9674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 1600 

[LLWO210000.L1610000] 

RIN 1004–AE39 

Resource Management Planning 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) proposes to amend 

existing regulations that establish the 

procedures used to prepare, revise, or 

amend land use plans pursuant to the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA). The proposed rule would 

enable the BLM to more readily address 

landscape-scale resource issues, such as 

wildfire, habitat connectivity, or the 

demand for renewable and nonrenewable energy sources and to 

respond more effectively to 

environmental and social changes. The 

proposed rule would further emphasize 

the role of science in the planning 

process and the importance of 

evaluating the resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic 

conditions at the onset of planning. The 

proposed rule would affirm the 

important role of other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, Indian 

tribes, and the public during the 

planning process, and would enhance 

opportunities for public involvement 

and transparency during the preparation 

of resource management plans. Finally, 

the proposed rule would make revisions 

to clarify existing text and use plain 

language to improve the readability of 

the planning regulations. 

DATES: Please submit comments on or 

before April 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 

2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: 1004–AE39. 

Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, 20 M Street SE., 

Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory 

Affairs, Washington, DC 20003. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at this Web site. 

You may submit comments on the 

proposed collection of information by 

fax or electronic mail as follows: 

Fax: Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior, 202–395– 

5806. 

Electronic mail: oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

Please indicate ‘‘Attention: OMB 

Control Number 1004–XXXX,’’ 

regardless of the method used. If you 

submit comments on the proposed 

collection of information please provide 

the BLM with a copy of your comments 

at one of the addresses shown above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Baker, Branch Chief (Acting), 

Planning and NEPA, at 202–912–7282, 

for information relating to the BLM’s 

national planning program or the 

substance of this proposed rule. For 

information on procedural matters or 

the rulemaking process, you may 

contact Charles Yudson at 202–912– 

7437. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339, to contact these individuals. You 

will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The BLM initiated this rulemaking as 

part of a broader effort known as 

‘‘Planning 2.0’’ to improve the land use 

planning procedures required by 

FLPMA. The BLM follows these 

procedures to prepare and amend 

resource management plans that guide 

future BLM decisions on the public 

lands. Planning 2.0 responds to a 2011 

BLM strategic review that identified 

challenges and opportunities for the 

BLM and to recent Executive and 

Secretarial direction that encourages 

science-based decision-making; 

landscape-scale management 

approaches; adaptive management 

techniques to manage for uncertainty; 

and active coordination and 

collaboration with partners and 

stakeholders. In this proposed rule, the 

BLM proposes targeted changes to the 

existing planning regulations in 43 CFR 

subparts 1601 and 1610 and explains 

the rationale. 

Background 

In 2011, the BLM released a strategic 

plan titled ‘‘Winning the Challenges of 

the Future: A Roadmap for Success in 

2016’’ (the Roadmap). This plan 

identified several challenges for the 

BLM in managing the public lands 

consistent with its statutory direction 

‘‘that management be on the basis of 

multiple use and sustained yield unless 

otherwise specified by law’’ (43 U.S.C. 

1701(a)(7)). Management of the public 

lands in the 21st century is made more 

complex by increasing population 

growth and urbanization in the West, 

diversifying use activities on the public 

lands, demand for renewable and nonrenewable energy sources, increasing 

conflicts between resource uses and 

conservation objectives, and landscapescale resource issues such as climate 

change or wildfire. The Roadmap also 

identified new opportunities for the 

BLM due to the broad availability of 

Internet access and rapid acceleration in 

technologies as well as heightened 

expectations for services on the part of 

those who use and enjoy the public 

lands. Given these challenges and 

opportunities, the Roadmap called for a 

more ‘‘nimble’’ approach to planning 

that is responsive to a rapidly changing 

environment and conditions. 

In addition, recent Presidential and 

Secretarial policies and strategic 

direction emphasize the value in 

applying landscape-scale management 

approaches to address climate change, 

wildfire, energy development, habitat 

conservation, restoration, and mitigation 

of impacts on Federal lands. The BLM 

has developed strategies and tools to 

support this approach by advancing the 

role of science in public lands 

management, standardizing data 

gathering, developing landscape 

assessments, requiring monitoring and 

evaluation to guide adaptive 

management strategies, and advancing 

the use of geospatial data and 

technology. 

Through Planning 2.0, the BLM aims 

to improve the land use planning 

process in order to apply this policy and 

strategic direction and to complement 

related efforts within the BLM. Further, 

the Planning 2.0 initiative aims to 

incorporate lessons-learned and best 

practices developed over the last ten to 

fifteen years of resource management 

planning and respond to public 

sentiment that the planning process is, 

at times, cumbersome and slow to 

complete. Specifically, Planning 2.0 

seeks to achieve three goals: (1) Improve 

the BLM’s ability to respond to social 

and environmental change in a timely 

manner; (2) provide meaningful 

opportunities for other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, Indian 

tribes, and the public to be involved in 

the development of BLM resource 

management plans; and (3) improve the 

BLM’s ability to address landscape-scale 

resource issues and to apply landscapescale management approaches. The 

Planning 2.0 initiative includes this 

proposed rule and a forthcoming 

revision of the BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook (H–1601–1). 

Planning 2.0 is informed, in part, by 

public input. In May 2014, the BLM 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9675 

announced Planning 2.0, created a Web 

site (www.blm.gov/plan2), issued a 

press release, and requested public 

input on ways to improve the land use 

planning process. The BLM held two 

facilitated public listening sessions that 

were available through a live broadcast 

of the event over the Internet 

(livestream) in the fall of 2014. The BLM 

also conducted external outreach to 

partners and internal outreach to staff. 

The Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary 

Report (2015) summarizes written 

comments received by the BLM from 

over 6,000 groups and individuals. 

Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

Section 202 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 

1712) directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to ‘‘develop, maintain, and, 

when appropriate, revise land use plans 

which provide by tracts or areas for the 

use of the public lands’’ (43 U.S.C. 

1712(a)) and outlines requirements for 

developing and revising land use plans. 

In particular, section 202(f) (43 U.S.C. 

1712(f)) directs the Secretary of the 

Interior, by regulation, to ‘‘establish 

procedures . . . to give Federal, State, 

and local governments and the public, 

adequate notice and opportunity to 

comment upon and participate in the 

formulation of plans and programs 

relating to the management of the public 

lands.’’ The BLM first developed land 

use planning regulations in 1979 (44 FR 

46386, August 7, 1979). The BLM made 

significant revisions to the regulations 

in 1983 (48 FR 20364, May 5, 1983) and 

revised them again in 2005 (70 FR 

14561, March 23, 2005). 

Overview of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would revise two 

subparts of the existing regulations, 43 

CFR subparts 1601 (Planning) and 1610 

(Resource Management Planning). 

Proposed changes in subpart 1601 

would revise the purpose, objective, 

responsibilities, definitions, and 

principles sections. Proposed changes in 

subpart 1610 would describe the general 

framework for resource management 

planning, including the components of 

a resource management plan; update the 

public notification and public comment 

provisions; establish an assessment to 

determine and describe baseline 

conditions that would occur before 

initiating the preparation of a resource 

management plan; establish new 

opportunities for public involvement 

earlier in the planning process; clarify 

plan approval and protest procedures; 

strengthen the monitoring and 

evaluation requirements; modify the 

amendment and maintenance 

provisions; update the provisions for 

designating areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs); and 

make other clarifying edits. These 

revisions are discussed in detail in the 

section-by-section analysis of this 

preamble. In both subparts, we propose 

changes to improve readability and 

understanding of the planning 

regulations to support effective 

collaboration and public involvement 

during the planning process. 

Responsibilities and Plan Boundaries 

The proposed rule would explain the 

responsibilities for preparing or 

amending a resource management plan 

to acknowledge that planning areas may 

extend beyond traditional BLM 

administrative boundaries such as Field 

Offices or States. References to the 

‘‘Field Manager’’ would be replaced 

with the ‘‘responsible official,’’ as the 

BLM official responsible for preparing 

and amending a resource management 

plan. References to the ‘‘State Director’’ 

would be replaced with the ‘‘deciding 

official,’’ as the BLM official responsible 

for supervisory review, including plan 

approval. 

The proposed rule would make the 

BLM Director responsible for 

determining the deciding official and 

the planning area for resource 

management plans and for plan 

amendments that cross State 

boundaries. For plan amendments that 

do not cross State boundaries, the 

deciding official would be responsible 

for determining the planning area. 

Plan Components 

Under the existing and proposed 

regulations, a resource management 

plan provides management direction 

that guides future management 

decisions within a planning area. The 

proposed rule would explain this 

function in greater detail by 

distinguishing between the components 

of a resource management plan that 

provide planning-level management 

direction (‘‘plan components’’) and 

‘‘implementation strategies’’ that would 

guide future actions consistent with the 

management direction in the plan 

(‘‘implementation strategies’’). As 

proposed, plan components would 

include goals, objectives, designations, 

resource use determinations, monitoring 

standards, and, where appropriate, 

lands identified as available for disposal 

from BLM administration under section 

203 of FLPMA. Implementation 

strategies would describe potential 

actions the BLM may take in the future 

in order to achieve the goals and 

objectives, as well as procedures for 

monitoring and evaluating the resource 

management plan implementation. 

Implementation strategies would be 

developed during the planning process 

but are not plan components in and of 

themselves. 

Under the proposed rule, plan 

components would be changed through 

plan amendment or revision procedures 

where the BLM determined that 

monitoring and evaluation findings, 

new high quality information, new or 

revised policy, a proposed action, or 

other relevant changes in circumstances 

warranted a substantive change to 

management direction. A plan 

component may be adjusted through 

maintenance to correct a typographical 

or mapping error, or to reflect minor 

changes in mapping or data. 

Implementation strategies as proposed 

could be updated at any time without 

triggering a plan amendment, but would 

conform with the plan components and 

would be made available for public 

review at least 30 days before they can 

be implemented. 

Planning Assessment 

The proposed rule would add a new 

planning assessment requirement before 

initiating the preparation of a resource 

management plan or a plan amendment 

for which an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) will be prepared (EISlevel amendments). The planning 

assessment is intended to assist the 

BLM and the public in understanding 

the current baseline in regards to 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic conditions in the 

planning area. During the planning 

assessment, the BLM would describe 

these conditions and current 

management. The BLM would also 

identify the role of the public lands in 

addressing landscape-scale resource 

issues or in supporting national, 

regional, or local policies, strategies, or 

plans. The planning assessment would 

inform the preparation of the resource 

management plan or EIS-level 

amendments. 

The planning assessment process 

would include the BLM arranging for 

relevant data and information to be 

gathered, identifying relevant plans or 

strategies for consideration, providing 

opportunities for other agencies, State 

and local governments, Indian tribes, 

and the public to provide existing data, 

information, plans, or strategies for 

consideration in the planning 

assessment, and identifying relevant 

public views concerning resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, or 

economic conditions of the planning 

area. The proposed rule would require 

that the BLM use high quality 

information (including the best 

available scientific information) to 

inform the planning process; any 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9676 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

information submitted for consideration 

would be required to meet standards for 

high quality information. As part of the 

proposed planning assessment, the BLM 

would evaluate the data and 

information gathered to assess 

conditions in the planning area. This 

information would be summarized in a 

report made available for public review 

and, to the extent practical, nonsensitive geospatial information would 

be made available to the public on the 

BLM’s Web site. 

Public Involvement 

The proposed rule would use the term 

‘‘public involvement’’ instead of ‘‘public 

participation’’ to be more consistent 

with the terms used in FLPMA. The 

proposed rule also would restructure 

the public involvement provisions in 

section 1610.2 to indicate more clearly 

where in the land use planning process 

the BLM would provide for public 

notice, public review, or public 

comment. In the proposed rule, the BLM 

would make new commitments to 

announce public involvement 

opportunities in planning on the BLM 

Web site and by posting a notice at the 

BLM offices located within the planning 

area. The BLM would also notify 

individuals or groups that ask to receive 

notice of public involvement 

opportunities relating to a planning 

effort by written or electronic means, 

such as email correspondence. 

The proposed rule would add new 

public involvement opportunities. First, 

the proposed planning assessment 

would include an opportunity for other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

government, Indian tribes, and the 

public to provide data or information or 

to suggest policies, strategies, guidance 

or plans to inform the BLM planning 

process and would require the BLM to 

identify public views in relation to 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, or economic conditions. Second, 

the proposed rule would require that 

BLM offices make the preliminary 

resource management alternatives, the 

rationale for alternatives, and the basis 

for the impacts analysis available for 

public review in advance of issuing the 

draft resource management plan and 

draft EIS. Public review of the 

preliminary alternatives prior to 

issuance of the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS would 

enable the public to raise any concerns 

with the BLM before the BLM conducts 

the impacts analysis of the management 

plan alternatives. 

Integration With National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Requirements 

The proposed rule would address 

several procedural requirements for 

plan amendments to improve 

consistency and integration with NEPA 

procedures. Specifically, the proposed 

rule would require the publication of a 

notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a plan 

amendment to align with the 

requirements of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations; and the public comment 

period on a draft plan amendment to 

align with the CEQ regulations and 

guidance regarding public comment on 

draft EISs. The proposed rule would 

change the requirements for selecting a 

preferred alternative to align more 

closely with the requirements of the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA 

implementation regulations. 

Protests 

The proposed rule would clarify the 

protest procedures to provide more 

detailed information on what 

constitutes a valid protest issue and for 

consistency with the proposed 

terminology for plan components. The 

BLM would provide a new opportunity 

for the public to submit protests 

electronically through methods 

specified for each resource management 

plan or plan amendment. The proposed 

rule would clarify that proposed 

resource management plans (including 

plan revisions) and plan amendments 

are subject to protest. The proposed rule 

would provide the opportunity for a 

party that previously participated in the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan or plan amendment to identify why 

a plan component is believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations before the 

final decision to approve the plan. The 

proposed rule would clarify that the 

focus of a protest is to identify and 

remedy inconsistency with Federal laws 

and regulations or the purposes, 

policies, and programs of such laws and 

regulations. 

Transition From the Existing Planning 

Process 

The proposed rule would address the 

transition from the existing planning 

regulations to those that result from this 

proposal, including resource 

management plans currently in 

preparation. 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

You may submit comments on this 

proposed rule by mail, personal or 

messenger delivery, or electronic mail. 

Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 

2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: Regulatory Affairs, 1004– 

AE39. 

Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, 20 M Street SE., 

Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory 

Affairs, Washington, DC 20003. 

Electronic mail: You may access and 

comment on the proposed rule at the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal by 

following the instructions at that site 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Written comments on the proposed 

rule should be specific, should be 

confined to issues pertinent to the 

proposed rule, and should explain the 

reason for any recommended change. 

When possible, comments should 

reference the specific section or 

paragraph of the proposed rule that the 

comment is addressing. 

The BLM need not consider or 

include in the Administrative Record 

for the final rule, comments that it 

receives after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) or comments 

delivered to an address other than those 

listed above (see ADDRESSES). 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses, will be available for 

public review at the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 

2134LM, Washington, DC 20003 during 

regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. They also will be available at 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at this Web site. 

You may submit comments on the 

proposed collection of information by 

fax or electronic mail as follows: 

Fax: Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior, 202–395– 

5806. 

Electronic mail: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Please indicate ‘‘Attention: OMB 

Control Number 1004–XXX,’’ regardless 

of the method used. If you submit 

comments on the proposed collection of 

information, please provide the BLM 

with a copy of your comments at one of 

the addresses shown above. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9677 

1Council on Environmental quality (CEQ) NEPA 

implementing regulations require Federal agencies, 

‘‘to the fullest extent possible,’’ to ‘‘[i]ntegrate the 

requirements of NEPA with other planning and 

environmental review procedures required by law 

or by agency practice so that all such procedures 

run concurrently rather than consecutively’’ 40 CFR 

1500.2(c). 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask in your comment for 

the BLM to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

II. Background 

The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) manages more than 245 million 

acres of land, the most of any Federal 

agency. This land, known as the 

National System of Public Lands, is 

primarily located in 12 Western states, 

including Alaska. The BLM also 

administers 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate throughout the 

nation. The BLM’s mission is to manage 

and conserve the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations under the mandate of 

multiple-use and sustained yield. In 

Fiscal Year 2014, the BLM generated 

$5.2 billion in receipts from public 

lands. 

Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as 

amended, is the BLM ’’organic act’’ that 

establishes the agency’s mission to 

manage the public lands on the basis of 

multiple-use and sustained yield, unless 

otherwise specified by law. Through 

FLPMA, the BLM is directed to manage 

the public lands in a manner which 

recognizes the nation’s need for natural 

resources from the public lands, 

provides for outdoor recreation and 

other human uses, provides habitat for 

fish and wildlife, preserves and protects 

certain public lands in their natural 

condition, and protects the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological 

values. The BLM develops goals and 

objectives to guide management through 

the land use planning process under 

section 202 of FLPMA. 

Section 202(a) of FLPMA requires the 

Secretary of the Interior, with public 

involvement, to ‘‘develop, maintain, 

and, when appropriate, revise land use 

plans which provide by tracts or areas 

for the use of the public lands.’’ Among 

other provisions, section 202(c) of 

FLPMA requires the Secretary, in 

developing and revising land use plans: 

To use and observe the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield; to use 

an interdisciplinary approach to achieve 

integrated consideration of physical, 

biological, economic, and other 

sciences; to give priority to the 

designation and protection of ACECs; to 

use the inventory of public lands, 

resources and other values, to the extent 

it is available; to consider both present 

and potential uses of public lands; to 

consider the relative scarcity of values; 

to weigh long-term benefits against short 

term benefits; to provide for compliance 

with applicable pollution control laws; 

and to coordinate with other Federal 

departments and agencies, Indian tribes, 

and the States and local governments. 

Section 202(f) of FLPMA directs the 

Secretary to provide for public 

involvement and to establish procedures 

by regulation ‘‘to give Federal, State, 

and local governments and the public, 

adequate notice and opportunity to 

comment upon and participate in the 

formulation of plans and programs 

relating to the management of the public 

lands.’’ Under FLPMA, the Secretary 

administers the public lands through 

the BLM. 

The BLM issued regulations 

establishing a land use planning system 

for BLM-managed public lands, as 

prescribed in FLPMA, in 1979 (44 FR 

46386). These regulations established 

the term ‘‘resource management plan’’ 

(RMP) for the land use plans mandated 

by FLPMA, to replace the then-existing 

‘‘management framework plans.’’ The 

BLM revised these regulations in 1983 

to clarify the planning process and 

‘‘eliminate burdensome, outdated, and 

unneeded provisions’’ (48 FR 20364). 

These regulations were amended again 

in 2005 (70 FR 14561) to make clear the 

role of cooperating agencies in the land 

use planning process and to emphasize 

the importance of working with Federal 

and State agencies and local and tribal 

governments through cooperating 

agency relationships in developing, 

amending, and revising the BLM’s 

resource management plans. 

The BLM’s Existing Land Use Planning 

Process 

The BLM planning process is a 

collaborative process, which involves 

Federal agencies, Indian tribes, State 

and local governments, and the public 

at various steps, while retaining 

decision-making authority within the 

BLM. Cooperating agencies play an 

important role in the development of 

resource management plans. Early in the 

planning process, the BLM invites 

eligible governmental entities to serve as 

cooperating agencies, and the BLM is 

committed to collaborating with 

cooperating agencies during several 

steps of the process. Resource 

management plans are generally 

established based on a BLM Field Office 

or District Office boundary and 

prepared by an interdisciplinary team 

under the direction of a BLM field or 

district manager. The BLM State 

Directors provide oversight and 

guidance to the field or district 

managers and the BLM State Directors 

approve the resource management plan. 

The BLM Director provides high-level 

guidance and renders a decision on any 

public protests of the proposed plan, 

and when necessary, inconsistencies 

with State and local plans that are 

raised by the Governor through a 

consistency review process. 

As outlined in 43 CFR subparts 1601 

and 1610, the steps of the planning 

process are fully integrated with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).1 The 

planning process begins with public 

notice and formal invitation for the 

public to assist the BLM in the 

identification of planning issues, 

concurrent and integrated with the 

NEPA scoping process. Planning issues 

are defined in the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H–1601–1) as 

‘‘disputes or controversies about 

existing and potential land and resource 

allocations, levels of resource use, 

production, and related management 

practices.’’ 

Next, the BLM develops criteria to 

guide the development of the resource 

management plan. The planning criteria 

ensure that the resource management 

plan is tailored to the planning issues 

and that the BLM avoids unnecessary 

data collection and analyses. The BLM 

summarizes the planning issues and 

planning criteria in a scoping report, 

which is made available to the public. 

The BLM continues to refine the 

planning issues and the planning 

criteria throughout the development of 

the draft resource management plan. 

To aid in the planning process, the 

BLM arranges for the collection or 

assembly of data and information, 

which are then analyzed to determine 

the ability of the resources to respond to 

the planning issues as well as any 

management opportunities. The 

resulting ‘‘analysis of the management 

situation’’ provides the basis for the 

BLM’s development of a range of 

reasonable alternatives and analysis of 

the environmental impacts of these 

alternatives, as required by the NEPA. 

The BLM presents the range of 

alternatives in a single integrated draft 

resource management plan and draft EIS 

and identifies its preferred alternative. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9678 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

The BLM then makes the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS 

available to the public for a 90-day 

comment period. At the close of this 

period, the BLM evaluates the 

comments received and prepares a 

proposed resource management plan 

and final EIS, including responses to 

any substantive public comments 

received on the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS. 

The BLM provides the proposed 

resource management plan and final EIS 

to the Governor(s) of any State(s) the 

plan falls within for a 60-day 

consistency review period. During this 

period, the Governor may identify any 

inconsistencies between State and local 

plans and the proposed resource 

management plan. This step, including 

the process of resolving identified 

inconsistencies, ensures that BLM has 

satisfied the FLPMA section 202(a)(9) 

requirement that the BLM keep apprised 

of State, local, and tribal land use plans 

and assist in resolving, to the extent 

practical and consistent with Federal 

law, inconsistencies between Federal 

and non-Federal government plans. 

Concurrent with the Governor’s 

consistency review, the BLM provides a 

30-day period during which members of 

the public who have an interest that 

may be adversely affected by the 

approval of the proposed resource 

management plan and who participated 

in the planning process may protest 

approval of the proposed resource 

management plan. The BLM Director 

renders a decision on any protest, which 

serves as the final decision of the DOI, 

and is not subject to an administrative 

appeal. 

Following approval of the resource 

management plan, the BLM conducts 

monitoring and evaluation at intervals 

established in the plan to assess the 

need for maintenance, revision, or 

amendment of the plan. Maintenance is 

provided as needed to address minor 

changes in data. An amendment or plan 

revision is initiated in response to 

monitoring and evaluation findings, 

new data, new or revised policy, a 

change in circumstances, or a proposed 

action that would not be in conformance 

with the approved resource 

management plan. The BLM undertakes 

a resource management plan revision 

when monitoring and evaluation 

findings, new data, new or revised 

policy, and changes in circumstances 

affect the entire plan or major portions 

of the plan. 

The proposed rule would maintain 

the general process for developing, 

revising, amending, and maintaining a 

resource management plan, as 

described, while proposing specific 

changes to improve the process in a 

number of ways. 

Why the BLM Is Proposing Changes to 

the Land Use Planning Process 

The proposed rule would respond to 

needs identified by the BLM and related 

Presidential and Secretarial direction. In 

2011, the BLM released a strategic plan 

titled ‘‘Winning the Challenges of the 

Future: A Roadmap for Success in 

2016’’ (the Roadmap). This document 

highlighted the increasing complexity 

the BLM faces in managing for multipleuse and sustained yield on the public 

lands. Population growth and 

urbanization in the West, a diversifying 

portfolio of use activities, demand for 

renewable and non-renewable energy 

sources, and the proliferation of 

landscape-scale environmental change 

agents such as climate change, wildfire, 

or invasive species create challenges 

that require that the BLM develop new 

strategies and approaches to effectively 

manage the public lands. 

Simultaneously, the rapid acceleration 

in technologies such as the Internet, 

telecommunications, and analytical 

tools, including geospatial tools, have 

brought new opportunities combined 

with new expectations for services to be 

provided by land management agencies. 

Given the foundational nature of land 

use planning, a process that establishes 

direction for future management 

activities on the public lands, the 

Roadmap recognized the need for the 

BLM’s resource management plans to 

address these challenges and respond to 

emerging opportunities. The Roadmap 

also recognized the importance of an 

efficient planning process, one that can 

effectively integrate new information 

and new technologies as they become 

available in order to keep resource 

management attuned to changing 

conditions on the ground and newly 

available information. 

Specifically, the Roadmap set the 

following goal for the BLM to 

accomplish by the year 2016: ‘‘Adopt a 

proactive and nimble approach to 

planning that allows us to work 

collaboratively with partners at different 

scales to produce highly useful 

decisions that adapt to the rapidly 

changing environment and conditions’’ 

(page 10). Following the publication of 

the Roadmap, the BLM chartered a team 

of BLM managers and planning staff to 

assess the current status of the BLM’s 

resource management plans and 

develop recommendations to improve 

the process for developing resource 

management plans. The proposed rule, 

in part, would implement the 

recommendations for achieving the 

goals set forth in the Roadmap. 

Related Executive and Secretarial 

Direction 

In addition, the proposed rule would 

respond to and advance direction set 

forth in several Executive or Secretarial 

Orders and related policies and 

strategies. This direction demonstrates 

an increasing emphasis within the DOI, 

and the Federal Government, on the use 

of science-based, collaborative, 

landscape-scale approaches to natural 

resource management. Recent 

Presidential and Secretarial direction 

provided to DOI bureaus and agencies 

emphasize the importance of this 

approach for resource management 

planning. 

Effective collaboration is a central 

theme in recent Presidential and 

Secretarial directives, beginning with 

the President’s 2009 Open Government 

Directive (M–10–06). This directive 

describes the three principles of 

transparency, participation, and 

collaboration as the cornerstone of an 

open government by promoting 

accountability to the public, sharing of 

information, and partnerships and 

cooperation within the Federal 

Government, across all levels of 

government, and between the 

government and private institutions. In 

2012, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the CEQ issued the 

‘‘Memorandum on Environmental 

Collaboration and Conflict Resolution.’’ 

This memorandum directs Federal 

departments and agencies to ensure they 

effectively explore opportunities for upfront collaboration in their planning and 

decision-making processes to address 

different perspectives and potential 

conflicts and thereby promote improved 

outcomes, including fewer appeals and 

less litigation. 

Multiple directives related to climate 

change also emphasize the importance 

of collaboration, science, adaptive 

management, and the need for 

landscape-scale approaches to resource 

management. ‘‘Secretarial Order 3289— 

Addressing the Impacts of Climate 

Change on America’s Water, Land, and 

Other Natural and Cultural Resources,’’ 

issued on September 14, 2009, and 

amended on February 22, 2010, directs 

DOI bureaus and agencies to work 

together, with other Federal, State, tribal 

and local governments, and private 

landowners, to develop landscape-level 

strategies for understanding and 

responding to climate change impacts. 

The Departmental Manual chapter on 

climate change policy (523 DM 1), 

issued on December 20, 2012, similarly 

directs DOI bureaus and agencies to 

‘‘promote landscape-scale, ecosystembased management approaches to 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9679 

2An efficient land use planning process under 

FLPMA advances direction in CEQ NEPA 

regulations and guidance for seeking efficiencies in 

the NEPA process. See, e.g., 40 CFR 1500.2(b) and 

(c) and 1500.5; Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

Departments and Agencies from Nancy H. Sutley, 

Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, 

‘‘Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and 

Timely Environmental Reviews under the National 

Environmental Policy Act’’ (Mar. 6, 2012), https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/

ceq/improving_nepa_efficiencies_06mar2012.pdf. 

enhance the resilience and 

sustainability of linked human and 

natural systems.’’ ‘‘The Department of 

the Interior Climate Change Adaptation 

Plan for 2014’’ (Climate Change 

Adaptation Plan), provides guidance for 

implementing 523 DM 1 and ‘‘Executive 

Order No. 13653—Preparing the United 

States for the Impacts of Climate 

Change’’ (78 FR 66819). The Climate 

Change Adaptation Plan directs the DOI 

bureaus and agencies to strengthen 

existing landscape level planning 

efforts; use well-defined and established 

approaches for managing through 

uncertainty, such as adaptive 

management; and maintain key 

ecosystem services, among other 

important directives. This plan also 

identifies several guiding principles, 

including the use of the best available 

social, physical, and natural science to 

increase understanding of climate 

change impacts and active coordination 

and collaboration with stakeholders. 

Likewise, recent directives associated 

with renewable energy development 

and mitigation practices emphasize the 

importance of a collaborative, 

landscape-scale approach. ‘‘Secretarial 

Order 3285—Renewable Energy 

Development by the Department of the 

Interior,’’ issued on March 11, 2009, and 

amended on February 22, 2010, 

identified renewable energy production, 

development, and delivery as one of the 

Department’s highest priorities and 

called on bureaus and agencies to carry 

out this priority by collaborating with 

one another and with governmental and 

tribal partners, local communities, and 

private landowners. In particular, this 

Order highlighted the need to identify 

and prioritize specific locations that are 

well-suited to large-scale renewable 

energy production as well as the electric 

transmission infrastructure and 

transmission corridors needed to deliver 

the energy produced. 

A landscape-scale approach to 

planning is integral to realizing 

renewable energy development, in 

addition to other priorities on Federal 

lands. ‘‘Secretarial Order 3330— 

Improving Mitigation Policies and 

Practices of the Department of the 

Interior,’’ issued on October 31, 2013, 

called for the development of a DOIwide mitigation strategy, which would 

use a landscape-scale approach to 

identify and facilitate investments in 

key conservation priorities in a region. 

The April 2014 report, ‘‘A Strategy for 

Improving the Mitigation Policies and 

Practices of The Department of the 

Interior,’’ provides direction to 

implement such an approach. And the 

Departmental Manual was revised in 

October 2015, to include direction to all 

bureaus and agencies for 

implementation of this approach to 

resource management (600 DM 6). 

The Presidential Memorandum 

‘‘Mitigating Impacts on Natural 

Resources from Development and 

Encouraging Related Private 

Investment,’’ issued in November 2015, 

affirmed the importance of applying a 

landscape-scale approach by directing 

agencies that ‘‘[l]arge-scale plans and 

analysis should inform the 

identification of areas where 

development may be most appropriate, 

where high natural resource values 

result in the best locations for protection 

and restoration, or where natural 

resource values are irreplaceable’’ (80 

FR 68743). 

Finally, ‘‘Secretarial Order 3336— 

Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management 

and Restoration,’’ issued on January 5, 

2015, directs DOI bureaus and agencies 

to use landscape-scale approaches to 

address fire prevention, management, 

and restoration in the Great Basin; and 

to establish protocols for monitoring the 

effectiveness of fuels management, postfire, and long-term restoration 

treatments and a strategy for adaptive 

management to modify management 

practices or improve land treatments 

when necessary. 

Collectively, these directives identify 

the importance of science-based 

decision-making; landscape-scale 

management approaches; adaptive 

management techniques to manage for 

uncertainty; and active coordination 

and collaboration with partners and 

stakeholders. The BLM believes that 

changes to the resource management 

planning process will assist in 

effectively implementing these 

directives. 

The Planning 2.0 Initiative 

Together, the Roadmap and the recent 

policy and strategic direction described 

in this preamble informed the BLM’s 

decision to revise its resource 

management planning process. The 

BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative responds 

to this opportunity. Through Planning 

2.0, the BLM seeks to improve the 

resource management planning process, 

including the development, 

amendment, and maintenance of 

resource management plans. The BLM 

has developed three targeted goals to 

guide the Planning 2.0 initiative: 

Goal 1: Improve the BLM’s ability to 

respond to social and environmental 

change in a timely manner. This goal 

addresses the need for land use plans 

that support effective management 

when faced with environmental 

uncertainty, incomplete information, or 

changing conditions. It is imperative 

that resource management plans provide 

clear management direction to guide 

future management activities on the 

public lands, while facilitating the use 

of adaptive, science-based approaches to 

respond to change when necessary and 

appropriate. Encompassed in this goal is 

the need for an efficient planning 

process so that changes to a resource 

management plan, when needed, are 

timely and responsive to the relevant 

issues.2

Goal 2: Provide meaningful 

opportunities for other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, Indian 

tribes, and the public to be involved in 

the development of BLM resource 

management plans. This goal highlights 

the importance of strong public 

involvement in the planning process to 

reduce conflict and disputes over public 

lands management and develop durable 

resource management plans. Through 

the Planning 2.0 initiative, the BLM 

seeks to establish earlier and more 

frequent opportunities for public 

involvement in the planning process 

and to provide for effective coordination 

and collaboration with other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

tribes, and stakeholders. At the same 

time, Planning 2.0 affirms the BLM’s 

commitments to collaborating with 

cooperating agencies, and coordinating 

with other Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and Indian tribes 

throughout the planning process. 

Planning 2.0 also affirms the BLM’s 

commitment to working with Resource 

Advisory Councils (RACs) throughout 

the planning process (see existing 43 

CFR 1610.3–1(g)). 

Goal 3: Improve the BLM’s ability to 

address landscape-scale resource issues 

and to apply landscape-scale 

management approaches. This goal 

addresses the need for landscape-scale 

management approaches to address 

resource issues that cross traditional 

administrative boundaries. The BLM 

manages a diverse range of natural 

resources, which occur at an equally 

diverse range of geographic scales, and 

collaborates with a diversity of partners, 

stakeholders and communities, who 

work at different scales. For these 

reasons, the BLM planning process must 

be able to consider issues and 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9680 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3The LCCs are a network of 22 public-private 

partnerships launched under Secretarial Order 3289 

to improve the integration of science and 

management to address climate change and other 

landscape-scale issues. See http://lccnetwork.org/

about. Information about the REAs is available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html. 

4See BLM Information Bulletin No. 2012–058, 

‘‘The Bureau of Land Management’s Landscape 

Approach for Managing the Public Lands’’ (Apr. 3, 

2012), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_information/2012/IB_2012–058.html. 

opportunities at multiple scales and 

across traditional management 

boundaries. 

To achieve these three goals, the BLM 

is proposing to amend specific 

provisions of the land use planning 

regulations (43 CFR part 1600). The 

proposed regulatory revisions are the 

subject of this rule. Separately, the BLM 

also is revising the Land Use Planning 

Handbook to provide detailed guidance 

to implement these regulations. We 

have taken a coordinated approach to 

ensure that these two efforts mutually 

support the achievement of the Planning 

2.0 goals and provide consistent 

requirements and guidance for 

developing and amending resource 

management plans. 

Related BLM Initiatives 

In recent years, the BLM has taken 

several steps toward the goals identified 

in the ‘‘Related Executive and 

Secretarial Direction’’ section of this 

preamble, including tools to aid sciencebased decision-making; landscape-scale 

management approaches; the use of 

adaptive management techniques to 

manage for uncertainty; and active 

coordination and collaboration with 

partners and stakeholders. These steps 

include crafting new policies and 

strategies and introducing innovative 

data and information technology tools. 

The Planning 2.0 initiative supports the 

implementation of these other important 

BLM efforts, and is mutually supported 

by these other efforts. Here we describe 

several other BLM efforts and how they 

relate to the goals of Planning 2.0, even 

though they are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

In partnership with the Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and 

other Federal agencies, the BLM has 

worked to develop Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments (REAs) in the western 

United States.3 Each REA synthesizes 

the best available information about 

resource conditions and trends within 

an ecoregion and highlights areas of 

high ecological value, as well as areas 

that have high energy development 

potential and relatively low ecological 

value, which could be well-suited for 

siting future energy development. In 

addition, REAs establish landscapescale baseline ecological data to help 

gauge the effect and effectiveness of 

future management activities. The REAs 

are an important step in support of 

adaptive, landscape-scale management 

approaches,4 and they provide 

necessary data and information to 

support the Planning 2.0 goal to address 

landscape-scale resource issues and to 

apply landscape-scale management 

approaches. 

In 2013, the BLM issued the ‘‘Draft— 

Regional Mitigation Manual Section 

(MS)-1794’’ as interim guidance, which 

promotes consideration of mitigation 

within a broader regional context and 

development of mitigation strategies. 

Mitigation strategies identify, evaluate, 

and communicate potential mitigation 

needs and mitigation measures in a 

geographic area. Under this draft 

guidance, the BLM has worked 

collaboratively with partners to develop 

regional mitigation strategies in several 

key areas while also developing 

guidance consistent with Secretarial 

Order 3330. This guidance, which 

provides for a landscape-scale approach 

to mitigation, is consistent with the 

Planning 2.0 goal to apply landscapescale management approaches. The 

Planning 2.0 initiative will support 

effective implementation of the regional 

mitigation policy by ensuring that 

resource management plans, like 

mitigation, are grounded in sound 

science, applied at a broader regional 

context, and that the mitigation 

hierarchy process is applied in the 

development and implementation of a 

resource management plan. 

The BLM is implementing its 

‘‘Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring 

(AIM) Strategy’’ (2011), which was 

developed to standardize data collection 

and retrieval so information is 

comparable over time and can be readily 

accessed and shared. The AIM Strategy 

provides a process for the BLM to 

collect quantitative information on the 

status, condition, trend, amount, 

location, and spatial pattern of 

renewable resources on the nation’s 

public lands. The BLM strategy, 

‘‘Advancing Science in the BLM: An 

Implementation Strategy’’ (2015), 

outlines goals and an action plan for 

integrating science into multiple-use 

land management decisions in a 

consistent manner. Both strategies 

improve the BLM’s ability to employ 

science-based decision-making and 

apply adaptive management techniques 

using standardized monitoring data that 

can be analyzed and applied at multiple 

scales. These steps are essential to 

achieving the Planning 2.0 goals. 

In addition, the BLM is implementing 

its ‘‘Geospatial Services Strategic Plan’’ 

(GSSP) (2008), which will provide the 

high-quality mapping products needed 

to develop and support adaptive, 

landscape-scale management 

approaches. The GSSP establishes a 

governance model for the management 

of BLM’s geospatial information and 

institutes a structure to coordinate the 

use of geospatial technology within the 

BLM. The GSSP also addresses data 

management, data acquisitions, data 

standards, and the establishment of 

corporate data themes. Geospatial 

transformation is essential for achieving 

all three Planning 2.0 goals. In addition 

to supporting science-based, landscapescale, adaptive management approaches, 

advances in geospatial technology 

support the use of new and innovative 

methods for public involvement. For 

example, the development and 

deployment of BLM’s ePlanning 

platform, an online national register for 

land use planning and NEPA 

documents, provides a dynamic and 

interactive link between text, such as 

land use plans, and the supporting 

geospatial data. The ePlanning platform 

enables the BLM to make documents 

and maps available to the public via the 

Internet for review and comment and 

provides a searchable register for NEPA 

and land use planning projects (https:// 

eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/

eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do). The 

BLM is transitioning to the ePlanning 

platform for all land use planning and 

NEPA documents and expects that 

ePlanning will be deployed throughout 

the BLM by 2017. 

Finally, the BLM is strengthening its 

commitment to partnerships and 

cooperating agencies. The BLM’s 

‘‘National Strategy and Implementation 

Plan to Support and Enhance 

Partnerships, 2014–2018’’ (2014), 

highlights the importance of 

partnerships to achieving the BLM’s 

mission, and creates a national 

framework for improved coordination in 

support of partnerships across the BLM. 

The updated BLM publication, A Desk 

Guide to Cooperating Agency 

Relationships and Coordination with 

Intergovernmental Partners (2012), 

reaffirmed the BLM’s commitment to 

working with Federal, State, local, and 

tribal government partners. The 

Planning 2.0 goal of providing new and 

enhanced opportunities for 

collaborative planning will build on 

these foundational efforts. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9681 

Initial Public Involvement in 

Planning 2.0 

The BLM has conducted public 

outreach and engagement activities as a 

part of the Planning 2.0 initiative. This 

outreach is consistent with section 2(c) 

of ‘‘Executive Order 13563—Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (76 

FR 3822), which encourages agencies to 

seek the views of those who are likely 

to be affected by a rulemaking before 

issuing a proposed rule. The outreach 

for the overall Planning 2.0 initiative 

includes the proposed rule and a 

forthcoming revision of the Land Use 

Planning Handbook. The BLM launched 

the Planning 2.0 initiative in May 2014 

by seeking public input on how the land 

use planning process could be 

improved. The BLM developed a Web 

site for the initiative (www.blm.gov/

plan2) and issued a national press 

release with information on how to 

provide input to the agency. The BLM 

held public listening sessions in Denver, 

Colorado (October 1, 2014) and in 

Sacramento, California (October 7, 

2014). Both meetings were led by a 

third-party facilitator and were available 

to remote participants through a live 

broadcast of the event over the Internet 

(livestream). The goals of these meetings 

were to share information about the 

Planning 2.0 initiative with interested 

members of the public, to provide a 

forum for dialogue about the initiative, 

and to receive input from the public on 

how best to achieve the goals of the 

initiative. Summary notes from these 

meetings and recorded livestream video 

are available on the Planning 2.0 Web 

site (www.blm.gov/plan2). 

The BLM has conducted external 

outreach to BLM partners and internal 

outreach to BLM staff in State, District, 

and Field Offices. External outreach 

included multiple briefings provided to 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

chartered RACs; a briefing for State 

Governor representatives coordinated 

through the Western Governors 

Association; a briefing for State Fish and 

Wildlife Agency representatives 

coordinated through the Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies; multiple 

briefings for other Federal agencies; a 

webinar for interested local government 

representatives coordinated through the 

National Association of Counties; and 

meetings with other interested parties 

upon request. 

Public Response to Planning 2.0 During 

Early Engagement 

Since May 2014, over 6,000 groups 

and individuals submitted written 

comments for BLM’s consideration. This 

information was summarized into a 

written report and made available on 

the Planning 2.0 Web site on February 

3, 2015. The input received through 

written submissions and the public 

listening sessions covered a broad range 

of topics and opinions, which are 

summarized in this preamble and 

described in more detail in the 

‘‘Planning 2.0 Public Input Summary 

Report’’ (2015). The summary report is 

available on the Planning 2.0 Web site 

(www.blm.gov/plan2). The BLM has 

worked to consider this information and 

to find an appropriate balance between 

different needs and perspectives in the 

development of the proposed rule. 

A large number of comments focused 

on how to integrate adaptive 

management into resource management 

plans. While nearly all comments 

supported the goal of ‘‘a more dynamic 

and efficient planning process,’’ many 

commenters were concerned that 

resource management plans could 

become so ‘‘dynamic’’ that they become 

meaningless. Many comments suggested 

that the BLM establish achievable and 

measurable objectives to guide future 

decisions, as well as indicators and 

thresholds for resource condition in 

resource management plans. While 

some commenters believed that the 

BLM should have the ability to increase 

or reduce resource protections 

established in the resource management 

plan if site-specific conditions warrant, 

many commenters were concerned that 

such an adaptive management approach 

might allow activities that otherwise 

conflict with the other resource 

management plan goals and objectives. 

Some commenters suggested that 

efficiencies could be gained by 

developing standardized decision 

language, prohibiting overlapping 

designations, and working with partners 

to avoid duplication of efforts. 

Commenters requested that the BLM 

improve data collection and 

management by including non-BLM 

data sources in resource management 

plans; providing better public access to 

BLM data; establishing standards for 

monitoring in resource management 

plans; designating timeframes to modify 

management based on monitoring 

results; and identifying enforceable 

actions if monitoring does not occur. 

Public comments affirmed the value 

of public participation as essential to 

the success of any land use plan. 

Several commenters expressed the need 

for broad, comprehensive stakeholder 

participation and requested that the 

BLM conduct strategic and targeted 

outreach at the onset of all planning 

efforts to reach stakeholders. 

Commenters also encouraged the BLM 

to collaborate with other Federal 

agencies, which often manage adjacent 

lands, and to conduct outreach to Indian 

tribes. 

Numerous commenters suggested two 

new opportunities for public 

involvement in the planning process. 

Outreach before initiating the NEPA 

scoping process could be used to 

identify preliminary stakeholders and 

management issues, solicit input about 

resource data needed for resource 

management plan development, and 

encourage stakeholders to contribute 

inventory information. Additionally, a 

public review of preliminary 

management alternatives could occur 

between public scoping and the 

publication of the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS to help 

BLM refine the range of alternatives to 

address public concern. 

The BLM also received comments on 

different ways to effectively engage the 

public. Several commenters requested 

that the BLM leverage Web-, tele-, and 

video-conference technology to reach a 

larger audience while also providing 

meaningful involvement opportunities 

for members of the public without 

technological access. Commenters also 

described a broad range of best practices 

for public participation and encouraged 

the BLM to implement these practices in 

the planning process. 

Several commenters proposed 

instituting a landscape level planning 

process in which the BLM would 

evaluate public lands, establish priority 

areas for conservation and priority areas 

for development, set desired conditions 

at the ecoregional level, and then 

allocate allowable uses and make 

special designations at the field office 

level. Conversely, some commenters 

questioned the utility of landscape level 

planning. It is important to many 

stakeholders that resource management 

plans provide specific, local context, 

and clearly articulate for local users 

how the BLM will manage public lands 

close to them. Some commenters were 

concerned that it would be shortsighted 

for the BLM to limit development only 

to those priority areas identified in an 

ecoregional plan, as future technological 

advances could make new unforeseeable 

areas appropriate for development. 

Many comments urged the BLM to 

integrate the DOI mitigation policy, 

‘‘Improving Mitigation Policies and 

Practices of the Department of the 

Interior’’ (Secretarial Order 3330), into 

the land use planning process. Public 

comments also stated that effective 

landscape planning should be fully 

integrated with the NEPA process and 

provide clear direction for considering 

State and private lands. At the same 

time, commenters cautioned that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9682 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

BLM should ensure that landscape level 

planning does not result in timeconsuming analysis that overlaps the 

NEPA analysis that already occurs 

during a resource management plan 

revision. 

In addition to input on how to meet 

Planning 2.0 goals, many public 

comments contained recommendations 

on how the BLM should address 

specific resources, uses, and special 

designations in resource management 

plans. These comments are summarized 

in the ‘‘Planning 2.0 Public Input 

Summary Report’’ (2015), available on 

the Planning 2.0 Web site 

(www.blm.gov/plan2). 

Why the Proposed Rule Is Necessary To 

Achieve the Goals of Planning 2.0 

As part of the Planning 2.0 initiative, 

the BLM proposes revising specific 

provisions of the land use planning 

regulations (43 CFR part 1600). The 

BLM is also revising the Land Use 

Planning Handbook. After careful 

consideration, the BLM believes that 

such an approach would most 

effectively advance the goals of the 

Planning 2.0 initiative by ensuring that 

the land use planning regulations and 

the Land Use Planning Handbook 

provide clear and consistent direction 

leading to improved stewardship of the 

public lands and resources. In the 

following paragraphs we explain how 

the proposed changes to the planning 

regulations would serve the overall 

goals of the Planning 2.0 initiative. 

Under the proposed rule, the BLM 

would distinguish between the 

planning-level management direction 

that guides all future management 

decisions (plan components) and the 

information that may be included with 

a resource management plan that 

describes how the BLM intends to 

implement future actions consistent 

with the planning-level management 

direction (implementation strategies). 

This distinction is essential for applying 

a landscape-scale management 

approach, which requires consideration 

of a broader regional context when 

developing planning-level management 

direction. Such consideration is difficult 

to achieve when planning-level 

management direction is integrated with 

detailed information about 

implementing future actions. This 

distinction would also facilitate the use 

of adaptive-management approaches 

when developing future actions 

consistent with the management 

direction in the resource management 

plan. 

The proposed changes would 

emphasize that land use planning is 

grounded in high quality information, 

including the best available scientific 

information, and that the future actions 

taken consistent with a resource 

management plan should be based on 

the high quality information at the time 

the action is proposed. 

The proposed changes would also 

emphasize the importance of assessing 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic conditions at 

multiple scales and before initiating the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan, in order to apply science-based 

decision-making and inform 

management decisions at appropriate 

scales. 

The proposed changes would add 

new opportunities for collaboration in 

the land use planning process and 

emphasize the importance of early 

public involvement in order to engage 

different perspectives and ensure 

planning is responsive to public needs 

and values. Proposed changes would 

promote increased communication with 

and transparency to the public by 

providing for the use of electronic 

communications and information 

technology, in addition to traditional 

methods of communication. The BLM 

believes that enhanced collaboration 

would promote a more efficient 

planning process and improved 

outcomes by ensuring that diverse 

viewpoints are considered early and 

often. In particular, the BLM anticipates 

that considering diverse viewpoints 

early in the planning process, when 

they can help inform the development 

of the resource management plan and 

supporting NEPA analysis, would help 

the BLM avoid the need to re-start the 

planning process or supplement the 

NEPA analysis based on issues raised 

later in the process after considerable 

work has been completed. At the same 

time, the proposed rule would eliminate 

some Federal Register notice 

requirements and shorten the minimum 

requirement for the length of public 

comment periods for draft resource 

management plans and draft EIS-level 

amendments to balance the need for an 

efficient planning process with 

additional time for new public 

involvement opportunities and also to 

promote consistency and integration 

with the requirements of NEPA. 

Consistency between overlapping 

regulatory requirements (such as the 

requirements of the BLM planning 

regulations, the DOI NEPA 

implementation regulations, and the 

CEQ NEPA regulations) would help to 

make these requirements less confusing 

to stakeholders. 

In revisions to both subpart 1601 and 

1610, the BLM proposes to update 

existing text to reflect current style 

guidelines and to use plain language, 

consistent with the ‘‘Presidential 

Memorandum on Plain Language in 

Government Writing’’ (63 FR 31885), 

which directs Federal Agencies to 

consider rewriting existing regulations 

in plain language if the opportunity is 

available. These changes would 

facilitate improved readability and 

understanding of the planning 

regulations, which would support 

effective collaboration during the 

planning process. 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

(1) Amend the responsibilities section 

with the addition of the new terms 

‘‘responsible official’’ and ‘‘deciding 

official.’’ 

(2) Provide for BLM Director 

determination of the deciding official 

and the planning area for resource 

management plans and for plan 

amendments that cross State 

boundaries, and deciding official 

determination of the planning area for 

all other plan amendments. 

(3) Distinguish between ‘‘plan 

components’’ (i.e., planning-level 

management direction) and 

‘‘implementation strategies’’ which 

assist in implementing future actions 

consistent with the plan components. 

(4) Require specific and measurable 

plan objectives to improve 

implementation, monitoring and 

evaluation, transparency, and 

accountability. 

(5) Add new public involvement 

opportunities during the early steps of 

the planning process, including an 

opportunity to provide data and other 

information to inform the planning 

process and public review of 

preliminary resource management 

alternatives, the rationale for 

alternatives, and the procedures, 

assumptions, and indicators to be used 

in the effects analysis (‘‘basis for 

analysis’’). 

(6) Add new commitments to 

transparency (e.g., making preliminary 

alternatives and the rationale for those 

alternatives available to the public, 

posting resource management plans 

online, making protests available to the 

public, notifying the public before 

updates are made to an implementation 

strategy or to plan components through 

plan maintenance, and making plan 

evaluations available to the public). 

(7) Add a new requirement for an 

assessment of resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic 

conditions which will be made available 

to the public and provide important 

baseline information before initiating 

the preparation of a resource 

management plan or a plan amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9683 

for which an EIS will be prepared to 

inform the amendment. 

(8) Remove the requirement to 

publish a NOI in the Federal Register 

for amendments that require preparation 

of an environmental assessment (EA) for 

consistency with NEPA requirements 

and to facilitate an efficient amendment 

process. 

(9) Reduce the minimum public 

comment period for draft EIS-level plan 

amendments from 90 days to 45 days for 

consistency with NEPA requirements 

and to facilitate an efficient amendment 

process. Reduce the minimum public 

comment period for draft resource 

management plans from 90 days to 60 

days to allow for the addition of new 

early opportunities for public 

involvement (e.g., public review of 

preliminary alternatives) while still 

maintaining an efficient process. 

(10) Replace the requirement that the 

BLM identify a single preferred 

alternative in a draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS with a 

new requirement that the BLM identify 

‘‘one or more’’ preferred alternatives for 

more consistency with DOI NEPA 

implementation regulations that apply 

to draft EISs (43 CFR 46.425(a)). 

(11) Affirm the legal requirements for 

consistency with the land use plans of 

other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes for 

consistency with FLPMA and improved 

clarity. 

(12) Amend the protest section to 

clarify what constitutes a valid protest 

and the requirements for submitting a 

protest. 

(13) Amend the resource management 

plan maintenance section to clarify the 

limitations of its use and to provide 

transparency to the public when 

changes are made through plan 

maintenance. 

(14) Amend the ACEC provisions for 

improved clarity. 

(15) Replace the requirement to 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

listing each proposed ACEC with a 

requirement to notify the public of each 

proposed ACEC. 

(16) Remove the requirement to 

provide a 60 day public comment 

period on the draft resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

when an ACEC is involved for better 

integration of ACEC consideration into 

the overall planning process and 

consistency with NEPA requirements. 

(17) Clarify the specific requirements 

of the Governor’s consistency review 

and provide the BLM Director discretion 

to notify the public of his or her 

decision by means other than the 

Federal Register. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis of 

Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would revise part 

1600, including subparts 1601 

(Planning) and 1610 (Resource 

Management Planning). Proposed 

revisions in subpart 1601 would update 

and introduce new definitions and 

revise the purpose, objective, 

responsibilities, environmental impact 

statement policy, and principles 

sections. 

Proposed subpart 1610 would be 

reorganized to improve readability. The 

proposed revisions would describe 

guidance and general requirements, and 

resource management plan components; 

update the public involvement 

provisions; establish an assessment of 

baseline conditions in the planning area 

before the BLM initiates the preparation 

of a resource management plan and EISlevel amendments; revise the steps in 

the planning process to increase 

transparency and add new opportunities 

for public involvement; clarify resource 

management plan approval and protest 

procedures; modify the monitoring and 

evaluation, amendment, and 

maintenance provisions; update the 

provisions for designating ACECs; and 

make clarifying edits. 

The following paragraphs present a 

section-by-section analysis of key 

proposed changes under each subpart 

compared to the current regulations. 

Subpart 1601—Planning 

The BLM would make several style 

changes throughout both subparts, such 

as replacing the Bureau of Land 

Management with the acronym ‘‘BLM’’ 

and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act with the acronym 

‘‘FLPMA,’’ for improved readability. We 

would replace the word ‘‘title’’ with 

‘‘part’’ throughout both subparts for 

consistency with current style 

guidelines. We also would replace the 

word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ throughout 

both subparts for improved readability, 

unless otherwise noted. We would 

replace ‘‘plan’’ with ‘‘resource 

management plan,’’ where appropriate, 

and ‘‘amendment’’ with ‘‘plan 

amendment’’ throughout both subparts 

to improve consistency and precision in 

use of terminology. 

Finally, we propose to remove most 

references to resource management plan 

‘‘revisions’’ throughout both subparts. 

Revisions would be included in the 

definition of a resource management 

plan (see proposed § 1601.0–5) and 

must comply with all of the 

requirements of these regulations for 

preparing and approving a resource 

management plan (see proposed 

§ 1610.6–8). Differentiating between the 

preparation of a new resource 

management plan and the revision of a 

resource management plan is 

unnecessary and confusing. For 

example, if the BLM revises portions of 

more than one existing resource 

management plan, it is unclear whether 

the resulting resource management plan 

would be considered a new resource 

management plan or a revised resource 

management plan. Under the proposed 

and existing regulations, there is no 

substantive difference between a 

resource management plan and a 

resource management plan revision, 

therefore both would be considered a 

‘‘resource management plan.’’ 

Section 1601.0–1 Purpose 

The only proposed changes to this 

section are to introduce the acronym 

‘‘BLM,’’ which is used throughout the 

part and to remove the words ‘‘and 

revision’’ for the reasons previously 

described. There would be no 

substantive change to this section. 

Section 1601.0–2 Objective 

The BLM proposes to revise the stated 

objectives of resource management 

planning to reflect FLPMA and remove 

vague or inaccurate language. In the first 

sentence, we propose to remove the 

phrase ‘‘maximize resource values for 

the public through a rational, 

consistently applied set of regulations 

and procedures.’’ The term ‘‘maximize 

resource values’’ is vague and therefore 

inappropriate in regulations and a 

‘‘rational, consistently applied set of 

regulations and procedures’’ is an 

objective of developing planning 

regulations, but not an objective of 

resource management planning. 

Proposed changes to this section 

would also replace the phrase ‘‘concept 

of multiple use management’’ in the first 

sentence of this section with the phrase 

‘‘principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield on public lands unless 

otherwise provided by law.’’ This 

change is consistent with FLPMA, 

which directs the BLM to ‘‘use and 

observe the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield’’ in the 

development and revision of land use 

plans (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(1)). The 

proposed change also acknowledges that 

in some situations the BLM must use 

and observe the principles of other legal 

authorities. For instance, national 

monuments established under the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431– 

433) must use and observe the 

principles specific to their 

establishment. The word ‘‘appropriate’’ 

would be removed from before ‘‘Federal 

agencies’’ in the first sentence. This 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9684 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

word is unnecessary, as any Federal 

agency may participate in the BLM’s 

planning process; the BLM does not 

make a determination on which 

agencies may or may not be appropriate. 

We propose to specify that an objective 

of resource management planning is to 

ensure participation by the public, State 

and local governments, Indian tribes, 

and Federal agencies ‘‘in the 

development of resource management 

plans.’’ There would be no change in 

existing practice or policy from these 

proposed changes. 

The BLM proposes to add an 

additional objective of resource 

management planning to the 

regulations, which is to ‘‘ensure that the 

public lands be managed in a manner 

that will protect the quality of scientific, 

scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological 

values; that, where appropriate, will 

preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; that 

will provide for outdoor recreation and 

human use, and which recognizes the 

Nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals, food, timber, and fiber from 

the public lands.’’ This proposed change 

would incorporate language from 

FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8) and 

(a)(12)) to identify in the planning 

regulations the general management 

objectives that apply to the public lands 

and therefore apply to all resource 

management plans. While this is a 

change in the regulations, it would 

simply affirm statutory direction and 

not change existing practice or policy. 

We propose to remove the final 

sentence in this section, ‘‘resource 

management plans are designed to guide 

and control future management actions 

and development of subsequent, more 

detailed and limited scope plans for 

resources and uses.’’ This sentence does 

not accurately describe the objectives of 

resource management planning; rather it 

describes the function of a resource 

management plan. Under the proposed 

rule, elements of the removed sentence 

would be revised and incorporated into 

the proposed definition for ‘‘plan 

components’’ (for more information, see 

the discussion on ‘‘plan components’’ at 

the preamble for proposed § 1601.0–5). 

Section 1601.0–3 Authority 

The BLM proposes this section, which 

is identical to that in the existing 

regulations. 

Section 1601.0–4 Responsibilities 

The BLM proposes to revise 

paragraph (a) of this section to use 

active voice, stating ‘‘[t]he Secretary and 

the Director provide national level 

policy and procedure guidance for 

planning.’’ There would be no change in 

the meaning of this sentence or in the 

associated responsibilities. In the 

second sentence, we propose to 

establish a new responsibility for the 

BLM Director to determine the deciding 

official (a proposed new term defined in 

§ 1601.0–5) and the planning area for 

resource management plans and for plan 

amendments that cross State 

boundaries. This is a change from 

existing regulations, where the deciding 

official is the State Director and the 

default planning area is a field office 

area, unless otherwise authorized by the 

State Director (see existing § 1610.1(b)). 

Although the BLM is able to establish a 

different planning area under existing 

regulations, the proposed rule would 

align with the BLM’s intent to no longer 

rely on the field office area as the 

default resource management plan 

boundary and specify that the BLM 

Director is the appropriate employee to 

determine the deciding official and the 

planning area for resource management 

plans and plan amendments that cross 

State boundaries. 

In making these changes, the BLM 

acknowledges that conservation, 

resource management, development 

activities, or other priorities such as 

landscape-scale mitigation may benefit 

from planning area boundaries that 

cross traditional BLM administrative 

boundaries and may require greater 

coordination of land use planning 

across BLM States and national level 

programs. 

In paragraph (b) of this section, the 

BLM proposes to replace references to 

‘‘State Directors’’ with ‘‘deciding 

officials’’ and to use active voice by 

stating ‘‘deciding officials provide 

quality control’’ instead of existing 

language which states that ‘‘State 

Directors will provide quality control’’ 

to improve readability. There would be 

minimal changes in the responsibilities 

associated with this role in the planning 

process. Although the BLM expects that 

BLM State Directors would continue to 

be the deciding official for resource 

management plans located within their 

BLM State boundaries (or an equivalent 

BLM Official should the boundaries of 

administrative oversight change in the 

future), in some situations a different 

deciding official may be appropriate. 

For example, a single BLM State 

Director could be the deciding official 

for a resource management plan or plan 

amendment that crosses State 

boundaries, and this would be 

determined by the BLM Director (see 

paragraph (a) of this section). 

Deciding officials would be 

responsible for ‘‘quality control and 

supervisory review, including approval, 

for the preparation and amendment of 

resource management plans and related 

[EISs] or [EAs].’’ Proposed changes 

would clarify that deciding officials are 

responsible for quality control and 

supervisory review of plan 

amendments, in addition to resource 

management plans. These proposed 

changes are consistent with current 

practice and policy. 

We propose to specify that deciding 

officials would determine the planning 

area for plan amendments that do not 

cross State boundaries, consistent with 

current practice and policy. The BLM 

requests public comment on the 

proposed responsibilities for the 

determination of the planning area for 

plan amendments. In particular, the 

BLM requests public comment on 

whether a different distinction than 

‘‘crossing State boundaries’’ should be 

used to differentiate between 

amendments where the Director would 

determine the planning area and 

amendments where the deciding official 

would determine the planning area. 

We propose to remove the 

requirement that deciding officials 

‘‘provide additional guidance, as 

necessary, for use by Field Managers.’’ 

This language is unnecessary in the 

regulations. Deciding officials may 

provide guidance, as described in 

proposed § 1610.1–1, but this is only 

one of their many responsibilities 

during the planning process that are all 

encompassed by ‘‘supervisory review.’’ 

It is unnecessary and inappropriate to 

identify the provision of guidance as a 

unique responsibility. The BLM intends 

no change in practice or policy by 

removing ‘‘guidance’’ from the 

responsibilities section. 

We also propose to remove the 

requirement that deciding officials ‘‘file 

draft and final [EISs].’’ This language is 

unnecessary and redundant with the 

requirement that deciding officials 

provide supervisory review for ‘‘related 

[EISs]’’ which would include 

supervisory review of filing the 

documents. Current BLM practice is for 

the deciding official to delegate the 

responsibility of filing EISs or EAs. The 

proposed change would be consistent 

with current practice. 

Proposed changes in paragraph (c) of 

this section would replace references to 

‘‘Field Managers’’ with ‘‘responsible 

officials’’ (a proposed new term defined 

in § 1601.0–5) and provide that 

responsible officials would prepare 

resource management plans and plan 

amendments, and related EISs and EAs. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed definitions in 1601.0–5, the 

term ‘‘responsible official’’ is adapted 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9685 

from the term used in the DOI NEPA 

regulations (see 43 CFR 46.30). There 

would be no change in the 

responsibilities associated with this 

role, but the new term would provide 

the BLM with more flexibility to prepare 

or amend resource management plans at 

levels other than a field office. 

The proposed changes are intended to 

facilitate planning across traditional 

BLM administrative boundaries. For 

instance, if the planning area for a 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment is larger than the BLM Field 

Office administrative boundary in order 

to address a landscape-scale resource 

issue, the BLM Field Manager may not 

be the most appropriate BLM employee 

to prepare the resource management 

plan or plan amendment. These changes 

are consistent with current practices 

used by the BLM. There are several 

examples where a BLM District Manager 

is the responsible official for the 

preparation or amendment of a resource 

management plan, such as the resource 

management plan currently under 

preparation for the Carson City District 

in Nevada. 

We propose to include the 

preparation of related ‘‘EAs’’ as a 

responsibility of responsible officials. 

The proposed change would fix an 

existing inconsistency in the 

regulations. Responsible officials 

prepare plan amendments and either an 

EIS or an EA could be prepared to 

inform the plan amendment. 

Responsible officials would therefore be 

responsible for the preparation of a 

related EA, in addition to related EISs. 

The BLM intends no change in practice 

or policy from this addition. 

We propose to remove the final 

sentence of paragraph (c) of this section, 

which requires that ‘‘State Directors 

must approve these documents.’’ Under 

the proposed rule, deciding officials 

would approve these documents, as 

discussed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

Section 1601.0–5 Definitions 

The BLM proposes to add the 

definitions of fourteen new terms: 

Deciding official, High quality 

information, Implementation strategies, 

Indian tribe, Mitigation, Plan 

amendment, Plan components, Plan 

maintenance, Plan revision, Planning 

area, Planning assessment, Planning 

issue, Responsible official, and 

Sustained yield. The BLM proposes to 

also revise the existing definitions of: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

or ACEC, Conformity or conformance, 

Cooperating agency, Local government, 

Officially approved and adopted 

resource-related (land use) plans, and 

Resource management plan. The BLM 

proposes to remove the definitions of: 

Consistent, Eligible cooperating agency, 

Field Manager, Guidance, and Resource 

area or field office. The following 

paragraphs describe the proposed 

changes to these definitions and the 

rationale for each. This analysis does 

not discuss the definitions of terms that 

are proposed without amendment. 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern or ACEC. We propose to move 

the last sentence of this definition 

(‘‘[t]he identification of a potential 

ACEC shall not, of itself, change or 

prevent change of the management or 

use of public lands.’’) to the ACEC 

provisions in § 1610.8–2(b). The 

proposed change would make the 

definition of an ACEC in this section 

more consistent with FLPMA. This 

sentence is not part of the definition of 

an ACEC provided in FLPMA and it 

establishes policy for a potential ACEC; 

it should therefore be located in the 

policy provisions governing ACECs. The 

sentence is most appropriately placed 

following the description of the criteria 

for identifying a potential ACEC 

(§ 1610.8–2(b)). This proposed change 

would not be a change in practice or 

policy. 

Conformity or conformance. The 

proposed changes to this section would 

replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will,’’ 

remove language that an action ‘‘shall be 

specifically provided for in the plan’’ 

and replace the phrase ‘‘terms, 

conditions, and decisions’’ with ‘‘plan 

components’’ of the approved resource 

management plan in the definition of 

conformity or conformance. These 

proposed changes would be consistent 

with proposed changes to § 1610.1–2, 

which refer to plan components instead 

of ‘‘terms, conditions, and decisions.’’ 

The proposed changes reflect that plan 

components provide the planning-level 

management direction that guides all 

future management actions, thus a 

proposed action must be consistent with 

the planning-level management 

direction. Proposed changes also reflect 

the fact that although specific actions 

may be identified in implementation 

strategies, these strategies are not 

considered a component of the resource 

management plan and must also be 

clearly consistent with the plan 

components. 

The proposed rule would provide a 

more precise definition of conformance, 

which would assist the BLM and the 

public in identifying whether a 

proposed action is in conformance with 

an approved resource management plan. 

The proposed rule would also remove 

the words ‘‘plan amendment’’ from the 

end of the definition. These words are 

not necessary; an approved plan 

amendment is encompassed by an 

approved resource management plan 

(i.e., following approval the plan 

amendment amends the resource 

management plan). 

Consistent. The proposed rule would 

remove the definition of the term 

consistent. This definition is 

unnecessary as this is commonly used 

terminology. 

Eligible cooperating agency. We 

propose removing this definition and 

revising the definition of ‘‘cooperating 

agency’’ to cite the definition of 

‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ in the 

DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 

46.225(a)). The DOI definition was 

promulgated after the BLM Planning 

regulations were last amended in 2005. 

No change in meaning or practice is 

intended; the BLM merely seeks to make 

the planning regulations consistent with 

the DOI NEPA regulations. 

Cooperating agency. In defining 

‘‘cooperating agency’’ for resource 

management planning purposes, the 

BLM proposes to modify the existing 

definition in the planning regulations 

for improved consistency with the DOI 

NEPA implementing regulations (43 

CFR 46.225(a)) and to clarify existing 

language. This will make clear that 

while cooperating agencies are defined 

under the CEQ NEPA implementing 

regulations, cooperating agencies have 

unique roles in the BLM land use 

planning and NEPA processes and that 

the BLM defines cooperating agencies in 

the same way for both processes. 

Specifically, this section modifies the 

existing definition in the planning 

regulations by adding a reference to the 

definition of ‘‘eligible governmental 

entity’’ from the DOI NEPA regulations 

(43 CFR 46.225(a)) and by clarifying that 

a cooperating agency agrees to 

participate in the development of an 

‘‘environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment’’ under 

NEPA and in the planning process. We 

propose to delete ‘‘written’’ in the first 

sentence of this section, because a 

Federal cooperating agency—unlike 

State, local, or tribal governments—need 

not enter into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) or other written 

agreement to confirm its status under 

DOI NEPA regulations (see proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(b)(2)). 

We also propose to add the words 

‘‘appropriate’’ and ‘‘scope of their 

expertise’’ to the last sentence to 

indicate that cooperating agencies will 

participate in the planning process as 

feasible and ‘‘appropriate,’’ given the 

‘‘scope of their expertise’’ and 

constraints of their resources. The 

added language would reinforce the fact 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

that cooperating agencies have a broad 

range of expertise and their 

participation in the planning process 

should be appropriate to their particular 

area of expertise. The BLM intends no 

change from current practice or policy 

with these proposed changes. 

Deciding official. This proposed new 

definition refers to the BLM official who 

is delegated the authority to approve a 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment. As discussed throughout 

this preamble, it replaces the term 

‘‘State Director’’ throughout the 

planning regulations in order to 

facilitate planning across traditional 

BLM administrative boundaries. 

Field manager. We propose to remove 

this definition, because we propose to 

replace references to the Field Manager 

with ‘‘responsible official’’ or ‘‘the 

BLM’’ throughout. This change is 

intended to facilitate planning across 

traditional BLM administrative 

boundaries. 

Guidance. We propose to remove the 

definition of guidance, because we 

believe a definition for the term 

‘‘guidance’’ is no longer necessary in the 

planning regulations. Internal BLM 

guidance must be in compliance with 

all applicable laws and regulations, so 

further restrictions in the definitions 

section of these regulations is not 

necessary or appropriate. The removal 

of unnecessary definitions or language 

improves readability of the regulations. 

This proposed change would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

High quality information. We propose 

to add this new definition to describe 

new terminology introduced into 

proposed §§ 1610.1–1(c) and 1610.4(b). 

High quality information would be 

defined as ‘‘any representation of 

knowledge such as facts or data, 

including the best available scientific 

information, which is accurate, reliable, 

and unbiased, is not compromised 

through corruption or falsification, and 

is useful to its intended users’’ (for more 

information, see the discussion on high 

quality information at the preamble for 

proposed § 1610.1–1(c)). 

Implementation strategies. We 

propose to add this new definition to 

describe new terminology introduced 

into proposed § 1610.1–3. As proposed, 

implementation strategies would be 

strategies that assist in implementing 

future actions consistent with the plan 

components. As explained in the 

preamble for proposed § 1610.1–3, 

implementation strategies would not be 

considered a component of the 

approved resource management plan; 

rather these optional strategies would be 

prepared in conjunction with the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan to assist in the future 

implementation of the resource 

management plan or be developed 

subsequently, but consistent, with the 

plan components. 

Indian tribe. We propose to add this 

new definition of Indian tribe for 

consistency with the Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). The planning 

regulations were promulgated prior to 

this Act and this new definition would 

clarify the use of this term. As proposed, 

the term Indian tribe would refer to 

federally recognized Indian tribes. This 

proposed change would not be a change 

in practice or policy. 

In connection with this change, we 

propose to delete the words ‘‘federally 

recognized’’ from five locations where 

the existing regulations refer to 

‘‘federally recognized Indian tribes.’’ 

These references were added under the 

2005 revision to the regulations (70 FR 

14561), but other existing references to 

Indian tribes were not amended at that 

time. Consequently, the existing 

regulations are inconsistent in their use 

of terminology. The references to 

‘‘federally recognized’’ Indian tribes 

would no longer be necessary as a result 

of the proposed definition, which 

includes only federally recognized 

Indian tribes. The five references are 

identified and clarified in the 

corresponding sections of this preamble. 

It is important to note that the 

proposed rule would not affect 

government-to-government consultation 

with federally recognized Indian tribes 

during the preparation or amendment of 

a resource management plan. The 

proposed rule also would not affect 

implementation of the ‘‘Department of 

the Interior Policy on Consultation with 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) Corporations’’ (2012). The 

BLM would continue to conduct 

government-to-government consultation 

with federally recognized Indian tribes 

and would also continue to consult with 

ANCSA corporations during the 

preparation and amendment of resource 

management plans, consistent with DOI 

policy. 

Local government. We propose to 

replace the existing language for 

‘‘regulation authority’’ with ‘‘regulatory 

authority’’ for improved readability. No 

change in meaning is intended by this 

proposal. 

Mitigation. We propose to add this 

new definition of mitigation to explain 

that mitigation includes the sequence of 

avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, 

and compensating for remaining 

unavoidable impacts. This sequence is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘mitigation 

hierarchy.’’ By including this proposed 

definition in the planning regulations, 

the BLM acknowledges that this 

sequence also applies to the planning 

process. For example, during the 

preparation of resource management 

plans, the BLM first and foremost 

applies the principle of avoidance 

through the identification of planning 

issues and the formulation of 

alternatives that are guided by the 

planning issues (i.e., identifying 

potential impacts and developing 

alternatives that avoid those potential 

impacts). During the preparation of a 

resource management plan, the BLM 

also identifies mitigation standards, 

which help to guide the future 

application of the principles of 

minimization and then compensation 

(for more information, see the 

discussion on mitigation standards at 

the preamble for proposed § 1610.1– 

2(a)(2)). The proposed language is 

consistent with the Departmental 

Manual chapter on ‘‘Implementing 

Mitigation at the Landscape-scale’’ (600 

DM 6). 

Officially approved and adopted land 

use plans. We propose to replace the 

phrase ‘‘resource related plans’’ with 

‘‘land use plans’’ in this definition and 

throughout both subparts. The existing 

terminology of ‘‘resource related plans’’ 

is vague and it is unclear what 

constitutes a resource related plan. The 

proposed terminology of ‘‘land use 

plans’’ is consistent with section 202 of 

FLPMA. We also propose to remove the 

words ‘‘policies, programs, and 

processes’’ from the definition of 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans. The existing definition is 

inconsistent with § 1610.3–2, which 

distinguishes between ‘‘officially 

approved or adopted resource related 

plans’’ in existing § 1610.3–2(a) and 

‘‘officially approved or adopted resource 

related policies and programs’’ in 

existing § 1610.3–2(b), rather than 

combining them, such as in the existing 

definition. 

This proposed change would mean 

that the requirements of § 1610.3–2(a) 

would apply to the ‘‘land use plans’’ of 

other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes, but 

would not apply to the ‘‘policies, 

programs, and processes.’’ There would 

be no regulatory requirements for 

consistency with the ‘‘policies, 

programs, and processes’’ of other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes. This 

proposed change is consistent with 

section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. For more 

information, see the discussion on 

consistency requirements at the 

preamble for proposed § 1610.3–2. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9687 

Plan amendment. This proposed new 

definition would clarify that a plan 

amendment could either be an 

amendment to an approved resource 

management plan or a management 

framework plan. A management 

framework plan is a land use plan that 

was prepared and approved prior to 

FLPMA. In either case, the BLM would 

be required to follow the same 

amendment procedures, as described in 

this part. 

Plan components. This proposed new 

definition identifies plan components as 

the elements of a resource management 

plan with which future management 

actions will be consistent. Although 

other items could be prepared in 

conjunction with a resource 

management plan, such as 

implementation strategies, they would 

not be considered a component of the 

resource management plan (for more 

information, see the discussions on plan 

components and implementation 

strategies in the preamble for proposed 

§§ 1610.1–2 and 1610.1–3). 

Plan maintenance. This proposed 

new definition would describe plan 

maintenance as minor changes to an 

approved resource management plan to 

correct typographical or mapping errors 

or reflect minor changes in mapping or 

data. For example, the BLM might 

maintain a plan by updating maps in the 

plan to correct a mistake in the location 

of a fence line. The BLM also might 

update maps in the plan to reflect minor 

changes in data, such as the location of 

a river that has migrated over time. The 

proposed language is consistent with 

existing § 1610.5–4 and proposed 

§ 1610.6–5. 

Plan revision. The BLM proposes to 

include a new definition for plan 

revisions, as a revision of an approved 

resource management plan or major 

portions of the resource management 

plan. We propose to clarify in this 

definition that the phrase ‘‘preparation 

or development of a resource 

management plan,’’ which is used 

throughout the proposed planning 

regulations, includes plan revisions. 

The proposed language would improve 

understanding that the revision of a 

resource management plan follows the 

same procedures as the preparation of a 

new resource management plan (see 

proposed § 1610.6–7). 

Planning area. This proposed new 

definition would describe the 

geographic area for the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan and would replace the existing 

definition for ‘‘resource area or field 

office.’’ We would replace the terms 

‘‘resource area’’ or ‘‘field office’’ with 

‘‘planning area’’ throughout the 

proposed rule. The proposed change is 

consistent with the terminology the 

BLM currently uses to describe the 

geographic area for which resource 

management plans are prepared (see 

page 14 of BLM Handbook H–1601–1). 

Proposed § 1601.0–4 provides revised 

direction for determination of planning 

area boundaries. This proposed change 

would not be a change in practice or 

policy. 

Planning assessment. This proposed 

new definition would describe an 

evaluation of relevant resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic conditions in the planning 

area, which is developed to describe the 

current status of lands and resources in 

the planning area, project demand for 

those resources, and to assess how these 

demands can be met consistent with the 

BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield 

mandate. The assessment will inform 

the preparation and, as appropriate, the 

implementation of a resource 

management plan or revision. Section 

1610.4 of this preamble describes the 

proposed planning assessment step in 

the planning process, including 

opportunities for collaboration and 

public involvement. The planning 

assessment may also be used during the 

implementation of a resource 

management plan. For example, the 

BLM could use information from a 

planning assessment to evaluate 

whether a future proposed action 

conforms with an objective in the 

approved resource management plan 

related to the protection of a sensitive 

resource and could supplement that 

information with down-scaled 

information specific to the project area 

being considered. The BLM could also 

use information from a planning 

assessment to inform the preparation of 

a travel management plan. 

Planning issue. This proposed new 

definition would identify planning 

issues as disputes, controversies, or 

opportunities related to resource 

management. For example, a planning 

issue might identify a potential dispute 

over resource management, such as a 

popular recreation area that coincides 

with important cultural sites, habitat, or 

another multiple use. A planning issue 

might also identify a potential 

opportunity, such as an opportunity to 

control the spread of invasive species 

through resource management. The 

proposed new definition would be 

consistent with current practice and 

policy. 

Public lands. We propose to replace 

Bureau of Land Management with BLM 

and to split the existing definition into 

two sentences for improved readability. 

These proposed changes would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

Resource area or field office. We 

propose to remove this definition, 

because the resource area or field office 

no longer would be the ‘‘default’’ 

planning area. We would replace the 

terms ‘‘resource area’’ or ‘‘field office’’ 

with ‘‘planning area’’ throughout the 

proposed rule. 

Resource Management Plan. We 

propose to simplify the existing 

definition to say a resource management 

plan is ‘‘a land use plan as described 

under section 202 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, 

including plan revisions.’’ Much of the 

existing language, and a more in depth 

discussion of what constitutes a 

resource management plan would be 

moved to §§ 1610.1–2 and 1610.1–3. 

‘‘Plan components’’ and 

‘‘implementation strategies’’ described 

in proposed § 1610.1 would replace the 

elements generally established in a 

resource management plan under the 

existing definition in § 1601.0–5(n). As 

discussed in § 1610.1 of the preamble, 

these proposed changes aim to clarify 

that a resource management plan is a 

landscape-focused document that 

guides future management activities. 

They also aim to distinguish the land 

use planning-level components of a 

resource management plan (i.e., plan 

components) from supporting 

documents that assist in implementing 

future actions consistent with the 

resource management plan (i.e., 

implementation strategies). 

Proposed language would clarify that 

the term ‘‘resource management plan’’ 

includes plan revisions. The proposed 

change would improve understanding 

that the revision of a resource 

management plan follows the same 

procedures as the preparation of a new 

resource management plan (see 

proposed § 1610.6–7). 

We propose to revise existing 

language at the end of this definition to 

read ‘‘approval of a resource 

management plan is not a final 

implementation decision on actions 

which require further specific plans, 

process steps, or decisions under 

specific provisions of law and 

regulations.’’ The decision to approve a 

resource management plan is therefore 

not an approval of future actions within 

the planning area that require 

subsequent plans (such as a mining plan 

of operations), process steps (such as 

site-specific NEPA-analysis), or 

decisions (such as the decision to 

approve the action based on the sitespecific NEPA analysis). 

Responsible official. This proposed 

new term would replace the term ‘‘Field 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Manager’’ throughout the planning 

regulations, acknowledging that the 

BLM employee authorized to prepare a 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment may not always be the Field 

Manager due to the need to plan across 

traditional BLM administrative 

boundaries. The proposed term is based 

on the definition of ‘‘Responsible 

official’’ in the DOI NEPA implementing 

regulations, ‘‘the bureau employee who 

is delegated the authority to make and 

implement a decision on a proposed 

action and is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with NEPA’’ (43 CFR 46.30). 

This proposed term, as modified, would 

only be applicable to the BLM land use 

planning process; no change to the DOI 

NEPA implementing regulations is 

intended. However, note that in the DOI 

NEPA regulations, the responsible 

official has the authority to make and 

implement a decision on a proposed 

action and is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with NEPA. We propose to 

divide these responsibilities between 

the deciding official and the responsible 

official for purposes of the planning 

rule. Under the proposed rule, the 

responsible official would prepare the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment and related EISs and EAs, 

and the deciding official would approve 

the resource management plan. 

Sustained yield. This proposed new 

definition comes from section 103(h) of 

FLPMA. We propose adding it because 

the planning regulations already include 

the statutory definition of multiple use 

and the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield guide the BLM’s 

development and revision of land use 

plans under section 202(c)(1) of FLPMA 

absent other applicable law. These 

regulatory definitions are useful because 

they are referenced throughout the 

existing and proposed regulations. 

Section 1601.0–6 Environmental 

Impact Statement Policy 

We propose to replace the word 

‘‘plan’’ with ‘‘resource management 

plan’’ and to replace the word ‘‘shall’’ 

with ‘‘will’’ throughout this section, for 

the reasons previously described. 

Section 1601.0–7 Scope 

The BLM proposes this section, which 

is identical to that in the existing 

regulations. 

Section 1601.0–8 Principles 

In the first sentence of this section, we 

propose edits to replace ‘‘shall’’ with 

‘‘will’’ for the reasons previously 

described, and ‘‘the Federal Land Policy 

and Management act of 1976’’ with 

FLPMA. The BLM intends no change in 

practice or policy from these proposed 

changes. 

The second sentence of this section 

would be revised to state that the BLM 

will consider the impacts of resource 

management plans on resource, 

environmental, ecological, social and 

economic conditions at appropriate 

scales, rather than just on ‘‘local 

economies.’’ This broader range of 

conditions would include the 

consideration of impacts to local 

economies, in addition to the impacts 

on other conditions. The revised 

language more accurately describes 

current practice when considering 

impacts and would provide useful 

information for the deciding official. It 

is also important that these impacts be 

considered at appropriate scales. For 

example, it is important that the 

deciding official is aware of the 

socioeconomic impacts of a resource of 

national significance found within the 

planning area, such as the Federal 

Helium Reserve, which the BLM 

administers near Amarillo, Texas. The 

new language is consistent with the 

Planning 2.0 goals of addressing 

landscape-scale resource issues. 

Finally, we propose edits to use active 

voice in the last sentence of this section 

and to require that the BLM consider the 

impacts of resource management plans 

on adjacent or nearby Federal and nonFederal lands, as well as the uses of 

adjacent or nearby Federal and nonFederal lands. The new language is 

consistent with the Planning 2.0 goals of 

addressing landscape-scale resource 

issues and would facilitate coordination 

and collaboration with adjacent Federal 

land managers and landowners, as 

appropriate. 

Subpart 1610—Resource Management 

Planning 

Section 1610.1 Resource Management 

Planning Framework 

We propose to change the heading of 

§ 1610.1 by replacing the word guidance 

with framework. The broader heading 

would reflect the entire section as 

revised. 

Many of the provisions of existing 

§ 1610.1 would be found in §§ 1610.1– 

1, 1610.1–2, and 1610.1–3 of the 

proposed rule. Those sections are 

discussed in greater detail as follows. 

Section 1610.1–1 Guidance and 

General Requirements 

Proposed § 1610.1–1 would address 

the development of guidance for 

resource management planning and 

general requirements for the preparation 

and amendment of resource 

management plans. 

Proposed § 1610.1–1(a) contains 

provisions of existing § 1610.1(a). This 

section would still refer to planning 

guidance, but we propose to replace 

references to ‘‘State Director’’ with 

‘‘deciding official’’ and references to 

‘‘Field Manager’’ with ‘‘responsible 

official.’’ These changes are consistent 

with changes made throughout this 

proposed rule to facilitate planning 

across traditional BLM administrative 

boundaries. We propose to specify that 

the word ‘‘plan’’ refers to a ‘‘resource 

management plan.’’ 

Proposed § 1610.1–1(a)(1) contains 

provisions of existing § 1610.1(a)(1), 

which explains that guidance may 

include ‘‘Policy established through 

Presidential, Secretarial, Director, or 

deciding official approved documents, 

so long as such policy is consistent with 

the Federal laws and regulations 

applicable to public lands.’’ We propose 

to remove existing language limiting 

this guidance to ‘‘National level policy’’ 

to also include policy developed at the 

deciding official level as another type of 

guidance that may be developed to help 

the responsible official prepare a 

resource management plan. We also 

propose to remove existing language 

that provides examples of policy, such 

as ‘‘appropriately developed resource 

management commitments.’’ These 

examples are unnecessary in the 

regulations and do not adequately cover 

the broad range of policy examples that 

could be included as guidance. The 

BLM intends no change in practice or 

policy from the proposed changes to 

this section. Rather, the proposed 

changes are intended to improve 

readability and reaffirm that the BLM 

may only develop or apply policy that 

is consistent with Federal laws and 

regulations. 

Proposed § 1610.1–1(a)(2) contains 

most of the provisions found in existing 

§ 1610.1(a)(2) with some revisions. We 

propose to remove existing 

§ 1610.1(a)(3). This section would no 

longer be necessary because guidance 

developed at the deciding official level 

would be incorporated into proposed 

§ 1610.1–1(a)(1). The proposed changes 

would remove existing requirements for 

the State Director to reconsider 

inappropriate guidance during the 

planning process. This language is 

vague and confusing, as it does not 

define what it means for guidance to be 

‘‘inappropriate.’’ The BLM must comply 

with the requirements of Federal laws 

and regulations applicable to public 

lands and therefore guidance developed 

to inform the preparation of a resource 

management plan must also comply 

with Federal laws and regulations 

applicable to the public lands. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9689 

5Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘OMB 

Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 

Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; 

Republication,’’ (67 FR 8452). 

6U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Information 

Quality Guidelines Pursuant To Section 515 Of The 

Treasury And General Government Appropriations 

Act For Fiscal Year 2001,’’ http://www.doi.gov/ocio/ 

information_management/upload/515Guides.pdf. 

7Bureau of Land Management, ‘‘Information 

Quality Guidelines—Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Bureau 

of Land Management,’’ http://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/national/national_

page.Par.7549.File.dat/guidelines.pdf. 

8The implementation strategy is available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/

publications/blm_publications/advancing_

science.html. 

We propose to remove existing 

§ 1610.1(b), which states ‘‘a resource 

management plan shall be prepared and 

maintained on a resource or field office 

area basis, unless the State Director 

authorizes a more appropriate area.’’ 

This language is no longer necessary 

because proposed § 1601.0–4 describes 

the responsibilities for determining 

future planning areas. For more 

information, see the discussion on the 

determination of planning areas at the 

preamble for proposed § 1601.0–4. 

Proposed § 1610.1–1(b) would contain 

the provisions of existing § 1610.1(c). 

The proposed section would make 

several style changes: Changing ‘‘shall’’ 

to ‘‘will’’, and abbreviating ‘‘Bureau of 

Land Management’’ to ‘‘BLM’’ in the last 

sentence. The first sentence would be 

revised to read ‘‘the BLM will use a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach in 

the preparation and amendment of 

resource management plans to achieve 

integrated consideration of physical, 

biological, ecological, social, economic, 

and other sciences.’’ The proposed 

language is consistent with section 

202(c)(2) of FLPMA and would 

highlight the objective of using an 

interdisciplinary approach, as described 

in FLPMA, as well as the importance of 

integrated consideration of sciences in 

the planning process. 

In the second sentence of proposed 

§ 1610.1–1(b), we propose to replace the 

word ‘‘disciplines’’ with ‘‘expertise,’’ to 

reflect that BLM staff may have 

expertise outside of their formal 

discipline, and an ‘‘interdisciplinary 

approach’’ should be based on expertise, 

not formal disciplines. This proposed 

change is consistent with current 

practice. We propose to add the word 

‘‘resource’’ before values, to clearly 

identify what type of values this 

sentence applies to and to specify that 

‘‘the expertise of the preparers will be 

appropriate to . . . the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield, or 

other applicable law.’’ No change in 

meaning, practice, or policy is intended 

by these proposed changes. 

Finally, we propose to replace ‘‘Field 

Manager’’ with ‘‘responsible official’’ in 

the last sentence of proposed § 1610.1– 

1(b). This change would be consistent 

with other changes in terminology in 

this proposed rule. 

Proposed § 1610.1–1(c) would state 

that the BLM will use high quality 

information to inform the preparation, 

amendment, and maintenance of 

resource management plans. High 

quality information includes the best 

available scientific information, but the 

requirement extends to other 

information as well. For example, 

‘‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’’ 

(TEK) refers to the knowledge specific to 

a location acquired by indigenous and 

local peoples over hundreds and 

thousands of years through direct 

contact with the environment. Under 

the proposed rule, TEK would be 

considered a type of high quality 

information that could inform the 

preparation, amendment, and 

maintenance of resource management 

plans, so long as the TEK is relevant to 

the planning effort and documented 

using methodologies designed to 

maintain accuracy and reliability, and to 

avoid bias, corruption, or falsification, 

such as ethnographic research methods. 

As the BLM considers what 

constitutes high quality information for 

purposes of the planning process, the 

BLM is mindful of its obligations under 

the Information Quality Act, section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554, H.R. 

5658), and implementing guidelines of 

OMB,5 DOI,6 and the BLM for ‘‘ensuring 

and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

(including statistical information) 

disseminated by Federal agencies.’’ 7

The descriptions of objectivity, 

integrity, and utility provided in the 

BLM guidelines, as well as the principle 

of using the ‘‘best available’’ 

information, are particularly instructive 

with regard to information considered 

and shared with the public during 

resource management planning. In the 

planning process, the BLM also adheres 

to NEPA requirements for using ‘‘high 

quality’’ information and ‘‘[a]ccurate 

scientific analysis’’ (40 CFR 1500.1(b)), 

and for ensuring the ‘‘professional 

integrity, including scientific integrity, 

of the discussions and analyses in 

[EISs]’’ (40 CFR 1502.24). 

In addition, the BLM intends that the 

March 2015 publication, ‘‘Advancing 

Science in the BLM: An Implementation 

Strategy,’’ will inform a responsible 

official’s consideration of high quality 

information. This publication describes 

several principles and practices that 

pertain to the identification and 

consideration of high quality 

information in resource management 

planning. They include: Using the best 

available scientific knowledge relevant 

to a problem or decision, including 

peer-reviewed literature where it exists; 

acknowledging, describing, and 

documenting assumptions and 

uncertainties; and using quantitative 

data when it exists, together with 

professional scientific expertise from 

within and outside the BLM.8 Moreover, 

all BLM employees are subject to the 

DOI scientific integrity policy in the 

Departmental Manual (305 DM 3, Dec. 

16, 2014) when they use scientific 

information for DOI policy, 

management, or regulatory decisions. 

This policy states: ‘‘Scientific 

information considered in Departmental 

decision-making must be robust, of the 

highest quality, and the result of as 

rigorous a set of scientific processes as 

can be achieved. Most importantly, the 

information must be trustworthy.’’ (305 

DM 3, section 3.4). 

Together, these requirements, 

policies, and strategies relating to high 

quality information, including scientific 

information, will guide responsible 

officials as they consider information for 

planning purposes. The BLM anticipates 

that including the BLM’s commitment 

to using high quality information in the 

planning regulations, and operating 

consistent with Departmental policy on 

scientific integrity and BLM’s strategy 

for advancing science, would result in 

greater consistency in how BLM field, 

district, and State offices identify and 

use information, including scientific 

information, throughout the land use 

planning process. The proposed change 

would simply reaffirm current practice 

and policy. 

Section 1610.1–2 Plan Components 

Proposed § 1610.1–2 would describe 

the components of a resource 

management plan. The existing 

definition of ‘‘resource management 

plan’’ lists eight elements that a plan 

‘‘generally establishes’’ (see existing 

§ 1601.0–5(n)). The proposed rule 

would revise these elements and divide 

them into ‘‘plan components’’ and 

‘‘implementation strategies’’ (see 

proposed § 1610.1–3). The plan 

components would provide planninglevel direction with which future 

management activities and decisions 

must be consistent (i.e., planning-level 

management direction). Implementation 

strategies would provide more detailed 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

information to guide how the BLM 

intends to implement future actions 

consistent with the planning-level 

management direction. 

Proposed § 1610.1–2 describes the 

following six ‘‘plan components’’ which 

every resource management plan will 

include: Goals, objectives, designations, 

resource use determinations, monitoring 

and evaluation standards, and certain 

lands identified as available for 

disposal, as applicable. Plan 

components provide planning-level 

management direction and would 

therefore only be changed through plan 

amendments or revisions under 

proposed new § 1610.1–2(c), although 

typographical and mapping errors, or 

minor changes in mapping or data 

associated with a plan component could 

continue to be updated through plan 

maintenance, consistent with current 

BLM policy and practice (see proposed 

§ 1610.6–4). The approval of plan 

components would be subject to protest 

procedures (see proposed § 1610.6–2). 

This proposed distinction between 

plan components and implementation 

strategies would facilitate the 

preparation of landscape-minded 

resource management plans. The 

proposed rule would more clearly 

distinguish between the planning-level 

management direction reflected in the 

plan components of an approved 

resource management plan and related 

implementation strategies, which 

facilitate the implementation of future 

actions consistent with the plan 

components, but would not be 

considered a component of the resource 

management plan. By doing so, the 

proposed rule would enable the BLM to 

provide planning-level management 

direction through the development of 

plan components, while using adaptive 

approaches to implement future actions 

under the plan. It would also provide 

consistency throughout the BLM in how 

plans are structured. The following 

paragraphs discuss plan components in 

detail. 

The six proposed plan components 

are based on the first four elements and 

the eighth element described in the 

existing definition of a resource 

management plan (see existing 

§§ 1601.0–5(n)(1) through 1601.0– 

5(n)(4) and 1601.0–5(n)(8)). Under the 

proposed rule, these elements would be 

called plan components and each 

component would be provided a 

distinct name and a precise definition to 

facilitate understanding and consistent 

implementation. 

Proposed §§ 1610.1–2(a)(1) and 

1610.1–2(a)(2) describe the first two 

types of plan components—goals and 

objectives. 

The goals of a resource management 

plan would be broad statements of 

desired outcomes addressing resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic characteristics within a 

planning area or a portion of the 

planning area. The BLM would direct 

the management of the land and 

resources within the planning area 

toward the goals. This plan component 

would replace ‘‘resource condition 

goals’’ described in existing § 1601.0– 

5(n)(3). We propose to remove the 

words ‘‘resource condition’’ as goals 

may address other characteristics within 

a planning area as well. The BLM 

intends no change from existing 

practice; rather, the proposed change 

would improve consistency and the 

proposed rule would match current 

practice. 

Second, the objectives would replace 

the ‘‘resource condition . . . objectives’’ 

described in existing § 1601.0–5(n)(3) 

and would represent concise statements 

of desired resource conditions that 

guide progress toward one or more 

goals. The proposed rule would 

establish a new requirement that 

objectives must be specific and 

measurable and should have established 

time-frames for achievement. This 

would improve the BLM’s ability to 

evaluate whether the objectives are 

being met and to track progress towards 

their achievement. Since future resource 

management actions would be required 

to conform to the plan components, 

including the objectives (see the 

definition of ‘‘conformity or 

conformance’’ in proposed § 1601.0–5); 

the proposed requirement for 

measurable objectives would assist the 

BLM when determining if a proposed 

action is in conformance with the 

resource management plan objectives. 

For example, if the NEPA analysis 

revealed that a proposed action would 

prohibit the achievement of an 

objective, the proposed action would 

not be in conformance with the resource 

management plan. 

Measurable objectives would be 

defined using the most appropriate scale 

of measurement for that objective. For 

example, an objective to manage an area 

as visual resource class one, two, or 

three is based on an ordinal scale of 

measurement. An ordinal scale ranks 

categories in order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), 

but there is no relative degree of 

difference between the categories. In 

contrast, an objective related to 

managing for a specific proportion of 

vegetation cover (e.g., total acreage) is 

based on a ratio scale of measurement. 

A ratio scale has a fixed zero value and 

allows the comparison of differences of 

values. 

To the extent practical, objectives 

should identify standards to mitigate 

undesirable effects to resource 

conditions and should provide 

integrated consideration of resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic factors (see 43 U.S.C. 

1712(c)(2)). The proposed changes 

would support implementation of the 

BLM mitigation policy through the 

development of standards to be used for 

mitigating undesirable effects to 

resource conditions. For example, an 

objective might identify a mitigation 

standard for no net loss to a sensitive 

species would provide a standard to 

guide future authorizations in avoiding, 

minimizing, and compensating for any 

unavoidable remaining impacts to the 

sensitive species. The proposed changes 

would also support the use of adaptive 

management where appropriate, as a 

measurable objective could identify a 

threshold that triggers a response, such 

as the initiation of a plan amendment. 

If such a threshold were identified as 

part of a measurable objective, the BLM 

would use the monitoring and 

evaluation process to determine 

whether the threshold had been met (see 

the discussion on monitoring and 

evaluation at the preamble for proposed 

§ 1610.6–4). 

Although both goals and objectives 

are currently described in the definition 

of a resource management plan as an 

element that is ‘‘generally’’ included 

(see existing § 1601.0–5(n)), the 

proposed rule would explicitly require 

the inclusion of goals and objectives; 

this proposed change is consistent with 

current BLM policy established in the 

existing Land Use Planning Handbook. 

The proposed rule would also provide 

clarity on the definition of the terms, 

which would improve understanding 

and consistency in implementation. 

Proposed § 1610.1–2(b) would 

describe four additional plan 

components that are developed either to 

achieve the goals and objectives of the 

resource management plan, or to 

comply with applicable legal 

requirements or policies, consistent 

with the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield or other applicable law, 

such as national monuments established 

under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 

U.S.C. 431–433), which must use and 

observe the principles specific to their 

establishment. These four plan 

components include designations, 

resource use determinations, monitoring 

and evaluation standards, and lands 

identified as available for disposal, as 

applicable. These plan components 

would also provide planning-level 

management direction while supporting 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9691 

achievement of the goals and objectives 

of the resource management plan. 

Paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

describes ‘‘designations,’’ which would 

replace the existing element of a 

resource management plan described as 

‘‘land areas for . . . designation, 

including ACEC designation’’ (see 

existing § 1601.0–5(n)(1)). Designations, 

as proposed, would identify areas of 

public land where management is 

directed toward one or more priority 

resource values or uses. A designation 

would highlight these areas to clearly 

communicate the BLM’s intention to 

prioritize these resource values or uses 

when developing management direction 

or making future management decisions 

in the area. Designations would include 

both ‘‘planning designations’’ which are 

identified through the BLM land use 

planning process and ‘‘nondiscretionary designations’’ which are 

identified by the President, Congress, or 

the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 

other legal authorities. 

Planning designations would be 

identified through the BLM land use 

planning process in order to achieve the 

goals and objectives of the plan or to 

comply with applicable legal 

requirements or policies. An example of 

existing designations or allocations that 

would become planning designations 

that could be identified in order to 

achieve the goals and objectives of the 

plan is a research natural area, a special 

recreation management area, a 

backcountry conservation area, a 

wildlife corridor area, or a solar energy 

zone. An example of a planning 

designation that would be identified in 

order to comply with applicable legal 

requirements or policies is an ACEC. 

The BLM intends to develop a list of 

planning designations available for use 

during the planning process as part of 

the forthcoming revision of the Land 

Use Planning Handbook. It is not, 

however, the BLM’s intention that all 

public lands would be included in a 

planning designation; rather, the 

proposed rule and the forthcoming 

revision of the Land Use Planning 

Handbook would clarify that this is an 

existing planning tool that is available 

during the planning process to highlight 

and prioritize unique or special areas 

that require management that is 

different from surrounding lands. 

Non-discretionary designations, in 

contrast, are identified by the President, 

Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior 

pursuant to other legal authorities. For 

instance, Under the Wilderness Act of 

1964, Congress has the exclusive 

authority to designate or change the 

boundaries of wilderness areas. The 

BLM and other Federal land 

management agencies manage 

wilderness areas consistent with 

Congressional direction. The BLM 

manages National Conservation Areas 

(NCA) and similarly designated lands 

such as Cooperative Management and 

Protection Areas, Outstanding Natural 

Areas, and one Forest Reserve (the 

Headwaters Forest Reserve in northern 

California) pursuant to Congressional 

direction. 

Non-discretionary designations made 

by the Secretary of the Interior, 

Congress, or the President are not 

established or amended through the 

BLM land use planning process. These 

non-discretionary designations would, 

however, be identified in a resource 

management plan, and management 

direction for the designation, including 

plan components, would be developed, 

consistent with the over-arching 

direction provided in the proclamation, 

legislation, or order through which the 

non-discretionary designation was 

established. 

There would be no substantive change 

in the proposed rule, other than 

identifying designations as a plan 

component and specifying that planning 

designations can be applied either to 

achieve the goals and objectives of the 

resource management plan or to comply 

with legal requirements or policies. 

Further, the proposed rule would clarify 

the difference between a designation 

and other plan components, such as a 

resource use determination. The BLM 

believes that differentiating between 

resource use determinations and 

designations in the regulations would 

help to improve general understanding 

of terminology. 

Resource use determinations are 

another type of proposed plan 

component and would replace several 

existing elements of a resource 

management plan, including ‘‘land areas 

for limited, restricted, or exclusive use,’’ 

‘‘allowable resource uses,’’ and 

‘‘program constraints,’’ (see existing 

§ 1601.0–5(n)). A resource use 

determination would identify areas of 

public lands or mineral estate where 

specific uses are excluded, restricted, or 

allowed in order to achieve the goals 

and objectives of the resource 

management plan or applicable legal 

requirements or policies. In contrast to 

designations, which indicate where one 

or more resources or uses is prioritized 

over other resources or uses, resource 

use determinations identify where a use 

is excluded, restricted, or allowed, but 

do not identify a priority for one or 

more multiple-uses. Examples of 

resource use determinations include: 

areas identified as available or 

unavailable for livestock grazing, open 

or closed to mineral leasing, or open to 

mineral leasing subject to standard 

terms and conditions or major or 

moderate constraints, or open, limited, 

or closed to Off-Highway-Vehicle use. In 

most circumstances, a resource use 

determination indicating that a use is 

allowed, or allowed with restrictions in 

an area, would not represent a final 

decision allowing future use 

authorizations in the area, rather it 

would indicate that future 

authorizations for the activities would 

be in conformance with the resource 

management plan and may be 

considered for approval following sitespecific NEPA analysis. 

The proposed rule would provide a 

more precise characterization of land 

use allowances, exclusions, and 

restrictions than the existing definition 

of a resource management plan. This 

proposed change would improve 

understanding and consistency in 

implementation, as well as consistent 

use of terminology. The BLM intends no 

substantive change in practice 

associated with this new terminology; 

however, under the proposed rule there 

would be changes in how the various 

parts of a resource management plan are 

categorized. 

For example, under this proposed 

rule, some common ‘‘management 

actions’’ described in resource 

management plans prepared under the 

existing planning regulations would be 

classified as ‘‘resource use 

determinations,’’ such as any explicit 

restrictions to an allowed use at the land 

use planning level. For example, 

mineral lease stipulations such as No 

Surface Occupancy or Controlled 

Surface Use would be considered 

resource use determinations, as these 

constraints represent restrictions to an 

allowed use that are explicitly required 

at the land use planning level. This is 

important because resource use 

determinations would be changed only 

through plan amendments or revisions. 

This proposed change would not 

represent a change in current practice 

under the existing regulations, as 

planning-level restrictions to an allowed 

use are currently subject to protest 

procedures and may be changed only 

through plan amendments. Rather, the 

proposed change would ensure that 

restrictions to an allowed use, using 

current planning terminology, are 

classified as a resource use 

determination under the proposed new 

definitions. 

In addition, under the proposed 

descriptions of planning designations 

and resource use determinations, the 

BLM affirms that both planning 

designations and resource use 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9692 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

determinations may be defined 

explicitly by geographic boundaries, or 

implicitly by describing the specific 

conditions or criteria under which a 

resource or use would be prioritized, or 

a use would be excluded, restricted, or 

allowed. In situations where a criteriabased approach is used, the BLM would 

develop maps showing where the 

criteria apply based on current data and 

conditions. These options for defining 

planning designations and resource use 

determinations are consistent with 

current practice and do not represent a 

change from existing policy, though it 

would represent a change in 

terminology. 

For example, under the existing 

planning regulations, the BLM applied 

both approaches when developing the 

‘‘Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments and Record of Decision 

(ROD) for Solar Energy Development in 

Six Southwestern States’’ (Western 

Solar Energy Plan). The Western Solar 

Energy Plan developed a list of areas 

where utility-scale solar energy 

development was prohibited. Some of 

these areas were defined by explicit 

geographic boundaries, such as lands in 

the Ivanpah Valley in California and 

Nevada. Others were defined by the 

presence of a specific land use 

designation in an applicable land use 

plan (e.g., ACECs) or the presence of a 

specific resource or condition (e.g., 

designated or proposed critical habitat 

for ESA-listed species). The geographic 

boundaries for these areas will change 

over time as land use plans are revised 

or amended and new information on 

resource conditions is developed. For 

the purposes of the Western Solar 

Energy Plan and its associated NEPA 

analysis, the BLM mapped and 

estimated the acreage for all exclusion 

areas based on best available 

information; however, those maps will 

be updated over time. Through the 

proposed description of planning 

designations and resource use 

determinations, the BLM affirms that an 

explicit geographic-based approach or 

an implicit criteria-based approach 

would both continue to be acceptable 

for defining a planning designation or a 

resource use determination. 

Monitoring and evaluation standards 

are another type of plan component. 

These standards would replace the 

existing element of a resource 

management plan entitled ‘‘Intervals 

and standards for monitoring and 

evaluating the plan to determine the 

effectiveness of the plan and the need 

for amendment or revision’’ (see 

existing § 1601.0–5(n)(8)). As proposed, 

monitoring and evaluation standards 

would include ‘‘indicators and intervals 

for monitoring and evaluation to 

determine whether the objectives are 

being met or there is relevant new 

information that may warrant 

amendment or revision of the resource 

management plan.’’ Indicators and 

intervals for monitoring would be tied 

directly to the quantifiable objectives to 

clearly indicate how each objective 

would be measured (i.e., the indicator) 

and how often it would be measured 

(i.e., the interval). Intervals for 

evaluating the resource management 

plan would identify the frequency for 

evaluating the resource management 

plan in its entirety to determine whether 

a plan amendment or revision is 

warranted. 

Lands identified as available for 

disposal from BLM administration 

under section 203 of FLPMA would 

constitute the final type of plan 

component and would replace the 

existing element of a resource 

management plan described as ‘‘land 

areas . . . for transfer from Bureau of 

Land Management Administration’’ (see 

existing § 1601.0–5(n)(1)). Section 203 

of FLPMA provides for the sale of tracts 

of public land where the Secretary 

(implemented by the BLM under 

delegated authority) determines through 

the land use planning process that the 

sale meets specified criteria. The 

proposed rule would specify that lands 

identified as available for disposal 

under section 203 of FLPMA would be 

considered a plan component, however 

disposal of lands may not be applicable 

to every resource management plan. For 

example, it is unlikely that a resource 

management plan developed for a 

national monument or national 

conservation area would identify lands 

as available for disposal. As a plan 

component, identification of lands as 

available for disposal would only be 

changed through amendment or 

revision, consistent with current BLM 

policy. 

The BLM requests public comment on 

the proposed plan components. In 

particular, the BLM requests public 

comment on the distinction between 

planning designations, which identify 

areas where specific resources or uses 

would be prioritized, and resource use 

determinations, which identify areas 

where specific uses would be excluded, 

restricted, or allowed, and whether 

these two components should be 

combined into a single plan component. 

For example, resource use 

determinations could be revised to be a 

type of planning designation. 

Section 1610.1–3 Implementation 

Strategies 

Proposed § 1610.1–3 describes other 

types of information, called 

implementation strategies, that may be 

developed in conjunction with a 

resource management plan and 

included as an appendix to the resource 

management plan, but do not represent 

planning level management direction 

and are not considered components of 

the resource management plan. 

Implementation strategies provide 

examples of how the BLM intends to 

implement future actions consistent 

with the planning-level management 

direction. For example, an 

implementation strategy might describe 

an integrated pest management strategy 

to address invasive species, including 

potential actions the BLM may take 

such as active removal of invasive 

species, and the methods BLM may use 

to take these actions. This strategy 

would be designed to achieve a 

measurable objective, such as a desired 

plant community composition. 

Implementation strategies provide 

examples of how the BLM might 

achieve the resource management plan 

objectives, but in any particular 

resource management plan they would 

not provide an exhaustive list of every 

future action the BLM might take to 

achieve the resource management plan’s 

objectives. Nor do they represent a 

commitment or a decision to implement 

the potential actions described in the 

implementation strategy. A future 

implementation decision occurs after 

adoption of a plan. As a result, future 

actions associated with, or incorporating 

an implementation strategy, would not 

occur until the implementation stage 

and would therefore require site-specific 

NEPA analysis and compliance with 

other relevant laws before a final 

decision is made and any action is 

taken. 

Unlike the plan components, 

implementation strategies could be 

updated at any time to incorporate new 

information and such updates do not 

require a plan amendment or plan 

maintenance (for more information see 

the discussion at the preamble for 

paragraph (c) of this section). 

Proposed § 1610.1–3 would describe 

two types of implementation strategies: 

Management measures and monitoring 

procedures. The proposed rule affirms 

that the development of other types of 

implementation strategies may occur 

through future policy and guidance, as 

is currently the case. 

Management measures would replace 

several existing elements of a resource 

management plan, including ‘‘general 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9693 

management practices needed to 

achieve the above items,’’ ‘‘support 

action, including such measures as 

resource protection, access 

development, realty action, cadastral 

survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the 

above,’’ ‘‘need for an area to be covered 

by more detailed and specific plans,’’ 

and ‘‘general implementation 

sequences, where carrying out a 

planned action is dependent upon prior 

accomplishment of another planned 

action’’ (see existing § 1601.0–5(n)). As 

proposed, management measures would 

identify one or more potential actions 

the BLM may take or require of 

permitted activities in order to achieve 

the resource management plan goals and 

objectives. 

Under this proposed rule, 

management measures could include 

resource management practices, best 

management practices, standard 

operating procedures, the preparation of 

more detailed and specific plans, or 

other measures as appropriate. 

Management measures developed in 

conjunction with a resource 

management plan would not be an 

exhaustive catalog of possible 

approaches, but would only describe 

future actions that the BLM may take, 

consistent with the plan components. 

Specific examples of management 

measures include the application of 

vegetation treatments to improve 

wildlife habitat or reduce fuel-loading 

for wildfire prevention; re-vegetation to 

achieve restoration objectives; or 

identification of the need to prepare a 

travel management plan for a particular 

area. 

As proposed, the BLM would update 

a list of management measures, as 

needed, to reflect new information such 

as changes in resource conditions or a 

BLM determination that the 

management measure is not effective in 

achieving the goals and objectives of the 

resource management plan based on the 

results of monitoring and evaluation. 

The proposed rule would facilitate the 

use of adaptive approaches for 

implementation and improve the BLM’s 

ability to respond to and incorporate 

new information. At the same time, a 

particular management measure, if and 

when implemented, would support 

progress toward the measureable 

objectives of the resource management 

plan and must be implemented 

consistent with all plan components, 

thus changes made to the list of 

management measures would be 

constrained by the parameters of the 

measurable plan objectives and other 

plan components. For example, if a 

management measure described the 

BLM’s intent to implement habitat 

improvements through vegetation 

manipulation in an area in order to 

achieve a vegetation related plan 

objective, and the results of monitoring 

and evaluation indicated over time that 

habitat improvements were resulting in 

a negative impact on vegetation 

objectives, the BLM could update the 

list of management measures to remove 

or update the ineffective methods. Sitespecific NEPA analysis would be 

conducted before any management 

measure was implemented. 

Management measures, as the rule 

proposes, might be included with a 

resource management plan, and would 

be either examples of, or likely 

approaches that, indicate to the public 

how the BLM intends to implement 

future actions consistent with the plan, 

but the approval of a resource 

management plan does not represent a 

final decision for a management 

measure nor does it constrain BLM’s 

discretion to develop management 

measures to apply to future 

implementation decisions. The final 

decision for a future action associated 

with a management measure would 

occur at the implementation stage and 

would require site-specific NEPA 

analysis. Any changes made to the list 

of management measures described in a 

resource management plan would be 

made available for public review at least 

30 days prior to their implementation. 

In addition, the BLM would provide 

for any public involvement required by 

NEPA before authorizing the 

implementation of site-specific actions. 

For example, preparation of an EA, or 

documenting reliance on a categorical 

exclusion (if available), or 

determination of NEPA adequacy before 

authorizing implementation of a 

vegetation management treatment to 

improve wildlife habitat; or the 

preparation of an EIS before authorizing 

a right-of-way application that 

incorporated best management practices 

identified in the resource management 

plan. 

Although management measures 

would represent a new term and 

category in the planning regulations, the 

types of actions that would be included 

as management measures and the 

process for updating that information 

would be consistent with current BLM 

practice and interpretation of the 

existing planning regulations. For 

example, the BLM often provides a list 

of best management practices associated 

with permitted activities as an appendix 

to the resource management plan. The 

proposed changes would provide 

clarification in the regulations and 

improve consistency in implementation 

across the BLM. 

Monitoring procedures would also be 

a type of implementation strategy under 

proposed § 1610.1–3(a)(2). Monitoring 

procedures would describe methods for 

monitoring the resource management 

plan, consistent with the monitoring 

standards (see proposed § 1610.1– 

2(b)(3)). Under the proposed rule, these 

procedures would be updated as new 

information becomes available—either 

as monitoring technology develops, for 

instance, or more is known about the 

resource being monitored. For example, 

advances in remote sensing and 

geospatial technologies have provided 

more accurate and cost effective 

methods to monitor vegetation and 

wildlife activity in recent years and will 

likely continue to improve in the future; 

under the proposed rule these advances 

in technology could be incorporated 

into revised monitoring procedures. For 

a detailed discussion of monitoring and 

evaluation, see the preamble for 

§ 1610.6–4. 

Proposed § 1610.1–3(b) would state 

that implementation strategies are not a 

plan component but are intended to 

assist the BLM in implementing the 

plan components. The proposed 

language affirms that an implementation 

strategy does not provide planning-level 

management direction and is therefore 

not a component of the resource 

management plan; implementation 

strategies must, however, be in 

conformance with the resource 

management plan. Nonetheless, the 

BLM intends that implementation 

strategies would be included as 

appendices to the resource management 

plan and made available for public 

review in conjunction with the 

publication of the proposed resource 

management plan (see proposed 

§ 1610.5–5). 

Proposed § 1610.1–3(c) would explain 

that implementation strategies could be 

updated at any time in the future in 

response to new information and these 

updates would not require a plan 

amendment or the formal public 

involvement and interagency 

coordination process described in 

proposed §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3. This is 

because implementation strategies are 

not plan components. Rather, they are 

simply provided as background 

information to help the public have a 

better understanding of what a future 

site specific implementation action 

might look like. It is important to note 

that implementation strategies, and 

future updates to implementation 

strategies, would be subject to the high 

quality information requirement 

described in proposed § 1610.1–1(c). 

The BLM would be required to make 

any changes to implementation 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

strategies available for public review at 

least 30 days prior to their 

implementation, unless notification is 

provided through site-specific NEPA, to 

provide transparency to the public. 

The BLM requests public comments 

on the proposed distinction between 

plan components and implementation 

strategies. In particular, the BLM 

requests public comments on the 

procedures for updating implementation 

strategies, including the need for, timing 

and potential scope of public 

involvement. 

Section 1610.2 Public Involvement 

In the heading of this section and 

throughout the planning regulations, the 

BLM proposes to replace the term 

‘‘public participation’’ with ‘‘public 

involvement’’ to be more consistent 

with FLPMA. The BLM intends no 

change in practice or meaning from this 

proposed revision. Public involvement 

is central to the BLM land use planning 

process under FLPMA. Section 202(a) 

directs the Secretary, ‘‘with public 

involvement’’ and consistent with 

FLPMA, to ‘‘develop, maintain, and, 

when appropriate, revise land use plans 

which provide by tracts or areas for the 

use of the public lands. . . .’’ Section 

202(f) requires that the Secretary ‘‘allow 

an opportunity for public involvement 

and by regulation shall establish 

procedures . . . to give Federal, State, 

and local governments and the public, 

adequate notice and opportunity to 

comment upon and participate in the 

formulation of plans and programs 

relating to the management of the public 

lands.’’ Section 103(d) of FLPMA 

broadly defines the term ‘‘public 

involvement’’ as ‘‘the opportunity for 

participation by affected citizens in rule 

making, decision making, and planning 

with respect to the public lands, 

including public meetings or hearings 

held at locations near the affected lands, 

or advisory mechanisms, or such other 

procedures as may be necessary to 

provide public comment in a particular 

instance.’’ 

The BLM interprets this definition as 

encompassing notice by varied means, 

including by making a planning 

document available electronically (e.g., 

on the BLM Web site), providing direct 

notice to individuals or groups that have 

asked to receive notice about public 

involvement opportunities (e.g., by 

electronic means such as email or by 

U.S. mail), or publishing general notice 

for the public (e.g., in a local newspaper 

or in the Federal Register). We propose 

to revise § 1610.2 to indicate more 

clearly the points in the planning 

process when the BLM would provide 

notice through one or more of these 

means. 

In addition, the BLM proposes to 

distinguish in the regulations between 

making a document ‘‘available for 

public review’’ and specifically 

requesting public comments. Where the 

BLM makes documents available for 

public review, the BLM believes it is 

important for the public to have an 

opportunity to see the BLM’s progress. 

The public is welcome to bring any 

questions or concerns to the BLM’s 

attention based on public review and 

the BLM will consider their input. In 

these circumstances, however, the BLM 

is not requesting comments and does 

not provide a time-period for 

submission of comments or anticipate 

formally summarizing or responding to 

any public comments received. This is 

not a change from existing practice, but 

would clarify the BLM’s intent when we 

use this terminology. 

In contrast, where the BLM ‘‘requests 

written comments,’’ the BLM will 

provide a minimum of 30 days for 

response (see proposed § 1610.2–2(a)). 

As appropriate, the BLM also 

summarizes and responds to substantive 

comments. For example, the BLM 

summarizes public comments raised 

during scoping, develops planning 

issues based on the comments, and 

issues a scoping report. Similarly, the 

BLM summarizes and responds to 

substantive public comments submitted 

on a draft resource management plan 

and draft EIS. 

In some situations, the BLM may 

request written comments, but would 

not provide a written response. For 

example, the BLM may request public 

comment on a draft EA-level 

amendment without issuing a written 

response. Again, this is not a change 

from existing practice, but would clarify 

to the public the BLM’s intent when we 

use this terminology. 

We propose to restructure § 1610.2 to 

clearly indicate the different aspects of 

public involvement in the land use 

planning process. General provisions 

are followed by specific sections, 

including: Public notice; public 

comment periods; and availability of the 

resource management plan. The 

following table and paragraphs explain 

the specific proposed changes to 

§ 1610.2 and the supporting rationale. 

They also request public comments on 

specific provisions. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING VS. PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Step in planning process for the 

preparation of a resource 

management plan or an 

EIS-level amendment 

Level of public involvement 

Existing regulations Proposed regulations 

Planning assessment ...................... 1610.1: The planning assessment 

would be a new requirement 

under the proposed rule, and 

therefore is not applicable to the 

existing regulations.

1610.4: The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans 

for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public views in relation to the planning area, which may include 

public meetings. The planning assessment would be documented 

in a report, which would be made available for public review. The 

BLM could waive the requirement to conduct a planning assessment for minor EIS-level amendments or if an existing planning assessment is determined to be adequate. 

Identification of planning issues ...... 1610.2(c) and 1610.4–1: The BLM 

publishes a NOI in the Federal 

Register and publishes a notice 

in appropriate local media.

The public is provided a minimum 

of 30-days to comment.

1610.2–1(f) and 1610.5–1: Same as existing regulations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9695 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING VS. PROPOSED REGULATIONS—Continued 

Step in planning process for the 

preparation of a resource 

management plan or an 

EIS-level amendment 

Level of public involvement 

Existing regulations Proposed regulations 

Development of planning criteria .... 1610.4–2: Proposed planning criteria are published in a NOI in 

the Federal Register and made 

available for public comment 

through the scoping period and 

comment on the draft resource 

management plan.

1610.5–2 and 1610.5–3: Planning criteria would no longer be required under the proposed rule. Instead, the BLM would describe 

the rationale for the differences between alternatives as well as the 

basis for analysis. Preliminary versions of both would be made 

available for public review prior to the publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment. 

Inventory data and information collection.1610.4–3: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. 

The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data 

or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public 

views in relation to the planning area, which may include public 

meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in a report, which would be made available for public review. 

Analysis of the management situation.1610.4–4: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.4: This step would be replaced with the planning assessment. 

The public would be provided opportunities to provide existing data 

or information or to suggest policies, guidance, or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. The BLM would identify public 

views in relation to the planning area, which may include public 

meetings. The planning assessment would be documented in a report, which would be made available for public review. 

Formulation of resource management alternatives.1610.4–5: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.5–2: The preliminary alternatives and preliminary rationale for 

alternatives would be made available for public review before publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment. 

Estimation of effects of alternatives 1610.4–6: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.5–3: The preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators 

to be used when estimating the effects of alternatives would be 

made available for public review before publication of the draft resource management plan or EIS-level amendment. 

Preparation of the draft resource 

management plan and selection 

of preferred alternatives.

1610.4–7: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.5–4: Same as existing regulations. 

Publication of the draft resource 

management plan.

1610.2(e): The BLM requests public comment on the draft resource management plan and 

draft EIS and provides 90 calendar days for response.

1610.2–2: When requesting written comments on a draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS, the BLM would notify the public 

and provide at least 60 calendar days for response. 

When requesting written comments on an EIS-level amendment, the 

BLM would notify the public and provide at least 45 calendar days 

for response. 

Selection of the proposed resource 

management plan and preparation of implementation strategies.

1610.4–8: The BLM publishes the 

proposed resource management 

plan and final EIS.

1610.5–5: The BLM would publish the proposed resource management plan or plan amendment and final EIS and also would publish 

any implementation strategies. The BLM expects that the implementation strategies would be included as appendices to the proposed resource management plan. 

Protest ............................................. 1610.5–2: The BLM provides 30 

calendar days for the public to 

protest plan approval. The public must submit a hard-copy of 

the protest to the BLM.

1610.6–2: The BLM would still provide 30 calendar days for the public to protest plan approval, but the proposed rule would describe 

more specific requirements on what constitutes a valid protest and 

allow for dismissal of any protest that does not meet these requirements. The public may submit a hard-copy or an electronic-copy of 

the protest to the BLM. 

Resource management plan approval.1610.5–1: The BLM must provide 

public notice and opportunity for 

comment on any significant 

change made to the proposed 

plan before approval of the plan.

1610.6–1: If the BLM intends to select an alternative that is substantially different than the proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment, the BLM would notify the public and request written comments on the change before approval of the resource management plan or plan amendment. The BLM would notify the public 

when a resource management plan or plan amendment has been 

approved. 

Monitoring and evaluation ............... 1610.4–9: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.6–4: The BLM would document the evaluation of the resource 

management plan in a report made available for public review. 

Plan maintenance ........................... 1610.5–4: No opportunities for 

public involvement are provided 

at this step.

1610.5–4: When changes are made to an approved resource management plan through plan maintenance, the BLM would notify the 

public and make the changes available for public review at least 30 

days prior to their implementation. 

Proposed § 1610.2(a) remains 

relatively unchanged from existing 

regulations and would state that the 

BLM will provide the public with 

opportunities to become meaningfully 

involved in and comment on the 

preparation and amendment of resource 

management plans. We propose 

removing references to ‘‘related 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9696 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

guidance’’ in order to focus this 

provision on the preparation and 

amendment of resource management 

plans. During the planning process, the 

public may submit comments on 

‘‘related guidance’’ to the BLM, but the 

BLM does not provide a separate and 

distinct comment period for related 

guidance. For example, the public may 

comment on related guidance during 

scoping or as a comment on the draft 

resource management plan and draft EIS 

and the BLM would consider this 

comment. This is not a change in 

existing practice or policy, but would 

provide clarity to the public on 

opportunities for comment. 

We also propose to remove language 

on giving ‘‘early notice of planning 

activities’’ from this section. This 

language is vague and unnecessary 

because proposed § 1610.2–1(e) would 

carry forward the existing requirement 

that the BLM notify the public at least 

15 days before any public involvement 

activities. The BLM would provide 

further advance notice beyond the 15- 

day requirement to the extent possible, 

consistent with current practice. 

Proposed § 1610.2(a) would also carry 

forward the existing requirement that 

public involvement in the planning 

process conform to the requirements of 

NEPA and its associated implementing 

regulations. The word ‘‘shall’’ would be 

replaced with ‘‘will’’ and the paragraph 

would be revised to use active voice for 

improved readability. 

Existing § 1610.2(b) requires the BLM 

to publish a planning schedule early in 

each fiscal year in order to advise the 

public of the status of each plan being 

prepared or scheduled to start during 

the year, the major planning actions 

expected during the fiscal year, and the 

projected new planning starts for the 

next three fiscal years. The BLM 

proposes to revise this requirement. 

Proposed § 1610.2(c) would replace 

existing § 1610.2(b) and would require 

the BLM to post the status of each 

resource management plan in process of 

preparation or scheduled to be started 

on the BLM’s Web site before the close 

of each fiscal year. The BLM often does 

not know its budget, priorities, or onthe-ground needs several years in 

advance; in recent years the BLM has 

operated under a continuing resolution 

to the budget for several months into the 

fiscal year, and is therefore unable to 

accurately predict a planning schedule 

with the specificity required in existing 

regulations. 

The BLM’s current practice is to post 

a planning schedule for resource 

management plans currently under 

preparation or approved to initiate 

preparation of a resource management 

plan on the national BLM planning Web 

site when this information is available. 

The proposed change would give the 

BLM flexibility in communicating its 

planning schedule, including by posting 

the schedule electronically, and would 

be consistent with current practice. It 

would also reflect the fact that 

budgetary constraints and the need to 

address new and emerging resource 

issues make it difficult to accurately 

predict a planning schedule beyond the 

current fiscal year. 

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section 

would not include the related 

requirement for requesting public 

comments on the projected new 

planning starts so that comments can be 

considered when refining priorities. The 

proposed change would make the 

planning regulations consistent with 

current BLM practice, but would 

represent a change from existing 

regulations. 

Proposed § 1610.2(b) would be 

adapted from § 1610.2(d) and (e) of the 

existing planning regulations. It would 

maintain the existing requirement that 

public involvement activities conducted 

by the BLM be documented by a record 

or summary of the principal issues 

discussed and comments made. It 

further provides that the record or 

summary would be available to the 

public and open for 30 days to any 

participant who wishes to review the 

record or summary. There would be no 

change in BLM operation or impact on 

the public under the proposed rule. For 

example, the BLM would continue to 

prepare a scoping report following the 

identification of planning issues (see 

proposed § 1610.5–1) summarizing 

scoping meetings and written scoping 

comments under proposed § 1610.2(b). 

Existing § 1610.2(c) requires the BLM 

to publish a Notice in the Federal 

Register whenever beginning any new 

plan, revision, or amendment. This 

requirement is carried forward in 

proposed § 1610.2–1(f) and revised. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(f) will be discussed 

in the corresponding section of this 

analysis. 

Section 1610.2–1 Public Notice 

Proposed § 1610.2–1 would describe 

the requirements for when and how the 

BLM would provide public notice 

related to opportunities for public 

involvement. We also propose to replace 

the word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ 

throughout these sections for improved 

readability. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(a) contains the 

provisions of existing § 1610.2(f) with 

edits for consistency with other 

proposed changes and lists the steps in 

the planning process when the BLM 

would notify the public and provide 

opportunities for public involvement in 

the preparation of a resource 

management plan, or an EIS-level 

amendment, as appropriate, to the areas 

and people involved. The steps would 

be: (1) Preparation of the planning 

assessment, as appropriate; (2) 

Identification of planning issues; (3) 

Review of the preliminary resource 

management alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives; (4) Review of the 

procedures, assumptions, and 

indicators, as outlined in the basis for 

analysis; (5) Comment on the draft 

resource management plan; and (6) 

Protest of the proposed resource 

management plan. These steps would 

include new opportunities for public 

involvement early in the planning 

process, such as during the planning 

assessment, as appropriate. The words 

‘‘as appropriate’’ are included with the 

‘‘preparation of the planning 

assessment’’ because the planning 

assessment would not be required for 

minor EIS-level amendments or when 

an existing planning assessment is 

determined to be adequate to inform the 

preparation of an EIS-level amendment. 

Each of these new opportunities is 

addressed in the corresponding section 

of this section-by-section analysis. 

The BLM is also considering the 

option where the provisions of proposed 

§ 1610.2–1(a) would apply to the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan, but would not apply to EIS-level 

amendments. The BLM recognizes that 

EIS-level amendments tend to be 

smaller in scope than the preparation of 

a resource management plan, and 

therefore, it may be appropriate to 

provide different opportunities for 

public involvement. Under this 

alternative, the proposed rule would 

describe the steps when the BLM would 

notify the public and provide 

opportunities for public involvement in 

the preparation of an EIS-level 

amendment, as appropriate to the areas 

and people involved. These steps would 

include: (1) Identification of planning 

issues; (2) Comment on the draft 

resource management plan; and (3) 

Protest of the proposed resource 

management plan. The BLM requests 

public comment on this alternative 

option and whether EIS-level 

amendments require the same 

opportunities for public involvement as 

when the BLM prepares a resource 

management plan. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(b) would list the 

steps in the planning process when the 

BLM would notify the public and 

provide opportunities for public 

involvement in the preparation of a plan 

amendment where an EA is prepared 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9697 

9CEQ and DOI NEPA regulations encourage such 

integration. See 40 CFR 1501.7(b)(4) (providing that 

as part of the NEPA scoping process, a lead agency 

may ‘‘(h)old an early scoping meeting or meetings 

which may be integrated with any other early 

planning meeting the agency has’’) and 43 CFR 

46.235(a) (stating that scoping ‘‘provides an 

opportunity to bring agencies and applicants 

together to lay the groundwork for setting time 

limits, expediting reviews where possible, 

integrating other environmental reviews, and 

identifying any major obstacles that could delay the 

process’’). 

(EA-level amendment), as appropriate to 

the areas and people involved. The 

steps would be: (1) Identification of 

planning issues; (2) Comment on the 

draft resource management plan 

amendment, as appropriate; and (3) 

Protest of the proposed resource 

management plan amendment. 

The existing regulations do not 

require that BLM provide opportunities 

for public involvement during the 

identification of planning issues for EAlevel amendments, however the BLM 

often chooses to provide such 

opportunities. Under the proposed rule, 

public involvement would be required 

when identifying planning issues for 

EA-level amendments. The proposed 

change would support the goal of 

establishing early opportunities for 

public involvement in the planning 

process, including EA-level 

amendments. The proposed rule would 

not, however, require that the BLM 

request public comment on draft EAlevel amendments, consistent with the 

existing regulations. The BLM often 

chooses to request public comments on 

draft EA-level amendments, and in such 

circumstances the public would be 

provided 30 calendar days for response 

(see proposed § 1610.2–2(a)). 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(c) through (e) 

would be general provisions that apply 

whenever the BLM provides public 

notice relating to the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan. Under proposed § 1610.2–1(c), we 

propose new requirements that the BLM 

announce opportunities for public 

involvement by posting a notice on the 

BLM Web site and at all BLM offices 

within the planning area. 

These new requirements would be 

consistent with current practice in many 

BLM offices and would ensure 

consistency in implementation 

throughout the BLM. This new 

provision would provide certainty to the 

public on where they could find 

information on all public involvement 

opportunities. The BLM anticipates 

providing additional notifications using 

formats that are relevant and accessible 

to the various publics interested in or 

affected by the planning effort. For 

example, the BLM could also post an 

announcement at a local library, postoffice, or other frequently visited 

location; issue a local, regional, or 

national press release; notify 

community leaders of the opportunity; 

or post an announcement using various 

social media. The use of these 

additional formats would vary based on 

the location and public interest in the 

planning effort. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(d) provides that 

individuals or groups could ask the 

BLM to notify them of opportunities for 

public involvement related to the 

preparation and amendment of a 

resource management plan. The BLM 

would notify those individuals or 

groups through written or electronic 

means, such as a letter sent by U.S. mail 

or email. 

Under existing regulations 

(§ 1610.2(d)), the Field Manager must 

maintain a mailing list of those 

individuals or groups known to be 

interested in or affected by a resource 

management plan or that have asked to 

be placed on the list and notify those 

individuals or groups of public 

participation activities. The proposed 

change would remove the requirement 

for the BLM to maintain a list of groups 

or individuals ‘‘known to be interested 

in or affected by a resource management 

plan,’’ which places an unnecessary 

burden on the BLM to find contact 

information for groups or individuals 

that may not be readily available. The 

proposed rule would instead require the 

BLM to notify any groups or individuals 

that have explicitly requested to be 

notified of opportunities for public 

involvement. 

Finally, under proposed § 1610.2– 

1(e), the BLM would continue to notify 

the public at least 15 days before any 

public involvement activities where the 

public is invited to attend, such as a 

public meeting. This requirement is the 

same as that in § 1610.2(e) of the 

existing regulations. It is intended to 

allow members of the public to plan 

their schedules and make arrangements 

to attend scoping meetings, ‘‘open 

house’’ style workshops, or other public 

meetings that are part of the BLM land 

use planning process. The BLM would 

provide further advance notice beyond 

the 15-day requirement to the extent 

possible, consistent with current 

practice. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(f)(1) provides 

that when initiating the identification of 

planning issues, in addition to posting 

a notice on the BLM’s Web site and at 

all BLM offices in the planning area and 

providing direct notice in writing to 

those individuals or groups who have 

requested notification, the BLM would 

also publish a notice in appropriate 

local media, including in newspapers of 

general circulation in the planning area. 

This requirement would apply 

regardless of the level of NEPA analysis 

(e.g., whether the BLM prepares an EA 

or an EIS). 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(f)(2), which 

applies more narrowly, provides that 

the BLM would also publish a NOI in 

the Federal Register where a resource 

management plan or amendment 

requires the preparation of an EIS. This 

section would retain existing language 

stating that the NOI also may constitute 

the NEPA scoping notice (see 40 CFR 

1501.7 and 43 CFR 46.235(a)). We 

propose to eliminate the existing 

requirement to publish a Federal 

Register notice at the beginning of every 

planning effort and to maintain the 

existing requirement to publish a NOI in 

the Federal Register where the BLM 

prepares an EIS for a resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

The proposed change would align the 

BLM planning regulations with NEPA 

requirements. Publishing a NOI to 

prepare an EIS for a resource 

management plan or plan amendment in 

the Federal Register is consistent with 

NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1501.7 and 

1508.22) and CEQ direction that 

agencies ‘‘integrate the NEPA process 

with other planning at the earliest 

possible time to insure that planning 

and decisions reflect environmental 

values, to avoid delays later in the 

process, and to head off potential 

conflicts’’ (40 CFR 1501.2). Publishing 

an NOI for these EISs also contributes to 

an efficient, integrated process by 

offering an opportunity to integrate 

planning with NEPA scoping 

requirements.9

This provision, would remove the 

requirement to publish a NOI in the 

Federal Register where the BLM 

prepares an EA for a resource 

management plan amendment. The 

BLM believes that the proposed change 

would make the planning process, as 

well as the NEPA process, less 

confusing to the public by aligning 

planning requirements with existing 

NEPA requirements. For example, a 

member of the public that has 

participated in the preparation of an EA 

associated with a plan amendment 

might expect an EA that does not 

require a plan amendment to provide 

the same public notice. Under the 

proposed rule, there would be improved 

consistency between NEPA 

requirements and planning 

requirements. 

Removing the requirement to publish 

an NOI for EA-level amendments would 

also improve efficiency and reduce the 

cost of amendments that have no 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9698 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

significant impacts, while the BLM still 

would provide notice in local media 

and to interested members of the public 

through direct communication, such as 

email. We believe this change would 

improve the BLM’s ability to make 

minor amendments to plans in a timely 

manner. However, the BLM requests 

public comment on whether a 

requirement to publish an NOI for an 

EA-level amendment is necessary in the 

planning regulations, and if so, why. 

The proposed rule would not include 

the existing language from § 1610.2(c) 

allowing the Field Manager to decide 

whether it is appropriate to publish a 

notice in media in adjoining States. This 

language is no longer needed. As 

proposed, § 1610.2–1(f) would allow the 

BLM discretion to identify ‘‘appropriate 

local media,’’ and this encompasses 

media in adjoining states. There is not 

expected to be a change implementation 

of this requirement. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(f)(3) outlines the 

information that would be included in 

the notices described in § 1610.2–1(f)(1) 

and (2) and contains the provisions of 

existing § 1610.2(c)(1) through (8), 

respectively, as follows. 

There would be no changes to the 

requirement in proposed paragraph 

(f)(3)(i) of this section. We propose to 

specify in proposed paragraph (f)(3)(ii) 

of this section that the ‘‘plan’’ in 

reference is a ‘‘resource management 

plan.’’ There would be no changes to the 

requirement in proposed paragraph 

(f)(3)(iii) of this section. In proposed 

paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, we 

would replace ‘‘disciplines’’ with 

‘‘expertise,’’ to reflect that BLM staff 

may have expertise outside of their 

formal discipline, and an 

‘‘interdisciplinary approach’’ should be 

based on expertise, not formal 

disciplines. We would also specify that 

the ‘‘plan’’ in reference is a ‘‘resource 

management plan’’ and the purpose of 

having a range of expertise represented 

is to ‘‘achieve an interdisciplinary 

approach.’’ There would be no 

substantive change in practice or policy. 

In proposed paragraph (f)(3)(v), we 

would add language indicating that the 

notice should include the kind and 

extent of public involvement activities 

‘‘as known at the time.’’ Although there 

would be no substantive change in 

practice or policy, this would clarify 

that the BLM may always provide 

additional opportunities for public 

involvement as planning proceeds. 

There would be no substantive changes 

to the requirements in proposed 

paragraphs (f)(3)(vi) through (f)(3)(viii) 

of this section. 

The BLM believes the proposed 

approach, as described in paragraphs (a) 

through (f) of this section, would 

provide an effective method of public 

notification, because it relies on a 

combined approach of: (1) Posting such 

notices on the BLM’s Web site and at 

BLM offices in the planning area; (2) 

Providing direct notice by email or in 

writing to those individuals or groups 

who have requested notification; (3) 

Providing notice in the Federal Register 

or local media at certain milestones 

consistent with the requirements of 

proposed § 1610.2–1(f); and (4) 

Providing notice using other means, as 

appropriate. However, the BLM requests 

public comments on this approach and 

on what, if any, other means of 

notification of opportunities for public 

involvement in land use planning 

would be appropriate at different points 

in the planning process and why these 

methods are preferable to the proposed 

rule. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(g) contain the 

provisions of existing § 1610.2(f)(5) and 

provide that if the BLM intends to select 

an alternative that is substantially 

different than the proposed resource 

management plan, the BLM would 

notify the public and provide an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

change. These requirements are 

intended to ensure that the public has 

an opportunity to comment on 

important changes that are made late in 

the planning process, such as those that 

result from protest resolution or the 

recommendations of a Governor during 

the Governor’s consistency review. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(h) would require 

the BLM to notify the public when a 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment has been approved, 

consistent with current practice. The 

BLM expects to post this notification on 

the BLM Web site, at the local BLM 

office where the plan was prepared, and 

by direct notification to those 

individuals and groups that have asked 

to receive notice of specific planning 

efforts. This notification would help 

those who are interested to stay up-todate on plans and increase 

transparency. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(i) would 

establish a new requirement that the 

BLM notify the public any time changes 

are made to an approved resource 

management plan through plan 

maintenance and make those changes 

available to the public at least 30 days 

before the change is implemented. The 

proposed change would provide 

transparency to the public on minor 

changes made to plan components, such 

as the correction of typographical or 

mapping errors or to reflect minor 

changes in mapping or data. The BLM 

expects that this notification would be 

provided by posting the changes to the 

BLM Web site. 

Proposed § 1610.2–1(j) would require 

that the BLM also notify the public any 

time a change is made to an 

implementation strategy and make those 

changes available to the public at least 

30 days before their implementation. 

This notification would provide 

transparency to the public on changes to 

implementation strategies, such as 

management measures or monitoring 

procedures (for more information, see 

the discussion on implementation 

strategies at the preamble for proposed 

§ 1610.1–3(c)). 

Proposed § 1610.2–2(a) through (c) 

would address the length of public 

comment periods and would replace 

most of existing § 1610.2(e). Proposed 

§ 1610.2–2(a) provides that when 

requesting written comments, the BLM 

would provide a comment period of at 

least 30 calendar days, unless a longer 

period is required by law or regulation. 

For example, when the BLM requests 

scoping comments, a minimum 30 day 

comment period would be required; if 

the BLM offers a public comment period 

for a plan amendment where an EA is 

prepared, a minimum 30 day comment 

period would be required. This section 

maintains the requirement from existing 

§ 1610.2(e) to provide at least 30 

calendar days for public comment, 

while clarifying that in certain 

circumstances the BLM is legally 

required to offer a longer comment 

period. 

Proposed § 1610.2–2(b) describes the 

public comment period the BLM would 

provide for draft EIS-level amendments. 

Proposed § 1610.2–2(b) states that the 

BLM would provide at least 45 calendar 

days for public comment on the draft 

plan amendment and draft EIS. This 

would be shorter than the 90-day public 

comment period that applies to all EISlevel plan amendments under the 

existing planning regulations, but would 

be consistent with existing NEPA 

requirements. The BLM believes that 

aligning planning requirements with 

NEPA requirements would make the 

planning process, as well as the NEPA 

process, less confusing to the public. 

Proposed § 1610.2–2(c) describes the 

public comment period the BLM would 

provide for draft resource management 

plans and draft EISs. Proposed § 1610.2– 

2(c) states that the BLM would provide 

at least 60 calendar days for public 

comment on the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS. This 

would be shorter than the 90-day public 

comment period that applies to all draft 

resource management plans under the 

existing planning regulations. Proposed 

§ 1610.2–2(c) would retain the existing 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9699 

10NEPA requires public involvement, to the 

extent practicable, in the preparation of an 

environmental assessment, but it need not take the 

form of a public comment period. 40 CFR 1504.1(b) 

and 43 CFR 46.305(a); see 40 CFR 1506.6; BLM 

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H– 

1790–1), 8.2, p. 76. 

provision that the public comment 

period begins when the EPA publishes 

a notice of availability (NOA) of the 

draft EIS in the Federal Register. 

The BLM believes it is appropriate to 

reduce the length of public comment 

periods on draft EIS-level amendments 

and draft resource management plans 

because the public would be provided 

an opportunity to review the 

preliminary resource management 

alternatives, rationale for alternatives, 

and the basis for analysis prior to the 

publication of the draft EIS-level 

amendment or draft resource 

management plan (see proposed 

§§ 1610.5–2 and 1610.5–3). This would 

be a change from current policy where 

the public is not provided an 

opportunity to review these items until 

the publication of the draft EIS-level 

amendment or draft resource 

management plan. The BLM believes 

that providing earlier opportunities for 

public review of the resource 

management alternatives, rationale for 

alternatives, and the basis for analysis 

while also reducing the length of public 

comment periods for draft EIS-level 

amendments and draft resource 

management plans, would provide the 

appropriate balance between providing 

new opportunities for meaningful 

public involvement, while still 

maintaining an efficient timeline for 

preparing EIS-level amendments and 

resource management plans. 

Because plan amendments are 

narrower in scope than the preparation 

of a resource management plan, the 

BLM believes that it would be 

appropriate to specify a slightly shorter 

public comment period for EIS-level 

amendments than for draft resource 

management plans in the regulations. 

The proposed rule would allow 

responsible officials discretion to offer 

longer public comment periods or grant 

extensions as appropriate, on a casespecific basis. The BLM requests public 

comment on the proposed changes and 

how the BLM could otherwise maintain 

an efficient timeline for the preparation 

of EIS-level amendments and resource 

management plans while also providing 

for meaningful public involvement. 

Consistent with the existing 

regulations, the proposed rule would 

not explicitly address situations where 

the BLM prepares an EA for a plan 

amendment (EA-level amendment) and 

the BLM offers an opportunity for 

public comment. In this situation, 

however, the BLM would provide at 

least 30 calendar days for public 

comment on the draft plan amendment, 

unless a longer period is required by 

law or regulation, consistent with the 

requirements of proposed § 1610.2–1(c). 

The public comment period would 

begin on the date the BLM notifies the 

public of the availability of the draft 

plan amendment and EA. 

While the BLM often offers a public 

comment period on an EA-level plan 

amendment, NEPA does not require 

one,10 nor do the existing or proposed 

planning regulations. There may be 

situations where there is no public 

interest in a minor EA-level amendment 

and a formal public comment period 

would not be necessary. The 

forthcoming revision of the Land Use 

Planning Handbook will provide more 

detailed guidance on this topic. 

The following table provides a 

comparison of some public involvement 

opportunities in the proposed rule for 

EA-level amendments, EIS-level 

amendments, and resource management 

plans. 

TABLE 2—NOTICE AND COMMENT

Step in the planning 

process EA-level amendments EIS-level amendments Resource management plans 

Planning Assessment.The BLM would not conduct a planning assessment for EA-level 

amendments.

To formally initiate the planning assessment, the BLM would post a notice on the BLM Web site and at 

BLM offices within the planning 

area, and provide direct notification 

to those who have requested such 

notification.

To formally initiate the planning assessment, the BLM would post a notice on the BLM Web site and at 

BLM offices within the planning 

area, and provide direct notification 

to those who have requested such 

notification. 

Plan Initiation .......... The BLM would publish a notice in appropriate local media, on the BLM 

Web site, and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would publish a NOI in the 

Federal Register and would publish 

a notice in appropriate local media, 

on the BLM Web site, and at BLM 

offices within the planning area, and 

provide direct notification to those 

who have requested such notification.

The BLM would publish a NOI in the 

Federal Register and would publish 

a notice in appropriate local media, 

on the BLM Web site, and at BLM 

offices within the planning area, and 

provide direct notification to those 

who have requested such notification. 

Identification of planning issues.The BLM would offer a minimum 30 

day comment period.

The BLM would offer a minimum 30 

day comment period.

The BLM would offer a minimum 30 

day comment period. 

Review of the preliminary alternatives, rationale 

for alternatives, 

and the basis for 

analysis.

These steps would not apply to EAlevel amendments.The BLM would post the preliminary 

alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis 

on the BLM Web Site. The BLM 

would post notice of their availability 

on the BLM Web site and at BLM offices within the planning area, and 

provide direct notification to those 

who have requested such notification.

The BLM would post the preliminary 

alternatives, rationale for alternatives, and the basis for analysis 

on the BLM Web Site. The BLM 

would post notice of their availability 

on the BLM Web site, and at BLM 

offices within the planning area, and 

provide direct notification to those 

who have requested such notification. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9700 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—NOTICE AND COMMENT—Continued 

Step in the planning 

process EA-level amendments EIS-level amendments Resource management plans 

Comment on the 

draft plan or 

amendment.

If the BLM requests written comment, 

BLM would offer a minimum 30 day 

comment period. The BLM would 

announce the start of the comment 

period by posting a notice on the 

BLM Web site and at BLM offices 

within the planning area, and provide direct notification to those who 

have requested such notification.

The BLM would offer a 45 day comment period. The BLM would announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice on the BLM 

Web site and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification. The EPA 

would publish an NOA in the Federal Register.

The BLM would offer a 60 day comment period. The BLM would announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice on the BLM 

Web site and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification. The EPA 

would publish an NOA in the Federal Register. 

Protest ..................... The BLM would offer a 30 day protest 

period. The BLM would announce 

the start of the protest period by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would offer a 30 day protest 

period. The BLM would announce 

the start of the protest period by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification. The EPA 

would publish an NOA in the Federal Register.

The BLM would offer a 30 day protest 

period. The BLM would announce 

the start of the protest period by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification. The EPA 

would publish an NOA in the Federal Register. 

Comment on a substantive change 

made after release of a proposed plan or 

amendment (i.e., if 

the BLM intends 

to select an alternative that is substantially different 

than the proposed 

plan or amendment).

The BLM would offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM would announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice on the BLM 

Web site and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM would announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice on the BLM 

Web site and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would offer a 30 day comment period. The BLM would announce the start of the comment period by posting a notice on the BLM 

Web site and at BLM offices within 

the planning area, and provide direct 

notification to those who have requested such notification. 

Plan approval .......... The BLM would notify the public by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would notify the public by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification.

The BLM would notify the public by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web 

site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area, and provide direct notification to those who have requested such notification. 

Section 1610.2–3 Availability of the 

Resource Management Plan 

Proposed § 1610.2–3 addresses the 

availability of resource management 

plans. Proposed § 1610.2–3(a) would 

contain revised language from existing 

§ 1610.2(g) and require that the BLM 

make copies of the draft, proposed, and 

approved resource management plan or 

plan amendment reasonably available 

for public review. The proposed rule 

would require, at a minimum, that the 

BLM make copies of these documents 

available electronically and at all BLM 

offices within the planning area. 

For example, the BLM could make 

documents available electronically by 

posting documents on the BLM Web 

site, or if high-speed Internet access is 

limited in an area, by sending 

participants a Compact Disc or a USB 

flash drive in the mail. The BLM would 

also make resource management plans 

available for public viewing at all BLM 

offices within the planning area. While 

this is a change from existing 

regulations, it is consistent with current 

practice for most BLM offices. The 

proposed language would replace the 

existing requirements to make copies of 

the resource management plan available 

at the State, District, and Field office 

(see existing §§ 1610.2(g)(1) through (3)) 

and copies of supporting documents 

available at the office where the plan 

was prepared. The proposed changes 

would increase electronic availability of 

documents and change the BLM offices 

where the document is required to be 

available for viewing. 

We propose to remove the existing 

requirement to make ‘‘supporting 

documents’’ available to the public as 

this term is vague and it is unclear what 

is considered a supporting document. 

The BLM makes key supporting 

documents, such as a biological opinion 

or other relevant reports, available to the 

public as appendices to the resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

These types of supporting documents 

would therefore be posted on the BLM’s 

Web site or made available at BLM 

offices within the planning area. The 

BLM would not, however, post the 

entire project file, including email 

records or other types of 

communication, to the BLM’s Web site 

or make the entire project file available 

at BLM offices within the planning area. 

This would be inconsistent with current 

practice and policy and would place an 

unnecessary burden on the BLM. These 

types of supporting documents are made 

available to the public through other 

means, such as a Freedom of 

Information Act request. 

The proposed requirements to make 

resource management plans available 

electronically reflect that digital 

technology and Internet access is far 

more widely available than it was when 

these regulations were last updated. 

These proposed requirements would 

advance BLM policy on transitioning to 

electronic distribution of NEPA and 

planning documents (IM 2013–144, 

Transitioning from Printing Hard Copies 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9701 

11 ‘‘Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to 

address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations’’ directs 

Federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, 

and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States (59 FR 

7629). 

12As a separate matter, Secretarial Order 3338 

issued on January 15, 2016, requires the BLM to 

conduct a comprehensive review to modernize the 

federal coal program, including a discretionary 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

The regulatory changes proposed above are 

unrelated to and will not impact the Secretarial 

Order or the BLM’s comprehensive review. 

of National Environmental Policy Act 

and Planning Documents to Providing 

Documents in Electronic Formats (June 

21, 2013), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ 

info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_

and_Bulletins/national_instruction/

2013/IM_2013-144.html), and with the 

DOI Environmental Statement 

Memorandum No. 13–7, ‘‘Publication 

and Distribution of DOI NEPA 

Compliance Documents via Electronic 

Methods’’ (Jan. 7, 2013), http://

www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM13- 

7.pdf. The proposed changes would 

ensure consistency in how the BLM 

makes documents available to the 

public, increase transparency, and help 

to ensure that the public has access to 

current versions of plans without 

missing amendments that only appear 

in paper copies. Electronic posting of 

planning documents also may help to 

reduce high printing costs. 

The BLM recognizes, however, that 

there are many communities with 

limited technological and Internet 

availability, such as rural communities 

and some environmental justice 

communities.11 The BLM would 

continue to work to involve these 

communities in the development of 

resource management plans and make 

associated materials available in the 

most appropriate formats. For example, 

resource management plans could be 

made available at public libraries, 

community centers, or other locations 

frequented by local communities. 

Proposed § 1610.2–3(b) would clarify 

the requirements in existing § 1610.2(g) 

that the BLM would make single printed 

copies of a resource management plan 

available to individual members of the 

public upon request during the public 

involvement process, and that after the 

BLM has approved a plan, the BLM may 

charge a fee for additional printed 

copies. The BLM is considering an 

alternative option in the regulations to 

make these copies available through 

digital means, such as a compact disc or 

other digital storage device, instead of 

printed copies. This option would allow 

the agency to continue to move away 

from printing paper copies in the future 

as technology continues to become more 

available to the public. The BLM 

requests public comment on whether 

making a printed copy of resource 

management plans available to 

individual members of the public is 

necessary, or if a digital copy of 

resource management plan would be 

appropriate. 

Proposed § 1610.2–3(b) would also 

maintain the language in existing 

§ 1610.2(g) concerning fees for 

reproducing requested documents 

beyond those used as part of the public 

involvement process, although it refers 

to a ‘‘resource management plan’’ 

instead of a ‘‘revision’’ and ‘‘public 

involvement’’ instead of ‘‘public 

participation.’’ This word change would 

reflect changes made throughout this 

proposed rule and the use of the FLPMA 

term ‘‘public involvement.’’ These 

proposed changes would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

We propose to remove existing 

§ 1610.2(j) and (k). The BLM prepared 

the coal program regulations 

simultaneously with the first land use 

planning regulations under FLPMA in 

the late 1970’s and certain coal-related 

provisions remain in 43 CFR subpart 

1610. The BLM believes that these coalrelated provisions are inappropriate in 

the planning regulations, as they are 

either duplicative of the coal program 

regulations, or reference procedures that 

are inconsistent with current practice 

and policy. 

Existing § 1610.2(j) requires 

consultation with surface owners when 

resource management plans involve 

areas of potential mining for coal by 

means other than underground mining. 

Input and consent from a qualified 

surface owner is required at the leasing 

stage under 43 CFR 3427.1, therefore 

existing 1610.2(j) is duplicative of the 

consultation requirements at 43 CFR 

3427.1 and unnecessary. 

Existing § 1610.2(k) would also be 

removed in the proposed rule. Existing 

§ 1610.2(k) is consistent with a process 

of ‘‘regional coal leasing,’’ described in 

subpart 3420, which the BLM used in 

designated coal production regions 

(defined in § 3400.5) at the time the 

planning regulations were originally 

published. Since 1990, all coal 

production regions have been 

decertified and the BLM now uses the 

‘‘lease by application’’ process 

described in subpart 3425, where 

approval for coal leasing is conducted 

for each individual application, as 

opposed to at the resource management 

plan level. Since publication of the 

resource management plan only 

designates areas as open to coal leasing 

and no longer approves coal leases over 

the entire open area, this public hearing 

is no longer appropriate. Under the 

‘‘lease by application’’ process, a 

hearing would be held for each coal 

lease application, consistent with the 

BLM coal regulations at § 3425.4(a)(1) 

and current BLM practice. Removing 

§ 1610.2(k) would help reduce 

confusion, avoid redundancy with 

existing requirements in the coal 

regulations, and keep coal specific 

requirements in the coal regulations, 

where they are more appropriate. These 

proposed regulatory changes would not 

be a change in current practice or 

policy.12

Section 1610.3 Coordination With 

Other Federal Agencies, State and Local 

Governments, and Indian Tribes 

We propose to remove the words 

‘‘federally recognized’’ before Indian 

tribes throughout §§ 1610.3–1 and 

1610.3–2 for consistent use in 

terminology. These references would no 

longer be necessary with the inclusion 

of the proposed definition for Indian 

tribes in § 1601.0–5. We also propose to 

replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ 

throughout these sections, unless 

otherwise indicated, and to specify that 

a ‘‘plan’’ is a ‘‘resource management 

plan’’ for improved readability. These 

proposed changes would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

Section 1610.3–1 Coordination of 

Planning Efforts 

The BLM proposes to add 

introductory language to proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(a) to clarify that this section 

describes the ‘‘objectives of 

coordination.’’ The BLM proposes to 

amend § 1610.3–1(a) by replacing the 

reference to ‘‘State Directors and Field 

Managers’’ with ‘‘the BLM’’ because the 

responsibility of coordination are those 

of the BLM and they extend beyond any 

individual. The BLM proposes a similar 

change in proposed § 1610.3–1(c), 

where ‘‘State Directors and District and 

Area Managers’’ would be replaced with 

‘‘[t]he BLM.’’ It is the BLM’s 

responsibility to provide other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes opportunity for 

review, advice, and suggestion on issues 

and topics which may affect or 

influence other agency or other 

government programs. Elsewhere 

throughout proposed § 1610.3–1(b) 

through (f), we would replace references 

to ‘‘Field Manager(s)’’ with ‘‘responsible 

official(s)’’ and we would replace 

references to ‘‘State Director(s)’’ with 

‘‘deciding official(s).’’ The new terms, 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

which are defined in proposed 

§ 1601.0–5, would refer to specific 

official responsibilities. 

We propose to add language to the 

first sentence of proposed § 1610.3–1(a) 

to clarify that coordination is 

accomplished ‘‘to the extent consistent 

with Federal laws and regulations 

applicable to public lands, and the 

purposes, policies and programs of such 

laws and regulations.’’ There would be 

no change from current practice or 

policy. The BLM only wishes to clarify 

that BLM must comply with Federal 

laws and regulations. 

In proposed paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, the word ‘‘practicable’’ would 

be replaced with ‘‘practical’’ for 

improved readability and consistency 

with FLPMA (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) of this section 

would remove the word ‘‘public’’ from 

‘‘early public notice’’ for improved 

clarity. The BLM intends no change in 

practice or policy from these proposed 

changes. 

We propose to add introductory 

language to proposed § 1610.3–1(b) to 

indicate that this section describes 

procedures and requirements related to 

‘‘cooperating agencies.’’ This paragraph 

would also be broken down into 

subparagraphs to improve readability 

and would be revised as follows. 

The first sentence of proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(b) would be revised to state 

‘‘[w]hen preparing a resource 

management plan, the responsible 

official will follow applicable 

regulations regarding the invitation of 

eligible governmental entities (see 43 

CFR 46.225) to participate as 

cooperating agencies. We would replace 

‘‘developing’’ with ‘‘preparing’’ for 

consistent use in terminology. The BLM 

intends no change in meaning or 

practice. We also propose to replace 

‘‘eligible Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and Indian tribes’’ 

with ‘‘eligible governmental entities’’ for 

consistency with the DOI NEPA 

regulations, and to specify that the 

responsible official will follow 

applicable regulations regarding the 

invitation of eligible governmental 

entities, including the DOI NEPA 

regulations at 43 CFR 46.225. The BLM 

intends no change in practice or policy 

from these proposed changes. 

The second sentence of proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(b) would be revised to reflect 

the fact that a plan is not amended by 

an EIS, rather the EIS is prepared to 

inform the amendment. 

We propose to remove the last three 

sentences of existing § 1610.3–1(b), 

which state that ‘‘State Directors and 

Field Managers will consider any 

requests of other Federal agencies, state 

and local governments, and federally 

recognized Indian tribes 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.’’ This existing language is 

unnecessary with the new proposed 

language that responsible officials will 

follow applicable regulations regarding 

the invitation of eligible governmental 

entities to participate as cooperating 

agencies. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section would describe that a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

will be used for a non-Federal 

cooperating agency and will include a 

commitment to maintain confidentiality 

of documents and deliberations prior to 

their public release. The proposed 

change is consistent with the DOI NEPA 

implementation regulations (see 43 CFR 

46.225(d)). Although a written 

agreement is not explicitly required for 

Federal cooperating agencies, the BLM 

often chooses to prepare such an 

agreement to clarify the roles and 

responsibilities of all parties. No change 

in practice or policy is intended by the 

addition of proposed paragraph (b)(1). 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

identify the various steps during the 

planning process when the responsible 

official would collaborate with 

cooperating agencies. The BLM 

promulgated regulations in 2005 (70 FR 

14561), which required BLM Field 

Managers to collaborate with 

cooperating agencies at steps throughout 

the planning process (see existing 

§ 1610.4). The proposed change would 

consolidate these references that are 

currently inserted throughout existing 

§ 1610.4 and identify additional steps 

where cooperating agencies would be 

involved, including the preparation of 

the planning assessment and the 

preparation of the proposed resource 

management plan and implementation 

strategies. The BLM intends no change 

in practice or policy by consolidating 

these references; rather, the BLM 

believes that consolidating these 

references provides improved 

readability and clarity. The BLM, 

however, requests public comment on 

this proposed change and whether the 

existing format (i.e., cooperating agency 

references incorporated throughout 

§ 1610.4) or the consolidation of 

cooperating agency references, as 

proposed, provides better clarity and 

readability. 

Under the proposed rule, the BLM 

would provide an additional role for 

cooperating agencies during the new 

planning assessment step. While NEPA 

regulations require a lead agency to 

invite cooperating agencies to 

participate in the NEPA process ‘‘at the 

earliest possible time’’ (40 CFR 

1501.6(a)(1); see 43 CFR 46.200(a) and 

(b)), the BLM recognizes that eligible 

governmental entities may be reluctant 

to agree to serve as cooperating agencies 

for a planning effort before the scoping 

process yields a fuller understanding of 

the scope of the plan or revision and the 

supporting NEPA analysis. 

The BLM further recognizes that DOI 

NEPA regulations and the proposed rule 

(see paragraph (b)(1) of this section) 

would require the BLM to work with 

non-Federal cooperating agencies to 

develop a MOU that outlines agencies’ 

respective roles, assignments, 

schedules, and other commitments and 

such a cooperating agency MOU may 

not yet be completed during the 

planning assessment step. 

Nonetheless, the BLM does not 

foresee any problems working with 

eligible governmental entities without 

an MOU during the planning 

assessment step, because this step 

primarily involves information 

gathering by the BLM. Additionally, the 

BLM believes the planning assessment 

would afford the BLM and eligible 

governmental entities alike valuable 

time to build working relationships and 

share information that would inform the 

planning assessment and contribute to 

the formation of fruitful cooperating 

agency relationships. However, the BLM 

may need to withhold confidential 

information, such as locations of 

sensitive cultural resources, until an 

MOU has been formalized. The BLM 

requests comments on how to engage 

with eligible governmental entities 

during the proposed planning 

assessment step, prior to memorializing 

a cooperating agency relationship. 

We propose to add introductory 

language to proposed § 1610.3–1(c) to 

indicate that this section describes 

general ‘‘coordination requirements’’ 

and to divide the existing paragraph (c) 

into three separate paragraphs 

(proposed paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and 

(c)(2)) for improved readability. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section would provide that ‘‘deciding 

officials should seek the input of the 

Governor(s) on the timing, scope and 

coordination of resource management 

planning; definition of planning areas; 

scheduling of public involvement 

activities; and resource management 

opportunities and constraints on public 

lands.’’ Proposed changes would replace 

‘‘policy advice’’ with ‘‘input’’ because 

the topics listed in this provision are not 

‘‘policy,’’ therefore the phrase ‘‘policy 

advice’’ is inaccurate. We propose to 

replace ‘‘plan components’’ with 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9703 

‘‘resource management planning’’ 

because the existing language would be 

inconsistent with new terminology and 

definitions in the proposed rule (see 

proposed § 1610.1–2). We proposed to 

replace ‘‘multiple use’’ with ‘‘resource 

management’’ because the Governor 

may provide input on other types of 

resource management besides multiple 

use. For example, the Governor may 

wish to provide input on management 

related to wildfire or the spread of 

invasive species, and the BLM would 

consider such input. The BLM intends 

no change from current practice or 

policy from these proposed changes. 

The BLM proposes to remove existing 

§ 1610.3–1(d). This section is 

unnecessary and inappropriate in the 

regulations. FLPMA provides direction 

that BLM’s resource management plans 

must be consistent with State, local, and 

tribal land use plans to the extent 

practical and to the extent consistent 

with Federal laws and regulations. Any 

guidance developed to inform the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan would also be required to be 

consistent with Federal law (see 

proposed § 1610.1–1(a)(1)), and would 

therefore be mindful of FLPMA 

requirements for consistency. Further, 

guidance is an internal BLM process, 

which does not constitute a formal 

decision regarding resource 

management. 

Proposed § 1610.3–1(c)(3) would 

contain the provisions of existing 

§ 1610.3–1(e) and would be revised to 

reflect proposed changes to § 1610.2 

concerning public involvement and to 

use active voice for improved 

readability. The proposed rule would 

specify that State procedures for 

coordination with Federal agencies 

would be followed, ‘‘if such procedures 

exist.’’ The BLM intends no change in 

practice or policy from this added 

language; rather, we would clarify that 

such procedures can only be followed if 

they exist. 

The second sentence of proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(c)(3) would be revised to 

state that ‘‘[t]he responsible official will 

notify Federal agencies, the elected 

heads of county boards, other local 

government units, and elected 

government officials of Indian tribes 

that have requested to be notified or that 

the responsible official has reason to 

believe would be interested in the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment.’’ We would clarify that 

heads of county boards are ‘‘elected’’ 

and would replace ‘‘Tribal Chairmen’’ 

and ‘‘Alaska Native Leaders’’ with 

‘‘elected government officials of Indian 

tribes’’ to reflect the fact that not all 

government officials of Indian tribes are 

referred to as ‘‘Chairmen’’ and for 

consistent use in terminology. The 

proposed definition of ‘‘Indian tribe’’ 

would encompass ‘‘Tribal Chairmen’’ 

and ‘‘Alaska Native Leaders.’’ No 

change in practice or policy is intended 

by these proposed word changes. The 

second sentence would also rephrase 

the existing requirement for BLM to 

notify Federal agencies, the elected 

heads of county boards, other local 

government units, and elected 

government officials of Indian tribes 

that the responsible official has reason 

to believe would be ‘‘concerned with’’ 

the resource management plan or plan 

amendment to those that would be 

‘‘interested in’’ the resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

This would be consistent with current 

BLM practice and would reflect the fact 

that the BLM believes that any interest 

in the resource management plan or 

amendment, not just concern, warrants 

notification. 

Proposed § 1610.3–1(c)(4) would 

contain the provisions of existing 

§ 1610.3–1(f). We propose to replace 

‘‘resource management plan proposals’’ 

with ‘‘resource management plans and 

plan amendments’’ to clarify that this 

step refers to all of the opportunities for 

public involvement described in 

§ 1610.2, and not just the ‘‘proposed’’ 

resource management plan. The BLM 

intends no change from current practice 

or policy. 

We propose to revise and move the 

final sentence of existing § 1610.3–1(f) 

to proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(3). The 

existing language refers to consistency 

requirements and is therefore more 

appropriately addressed in § 1610.3–2. 

Proposed § 1610.3–1(d) would contain 

the provisions of existing § 1610.3–1(g). 

We propose to add introductory 

language to proposed § 1610.3–1(d) to 

indicate that this section describes 

requirements related to ‘‘resource 

advisory councils.’’ No substantive 

changes are proposed to this section. 

Section 1610.3–2 Consistency 

Requirements 

The BLM proposes to replace the 

word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ throughout 

this section for improved readability. 

We propose to revise existing 

§ 1610.3–2(a) to read as follows: 

‘‘Resource management plans will be 

consistent with officially approved or 

adopted land use plans of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments 

and Indian tribes to the maximum 

extent the BLM finds practical and 

consistent with the purposes of FLPMA 

and other Federal law and regulations 

applicable to public lands, and the 

purposes, policies and programs of such 

laws and regulations.’’ The proposed 

language would reflect FLPMA 

requirements for consistency with the 

land use plans of other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes (see section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA). 

Proposed language would specify that 

these land use plans must be ‘‘officially 

approved or adopted’’ (see the 

definition for ‘‘officially approved or 

adopted land use plans’’ in proposed 

§ 1601.0–5). These proposed changes 

would represent a change from current 

regulations, but would be consistent 

with current BLM practice and statutory 

direction provided by FLPMA. 

We propose to remove existing 

§ 1610.3–2(b). The existing section 

exceeds the statutory requirements of 

section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA by 

providing that in the absence of 

officially approved and adopted plans, 

resource management plans should be 

consistent with ‘‘policies and programs’’ 

of other Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and Indian tribes. 

The BLM believes that such ‘‘policies 

and programs’’ should be reflected in 

the land use plans of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes, and therefore would 

be adequately considered through the 

consideration of their land use plans. 

Further, it is inappropriate for the BLM 

to seek consistency with policies and 

programs that may or may not be 

officially approved or adopted by the 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes. We also 

propose to remove references to 

consistency with ‘‘policies and 

programs’’ from throughout § 1610.3–2. 

The proposed changes represent a 

change from the existing regulations. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(1) would 

revise and replace existing section 

1610.3–2(c). The first two references to 

‘‘State Directors and Field Managers’’ in 

the first sentence would be replaced 

with ‘‘the BLM,’’ because the 

requirement to keep apprised of State 

and local governmental and Indian 

tribal policies, plans, and programs is 

attributed to the BLM, rather than 

specific employees. We would also 

replace ‘‘practicable’’ with ‘‘practical’’ 

for improved readability. These 

proposed changes would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(1) would 

specify that ‘‘BLM will, to the extent 

practical, keep apprised of the officially 

approved and adopted land use plans of 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes and give consideration to those 

plans that are germane in the 

development of resource management 

plans.’’ We would remove the words 

‘‘policies and programs’’ (for more 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9704 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

information, see the discussion on 

consistency for existing § 1610.3–2(b)) 

and add language requiring that BLM 

consider those plans that are germane to 

the resource management plan. The 

proposed changes would be consistent 

with section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(2) contains a 

provision from existing § 1610.3–2(c). 

We propose to replace ‘‘accountable for 

ensuring consistency’’ with ‘‘required to 

address the consistency requirements of 

this section.’’ The BLM cannot ‘‘ensure’’ 

consistency, but seeks consistency to 

the extent practical and to the extent 

consistent with Federal laws and 

regulations and the purposes, policies, 

and programs of such laws and 

regulations. For example, if a State, 

local, or tribal land use plan was not 

consistent with a Federal law, the BLM 

would not be able to ensure consistency 

with the State, local, or tribal land use 

plan. The BLM also proposes to replace 

the reference to State Directors and 

Field Managers (‘‘they’’) with 

‘‘responsible official,’’ thereby providing 

that the BLM will not be accountable for 

addressing the consistency requirements 

of 1610.3–2 if the ‘‘responsible official’’ 

has not received written notice of an 

apparent inconsistency from State and 

local governments or Indian tribes, 

rather than ‘‘State Directors and Field 

Managers.’’ Because the responsible 

official would be the BLM employee 

who is delegated the authority to 

prepare a resource management plan or 

plan amendment, it is important that the 

responsible official receives written 

notice of an apparent inconsistency so 

that it can be considered during the 

planning process. The BLM cannot 

ensure that notice sent to someone other 

than the responsible official would be 

redirected and delivered in a reasonable 

time-frame, although we would attempt 

to do so to the best of our ability. 

The proposed change would provide 

clarity to State and local government 

officials and Indian tribes of the 

appropriate BLM official to notify of 

inconsistencies; however, it would also 

reduce the number of individuals that 

could be notified under the existing 

regulations from two individuals (the 

State Director and Field Manager) to one 

individual in the proposed rule (the 

responsible official). The BLM believes 

that the proposed change would 

improve the BLM’s ability to consider 

potential inconsistencies at the earliest 

time possible, thereby promoting 

efficiency in the planning process. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(a)(3) would 

contain the provisions of existing 

§ 1610.3–1(f). There would be no 

substantive changes to this section 

except to use active voice and consistent 

terminology for improved readability. 

In other provisions of proposed 

§ 1610.3–2 references to ‘‘Field 

Manager(s)’’ would be replaced with 

‘‘responsible official(s)’’ and references 

to ‘‘State Director(s)’’ would be replaced 

with ‘‘deciding official(s)’’ to reflect 

these individuals’ roles or 

responsibilities. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b) contains the 

provisions of existing § 1610.3–2(e). 

Proposed changes would provide 

consistency with edits made throughout 

§ 1610.3–2 and make clarifying edits to 

the existing Governor’s consistency 

review provision. These changes are 

intended to provide clarity and ensure 

consistency with current BLM practice 

and with FLPMA. The proposed 

changes would help to eliminate 

confusion in the existing provision. The 

proposed rule would also break these 

provisions into multiple paragraphs to 

improve readability. 

The proposed section would replace 

references to ‘‘State Director’’ with 

‘‘deciding official’’ consistent with the 

new terms used throughout these 

proposed regulations and would replace 

‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ for improved 

readability, unless otherwise noted. 

There would be no change in practice or 

policy. 

The proposed rule would specify that 

the document submitted to the Governor 

by the deciding official would identify 

‘‘relevant’’ known inconsistencies with 

‘‘officially approved and adopted land 

use plans of State and local 

governments.’’ Proposed changes would 

limit the inconsistencies identified by 

the deciding official to those that are 

relevant and to inconsistencies with 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans, consistent with proposed 

§§ 1601.0–5 and 1610.3–2(a). 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(1) would state 

that within 60 days after receiving a 

proposed plan or amendment, the 

Governor(s) may submit a written 

document to the deciding official 

identifying inconsistencies with the 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans of State and local 

governments and provide 

recommendations to remedy them. 

Proposed new language would clarify 

that the Governor’s recommendations 

should address identified 

inconsistencies with State and local 

plans, rather than other aspects of a 

resource management plan. This 

language would not preclude the BLM 

from considering or responding to a 

Governor’s recommendations on other 

subjects, but it would underscore that 

the BLM’s focus at this late stage of the 

planning process is on consistency with 

State or local plans. There would be no 

change in meaning or practice 

associated with the proposed change 

other than focusing the Governor’s 

review on consistency with officially 

approved and adopted State and local 

plans. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(1)(ii) would 

introduce a new provision, where the 

Governor may waive or shorten the 60- 

day consistency review period in 

writing. This provision would facilitate 

a more efficient planning process by 

reducing the length of the review period 

in situations where the Governor has no 

comments to submit. For example, if 

representatives from the Governor’s 

Office participated as cooperators and 

found the plan to be adequately 

consistent with officially approved and 

adopted State and local plans, then the 

Governor may have no further 

comments and wish to expedite the 

review period. This change is consistent 

with current practice under the existing 

regulations, as the Governor is not 

precluded from waiving or shortening 

the consistency review period under the 

existing regulations. The addition of this 

language, however, would provide more 

transparency to the public on the 

Governor’s consistency review process 

and affirm the availability of this option 

for the Governor. 

The BLM welcomes public comments 

and suggestions on ways to improve the 

Governor’s consistency review to make 

it more effective and efficient for both 

the Governor and the BLM. In this 

proposed rule, the BLM has identified 

additional opportunities early in the 

process to identify the officially 

approved and adopted land use plans of 

State and local governments or Indian 

tribes and resolve inconsistencies 

between those plans and the resource 

management plan alternatives that the 

BLM would consider. In light of these 

early opportunities, the BLM is 

considering whether to adjust the 

timeline or appeal process for the 

Governor’s consistency review and 

requests public comments and 

suggestions on these issues. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(2) would 

retain existing language that the plan or 

amendment would be presumed to be 

consistent if the Governor(s) does not 

respond to the BLM within the 60-day 

period, however, revisions would 

improve readability. There would be no 

change in practice or meaning 

associated with these revisions. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(3) would 

clarify existing language and reflect 

terms used in this proposed rule. It 

would provide that ‘‘[i]f the document 

submitted by the Governor(s) 

recommends substantive changes that 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9705 

13See OMB and President’s CEQ Memorandum 

on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict 

Resolution (Sept. 7, 2012), 4.b., p. 3 (‘‘Given 

possible cost savings through improved outcomes, 

fewer appeals and less litigation, department and 

agency leadership should identify and support 

upfront investments in collaborative processes and 

conflict resolution . . .’’) and 5, p. 4 (Federal 

departments and agencies should prioritize 

integrating collaboration and conflict resolution 

objectives and ‘‘a focus on up-front collaboration as 

a key principle in agency mission statements and 

strategic plans’’), available at: https://ceq.doe.gov/

ceq_regulations/OMB_CEQ_Env_Collab_Conflict_

Resolution_20120907.pdf. 

were not considered during the public 

involvement process, the BLM will 

notify the public and provide 

opportunity for public comment on 

these changes.’’ This would clarify that 

the public must be provided an 

opportunity to comment on any changes 

recommended by the Governor that 

were not previously considered during 

the public involvement process before 

the Director renders a decision. While 

this would not be a change from BLM 

practice under existing regulations, the 

proposed clarifications provide a more 

precise description of the public’s 

opportunity to comment on the 

Governor’s recommended changes to 

remedy inconsistencies. 

Under proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(4), the 

deciding official (revised from the State 

Director) would notify the Governor(s) 

in writing of his or her decision 

regarding the Governor(s)’ 

recommendations. We propose new 

requirements that the notification 

include the deciding official’s reason for 

the decision and that the notification be 

mandatory, replacing the existing 

requirement to notify the Governor only 

if their recommendations are not 

accepted. These proposed changes 

would not be a change in practice or 

policy, other than ensuring that the 

Governor is notified of any decision 

related to the Governor’s 

recommendations. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this 

section would maintain the existing 

process by which the Governor(s) may 

submit a written appeal to the BLM 

Director within 30 days after receiving 

the deciding official’s decision. 

Proposed paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) of this 

section would replace existing language 

requiring the BLM Director to accept the 

recommendations of the Governor(s) if 

the BLM Director determines that the 

recommendations ‘‘provide for a 

reasonable balance between the national 

interest and the State’s interest.’’ We 

propose to instead state that the BLM 

Director will consider the Governor(s)’ 

comments in rendering a decision. The 

proposed change would be consistent 

with current practice and reflect that the 

BLM Director must consider many 

factors when rendering a decision, 

including whether the Governor(s)’ 

recommendations are consistent with 

Federal laws and regulations applicable 

to public lands, such as FLPMA. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this 

section would retain the existing 

requirement, with clarifying edits, that 

the BLM Director will notify the 

Governor(s) in writing of his or her 

decision regarding the appeal. In 

addition, proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) 

of this section would replace the 

existing requirement to publish the 

reasons for the BLM’s decision in the 

Federal Register with commitments to 

notify the public of the decision and to 

make the written decision available to 

the public. The BLM would instead 

provide this notification on the BLM 

Web site, by posting a notice at BLM 

offices within the planning area, by 

sending an email to the mailing list, or 

by other means as appropriate. 

The BLM believes that it would be 

appropriate to move away from relying 

on Federal Register notices for this 

purpose, given that Internet 

communications are both readily 

available and widely used. Further, at 

this late stage of the planning process, 

individuals or organizations interested 

in the planning effort would have had 

many opportunities to request to be 

added to the mailing list (see proposed 

§ 1610.2–1(d)) to receive notifications 

related to the planning effort. Removal 

of the requirement to publish a notice in 

the Federal Register would provide for 

a more efficient planning process by 

removing an unnecessary step in the 

process. However, the BLM requests 

public comments on whether a notice in 

the Federal Registerat this step is 

advisable. 

Section 1610.4 Planning Assessment 

Existing § 1610.4 consists only of the 

section heading ‘‘Resource management 

planning process.’’ This section is 

revised as follows. 

Proposed § 1610.4, ‘‘Planning 

assessment,’’ would combine and revise 

the existing steps for inventory data and 

information collection (existing 

§ 1610.4–3) and the analysis of the 

management situation (AMS) (existing 

§ 1610.4–4) into a new planning 

assessment step. The planning 

assessment would occur before the BLM 

initiates the preparation of a resource 

management plan and would be 

consistent with the nature, scope, scale, 

and timing of the planning effort. This 

change would result in a more informed 

scoping process; however, several 

existing provisions would be removed 

because they would no longer be 

relevant at this early stage. These 

changes are described in detail at each 

corresponding section of the proposed 

planning assessment. 

The proposed planning assessment 

would include new opportunities for 

public involvement, coordination with 

other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes, and 

collaboration with cooperating agencies. 

The BLM anticipates that greater 

coordination, collaboration and public 

involvement, particularly early in the 

planning process, would result in 

efficiencies by ensuring that the BLM 

considers a wide range of relevant 

policies, information, and perspectives 

even before scoping.13

The proposed planning assessment is 

intended to help the BLM better 

understand resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic 

conditions, and identify public views 

and resource management priorities for 

the planning area. The planning 

assessment would occur early in the 

process, before the formal initiation of a 

planning effort and before the steps that 

the BLM traditionally has taken first— 

namely, the identification of issues and 

the development of planning criteria. 

The BLM believes that conducting an 

upfront assessment would provide 

useful baseline information to inform 

subsequent steps, such as the 

preparation of a preliminary purpose 

and need statement, the identification of 

planning issues, and the formulation of 

resource management alternatives. The 

planning assessment would include 

new opportunities for collaboration and 

public involvement and measures that 

would increase transparency. Further, 

the proposed planning assessment 

would be similar to the assessment 

procedures in the U.S. Forest Service 

2012 Planning Rule (see 36 CFR 

219.6(a)), and would therefore create a 

new opportunity for inter-agency 

coordination. 

Proposed § 1610.4 serves as an 

introduction and provides that the 

planning assessment would be required 

before the BLM initiates the preparation 

of a resource management plan. 

Proposed § 1610.4–1(a) would address 

‘‘information gathering’’ and would 

replace and enhance the existing 

inventory data and information 

collection requirements (see existing 

§ 1610.4–3), providing that the 

responsible official would follow the 

four requirements described in 

proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(4) of this section. 

Under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

the responsible official would arrange 

for relevant resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, economic, and 

institutional data or information to be 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9706 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

gathered, or assembled if it is already 

available, in a manner that aids 

application in the planning process. 

This would replace language in existing 

§ 1610.4–3 that requires the BLM to 

‘‘arrange for resource, environmental, 

social, economic and institutional data 

and information to be collected or 

assembled if already available.’’ We 

propose to replace the word ‘‘collected’’ 

with ‘‘gathered’’ to avoid potential 

confusion with the information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). We propose to 

include ‘‘the identification of potential 

ACECs’’ in this step to specify when 

potential ACECs should be identified 

(see proposed § 1610.8–2). It is 

important to note that as planning 

proceeds the BLM may identify the need 

for additional information gathering or 

new information may become available. 

The BLM would consider this new 

information, such as the identification 

of a potential ACEC, to the best of our 

ability. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section would encompass the BLM’s 

statutory obligation for inventory of 

‘‘public lands and their resource and 

other values,’’ as described in section 

201(a) of FLPMA, and would also 

provide for the gathering and 

consideration of the best available 

scientific information, or other types of 

high quality information, provided by 

sources outside of the BLM. 

The proposed rule would not carry 

forward language from existing 

§ 1610.4–3 requiring that ‘‘new 

information and inventory data. . . 

emphasize significant issues and 

decisions with the greatest potential 

impact.’’ At this early stage in the 

planning process, the BLM recognizes 

that all significant issues may not yet be 

known and without conducting a broad 

assessment, the BLM may not be able to 

reasonably identify all of the significant 

issues. At the same time, the BLM must 

conduct a planning assessment based on 

reasonable budgets and timeframes, and 

therefore must limit the scope of its data 

and information gathering to that which 

is ‘‘relevant’’ to the incipient planning 

process. The BLM intends that 

‘‘relevant’’ data and information would 

include inventory of the land and 

resources (see 43 U.S.C. 1711(a)) and 

any other available high quality 

information, including the best available 

scientific information relevant to the 

planning process and necessary to 

address the applicable factors described 

in proposed § 1610.4(c). 

We propose to include a provision to 

avoid unnecessary data-gathering, 

similar to the existing provision in the 

development of planning criteria 

regulations (see existing § 1610.4– 

2(a)(2)). The BLM intends to emphasize 

that inventory data and information 

gathered for the planning assessment 

should be geared to inform the overall 

planning process, including subsequent 

monitoring and implementation of the 

resource management plan. The 

responsible official would determine 

what information is relevant to the 

planning process based on available 

resources and existing requirements, 

such as inventory of the land and 

resources that is required under 

FLPMA, the previous results of 

monitoring and evaluation, or existing 

assessments or strategies that overlay 

the planning area. 

In paragraph (a)(2) of this section, we 

propose a new regulatory requirement, 

consistent with current practice, that the 

responsible official ‘‘[i]dentify relevant 

national, regional, or local policies, 

guidance, strategies or plans for 

consideration in the planning 

assessment,’’ such as Executive Orders 

issued by the President, Secretarial 

Orders issued by the Secretary of the 

Interior, DOI or BLM policy, BLM 

Director or deciding official guidance, 

mitigation strategies, interagency 

initiatives, State or multi-State resource 

plans, or local government resource 

plans. Recent examples might include: 

Secretarial Order 3336—Rangeland Fire 

Prevention, Management and 

Restoration (Jan. 5, 2015); the National 

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Apr. 2014) (http://

www.forestsandrangelands.gov/

strategy); the BLM Regional Mitigation 

Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy 

Zone (Mar. 2014) (https://www.blm.gov/ 

epl-front-office/projects/nepa/42096/

52086/56778/Regional_Mitigation_

Strategy_for_the_Dry_Lake_Solar_

Energy_Zone,_Technical_Note_444_

(March_2014).pdf); a State wildlife 

action plan such as the Nevada Wildlife 

Action Plan which was prepared by the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife and 

approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_

Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_

Action_Plan/); or a community wildfire 

protection plan (http://

www.forestsandrangelands.gov/

communities/cwpp.shtml). 

Identifying such policies and 

strategies up front is important because 

successful planning needs to be 

informed by, and advance, policies and 

strategies that cross traditional 

administrative boundaries. This step 

would also enable the BLM Director and 

the deciding official to provide guidance 

on resource management priorities for a 

planning effort before the formal 

initiation of the planning effort (see 

proposed § 1610.1–1(a)). 

In paragraph (a)(3) of this section, we 

propose to add a new regulatory 

requirement that the responsible official 

‘‘[p]rovide opportunities for other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, Indian tribes and the 

public to provide existing data and 

information or suggest other policies, 

guidance, strategies, or plans’’ for the 

BLM to consider in the planning 

assessment. For example, a State 

wildlife agency might ask the BLM to 

consider a conservation plan for a 

sensitive species; a member of the 

public might ask the BLM to consider 

the results of a peer-reviewed study 

relevant to the planning area; or a 

recreation user group might ask the 

BLM to consider data identifying areas 

of high recreation use in the planning 

area. This opportunity would be 

provided through a general request for 

information from the public. In addition 

to accepting written input, the BLM may 

provide opportunities through in-person 

meetings or workshops, webinars, 

collaborative Web sites, or other 

innovative information gathering 

techniques. 

This proposed requirement would 

establish a new public involvement 

opportunity during the planning 

assessment, which would support the 

Planning 2.0 goal to provide new and 

enhanced opportunities for 

collaborative planning. It would also 

help the BLM consider relevant data 

and information in the planning 

assessment. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section would require that the BLM 

identify relevant public views 

concerning resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, or economic 

conditions of the planning area. The 

BLM anticipates that these views would 

be identified by hosting public 

meetings, although the BLM may also 

use other techniques, such as a 

collaborative Web site, for example. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would help 

the Bureau to better understand public 

values in relation to the planning area, 

including what is important to the 

public, where important areas are 

located, and why these areas and values 

are important to members of the public. 

Under current practice, the BLM 

identifies public views during the 

identification of planning issues. By 

providing this opportunity during the 

planning assessment, the BLM would be 

able to summarize public views in the 

planning assessment report (see 

proposed § 1610.4(d)). This would 

provide increased transparency, would 

help to inform the preparation of a 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9707 

preliminary purpose and need 

statement, and would help to focus the 

identification of planning issues. 

The BLM requests public comments 

on whether the regulations should 

describe any other types of information 

that may be relevant to the planning 

assessment. 

Proposed § 1610.4 (b) would address 

‘‘information quality’’ for the planning 

assessment. The responsible official 

would evaluate the data and 

information gathered or provided to the 

BLM to determine if it is ‘‘high quality 

information appropriate for use in the 

planning assessment, and to identify 

any data gaps or further information 

needs.’’ In this new step, the BLM 

would evaluate what information is 

high quality and therefore appropriate 

for use in the planning assessment, as 

discussed in the preamble to proposed 

§§ 1601.0–5 and 1610.1–1(c). Although 

the BLM currently uses high quality 

information to inform the planning 

process, we believe that including this 

new step in the planning regulations is 

important because it clearly 

communicates to the public that any 

information submitted to the BLM must 

meet this standard in order to be further 

considered in the planning assessment. 

After identifying the information 

appropriate for use in the planning 

assessment, the responsible official, in 

collaboration with any cooperating 

agencies, would use this information to 

assess the resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic 

conditions of the planning area. 

Proposed § 1610.4(c) would describe 

the factors that the responsible official 

would consider when assessing the 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic conditions of the 

planning area for the planning 

assessment. The responsible official 

would consider and document these 

factors whenever they are applicable, 

however, the responsible official would 

not be limited to the proposed factors. 

These factors would contain elements 

from the nine factors in § 1610.4–4(a) 

through (i) of the existing planning 

regulations, which outline the AMS. 

The proposed planning assessment 

would also include some factors that 

were not included in the existing 

regulations regarding the AMS (see 

existing § 1610.4–4). These new factors 

are intended to help inform the 

planning process and include types of 

information the BLM may already 

consider under the existing regulations. 

The inclusion of these factors in the 

regulations would provide the public 

with a better understanding of the types 

of information that would be considered 

during the preparation of a resource 

management plan. The BLM anticipates 

no direct impacts to the public from 

these proposed additions. The following 

paragraphs highlight the proposed 

changes and rationale. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section would revise existing § 1610.4– 

4(a), providing that the BLM consider 

‘‘the types of resource management 

authorized by FLPMA and other 

relevant authorities’’ during the 

planning assessment. We propose to 

replace Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act with the acronym 

FLPMA, replace ‘‘resource use and 

protection’’ with ‘‘resource 

management’’ and replace ‘‘legislation’’ 

with ‘‘authorities.’’ There would no 

change in meaning or practice 

associated with these edits. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section would include ‘‘land status and 

ownership, existing resource uses, 

infrastructure, and access patterns in the 

planning area.’’ This factor, although 

often included in the AMS under 

current practice, is not identified in the 

current regulations and would provide 

important baseline information on 

current uses within the planning area to 

inform the identification of planning 

issues and the formulation of 

alternatives, and to identify 

opportunities or need for crossboundary collaboration with adjacent 

landowners. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section would refer to current resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic conditions, and any known 

trends related to these conditions. This 

information is typically included in the 

AMS under current practice, but is not 

identified in the current regulations. It 

is important that current conditions 

serve as a starting point for the planning 

assessment. This information provides 

the basis for the affected environment 

and assists in the identification of 

planning issues and formulation of a 

reasonable range of alternatives for 

analysis. Trends in resource or other 

conditions, such as economic trends, 

wildlife population trends, or recreation 

use trends, could also provide useful 

information for the planning process. If 

this information were available, the 

BLM would consider it during the 

planning assessment. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section would refer to ‘‘known resource 

thresholds, constraints, or limitations.’’ 

This would modify and expand on 

existing § 1610.4–4(i), which refers to 

‘‘critical threshold levels which should 

be considered in the formulation of 

planned alternatives.’’ Known resource 

thresholds would be identified based on 

the best available scientific information. 

For instance, a known threshold might 

include a minimum viable population 

number for an endangered species as 

determined by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, or a minimum area of 

critical habitat, such as breeding 

grounds or winter range, as determined 

by peer-reviewed scientific research. 

The BLM believes this concept is 

important to the planning process 

because it would inform the 

development of plan components in the 

resource management plan, including 

disturbance limits, mitigation standards, 

or decision points for applying adaptive 

management. For example, a land use 

plan could establish an objective to 

support viable populations for a 

sensitive species by protecting 

important habitat. If a known threshold 

for the species was identified in the 

planning assessment, this information 

could be used to establish a decision 

point to consider a plan amendment if 

the population numbers dropped below 

the threshold. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section would also refer to known 

resource constraints or limitations. 

Under this new provision, the BLM 

would identify any known constraints 

or limitations to resource management 

that should be considered in order to 

effectively manage resources consistent 

with its multiple use and sustained 

yield mandate, including any known 

and potential conflicts between multiple 

uses. For example, the BLM may 

identify uses that are known to be 

incompatible with important habitat for 

a sensitive species based on the best 

available scientific information in order 

to provide for the long-term 

sustainability of the species. 

The BLM would also identify any 

related or indirect constraints to 

resource management. For example, 

wildfire propensity in an area might 

provide a constraint to future allowed 

uses, because in addition to use 

disturbance, the protection of habitat for 

a sensitive species could also be affected 

by natural disturbance; or rights-of-way 

corridors might be constrained by 

natural features in certain areas, limiting 

where a transmission corridor could be 

located on the landscape. The BLM does 

not anticipate that all resource 

limitations would be identified at this 

stage of planning; many would be 

identified later through the formulation 

of alternatives and the estimation of 

their effects. At this early stage in 

planning, the BLM would identify 

known limitations based on best 

available scientific information, such as 

peer-reviewed research. This 

information would be useful to inform 

the identification of planning issues and 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9708 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14See BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013– 

131 (Change 1), ‘‘Guidance on Estimating 

Nonmarket Environmental Values,’’ Attachment 

1–2, ‘‘Estimating Nonmarket Environmental 

Values’’ (Sep. 12, 2013), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/ 

en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_

Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013–131__

Ch1.print.html. 

resource management alternatives, and 

would promote a transparent and 

efficient planning process. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5) of this 

section would refer to areas of potential 

importance within the planning area. 

This information is typically included 

in the AMS under current practice, but 

is not identified in the current 

regulations. The identification of these 

areas would inform the identification of 

planning issues and the formulation of 

alternatives. The following paragraphs 

describe the different types of ‘‘areas of 

importance’’ that would be included. 

Although a planning assessment could 

describe other areas of importance, the 

BLM requests public comment on any 

other areas of importance that should be 

required in the planning regulations. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 

section would refer to areas of tribal, 

traditional, or cultural importance. 

These could include areas important for 

subsistence use, important cultural 

sites, traditional cultural properties, or a 

cultural landscape. Although the BLM 

would identify these areas during the 

planning assessment, sensitive or 

confidential areas may not be made 

available to the public or included in 

the planning assessment report. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this 

section would refer to habitat for special 

status species, including state and/or 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this 

section would refer to other areas of key 

fish and wildlife habitat such as big 

game wintering and summer areas, bird 

nesting and feeding areas, habitat 

connectivity or wildlife migration 

corridors, and areas of large and intact 

habitat. The identification of these areas 

is important at the onset of planning, as 

fish and wildlife habitat often crosses 

jurisdictional-boundaries and 

conservation of such habitat may 

require landscape-scale management 

approaches. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this 

section would refer to areas of 

ecological importance, such as areas 

that increase the ability of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems within the planning 

area to adapt to, resist, or recover from 

change. For example, areas of ecological 

importance might include refugia 

identified to help sensitive species 

respond to the effects of climate change 

or wetlands that help to buffer the 

effects of weather fluctuations by storing 

floodwaters and maintaining surface 

water flow during dry periods. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(v) of this 

section would refer to lands with 

wilderness characteristics, candidate 

wild and scenic rivers, or areas of 

significant scenic value. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(vi) of this 

section would refer to areas of 

significant historical value, including 

paleontological sites. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(vii) of this 

section would refer to existing 

designations in the planning area, such 

as wilderness, wilderness study areas, 

wild and scenic rivers, national scenic 

or historic trails, or existing ACECs. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(viii) of this 

section would refer to areas with 

potential for renewable or nonrenewable energy development or 

energy transmission. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ix) of this 

section would refer to areas of 

importance for recreation activities or 

access. These might include high use 

recreation sites or areas with limited 

access points. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(x) of this 

section would refer to areas of 

importance for public health and safety, 

such as abandoned mine lands or 

natural hazards. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(6) of this 

section would refer to dominant 

ecological processes, disturbance 

regimes, and stressors, such as drought, 

wildland fire, invasive species, and 

climate change. This information is not 

identified in the current regulations, but 

would be useful to inform the 

formulation of alternatives and assess 

the need for adaptive management 

approaches or cross-boundary 

collaboration with other land managers. 

For example, halting the spread of 

invasive species may require 

collaboration between adjacent 

landowners such as the BLM, the USFS, 

or willing private landowners. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(7) of this 

section would be adapted from the 

beginning of existing § 1610.4–4(d), 

which directs BLM to consider the 

‘‘estimated sustained levels of the 

various goods, services and uses that 

may be attained’’ and would instead 

refer to identifying the ‘‘various goods 

and services that people obtain from the 

planning area, including ecological 

services.’’ In this proposed factor, the 

phrase ‘‘goods and services’’ would 

include the many ecological services 

(i.e., ecosystem services) that are 

provided by the public lands, in 

addition to the ‘‘principal or major 

uses’’ described in section 103(l) of 

FLPMA and other multiples uses. 

‘‘Ecosystem goods and services 

include a range of human benefits 

resulting from appropriate ecosystem 

structure and function, such as flood 

control from intact wetlands and carbon 

sequestration from healthy forests. Some 

involve commodities sold in markets, 

for example, (forest products resulting 

from) timber production. Others, such 

as wetlands protection and carbon 

sequestration, do not commonly involve 

markets, and thus reflect nonmarket 

values.’’ 14 The ‘‘principal or major 

uses’’ described in section 103(l) of 

FLPMA include domestic livestock 

grazing, fish and wildlife development 

and utilization, mineral exploration and 

production, rights-of-way, outdoor 

recreation, and timber production. 

As proposed, this section would only 

refer to ‘‘goods and services,’’ and 

remove the word ‘‘uses,’’ because 

‘‘uses’’ in this context are encompassed 

by the phrase ‘‘goods and services.’’ 

This proposed change would help to 

avoid confusion with the development 

of resource use determinations, which 

are also referred to as ‘‘allowable uses’’ 

in the existing Land Use Planning 

Handbook. At this early stage in the 

planning process, the BLM believes it is 

appropriate to identify the goods and 

services that people could obtain from 

the planning area, but it is not yet 

appropriate to establish allowable uses 

(resource use determinations). The 

proposed word change would help to 

avoid confusion, but there is no 

intended change in meaning. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this 

section would also incorporate language 

from existing § 1610.4(g), which directs 

the BLM to consider the ‘‘degree of local 

dependence on resources from public 

lands.’’ The BLM would instead 

consider the degree of local, regional, 

national, or international dependence 

on goods and services. ‘‘Resources’’ 

would be replaced with ‘‘goods and 

services’’ to provide a more precise 

explanation of what the BLM considers 

in regards to those resources. For 

example, the BLM could identify the 

degree of local dependence on potable 

water from groundwater recharge in the 

planning area (i.e., local dependence on 

a service associated with water 

resources). The BLM believes that use of 

more precise terminology in the 

regulations will improve understanding 

of this provision; no change in meaning 

is intended by this proposed word 

change. 

In addition to the degree of local 

dependence on goods and services, the 

BLM may also consider the degree of 

regional, national, or international 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9709 

dependence on goods and services. This 

is particularly important when planning 

across traditional administrative 

boundaries and implementing 

landscape-scale management 

approaches. Examples of regional or 

national dependence include goals for 

renewable energy generation on Federal 

lands under the President’s Climate 

Action Plan (June 2013), (https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

image/president27sclimateaction

plan.pdf), and the Nation’s reliance on 

the BLM-administered Federal Helium 

Reserve (http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/

prog/energy/helium_program.html). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(7)(ii) would 

incorporate language from existing 

§ 1610.4–4(c) and would refer to 

‘‘available forecasts and analyses related 

to the supply and demand for these 

goods and services.’’ We propose to 

broaden this provision to include both 

supply and demand and to apply to 

‘‘goods and services,’’ including 

ecological services, instead of ‘‘resource 

demands.’’ Proposed paragraph 

(c)(7)(iii) of this section would refer to 

‘‘the estimated sustained levels of the 

various goods and services that may be 

produced based on a sustained yield 

basis.’’ For example, the BLM could 

estimate the sustained levels of potable 

water from groundwater recharge based 

on the current and projected rainfall 

averages for an area. 

This factor is adapted from existing 

§ 1610.4–4(d) which links estimated 

sustained levels to those that may be 

attained ‘‘under existing biological and 

physical conditions and under differing 

management practices and degrees of 

management intensity which are 

economically viable under benefit cost 

or cost effectiveness standards 

prescribed in national or State Director 

[deciding official] guidance.’’ We 

propose to simplify the language in this 

factor for improved readability and 

understanding. At this early stage in the 

planning process, the BLM believes that 

the planning assessment should focus 

on the capability of resources to provide 

goods and services on a sustained yield 

basis. This information is important for 

the development of resource 

management plans based on the 

principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield and would assist the BLM in 

developing a range of alternatives that is 

consistent with our FLPMA mandate. 

In addition to these changes, we 

propose to remove some of the factors 

that are currently described in § 1610.4– 

4 regarding the AMS and not include 

them in the planning assessment. 

The proposed planning assessment 

would not include ‘‘specific 

requirements and constraints to achieve 

consistency with policies, plans and 

programs of other Federal agencies, 

State and local government agencies and 

Indian tribes’’ (see existing § 1610.4– 

4(e)). At this early stage in the process, 

the BLM would identify these plans, but 

would not have sufficient information to 

identify ‘‘requirements and constraints’’ 

related to consistency, as the BLM 

would not yet be developing resource 

management alternatives. This step is 

more appropriately considered when 

developing the draft resource 

management plan. 

Paragraph (c) of this section would 

also not include ‘‘[o]pportunities to 

meet goals and objectives defined in 

national and State Director guidance’’ 

(see existing § 1610.4–4(b)). This 

language would no longer be necessary, 

because proposed § 1610.4(a)(2) would 

direct the responsible official to identify 

BLM guidance that is relevant to the 

planning assessment. This proposed 

section would ensure that the 

responsible official considers BLM 

guidance. 

We would also not carry forward into 

the planning assessment ‘‘Opportunities 

to resolve public issues and 

management concerns’’ (see existing 

§ 1610.4–4(f)). The planning assessment 

would typically be conducted before the 

identification of planning issues and the 

BLM may not yet have the information 

necessary to resolve public issues and 

management concerns. The BLM would 

instead identify these opportunities 

during the formulation of alternatives 

(see proposed § 1610.5–2). We believe 

that this is the appropriate step to 

consider these opportunities because it 

allows the BLM to consider more than 

one opportunity and compare their 

impacts through the effects analysis (see 

proposed § 1610.4–5). The proposed 

change would be consistent with 

current practice and policy, as the AMS 

is currently prepared after the 

identification of planning issues. 

We also propose removing ‘‘the extent 

of coal lands which may be further 

considered under provisions of 

§ 3420.2–3(a) of this title’’ from the 

existing regulations (see existing 

§ 1610.4–4(h)) because it references a 

regulation that does not currently exist 

(§ 3420.2–3(a)). Removing § 1610.4–4(h) 

would help reduce confusion, avoid 

redundancy with existing requirements 

in the coal regulations, and keep coal 

specific requirements in the coal 

regulations, where they are more 

appropriate. These proposed changes 

would not be a change in practice or 

policy. 

Proposed § 1610.4(d) states that the 

responsible official would document the 

planning assessment in a report made 

available for public review and this 

report would include the identification 

and rationale for potential ACECs. The 

responsible official would post the 

report on the BLM Web site and make 

copies available at BLM offices within 

the planning area and other locations, as 

appropriate. The proposed provision 

would introduce a new requirement for 

the BLM, as the current regulations do 

not require the AMS be made available 

to the public. The planning assessment 

report would be made available before 

scoping so that it can inform the scoping 

process and help in the identification of 

planning issues. The BLM intends that 

the planning assessment would inform 

stakeholders’ input throughout the 

development of the resource 

management plan and provide increased 

transparency to the planning process. 

Proposed § 1610.4(d) would also 

establish that, to the extent practical, the 

BLM should make non-sensitive 

geospatial information used in the 

planning assessment available to the 

public on the BLM’s Web site. The 

proposed change would provide for 

public transparency and support 

meaningful public involvement in the 

planning process. 

Finally, proposed § 1610.4(e) would 

require that the BLM conduct a 

planning assessment before initiating 

the preparation of an EIS-level 

amendment. The planning assessment 

would only apply to the geographic area 

being considered for amendment and 

the content of the planning assessment 

would only include information 

relevant to the plan amendment. For 

example, if the BLM was considering an 

amendment solely to a visual resource 

class, the planning assessment would 

only consider information relevant to a 

potential change in visual resource class 

within the geographic area of the 

potential amendment. The deciding 

official would have the discretion to 

waive the requirement to conduct a 

planning assessment for EIS-level 

amendments for minor amendments or 

if an existing planning assessment is 

determined to be adequate. For 

example, if a resource management plan 

was recently completed and there was 

no significant new information of 

relevance to the plan amendment, the 

existing planning assessment would be 

determined adequate and used to inform 

the preparation of the EIS-level 

amendments. Similarly, if an EIS-level 

amendment was proposing ‘‘minor’’ 

changes to a plan component, then a 

planning assessment may not be 

necessary. 

The BLM is also considering 

including a specific regulatory provision 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9710 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

that a planning assessment would be 

required before the BLM prepares a 

resource management plan and optional 

when the BLM prepares an EIS-level 

amendment. Under such a provision, 

the BLM would assess the need for a 

planning assessment for EIS-level 

amendments on a case-by-case basis. 

The BLM requests public comment on 

the proposed planning assessment 

requirements for EIS-level amendments. 

Section 1610.5 Preparation of a 

Resource Management Plan 

This section serves as an introduction 

to §§ 1610.5–1 through 1610.5–5, which 

outline the process the BLM would 

follow when preparing a resource 

management plan, or an EIS-level plan 

amendment, under section 202 of 

FLPMA. These sections would be based 

on existing § 1610.4 ‘‘Resource 

management planning process.’’ Other 

revisions from the existing regulations 

are discussed in the appropriate 

sections of this preamble. 

The BLM proposes to remove existing 

§ 1610.4–2 ‘‘Development of Planning 

Criteria.’’ This section would no longer 

be necessary under the proposed rule. 

Existing paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

would be incorporated into proposed 

new § 1610.5–2(b). Existing paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section would be 

incorporated into proposed 

§§ 1610.4(a)(1) and 1610.5–3(a). For 

more information, see the discussion at 

the preamble for proposed 

§§ 1610.4(a)(1), 1610.5–2(b), and 

1610.5–3(a)). The BLM also proposes to 

remove existing §§ 1610.4–3 ‘‘Inventory 

data and information collection’’ and 

1610.4–4 ‘‘Analysis of the management 

situation’’ and combine many of the 

provisions into new § 1610.4 ‘‘Planning 

assessment.’’ Finally, we propose to 

remove existing § 1610.4–9 ‘‘Monitoring 

and evaluation’’ and incorporate many 

of the provisions into proposed 

§ 1610.6–4. 

We propose to remove the words 

‘‘federally recognized’’ before Indian 

tribes throughout these sections for 

consistent use in terminology. These 

references would no longer be necessary 

with the inclusion of the proposed 

definition for Indian tribes in § 1601.0– 

5. We propose to remove the phrase ‘‘in 

collaboration with any cooperating 

agencies’’ from throughout these 

sections. These references would be 

consolidated and moved to proposed 

§ 1610.3–1(b)(3) (for more information, 

see the discussion on ‘‘cooperating 

agencies’’ at proposed § 1610.3–1(b)(3). 

We propose to replace ‘‘shall’’ with 

‘‘will’’ throughout these sections for 

improved readability. 

Section 1610.5–1 Identification of 

Planning Issues 

The BLM proposes to base this section 

on existing § 1610.4–1, with revisions to 

clarify existing text, ensure consistency 

with other proposed changes, and to 

require the preparation of a preliminary 

purpose and need statement. 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would establish a new requirement for 

the BLM to prepare a preliminary 

statement of purpose and need and to 

make this statement available for public 

review when initiating the identification 

of planning issues. The statement of 

purpose and need would be informed by 

Director and deciding official guidance, 

public views, the planning assessment, 

the results of previous monitoring and 

evaluation, and Federal laws and 

regulations, and the purposes, policies, 

and programs of such laws and 

regulations. Preparation of a statement 

of purpose and need is currently 

required under the DOI NEPA 

implementation regulations (see 43 CFR 

46.415(a) and 46.420(a)(1)). The 

proposed rule would establish a new 

additional requirement that the 

preliminary statement of purpose and 

need be made available to the public 

before the identification of planning 

issues. The proposed change would 

provide transparency to the public and 

support the Planning 2.0 goal to provide 

earlier opportunities for public 

involvement. 

Although the BLM would not 

formally request public comment on the 

preliminary statement of purpose and 

need, the public would be welcome to 

provide feedback. This is important 

because the statement of purpose and 

need informs the development of all 

subsequent steps in the preparation of a 

resource management plan. For 

example, the BLM does not formulate or 

analyze a resource management 

alternative (see §§ 1610.5–2 and 1610.5– 

3) unless it is consistent with the 

statement of purpose and need. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

is based on existing § 1610.4–1. In this 

section, the BLM would remove ‘‘[a]t 

the outset of the planning process,’’ due 

to the new planning assessment and the 

preparation of a preliminary statement 

of purpose and need, both of which 

would occur prior to the identification 

of planning issues. An upfront planning 

assessment would result in more 

information on resource, environmental, 

ecological, social and economic 

conditions for the planning area being 

available to the public and the BLM 

during the identification of planning 

issues. There would be no impact from 

this proposed change, other than the 

availability of more information at this 

point in the process. 

The type of suggestions provided by 

the public would be revised from the 

existing regulations (see existing 

§ 1610.4–1) to include ‘‘concerns, needs, 

opportunities, conflicts, or constraints 

related to resource management.’’ We 

propose to remove ‘‘resource use, 

development, and protection 

opportunities’’ as these are 

encompassed by the proposed language 

and are therefore unnecessary. There 

would be no change from current 

practice. 

The final sentence of proposed 

paragraph (b) of this section would state 

that the identification of planning issues 

‘‘should be integrated’’ with the scoping 

process required by regulations 

implementing the NEPA. The proposed 

language would not represent a change 

in practice or policy, rather we would 

clarify that although the identification 

of planning issues should be integrated 

with the NEPA scoping process, these 

are two distinct steps with distinct 

regulatory requirements. The BLM must 

comply with the planning regulations 

and the regulations implementing the 

NEPA during the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

would also reflect new terms used 

throughout this proposed rule. The term 

‘‘Field Manager’’ would be replaced 

with ‘‘responsible official’’ to maintain 

consistency with other proposed 

changes. The term ‘‘planning issue’’ 

would replace ‘‘issues’’ for consistency 

with the newly added definition for 

planning issues (see § 1601.0–5) and to 

clarify what type of ‘‘issues’’ are 

intended. The term ‘‘information’’ 

would be added, to clarify that the BLM 

analyzes data and information when we 

determine planning issues, consistent 

with current BLM practice. The 

‘‘planning assessment,’’ as proposed, 

would replace the existing examples of 

other available data. The planning 

assessment would include the existing 

examples, thus the proposed change 

would be consistent with new 

terminology introduced in the proposed 

rule (see proposed § 1610.4), but would 

not represent a change from current 

practice in the types of available data 

and information that the BLM analyzes. 

Here, and throughout the proposed 

rule, we use the term ‘‘information’’ 

consistent with the definition of 

information provided in the OMB 

‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies’’ (67 

FR 8452). ‘‘ ‘Information’ means any 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9711 

15 ‘‘Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations.’’ 46 FR 18026. http://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/G-CEQ-40Questions.pdf. 

communication or representation of 

knowledge such as facts or data, in any 

medium or form, including textual, 

numerical, graphic, cartographic, 

narrative, or audiovisual forms.’’ As 

discussed in § 1610.1–1(c) of this 

preamble, the BLM uses ‘‘high quality’’ 

information, which is meant to include 

the best available science, to inform the 

resource management planning process. 

The BLM intends no change in practice 

with the changes to proposed § 1610.5– 

1, other than to provide increased 

transparency by making a preliminary 

statement of purpose and need available 

to the public. 

Section 1610.5–2 Formulation of 

Resource Management Alternatives 

Proposed § 1610.5–2 would be based 

on existing § 1610.4–5. We propose to 

revise the heading of this section to read 

‘‘[f]ormulation of resource management 

alternatives.’’ The proposed change 

would add the words ‘‘resource 

management’’ to more precisely 

describe the alternatives and for 

consistent use in terminology. No 

change in practice or policy is intended 

by the proposed change. 

Paragraph (a) of this section describes 

the requirements for developing 

resource management alternatives. In 

the first sentence in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the BLM proposes to add 

introductory language indicating that 

this section describes ‘‘[a]lternatives 

development,’’ for improved readability 

and to remove the phrase, ‘‘At the 

direction of the Field Manager,’’ because 

it is the obligation of the BLM, not of 

any individual, to consider all 

reasonable resource management 

alternatives and develop several for 

detailed study. The BLM proposes to 

add the abbreviation ‘‘alternatives’’ for 

‘‘resource management alternatives’’ for 

improved readability. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section would require that the 

alternatives developed be informed by 

Director or deciding official guidance, 

the planning assessment, and the 

planning issues. Proposed language 

would replace the existing requirement 

that alternatives ‘‘reflect the variety of 

issues and guidance applicable to 

resource uses.’’ The proposed language 

is consistent with other proposed 

changes and more accurately describes 

the information that informs the 

development of alternatives. The 

statement of purpose and need would 

also inform the development of 

alternatives, but this would occur 

through the planning issues. There 

would be no substantive change from 

current practice or policy, other than the 

availability of the planning assessment 

to inform the development of 

alternatives. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section would be based on the fourth 

sentence of existing § 1610.4–5, and 

would state that ‘‘[i]n order to limit the 

total number of alternatives analyzed in 

detail to a manageable number for 

presentation and analysis, reasonable 

variations may be treated as subalternatives.’’ We propose to replace the 

phrase ‘‘all reasonable variations shall 

be treated as subalternatives’’ with 

‘‘reasonable variations may be treated as 

subalternatives.’’ The proposed change 

would provide the BLM flexibility to 

develop subalternatives when 

appropriate, but would not explicitly 

require the use of subalternatives. In 

some instances, it may be appropriate to 

develop a new alternative, rather than a 

subalternative. In other situations, a 

subalternative may not be necessary 

because it is already covered under the 

full spectrum of examples in existing 

alternatives. The proposed changes 

would be consistent with CEQ guidance 

that ‘‘when there are a very large 

number of alternatives, only a 

reasonable number of examples, 

covering the full spectrum of examples, 

must be analyzed.’’ 15 The BLM intends 

no change from current practice or 

policy from this proposed revision. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section would be based on the fifth 

sentence of existing § 1610.4–5. Under 

this proposed paragraph, the BLM 

would include a no action alternative. 

We propose to replace ‘‘resource use’’ 

with ‘‘resource management’’ because 

the no-action alternative applies to 

resource management in general, and 

not just resource use. There would be no 

change in practice or policy from the 

proposed change. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section would be based on the sixth 

sentence of existing § 1610.4–5. Under 

this proposed paragraph, the BLM 

would note in the resource management 

plan any alternatives that are eliminated 

from detailed study, along with the 

rationale for their elimination. No 

substantive changes would be made to 

this sentence. 

Proposed new paragraph (b) of this 

section would establish a new 

requirement that the BLM describe the 

rationale for the differences between 

alternatives. This requirement would 

incorporate and expand on the 

requirements of existing § 1610.4–2(a)(1) 

that the resource management plan be 

‘‘tailored to the issues previously 

identified.’’ The proposed rationale for 

alternatives would include: A 

description of how each alternative 

addresses the planning issues, 

consistent with the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield, or 

other applicable law; a description of 

management direction that is common 

to all alternatives; and a description of 

how management direction varies across 

alternatives to address the planning 

issues. The BLM believes that the 

rationale for alternatives would provide 

transparency to the public on the 

reasons for the formulation of 

alternatives and would ensure that the 

resource management plan is ‘‘tailored 

to the issues previously identified.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section 

would add a new public involvement 

opportunity. The responsible official 

would make the preliminary resource 

management alternatives and the 

preliminary rationale for these 

alternatives available for public review 

prior to the publication of the draft 

resource management plan and draft 

EIS. The BLM intends that the 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives ordinarily would be 

made available for public review prior 

to the estimation of effects of 

alternatives. 

This public review would serve as a 

‘‘check’’ of the preliminary alternatives 

and would afford the public an 

opportunity to bring to the BLM’s 

attention any possible alternatives that 

may have been overlooked before the 

BLM conducts the environmental 

impact analysis and prepares a draft 

resource management plan and draft 

EIS. The BLM anticipates that this 

review would increase efficiency by 

avoiding the need to re-do or 

supplement NEPA analyses if 

alternatives are identified during the 

public comment period on the draft 

resource management plan and draft 

EIS. Accordingly, the BLM would build 

time for this public review of 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives into their planning 

schedules. This public review would 

also increase transparency in the BLM’s 

planning process. 

As previously discussed, the BLM 

does not request written comments 

when making documents available for 

public review. However, the public is 

welcome to contact the BLM with any 

appropriate concerns. 

We expect that generally the 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives would be posted on the 

BLM’s Web site and made available at 

BLM offices within the planning area. 

The BLM may consider hosting public 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9712 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

meetings to discuss the alternatives and 

the forthcoming revision of the Land 

Use Planning Handbook will describe 

situations in which the BLM might hold 

public meetings. 

Nonetheless, in some situations, such 

as when the BLM is under an 

accelerated schedule to address timesensitive resource management 

concerns, the public review of 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives may not be practical. For 

example, a resource management plan 

amendment might require an 

accelerated schedule to address the 

rapid proliferation of a new use in an 

area which contains sensitive resources. 

The BLM is therefore considering the 

alternative options of requiring a public 

review of preliminary alternatives ‘‘to 

the extent practical’’ or requiring a 

public review of preliminary alternative 

when preparing a resource management 

plan, but not for EIS-level amendments. 

The BLM requests public comment on 

whether the public review of 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives should be required in all 

situations, including EIS-level 

amendments. 

Proposed paragraph (d) of this section 

would state that the BLM may change 

the preliminary alternatives and the 

preliminary rationale for alternatives as 

planning proceeds, if it determines that 

public suggestions or other new 

information make such changes 

necessary. The proposed language 

supports BLM’s intent to consider 

public input on the preliminary 

alternatives and make changes 

accordingly. 

Section 1610.5–3 Estimation of Effects 

of Alternatives 

Proposed § 1610.5–3 would be based 

on existing § 1610.4–6 and incorporate 

elements of existing § 1610.4–2(a)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would establish a new requirement that 

the responsible official identify the 

procedures, assumptions, and indicators 

that will be used to estimate the 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic effects of the alternatives 

considered in detail. These procedures, 

assumptions, and indicators would be 

referred to as the ‘‘basis for analysis.’’ 

Although this would be a new 

requirement in the planning regulations, 

there are existing examples where the 

BLM has developed a ‘‘basis for 

analysis’’ before conducting an effects 

analysis. For example, in the 

preparation of the western Oregon 

resource management plans, the BLM 

described the analytical methodology 

the BLM intended to use to estimate the 

effects of alternatives and made this 

available to the public. 

Paragraph (a)(1) of this section would 

require that the responsible official 

make the preliminary basis for analysis 

available for public review prior to the 

publication of the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS. The 

BLM expects that in most situations this 

information would be made available to 

the public concurrently with the 

preliminary alternatives and rationale 

for alternatives and prior to conducting 

the effects analysis. As previously 

discussed, the BLM does not request 

written comments when making 

documents available for public review. 

However, the public is welcome to 

contact the BLM with any appropriate 

concerns. 

For the same reasons described as for 

the preliminary alternatives, the BLM is 

considering requiring a public review of 

the basis for analysis ‘‘to the extent 

practical’’ or requiring a public review 

of the basis for analysis when preparing 

a resource management plan, but not for 

plan amendments. The BLM requests 

public comment on whether the public 

review of the basis for analysis should 

be required every time the BLM 

prepares a resource management plan or 

an EIS-level amendment. 

This paragraph is adapted from an 

existing requirement of § 1610.4–2(a)(2) 

that the ‘‘BLM avoids unnecessary . . . 

analyses.’’ The BLM believes that 

identifying the basis for analysis and 

making that information available to the 

public would provide a more precise 

description in the regulations of how to 

avoid unnecessary analyses than 

existing language. The proposed change 

would also support the Planning 2.0 

goal to provide early opportunities for 

meaningful public involvement. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section would explain that the BLM 

could change the preliminary basis for 

analysis as planning proceeds to 

respond to new information, including 

public suggestions. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

is adapted from existing § 1610.4–6 and 

adds the introductory phrase ‘‘[e]ffects 

analysis’’ for improved readability. The 

term ‘‘Field Manager’’ would be 

replaced with ‘‘responsible official’’ for 

the reasons previously explained. The 

word ‘‘shall’’ would be replaced with 

‘‘will’’ throughout this section for 

improved readability. 

In the first sentence of paragraph (b) 

of this section, ‘‘physical, biological, 

economic, and social effects’’ would be 

replaced with ‘‘environmental, 

ecological, economic, and social effects’’ 

for consistent use in terminology. The 

proposed language encompasses the 

existing terminology. The BLM intends 

no change in practice or policy from the 

proposed change in terminology. 

In the second sentence of paragraph 

(b) of this section, the proposed rule 

would replace ‘‘planning criteria’’ with 

‘‘basis for analysis’’ and add ‘‘planning 

assessment.’’ The proposed language 

would state, ‘‘the estimation of effects 

must be guided by the basis for analysis, 

the planning assessment, and 

procedures implementing NEPA.’’ 

Planning criteria would no longer be 

required under the proposed rule; the 

planning assessment and the basis for 

analysis would instead provide the 

appropriate information to guide the 

effects analysis. Proposed changes 

would incorporate new terminology 

used in the proposed rule. 

Section 1610.5–4 Preparation of the 

Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Selection of Preferred Alternatives 

This section would be based on 

existing § 1610.4–7. This proposed 

section replaces references to the ‘‘Field 

Manager’’ with ‘‘responsible official,’’ 

references to ‘‘State Director’’ with 

‘‘deciding official,’’ and makes 

grammatical edits. The heading of the 

section would be revised to include the 

new provision in paragraph (a) of this 

section regarding the preparation of the 

draft resource management plan. 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would state that the responsible official 

will prepare a draft resource 

management plan based on the Director 

and deciding official guidance, the 

planning assessment, the planning 

issues, and the estimation of the effects 

of alternatives. This new language 

would highlight the unique step in the 

BLM land use planning process of 

preparing a draft resource management 

plan, consistent with current practice, 

and it would facilitate public 

understanding of the planning process 

outlined in § 1610.5. There would be no 

change from existing requirements 

associated with this new language, other 

than to reflect new terminology in this 

proposed rule and more broadly 

describe the information the BLM 

would use to prepare the draft resource 

management plan and draft EIS. 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would further state that the draft 

resource management plan and draft EIS 

would evaluate the alternatives, identify 

one or more preferred alternatives, and 

explain the rationale for the preference. 

We propose to remove ‘‘estimate their 

effects according to the planning 

criteria’’ because planning criteria 

would no longer be prepared under the 

proposed rule and the estimation of 

effects of alternatives is already 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9713 

addressed in proposed § 1610.5–4. We 

also propose edits that would allow the 

responsible official to select ‘‘one or 

more’’ preferred alternatives. This 

would be a change from existing text 

that directs the field manager to select 

one preferred alternative. The explicit 

acknowledgement of ‘‘one or more’’ 

preferred alternatives would make the 

planning regulations more consistent 

with the DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR 

46.425(a)), which were promulgated 

after the BLM Planning regulations were 

last amended. 

The BLM is also considering whether 

to further revise paragraph (a) of this 

section for consistency with the DOI 

NEPA regulations, to read: ‘‘. . . 

identify the preferred alternative or 

alternatives, if one or more exist.’’ 

Under this alternative, the BLM might 

select a single preferred alternative, 

multiple preferred alternatives, or no 

preferred alternative. The BLM expects 

that in most situations a single preferred 

alternative would be selected, consistent 

with current practice; however, there 

may be instances in which either several 

may be identified, or where none of the 

alternatives are preferred. The latter 

instances, in particular, are rare, and 

usually occur when a plan amendment 

is being initiated in conjunction with 

decision-making regarding a sitespecific proposal, and it is unclear 

which of possibly several project 

alternatives, each designed to reduce 

adverse environmental consequences, 

might be preferred. For this reason, the 

BLM is also considering whether to 

include a specific regulatory provision 

addressing these circumstances, to 

clarify that these are the only kinds of 

instances in which a preferred 

alternative need not be identified. The 

BLM requests public comment on these 

three alternative options for selection of 

preferred alternatives. 

Regardless of which approach is 

carried forward into the final rule, the 

forthcoming revision of the Land Use 

Planning Handbook will provide more 

detailed guidance on the selection of 

preferred alternatives. 

Finally, we would replace the 

requirement to select a preferred 

alternative that ‘‘best meets Director and 

State Director guidance’’ with a 

requirement to explain the rationale for 

the preferred alternative(s). There are 

many factors that might influence the 

selection of a preferred alternative, in 

addition to Director or deciding official 

guidance, such as assessment findings, 

public involvement, local planning 

priorities, and identified planning 

issues. The preferred alternative(s) must 

be consistent with Federal laws, 

regulation, and policy guidance, and 

would represent the alternative that the 

deciding official believes is most 

responsive to the planning issues and 

the planning assessment, which 

includes Director and deciding official 

guidance. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

would be based on existing § 1610.4–7 

with clarifying edits. ‘‘Draft plan and 

[EIS]’’ would be replaced with ‘‘draft 

resource management plan and draft 

[EIS].’’ ‘‘Governor’’ would be pluralized 

to acknowledge that a resource 

management plan may cross State 

boundaries and in that situation the 

draft resource management plan should 

be provided to the Governors of all 

States involved. We propose to add a 

reference to proposed § 1610.3–1(c) to 

improve readability of the regulations 

text. There would be no change in 

practice or policy from these proposed 

edits. 

1610.5–5 Selection of the Proposed 

Resource Management Plan and 

Preparation of Implementation 

Strategies 

Proposed § 1610.5–5 would be based 

on existing § 1610.4–8. The BLM 

proposes to revise the heading to this 

section to include ‘‘preparation of 

implementation strategies.’’ Proposed 

changes to paragraph (a) of this section 

would replace the reference to the 

‘‘Field Manager,’’ stating that the 

‘‘responsible official’’ would evaluate 

the comments received after publication 

of the draft resource management plan 

and draft EIS and would prepare the 

proposed resource management plan 

and final EIS. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

would provide that the responsible 

official prepare implementation 

strategies for the proposed resource 

management plan, as appropriate. The 

proposed language would clarify that 

should the responsible official 

determine that implementation 

strategies are appropriate, then this is 

the step during the preparation of a 

resource management plan when these 

strategies are developed. As previously 

described, implementation strategies 

assist in implementing future actions 

consistent with the plan components, 

but the implementation strategies are 

not a component of the resource 

management plan. Implementation 

strategies describe potential actions that 

the BLM may take in the future or 

methods for monitoring, but the BLM 

would not make a decision on future 

actions associated with an 

implementation strategy until 

conducting site-specific NEPA analysis. 

The BLM would prepare 

implementation strategies for the 

proposed resource management plan, as 

appropriate. The BLM would not 

prepare implementation strategies for 

draft resource management alternatives 

and would not be required to conduct 

NEPA analysis for the implementation 

strategies. 

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section 

would require that the deciding official 

publish the proposed resource 

management plan and file the final EIS 

with the EPA. The proposed rule would 

no longer detail the BLM’s internal 

review process. We propose removing 

references to internal steps such as 

‘‘supervisory review’’ because these are 

better established through BLM policy. 

There would be no change to existing 

policy or practice, but the proposed rule 

would leave the BLM with discretion 

about how to conduct its internal review 

process. 

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section 

would also provide that the BLM 

publish any implementation strategies 

prepared for the proposed resource 

management plan in conjunction with 

the proposed resource management 

plan. The BLM expects that in most 

situations the implementation strategies 

would be published as appendices to 

the proposed resource management 

plan. In unique circumstances, however, 

the implementation strategies may be 

published after the proposed resource 

management plan. 

Section 1610.6 Resource Management 

Plan Approval, Implementation and 

Modification 

Proposed § 1610.6 is adapted from 

existing § 1610.5. We propose to replace 

‘‘use’’ with ‘‘implementation’’ in the 

heading to proposed § 1610.6 to more 

accurately describe the provisions of 

this section. We also propose to replace 

the word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will,’’ unless 

otherwise noted, throughout these 

sections for improved readability. The 

BLM intends no change from current 

practice or policy. 

Section 1610.6–1 Resource 

Management Plan Approval and 

Implementation 

This section is adapted from existing 

§ 1610.5–1. We propose to replace ‘‘and 

administrative review’’ with ‘‘and 

implementation’’ in the heading of this 

section to focus this section on resource 

management plan approval and 

implementation. Similarly, we propose 

to delete the existing first paragraph, 

which refers to internal procedures such 

as ‘‘supervisory review and approval.’’ 

The BLM’s internal review procedures 

are better established through BLM 

policy. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

section contain the provisions of 

existing § 1610.5–1. The BLM proposes 

edits to this section to improve 

understanding of existing requirements, 

but does not anticipate any change in 

implementation from existing 

regulations. 

Under proposed paragraph (a) of this 

section, the deciding official would 

approve a resource management plan, or 

EIS-level amendment, no earlier than 30 

days after the EPA publishes a Federal 

Register notice of the filing of the final 

EIS. This is an existing part of the 

process and regulations, but the 

proposed rule would use ‘‘deciding 

official’’ instead of the State Director, to 

maintain consistency with other 

proposed changes. We propose to 

remove the existing provision that 

approval depends on ‘‘final action on 

any protest that may be filed’’ as this 

requirement is already addressed in 

1610.6–1(b) and in the protest 

procedures at 1610.6–2(b). This 

provision would be removed because it, 

like existing paragraph (a), refers to the 

BLM’s internal review process. This 

proposed revision would not be a 

change in practice or policy. 

Proposed § 1610.6–1(b) would contain 

some language from existing paragraph 

(b), with some clarifying edits. In 

addition to existing provisions stating 

that plan approval would be withheld 

until after protests have been resolved, 

paragraph (b) of this proposed section 

would also clarify an existing 

requirement to provide public notice 

and opportunity for public comment if 

the BLM intends to select a different 

alternative, or portion of an alternative, 

than the proposed resource management 

plan or plan amendment. Such a change 

may result from the BLM’s decision on 

a protest or from the BLM’s 

consideration of inconsistencies 

identified by a Governor. The proposed 

rule would revise this sentence to 

explain ‘‘if, after publication of a 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment, the BLM intends to 

select an alternative that is 

encompassed by the range of 

alternatives in the final [EIS] or [EA] but 

is substantially different than the 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment, the BLM will notify 

the public and request written 

comments on the change before the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment is approved.’’ The proposed 

language would more precisely describe 

what is meant by the existing phrase 

‘‘any significant change made to the 

proposed plan.’’ The BLM intends no 

change from current practice or policy; 

rather the proposed change would 

provide a more precise description of 

existing requirements. 

Proposed § 1610.6–1(c) contains 

language from the last sentence of 

existing paragraph (b) of existing 

§ 1610.5–1 and provides that the 

approval of a resource management plan 

or a plan amendment for which an EIS 

is prepared must be documented in a 

concise public ROD, consistent with 

NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Current language refers to ‘‘the 

approval,’’ and the proposed change 

would specify that a ROD would be 

prepared for approval of a resource 

management plan or EIS-level 

amendment. Approvals of EA-level 

amendments need not be documented 

in a ROD; however, current BLM policy 

requires the preparation of a decision 

record to document these decisions (see 

BLM NEPA Handbook, H–1790–1). 

Section 1610.6–2 Protest Procedures 

Proposed § 1610.6–2 contains the 

protest procedures found at existing 

§ 1610.5–2. The BLM proposes to amend 

this section to update the procedures for 

the public’s submission and the BLM’s 

action on protests of a resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

Under the introductory text in 

proposed paragraph (a) of this section, 

we propose to clarify that a person who 

participated in the preparation of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment and has an interest which 

‘‘may be adversely affected’’ by the 

approval of a proposed resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

may protest such approval. We propose 

to replace ‘‘planning process’’ with ‘‘the 

preparation of the resource management 

plan or plan amendment’’ to more 

precisely describe what steps of the 

‘‘planning process’’ apply to paragraph 

(a) and for consistency with other 

proposed changes. Under current 

practice, the BLM generally considers 

the ‘‘planning process’’ to mean the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan or plan amendment. Under the 

proposed rule, we wish to clarify that 

the preparation of a resource 

management plan is just one step of the 

planning process. Other steps include 

the planning assessment, the approval 

of the resource management plan, the 

implementation of the resource 

management plan, monitoring and 

evaluation, and future modification of 

the resource management plan through 

plan maintenance, amendment, or 

revision. A person may only submit a 

protest, however, if they participated in 

the preparation of the resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

We also propose to remove language 

stating that any person who has an 

interest which ‘‘is or may be’’ adversely 

affected by the approval or amendment 

of a resource management plan may 

protest such approval or amendment. 

Instead, we would state that any person 

who has an interest which ‘‘may be’’ 

adversely affected by the approval of a 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment may protest such 

approval. We would replace the phrase 

‘‘is or may be’’ with ‘‘may be’’ to 

eliminate duplicative and unnecessary 

language. An interest that ‘‘may be 

adversely affected’’ includes an already 

affected interest. The proposed change 

would improve readability only; the 

BLM intends no change to the meaning 

of this provision. 

Existing § 1610.5–2(a)(1) would be 

split into paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 

proposed § 1610.6–2 and would contain 

requirements for filing protests, 

including new provisions for electronic 

submission. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, ‘‘Submission,’’ would describe 

the procedures for submitting a protest. 

A new provision would state that the 

protest may be filed as a hard-copy or 

electronically and the responsible 

official would specify protest filing 

procedures for a resource management 

plan or plan amendment (beyond these 

general requirements in the planning 

regulations). Under the existing 

regulations, a protest must be filed as a 

hard-copy. Although the BLM would 

continue to accept hard-copy protest 

submissions, providing an additional 

option for electronic submission would 

reduce a burden on the public by 

reducing the expense associated with 

mailing a hard-copy. An electronic 

format would also streamline the 

processing of protests, since the protest 

would already be digitized, thereby 

eliminating a step from the process. 

Further, a protest sent by mail may take 

many days to arrive at the appropriate 

BLM office and delay the start of the 

BLM’s protest resolution process. 

Electronic options for protest 

submission would promote a more 

efficient protest resolution process. The 

proposed rule provides flexibility for 

how protests would be submitted 

electronically to the BLM. The BLM 

expects to provide an electronic 

submission option either through email 

submission or through the BLM Web 

site. 

Although the BLM believes that 

electronic submission will promote 

efficiency, it is also important to note 

that providing an electronic option for 

protest submission could also lead to an 

increased burden on the agency by 

increasing the number of protest 

submissions, such as form letters. In this 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9715 

situation, it would take additional time 

to process protests. Under current 

practice, the BLM summarizes protest 

issues and provides a single response to 

each issue, regardless of how many 

times the issue was raised. We intend to 

continue this practice, thus a possible 

increase in form letters would not lead 

to an increase in the number of 

responses or the complexity of the final 

protest resolution report. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, ‘‘Timing,’’ would maintain the 

existing time periods for submitting a 

protest, but make edits for improved 

readability and understanding. There 

would be no changes to existing 

requirements. For resource management 

plans and EIS-level amendments, 

protests must be filed within 30 days 

after the date the EPA publishes a NOA 

of the final EIS in the Federal Register. 

For EA-level amendments, protests must 

be filed within 30 days after the date the 

BLM notifies the public of the 

availability of the proposed plan 

amendment. 

Proposed § 1610.6–2(a)(3), ‘‘Content 

Requirements,’’ would outline the 

required content of a protest. Proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section would 

include a new requirement that 

protesting parties include their email 

address (if available) in addition to 

other identifying information in the 

protest letter in order to facilitate BLM 

communications with protesting parties 

in the event of a question regarding a 

protest or its filing. It often is easier to 

communicate by email than by 

telephone and this requirement would 

be in line with the BLM’s acceptance of 

protests electronically under proposed 

§ 1610.6–2(a)(1). 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this 

section would require a statement of 

how the protestor participated in the 

planning assessment or the preparation 

of the resource management plan. This 

would be a change from existing 

language that requires a statement of the 

issue or issues being protested, which 

would be included in proposed 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. 

Although existing paragraph (a) states 

that only a person who participated in 

the preparation of a resource 

management plan may submit a protest, 

proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would 

place the burden on the protestor to 

demonstrate their eligibility for 

submitting a protest. This proposed 

requirement would make it easier for 

the BLM to determine eligibility to 

protest and more efficiently respond to 

all protests. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would 

replace the requirement to provide a 

‘‘statement of the part or parts of the 

plan or amendment being protested’’ 

with a new requirement to identify the 

plan component(s) believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations. The 

proposed change would be consistent 

with other proposed changes (see 

proposed § 1610.1–2). Plan components 

provide planning-level management 

direction. The final decision to approve 

a resource management plan or plan 

amendment represents the final 

decision to approve the planning level 

management direction, which will guide 

all subsequent management decisions. 

In contrast, implementation strategies 

are not subject to protest because they 

are not a component of the resource 

management plan. These strategies 

describe how the BLM may implement 

future actions that are consistent with 

the resource management plan, but 

consideration of a proposed 

implementation-level action, along with 

an implementation strategy comes at the 

implementation stage when the future 

action is taken. For example, 

management measures describes actions 

the BLM may take to implement a future 

action consistent with the plan 

components, but the final decision to 

implement the action would come at a 

later point in time and would require 

site-specific NEPA analysis. The 

decision to implement the future action 

associated with the implementation 

strategy would be subject to appeal, or 

other administrative remedy as 

appropriate, when that future decision 

is approved. A management measure to 

apply a habitat improvement in an area, 

for example, would require site-specific 

NEPA analysis and an associated 

decision. The site-specific decision 

would be subject to an appeals process 

at that time. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) would 

require the protest to include a concise 

explanation of why the plan 

component(s) is believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations, and 

identification of the associated issue(s) 

raised during the planning process. This 

provision would replace the final 

sentence of existing paragraph (a)(1)(iv) 

of this section. We are proposing to 

require that protests include more 

specific grounds for challenging a plan 

component than the existing 

regulations, which require only ‘‘(a) 

concise statement explaining why the 

State Director’s decision is believed to 

be wrong.’’ More specific grounds for 

protests would help the BLM to 

identify, understand, and respond 

thoughtfully to valid protest issues, 

such as inconsistencies with Federal 

laws or regulations. 

This proposed change would also 

provide a more clear distinction 

between the protest process and the 

earlier public comment period on a draft 

resource management plan and draft 

EIS. The earlier public comment period 

offers an opportunity to comment on a 

wide variety of matters relating to a 

draft plan. The protest procedures, in 

contrast, are intended to focus the BLM 

Director’s attention on aspects of a 

proposed resource management plan 

that may be inconsistent with legal 

requirements or policies. The proposed 

changes are not a change from existing 

practice or policy. The BLM believes 

that the proposed change would more 

effectively communicate to the public 

what the BLM considers when 

addressing protests. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this 

section retains the existing requirement 

that protests include a copy of all 

documents addressing the issue(s) 

raised that the protesting party 

submitted during the planning process 

or an indication of the date the issue(s) 

were discussed for the record. These 

documents or dates would assist the 

BLM in responding to protests. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section on ‘‘availability’’ would 

establish a new requirement that 

protests would be made available to the 

public upon request and this would be 

independent of existing requirements 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

This commitment would demonstrate 

the value the BLM places on public 

involvement in resource management 

planning. The BLM intends for this 

commitment to ensure transparency and 

consistency in practice. The BLM is 

exploring how to make protests 

available in a timely and efficient 

manner, including by posting all protest 

submissions to the BLM Web site, and 

welcomes public comments on this 

issue. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

would reiterate the existing requirement 

in existing § 1610.6–1(b) that the BLM 

Director render a decision on all 

protests before approving a resource 

management plan or plan amendment, 

except as otherwise provided in 1610.6– 

1(b) that approval would be withheld on 

any portion of a resource management 

plan or plan amendment where the 

protest has not been resolved. This 

means that the BLM could choose to 

approve the portions of the resource 

management plan not being protested, 

while withholding approval on the 

portion being protested, until final 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16BLM, Instruction Memorandum No. 2013–144, 

‘‘Transitioning from Printing Hard Copies of 

National Environmental Policy Act and Planning 

Documents to Providing Documents in Electronic 

Formats’’ (June 21, 2013), http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_

Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013- 

144.html); DOI Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Environmental Statement 

Memorandum No. 13–7, ‘‘Publication and 

Distribution of DOI NEPA Compliance Documents 

via Electronic Methods’’ (Jan. 7, 2013), http://

www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/upload/ESM13-7.pdf. 

action has been completed on such 

protest. Although this does not 

represent a change in existing policy, 

we believe that including this 

requirement with the provisions related 

to protests will improve understanding 

of the requirements associated with 

protests. We propose removing 

‘‘promptly’’ from this requirement, as 

the term is vague and does not account 

for the many variables that affect 

timelines for protest resolution, 

including the magnitude and 

complexity of protest issues, as well as 

available budgets and competing 

workloads. This edit clarifies that the 

timeline to resolve the protest varies 

extensively across planning efforts. This 

proposed revision is not a change in 

practice or policy; the BLM will 

continue to resolve protests as quickly 

as possible. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would further 

provide that the BLM notify protesting 

parties of the decision and would make 

both the decision and the reasons for the 

decision on the protest available to the 

public. The BLM expects that these 

typically would be posted on the BLM 

Web site and shared with individuals or 

groups that have requested email notice 

in conjunction with the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan. We propose removing the 

requirement that the BLM send its 

decision on a protest to the protesting 

parties by certified mail, return receipt 

requested. The BLM believes that the 

wide availability and ease of use of the 

Internet and electronic communications 

make these means of notifying the 

public well-suited for sharing protest 

decisions with the public. Electronic 

communications allow the BLM 

flexibility to make protest decisions 

available to a potentially large number 

of protesting parties or members of the 

public without an overly burdensome 

workload. These means would also be 

consistent with BLM policy promoting 

the use of electronic communications in 

the land use planning process.16

Nonetheless, where Internet access is 

limited or protesting parties or members 

of the public express concerns about 

electronic communications, the BLM 

would provide notice by other means, as 

necessary. 

The final sentence of proposed 

paragraph (b) would reflect existing 

§ 1610.5–2(b) and explain that the BLM 

Director’s decision is the final decision 

of the Department of the Interior. This 

decision may be subject to judicial 

review. The BLM proposes to change 

‘‘shall be’’ to ‘‘is,’’ to comply with more 

recent style conventions and improve 

readability. However, there would be no 

substantive change to this paragraph. 

Proposed paragraph (c) of this section 

would add a new provision stating that 

the BLM Director may dismiss any 

protest that does not meet the 

requirements of this section. For 

example, the BLM may dismiss protests 

where protestors lack standing or 

protests that are incomplete or 

untimely. The proposed text does not 

represent a change in requirements or in 

existing practice. The BLM Director may 

currently dismiss protests that do not 

meet the regulatory requirements. The 

BLM believes that adding this text 

would more effectively communicate to 

potential protestors that their protest 

may be dismissed if it does not meet the 

requirements for submission. 

Section 1610.6–3 Conformity and 

Implementation 

Proposed § 1610.6–3 would be based 

on existing § 1610.5–3. In proposed 

paragraph (a) of this section, we propose 

to remove the phrase ‘‘as well as budget 

or other action proposals to higher 

levels in the Bureau of Land 

Management and Department.’’ All 

future authorizations and actions must 

conform to the approved resource 

management plan, thus this language is 

confusing and unnecessary. No change 

from current practice is intended by this 

proposed change. We also propose to 

add the words ‘‘plan components,’’ 

stating ‘‘All future resource management 

authorizations and actions . . . must 

conform to the plan components of the 

approved resource management plan.’’ 

The proposed edits would be consistent 

with the definition of ‘‘plan 

components’’ in proposed § 1601.0–5 

and the requirements of proposed 

§ 1610.1–2 and would more precisely 

describe how the BLM interprets 

conformance. 

In paragraph (b) of this section, we 

propose specifying that the ‘‘plan’’ 

referenced is a ‘‘resource management 

plan’’ and that the requirements of this 

section also apply following the 

approval of a plan amendment. We 

propose replacing ‘‘Field Manager’’ with 

the ‘‘BLM.’’ As previously described, 

replacing the ‘‘Field Manager’’ with the 

‘‘BLM’’ acknowledges responsibilities 

that might be fulfilled by a BLM 

employee other than a Field Manager. 

Throughout this section, we propose 

replacing ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will,’’ unless 

otherwise noted. Proposed revisions 

throughout this section would only be 

for improved readability or improved 

understanding of existing practice or 

policy. 

Section 1610.6–4 Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Proposed new § 1610.6–4 would 

address monitoring and evaluation of 

resource management plans following 

their approval and would incorporate 

much of the existing language from 

existing § 1610.4–9 with edits for 

consistency with other proposed 

changes. The BLM would monitor and 

evaluate the resource management plan 

in accordance with the monitoring and 

evaluation standards and the monitoring 

procedures (see proposed §§ 1610.1– 

2(b)(3) and 1610.1–3(a)(2)) to determine 

whether there is sufficient cause to 

warrant amendment or revision of the 

resource management plan or for other 

purposes, such as evaluating the 

effectiveness of implementation 

strategies. 

The final sentence of proposed 

§ 1610.6–4 would establish a new 

requirement that the BLM document the 

evaluation of the resource management 

plan in a report made available for 

public review. The BLM believes that 

sharing this information with the public 

would provide transparency during the 

implementation of a resource 

management plan. 

Section 1610.6–5 Maintenance 

Proposed § 1610.6–5 would be based 

on existing § 1610.5–4 to explain the 

reasons for updating resource 

management plans through plan 

maintenance and to identify the 

parameters for plan maintenance. Under 

both existing and proposed regulations, 

maintenance represents minor changes 

and updates to a resource management 

plan that would not change any 

fundamental aspects of the plan. As 

proposed, maintenance would not 

change a plan component, except to 

correct typographical or mapping errors 

or to reflect minor changes in mapping 

or data. Unless otherwise indicated, we 

propose to replace ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ 

throughout this section for improved 

readability. 

We propose to delete ‘‘and supporting 

components’’ from the first sentence of 

this section to avoid confusion. The 

existing regulations are unclear on what 

is meant by ‘‘supporting components’’ 

in this provision. Supporting 

information, such as a visual resources 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9717 

inventory or a model predicting wildfire 

propensity, can be updated at any point 

in time; such a change is not considered 

plan maintenance as it does not 

constitute a change to the resource 

management plan itself. Further, the 

BLM would not consider supporting 

information such as the planning 

assessment or an implementation 

strategy to be a component of the 

approved resource management plan 

because they do not provide planninglevel management direction. Rather, the 

planning assessment provides baseline 

information to inform the preparation of 

a resource management plan and the 

implementation strategies assist in 

implementing future actions consistent 

with the resource management plan. 

These types of support information can 

be updated at any point in time and 

such a change is not considered plan 

maintenance because it does not 

constitute a change to the resource 

management plan itself. 

We also propose to replace ‘‘shall be 

maintained’’ with ‘‘may be maintained’’ 

in the first sentence. The proposed 

change would reflect the fact that plans 

are maintained as necessary, and the 

BLM has the discretion to assess the 

urgency of the need to maintain the plan 

when weighed against available budgets 

and competing workload priorities. 

The proposed rule would also revise 

the areas described in the regulations 

that may be updated through plan 

maintenance. We propose to expand 

existing language stating that plans are 

maintained as necessary to ‘‘reflect 

minor changes in data’’ with language 

stating the plans would be maintained 

as necessary ‘‘to correct typographical or 

mapping errors or to reflect minor 

changes in mapping or data.’’ The 

proposed language provides a more 

precise and accurate description of 

changes that are made using plan 

maintenance under the existing 

regulations. 

We propose to remove language 

limiting maintenance ‘‘to further 

refining or documenting a previously 

approved decision incorporated in the 

plan’’ as well as language indicating that 

‘‘maintenance must not result in the 

expansion in the scope of resource uses 

or restrictions, or change the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the 

approved plan.’’ Instead, the proposed 

rule would state that maintenance must 

not change a plan component of the 

approved resource management plan, 

except to correct typographical or 

mapping errors, or to reflect minor 

changes in data. The proposed change 

would make the maintenance provisions 

consistent with other proposed changes. 

The plan components would encompass 

the ‘‘scope of resource uses or 

restrictions’’ and the ‘‘terms, conditions, 

and decisions’’ of the approved resource 

management plan, therefore there would 

be no substantive change from current 

policy. 

Existing language is retained which 

indicates that maintenance is not 

considered a plan amendment and 

therefore does not require the same 

public involvement, interagency 

coordination, or NEPA analysis as plan 

amendments. This language is still 

relevant and applicable because plan 

components (i.e., the management-level 

direction of the approved plan) could 

not be changed through plan 

maintenance other than to correct 

typographical or mapping errors or 

reflect minor changes in mapping or 

data. 

We propose to replace the words 

‘‘shall not’’ with ‘‘does not’’ where the 

existing regulations state that 

maintenance ‘‘shall not’’ require the 

formal public involvement and 

interagency coordination process 

described under §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3. 

This proposed change would deviate 

from other proposed changes where we 

would replace ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will.’’ No 

change in meaning or practice is 

intended by the proposed change. The 

BLM believes that in this sentence, the 

proposed language provides better 

readability and ease of understanding. 

Finally, we propose to remove 

existing language which requires 

maintenance to be documented in plans 

and supporting records and instead add 

a new requirement for the BLM to notify 

the public when changes are made to an 

approved resource management plan 

through plan maintenance and make 

those changes available to the public at 

least 30 days prior to their 

implementation. While the proposed 

rule does not specify how the BLM 

would do so, we anticipate that changes 

would be posted on the BLM Web site 

and available at BLM offices within the 

planning area, with direct notice sent to 

those individuals and groups that have 

requested such notice. The forthcoming 

revision of the Land Use Planning 

Handbook will provide more detailed 

guidance on how the BLM will make 

different types of plan maintenance 

available to the public. The BLM 

requests public comment on whether 

and if so how plan maintenance should 

be made available to the public. 

Section 1610.6–6 Amendment 

Proposed § 1610.6–6 would be based 

on existing § 1610.5–5. We propose to 

amend this section by updating 

language to be consistent with other 

changes in this proposed rule. Unless 

otherwise indicated, ‘‘shall’’ would be 

replaced with ‘‘will’’ or ‘‘must,’’ for 

improved readability. 

Paragraph (a) of this section would 

revise the undesignated introductory 

text in existing § 1610.5–5 to explain 

that a plan component may be changed 

through amendment. This represents a 

change from the existing regulations, 

which provide that a resource 

management plan may be changed by 

amendment. The proposed change is 

necessary for consistency with changes 

to § 1610.1, which distinguish between 

plan components and implementation 

strategies. As explained in § 1610.1–2 of 

this preamble, plan components would 

represent management level direction 

and would only be changed through 

amendment or revision. 

We propose that an amendment 

‘‘may’’ be initiated when the BLM 

determines that monitoring and 

evaluation findings, new high quality 

information, including best available 

scientific information, new or revised 

policy, a proposed action, ‘‘or other 

relevant changes in circumstances’’ 

warrant a change to one or more plan 

components of the approved plan. The 

proposed change would replace ‘‘shall 

be initiated’’ with ‘‘may be initiated’’ to 

reflect the fact that the BLM must 

consider available budgets and 

competing workload priorities when 

making the determination to initiate a 

plan amendment. 

We also propose edits to make this 

section easier to read, clarifying that an 

amendment must be made ‘‘in 

conjunction’’ with an EA or EIS. We 

would replace the word ‘‘through’’ with 

‘‘in conjunction’’ because the EA or EIS 

informs the amendment, but is not the 

mechanism through which the 

amendment is made. We propose to 

clarify that the procedures for plan 

amendments include public 

involvement (see proposed § 1610.2), 

interagency coordination and 

consistency (see § 1610.3), and protest 

procedures (see proposed § 1610.6–2). 

We would retain the existing provision 

that the BLM must evaluate the effect of 

the amendment on the plan and that if 

the amendment under consideration is 

in response to a specific proposal, the 

requisite analysis for the proposal and 

the amendment may occur 

simultaneously. This is consistent with 

NEPA regulations asking Federal 

agencies to integrate NEPA with other 

planning processes (see 40 CFR 

1500.2(c) and 1500.4(k)). 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

concerns an amendment for which an 

EA does not disclose significant impacts 

and would be revised by replacing 

references to the ‘‘Field Manager’’ with 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9718 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the ‘‘responsible official’’ or the ‘‘BLM.’’ 

It would also replace a reference to the 

‘‘State Director’’ with the ‘‘deciding 

official.’’ These changes would be 

consistent with new terms used 

throughout this proposed rule. This 

section would also provide that upon 

approval of a plan amendment, the BLM 

would issue a public notice of the action 

taken, and that an amendment may be 

implemented 30 days after such notice. 

There would be no substantive changes 

to this paragraph or the BLM’s 

implementation of it. 

We propose to eliminate the existing 

requirement that the amendment 

process follow the same procedures as 

for preparing and approving a resource 

management plan. Instead, the proposed 

rule would identify in relevant sections 

where EIS-level amendments follow the 

same procedures for preparing and 

approving a resource management plan. 

Although the same procedures would be 

required for most steps of preparing a 

resource management plan, the 

proposed change would allow for EISlevel amendments to have a different 

time period for public comment on the 

draft plan amendment than for draft 

resource management plans. EIS-level 

plan amendments would be subject to a 

45-day public comment period on the 

draft plan amendment and draft EIS, 

instead of a 60-day public comment 

period on a draft resource management 

plan and draft EIS (see proposed 

§ 1610.2–2). The BLM believes the 45- 

day public comment period, which is 

consistent with the CEQ requirement 

(see 40 CFR 1506.10(c)) would be 

sufficient for many amendments and 

that this shorter public comment period 

would improve efficiency when an 

amendment is warranted. However, the 

regulations would not prevent the BLM 

from offering a longer public comment 

period or extending the public comment 

period on a draft resource management 

plan amendment and draft EIS in any 

particular case, if the planning process 

would benefit from more than 45 days 

for public comments. We expect to 

provide more detailed guidance in the 

forthcoming revision of the Land Use 

Planning Handbook on situations that 

may warrant a longer comment period 

than the minimum required under 

NEPA. 

We also propose to remove existing 

language that consideration for an EISlevel amendment is limited to ‘‘that 

portion of the plan being amended.’’ 

This existing language contradicts the 

requirement from proposed paragraph 

(a) that the ‘‘effect of the amendment on 

other plan components must be 

evaluated.’’ For example, if an 

amendment would preclude the BLM 

from achieving other goals and 

objectives of the approved resource 

management plan that are not explicitly 

addressed in the amendment, this is 

important information for the BLM to be 

aware of. 

Paragraph (c) of this section would be 

adapted from the existing provision of 

§ 1610.5–5(b) that ‘‘if several plans are 

being amended simultaneously, a single 

[EIS] may be prepared to cover all 

amendments’’ for improved readability. 

Instead, this provision would state that 

‘‘if the BLM amends several resource 

management plans simultaneously, a 

single programmatic [EIS] or [EA] may 

be prepared to address all 

amendments.’’ 

Section 1610.6–7 Revision 

Proposed § 1610.6–7 would be based 

on existing § 1610.5–6. We propose to 

revise this section to improve 

readability and more clearly explain 

when the BLM would prepare a 

revision. In the first sentence of the 

section the clause that states ‘‘a resource 

management plan shall be revised . . .’’ 

would be replaced with ‘‘the BLM may 

revise a resource management plan. 

. . .’’ The proposed rule would use 

active voice to clearly show that the 

BLM would be revising the plan, but it 

also changes the text from a requirement 

‘‘shall’’ to the discretionary term ‘‘may.’’ 

In both existing regulations and this 

proposed rule, the revision would occur 

‘‘as necessary.’’ This change would 

reflect the fact that the BLM must 

consider many factors including 

available budgets, competing workload 

priorities, and development of new 

policy when making the determination 

to revise a resource management plan. 

While this is a change in the 

regulations, current BLM practice does 

take these factors into account when 

determining what is necessary, so no 

change in implementation is expected. 

The proposed rule would more clearly 

demonstrate this to the public. 

The proposed changes would also 

state that in addition to monitoring and 

evaluation findings, new data, or new or 

revised policy, ‘‘other relevant changes 

in circumstances’’ that affect an entire 

plan or major portions of a plan may 

require a plan revision. This does not 

represent a change in practice, but 

rather reflects the fact that other changes 

in circumstances could warrant a plan 

revision. For example, proliferation of 

the demand for energy development in 

an area could result in a plan revision 

if the BLM believed that a plan revision 

was necessary to adequately address 

this demand and consider impacts at a 

regional-scale. This section would 

maintain the existing requirement that 

revisions must comply with all of the 

requirements of the planning 

regulations for preparing and approving 

a resource management plan, with 

minor edits to improve readability. 

Section 1610.6–8 Situations Where 

Action Can Be Taken Based on Another 

Agency’s Plan, or a Land Use Analysis 

Proposed § 1610.6–8 would be based 

on existing § 1610.5–7. We propose 

minor edits in this section with no 

intended change in practice or policy. 

We would replace the ‘‘Bureau of Land 

Management’’ with the ‘‘BLM,’’ which 

has already been introduced in this part. 

We would also replace a reference to the 

‘‘Field Manager’’ to ‘‘the BLM,’’ as the 

action described applies more to the 

agency than any particular individual. 

We would replace ‘‘use’’ with ‘‘rely on’’ 

for more accurate use of language. 

The BLM proposes to replace ‘‘there 

are situations of mixed ownership’’ with 

‘‘including mixed ownership’’ in the 

first sentence of proposed 1610.6–8 for 

improved readability. No change in 

meaning is intended by this proposed 

change. 

We propose to add a reference to 

tribal plans in proposed paragraph (a) of 

this section, which lists those other 

agency plans that may be used as the 

basis for a BLM action. We also propose 

to replace ‘‘public participation’’ with 

‘‘public involvement,’’ consistent with 

FLPMA and proposed changes 

throughout this proposed rule. 

We propose to add language to 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

clarifying that in order for the BLM to 

rely on or adopt another agency’s plan, 

that plan must be consistent with 

‘‘Federal laws and regulations 

applicable to public lands, and the 

purposes, policies and programs of such 

laws and regulations.’’ For example, the 

other agency’s plan must comply with 

NEPA. The proposed change would be 

consistent with current practice and 

policy. 

We propose to remove ‘‘to comply 

with law and policy applicable to public 

lands’’ from proposed paragraph (b) 

because that language would no longer 

be necessary with the added text. 

We propose to remove the final 

sentence of existing § 1610.5–7 which 

provides that ‘‘The decision to approve 

the land use analysis and to lease coal 

is made by the Departmental official 

who has been delegated the authority to 

issue coal leases.’’ This language is 

unnecessary in the planning regulations. 

Finally, the reference to § 1610.5–2 

would be updated to reflect other 

changes under this proposed rule. No 

change in meaning is intended by 

updating this reference. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9719 

Section 1610.7 Management Decision 

Review by Congress 

Proposed § 1610.7 would be based on 

existing § 1610.6 with minor revisions. 

We propose replacing the ‘‘Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act’’ with 

‘‘FLPMA,’’ the ‘‘Bureau of Land 

Management’’ with the ‘‘BLM,’’ and 

replacing ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ in this 

section for improved readability. In the 

second sentence of this section, 

however, we propose to replace ‘‘[t]his 

report shall not be required’’ to ‘‘[t]his 

report is not required’’ for improved 

readability and ease of understanding. 

We propose to clarify that this report is 

not required prior to approval of a 

resource management plan which, if 

fully or partially implemented, would 

result in elimination ‘‘of use(s).’’ No 

change in meaning is intended with 

these proposed changes. 

Section 1610.8 Designation of Areas 

Proposed § 1610.8 would contain the 

provisions of existing § 1610.7 without 

amendment. 

Section 1610.8–1 Designation of Areas 

Unsuitable for Surface Mining 

Proposed § 1610.8–1 would be based 

on existing § 1610.7–1. We propose 

replacing references to the ‘‘Field 

Manager’’ and the ‘‘Bureau of Land 

Management’’ with the ‘‘BLM’’ in this 

section. The Field Manager 

commitments described in this section 

are those of the BLM, not any one 

individual. We also propose replacing 

the word ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ 

throughout this section, unless 

otherwise indicated, for improved 

readability. No change in meaning is 

intended with these proposed changes. 

Section 1610.8–2 Designation of Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern 

Proposed § 1610.8–2 would be based 

on existing § 1610.7–2. The BLM 

proposes revising the language 

throughout existing § 1610.7–2 to use 

plain language, including changing 

‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘will,’’ or in some instances 

‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘must’’ for improved 

readability. 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would contain the undesignated 

introductory language in existing 

§ 1610.7–2, revised as follows. ‘‘Areas of 

critical environmental concern’’ would 

be replaced with the abbreviation 

‘‘ACEC’’ for improved readability. The 

existing language stating that potential 

ACECs are identified and considered 

throughout the resource management 

planning process would be removed and 

instead we would state that ‘‘Areas 

having potential for ACEC designation 

and protection management will be 

identified through inventory of public 

lands and during the planning 

assessment.’’ The proposed change 

would reflect the fact that FLPMA 

directs the BLM to identify potential 

ACECs through the inventory of public 

lands (see section 201(a) of FLPMA) and 

consider them for designation through 

land use planning (see section 202(c)(3) 

of FLPMA). When the BLM prepares a 

resource management plan or an EISlevel amendment, potential ACECs 

would be identified during the planning 

assessment (see proposed 

§ 1610.4(a)(1)). However the BLM may 

also conduct inventory at times not 

associated with the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan, and potential ACECs could be 

identified at those times as well. The 

BLM intends no change in practice or 

policy by the proposed revisions, other 

than to identify that potential ACECs 

would be identified during a planning 

assessment, a new proposed step in the 

planning process. 

Proposed paragraph (a) of this section 

would also include language from 

existing 1610.7–2(a), which describes 

the criteria for identifying a potential 

ACEC. We would replace ‘‘shall’’ with 

‘‘will’’ to read ‘‘[t]he inventory data will 

be analyzed to determine whether there 

are areas containing resources, values, 

systems or processes or hazards eligible 

for further consideration for designation 

as an ACEC.’’ 

We propose to maintain the existing 

descriptions of the ‘‘relevance’’ and 

‘‘importance’’ criteria in proposed 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section, though ‘‘shall’’ would be 

replaced with ‘‘must’’ and we would 

remove the phrase ‘‘this generally 

requires more than local significance’’ 

from the description of importance. This 

phrase is vague and unnecessary in the 

regulations. There are many existing 

examples where an area of local 

significance has been determined to 

meet the ‘‘importance’’ criteria. The 

proposed change would be consistent 

with FLPMA and would improve 

understanding that the importance 

criteria is based on the degree of 

significance (i.e., substantial 

significance and values) and a local 

value, resource, system, process, or 

hazard could have ‘‘substantial’’ 

significance. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

would address the designation of ACECs 

and would provide that potential ACECs 

would be considered for designation 

during the preparation or amendment of 

a resource management plan. This 

would replace language in existing 

§ 1610.7–2 stating that ACECs are 

‘‘considered throughout the resource 

management planning process.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (b) would also 

contain the provision that ‘‘[t]he 

identification of a potential ACEC shall 

not, in of itself, change or prevent 

change of the management or use of 

public lands,’’ which would be moved 

from the existing definition of ‘‘Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern or 

ACEC’’ in 1601.0–5(a) to this section. 

The term ‘‘shall’’ would be replaced 

with ‘‘does’’ for improved readability. 

No change in meaning is intended by 

this proposed revision. This provision 

belongs with the ACEC provisions and 

this placement avoids including 

substantive regulatory provisions in the 

definitions. 

We propose new additional language 

at the end of proposed paragraph (b) 

which would provide that ‘‘[p]otential 

ACECs require special management 

attention (when such areas are 

developed or used or no development is 

required) to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to the important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish 

and wildlife resources or other natural 

system or process, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards.’’ The 

proposed language is consistent with 

FLPMA (see section 103(a)) and would 

provide useful information in regards to 

designating ACECs. The BLM intends 

no change in practice or policy from 

adding this language; rather, the 

planning regulations would reflect 

existing statutory direction. 

In addition, we propose dividing 

existing § 1610.7–2(b) into two 

paragraphs (proposed § 1610.8–2(b)(1) 

and (2)) to distinguish more clearly 

between the BLM’s notice of potential 

ACECs and the formal designation of 

ACECs in the approved plan. 

Proposed § 1610.8–2(b)(1) would 

maintain the existing requirement, with 

clarifying edits, that upon release of a 

draft resource management plan or plan 

amendment involving a potential ACEC, 

the BLM would notify the public and 

include a list of each potential ACEC 

and any special management attention 

which would follow a formal 

designation. For clarification purposes, 

we would replace the term ‘‘upon 

approval’’ with ‘‘upon release’’ so that 

this step is not confused with the formal 

approval of the proposed plan. This 

would not represent a change to existing 

practice. We also propose replacing the 

term ‘‘proposed ACEC’’ with ‘‘potential 

ACEC’’ in order to avoid confusion with 

the proposed resource management 

plan. The BLM provides notice of 

potential ACECs upon release of a draft 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment, rather than upon release of 

a proposed resource management plan 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9720 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

or plan amendment. The BLM intends 

no change in practice or policy from this 

proposed word change. We also propose 

to replace ‘‘resource use limitations’’ 

with ‘‘special management attention.’’ 

The proposed language would be based 

on the definition of an ACEC provided 

in FLPMA (section 103(a)) and would 

also reflect the fact that special 

management attention is not restricted 

to resource use limitations. For 

example, special management attention 

might include objectives related to plant 

species composition to maintain habitat 

for a wildlife resource. 

We propose removing the 

requirements in existing § 1610.7–2(b) 

to publish a Federal Register notice and 

provide a 60-day public comment 

period on a potential ACEC designation. 

Instead, the BLM would be required to 

notify the public and provide a public 

comment period appropriate to the level 

of BLM action (see proposed § 1610.2– 

1). The proposed planning process 

provides opportunity to consider 

impacts to potential ACECs through the 

development of a range of alternatives 

and to effectively assess whether special 

management attention is needed. The 

proposed planning process also 

provides substantial opportunity for 

public involvement. We believe that 

consistency between ACEC 

requirements and the other steps of the 

planning process would be less 

confusing and would more effectively 

integrate ACEC consideration into the 

planning process. 

Under the proposed rule, the BLM 

would notify the public of each 

potential ACEC and any special 

management attention which would 

occur if it were formally designated, by 

posting a notice on the BLM Web site 

and at the BLM office where the plan is 

being prepared (see proposed § 1610.2– 

1(c)), and through written or email 

correspondence to those individuals or 

groups who have requested to receive 

updates throughout the planning 

process (see proposed § 1610.2–1(d)). 

This proposed change would also 

mean that for the preparation of a 

resource management plan, the BLM 

would provide a 60-day comment 

period; for EIS-level amendments the 

BLM would provide a 45-day comment 

period; and for EA-level amendments, 

the BLM would not be required to 

provide a public comment period, 

however, if the BLM did provide a 

public comment period it would 

provide a minimum 30-day comment 

period (see proposed § 1610.2–2(a)). In 

most situations the BLM chooses to 

provide a public comment period for 

EA-level amendments, however, the 

proposed change acknowledges that 

there may be situations where there is 

no public interest in a draft plan 

amendment and it would therefore not 

benefit from a public comment period. 

In such situations, the planning 

regulations would not require that the 

BLM offer a public comment period. For 

example, an EA-level amendment could 

be initiated to extend ACEC designation 

to a recently acquired in-holding within 

an existing ACEC that was acquired 

expressly for that purpose. In this 

situation, there might be no need for or 

public interest in a comment period. 

Paragraph (b)(2) of this section would 

maintain the existing provision with 

clarifying edits that the approval of a 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment that contains an ACEC 

constitutes formal designation of an 

ACEC. We propose to remove the phrase 

‘‘plan revision’’ as this would be 

included in the definition of a resource 

management plan (see proposed 

§ 1601.0–5). This paragraph would also 

replace the existing requirement for the 

approved plan to include ‘‘general 

management practices and uses, 

including mitigation measures’’ with a 

new requirement to include ‘‘any 

special management attention’’ 

identified to protect the designated 

ACEC. The proposed change would 

reflect the definition of an ACEC 

provided in FLPMA (section 103(a)). 

Under the proposed rule, the BLM 

would provide ‘‘special management 

attention,’’ as required by FLPMA, 

through the development of plan 

components. For example, special 

management attention could include 

goals, measurable objectives, mitigation 

standards (as part of a measurable 

objective), or resource use 

determinations, among others. 

Implementation strategies could also 

be developed, as needed, to assist in 

implementing the special management 

attention provided through the plan 

components. For example, the BLM may 

identify specific management measures 

to achieve vegetation objectives in the 

ACEC. This represents a change from 

the existing regulations, which requires 

inclusion of ‘‘general management 

practices’’ when providing special 

management attention. The BLM 

believes that the new requirement for 

plan objectives to be measurable (see 

§ 1610.1–2(a)(2)) provides a more 

effective method to apply special 

management attention because it allows 

the BLM to track progress toward the 

achievement of the objective while 

incorporating new science and 

information when implementing 

specific management measures. 

Section 1610.9 Transition Period 

Proposed § 1610.9 would contain the 

provisions of existing § 1610.8, 

amended as follows. Existing provisions 

of § 1610.8 address the transition from 

management framework plans, the land 

use plans the BLM prepared beginning 

in 1969 under authorities that predated 

FLPMA, to resource management plans, 

which the BLM has prepared and 

approved under FLPMA and the 

planning regulations first adopted in 

1979. We propose edits in existing 

§ 1610.8(a) and (b) to refer to ‘‘public 

involvement’’ instead of ‘‘public 

participation’’ and to refer to the 

‘‘responsible official’’ instead of the 

‘‘Field Manager,’’ consistent with 

changes made throughout this proposed 

rule. We also use ‘‘will’’ or ‘‘must’’ 

instead of ‘‘shall’’ for improved 

readability. 

We propose to clarify in paragraph 

(a)(1) that management framework plans 

may be the basis for considering 

proposed action if the management 

framework plan is in compliance with 

the principle of multiple use and 

sustained yield ‘‘or other applicable 

law.’’ We would add ‘‘or other 

applicable law’’ because in some 

situations the BLM must be in 

compliance with the principles of other 

legal authorities. For instance, national 

monuments established under the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431– 

433) must comply with the principles 

specific to their establishment. We 

propose to remove existing 

§ 1610.8(a)(2). This provision is no 

longer necessary. The BLM would 

instead rely on proposed § 1610.9(a)(2) 

when considering proposed actions 

under a management framework plan. 

Proposed new § 1610.9(c) and (d) 

would address the transition from 

resource management plans approved 

under the existing regulations, which 

first became effective on September 6, 

1979 (44 FR 46386) and which were 

updated with revisions that became 

effective on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 20364) 

and April 22, 2005 (55 FR 14561), to 

resource management plans that will be 

prepared, revised, or amended under 

these regulations when they are final. 

In considering the transition 

provisions, it is important to remember 

that this proposed rule would make 

changes to the procedures the BLM uses 

to prepare, revise, or amend resource 

management plans, and provide more 

detailed guidance in areas where the 

current regulations are vague, unclear, 

or silent. This proposed rule does not 

change the nature of a resource 

management plan itself (i.e., a document 

developed to guide future management 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9721 

activities on the public lands). 

Additionally, although we are proposing 

new terms for the contents of a plan 

(e.g., plan components), the contents of 

a plan will not differ substantially from 

the contents of existing plans. For 

instance, plan objectives developed 

under this proposed rule would likely 

be more specific and measurable than 

many plan objectives developed under 

the existing regulations. Nonetheless, 

plan objectives developed under either 

set of regulations would guide the 

BLM’s management of the public lands 

across varied programs. 

Accordingly, proposed § 1610.9(c)(1) 

would discuss how the BLM would 

evaluate whether a proposed action, 

such as an oil and gas lease sale, is in 

conformance with a resource 

management plan once final regulations 

resulting from this proposal become 

effective. We propose that when 

considering whether a proposed action 

is in conformance with a resource 

management plan, the BLM will use an 

existing resource management plan (i.e., 

one approved by the BLM before the 

final regulations that result from this 

proposal become effective) until it is 

superseded by a resource management 

plan or amended by a plan amendment 

prepared under these regulations when 

they are final. In such circumstances, 

the proposed action must either be 

specifically provided for in the plan or 

clearly consistent with the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the 

approved plan. Resource management 

plans prepared under the existing 

regulations do not identify plan 

components, thus an evaluation for 

whether a proposed action is in 

conformance with the plan must use the 

terminology that was in place when the 

plan was approved. 

Proposed § 1610.9(c)(2) would 

address how to evaluate whether an 

action is in conformance with a resource 

management plan after the plan has 

been amended under the proposed 

regulations. In such circumstances, the 

amended portions of the plan would use 

new terminology and identify plan 

components, whereas the remainder of 

the plan would not use new 

terminology. A proposed action must 

therefore either be consistent with the 

plan components (proposed new 

terminology) or the terms, conditions, 

and decisions of the plan (existing 

terminology). 

Proposed § 1610.9(d) would address 

resource management plans that are 

currently being prepared, revised, or 

amended. We propose that if the 

preparation, revision, or amendment of 

a resource management plan was or is 

formally initiated by publication of a 

NOI in the Federal Register before the 

final regulations that result from this 

proposed rule become effective, the 

BLM may complete the resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

under the planning regulations 

promulgated in 1979 (44 FR 46386) and 

amended in 1983 (48 FR 20364) and in 

2005 (55 FR 14561). This approach 

would allow BLM offices that have 

initiated planning to continue with their 

efforts without the need to re-start or redo steps in the planning process. This 

would avoid duplicative efforts and it 

respects the time that the BLM, other 

agencies, stakeholders, and members of 

the public have invested in planning 

that will be in-progress when the final 

regulations that result from this 

proposal become effective. The BLM 

requests comments on the new 

transition provisions in § 1610.8(c) and 

(d). 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this proposed rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of Executive Order 12866 

while calling for improvements in the 

nation’s regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

Executive Order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this proposed rule in a 

manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has developed 

size standards to carry out the purposes 

of the Small Business Act, which can be 

found in 13 CFR 121.201. For a specific 

industry identified by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS), small entities are 

defined by the SBA as an individual, 

limited partnership, or small company 

considered at ‘‘arm’s length’’ from the 

control of any parent company, which 

meet certain size standards. The size 

standards are expressed either in 

number of employees or annual 

receipts. The proposed rule could affect 

any entity that elects to participate in 

the BLM’s planning process. The 

industries most likely to be directly 

affected are listed in the table below 

along with the relevant SBA size 

standards. Other industries, such as 

transportation or manufacturing, may be 

indirectly affected and are not listed 

below. 

Industry 

Size standards 

in millions of 

dollars 

Size standards 

in number of 

employees 

Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming ....................................................................................................................... $0 .75 ........................

Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products ............................................................................................. 11 .0 ........................

Logging .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 500 

Oil and Gas Extraction .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 

Mining (except Oil and Gas) .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 500 

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations ...................................................................................................... 38 .5 ........................

Support Activities for Coal Mining ......................................................................................................................... 20 .5 ........................

Support Activities for Metal Mining ........................................................................................................................ 20 .5 ........................

Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) ................................................................................... 7 .5 ........................

Hydroelectric Power Generation ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 500 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation .................................................................................................................. .......................... 750 

Solar, Wind, Geothermal Power Generation ......................................................................................................... .......................... 250 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9722 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Industry 

Size standards 

in millions of 

dollars 

Size standards 

in number of 

employees 

Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control ..................................................................................................... .......................... 500 

Electric Power Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1000 

Natural Gas Distribution ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... 500 

Environmental Consulting Services ....................................................................................................................... 15 .0 ........................

Other Amusement and Recreation Industries ....................................................................................................... 7 .5 ........................

Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations ........................................................................................ 15 .0 ........................

These industries may include a large, 

though unquantifiable, number of small 

entities. In addition to determining 

whether a substantial number of small 

entities are likely to be affected by this 

rule, the BLM must also determine 

whether the rule is anticipated to have 

a significant economic impact on those 

small entities. The proposed rule is 

largely administrative in nature and 

would only affect internal BLM 

procedures. The direct impacts on the 

public would be increased opportunities 

for voluntary public involvement. The 

magnitude of the impact on any 

individual or group, including small 

entities, is expected to be negligible. 

The actual impacts cannot reasonably be 

predicted at this stage, as they will 

depend on the specific context of each 

planning effort. However, there is no 

reason to expect that these changes, 

when implemented across all future 

planning efforts, would place undue 

burden on any specific individual or 

group, including small entities. 

Based on the available information, 

we conclude that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, a final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is not required, and 

a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not 

required. The BLM prepared a 

preliminary economic and threshold 

analysis as part of the record, which is 

available for review. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule is administrative in nature and 

affects the BLM’s land use planning 

process and procedures. 

This rule does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. These procedures and costs are 

existing requirements and it would be 

speculative to estimate how many 

protests the BLM would receive as a 

result of this proposed rule. 

This rule will not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions. There 

would be no impact to any prices as a 

result of this proposed rule. 

This rule does not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. This rule is 

administrative in nature and only 

impacts the BLM’s land use planning 

process and procedures. The BLM 

prepared a preliminary economic and 

threshold analysis as part of the record, 

which is available for review. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. This 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

rule is administrative in nature and only 

impacts the BLM’s land use planning 

process and procedures. A statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

This rule does not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630. This rule is administrative 

in nature and only impacts internal 

BLM procedures. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Under the criteria in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13132, this rule does 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. A federalism summary 

impact statement is not required. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required because the rule would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

The only provisions that could 

possibly have an effect on States, is the 

Governor’s consistency review and the 

increased public involvement 

opportunities, but these provisions 

would only have minimal impacts, if 

any. 

In the Governor’s consistency review, 

the proposed rule would not 

significantly impact Governors or 

change the existing requirements of this 

section. This section is revised only to 

clarify an existing process that has 

caused some confusion. The only 

change from existing requirements is 

1610.3–2(b)(1)(ii), which would allow 

the Governor to waive or reduce the 60 

day period during which the Governor 

may identify inconsistencies. This could 

provide a benefit to the Governor in 

some situations where the timely 

approval of a plan or amendment is 

necessary. The BLM is requesting 

comments on potentially reducing this 

time period in certain situations. 

However, as proposed, this time period 

would not be adjusted other than as 

previously discussed in proposed 

§ 1610.3–2(b)(1)(ii). Please see the 

discussion on the Governor’s 

consistency review at the preamble for 

proposed § 1610.3–2(b)(1)(ii). 

The proposed rule could also add 

more opportunities for public 

involvement, including through the 

planning assessment (see § 1610.4), 

which could result in more engagement 

with State and local governments. 

Neither of these instances would have 

a significant adverse effect on State 

governments. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically this rule: (a) Meets the 

criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 

regulations be reviewed to eliminate 

errors and ambiguity and be written to 

minimize litigation; and (b) Meets the 

criteria of section 3(b)2 requiring that all 

regulations be written in clear language 

and contain clear legal standards. 

Consultation With Indian Tribes 

(Executive Order 13175 and 

Departmental Policy) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9723 

and Department of the Interior 

Secretarial Order 3317. Specifically, in 

conjunction with preparation of this 

proposed rule, the BLM initiated 

consultation with potentially affected 

tribes. Examples of consultation to date 

include written correspondence and 

meetings/discussions about objectives of 

this rulemaking effort with 

representatives of tribal governments. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Collections of information 

include requests and requirements that 

an individual, partnership, or 

corporation obtain information, and 

report it to a Federal agency. See 44 

U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k). 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to review by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520). Collections of information 

include any request or requirement that 

persons obtain, maintain, retain, or 

report information to an agency, or 

disclose information to a third party or 

to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 

CFR 1320.3(c)) 

An information collection request for 

this proposed rule has been submitted 

to OMB for review in accordance with 

44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The information 

collection request is intended to correct 

the erroneous omission of such a 

request when the planning regulations 

at 43 CFR part 1600 were originally 

promulgated. The proposed rule does 

not significantly alter the information 

collection activities in the existing 

planning regulations. 

A copy of the information collection 

request may be obtained from the BLM 

by electronic mail request to Shasta 

Ferranto at sferranto@blm.gov or by 

telephone request to 202–912–7352. The 

information collection request also may 

be viewed online at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

The BLM requests comments on the 

following subjects: 

1. Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

functioning of the BLM, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. The accuracy of the BLM’s estimate 

of the burden of collecting the 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

3. The quality, utility, and clarity of 

the information to be collected; and 

4. How to minimize the information 

collection burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other forms of 

information technology. 

If you would like to comment on the 

information collection requirements of 

this proposed rule, please send your 

comments directly to OMB, with a copy 

to the BLM, as directed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

Please identify your comments with 

‘‘OMB Control Number 1004–XXXX.’’ 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in this proposed rule between 

30 to 60 days after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, a comment to OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by March 28, 2016. 

Summary of Proposed Information 

Collection Activities 

• Title: Resource Management 

Planning (43 CFR part 1600). 

• Forms: None. 

• OMB Control Number: This request 

for a new control number is for an 

ongoing collection of information. 

• Description of Respondents: 

Participants in the BLM land use 

planning process (including Governors 

of States; individuals; households; 

businesses; associations; and State, 

local, and tribal governments). 

• Respondents’ Obligation: Required 

to obtain or retain a benefit. 

• Abstract: The BLM is requesting a 

new control number in a proposed rule 

that would revise existing regulations 

on procedures used to prepare, revise, 

or amend land use plans in accordance 

with FLPMA. This information 

collection request includes activities 

that have been ongoing without a 

control number. 

• Frequency of Collection: On 

occasion. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents 

Annually: 131. 

• Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

1,965 hours. 

• Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost: 

None. 

Consistency 

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA requires 

that the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘assist 

in resolving, to the extent practical, 

inconsistencies between Federal and 

non-Federal Government plans.’’ This 

responsibility is delegated to the BLM 

Director and accomplished, in part, 

through the ‘‘Governor’s Consistency 

Review’’ process described in proposed 

§ 1610.3–2(b). This information 

collection activity is necessary for this 

process and for compliance with section 

202(c)(9) of FLPMA. 

Proposed § 1610.3–2(b) would 

provide an opportunity for Governors of 

affected States to identify possible 

inconsistencies between officially 

approved and adopted land use plans of 

State and local governments and 

proposed resource management plans 

(RMPs) or proposed amendments to 

RMPs and management framework 

plans (MFPs). Following receipt of a 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment from the BLM, 

Governors would have a period of 60 

days to submit to the deciding official 

a written document that: 

• Identifies any inconsistencies with 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans of State and local 

governments; and 

• Recommends remedies for the 

identified inconsistencies. 

The proposed regulations would 

provide that the BLM deciding official 

would notify the Governor in writing of 

his or her decision regarding these 

recommendations and the reasons for 

this decision. Within 30 days of this 

decision, the Governor would be 

authorized to appeal this decision to the 

BLM Director. The BLM Director would 

consider the Governor(s)’ comments in 

rendering a final decision. 

Protests 

Section 202(f) of FLPMA requires that 

the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘allow an 

opportunity for public involvement and 

by regulation . . . establish procedures 

. . . to give Federal, State, and local 

governments and the public, adequate 

notice and opportunity to comment 

upon and participate in the formulation 

of plans and programs relating to the 

management of public lands.’’ The 

protest process described in proposed 

§ 1610.6–2 would authorize protests of 

proposed land use plans and plan 

amendments before such plans or plan 

amendments are approved. The 

collection of information would assist 

the BLM in complying with section 

202(f) of FLPMA. Proposed § 1610.6–2 

would provide an opportunity for any 

person who participated in the 

preparation of the resource management 

plan or plan amendment to protest the 

approval of proposed RMPs and 

proposed amendments to RMPs and 

MFPs to the Director of the BLM. The 

following information would be 

required for submission of a valid 

protest: 

1. The protestor’s name, mailing, 

address, telephone number, and email 

address (if available). The BLM would 

need this information in order to contact 

the protestor. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9724 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2. The protestor’s interest that may be 

adversely affected by the planning 

process. This information would help 

the BLM understand whether or not the 

protestor is eligible to submit a protest. 

3. How the protestor participated in 

the preparation of the resource 

management plan or plan amendment. 

This information would help the BLM 

determine whether or not the protestor 

is eligible to submit a protest. 

4. The plan component or 

components believed to be inconsistent 

with Federal laws or regulations 

applicable to public lands, or the 

purposes, policies and programs of such 

laws and regulations. This information 

is necessary because the approval of a 

resource management plan is the final 

decision for the Department of the 

Interior. Plan components represent 

planning-level management direction 

with which all future decisions within 

a planning area must be consistent, thus 

it is important for the BLM to know if 

a plan component is believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations. 

5. A concise explanation of why the 

plan component is believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations and of the 

associated issue or issues that were 

raised during the preparation of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment. This information would be 

essential to the BLM’s understanding of 

the protest and decision to grant or 

dismiss the protest. 

6. Copies of all documents addressing 

the issue or issues that were submitted 

during the planning process by the 

protesting party or an indication of the 

date the issue or issues were discussed 

for the record. This information would 

help the BLM to understand the protest 

and to reach a decision. 

The BLM Director would be required 

to render a decision on the protest 

before approval of any portion of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment being protested. The 

Director’s decision would be the final 

decision of the Department of the 

Interior. 

Estimated Hour Burdens 

The estimated hour burdens of the 

proposed supplemental collection 

requirements are shown in the following 

table. Included in the burden estimates 

are the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

each component of the proposed 

information collection requirements. 

ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL HOUR BURDENS

A. B. C. D. 

Type of response Number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total hours 

(Column B × 

Column C) 

Consistency Requirements (43 CFR 1610.3–2(b)) ..................................................................... 27 15 405 

Protest Procedures/Governments (43 CFR 1610.6–2) ............................................................... 16 15 240 

Protest Procedures/Individuals and Households (43 CFR 1610.6–2) ........................................ 32 15 480 

Protest Procedures/Businesses and Associations (43 CFR 1610.6–2) ...................................... 56 15 840 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 131 ........................ 1,965 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The BLM does not believe this rule 

would constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, and has prepared 

preliminary documentation to this 

effect, explaining that a detailed 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) would not be required because 

the rule is categorically excluded from 

NEPA review. This rule would be 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare a detailed statement because, as 

proposed, it would be a regulation 

entirely procedural in nature. (For 

further information see 43 CFR 

46.210(i)). We have also determined, as 

a preliminary matter, that the rule does 

not involve any of the extraordinary 

circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 

that would require further analysis 

under NEPA. 

Documentation of the proposed 

reliance upon a categorical exclusion 

has been prepared and is available for 

public review with the other supporting 

documents for this proposed rule. 

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive 

Order 13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition of Executive 

Order 13211. This rule is administrative 

in nature and affects the BLM’s internal 

procedures. There would be no impact 

on the development of energy on public 

lands. A statement of Energy Effects is 

not required. 

Author 

The principal authors of this rule are 

Kerry Rodgers and Shasta Ferranto of 

the Division of Decision Support, 

Planning and NEPA, Washington Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior. They were 

assisted by Charles Yudson of the 

Division of Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of the 

Interior. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coal, Environmental impact 

statements, Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Public 

lands, State and local governments. 

Dated: February 9, 2016. 

Janice M. Schneider, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

43 CFR Chapter II 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Bureau of Land 

Management proposes to amend 43 CFR 

by revising part 1600 to read as follows: 

PART 1600—PLANNING, 

PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING 

Subpart 1601—Planning 

Sec. 

1601.0–1 Purpose. 

1601.0–2 Objective. 

1601.0–3 Authority. 

1601.0–4 Responsibilities. 

1601.0–5 Definitions. 

1601.0–6 Environmental impact statement 

policy. 

1601.0–7 Scope. 

1601.0–8 Principles. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9725 

Subpart 1610—Resource Management 

Planning 

1610.1 Resource management planning 

framework. 

1610.1–1 Guidance and general 

requirements. 

1610.1–2 Plan components. 

1610.2 Public involvement. 

1610.2–1 Public notice. 

1610.2–2 Public comment periods. 

1610.2–3 Availability of the resource 

management plan. 

1610.3 Coordination with other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes. 

1610.3–1 Coordination of planning efforts. 

1610.3–2 Consistency requirements. 

1610.4 Planning assessment. 

1610.5 Preparation of a resource 

management plan. 

1610.5–1 Identification of planning issues. 

1610.5–2 Formulation of resource 

management alternatives. 

1610.5–3 Estimation of effects of 

alternatives. 

1610.5–4 Preparation of the draft resource 

management plan and selection of 

preferred alternatives. 

1610.5–5 Selection of the proposed 

resource management plan and 

preparation of implementation strategies. 

1610.6 Resource management plan 

approval, implementation and 

modification. 

1610.6–1 Resource management plan 

approval and implementation. 

1610.6–2 Protest procedures. 

1610.6–3 Conformity and implementation. 

1610.6–4 Monitoring and evaluation. 

1610.6–5 Maintenance. 

1610.6–6 Amendment. 

1610.6–7 Revision. 

1610.7 Management decision review by 

Congress. 

1610.8 Designation of areas. 

1610.8–1 Designation of areas unsuitable 

for surface mining. 

1610.8–2 Designation of areas of critical 

environmental concern. 

1610.9 Transition period. 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1711–1712 

Subpart 1601—Planning 

§ 1601.0–1 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

establish in regulations a process for the 

development, approval, maintenance, 

and amendment of resource 

management plans, and the use of 

existing plans for public lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). 

§ 1601.0–2 Objective. 

The objective of resource management 

planning by the BLM is to promote the 

principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield on public lands unless otherwise 

provided by law, ensure participation 

by the public, State and local 

governments, Indian tribes and Federal 

agencies in the development of resource 

management plans, and ensure that the 

public lands be managed in a manner 

that will protect the quality of scientific, 

scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological 

values; that, where appropriate, will 

preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; that 

will provide food and habitat for fish 

and wildlife and domestic animals; that 

will provide for outdoor recreation and 

human occupancy and use, and which 

recognizes the Nation’s need for 

domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber, and fiber from the public lands. 

§ 1601.0–3 Authority. 

These regulations are issued under 

the authority of sections 201 and 202 of 

the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1711–1712); the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

1901); section 3 of the Federal Coal 

Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 

U.S.C. 201(a)); sections 522, 601, and 

714 of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.); and the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). 

§ 1601.0–4 Responsibilities. 

(a) The Secretary and the Director 

provide national level policy and 

procedure guidance for planning. The 

Director determines the deciding official 

and the planning area for the 

preparation of each resource 

management plan. The Director also 

determines the deciding official and the 

planning area for plan amendments that 

cross State boundaries. 

(b) Deciding officials provide quality 

control and supervisory review, 

including approval, for the preparation 

and amendment of resource 

management plans and related 

environmental impact statements or 

environmental assessments. The 

deciding official determines the 

planning area for plan amendments that 

do not cross State boundaries. 

(c) Responsible officials prepare 

resource management plans and plan 

amendments and related environmental 

impact statements or environmental 

assessments. 

§ 1601.0–5 Definitions. 

As used in this part, the term: 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern or ACEC means areas within 

the public lands where special 

management attention is required (when 

such areas are developed or used or 

where no development is required) to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage 

to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or 

other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural 

hazards. 

Conformity or conformance means 

that a resource management action will 

be clearly consistent with the plan 

components of the approved resource 

management plan. 

Cooperating agency means an eligible 

governmental entity (see 43 CFR 

46.225(a)) that has entered into an 

agreement with the BLM to participate 

in the development of an environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment as a cooperating agency 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act and in the planning process 

as described in § 1610.3–1 of this part. 

The BLM and the cooperating agency 

will work together under the terms of 

the agreement. Cooperating agencies 

will participate in the various steps of 

the BLM’s planning process as feasible 

and appropriate, given the scope of their 

expertise and constraints of their 

resources. 

Deciding official means the BLM 

official who is delegated the authority to 

approve a resource management plan or 

plan amendment. 

High quality information means any 

representation of knowledge such as 

facts or data, including the best 

available scientific information, which 

is accurate, reliable, and unbiased, is 

not compromised through corruption or 

falsification, and is useful to its 

intended users. 

Implementation strategies means 

strategies that assist in implementing 

future actions consistent with the plan 

components of the approved resource 

management plan. An implementation 

strategy is not a plan component. 

Indian tribe means an Indian tribe 

under section 102 of the Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). 

Local government means any political 

subdivision of the State and any general 

purpose unit of local government with 

resource planning, resource 

management, zoning, or land use 

regulatory authority. 

Mitigation means the sequence of 

avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, 

and compensating for remaining 

unavoidable impacts. 

Multiple use means the management 

of the public lands and their various 

resource values so that they are utilized 

in the combination that will best meet 

the present and future needs of the 

American people; making the most 

judicious use of the lands for some or 

all of these resources or related services 

over areas large enough to provide 

sufficient latitude for periodic 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9726 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions; the use 

of some lands for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced 

and diverse resource uses that takes into 

account the long term needs of future 

generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, 

minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, 

and natural scenic, scientific and 

historical values; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the 

lands and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the 

resources and not necessarily to the 

combination of uses that will give the 

greatest economic return or the greatest 

unit output. 

Officially approved and adopted land 

use plans means land use plans 

prepared and approved by other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes pursuant to and in 

accordance with authorization provided 

by Federal, State, or local constitutions, 

legislation, or charters which have the 

force and effect of State law. 

Plan amendment means an 

amendment to an approved resource 

management plan or management 

framework plan (see § 1610.6–6). 

Plan components means the elements 

of a resource management with which 

future management actions will be 

consistent. 

Plan maintenance means minor 

change(s) to an approved resource 

management plan to correct 

typographical or mapping errors or to 

reflect minor changes in mapping or 

data (see § 1610.6–5). 

Plan revision means a revision of an 

approved resource management plan 

that affects the entire resource 

management plan or major portions of 

the resource management plan (see 

§ 1610.6–7). Preparation or development 

of a resource management plan includes 

plan revisions. 

Planning area means the geographic 

area for the preparation or amendment 

of a resource management plan. 

Planning assessment means an 

evaluation of relevant resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic conditions in the planning 

area. A planning assessment is 

developed to inform the preparation 

and, as appropriate, the implementation 

of a resource management plan. 

Planning issue means disputes, 

controversies, or opportunities related 

to resource management. 

Public means affected or interested 

individuals, including consumer 

organizations, public land resource 

users, corporations and other business 

entities, environmental organizations 

and other special interest groups, and 

officials of State, local, and Indian tribal 

governments. 

Public lands means any lands or 

interest in lands owned by the United 

States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the 

BLM. Public lands do not include lands 

located on the Outer Continental Shelf 

and lands held for the benefit of 

Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Resource management plan means a 

land use plan as described under 

section 202 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 

including plan revisions. Approval of a 

resource management plan is not a final 

implementation decision on actions 

which require further specific plans, 

process steps, or decisions under 

specific provisions of law and 

regulations. 

Responsible official means a BLM 

official who is delegated the authority to 

prepare a resource management plan or 

plan amendment. 

Sustained yield means the 

achievement and maintenance in 

perpetuity of a high-level annual or 

regular periodic output of the various 

renewable resources of the public lands 

consistent with multiple use. 

§ 1601.0–6 Environmental impact 

statement policy. 

Approval of a resource management 

plan is considered a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. The 

environmental analysis of alternatives 

and the proposed resource management 

plan will be accomplished as part of the 

resource management planning process 

and, wherever possible, the proposed 

resource management plan will be 

published in a single document with the 

related environmental impact statement. 

§ 1601.0–7 Scope. 

(a) These regulations apply to all 

public lands. 

(b) These regulations also govern the 

preparation of resource management 

plans when the only public land interest 

is the mineral estate. 

§ 1601.0–8 Principles. 

The development, approval, 

maintenance, amendment, and revision 

of resource management plans will 

provide for public involvement and will 

be consistent with the principles 

described in section 202 of FLPMA. 

Additionally, the BLM will consider the 

impacts of resource management plans 

on resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic conditions at 

appropriate scales. The BLM also will 

consider the impacts of resource 

management plans on, and the uses of, 

adjacent or nearby Federal and nonFederal lands, and non-public land 

surface over federally-owned mineral 

interests. 

Subpart 1610—Resource Management 

Planning 

§ 1610.1 Resource management planning 

framework. 

§ 1610.1–1 Guidance and general 

requirements. 

(a) Guidance for preparation and 

amendment of resource management 

plans may be provided by the Director 

and deciding official, as needed, to help 

the responsible official prepare a 

specific resource management plan. 

Such guidance may include the 

following: 

(1) Policy established through 

Presidential, Secretarial, Director, or 

deciding official approved documents, 

so long as such policy is consistent with 

the Federal laws and regulations 

applicable to public lands; and 

(2) Analysis requirements, planning 

procedures, and other written 

information and instructions required to 

be considered in the planning process. 

(b) The BLM will use a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach in the 

preparation and amendment of resource 

management plans to achieve integrated 

consideration of physical, biological, 

ecological, social, economic, and other 

sciences. The expertise of the preparers 

will be appropriate to the resource 

values involved, the issues identified 

during the issue identification and 

environmental impact statement 

scoping stage of the planning process, 

and the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield, or other applicable law. 

The responsible official may use any 

necessary combination of BLM staff, 

consultants, contractors, other 

governmental personnel, and advisors to 

achieve an interdisciplinary approach. 

(c) The BLM will use high quality 

information to inform the preparation, 

amendment, and maintenance of 

resource management plans. 

§ 1610.1–2 Plan components. 

(a) Plan components guide future 

management actions within the 

planning area. Resource management 

plans will include the following plan 

components: 

(1) Goals. A goal is a broad statement 

of desired outcomes addressing 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, or economic characteristics 

within a planning area, or a portion of 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9727 

the planning area, toward which 

management of the land and resources 

should be directed. 

(2) Objectives. An objective is a 

concise statement of desired resource 

conditions developed to guide progress 

toward one or more goals. An objective 

is specific, measurable, and should have 

established time-frames for 

achievement. To the extent practical, 

objectives should also: 

(i) Identify standards to mitigate 

undesirable effects to resource 

conditions; and 

(ii) Provide integrated consideration 

of resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic factors. 

(b) Resource management plans also 

will include the following plan 

components in order to achieve the 

goals and objectives of the resource 

management plan, or applicable legal 

requirements or policies, consistent 

with the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield or other applicable law: 

(1) Designations. A designation 

identifies areas of public land where 

management is directed toward one or 

more priority resource values or uses. 

(i) Planning designations are 

identified through the BLM’s land use 

planning process in order to achieve the 

goals and objectives of the resource 

management plan or applicable legal 

requirements or policies such as the 

designation of areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC) (see 

§ 1610.8–2). 

(ii) Non-discretionary designations are 

designated by the President, Congress, 

or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant 

to other legal authorities. 

(2) Resource use determinations. A 

resource use determination identifies 

areas of public lands or mineral estate 

where specific uses are excluded, 

restricted, or allowed, in order to 

achieve the goals and objectives of the 

resource management plan or applicable 

legal requirements or policies. 

(3) Monitoring and evaluation 

standards. Monitoring and evaluation 

standards identify indicators and 

intervals for monitoring and evaluation 

to determine whether the resource 

management plan objectives are being 

met or there is relevant new information 

that may warrant amendment or 

revision of the resource management 

plan. 

(4) Lands identified as available for 

disposal from BLM administration 

under section 203 of FLPMA, as 

applicable. 

(c) A plan component may only be 

changed through a resource 

management plan amendment or 

revision, except to correct typographical 

or mapping errors or to reflect minor 

changes in data. 

§ 1610.1–3 Implementation strategies. 

(a) A resource management plan may 

also include, but is not limited to, the 

following types of implementation 

strategies: 

(1) Management measures. A 

management measure is one or more 

potential action(s) the BLM may take in 

order to achieve the goals and objectives 

of the resource management plan. 

Management measures may include, but 

are not limited to, resource management 

practices, best management practices, 

standard operating procedures, 

provision for the preparation of more 

detailed and specific plans, or other 

measures as appropriate; 

(2) Monitoring procedures. Monitoring 

procedures describe methods for 

monitoring the resource management 

plan (see § 1610.6–4 of this part). 

(b) Implementation strategies are not 

a plan component. Implementation 

strategies are intended to assist the BLM 

to carry out the plan components. 

(c) Implementation strategies may be 

updated at any time if the BLM 

determines that relevant new 

information is available. Updates to an 

implementation strategy do not require 

a plan amendment or the formal public 

involvement and interagency 

coordination process described under 

§§ 1610.2 and 1610.3. The BLM will 

make updates to an implementation 

strategy available for public review at 

least 30 days prior to their 

implementation. 

§ 1610.2 Public involvement. 

(a) The BLM will provide the public 

with opportunities to become 

meaningfully involved in and comment 

on the preparation and amendment of 

resource management plans. Public 

involvement in the resource 

management planning process will 

conform to the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

associated implementing regulations. 

(b) Public involvement activities 

conducted by the BLM will be 

documented by a record or summary of 

the principal issues discussed and 

comments made. The record or 

summary of the principal issues 

discussed and comments made will be 

available to the public and open for 30 

days to any participant who wishes to 

review the record or summary. 

(c) Before the close of each fiscal year, 

the BLM will post the status of each 

resource management plan in process of 

preparation or scheduled to be started to 

the BLM’s Web site. 

§ 1610.2–1 Public notice. 

(a) When the BLM prepares a resource 

management plan or amends a resource 

management plan and prepares an 

environmental impact statement to 

inform the amendment, the BLM will 

notify the public and provide 

opportunities for public involvement 

appropriate to the areas and people 

involved during the following steps in 

the planning process: 

(1) Preparation of the planning 

assessment, as appropriate (see 

§ 1610.4); 

(2) Identification of planning issues 

(see § 1610.5–1); 

(3) Review of the preliminary resource 

management alternatives and 

preliminary rationale for alternatives 

(see § 1610.5–2(c)); 

(4) Review of the basis for analysis 

(see § 1610.5–3(a)(1)); 

(5) Comment on the draft resource 

management plan (see § 1610.5–4); and 

(6) Protest of the proposed resource 

management plan (see §§ 1610.5–5 and 

1610.6–2). 

(b) When the BLM amends a resource 

management plan and prepares an 

environmental assessment to inform the 

amendment, the BLM will notify the 

public and provide opportunities for 

public involvement appropriate to the 

areas and people involved during the 

following steps in the planning process: 

(1) Identification of planning issues 

(see § 1610.6–6(a)); 

(2) Comment on the draft resource 

management plan amendment, as 

appropriate (see § 1610.6–6(a)); and 

(3) Protest of the proposed resource 

management plan amendment (see 

§§ 1610.5–5 and 1610.6–2). 

(c) The BLM will announce 

opportunities for public involvement by 

posting a notice on the BLM’s Web site, 

at all BLM offices within the planning 

area, and at other public locations, as 

appropriate. 

(d) Individuals or groups may request 

to be notified of opportunities for public 

involvement related to the preparation 

or amendment of a resource 

management plan. The BLM will notify 

those individuals or groups through 

written or electronic means. 

(e) The BLM will notify the public at 

least 15 days before any public 

involvement activities where the public 

is invited to attend, such as a public 

meeting. 

(f) When initiating the identification 

of planning issues (see § 1610.5–1), in 

addition to the public notification 

requirements of §§ 1610.2–1(c) and 

1610.2–1(d), the BLM will notify the 

public as follows: 

(1) When the BLM initiates the 

preparation of a plan amendment and 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9728 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

an environmental assessment will be 

prepared to inform the amendment, the 

BLM will publish a notice in 

appropriate media, including 

newspapers of general circulation in the 

planning area. 

(2) When the BLM initiates the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan, or a plan amendment and an 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared to inform the amendment, the 

BLM will also publish a notice of intent 

in the Federal Register. This notice may 

also constitute the scoping notice 

required by regulation for the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1501.7). 

(3) This notice will include the 

following: 

(i) Description of the proposed 

planning action; 

(ii) Identification of the geographic 

area for which the resource management 

plan is to be prepared; 

(iii) The general types of issues 

anticipated; 

(iv) The expertise to be represented 

and used to prepare the resource 

management plan, in order to achieve 

an interdisciplinary approach (see 

§ 1610.1–1(b)); 

(v) The kind and extent of public 

involvement opportunities to be 

provided, as known at the time; 

(vi) The times, dates, and locations 

scheduled or anticipated for any public 

meetings, hearings, conferences, or 

other gatherings, as known at the time; 

(vii) The name, title, address, and 

telephone number of the BLM official 

who may be contacted for further 

information; and 

(viii) The location and availability of 

documents relevant to the planning 

process. 

(g) If, after publication of a proposed 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment, the BLM intends to select 

an alternative that is encompassed by 

the range of alternatives in the final 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment, but is 

substantially different than the 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment, the BLM will notify 

the public and request written 

comments on the change before the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment is approved (see § 1610.6– 

1(b)). 

(h) The BLM will notify the public 

when a resource management plan or 

plan amendment has been approved. 

(i) When changes are made to an 

approved resource management plan 

through plan maintenance, the BLM 

will notify the public and make the 

changes available for public review at 

least 30 days prior to their 

implementation. 

(j) When changes are made to an 

implementation strategy, the BLM will 

notify the public and make the changes 

available for public review at least 30 

days prior to their implementation. 

§ 1610.2–2 Public comment periods. 

(a) Any time the BLM requests written 

comments during the preparation or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan, the BLM will notify the public and 

provide for at least 30 calendar days for 

response, unless a longer period is 

required by law or regulation. 

(b) When requesting written 

comments on a draft plan amendment 

and an environmental impact statement 

is prepared to inform the amendment, 

the BLM will provide at least 45 

calendar days for response. The 45-day 

period begins when the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes a notice of 

availability of the draft environmental 

impact statement in the Federal 

Register. 

(c) When requesting written 

comments on a draft resource 

management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement, the 

BLM will provide at least 60 calendar 

days for response. The 60-day period 

begins when the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes a notice of 

availability of the draft environmental 

impact statement in the Federal 

Register. 

§ 1610.2–3 Availability of the resource 

management plan. 

(a) The BLM will make copies of the 

draft, proposed, and approved resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

reasonably available to the public. At a 

minimum, the BLM will make copies of 

these documents available electronically 

and at all BLM offices within the 

planning area. 

(b) Upon request, the BLM will make 

single printed copies of the draft or 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment available to individual 

members of the public during the public 

involvement process. After the BLM 

approves a resource management plan 

or plan amendment, the BLM may 

charge a fee for additional printed 

copies. Fees for reproducing requested 

documents beyond those used as part of 

the public involvement activities and 

other than single printed copies of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment may be charged according 

to the Department of the Interior 

schedule for Freedom of Information 

Act requests in 43 CFR part 2. 

§ 1610.3 Coordination with other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, and 

Indian tribes. 

§ 1610.3–1 Coordination of planning 

efforts. 

(a) Objectives of coordination. In 

addition to the public involvement 

prescribed by § 1610.2, and to the extent 

consistent with Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations, the 

following coordination is to be 

accomplished with other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes. The objectives of this 

coordination are for the BLM to: 

(1) Keep apprised of non-BLM plans; 

(2) Assure that the BLM considers 

those plans that are germane in the 

development of resource management 

plans for public lands; 

(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent 

practical, inconsistencies between 

Federal and non-Federal government 

plans; 

(4) Provide for meaningful public 

involvement of other Federal agencies, 

State and local government officials, 

both elected and appointed, and Indian 

tribes, in the development of resource 

management plans, including early 

notice of final decisions that may have 

a significant impact on non-Federal 

lands; and 

(5) Where possible and appropriate, 

develop resource management plans 

collaboratively with cooperating 

agencies. 

(b) Cooperating agencies. When 

preparing a resource management plan, 

the responsible official will follow 

applicable regulations regarding the 

invitation of eligible governmental 

entities (see 43 CFR 46.225) to 

participate as cooperating agencies. The 

same requirement applies when the 

BLM amends a resource management 

plan and prepares an environmental 

impact statement to inform the 

amendment. 

(1) When a cooperating agency is a 

non-Federal agency, a memorandum of 

understanding will be used and will 

include a commitment to maintain the 

confidentiality of documents and 

deliberations during the period prior to 

the public release by the BLM of any 

documents, including drafts (see 43 CFR 

46.225(d)). 

(2) The responsible official will 

collaborate with cooperating agencies, 

as feasible and appropriate given their 

interests, scope of expertise and the 

constraints of their resources, during the 

following steps in the planning process: 

(i) Preparation of the planning 

assessment (see § 1610.4); 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9729 

(ii) Identification of planning issues 

(see § 1610.5–1); 

(iii) Formulation of resource 

management alternatives (see § 1610.5– 

2); 

(iv) Estimation of effects of 

alternatives (see § 1610.5–3); 

(v) Preparation of the draft resource 

management plan (see § 1610.5–4); and 

(vi) Preparation of the proposed 

resource management plan and 

implementation strategies (see § 1610.5– 

5). 

(c) Coordination requirements. The 

BLM will provide Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, and Indian 

tribes opportunity for review, advice, 

and suggestion on issues and topics 

which may affect or influence other 

agency or other government programs. 

(1) To facilitate coordination with 

State governments, deciding officials 

should seek the input of the Governor(s) 

on the timing, scope, and coordination 

of resource management planning; 

definition of planning areas; scheduling 

of public involvement activities; and 

resource management opportunities and 

constraints on public lands. 

(2) Deciding officials may seek written 

agreements with Governors or their 

designated representatives on processes 

and procedural topics such as 

exchanging information, providing 

advice and participation, and 

timeframes for receiving State 

government participation and review in 

a timely fashion. If an agreement is not 

reached, the deciding official will 

provide opportunity for Governor and 

State agency review, advice, and 

suggestions on issues and topics that the 

deciding official has reason to believe 

could affect or influence State 

government programs. 

(3) The responsible official will notify 

relevant State agencies of opportunities 

for public involvement in the 

preparation and amendment of resource 

management plans consistent with State 

procedures for coordination of Federal 

activities for circulation among State 

agencies, if such procedures exist. The 

responsible official also will notify 

Federal agencies, the elected heads of 

county boards, other local government 

units, and elected government officials 

of Indian tribes that have requested to 

be notified or that the responsible 

official has reason to believe would be 

interested in the resource management 

plan or plan amendment. These notices 

will be issued simultaneously with the 

public notices required under § 1610.2– 

1 of this part. 

(4) The BLM will provide Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes the time period 

prescribed under § 1610.2 of this part 

for review and comment on resource 

management plans and plan 

amendments. 

(d) Resource advisory councils. When 

an advisory council has been formed 

under section 309 of FLPMA for the area 

addressed in a resource management 

plan or plan amendment, the BLM will 

inform that council, seek its views, and 

consider them throughout the planning 

process. 

§ 1610.3–2 Consistency requirements. 

(a) Resource management plans will 

be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted land use plans of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes to the maximum 

extent the BLM finds practical and 

consistent with the purposes of FLPMA 

and other Federal law and regulations 

applicable to public lands, and the 

purposes, policies and programs of such 

laws and regulations. 

(1) The BLM will, to the extent 

practical, keep apprised of officially 

approved and adopted land use plans of 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes and give consideration to those 

plans that are germane in the 

development of resource management 

plans. 

(2) The BLM is not required to 

address the consistency requirements of 

this section if the responsible official 

has not been notified, in writing, by 

State and local governments or Indian 

tribes of an apparent inconsistency. 

(3) If a Federal agency, State and local 

government, or Indian tribe notifies the 

responsible official, in writing, of what 

they believe to be specific 

inconsistencies between the BLM 

resource management plan and their 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans, the resource management 

plan documentation will show how 

those inconsistencies were addressed 

and, if possible, resolved. 

(4) Where the officially approved and 

adopted land use plans of State and 

local government differ from each other, 

those of the higher authority will 

normally be followed. 

(b) Governor’s consistency review. 

Prior to the approval of a proposed 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment, the deciding official will 

submit to the Governor of the State(s) 

involved, the proposed resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

and will identify any relevant known 

inconsistencies with the officially 

approved and adopted land use plans of 

State and local governments. 

(1) The Governor(s) may submit a 

written document to the deciding 

official within 60 days after receiving 

the proposed resource management plan 

or plan amendment that: 

(i) Identifies inconsistencies with 

officially approved and adopted land 

use plans of State and local 

governments and provides 

recommendations to remedy the 

identified inconsistencies; or 

(ii) Waives or reduces the 60-day 

period. 

(2) If the Governor(s) does not 

respond within the 60-day period, the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment is presumed to be 

consistent. 

(3) If the document submitted by the 

Governor(s) recommends substantive 

changes that were not considered during 

the public involvement process, the 

BLM will notify the public and request 

written comments on these changes. 

(4) The deciding official will notify 

the Governor(s) in writing of his or her 

decision regarding these 

recommendations and the reasons for 

this decision. 

(i) The Governor(s) may submit a 

written appeal to the Director within 30 

days after receiving the deciding 

official’s decision. 

(ii) The Director will consider the 

Governor(s)’ comments in rendering a 

final decision. The Director will notify 

the Governor(s) in writing of his or her 

decision regarding the Governor’s 

appeal. The BLM will notify the public 

of this decision and make the written 

decision available to the public. 

§ 1610.4 Planning assessment. 

Before initiating the preparation of a 

resource management plan the BLM 

will, consistent with the nature, scope, 

scale, and timing of the planning effort, 

complete a planning assessment. 

(a) Information gathering. The 

responsible official will: 

(1) Arrange for relevant resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, 

economic, and institutional data and 

information to be gathered, or 

assembled if already available, 

including the identification of potential 

ACECs (see § 1610.8–2). Inventory data 

and information will be gathered in a 

manner that aids the planning process 

and avoids unnecessary data-gathering; 

(2) Identify relevant national, 

regional, or local policies, guidance, 

strategies or plans for consideration in 

the planning assessment. These may 

include, but are not limited to, 

executive or Secretarial orders, 

Departmental or BLM policy, Director or 

deciding official guidance, mitigation 

strategies, interagency initiatives, and 

State or multi-state resource plans; 

(3) Provide opportunities for other 

Federal agencies, State and local 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9730 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

governments, Indian tribes, and the 

public to provide existing data and 

information or suggest other policies, 

guidance, strategies, or plans described 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 

for the BLM’s consideration in the 

planning assessment; and 

(4) Identify relevant public views 

concerning resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, or economic 

conditions of the planning area. 

(b) Information quality. The 

responsible official will evaluate the 

data and information gathered under 

paragraph (a) of this section to 

determine if it is high quality 

information appropriate for use in the 

planning assessment and to identify any 

data gaps or further information needs. 

(c) Assessment. The responsible 

official will assess the resource, 

environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic conditions of the planning 

area. At a minimum, the responsible 

official will consider and document the 

following factors in this assessment 

when they are applicable: 

(1) Resource management authorized 

by FLPMA and other relevant 

authorities; 

(2) Land status and ownership, 

existing resource uses, infrastructure, 

and access patterns in the planning area; 

(3) Current resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic 

conditions, and any known trends 

related to these conditions; 

(4) Known resource thresholds, 

constraints, or limitations; 

(5) Areas of potential importance 

within the planning area, including: 

(i) Areas of tribal, traditional, or 

cultural importance; 

(ii) Habitat for special status species, 

including State and/or federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species; 

(iii) Other areas of key fish and 

wildlife habitat such as big game 

wintering and summer areas, bird 

nesting and feeding areas, habitat 

connectivity or wildlife migration 

corridors, and areas of large and intact 

habitat; 

(iv) Areas of ecological importance, 

such as areas that increase the ability of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

within the planning area to adapt to, 

resist, or recover from change; 

(v) Lands with wilderness 

characteristics, candidate wild and 

scenic rivers, or areas of significant 

scenic value; 

(vi) Areas of significant historical 

value, including paleontological sites; 

(vii) Existing designations located in 

the planning area, such as wilderness, 

wilderness study areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, national scenic or historic trails, 

or ACECs; 

(viii) Areas with potential for 

renewable or non-renewable energy 

development or energy transmission; 

(ix) Areas of importance for recreation 

activities or access; 

(x) Areas of importance for public 

health and safety, such as abandoned 

mine lands or natural hazards; 

(6) Dominant ecological processes, 

disturbance regimes, and stressors, such 

as drought, wildland fire, invasive 

species, and climate change; and 

(7) The various goods and services, 

including ecological services, that 

people obtain from the planning area 

such as: 

(i) The degree of local, regional, 

national, or international importance of 

these goods and services; 

(ii) Available forecasts and analyses 

related to the supply and demand for 

these goods and services; and 

(iii) The estimated levels of these 

goods and services that may be 

produced on a sustained yield basis. 

(d) Planning assessment report. The 

responsible official will document the 

planning assessment in a report made 

available for public review, which 

includes the identification and rationale 

for potential ACECs. To the extent 

practical, any non-sensitive geospatial 

information used in the planning 

assessment should be made available to 

the public on the BLM’s Web site. 

(e) Plan amendments. Before 

initiating the preparation of a plan 

amendment for which an environmental 

impact statement will be prepared, the 

BLM will complete a planning 

assessment for the geographic area being 

considered for amendment. The 

deciding official may waive this 

requirement for minor amendments or if 

an existing planning assessment is 

determined to be adequate. 

§ 1610.5 Preparation of a resource 

management plan. 

When preparing a resource 

management plan, or a plan amendment 

for which an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared, the BLM 

will follow the process described in 

§§ 1610.5–1 through 1610.5–7. 

§ 1610.5–1 Identification of planning 

issues. 

(a) The responsible official will 

prepare a preliminary statement of 

purpose and need, which briefly 

indicates the underlying purpose and 

need to which the BLM is responding 

(see 43 CFR 46.420). This statement will 

be informed by Director and deciding 

official guidance (see § 1610.1–1(a)), 

public views (see § 1610.4(a)(4)), the 

planning assessment (see § 1610.4(c)), 

the results of any previous monitoring 

and evaluation within the planning area 

(see § 1610.6–4), Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes, policies, and 

programs of such laws and regulations. 

The BLM will initiate the identification 

of planning issues by notifying the 

public and making the preliminary 

statement of purpose and need available 

for public review. 

(b) The public, other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, and Indian 

tribes will be given an opportunity to 

suggest concerns, needs, opportunities, 

conflicts or constraints related to 

resource management for consideration 

in the preparation of the resource 

management plan. The responsible 

official will analyze those suggestions 

and other available data and 

information, such as the planning 

assessment (see § 1610.4–1), and 

determine the planning issues to be 

addressed during the planning process. 

Planning issues may be modified during 

the planning process to incorporate new 

information. The identification of 

planning issues should be integrated 

with the scoping process required by 

regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1501.7). 

§ 1610.5–2 Formulation of resource 

management alternatives. 

(a) Alternatives development. The 

BLM will consider all reasonable 

resource management alternatives 

(alternatives) and develop several 

complete alternatives for detailed study. 

The decision to designate alternatives 

for further development and analysis 

remains the exclusive responsibility of 

the BLM. 

(1) The alternatives developed will be 

informed by the Director and deciding 

official guidance (see § 1610.1(a)), the 

planning assessment (see § 1610.4), and 

the planning issues (see § 1610.5–1). 

(2) In order to limit the total number 

of alternatives analyzed in detail to a 

manageable number for presentation 

and analysis, reasonable variations may 

be treated as sub-alternatives. 

(3) One alternative will be for no 

action, which means continuation of 

present level or systems of resource 

management. 

(4) The resource management plan 

will note any alternatives identified and 

eliminated from detailed study and will 

briefly discuss the reasons for their 

elimination. 

(b) Rationale for alternatives. The 

resource management plan will describe 

the rationale for the differences between 

alternatives. The rationale will include: 

(1) A description of how each 

alternative addresses the planning 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9731 

issues, consistent with the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield, or 

other applicable law; 

(2) A description of management 

direction that is common to all 

alternatives; and 

(3) A description of how management 

direction varies across alternatives to 

address the planning issues. 

(c) Public review of preliminary 

alternatives. The responsible official 

will make the preliminary alternatives 

and the preliminary rationale for 

alternatives available for public review 

prior to the publication of the draft 

resource management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement. 

(d) Changes to preliminary 

alternatives. The BLM may change the 

preliminary alternatives and 

preliminary rationale for alternatives as 

planning proceeds if it determines that 

public suggestions or other new 

information make such changes 

necessary. 

§ 1610.5–3 Estimation of effects of 

alternatives. 

(a) Basis for analysis. The responsible 

official will identify the procedures, 

assumptions, and indicators that will be 

used to estimate the environmental, 

ecological, social, and economic effects 

of implementing each alternative 

considered in detail. 

(1) The responsible official will make 

the preliminary procedures, 

assumptions, and indicators available 

for public review prior to the 

publication of the draft resource 

management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement. 

(2) The BLM may change the 

procedures, assumptions, and indicators 

as planning proceeds if it determines 

that public suggestions or other new 

information make such changes 

necessary. 

(b) Effects analysis. The responsible 

official will estimate and display the 

environmental, ecological, economic, 

and social effects of implementing each 

alternative considered in detail. The 

estimation of effects will be guided by 

the basis for analysis, the planning 

assessment, and procedures 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The estimate 

may be stated in terms of probable 

ranges where effects cannot be precisely 

determined. 

§ 1610.5–4 Preparation of the draft 

resource management plan and selection of 

preferred alternatives. 

(a) The responsible official will 

prepare a draft resource management 

plan based on Director and deciding 

official guidance, the planning 

assessment, the planning issues, and the 

estimation of the effects of alternatives. 

The draft resource management plan 

and draft environmental impact 

statement will evaluate the alternatives, 

identify one or more preferred 

alternatives, and explain the rationale 

for the preference. The decision to select 

a preferred alternative remains the 

exclusive responsibility of the BLM. The 

resulting draft resource management 

plan and draft environmental impact 

statement will be forwarded to the 

deciding official for publication and 

filing with the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

(b) This draft resource management 

plan and draft environmental impact 

statement will be provided for comment 

to the Governor(s) of the State(s) 

involved, and to officials of other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes that the 

deciding official has reason to believe 

would be interested (see § 1610.3–1(c)). 

This action constitutes compliance with 

the requirements of § 3420.1–7 of this 

title. 

§ 1610.5–5 Selection of the proposed 

resource management plan and preparation 

of implementation strategies. 

(a) After publication of the draft 

resource management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement, the 

responsible official will evaluate the 

comments received and prepare the 

proposed resource management plan 

and final environmental impact 

statement. 

(b) The responsible official will 

prepare implementation strategies for 

the proposed resource management 

plan, as appropriate. 

(c) The deciding official will publish 

these documents and file the final 

environmental impact statement with 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

§ 1610.6 Resource management plan 

approval, implementation and modification. 

§ 1610.6–1 Resource management plan 

approval and implementation. 

(a) The deciding official may approve 

the resource management plan or plan 

amendment for which an environmental 

impact statement was prepared no 

earlier than 30 days after the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes a notice of availability of the 

final environmental impact statement in 

the Federal Register. 

(b) Approval will be withheld on any 

portion of a resource management plan 

or plan amendment being protested (see 

§ 1610.6–2) until final action has been 

completed on such protest. If, after 

publication of a proposed resource 

management plan or plan amendment, 

the BLM intends to select an alternative 

that is encompassed by the range of 

alternatives in the final environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment, but is substantially different 

than the proposed resource management 

plan or plan amendment, the BLM will 

notify the public and request written 

comments on the change before the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment is approved. 

(c) The approval of a resource 

management plan or a plan amendment 

for which an environmental impact 

statement is prepared will be 

documented in a concise public record 

of the decision (see 40 CFR 1505.2). 

§ 1610.6–2 Protest procedures. 

(a) Any person who participated in 

the preparation of the resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

and has an interest which may be 

adversely affected by the approval of a 

proposed resource management plan or 

plan amendment may protest such 

approval. A protest may raise only those 

issues which were submitted for the 

record during the preparation of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment (see §§ 1610.4 and 1610.5). 

(1) Submission. The protest must be 

in writing and must be filed with the 

Director. The protest may be filed as a 

hard-copy or electronically. The 

responsible official will specify protest 

filing procedures for each resource 

management plan or plan amendment, 

including the method the public may 

use to submit a protest electronically. 

(2) Timing. For resource management 

plans or plan amendments for which an 

environmental impact statement was 

prepared, the protest must be filed 

within 30 days after the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published the notice of availability of 

the final environmental impact 

statement in the Federal Register. For 

plan amendments for which an 

environmental assessment was 

prepared, the protest must be filed 

within 30 days after the date that the 

BLM notifies the public of availability of 

the amendment. 

(3) Content requirements. The protest 

must: 

(i) Include the name, mailing address, 

telephone number, email address (if 

available), and interest of the person 

filing the protest; 

(ii) State how the protestor 

participated in the preparation of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment; 

(iii) Identify the plan component(s) 

believed to be inconsistent with Federal 

laws or regulations applicable to public 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9732 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

lands, or the purposes, policies and 

programs of such laws and regulations; 

(iv) Concisely explain why the plan 

component(s) is believed to be 

inconsistent with Federal laws or 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

or the purposes, policies, and programs 

of such laws and regulations and 

identify the associated issue or issues 

raised during the preparation of the 

resource management plan or plan 

amendment; and 

(v) Include a copy of all documents 

addressing the issue or issues that were 

submitted during the planning process 

by the protesting party or an indication 

of the date the issue or issues were 

discussed for the record. 

(4) Availability. Upon request, the 

Director will make protests available to 

the public. 

(b) Except as otherwise provided in 

§ 1610.6–1(b), the Director will render a 

written decision on all protests before 

approval of the resource management 

plan or plan amendment. The Director 

will notify protesting parties of the 

decision. The decision on the protest 

and the reasons for the decision will be 

made available to the public. The 

decision of the Director is the final 

decision of the Department of the 

Interior. 

(c) The Director may dismiss any 

protest that does not meet the 

requirements of this section. 

§ 1610.6–3 Conformity and 

implementation. 

(a) All future resource management 

authorizations and actions, and 

subsequent more detailed or specific 

planning, will conform to the plan 

components of the approved resource 

management plan. 

(b) After a resource management plan 

or plan amendment is approved, and if 

otherwise authorized by law, regulation, 

contract, permit, cooperative agreement, 

or other instrument of occupancy and 

use, the BLM will take appropriate 

measures, subject to valid existing 

rights, to make operations and activities 

under existing permits, contracts, 

cooperative agreements, or other 

instruments for occupancy and use, 

conform to the plan components of the 

approved resource management plan or 

plan amendment within a reasonable 

period of time. Any person adversely 

affected by a specific action being 

proposed to implement some portion of 

a resource management plan or plan 

amendment may appeal such action 

pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the 

specific action is proposed for 

implementation. 

(c) If a proposed action is not in 

conformance with a plan component, 

and the deciding official determines that 

such action warrants further 

consideration before a resource 

management plan revision is scheduled, 

such consideration will be through a 

resource management plan amendment 

in accordance with § 1610.6–6 of this 

part. 

(d) More detailed and site specific 

plans for coal, oil shale and tar sand 

resources will be prepared in 

accordance with specific regulations for 

those resources: part 3400 of this title 

for coal; part 3900 of this title for oil 

shale; and part 3140 of this title for tar 

sand. These activity plans will be in 

conformance with land use plans 

prepared and approved under the 

provisions of this part. 

§ 1610.6–4 Monitoring and evaluation. 

The BLM will monitor and evaluate 

the resource management plan in 

accordance with the monitoring and 

evaluation standards and monitoring 

procedures to determine whether there 

is sufficient cause to warrant 

amendment or revision of the resource 

management plan. The responsible 

official will document the evaluation of 

the resource management plan in a 

report made available for public review. 

§ 1610.6–5 Maintenance. 

Resource management plans may be 

maintained as necessary to correct 

typographical or mapping errors or to 

reflect minor changes in mapping or 

data. Maintenance will not change a 

plan component of the approved 

resource management plan, except to 

correct typographical or mapping errors 

or to reflect minor changes in mapping 

or data. Maintenance is not considered 

a resource management plan 

amendment and does not require the 

formal public involvement and 

interagency coordination process 

described under §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3 of 

this part or the preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. When 

changes are made to an approved 

resource management plan through plan 

maintenance, the BLM will notify the 

public and make the changes available 

for public review at least 30 days prior 

to their implementation. 

§ 1610.6–6 Amendment. 

(a) A plan component may be changed 

through amendment. An amendment 

may be initiated when the BLM 

determines monitoring and evaluation 

findings, new high quality information, 

new or revised policy, a proposed 

action, or other relevant changes in 

circumstances, such as changes in 

resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, or economic conditions, warrants 

a change to one or more of the plan 

components of the approved resource 

management plan. An amendment will 

be made in conjunction with an 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed change, or an environmental 

impact statement, if necessary. When 

amending a resource management plan, 

the BLM will provide for public 

involvement (see § 1610.2), interagency 

coordination and consistency (see 

§ 1610.3), and protest (see § 1610.6–2). 

In all cases, the effect of the amendment 

on other plan components will be 

evaluated. If the amendment is being 

considered in response to a specific 

proposal, the effects analysis required 

for the proposal and for the amendment 

may occur simultaneously. 

(b) If the environmental assessment 

does not disclose significant impacts, 

the responsible official may make a 

finding of no significant impact and 

then make a recommendation on the 

amendment to the deciding official for 

approval. Upon approval, the BLM will 

issue a public notice of the action taken 

on the amendment. If the amendment is 

approved, it may be implemented 30 

days after such notice. 

(c) If the BLM amends several 

resource management plans 

simultaneously, a single programmatic 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment may be 

prepared to address all amendments. 

§ 1610.6–7 Revision. 

The BLM may revise a resource 

management plan, as necessary, when 

monitoring and evaluation findings 

(§ 1610.4–9), new data, new or revised 

policy, or other relevant changes in 

circumstances affect the entire resource 

management plan or major portions of 

the resource management plan. 

Revisions will comply with all of the 

requirements of this part for preparing 

and approving a resource management 

plan. 

§ 1610.6–8 Situations where action can be 

taken based on another agency’s plan, or a 

land use analysis. 

These regulations authorize the 

preparation of a resource management 

plan for whatever public land interests 

exist in a given land area, including 

mixed ownership where the public land 

estate is under non-Federal surface, or 

administration of the land is shared by 

the BLM and another Federal agency. 

The BLM may rely on the plans or the 

land use analysis of other agencies 

when split or shared estate conditions 

exist in any of the following situations: 

(a) Another agency’s plan (Federal, 

tribal, State, or local) may be relied on 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9733 

as a basis for an action only if it is 

comprehensive and has considered the 

public land interest involved in a way 

comparable to the manner in which it 

would have been considered in a 

resource management plan, including 

the opportunity for public involvement, 

and is consistent with Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes, policies and programs 

of such laws and regulations. 

(b) After evaluation and review, the 

BLM may adopt another agency’s plan 

for continued use as a resource 

management plan so long as the plan is 

consistent with Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes, policies, and 

programs of such laws and regulations, 

and an agreement is reached between 

the BLM and the other agency to 

provide for maintenance and 

amendment of the plan, as necessary. 

(c) A land use analysis may be relied 

on to consider a coal lease when there 

is no Federal ownership interest in the 

surface or when coal resources are 

insufficient to justify plan preparation 

costs. The land use analysis process, as 

authorized by the Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendments Act, consists of an 

environmental assessment or impact 

statement, public participation as 

required by § 1610.2, the consultation 

and consistency determinations 

required by § 1610.3, the protest 

procedure prescribed by § 1610.6–2, and 

a decision on the coal lease proposal. A 

land use analysis meets the planning 

requirements of section 202 of FLPMA. 

§ 1610.7 Management decision review by 

Congress. 

FLPMA requires that any BLM 

management decision or action 

pursuant to a management decision 

which totally eliminates one or more 

principal or major uses for 2 or more 

years with respect to a tract of 100,000 

acres or more, will be reported by the 

Secretary to Congress before it can be 

implemented. This report is not 

required prior to approval of a resource 

management plan which, if fully or 

partially implemented, would result in 

such an elimination of use(s). The 

required report will be submitted as the 

first action step in implementing that 

portion of a resource management plan 

which would require elimination of 

such a use. 

§ 1610.8 Designation of areas. 

§ 1610.8–1 Designation of areas unsuitable 

for surface mining. 

(a)(1) The planning process is the 

chief process by which public land is 

reviewed to assess whether there are 

areas unsuitable for all or certain types 

of surface coal mining operations under 

section 522(b) of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act. The 

unsuitability criteria to be applied 

during the planning process are found 

in § 3461.1 of this title. 

(2) When petitions to designate land 

unsuitable under section 522(c) of the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act are referred to the BLM 

for comment, the resource management 

plan, or plan amendment if available, 

will be the basis for review. 

(3) After a resource management plan 

or plan amendment is approved in 

which lands are assessed as unsuitable, 

the BLM will take all necessary steps to 

implement the results of the 

unsuitability review as it applies to all 

or certain types of coal mining. 

(b)(1) The resource management 

planning process is the chief process by 

which public lands are reviewed for 

designation as unsuitable for entry or 

leasing for mining operations for 

minerals and materials other than coal 

under section 601 of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act. 

(2) When petitions to designate lands 

unsuitable under section 601 of the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act are received by the 

BLM, the resource management plan, if 

available, will be the basis for 

determinations for designation. 

(3) After a resource management plan 

or plan amendment in which lands are 

designated unsuitable is approved, the 

BLM will take all necessary steps to 

implement the results of the 

unsuitability review as it applies to 

minerals or materials other than coal. 

§ 1610.8–2 Designation of areas of critical 

environmental concern. 

(a) Areas having potential for ACEC 

designation and protection will be 

identified through inventory of public 

lands and during the planning 

assessment. The inventory data will be 

analyzed to determine whether there are 

areas containing resources, values, 

systems or processes, or hazards eligible 

for further consideration for designation 

as an ACEC. In order to be a potential 

ACEC, both of the following criteria 

must be met: 

(1) Relevance. There must be present 

a significant historic, cultural, or scenic 

value; a fish or wildlife resource or 

other natural system or process; or 

natural hazard; and 

(2) Importance. The value, resource, 

system, process, or hazard described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must 

have substantial significance and 

values. This generally requires qualities 

of special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A 

natural hazard can be important if it is 

a significant threat to human life or 

property. 

(b) Potential ACECs will be 

considered for designation during the 

preparation or amendment of a resource 

management plan. The identification of 

a potential ACEC does not, in of itself, 

change or prevent change of the 

management or use of public lands. 

Potential ACECs require special 

management attention (when such areas 

are developed or used or no 

development is required) to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to the 

important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources or 

other natural system or process, or to 

protect life and safety from natural 

hazards. 

(1) Upon release of a draft resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

involving a potential ACEC, the BLM 

will notify the public of each potential 

ACEC and any special management 

attention which would occur if it were 

formally designated. 

(2) The approval of a resource 

management plan or plan amendment 

that contains an ACEC constitutes 

formal designation of an ACEC. The 

approved plan will include a list of all 

designated ACECs, and include any 

special management attention identified 

to protect the designated ACECs. 

§ 1610.9 Transition period. 

(a) Until superseded by resource 

management plans, management 

framework plans may be the basis for 

considering proposed actions as follows: 

(1) The management framework plan 

must be in compliance with the 

principle of multiple use and sustained 

yield, or other applicable law, and must 

have been developed with public 

involvement and governmental 

coordination, but not necessarily 

precisely as prescribed in §§ 1610.2 and 

1610.3 of this part. 

(2) For proposed actions a 

determination will be made by the 

responsible official whether the 

proposed action is in conformance with 

the management framework plan. Such 

determination will be in writing and 

will explain the reasons for the 

determination. 

(i) If the proposed action is in 

conformance with the management 

framework plan, it may be further 

considered for decision under 

procedures applicable to that type of 

action, including the regulatory 

provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

(ii) If the proposed action is not in 

conformance with the management 

framework plan, and if the proposed 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9734 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

action warrants further consideration 

before a resource management plan is 

scheduled for preparation, such 

consideration will be through an 

amendment to the management 

framework plan under the provisions of 

§ 1610.6–6 of this part. 

(b)(1) If an action is proposed where 

public lands are not covered by a 

management framework plan or a 

resource management plan, an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement, if 

necessary, plus any other data and 

analysis deemed necessary by the BLM 

to make an informed decision, will be 

used to assess the impacts of the 

proposal and to provide a basis for a 

decision on the proposal. 

(2) A land disposal action may be 

considered before a resource 

management plan is scheduled for 

preparation, through a planning 

analysis, using the process described in 

§ 1610.6–6 of this part for amending a 

plan. 

(c)(1) When considering whether a 

proposed action is in conformance with 

a resource management plan, the BLM 

will use an existing resource 

management plan approved prior to 

April 25, 2016 until it is superseded by 

a resource management plan or plan 

amendment prepared under the 

regulations in this part. In such 

circumstances, the proposed action 

must either be specifically provided for 

in the resource management plan or 

clearly consistent with the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the 

approved plan. 

(2) If a resource management plan is 

amended by a plan amendment 

prepared under the regulations in this 

part, a future proposed action must 

either be consistent with the plan 

components of the approved resource 

management plan or the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the 

approved resource management plan. 

(d) If the preparation, revision, or 

amendment of a plan was formally 

initiated by issuance of a notice of 

intent in the Federal Register prior to 

April 25, 2016, the BLM may complete 

and approve the resource management 

plan or plan amendment pursuant to the 

requirements of this part or to the 

provisions of the planning regulations 

in 43 CFR part 1600 (revised as of 

October 1, 2015). 

[FR Doc. 2016–03232 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS