state, local, and Tribal governments; and private organizations, if applicable, to address 

assessment questions. Data compiled by other agencies which are used in BLM land use plans 

should be consistent across administrative boundaries and landscapes, where available. 

Regardless of its source, sufficient metadata (data about data) should be provided to clearly 

determine the quality of the data, along with any limitations associated with its use. To define 

the information required to support each individual planning effort, each preparation plan should:

1) Create a list of currently available data (list by theme, data elements, and explain how 

that data will support the plan in dealing with anticipated issues and planning 

requirements). 

2) Identify the anticipated data gaps in available data required to deal with the 

anticipated issues, as well as the planning and analysis requirements. 

3) Create a realistic data inventory and collection strategy (including work months, 

personnel involved, costs and timeframes involved) for acquiring critically needed data 

and information. 

See Appendix G for more information on managing data and information throughout the 

planning process. 

E. Participants in the Process 

1) Describe and list roles, responsibilities, and authorities. 

2) Provide team lists (including management team, core team, interdisciplinary, and 

support teams). 

F. Process for the Plan

1) General steps and format. 

2) Alternative formulation: Identify preliminary plan alternative themes that focus on 

resolving anticipated issues and reflect the preliminary planning criteria. 

3) Internal review of the plan. 

4) Form of input from the interdisciplinary team and reviewers. 

G. Plan Preparation Schedule

The schedule provides estimated timeframes for the completion of the required plan components. 

It identifies: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 3

1) All planning actions (43 CFR 1610.4) and support actions expected to be done either 

consecutively or concurrently. 

2) Target completion dates for each action. 

3) Time periods needed for preparation and award of contracts, if any, and preparation 

costs required for use in the budget process. 

H. Public Participation Plan

The public participation plan is to be prepared as a part of the preparation plan. Every effort 

should be made to assure meaningful public involvement throughout the planning process. This 

includes: 

1) Goals and objectives of public participation. 

2) A description of the public known to be interested or affected and any contributions 

they may make or information they may need during the planning process and the 

involvement techniques most appropriate (including involvement of cooperating 

agencies). 

3) Target dates and other pertinent details for public participation activities, notices, and 

availability of printed information. 

4) Provisions for updating the plan, as necessary, during plan preparation.

5) A description of how the results of public participation activities will be summarized, 

analyzed, documented, and used by the line manager in making decisions in the plan. 

6) Internet technology that will be used to provide information to the public and/or 

solicit comments. 

I. Budget

The budget includes all costs associated with development of the plan including, data needs 

collection, contracting costs, BLM staff work months, Federal Register notices, vehicle, travel, 

and support costs. It should address the level of program sources funding provided by the field 

or state office, as well as increased funding needs. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 4 

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

Appendix F-2: Recommended Format for Scoping Reports 

The following is a suggested format for field offices to prepare scoping reports to achieve a 

common and consistent approach that meets minimum requirements. It is recognized that some

situations (for example scoping reports dealing with an unusually large number of comments) 

may require additional content and detail. Documents 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 manager. 

B. Introduction

a) Overview/purpose and need for the plan (tie to planning evaluation) 

b) Brief description of the planning area (including a map) 

c) Brief description of the scoping process (NOI history, meetings, contacts, etc.) 

d) Cooperating agencies/invitees 

e) Collaboration and consultation with Tribes 

C. Issue Summary

a) Summary of public comments 

b) Issues identified during scoping 

c) Anticipated decisions to be made 

d) Issues raised that will not be addressed (including rationale) 

e) Valid existing management to be carried forward 

f) Special designations, including nominations 

D. Draft Planning Criteria

Include if not previously published in initial notice; otherwise incorporate by reference. 

E. Data Summary/Data Gaps

Include if not previously published in initial notice; otherwise incorporate by reference. 

a) Refer to more detailed lists in preparation plan or elsewhere (state that these are 

available upon request) 

b) Identify any relevant data provided or identified as available during scoping 

c) List data gaps identified during scoping 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 5

F. Summary of Future Steps in the Planning Process

Identify planning process timelines and opportunities for public participation (including 

webpage address and key contact address and information, etc.) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 6 

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

Appendix F-3: Annotated Outline of the Analysis of the Management Situation 

The analysis of the management situation (AMS) should describe the current conditions and 

trends of the resources and the uses/activities in the planning area in sufficient detail to create a 

framework from which to resolve the planning issues through the development of alternatives. 

This analysis should be short, concise, and focused on the issues relevant to resource 

management in the area. It should not be an exhaustive review of everything known about the 

area. 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

A. Purpose of Analysis of the Management Situation

Describe the role of the AMS in the planning process. 

B. General Description of Planning Area, Geographic Scope, and Resources/Programs

C. Key Findings

Summary of the most important conclusions drawn from the AMS. 

CHAPTER 2. AREA PROFILE 

This chapter describes the existing condition of the resources, resource uses, and other features 

of the planning area (i.e., area profile). It should provide a context for resources and uses by 

incorporating information compiled at multiple levels to describe the large-scale ecoregions 

associated with the planning area. The information will become the basis for the Affected 

Environment chapter of the RMP/EIS. Table F-1 shows the components of the area profile (not 

necessarily all-inclusive). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 7

Table F-1.—Area profile

Resources Resource uses Special designations Social and economic 

 Air quality 

 Geology

 Soil resources 

 Water resources (surface and 

groundwater)

 Vegetative communities 1

 Fish and wildlife 

 Special status species 

 Wild horse and burros

 Wildland fire ecology and

management

 Cultural resources 

 Paleontological resources 

 Visual resources 

 Wilderness characteristics 

 Cave and karst resources 

 Facilities 

 Forestry and woodland

products

 Livestock grazing 

 Minerals (leasable, 

locatable, salable) 

 Recreation 

 Renewable energy

 Transportation and 

access 

 Utility corridors and

communication sites 

 Land tenure

 Land use 

authorizations

 Withdrawals

 Areas of critical 

environmental concern 

 Back country byways 

 National recreation

areas 

 National trails 

 Wild and scenic rivers

 Wilderness 

 Wilderness study areas 

 Tribal interests 

 Public safety 

(abandoned mines, 

debris flows, and 

hazardous materials) 

 Social and economic 

conditions 

1

 Vegetative communities can be identified at a variety of scales and include forests, woodlands, rangelands, riparian areas, and wetlands. 

A. Resources

The Resources section should have both an introduction common to all resources and a section 

specific to each resource. The information presented 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 those resources. It should also help the team highlight potential 

management opportunities in Chapter 4 of the AMS by addressing the regional importance and 

function of resources within the planning area. 

1. Regional Context: 

Different agencies and organizations have compiled geospatial datasets for large-scale 

ecoregions such as the Wyoming Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Ecoregions of this scale range 

in size from 3.5 million acres to 88 million acres (averaging 23 million acres). Most planning 

areas will fall into one or two ecoregions, depending on the scale at which they were developed. 

Planning boundaries may overlap ecoregional boundaries, so it is important for planning areas to 

coordinate in collecting and sharing information. 

These large-scale geospatial datasets provide broad-level biological information that 

complements local planning efforts by identifying dominant patterns on the landscape and threats 

to resources. Other existing fine and midscale data (e.g., state and Heritage programs, BLM-led 

assessments such as Land Health Assessments, Recovery Plans, and Conservation Strategies) 

used in combination with broad scale information can provide a complete picture of current 

conditions and key features of the resources (definitions for broad, mid, and fine scale data are 

provided in the Glossary). For example, BLM-led Land Health Assessments contain information 

on upland, riparian, and stream channel condition that can be used to refine ecoregion conditions 

from larger datasets. Use multiscale information to complete Table F-2. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 8 

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

Table F-2.—Ecoregion/Planning Area Information

Information about the ecoregion 

Information about the planning area as it relates to the 

ecoregion 

Size and general geographic location.  Orientation of the planning area within the ecoregion. 

 Percent of the ecoregion that (1) all lands in the planning area 

cover and (2) BLM lands in the planning area cover.

Overall ecoregion condition (past versus

present) and major issues affecting 

function and resource trends (i.e., fire 

suppression, habitat fragmentation, and

invasive species). 

 The overall condition of the BLM lands relative to the 

condition of the ecoregion. 

 Information relative to how current land use allocations and

management BLM lands might be contributing to or helping to

alleviate the major ecological issues of the ecoregion.

Features of the ecoregion that are 

unique or are particularly important to

ecological condition (e.g., large blocks 

of grasslands or sagebrush). 

 The extent to which the planning area or portions within it 

may be ecologically important to maintaining ecosystem

function. 1

1

 This information may not be available depending on the source of ecoregion information used.

2. Resource-specific information

The AMS should include resource-specific information organized by the following five factors: 

a. Indicators. Identify factors that describe resource condition such as ambient pollutant 

level, visibility, and fire regime condition class. Indicators should be quantitative 

whenever possible. There are many 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 determined by comparing the value of 

indicator(s) to an established standard (current plan goal or objective) and/or benchmark. 

Relate the condition assessment to Land Health Standards as appropriate. The scale of

the analysis may extend beyond the immediate planning area boundary and encompass a 

logical landscape (the analysis area). For instance, the analysis can occur at different 

levels such as by watershed, geographic area, or region. 

c. Trends. Describe the degree and direction of change between the present and some

point in the past. Explain whether 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 some resources, a desired condition has not been established or there will 

not be enough information to describe trends. When describing trends, note whether the 

trend is based on quantitative or qualitative information. For example, the trend for 

ambient pollutant levels most likely can be described from a quantitative standpoint; that 

is, based on changes in levels of criteria pollutants over time as recorded in published 

data. For other resources where data are not available, a qualitative approach would be 

used. 

d. Forecast. Predict changes in the condition of resources given current management. 

Describe the drivers or agents of the anticipated change. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 9

e. Key features. Describe the geographic location, distribution, areas or types of resource 

features that should guide land use allocation or management decisions. For example, 

certain areas may be particularly important to special status species habitat, or some soil 

types may be better able to support certain land uses than others. 

B. Resource Uses

For each resource use, describe the following: 

1) Current level (including potential) and locations of use (map each use). 

2) Forecast, or the anticipated demand for use (levels and locations)—the reasonable 

foreseeable development. 

3) Key features, or the areas of high potential for the use (these areas do not necessarily 

have to be currently managed for the use). 

C. Special Designations

Identify the location of existing special designations such as ACECs, wilderness areas, 

wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other applicable designations. Also identify 

areas meeting the relevance and importance criteria to be considered as potential ACECs or 

potentially eligible river segments, etc. 

D. Social and Economic Features

Listed below are the topics to describe for each of the social and economic features. 

• Tribal interests—Identify the Tribes with interests in the planning area. Describe 

features not otherwise described in the cultural resources section, such as treaty-based 

subsistence uses, traditional use areas, and rights of access. 

• Public safety (abandoned mines, debris flows, and hazardous materials)—Identify 

areas where public safety is an issue. 

• Social and economic conditions—See Appendix D. 

CHAPTER 3. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

This chapter describes current management direction based on existing land use plans and 

amendments by program (and later becomes the basis for the no action alternative). Provide a list 

of management decisions and their sources for each resource or resource use. Identify 

management decisions from all applicable BLM plans (RMPs, MFPs, and amendments for 

planning-level decisions). Note that some resources will not have any management decisions 

established. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 10 

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

A. Relevant Plans and Amendments

The list of management decisions should be drawn from all applicable BLM plans (RMPs and 

amendments). List all plans and amendments that influence current management. This list can 

be displayed in a table such as the one below: 

Table F-3.—Sample format for list of relevant plans and amendments

Document title Year Other relevant information

Admininstrative 

record document 

number

B. Management Decisions 

Describe all management decisions that will become the no action alternative in the draft RMP. 

Table F-4 is a recommended format. 

Table F-4.—Current management for resources, resource uses, and social and economic features

Current management 

decision 

Planning decision 

number Decision source Status 

Insert decision title 

and/or description.

Insert decision number or

other identifier if known. 

Insert source document 

for the decision, such as: 

Lower Gila South RMP 

Insert the status of the

decision: whether it was 

completed and when, 

progress if not completed,

etc. 

To the extent possible, document decisions by logical management units or zones. Special 

management areas (special designations) would be included in this manner. Types of special 

management areas include ACECs, back country byways, national recreation areas, national 

trails, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, and wilderness study areas. 

CHAPTER 4. MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

Identifying management opportunities is a process of considering changes in management to 

respond to (a) information gathered in the area profile (Chapter 2) and (b) issues and concerns 

elevated through scoping. It serves as a starting point for alternative formulation by providing a 

list of possible management opportunities for later sorting and refining into a framework of 

compatible alternatives. Consult Appendix C as a guide to the program-specific land use plan 

decisions that should be made as part of the planning process when identifying management 

opportunities. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 11

A. Analyze the Ability of Current Management Direction to Achieve Desired Conditions 

and Address Resource Demands

Based on the current condition and trends of the resources and the current and trends of demands 

on those resources, analyze the ability of current management direction to achieve desired 

conditions and address resources and demands for use of the resources. Discuss field office(s) 

capability in terms of staff, annual budget, summary of workload ranked by subactivity and/or 

program elements. 

While discussing the management adequacy of each decision, also discuss options for changing 

the management if the decision does not adequately respond to current issues, changes in 

circumstances, new information, etc. 

Fill out Table F-5 for each resource, resource use, special management area and social and 

economic feature. Notice that the table is similar to Table G-4 in Chapter 3(B), which describes 

the management decisions. 

Table F-5.—Adequacy of current management direction and options for change

Planning decision 

Is decision 

responsive 

to current 

issues? Remarks (rationale) Options for change 

Insert decision title and/or

description.

(Y/N) Describe why the decision is/is not 

adequate.

Insert options for

changing management. 

As appropriate, include 

decisions from other 

jurisdictions that 

warrant consideration.

B. Identify Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide Land Uses and Management 

Identifying areas of relative ecological importance enables planners to understand tradeoffs when

establishing land use allocations and management requirements. Regional knowledge, gained 

through broad scale assessments, can highlight the importance of an area in the context of the 

larger ecoregion. This information is fundamental to developing a range of alternatives and 

analyzing the effects of the alternatives in the RMP/EIS, and to managing for “the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands.” 

Understanding relative ecological importance should guide land use allocations and management 

approaches, rather than preclude uses. For example, this information should feed into alternative 

development by helping to identify opportunities for maintenance and/or restoration of habitats. 

Note that relative ecological importance may change over time with new information and 

changes in land uses and condition. 

When assembling information on relative ecological importance, focus on dominant patterns 

across the ecoregion, and on habitat extent, habitat condition, species connectivity requirements 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 12 

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

and overall plant and animal species diversity within the planning area. There are many ways to 

assemble this information. One way is to create maps using information 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 using a geographic information system (GIS) or 

transparencies. 

CHAPTER 5. CONSISTENCY/COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS 

Identify plans in areas surrounding the planning area and discuss the implications for the 

planning area from these plans. Identify resources that are in common, dependent, or 

interdependent. 

1) County/city plans 

2) State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies and State lands plans 

3) Other Federal agency plans (including fire planning units) 

Identify significant opportunities for enhancing coordination or gaining expertise through 

cooperating agency relationships. 

CHAPTER 6. SPECIFIC MANDATES AND AUTHORITY

All resource specialists should provide a description of laws, regulations, and policy applicable 

to their resources. Information on Federal, state, local, as well as BLM policy should be 

included. 

CHAPTER 7. SCOPING REPORT OR SUMMARY OF SCOPING REPORT

CHAPTER 8. LIST OF PREPARERS

Provide the following information for each person working on the project: name, responsibility, 

qualifications, and participation. 

CHAPTER 9. GLOSSARY 

CHAPTER 10. REFERENCES 

Provide references for each resource section according to the format noted in the project work 

plan. All references should be included and complete reference information should be submitted 

with each resource section. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 13

Figure F-1.—One potential method for identifying areas of relative ecological importance 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 14 

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

Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline for a Draft and Final RMP (Amendment)/EIS 

The following outline applies to draft and full text final EISs. If minor changes consisting of

technical, editorial, or nonsubstantive factual corrections are made in the draft EIS in response to 

comments, then an abbreviated final EIS may be prepared. An abbreviated final EIS only 

contains substantive comments received on the draft, responses to those comments, and an errata 

section with specific modifications and corrections to the draft EIS in response to comments (see 

40 CFR 1503.4). 

Contractor logos should not be placed anywhere in the documents (although it is recommended 

that the role of the contractor be acknowledged in the list of preparers in Chapter 5). 

1. Abstract (Inside front cover)

2. Cover sheet or title page 

3. Dear Reader Letter (include privacy statement)

4. Protest procedures (final EIS)

5. Table of contents

6. Summary (approximately 15 pages)

(Optional Reader’s Guide to help explain 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 Addressed

a. Issues used to develop alternatives

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 administrative or policy action

D. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints

E. Planning Process

 1

 Italics here show optional categories for issues. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 15

1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

2. Collaboration

a. Intergovernmental, inter-agency, and Tribal relationships 

b. Other stakeholder relationships 

F. Related Plans: Discuss consideration of state, local, 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 existed prior to the plan being written 

that are outside the scope of the plan but may influence the decisions, constrain the 

alternatives, or are needed to understand management of the area. Examples include: 

proclamations, legislative designations, and court settlements. 

H. Overall Vision: 3

 Identify the overall vision for management of the planning area. 

This vision should reflect the goals that are common to all alternatives. This can serve to 

help integrate programs. 

8. Chapter 2. Alternatives 4

A. General Description of each Alternative: Highlight the characteristics that 

distinguish each alternative. Rather than naming alternatives, number or letter each 

alternative and briefly describe the theme of each alternative. 

B. Management Common to All Alternatives: Primarily goals for resource conditions 

and resource uses. 

C. No-Action Alternative: Description of existing management direction including 

current decisions from relevant plans and reasonable, foreseeable, management 

scenarios. 

D. Action Alternatives: 5 Detailed description of each of the alternatives, by alternative, 

needed to display a reasonable range of options to meet the stated Purpose and Need and 

address issues. Each alternative description should address the issues or programmatic 

areas. The decisions in the alternatives should follow the format for land use plan 

“Management Decisions” provided in Appendix F-5. 

 2

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 202(c)(9). 3

 Optional. 4

 There has been some discussion of reversing the order of the Alternatives and Affected Environment

chapters of the EIS. However, the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance in the Department of

the Interior has issued guidance stating that we must follow the recommended format in the CEQ

regulations (40 CFR 1502.10) or obtain approval from OEPC to deviate from it. 5

 At the draft stage in the preparation of an EIS, the preferred alternative is identified in Chapter 2 of the 

draft EIS. At the final EIS stage, the proposed plan is presented with the alternatives. The proposed plan

should be in a clearly delineated section to make it easily identifiable and may also be pulled out as a 

separate document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 16 

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

E. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

F. Comparison of Alternatives (table)

G. Comparison of Impacts (table)

9. Chapter 3. Affected Environment (keep as short and concise as possible): Limit 

discussion to what is needed to understand issues 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 Appendix F-3). 

A. Resources: Physical, biological, and cultural resources (current conditions and 

trends). This is not necessarily a comprehensive list. 

1. Air Quality

2. Geology

3. Soil Resources

4. Water Resources

5. Vegetative Communities 

a. Forests and Woodlands

b. Rangelands

c. Riparian and Wetlands

6. Fish and Wildlife

7. Special Status Species

8. Wild Horses and Burros

9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

10. Cultural Resources

11. Paleontological Resources 

12. Visual Resources 

13. Wilderness Characteristics

14 Cave and Karst Resources

B. Resource Uses: Resource uses (current conditions and trends). This is not 

necessarily a comprehensive list. 

1. Facilities

2. Forestry and Woodland Products

3. Livestock Grazing

4. Minerals

a. Leasable Minerals (e.g. oil, gas, and geothermal) 

b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver) 

c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) 

5. Recreation

6. Renewable Energy

7. Transportation and Access

8. Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 17

9. Land Tenure

10. Land Use Authorizations

11. Withdrawals

C. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

2. Back Country Byways

3. National Recreation Areas

4. National Trails

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers

6. Wilderness

7. Wilderness Study Areas

D. Social and Economic

1. Tribal Interests

2. Public Safety

a. Abandoned Mines 

b. Debris Flows 

c. Hazardous Materials 

3. Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice and other 

considerations)

10. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. Document sufficient analysis to support all 

conclusions. This chapter may also be formatted in the same way as the Area Profile section of 

the Analysis of the Management Situation (See Appendix F-3.) 

A. Introduction

1. Analytical assumptions (reasonably foreseeable development scenarios for oil 

and gas, anticipated levels of vegetation treatment, etc.) 

2. Types of effects to be addressed (direct, indirect, and cumulative) 

3. Summarize critical elements that are addressed, not affected, or not present 

4. Incomplete or unavailable information 

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 addressed in alphabetical order. This 

is not necessarily a comprehensive list. 

1. Air Quality

2. Cave and Karst Resources

3. Cultural Resources

4. Fish and Wildlife

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 18 

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

5. Geology

6. Paleontological Resources 

7. Soil Resources

8. Special Status Species

9. Vegetative Communities 

a. Forests and Woodlands

b. Rangelands

c. Riparian and Wetlands

10. Visual Resources

11. Water Resources

12. Wild Horses and Burros

13. Wilderness Characteristics

14. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

C. Resource Uses: Resource uses addressed in alphabetical order. This is not 

necessarily a comprehensive list. 

1. Facilities

2. Forestry and Woodland Products

3. Land Tenure

4. Land Use Authorizations

5. Livestock Grazing

6. Minerals

a. Leasable Minerals (e.g. oil, gas, and geothermal) 

b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver) 

c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) 

7. Recreation

8. Renewable Energy

9. Transportation and Access

10. Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

11. Withdrawals

D. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

2. Back Country Byways

3. National Recreation Areas

4. National Trails

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers

6. Wilderness

7. Wilderness Study Areas

E. Social and Economic

1. Tribal Interests

2. Public Safety

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 19

a. Abandoned Mines 

b. Debris Flows 

c. Hazardous Materials 

3. Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice and other 

considerations)

11. Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination

A. Description of specific actions taken to consult and coordinate with: 

1. Tribes

2. Intergovernmental (State, Local, County, and City)

3. Federal Agency

4. Interest Groups

5. National Mailing List

B. Describe additional collaboration 

C. Responses to comments by issue area (FEIS only) 

D. List of Preparers

12. Appendices

13. Glossary

14. References

15. Index

16. Abbreviations/Acronyms (inside back cover): Placement can also occur with the Reader’s 

Guide, Summary, or in the Glossary. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 20 

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

Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline for Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 

(Amendment) 

At the end of the protest period on the final EIS and proposed plan and after protests are 

resolved, the ROD6

 is issued. The ROD must be published in the same document with and 

reference the land use plan (proposed plan from the final EIS as modified in response to protests 

or other considerations between the final EIS and issuance of the ROD). The ROD/RMP serves 

as a more concise and useful tool to land managers and stakeholders than a cumbersome EIS. 

Separation of the approved RMP from the final EIS and attaching it to the ROD clarifies the 

different roles served by a plan and the supporting NEPA analysis. Additionally a stand-alone 

ROD/RMP will improve internal agency and partner understanding of the plan and improve our 

long-term ability to implement the plan. 

I. Record of Decision (ROD) 

A. Introductory Material: (on a cover sheet or at the top of the first page)

1) Title

2) Preparing office and office location

3) Cooperating agencies (if any) 

4) Signature and title of responsible official and concurring 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: Briefly discuss the alternative or alternatives that were considered to be 

“environmentally preferable.”9

E. Management Considerations: Provide the rationale for the decision.

F. Mitigation Measures: In addition to identifying approved mitigation measures, state 

whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative 

 6

 The format for the ROD can be found in the NEPA handbook (H-1790-1), Chapter V, pages V-22 to V23. 

7

 Signatures and date of signatures can occur at end of ROD. 8

 Example: “The decision is hereby made to approve the attached plan as the resource management plan 

(Plan) for [insert title]. This Plan was prepared under the regulations implementing the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 CFR 1600). An environmental impact statement was prepared for 

this Plan in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Plan is nearly 

identical to the one set forth in the [insert title] Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement published [insert here]. Specific management decisions for public lands 

under the jurisdiction of the [insert here] Field Office are presented in Chapter [insert] of the plan. Major 

decisions include: [insert here]. 9

 See 40 CFR 1505.2(b). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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 mitigation measures.

10

G. Plan Monitoring:

H. Public Involvement: Briefly describe public participation 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 Addressed

i) Issues used to develop alternatives 12

ii) Issues addressed 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 administrative or policy action 

4. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints

5. Planning Process

a. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

b. Collaboration 

i) Intergovernmental, inter-agency, and Tribal relationships 

ii) Other stakeholder relationships 

6. Related Plans: Discuss consideration of state, local, and Tribal 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 the plan being written that 

are outside the scope of the plan but may influence the decisions, constrain the 

alternatives, or are needed to understand management of the area. Examples include: 

proclamations, legislative designations, and court settlements. 

 10 See 40 CFR 1505.2(c). 11 This introduction section is optional material for the land use plan document. 12 Italics here show optional categories for issues. 13 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 202(c)(9). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 22 

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

8. Overall Vision: 14 Identify the overall vision for management of the planning area. 

This vision should reflect the goals 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 with their rationale (include associated goal[s]). 

Reference which goals are advanced by the objective. 

3. Management Actions: Make these adaptive as appropriate and practical. Relate 

each decision to all goals and objectives impacted. This section should address special 

designations and land tenure decisions. 

a. Allowable uses: This should include allowable uses, restricted uses, and 

prohibited uses. Incorporate maps where appropriate. 

b. Actions: Management measures that will guide future and day-to-day 

activities. Project design features, stipulations, best management practices, 

standard operating procedures, and guidelines should be included in this section 

as well. 

c. Implementation decisions: Include any implementation decisions (see 

appropriate guidance for distinction) related to particular land use planning 

decisions. 

4. Monitoring (and adaptive management if applicable): Describe plans for monitoring 

to assess progress toward meeting goals and objectives. 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 Implementation. To the extent practical and appropriate, identify 

priorities and costs of the management program. Costs should be estimated at a scale that is 

 14 Optional. 15 The format of this section is designed to (a) clarify the distinction between goals, objectives, and 

management actions; (b) move toward (or demonstrate) objectives and management decisions that will 

work toward meeting multiple goals; (c) demonstrate the connectivity between programs; and (d) reduce 

conflicts internal to the document. 16 Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes; and usually not quantifiable. 17 Objectives are specific desired conditions; usually quantifiable and measurable and may have timeframes 

for achievement. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

H-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/Adaptive Management. Identify a tentative schedule for land use plan 

evaluations and the management actions that could be taken after an evaluation. 

F. Appendices

 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix F, page 24 

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

Appendix F-6: Recommended Administrative Record File Plan 

for Land Use Planning Projects 

For draft EISs, final EISs, and records of decision (ROD)

A. General Information

1) Federal Register Notices 

2) Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

3) Planning Criteria 

4) Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Membership 

5) Project Schedules 

6) Preparation Plan 

B. Public Information and Involvement

1) Public Involvement Plans 

2) Public Information Documents, Letters, Notices 

3) Mailing Lists 

4) News Reports and Clippings 

5) General Correspondence 

6) Meetings/Workshops

7) Public Comments: Scoping

8) Public Comments: prior to draft EIS

9) Public Comments: draft EIS

10) Protests and Final EIS Comment Letters Received 

11) Protest Responses 

12) Governor’s Consistency Review Comments/Response (if any) 

C. External Communications

1) Other Federal Agencies 

2) Cooperating Agencies 

3) Tribes 

4) State Agencies 

5) Local Agencies 

6) Elected Officials 

7) Organizations 

8) Individuals 

9) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests and Responses (FOIA officer is 

responsible for maintaining these files) 

D. Internal Communications

1) Project Management Correspondence 

2) IDT Correspondence 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix F, page 25

3) IDT Meeting Agendas and Notes 

4) FOIA Exempt Documents 

5) Quality Assurance Determination 

E. Materials (Background/Supporting) Used to Develop Planning Documents (Draft EIS, 

Final EIS, ROD)

1) Introduction 

2) Alternatives 

3) Affected Environment 

4) Environmental Consequences 

5) Appendices 

F. Data Used in Support of Planning Decisions

1) Planning Data 

2) Data Standards 

3) Metadata 

G. References

H. Planning Documents

1) Scoping Report 

2) Analysis of the Management Situation 

3) Draft EIS 

4) Final EIS 

5) ROD/Approved RMP 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05

 

H-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 employs rigorous standards for maintaining, 

managing, and applying data and derived information. Standardized, accurate, and reliable data 

and information are critical to the development of plan assessments, alternatives, impact 

analyses, and planning decisions. All data used in supporting planning decisions are considered 

corporate data. Corporate data are those data and applications that are exchanged across 

administrative units, shared with the public, used repetitively through time, and applied in 

decision-making. 

The data and resultant information for a land use plan must be carefully managed, documented, 

and applied to withstand public, scientific, and legal scrutiny, and at the same time, facilitate the 

efficient development and operation of the Bureau’s mapping and data management systems 

such as GIS. For these reasons, the corporate data used in plans require a high level of 

consistency, standardization, and established quality control procedures. 

I. Metadata Standards and Requirements 

Metadata is the term used to describe the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of 

data. By Executive order, geospatial data used by the Bureau must be: (1) accompanied by 

metadata in the format set forth by the Federal Geographic Data Committee and (2) be accessible 

to all interested parties. The BLM also requires that non-spatial planning data must be 

accompanied by Federal Geographic Data Committee-compliant metadata. 

In developing a plan, a distinction must be made between new data and existing data. New data 

includes both raw data and derived information or products such as new GIS themes, or applying 

new analyses or modeling methods. New data may be collected by BLM or contractors, or it 

may be acquired from external sources. For additional information on metadata requirements, 

metadata fields, and standards, refer to the BLM Data Administration Handbook (H-1283) and 

the BLM Intranet through the IRM Data Management website. The site contains information on 

project contacts and assistance, frequently asked questions, guidelines and directives, a data 

standards reference library, data quality, and a data management toolkit. 

II. Identifying Data Needs for a Land Use Plan 

Data collection and management are significant costs when developing a land use plan. Data 

needs are collectively determined by planning criteria, management concerns, and issues. It is 

important to start identifying data needs at the inception of a planning project through the 

development of the preparation plan. The BLM planning project manager must identify existing 

data and information sources, and determine what additional data must be collected. A table of 

information should be prepared by the planning project manager and planning team which 

describes the specific data required to answer planning questions associated with the plan, along 

with the availability and status of the data. The table will reveal data deficiencies and identify 

strategies to obtain missing or incomplete data or information. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
Appendix G, page 2 

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

III. Data Sources 

Managers of planning efforts are encouraged to use existing data compiled by Tribes, Federal, 

state, and local government agencies, and other entities where appropriate to fulfill planning data 

needs. Data partnerships are also encouraged to reduce costs and to achieve data standardization 

across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Regardless of the sources used, all metadata should be documented to identify the quality of the 

data, along with its limitations for application. When data or information is extracted from an 

outside source, the development and maintenance of the material is the responsibility of the 

outside entity. However, the data or information that is actually used by BLM in a plan must be 

treated as BLM corporate data. Project planners and planning teams also should always 

judiciously validate all data sources for accuracy, reliability, and limitations. At the very least, 

outside data and information sources will usually require reformatting, which should be taken 

into account in terms of project costs and time. 

IV. Managing Data During Land Use Plan Development 

Planning data should be stored and maintained for easy access to planning team members and to 

ensure that the team is using the same data and information. At a minimum, data should be 

updated and archived at the stages of the management situation analysis, issuance of the draft 

plan or amendment, issuance of the proposed plan, and the final product approved through the 

ROD. Throughout the duration of a planning project, it is also important for the project planner, 

planning team, and GIS-data management staff to routinely check on the quality, consistency, 

and accuracy of the data that is being managed, analyzed, and displayed.

With the increased emphasis on collaborative planning, there is an additional need to make data 

available to interested publics, both during and upon completion of a plan or plan amendment. 

Under the Bureau-wide e-Planning Initiative, continued efforts will help bring the BLM land use 

planning process into an electronic business climate, reduce planning costs, and allow better 

public access to decision making. In the interim, access to planning data may be made available 

through BLM’s state websites or through distribution by CDs or hard copies of a planning 

document. 

Although individual land use plans will have their own specific data requirements, some base 

mapping themes are common to all planning efforts. For example, the Public Land Survey 

System landnet, land status, and administrative/jurisdictional boundaries are base themes needed 

to define the geographic extent of a given planning area. Other themes such as topography, 

transportation, vegetation, soils, hydrography, and cultural features are also common to most 

analyses. 

Maintaining high-quality geospatial data supports the planning process as well as a variety of 

other needs. With regular updating and maintenance, the same geospatial data that supports the 

development of plans can be instrumental for plan implementation, monitoring, and periodic 

assessments. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05
 

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

Appendix G, page 3

V. Integrating Data Application and Display 

The availability of appropriate analytical models and tools to apply and display data is important. 

Quality data that is inappropriately applied has the same disastrous effect as using poor or 

erroneous data. A geographic information system (GIS) provides the essential tools to bring data 

together at various scales and formats for spatial analysis and display, usually through maps and 

accompanying charts and tables. Spatial models, such as those used to predict erosion loss or to 

determine areas suitable or unsuitable for various uses, also allow data to be applied in 

addressing planning and management issues. 

At the beginning of a land use planning project, it is important for the project planner to work 

with the GIS support staff, and identify and agree on how data and information will be integrated 

into the development of different displays. This includes, for example, determining the desired 

sets of map products that will be used in a hard copy version of a plan, public exhibits, website 

postings, press releases, and public notices. This avoids unnecessary production costs by 

planning ahead, identifies potential data-display technical problems at the inception of a project, 

and streamlines and ensures the development of standardized data sets and the display of data. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667 03/11/05