[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9674-9734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03232]



[[Page 9673]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 37

February 25, 2016

Part III





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Bureau of Land Management





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





43 CFR Part 1600





 Resource Management Planning; Proposed Rules

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

[[Page 9674]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-renewable 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: [email protected].
    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 non-
renewable energy sources, increasing conflicts between resource uses 
and conservation objectives, and landscape-scale 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 
landscape-scale 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

[[Page 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 (EIS-level 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

[[Page 9676]]

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, non-sensitive 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 9677]]

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 
sub-surface 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Council 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 9678]]

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 
multiple-use 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 up-front 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, ecosystem-based 
management approaches to

[[Page 9679]]

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 DOI-wide 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, post-fire, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 9680]]

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 science-based 
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 landscape-scale 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
    \4\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 landscape-scale 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, landscape-scale, 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 9682]]

BLM should ensure that landscape level planning does not result in 
time-consuming 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

[[Page 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 EIS-level 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 Sec.  1601.0-5) and must comply with all of the requirements 
of these regulations for preparing and approving a resource management 
plan (see proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 9684]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 (Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9686]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  1610.1-1(c)).
    Implementation strategies. We propose to add this new definition to 
describe new terminology introduced into proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-2, which 
distinguishes between ``officially approved or adopted resource related 
plans'' in existing Sec.  1610.3-2(a) and ``officially approved or 
adopted resource related policies and programs'' in existing Sec.  
1610.3-2(b), rather than combining them, such as in the existing 
definition.
    This proposed change would mean that the requirements of Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.3-2.

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-4 and 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1610.1-2 and 1610.1-3. 
``Plan components'' and ``implementation strategies'' described in 
proposed Sec.  1610.1 would replace the elements generally established 
in a resource management plan under the existing definition in Sec.  
1601.0-5(n). As discussed in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 site-specific NEPA 
analysis).
    Responsible official. This proposed new term would replace the term 
``Field

[[Page 9688]]

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 non-Federal 
lands, as well as the uses of adjacent or nearby Federal and non-
Federal 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1 would be found in 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1-1(a) contains provisions of existing Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.1-1(a)(1) contains provisions of existing Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.1-1(a)(2) contains most of the provisions found 
in existing Sec.  1610.1(a)(2) with some revisions. We propose to 
remove existing Sec.  1610.1(a)(3). This section would no longer be 
necessary because guidance developed at the deciding official level 
would be incorporated into proposed Sec.  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.

[[Page 9689]]

    We propose to remove existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1601.0-4.
    Proposed Sec.  1610.1-1(b) would contain the provisions of existing 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1-1(b). This 
change would be consistent with other changes in terminology in this 
proposed rule.
    Proposed Sec.  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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Office 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).
    \6\ U.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.
    \7\ Bureau 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The implementation strategy is available at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/advancing_science.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1601.0-5(n)). The proposed rule would revise these 
elements and divide them into ``plan components'' and ``implementation 
strategies'' (see proposed Sec.  1610.1-3). The plan components would 
provide planning-level direction with which future management 
activities and decisions must be consistent (i.e., planning-level 
management direction). Implementation strategies would provide more 
detailed

[[Page 9690]]

information to guide how the BLM intends to implement future actions 
consistent with the planning-level management direction.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-4). The approval of plan components would be 
subject to protest procedures (see proposed Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 
``non-discretionary 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 Sec.  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 site-specific 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

[[Page 9692]]

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 criteria-based 
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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. Site-specific 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 Sec.  1610.1-3(a)(2). Monitoring procedures 
would describe methods for monitoring the resource management plan, 
consistent with the monitoring standards (see proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-4.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-5).
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1-1(c). The BLM would be required to make any 
changes to implementation

[[Page 9694]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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          Level of public involvement
 the preparation of a resource -----------------------------------------
  management plan or an  EIS-        Existing
        level amendment            regulations      Proposed regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning assessment...........  1610.1: The        1610.4: The public
                                 planning           would be provided
                                 assessment would   opportunities to
                                 be a new           provide existing
                                 requirement        data or information
                                 under the          or to suggest
                                 proposed rule,     policies, guidance,
                                 and therefore is   or plans for
                                 not applicable     consideration in the
                                 to the existing    planning assessment.
                                 regulations.       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      1610.2(c) and      1610.2-1(f) and
 issues.                         1610.4-1: The      1610.5-1: Same as
                                 BLM publishes a    existing
                                 NOI in the         regulations.
                                 Federal Register
                                 and publishes a
                                 notice in
                                 appropriate
                                 local media.
                                The public is
                                 provided a
                                 minimum of 30-
                                 days to comment.

[[Page 9695]]

 
Development of planning         1610.4-2:          1610.5-2 and 1610.5-
 criteria.                       Proposed           3: Planning criteria
                                 planning           would no longer be
                                 criteria are       required under the
                                 published in a     proposed rule.
                                 NOI in the         Instead, the BLM
                                 Federal Register   would describe the
                                 and made           rationale for the
                                 available for      differences between
                                 public comment     alternatives as well
                                 through the        as the basis for
                                 scoping period     analysis.
                                 and comment on     Preliminary versions
                                 the draft          of both would be
                                 resource           made available for
                                 management plan.   public review prior
                                                    to the publication
                                                    of the draft
                                                    resource management
                                                    plan or EIS-level
                                                    amendment.
Inventory data and information  1610.4-3: No       1610.4: This step
 collection.                     opportunities      would be replaced
                                 for public         with the planning
                                 involvement are    assessment. The
                                 provided at this   public would be
                                 step.              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      1610.4-4: No       1610.4: This step
 situation.                      opportunities      would be replaced
                                 for public         with the planning
                                 involvement are    assessment. The
                                 provided at this   public would be
                                 step.              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         1610.4-5: No       1610.5-2: The
 management alternatives.        opportunities      preliminary
                                 for public         alternatives and
                                 involvement are    preliminary
                                 provided at this   rationale for
                                 step.              alternatives would
                                                    be made available
                                                    for public review
                                                    before publication
                                                    of the draft
                                                    resource management
                                                    plan or EIS-level
                                                    amendment.
Estimation of effects of        1610.4-6: No       1610.5-3: The
 alternatives.                   opportunities      preliminary
                                 for public         procedures,
                                 involvement are    assumptions, and
                                 provided at this   indicators to be
                                 step.              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        1610.4-7: No       1610.5-4: Same as
 resource management plan and    opportunities      existing
 selection of preferred          for public         regulations.
 alternatives.                   involvement are
                                 provided at this
                                 step.
Publication of the draft        1610.2(e): The     1610.2-2: When
 resource management plan.       BLM requests       requesting written
                                 public comment     comments on a draft
                                 on the draft       resource management
                                 resource           plan and draft EIS,
                                 management plan    the BLM would notify
                                 and draft EIS      the public and
                                 and provides 90    provide at least 60
                                 calendar days      calendar days for
                                 for response.      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       1610.4-8: The BLM  1610.5-5: The BLM
 resource management plan and    publishes the      would publish the
 preparation of implementation   proposed           proposed resource
 strategies.                     resource           management plan or
                                 management plan    plan amendment and
                                 and final EIS.     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  1610.6-2: The BLM
                                 provides 30        would still provide
                                 calendar days      30 calendar days for
                                 for the public     the public to
                                 to protest plan    protest plan
                                 approval. The      approval, but the
                                 public must        proposed rule would
                                 submit a hard-     describe more
                                 copy of the        specific
                                 protest to the     requirements on what
                                 BLM.               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        1610.5-1: The BLM  1610.6-1: If the BLM
 approval.                       must provide       intends to select an
                                 public notice      alternative that is
                                 and opportunity    substantially
                                 for comment on     different than the
                                 any significant    proposed resource
                                 change made to     management plan or
                                 the proposed       plan amendment, the
                                 plan before        BLM would notify the
                                 approval of the    public and request
                                 plan.              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       1610.6-4: The BLM
                                 opportunities      would document the
                                 for public         evaluation of the
                                 involvement are    resource management
                                 provided at this   plan in a report
                                 step.              made available for
                                                    public review.
Plan maintenance..............  1610.5-4: No       1610.5-4: When
                                 opportunities      changes are made to
                                 for public         an approved resource
                                 involvement are    management plan
                                 provided at this   through plan
                                 step.              maintenance, the BLM
                                                    would notify the
                                                    public and make the
                                                    changes available
                                                    for public review at
                                                    least 30 days prior
                                                    to their
                                                    implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 9696]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2(c) would 
replace existing Sec.  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 on-
the-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 Sec.  1610.2(b) would be adapted from Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.5-1) summarizing scoping meetings and written scoping comments 
under proposed Sec.  1610.2(b).
    Existing Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.2-1(f) and revised. Proposed Sec.  1610.2-1(f) will be discussed 
in the corresponding section of this analysis.

Section 1610.2-1 Public Notice

    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-1(a) contains the provisions of existing 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9697]]

(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 EA-level 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 EA-level 
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 Sec.  1610.2-2(a)).
    Proposed Sec.  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 
Sec.  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, post-office, 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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CEQ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 9698]]

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 
Sec.  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, Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-1(f)(3) outlines the information that would 
be included in the notices described in Sec.  1610.2-1(f)(1) and (2) 
and contains the provisions of existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-1(g) contain the provisions of existing Sec.  
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 Sec.  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-to-date on plans and increase transparency.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  1610.1-3(c)).
    Proposed Sec.  1610.2-2(a) through (c) would address the length of 
public comment periods and would replace most of existing Sec.  
1610.2(e). Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-2(b) describes the public comment period the 
BLM would provide for draft EIS-level amendments. Proposed Sec.  
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 EIS-level 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 Sec.  1610.2-2(c) describes the public comment period the 
BLM would provide for draft resource management plans and draft EISs. 
Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-2(c) 
would retain the existing

[[Page 9699]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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 case-specific 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NEPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Resource management
   Step in the planning process       EA-level amendments       EIS-level amendments              plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Assessment..............  The BLM would not conduct  To formally initiate the  To formally initiate the
                                    a planning assessment      planning assessment,      planning assessment,
                                    for EA-level amendments.   the BLM would post a      the BLM would post a
                                                               notice on the BLM Web     notice on the BLM Web
                                                               site and at BLM offices   site and at BLM offices
                                                               within the planning       within the planning
                                                               area, and provide         area, and provide
                                                               direct notification to    direct notification to
                                                               those who have            those who have
                                                               requested such            requested such
                                                               notification.             notification.
Plan Initiation..................  The BLM would publish a    The BLM would publish a   The BLM would publish a
                                    notice in appropriate      NOI in the Federal        NOI in the Federal
                                    local media, on the BLM    Register and would        Register and would
                                    Web site, and at BLM       publish a notice in       publish a notice in
                                    offices within the         appropriate local         appropriate local
                                    planning area, and         media, on the BLM Web     media, on the BLM Web
                                    provide direct             site, and at BLM          site, and at BLM
                                    notification to those      offices within the        offices within the
                                    who have requested such    planning area, and        planning area, and
                                    notification.              provide direct            provide direct
                                                               notification to those     notification to those
                                                               who have requested such   who have requested such
                                                               notification.             notification.
Identification of planning issues  The BLM would offer a      The BLM would offer a     The BLM would offer a
                                    minimum 30 day comment     minimum 30 day comment    minimum 30 day comment
                                    period.                    period.                   period.
Review of the preliminary          These steps would not      The BLM would post the    The BLM would post the
 alternatives, rationale for        apply to EA-level          preliminary               preliminary
 alternatives, and the basis for    amendments.                alternatives, rationale   alternatives, rationale
 analysis.                                                     for alternatives, and     for alternatives, and
                                                               the basis for analysis    the basis for analysis
                                                               on the BLM Web Site.      on the BLM Web Site.
                                                               The BLM would post        The BLM would post
                                                               notice of their           notice of their
                                                               availability on the BLM   availability on the BLM
                                                               Web site and at BLM       Web site, and at BLM
                                                               offices within the        offices within the
                                                               planning area, and        planning area, and
                                                               provide direct            provide direct
                                                               notification to those     notification to those
                                                               who have requested such   who have requested such
                                                               notification.             notification.

[[Page 9700]]

 
Comment on the draft plan or       If the BLM requests        The BLM would offer a 45  The BLM would offer a 60
 amendment.                         written comment, BLM       day comment period. The   day comment period. The
                                    would offer a minimum 30   BLM would announce the    BLM would announce the
                                    day comment period. The    start of the comment      start of the comment
                                    BLM would announce the     period by posting a       period by posting a
                                    start of the comment       notice on the BLM Web     notice on the BLM Web
                                    period by posting a        site and at BLM offices   site and at BLM offices
                                    notice on the BLM Web      within the planning       within the planning
                                    site and at BLM offices    area, and provide         area, and provide
                                    within the planning        direct notification to    direct notification to
                                    area, and provide direct   those who have            those who have
                                    notification to those      requested such            requested such
                                    who have requested such    notification. The EPA     notification. The EPA
                                    notification.              would publish an NOA in   would publish an NOA in
                                                               the Federal Register.     the Federal Register.
Protest..........................  The BLM would offer a 30   The BLM would offer a 30  The BLM would offer a 30
                                    day protest period. The    day protest period. The   day protest period. The
                                    BLM would announce the     BLM would announce the    BLM would announce the
                                    start of the protest       start of the protest      start of the protest
                                    period by posting a        period by posting a       period by posting a
                                    notice on the BLM Web      notice on the BLM Web     notice on the BLM Web
                                    site and at BLM offices    site and at BLM offices   site and at BLM offices
                                    within the planning        within the planning       within the planning
                                    area, and provide direct   area, and provide         area, and provide
                                    notification to those      direct notification to    direct notification to
                                    who have requested such    those who have            those who have
                                    notification.              requested such            requested such
                                                               notification. The EPA     notification. The EPA
                                                               would publish an NOA in   would publish an NOA in
                                                               the Federal Register.     the Federal Register.
Comment on a substantive change    The BLM would offer a 30   The BLM would offer a 30  The BLM would offer a 30
 made after release of a proposed   day comment period. The    day comment period. The   day comment period. The
 plan or amendment (i.e., if the    BLM would announce the     BLM would announce the    BLM would announce the
 BLM intends to select an           start of the comment       start of the comment      start of the comment
 alternative that is                period by posting a        period by posting a       period by posting a
 substantially different than the   notice on the BLM Web      notice on the BLM Web     notice on the BLM Web
 proposed plan or amendment).       site and at BLM offices    site and at BLM offices   site and at BLM offices
                                    within the planning        within the planning       within the planning
                                    area, and provide direct   area, and provide         area, and provide
                                    notification to those      direct notification to    direct notification to
                                    who have requested such    those who have            those who have
                                    notification.              requested such            requested such
                                                               notification.             notification.
Plan approval....................  The BLM would notify the   The BLM would notify the  The BLM would notify the
                                    public by posting a        public by posting a       public by posting a
                                    notice on the BLM Web      notice on the BLM Web     notice on the BLM Web
                                    site and at BLM offices    site and at BLM offices   site and at BLM offices
                                    within the planning        within the planning       within the planning
                                    area, and provide direct   area, and provide         area, and provide
                                    notification to those      direct notification to    direct notification to
                                    who have requested such    those who have            those who have
                                    notification.              requested such            requested such
                                                               notification.             notification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1610.2-3 Availability of the Resource Management Plan

    Proposed Sec.  1610.2-3 addresses the availability of resource 
management plans. Proposed Sec.  1610.2-3(a) would contain revised 
language from existing Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 9701]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 low-income populations in the United States (59 FR 
7629).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  1610.2-3(b) would clarify the requirements in 
existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2-3(b) would also maintain the language in 
existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 coal-related 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2(k) would also be removed in the proposed 
rule. Existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
3425.4(a)(1) and current BLM practice. Removing Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.3-1(a) to clarify that this section describes the ``objectives of 
coordination.'' The BLM proposes to amend Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 9702]]

which are defined in proposed Sec.  1601.0-5, would refer to specific 
official responsibilities.
    We propose to add language to the first sentence of proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.4). The proposed change would consolidate these 
references that are currently inserted throughout existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9703]]

``resource management planning'' because the existing language would be 
inconsistent with new terminology and definitions in the proposed rule 
(see proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.3-1(c)(3) would contain the provisions of 
existing Sec.  1610.3-1(e) and would be revised to reflect proposed 
changes to Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-1(c)(4) would contain the provisions of 
existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.3-1(f) to proposed Sec.  1610.3-2(a)(3). The existing language 
refers to consistency requirements and is therefore more appropriately 
addressed in Sec.  1610.3-2.
    Proposed Sec.  1610.3-1(d) would contain the provisions of existing 
Sec.  1610.3-1(g). We propose to add introductory language to proposed 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.3-2. The proposed changes represent a change from the existing 
regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9704]]

information, see the discussion on consistency for existing Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.3-2(a)(2) contains a provision from existing 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-2(a)(3) would contain the provisions of 
existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-2(b) contains the provisions of existing 
Sec.  1610.3-2(e). Proposed changes would provide consistency with 
edits made throughout Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1601.0-5 and 
1610.3-2(a).
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9705]]

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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.4 consists only of the section heading 
``Resource management planning process.'' This section is revised as 
follows.
    Proposed Sec.  1610.4, ``Planning assessment,'' would combine and 
revise the existing steps for inventory data and information collection 
(existing Sec.  1610.4-3) and the analysis of the management situation 
(AMS) (existing Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.4-1(a) would address ``information gathering'' 
and would replace and enhance the existing inventory data and 
information collection requirements (see existing Sec.  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

[[Page 9706]]

gathered, or assembled if it is already available, in a manner that 
aids application in the planning process. This would replace language 
in existing Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.4(d)). This would provide increased 
transparency, would help to inform the preparation of a

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 cross-boundary 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9708]]

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 non-renewable 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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/president27sclimateactionplan.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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.4-4(b)). This 
language would no longer be necessary, because proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  3420.2-3(a) of this 
title'' from the existing regulations (see existing Sec.  1610.4-4(h)) 
because it references a regulation that does not currently exist (Sec.  
3420.2-3(a)). Removing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9710]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-2(b). Existing paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section would be incorporated into proposed Sec. Sec.  
1610.4(a)(1) and 1610.5-3(a). For more information, see the discussion 
at the preamble for proposed Sec. Sec.  1610.4(a)(1), 1610.5-2(b), and 
1610.5-3(a)). The BLM also proposes to remove existing Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.4 ``Planning assessment.'' Finally, we 
propose to remove existing Sec.  1610.4-9 ``Monitoring and evaluation'' 
and incorporate many of the provisions into proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-1(b)(3) (for 
more information, see the discussion on ``cooperating agencies'' at 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9711]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-2 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 sub-alternatives.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) of this section would be based on the 
fifth sentence of existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9712]]

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 time-sensitive 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 Sec.  1610.5-3 would be based on existing Sec.  1610.4-6 
and incorporate elements of existing Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9713]]

addressed in proposed Sec.  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 site-specific 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.5-5 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6 is adapted from existing Sec.  1610.5. We 
propose to replace ``use'' with ``implementation'' in the heading to 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 9714]]

    Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section contain the provisions 
of existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-1(c) contains language from the last sentence 
of existing paragraph (b) of existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-2 contains the protest procedures found at 
existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-2(a)(1) would be split into paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (a)(2) of proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9716]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BLM, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final sentence of proposed paragraph (b) would reflect existing 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-3 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1601.0-5 and the requirements of 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-5 would be based on existing Sec.  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

[[Page 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 
planning-level 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-6 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1, which distinguish between 
plan components and implementation strategies. As explained in Sec.  
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 
Sec.  1610.2), interagency coordination and consistency (see Sec.  
1610.3), and protest procedures (see proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 9718]]

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 EIS-level 
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 Sec.  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 EIS-level 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-7 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-8 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.5-2 would be updated to 
reflect other changes under this proposed rule. No change in meaning is 
intended by updating this reference.

[[Page 9719]]

Section 1610.7 Management Decision Review by Congress

    Proposed Sec.  1610.7 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.8 would contain the provisions of existing 
Sec.  1610.7 without amendment.

Section 1610.8-1 Designation of Areas Unsuitable for Surface Mining

    Proposed Sec.  1610.8-1 would be based on existing Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.8-2 would be based on existing Sec.  1610.7-2. 
The BLM proposes revising the language throughout existing Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 EIS-level amendment, potential ACECs 
would be identified during the planning assessment (see proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  1610.7-2(b) into 
two paragraphs (proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9720]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.9 would contain the provisions of existing 
Sec.  1610.8, amended as follows. Existing provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.8(a)(2). 
This provision is no longer necessary. The BLM would instead rely on 
proposed Sec.  1610.9(a)(2) when considering proposed actions under a 
management framework plan.
    Proposed new Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 re-do 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 Sec.  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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Size standards  Size standards
                Industry                  in millions of   in number of
                                              dollars        employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming........           $0.75  ..............
Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest           11.0   ..............
 Products...............................
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                 38.5   ..............
 Operations.............................
Support Activities for Coal Mining......           20.5   ..............
Support Activities for Metal Mining.....           20.5   ..............
Support Activities for Nonmetallic                  7.5   ..............
 Minerals (except Fuels)................
Hydroelectric Power Generation..........  ..............             500
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation...  ..............             750
Solar, Wind, Geothermal Power Generation  ..............             250

[[Page 9722]]

 
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and      ..............             500
 Control................................
Electric Power Distribution.............  ..............            1000
Natural Gas Distribution................  ..............             500
Environmental Consulting Services.......           15.0   ..............
Other Amusement and Recreation                      7.5   ..............
 Industries.............................
Environment, Conservation and Wildlife             15.0   ..............
 Organizations..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 foreign-based 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 Sec.  1610.3-2(b)(1)(ii). Please see the discussion on the 
Governor's consistency review at the preamble for proposed Sec.  
1610.3-2(b)(1)(ii).
    The proposed rule could also add more opportunities for public 
involvement, including through the planning assessment (see Sec.  
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

[[Page 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 
[email protected] 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 Sec.  1610.3-2(b). This information collection 
activity is necessary for this process and for compliance with section 
202(c)(9) of FLPMA.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 9724]]

    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       Hours per     Total hours
                                                                       responses        response     (Column B x
                                                                                                       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.

[[Page 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


Sec.  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).


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.).


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 9726]]

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 non-renewable 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 non-Federal lands, and non-public land surface over 
federally-owned mineral interests.

Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning


Sec.  1610.1  Resource management planning framework.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 
Sec.  1610.4);
    (2) Identification of planning issues (see Sec.  1610.5-1);
    (3) Review of the preliminary resource management alternatives and 
preliminary rationale for alternatives (see Sec.  1610.5-2(c));
    (4) Review of the basis for analysis (see Sec.  1610.5-3(a)(1));
    (5) Comment on the draft resource management plan (see Sec.  
1610.5-4); and
    (6) Protest of the proposed resource management plan (see 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.6-6(a));
    (2) Comment on the draft resource management plan amendment, as 
appropriate (see Sec.  1610.6-6(a)); and
    (3) Protest of the proposed resource management plan amendment (see 
Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  1610.5-1), in addition to the public notification requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 9728]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  1610.3  Coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local 
governments, and Indian tribes.


Sec.  1610.3-1  Coordination of planning efforts.

    (a) Objectives of coordination. In addition to the public 
involvement prescribed by Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.4);

[[Page 9729]]

    (ii) Identification of planning issues (see Sec.  1610.5-1);
    (iii) Formulation of resource management alternatives (see Sec.  
1610.5-2);
    (iv) Estimation of effects of alternatives (see Sec.  1610.5-3);
    (v) Preparation of the draft resource management plan (see Sec.  
1610.5-4); and
    (vi) Preparation of the proposed resource management plan and 
implementation strategies (see Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 9730]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1610.5-1 through 1610.5-7.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
1610.1-1(a)), public views (see Sec.  1610.4(a)(4)), the planning 
assessment (see Sec.  1610.4(c)), the results of any previous 
monitoring and evaluation within the planning area (see Sec.  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 Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.1(a)), the planning 
assessment (see Sec.  1610.4), and the planning issues (see Sec.  
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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.3-1(c)). This 
action constitutes compliance with the requirements of Sec.  3420.1-7 
of this title.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  1610.6  Resource management plan approval, implementation and 
modification.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 9732]]

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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1610.2), interagency coordination and consistency (see Sec.  
1610.3), and protest (see Sec.  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.


Sec.  1610.6-7  Revision.

    The BLM may revise a resource management plan, as necessary, when 
monitoring and evaluation findings (Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  1610.2, the 
consultation and consistency determinations required by Sec.  1610.3, 
the protest procedure prescribed by Sec.  1610.6-2, and a decision on 
the coal lease proposal. A land use analysis meets the planning 
requirements of section 202 of FLPMA.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  1610.8  Designation of areas.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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

[[Page 9734]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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