Page 1

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

United States

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Land Use Planning Handbook

BLM Handbook H-1601-1

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

TC - 1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

A. The Purpose of This Handbook and the Need for Planning Guidance............................1

B. The Basic Planning Process .............................................................................................2

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

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

E. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies

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

F. Government-to-Government Coordination with Indian Tribes........................................9

II. Land Use Plan Decisions........................................................................................................11

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................11

B. Types of Land Use Plan Decisions ..................................................................................12

C. Geographic Areas.............................................................................................................14

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

E. Multijurisdictional Planning.............................................................................................15

F. Establishing Management Direction for Lands that May

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Making Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Specific Regulatory Requirements for Considering New

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

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

C. Deciding Whether Changes in Decisions or the Supporting

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

D. Documenting the Determination to Modify, or

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

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

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

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

H. Determining When to Update Land Use Plan Decisions

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

TC - 2

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

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

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

B. Determining When it is Necessary to Amend Plans and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources.............................................Appendix C, page 2

A. Air ......................................................................................................Appendix C, page 2

B. Soil and Water....................................................................................Appendix C, page 2

C. Vegetation ..........................................................................................Appendix C, page 3

D. Special Status Species........................................................................Appendix C, page 4

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

F. Wild Horses and Burros......................................................................Appendix C, page 7

G. Cultural Resources.............................................................................Appendix C, page 8

H. Paleontology.......................................................................................Appendix C, page 10

I. Visual Resources .................................................................................Appendix C, page 11

J. Wildland Fire Management.................................................................Appendix C, page 11

K. Wilderness Characteristics..................................................................Appendix C, page 12

L. Cave and Karst Resources..................................................................Appendix C, page 13

II. Resource Uses...........................................................................................Appendix C, page 13

A. Forestry ..............................................................................................Appendix C, page 13

B. Livestock Grazing..............................................................................Appendix C, page 14

C. Recreation and Visitor Services.........................................................Appendix C, page 15

D. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management................................Appendix C, page 17

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

TC - 3

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

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

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

Geothermal Resources…………………………………………………..Appendix C, page 23

I. Locatable Minerals ………………………………………………… Appendix C, page 24

J. Mineral Materials …………………………………………………...Appendix C, page 25

K. Non-energy Leasable Minerals...........................................................Appendix C, page 26

III. Special Designations................................................................................Appendix C, page 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in Land Use

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

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

II. Incorporating Socio-economic Information.............................................Appendix D, page 2

A. The Planning Process.........................................................................Appendix D, page 2

B. Objectives of the Analysis..................................................................Appendix D, page 2

C. The Scope of Analysis........................................................................Appendix D, page 4

D. Deliverables in Contracting ...............................................................Appendix D, page 8

E. Analytic Guidelines............................................................................Appendix D, page 8

III. Public Involvement.................................................................................Appendix D, page 10

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

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

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

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

B. Incorporating Environmental Justice Efforts in the

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

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

V. Data Management....................................................................................Appendix D, page 13

A. Types of Data.....................................................................................Appendix D, page 13

B. Data Quality and Analytic Soundness................................................Appendix D, page 13

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

TC - 4

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

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

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

D. Receiving, Managing, and Responding to Electronic Mail

and Faxed Protests ...................................................................................Appendix E, page 12

E. State Director’s Protest Analysis........................................................Appendix E, page 13

II. Governor’s Consistency Review Appeal Process.....................................Appendix E, page 14

III. Administrative Remedies of Implementation Decisions ........................Appendix E, page 14

Appendix F: Standard Formats for Land Use Plan Documents..........................Appendix F, page 1

Appendix F-1: Recommended Format for Preparation Plans.......................Appendix F, page 1

Appendix F-2: Recommended Format for Scoping Reports ........................Appendix F, page 4

Appendix F-3: Annotated Outline of the Analysis of the

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

Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline for a Draft and

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

Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline for Record of Decision

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

Appendix F-6: Recommended Administrative Record File

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

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

I. Metadata Standards and Requirements......................................................Appendix G, page 1

II. Identifying Data Needs for a Land Use Plan............................................Appendix G, page 1

III. Data Sources ...........................................................................................Appendix G, page 2

IV. Managing Data During Land Use Plan Development............................Appendix G, page 2

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

1

I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(MFPs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan.

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

plans. This Handbook also provides guidance for developing subsequent implementation

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

implementing the 1983 planning regulations (43 CFR 1600), subsequent BLM Manual guidance,

and the 2000 Handbook. This guidance does not, however, change or revise the planning

regulations in 43 CFR 1600, which take precedence over this Handbook. Definitions for terms

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

1601.0-5.

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

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

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

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

planning guidance:

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

partnership with other landowners and agencies;

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

multijurisdictional planning;

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

2

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

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

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

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

plans;

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

requirements;

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

and

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

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

protection of air and water quality, etc.

B. The Basic Planning Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

land use plans.

C. Forms of Public and Intergovernmental Involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements associated with planning have been incorporated into the planning

regulations.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEPA further require timely coordination by Federal agencies in dealing with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

under NEPA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14).

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

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

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

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

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

See Section I(D), Collaborative Planning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

letters in the planning/NEPA documents:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CONSIDERATIONS: Public comments submitted for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

their entirety.

D. Collaborative Planning

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

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

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

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

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

working together toward commonly understood objectives yields a significant improvement in

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

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

finding solutions to issues and problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order 13352 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

5

The strategies associated with BLM’s national Alternative Dispute Resolution

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

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

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

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

collaboration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

preventing the establishment of unnecessary advisory committees.

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

Governments

FLPMA and NEPA provide BLM managers with complementary directives regarding

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

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

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

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

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

under the Notices, Consultations, and Hearings subsections.)

1. Coordination under FLPMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

officials.

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

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

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

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

relationships where information is continually shared and updated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

government entity, the BLM can be a cooperating agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

planning efforts to the extent possible.

2. Cooperating agency status under NEPA

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

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

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

status.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

7

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

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

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

Responsibilities of a cooperating agency may include:

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

the issues to be examined in the NEPA process;

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

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

• bearing the costs of its own participation.

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

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

• Gaining early and consistent involvement of key governmental partners;

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

• addressing intergovernmental issues;

• avoiding duplication of effort;

• enhancing the local credibility of the review process; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

part of the proposal.” (40 CFR 1508.15)

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

program experience.” (40 CFR 1508.26)

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

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

government-to-government relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Director will determine if the denial is appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

responsibility of the BLM.

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

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

Introduction:

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

requirements it fulfills

• Identifies the government entities assuming cooperating agency status through the

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

jurisdiction, special expertise, or jurisdiction and special expertise

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

Authorities:

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

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

the MOU

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

9

Roles and responsibilities:

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

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

plan

• Procedures for information sharing and confidentiality

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

the planning process

• Resource commitments

• Anticipated schedule

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

• Any other expectations of the parties

Agency representatives (usually enumerated in an attachment):

Administration of the MOU:

• How disagreements will be resolved

• How the MOU may be modified or terminated

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

respective jurisdictions are not altered by the MOU

F. Government-to-Government Coordination with Indian Tribes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Consistency with Tribal plans

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

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

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

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

land base than either agency can address by itself.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

10

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

2. Protection of treaty rights

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

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

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

3. Observance of specific planning coordination authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

traditional rites.

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

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

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

The BLM must ensure reasonable notice is provided to Tribes, through government-to-

government relations, of proposed actions or land management policies that may restrict future

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

including proposed land disposals.

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

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

Table D-4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian Trust Resources).

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

11

II. Land Use Plan Decisions

A. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and other sciences;

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

(ACECs);

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

values;

5. consider present and potential uses of public lands;

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

means and sites for realizing those values;

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

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

laws, standards, and implementation plans; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yield mandates.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

12

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

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

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

use plan decisions are finalized and selected, they must be presented to the public as proposed

decisions and can be protested to the BLM Director under 43 CFR 1610.5-2 (see Appendix E).

B. Types of Land Use Plan Decisions

Land use plan decisions for public lands fall into two categories: desired outcomes (goals and

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

achieve desired outcomes.

1. Desired outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

listed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thereof, could be used in a land use plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Standards are one possible source of objectives.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

13

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

(goals and objectives)

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation as prescribed in 43 CFR 1610.6.

The land use plan must set the stage for identifying site-specific resource use levels. Site-

specific use levels are normally identified during subsequent implementation planning or the

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

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

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

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

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

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

during plan implementation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scenic River System).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

14

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

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

decisions.

C. Geographic Areas

A variety of different geographic areas are associated with planning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

states, as necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the planning or decision areas.

D. Scales of Planning

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

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

resource management actions.

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

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

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

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

described and addressed in the context of the broader landscape.

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

15

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

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

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

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

E. Multijurisdictional Planning

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

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

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

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

increasingly sought to coordinate their decisions and plans.

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

landownership and government authorities and there are opportunities to develop complementary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

multijurisdictional planning effort. Where BLM becomes a cooperating agency for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurisdiction in the Future

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

modifying boundaries of ACECs.

III. Land Use Planning Process and Products

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

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

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

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

predecessor to the present-day RMP).

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

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

livestock grazing) of an existing RMP.

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

1.

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

Type of planning effort

Type of associated NEPA document required

New plans

▪ EIS

Plan revisions

▪ EIS

Plan amendments

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

anticipated impacts.

A. Planning for Environmental Impact Statement-level Efforts

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

of each step.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

17

F

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

3

Issue NOI

1

to prepare the

RMP(amendment)/EIS and

start scoping

Analyze the

Management Situation

▪

Document results in an

analysis of the management

situation (AMS)

Conduct Scoping

▪

Provide a minimum 30-day

comment period on issues and

planning criteria

▪

Document results in a

scoping report

Prepare a Draft RMP

(Amendment)/Draft EIS

Formulate Alternatives

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Publish NOA

1

& provide a

90+-day public comment period

Publish NOA

1

, provide a 30-day

protest period, and resolve

protests

Provide a 60-day Governor’s

Consistency Review period

2

NOTES

1) The chart shows

minimum planning

requirements according to

law, regulation, or BLM

policy. BLM managers

can go beyond these

requirements as needed or

desired.

2) Boxes around steps

indicate required

documents.

3) Inventory of resource

extent and condition should

occur as needed, but is

most useful prior to the

analysis of the

management situation.

Abbreviations:

EIS Environmental

Impact Statement

NOI Notice of Intent

NOA Notice of

Availability

RMP Resource

Management Plan

1

BLM must publish a notice in

the Federal Register.

2

States can negotiate a shorter

review period with the Governor.

3

If changes are significant, issue a

notice of significant change and

provide a 30-day comment period.

Implement, Monitor, and

Evaluate Plan Decisions

Select a Preferred Alternative

Prepare to Plan

▪

Write a preparation plan

Prepare Record of Decision/Approved RMP

(Amendment)

Prepare a Proposed RMP

(Amendment)/Final EIS

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

18

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

1. Prepare to plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

interdisciplinary team.

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

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

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

Preparation plans should be as brief and concise as possible.

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

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

plan.

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

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

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

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

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

must distribute two types of notices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

any other entities/individuals who have requested such notice or the Field Manager has

reason to believe would be concerned with the planning effort (43 CFR 1610.3-1(d)).

BLM should request the current status of government entities’ officially approved or

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

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

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

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

begins.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

19

3. Conduct scoping

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

regulations (43 CFR 1610.2 and 43 CFR 1610.4-1). The land use planning process is issue-

driven. Scoping is a collaborative public involvement process to identify planning issues to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment. Planning criteria guide development of the plan by helping define the decision space

(or the “sideboards” that define the scope of the planning effort); they are generally based upon

applicable laws, Director and State Director guidance, and the results of public and governmental

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

following:

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

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

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

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

c. the plans will recognize valid existing rights; and

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

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

consideration of any impacts on Indian trust assets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format for Scoping Reports).

4. Analyze the management situation

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

20

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

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

development or protection (43 CFR 1610.4-4).

The analysis should (as briefly and concisely as possible) describe the current conditions and

trends of the resources and the uses/activities in the planning area to provide information for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRODUCT: ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION—Field offices should

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

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

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

alternatives, and the affected environment chapter of the EIS.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Formulate alternatives

Considering a reasonable range of alternatives helps the BLM and its partners understand the

various ways of addressing the planning issues and different scenarios for management of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a reasonable variation of an existing alternative analyzed in detail.

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

21

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

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

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

2(b)).

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

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

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

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

alternatives.

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

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

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

and other objectives that are consistent across alternatives.

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

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

to certain geographic areas, such as those listed below:

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

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

sites);

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

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

standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

uses, and restrictions are presented in alternatives.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

22

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

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

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

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

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

possible.

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Select a preferred alternative

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

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

yield mandates of Section 103(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). If any one alternative

contains the desired combination of potential planning decisions, then that alternative should be

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

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

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

accordingly.

The preferred alternative should:

a. Meet statutory requirements;

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

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

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

planning effort.

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

23

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

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

under consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amendment]/EIS).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFR 1503.4):

a. Modifying alternatives, including the proposed plan;

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

c. supplementing, improving, or modifying analysis;

d. making factual corrections; and

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

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

those circumstances that would trigger reappraisal or further response.

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

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

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

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

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

24

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

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

change conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions).

12. Provide a Governor’s consistency review period

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

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

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

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

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

about the same time. BLM state offices can potentially negotiate a shorter review period with

the Governor.

Any responses from a Governor on consistency must be resolved before the BLM issues a ROD.

If the Governor does not respond within the review period, the BLM can assume that the

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

25

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

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

the public participation process, the State Director shall provide the public with an opportunity to

comment on the recommendations (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)). This public comment opportunity will

be offered for 30 days and may coincide with the 30-day comment period for the notice of

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

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

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

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

necessary

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

modify the proposed RMP (amendment)/final EIS. For planning purposes, “significant” is the

equivalent of “substantial” as used in 40 CFR 1502.9(c). If the change is significant, the BLM

must announce the intended changes to the public and provide a 30-day comment period.

Without this step, the public would not have an opportunity to understand and respond to the

potential change (43 CFR 1610.5-1(b) and 40 CFR 1505.2). The BLM must then respond to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

developed within the land use planning process.

An RMP (amendment) is officially approved when the State Director signs a ROD adopting the

RMP (amendment). The ROD should precede or coincide with the adoption of the RMP (40

CFR 1506.1(a)). The ROD, which provides the rationale for the decision (this should parallel the

rational for the preferred alternative, using the same criteria), should be published and released in

the same document with and reference the approved RMP (amendment). See Appendix F-5

(Annotated Outline for a Record of Decision/Approved RMP (Amendment)).

15. Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan decisions

See Sections IV and V of this Handbook.

B. Planning for Environmental Assessment-level Efforts

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

26

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

The BLM completes environmental assessment (EA)-level planning efforts mainly for certain

types of plan amendments. In general, there are fewer planning steps involved in EA-level

planning. The number of steps and extent of work involved with each step varies with the

complexity of identified planning issues. Figure 2 shows the required and optional steps

associated with EA-level planning. Steps are required unless noted as optional (designated by

italics).

1. Prepare to plan (optional)

It is highly recommended that field offices engage in preplanning activities, though they are not

required. Field offices should complete preplanning steps necessary to help ensure efficient and

effective planning efforts. For example, field offices could write preparation plans similar to

those required for EIS-level planning efforts (see Section III(A)(1), Prepare to Plan and

Appendix F-1).

2. Issue a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the RMP amendment and review planning

criteria

The BLM must publish an NOI in the Federal Register to initiate the start of the planning effort

(43 CFR 1610.2 (c)). The BLM can include the draft planning criteria in the NOI to solicit

public review of the criteria. Alternatively, the BLM can make the planning criteria available to

the public at a later date if desired (see following Section III(A)(3), Conduct Scoping). Note,

however, that public review of planning criteria is required at some point, whether at the time of

the NOI or at a later date.

3. Conduct scoping

Field offices must engage in an appropriate level of scoping activities. At a minimum, the BLM

must offer a 30-day public comment period on issues and planning criteria. Depending on the

local situation and planning issues, the BLM can also conduct a more involved scoping effort

and include a series of public meetings, for example.

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

amendment and EA or the proposed amendment/EA (if a draft plan amendment and EA is not

prepared).

4. Analyze the management situation (optional)

The BLM is not required to analyze the management situation or produce a report that describes

it. However, prior to formulating alternatives, the BLM should understand current conditions

and trends of the resources and the uses/activities that will relate to potential decisions in the plan

amendment. It is highly recommended that the BLM begin the process of gathering existing

data, and supplementing data as needed, early in the plan amendment process. This information

will create a solid base for analysis to support amending planning decisions. This could be

accomplished by reference to and/or augmenting the existing AMS.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

27

Prepare to Plan

• Write a Preparation Plan

NOTES

Figure 2.—EA-level planning efforts: Required and optional planning steps

4

Issue NOI

1

to prepare the RMP

Amendment and review planning criteria

1) The chart shows required

and optional steps for EA-level

planning efforts.

Conduct Scoping

• Provide a minimum 30-day

comment period on issues and

planning criteria

Formulate Alternatives

Prepare a Proposed RMP

Amendment/EA/FONSI

Provide a minimum 30-day

public comment period

2

Provide a 30-day

protest period and resolve

protests

Provide a 60-day Governor’s

Consistency Review period

3

2) Steps in italics may be

appropriate in some cases but

are not required for EA-level

amendments. Steps in boxes

indicate required documents.

3) Inventory of resource extent

and condition should occur as

needed, but is most useful prior

to the analysis of the

management situation.

Abbreviations:

• EA Environmental

Assessment

• EIS Environmental Impact

Statement

• FONSI Finding of No

Significant Impact

• NOI Notice of Intent

• NOA Notice of

Availability

• RMP Resource

Management Plan

1

BLM must publish a notice in

the Federal Register.

2

For decisions involving areas

of critical environmental

concern, provide a 60-day

comment period and publish a

NOA in the Federal Register

(required).

3

States can negotiate a shorter

review period with the

Governor.

4

If changes are significant,

issue a notice of significant

change and provide a 30-day

comment period.

Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate

Plan Decisions

Prepare Decision Record/

RMP Amendment

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Analyze the Management Situation

• Document results in the analysis

of the management situation

(AMS)

Prepare a Draft RMP Amendment

and EA/FONSI

• Document results in a

Scoping Report

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

28

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

5. Formulate alternatives

The BLM must formulate appropriate alternatives for EA-level planning efforts. The process is

similar to that for EIS-level amendments.

6. Analyze the effects of alternatives

The BLM must also analyze the effects of alternatives.

7. Prepare a draft RMP amendment and EA/FONSI (optional)

The BLM must prepare a draft RMP amendment and EA/finding of no significant impact

(FONSI) when it is determined that a public review and comment period are appropriate (for

example, when proposed ACEC designations are being considered per 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b) or to

meet NEPA requirements under certain limited circumstances per 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2).

Otherwise, a draft plan amendment is not required, and the BLM can simply go from analyzing

the effects of alternatives (step 6) to preparing a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI (step 9).

The FONSI should be unsigned.

8. Provide a public comment period (optional)

If the BLM prepares a draft RMP amendment and EA/FONSI, it must offer a minimum 30-day

public comment period. The BLM must offer a 60-day comment period for potential decisions

regarding ACEC designation.

9. Prepare a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI

The BLM must prepare a proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI for all EA-level planning

efforts. The proposed RMP amendment/EA/FONSI is typically arranged in an EIS format (with

chapters). The FONSI should be signed (if a FONSI cannot be signed, an EIS should be

initiated).

10. Provide a protest period and resolve protests

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 30-day protest period. The protest

period cannot be extended. Since a NOA is not published in the Federal Register for EA-level

amendment, field offices are encouraged to widely notify the public (including publication of

legal notices in local newspapers) to announce the protest period. The BLM must resolve these

protests before issuing a decision record/RMP amendment. A decision record may be issued on

any portion of the proposed RMP amendment not protested, in coordination with the Washington

Office.

11. Provide a Governor’s consistency review period

Like EIS-level planning efforts, EA-level efforts require a 60-day Governor’s consistency review

period.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

29

12. Issue a notice of significant change and provide a 30-day public comment period (if

necessary)

This step is identical to that for EIS-level efforts.

13. Prepare a decision record/RMP amendment

The BLM issues the decision record/RMP amendment after it resolves all protests and any

potential consistency issues received from the Governor’s office. The decision record should

precede (or coincide with) the RMP amendment (40 CFR 1506.1).

14. Implement, monitor and evaluate plan decisions

See Sections IV and V of this Handbook.

IV. Implementation

A. Implementing Land Use Plans

When an approved land use plan or land use plan amendment decision document (i.e., ROD or

decision record) is signed, most of the land use plan decisions in the plan are effective

immediately and require no additional planning or NEPA analysis. See Appendix C for a listing

of program-specific land use plan decisions.

Some programs have specific requirements that must be taken in order to make certain decisions

effective. An example of a land use plan decision that requires an additional action for

implementation would be a recommendation to withdraw lands from entry under the mining

laws. Formal action requiring Secretarial-level review and decision making would follow if the

BLM planning process results in a withdrawal recommendation and the applicable regulations in

43 CFR 2300 are followed.

Upon approval of the land use plan, subsequent implementation decisions are put into effect by

developing implementation (activity-level or project-specific) plans. An activity-level plan

typically describes multiple projects in detail that will lead to on-the-ground action. These plans

traditionally focused on single resource programs (habitat management plans, allotment

management plans, recreation management plans, etc.). However, activity-level plans are

increasingly interdisciplinary and are focused on multiple resource program areas to reflect the

shift to a more watershed-based or landscape-based approach to management. These types of

plans are sometimes referred to as “integrated or interdisciplinary plans,” “coordinated resource

management plans,” “landscape management plans,” or “ecosystem management plans.” A

project-specific plan is typically prepared for an individual project or several related projects.

B. Defining Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions generally constitute BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground

actions to proceed. These types of decisions require appropriate site-specific planning and

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

30

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

NEPA analysis. Unlike land use plan decisions, implementation decisions are not subject to

protest under the planning regulations. Instead, implementation decisions are subject to various

administrative remedies, particularly appeals to the Office of Hearing and Appeals (Interior

Board of Land Appeals). Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use

planning process, they are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as

prescribed by the specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to

land use plan decisions and makes a decision to adopt or amend the RMP. The proposed plan

/final EIS should display land use plan and implementation decisions (and clearly distinguish

between the two types of decisions). One way of doing this is in the Dear Reader Letter. See

Appendix C for a listing of program-specific implementation decisions.

C. Making Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are made with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis along with any

procedural and regulatory requirements for individual programs. See 40 CFR 1500-1508, the

BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), and 516 DM 1-7 for detailed descriptions of NEPA

procedures. An EA, EIS, or EIS supplement must be prepared for subsequent implementation

planning unless the decisions and actions contained in the implementation plan are:

1. Identified as exceptions to the BLM NEPA requirements (e.g., actions specifically

exempted from NEPA by Congress);

2. categorically excluded (refer to Departmental Manual 516 DM 2, Appendix 1; and

516 DM 6, Appendix 5.4, for a current listing (May 19, 1992) of categorical exclusions);

and

3. fully covered by a previously prepared EA or EIS that does not need to be updated as

documented by a documentation of land use plan conformance and NEPA adequacy

(DNA).

D. Making Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions in the Same Planning Effort

The BLM may use a single land use planning/NEPA process to make both land use plan and

implementation decisions, provided both types of decisions are adequately addressed with the

appropriate level of NEPA analysis. This may be appropriate in RMPs or plan amendments

covering relatively small geographic areas or where there are a number of activity-level projects

such as timber sales being addressed simultaneously with land use planning efforts. When

describing the protest procedures for proposed RMPs, the BLM must make clear which decisions

are land use plan decisions and thus protestable under the planning regulations and which

decisions are implementation decisions that are not protestable. At the decision-making stage,

the BLM can separate the two categories of decisions into two decision documents, one adopting

the RMP (or amendment) and the other approving the implementation decisions; or the BLM

may use a single decision document that adopts the RMP (or amendment) and approves the

implementation actions. If a single decision document is used, the BLM must clearly distinguish

the land use plan decisions from the implementation decisions and describe the administrative

remedies for both.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

31

When considering land use plan and implementation decisions in the same land use

planning/NEPA process, the implementation decisions are usually approved at the same time or

after the decision to approve the RMP (or amendment). An exception may occur when some/all

of the implementation decisions are in conformance with decisions in the current RMP. In this

case, the BLM may issue a ROD/decision record on the implementation decisions that are

consistent with the current plan prior to approving the ROD/decision record on the new RMP (or

amendment). This situation may occur when there is a need to approve high priority

implementation decisions before the protests to the proposed RMP (or amendment) are resolved.

Making implementation decisions as part of the land use planning process and analyzing them

concurrently with land use plan decisions does not change their administrative remedies or the

timing of those remedies. See Appendix E (Summary of Protest and Appeal Provisions).

E. Developing Strategies to Facilitate Implementation of Land Use Plans

A documented, well-organized thought process is essential to the successful implementation of

land use plans. An implementation strategy lists prioritized decisions that (1) will help achieve

the desired outcomes of one or more land use plans and (2) can be implemented given existing or

anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables the BLM to prioritize the

preparation of implementation decisions.

There are no procedural or approval requirements for an implementation strategy.

Implementation strategies may be developed in conjunction with developing land use plan

decisions, but strategies are not land use plan decisions and are not subject to protest or appeal.

As a rule, they should not be included in the RMP. A well thought-out implementation strategy

should prioritize each decision for funding and implementation. The strategy should also be

interdisciplinary (not program by program). Developing an implementation strategy creates an

important opportunity for continued collaboration with the public, Tribes, state and local

governments, and other Federal agencies.

Described below is a suggested collaborative four-step method for developing an implementation

strategy with partners involved in developing the land use plan:

1. Develop framework to portray the work. Identify specific projects to (a) achieve

desired natural resource conditions, (b) achieve desired heritage and cultural resource

conditions, (c) address anticipated demands for recreation, (d) address anticipated

demands for forage and forest products, (e) address anticipated demand for direct

community services, and (f) address demand for energy and minerals.

2. Identify priorities for the next 3 to 5 years. Using the framework in step 1, and

considering current budget capabilities, identify priorities within each workload (a.

through f. in step 1) and priorities across workloads. Factors that influence decision

priorities are:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

32

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

a. Statutory mandates, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Clean

Air and Clean Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Taylor Grazing Act, and FLPMA;

b. goals listed in the DOI’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan;

c. present risks to resources, with resources at high risk ranking above resources

without known or substantial risks;

d. likelihood of success, with management actions using proven techniques

possibly ranking higher than management actions using experimental techniques;

e. cost-effectiveness of management actions; there is no requirement to develop a

cost/benefit analysis, but management actions that have a high likelihood of

improving resource conditions for relatively small expenditures of time and

money should receive relatively higher priority;

f. willingness and availability of cooperators to meet similar resource objectives

for adjacent non-Federal lands and resources; this would include opportunities to

cooperate on a watershed basis and to leverage limited resources;

g. willingness and availability of partners interested in helping accomplish

priority management actions needed to meet desired outcomes;

h. budgetary and staff resources required to implement the decisions; and

i. socioeconomic analysis of the local community.

3. Develop a 3 to 5 year budget. Identify specific tasks to accomplish each project and

associated funding needs, including labor and operations costs. Identify potential funding

sources including base, flexible, and contributions.

4. Develop an outreach strategy. Identify a strategy for both internal and external

communications needed to support implementation. This could be in the form of annual

plan updates and website development, etc.

V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish intervals and standards

for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved.

A. Monitoring

Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of land use planning

decisions (implementation monitoring) and (2) collecting data/information necessary to evaluate

the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). In Appendix C, each

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

33

resource program identifies desired land use plan decisions. BLM field offices must determine

what management actions are needed to implement those decisions. Sometimes actions occur

just once, e.g., the development of an implementation plan; or actions occur on a fairly regular

basis, e.g., steps taken to repair a damaged watershed. Monitoring is the process of following up

on these management actions and documenting BLM’s progress toward full implementation of

the land use plan and the achievement of desired outcomes. Field offices are encouraged to

involve Tribes, state and local governments, and the public if they express an interest in

participating in this process.

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or

the progress toward implementation) of land use plan decisions. This should be done at least

annually and should be documented in the form of a tracking log or report. The report must be

available for public review (one way to accomplish this is an annual planning update which can

be sent to those who participated in the planning process or have expressed an interest in

receiving the report). The report should describe management actions proposed or undertaken to

implement land use plan decisions and can form the basis for annual budget documents. In

subsequent years, reports should document which management actions were completed and what

further actions are needed to continue implementing land use plan decisions.

Effectiveness monitoring is the process of collecting data and information in order to determine

whether or not desired outcomes (expressed as goals and objectives in the land use plan) are

being met (or progress is being made toward meeting them) as the allowable uses and

management actions are being implemented. A monitoring strategy must be developed as part of

the land use plan that identifies indicators of change, acceptable thresholds, methodologies,

protocols, and timeframes that will be used to evaluate and determine whether or not desired

outcomes are being achieved.

The monitoring process should collect information in the most cost-effective manner and may

involve sampling or remote sensing. Monitoring could be so costly as to be prohibitive if it is

not carefully and reasonably designed. Therefore, it is not necessary or desirable to monitor

every management action or direction. Unnecessary detail and unacceptable costs can be

avoided by focusing on key monitoring questions and proper sampling methods. The level and

intensity of monitoring will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the resource or area and the

scope of the proposed management activity.

B. Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan monitoring reports

to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid and whether

the plan is being implemented. Land use plans are evaluated to determine if: (1) decisions

remain relevant to current issues, (2) decisions are effective in achieving (or making progress

toward achieving) desired outcomes, (3) any decisions need to be revised, (4) any decisions need

to be dropped from further consideration, and (5) any areas require new decisions.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

34

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

In making these determinations, the evaluation should consider whether mitigation measures are

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, and

whether there is new data of significance to the plan.

The plan should be periodically evaluated (at a minimum every 5 years) as documented in an

evaluation schedule. Plan evaluations should also be completed prior to any plan revisions and

for major plan amendments. Special or unscheduled evaluations may also be required to review

unexpected management actions or significant changes in the related plans of Indian Tribes,

other Federal agencies, and state and local governments, or to evaluate legislation or litigation

that has the potential to trigger an RMP amendment or revision.

Evaluations may identify resource needs and means for correcting deficiencies and addressing

issues through plan maintenance, amendments, or new starts. They should also identify where

new and emerging resource issues and other values have surfaced. Evaluations may also identify

new and innovative practices that improve effectiveness and efficiency so that other offices may

benefit.

1. Process for completing land use plan evaluations

The following section outlines the recommended process for completing land use plan

evaluations.

a. State offices, with input from the field, identify reasons for evaluating the RMP.

b. Where appropriate, state and field offices identify land use plans that can be

grouped/batched in a geographic region or planning area to look at issues that cut across

boundaries (state and field offices). Each plan should have its own evaluation

documentation as well as a combined (grouped/batched) evaluation for all RMPs

identified in the geographical region or planning area.

c. State and field offices identify what the evaluation is to measure. In some cases, the

RMP/ROD may have identified both monitoring and evaluation measures, units, and

programs, and may even have specified the monitoring/evaluation questions to be

answered.

The state office may develop and send questionnaires to field offices (specific to the state

and field offices) to focus the evaluation, along with instructions for completing it.

Evaluations must be tailored to individual land use plans; however, a comprehensive

evaluation must address the following questions:

1. Are management actions outlined in the plan being implemented?

2. Does the plan establish desired outcomes (i.e., goals and objectives)?

3. Are the allocations, constraints, or mitigation measures effective in achieving

(or making progress towards achieving) the desired outcomes? This

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

35

determination is often made based on information obtained from resource

assessments.

4. Have there been significant changes in the related plans of Indian Tribes, state

or local governments, or other Federal agencies?

5. Are there new data or analyses that significantly affect the planning decisions

or the validity of the NEPA analysis?

6. Are there unmet needs or new opportunities that can best be met through a

plan amendment or revision, or will current management practices be sufficient?

For example, are there outstanding requests for ACEC designations to protect

resource values? Note: ACECs must be designated through the land use

planning process.

7. Are new inventories warranted pursuant to the BLM’s duty to maintain

inventories on a continuous basis (FLPMA, Section 201)?

8. Are there new legal or policy mandates as a result of new statutes,

proclamations, Executive orders, or court orders not addressed in the plan?

d. The state and field office establish/identify an interdisciplinary team that will

complete the evaluation(s). If available, the team should include specialists from state

and field offices as well as adjoining state(s), and representatives from Washington

Office, and Tribes, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and the public.

The interdisciplinary team should represent the major resources/programs present in the

land use plan evaluation area and should be encouraged to incorporate other (technical

procedures) evaluations or analyses that address and provide useful information on the

same resources.

e. The evaluation team should review both published and unpublished documents that

implement or support the RMP decisions and NEPA analysis (e.g., AMS, area-wide

mineral reports, socio-economic studies/analyses, reasonably foreseeable development

scenarios, ACEC reports, documents incorporated by reference/adoption, and other

studies [wild and scenic river, threatened and endangered species, water, etc.]). The

evaluation reports should also cite examples of implementation plans (at the activity

level) that incorporate new information, address new issues, and provide either more

detailed decisions or additional protective management direction. These may include

formal decision-making documents as well as watershed-level analyses and other

landscape units or plans.

f. The evaluation team should review NEPA compliance and procedural conformance

records within the land use plan evaluation (e.g., documentation of land use plan

conformance and NEPA adequacy, which typically relies on the RMP and associated

NEPA documents [categorical exclusions]).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

36

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

g. The State Director should approve or concur with all evaluations.

2. Evaluation report

An evaluation report documenting the findings of the evaluation must be prepared. Following

State Director approval or concurrence, the report will be made available to the public. The

following report format is recommended. If appropriate, use charts, diagrams, and matrixes to

display or summarize information.

a. Introduction

b. Purpose

c. Method and Scope

d. Results and Findings

1. Document conclusions regarding achievement of desired outcomes as well as

any individual program or resource management issues associated with plan

implementation

2. Identify decisions to be carried forward (i.e., no change needed), decisions

needing to be modified, decisions needing to be dropped, and new decisions

needed

e. Recommendations, including any resource- or program-specific management actions

needed and other follow-up opportunities for the BLM field and state offices or

interagency consideration

f. Approval/Concurrence

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

C. Adaptive Management

The Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) issued ESM03-6 providing initial

guidance to all Department of the Interior agencies on implementing adaptive management

practices in NEPA compliance. While this guidance does not provide specifics on the process

and procedures for integrating adaptive management into the NEPA and land use planning

process, it does formally define adaptive management as:

. . . a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if

management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best

ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

37

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

management into the NEPA and land use planning processes. When those policies and

procedures are developed, they will be incorporated into this section of the Handbook.

VI. Determining if New Decisions are Required

A. Specific Regulatory Requirements for Considering New Information or Circumstances

New information, updated analyses, or new resource use or protection proposals may require

amending or revising land use plans and updating implementation decisions. The primary

requirements for considering new information are as follows:

1. The BLM planning regulations require evaluating whether there is new data of

significance to the land use plan (see 43 CFR 1610.4-9) and whether plan amendments

(see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) or revisions (see 43 CFR 1610.5-6) are required;

2. the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) require the BLM to prepare supplements to

draft or final EISs if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are

relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its

impacts; and

3. joint agency Endangered Species Act regulations (see 50 CFR 402.16 (b)) require

consultation to be reinitiated if new information reveals that decisions may affect listed

species or critical habitat in a way or to an extent not previously considered, including

exceeding the incidental take for a particular action.

B. Considering New Proposals, Circumstances, or Information

New data or information can include, but is not limited to:

1. Changes in status, new listings or new critical habitat designations for endangered,

threatened, and other special status or sensitive species (see Appendix C, Section (I)(G));

2. changes in intensity of use or impact levels for a particular resource (e.g., increased

recreation use as a result of urban expansion);

3. changes in social and economic conditions resulting from urban expansion or broad

conservation efforts (e.g., open space management);

4. public comment or staff assessments indicating that new information or changed

circumstances warrant a reconsideration of the appropriate mix of uses on particular

tracts of public lands;

5. a biological opinion issued by the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries on actions in the

planning area;

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

38

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

6. information from Tribes, elected county officials, state agencies, or other Federal

agencies on significant changes in their related plans or resource conditions that are

critical to the BLM land use plans and/or subordinate implementation plans;

7. new state listings of water-quality-limited streams (Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)),

total maximum daily load (TMDL) developments, or non-attainment area designations

(Clean Air Act) that may lead to the identification of new management practices that

would require additional NEPA compliance and could require new land use plan

decisions;

8. new geochemical, geologic, or geophysical data;

9. new cultural resource data;

10 environmental disturbances that significantly change natural conditions (e.g.,

wildfires, floods, or noxious weed infestations);

11. monitoring data and resource assessments associated with implementing resource

management actions designed to achieve resource objectives and Land Health Standards;

12. Land use plan evaluations that weigh and interpret information gathered through

resource monitoring;

13. determinations as to whether mitigation measures outlined in the plan are effective;

14. new national policy or a change in legal duties resulting from laws, regulations,

Executive orders, or the BLM directives. An example would be congressional

designation of a river segment under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that mandates a

protection and enhancement standard that, in turn, may affect resource management

objectives, conditions, or uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber sales, or other proposed

projects) outlined in the land use plan; and

15. information from the public or others regarding conditions or uses of resources on

public lands.

C. Deciding Whether Changes in Decisions or the Supporting NEPA Analyses are

Warranted

The determination whether to amend or revise an RMP based on new proposals, circumstances,

or information depends on (1) the nature of new proposals, (2) the significance of the new

information or circumstances, (3) specific wording of the existing land use plan decisions,

including any provisions for flexibility, and (4) the level and detail of the NEPA analysis. A

“yes” answer to any of the following questions suggests the need to revisit existing decisions

and/or the NEPA analysis:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

39

1. Does the new information or circumstance provide for interpretations not known or

considered at the time existing decisions were made that could significantly affect

ongoing actions? For example: Current land use plan decisions may require that all

wildland fires be suppressed to limit the fire to the smallest acreage possible and make no

provision for wildland fire use. This conflicts with new Secretarial policy guidance that

wildland fire, as a critical natural process, must be reintroduced into fire-dependent

ecosystems;

2. Are the decisions in the current land use plan no longer valid, based on significant

new information or changed circumstances? If decisions are not valid, the decisions need

to be vacated, replaced, or changed through plan amendment or revision. Examples of

situations that may require new or changed land use plan decisions include, but are not

limited to, the following:

a. Monitoring information may show the need to discontinue managing a herd in

an existing herd management area because it is not practical to preserve or

maintain a thriving ecological balance with the multiple use relationships in that

area; conversely, new herd management areas could be established if an analysis

of monitoring data shows that a viable herd could be established and meet the

requirements for maintaining a thriving ecological balance;

b. the inability to achieve Land Health Standards under any level or management

of livestock use may affect the decision identifying that allotment as being

available for livestock use;

c. consultations resulting in new requirements or actions that are not in

conformance with the existing land use plan to protect threatened or endangered

species or critical habitats may require new land use plan decisions, including

new or supplemental NEPA analysis;

d. new requirements or actions that affect land use allocations or areawide

constraints or restrictions established at the land use plan level would require

amendment of land use plan decisions;

e. current scientific knowledge, as reflected in scientific literature, could

highlight a need to change plan decisions; and

f. public comment or a staff assessment supporting a different mix of uses on the

lands that will better promote the long-term health and sustainability of the lands

and their resources could require an amendment.

3. Are implementation decisions no longer valid, based on new information or changed

circumstances? Site-specific resource-use levels or management actions normally do not

require a land use plan amendment if the land use plan decisions provide broad direction

for these uses and actions; however, they may require appropriate NEPA analysis. For

example:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

40

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

a. The level of livestock use permitted in an allotment may normally be modified

based on allotment-specific resource assessment, condition, and trend-monitoring

data.

b. Resource use levels or management practices, such as permitted livestock use

or pre-commercial forest thinning, may normally be modified or eliminated on a

site-specific or project-level basis to satisfy the needs of threatened or endangered

species or their critical habitat, as detailed in biological opinions or approved

recovery plans. Elimination of livestock grazing on an entire allotment is a

management decision that should be thoroughly analyzed through the plan

amendment process and not through a maintenance action.

4. Are the effects of proposed or ongoing actions substantially different from those

projected in the existing NEPA analyses associated with the existing RMP? If “yes,”

conduct a new or supplemental NEPA analysis to the extent necessary to address the

differences and document the findings. Determine whether the new NEPA analysis

should be conducted as part of a RMP plan amendment.

a. Consider direct and indirect effects and their significance.

b. Consider cumulative effects and whether the new information or circumstances

identify or produce incremental impacts added to those resulting from other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions. Does the

additional effect, in the context of the ongoing action, require further mitigation or

new RMP decisions?

For example, upon receipt of a proposal to develop an oil and gas field, the BLM would

evaluate the proposal for conformance with the RMP. If the proposal is consistent with

the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the RMP/EIS and the proposal is

consistent with the RMP decisions, changes to the RMP/EIS are probably not necessary.

In this instance, the BLM would work with the lease holders to obtain appropriate site-

specific information, then prepare an activity-level EA or EIS to approve some or all of

the wells in the field and set the stage for subsequent application for permit to drill

approvals.

If the proposal exceeds the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the current

RMP/EIS, a new reasonably foreseeable development scenario and NEPA analysis

supplementing the RMP/EIS would be warranted. If the proposal exceeds and is

substantially different from the reasonably foreseeable development analyzed in the

RMP/EIS, and the new NEPA analysis could reasonably be expected to result in changes

to RMP decisions, a plan amendment may also be warranted. When it is not certain

whether the project proposal and resulting NEPA analysis will result in the need to

amend the RMP, considerable time and cost savings will be achieved by beginning the

process as a plan amendment (issuing a NOI). If it is later determined that a plan

amendment is not warranted, the amendment may be cancelled and the supplemental

NEPA analysis continued.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

41

The supplemental EIS/RMP amendment could also address site-specific review for some

or all of the proposed wells and related facilities so that decisions on the field

development could be made sequentially with the decisions regarding the proposed RMP

amendment. Where site-specific development proposals are known, such a

planning/NEPA effort would promote efficient NEPA analysis and result in both plan-

level and implementation-level decisions in the same document, thus reducing the need

for additional NEPA analysis.

5. In light of new information or circumstances, are there now inconsistencies between

the ongoing action and the resource-related plans of Indian Tribes, state and local

governments, or other Federal agencies that render earlier consistency findings invalid?

Changes in land use plan decisions through amendment or revision must be accompanied

by new consistency determinations.

Further NEPA analysis may be conducted to help determine whether decisions are still valid. It

is possible to conduct additional NEPA analysis and reach a conclusion that no change is needed

in decisions, but the decisions cannot be changed without additional NEPA analysis.

D. Documenting the Determination to Modify, or Not to Modify, Decisions or NEPA

Analysis

It is important to document decisions to modify or not modify the land use plan or NEPA

analysis when these decisions are reached as part of the formal land use plan evaluation process

(Section V). In reviewing new information or circumstances that are controversial or of interest

to the public, it is also important to provide all interested parties with written documentation of

the BLM’s determination.

In response to an outside application or internal proposal, a decision not to change land use

decisions will be documented in the case file and/or in the response to the applicant. Case file

documentation of decisions to not amend must be signed and dated by the Field Manager and

State Director. If the decision not to amend the plan was made through a NEPA analysis, then

that decision can be documented in the Plan Conformance section of the NEPA document. If the

decision is to change decisions or revisit the NEPA analysis, the rationale to modify, revise, or

further evaluate decisions or NEPA analysis may be documented in a NOI prepared during

scoping activities or in the planning or NEPA document. Also see Section VII(B).

E. Evaluating New Proposals

New proposals can stem from specific BLM implementation actions, such as a proposal to

prepare a livestock grazing allotment management plan, or from non-BLM-initiated proposals,

such as a rights-of-way request for a new powerline.

A new proposal should provide enough detail to allow the BLM to determine whether it

conforms to existing land use plan decisions and to facilitate screening for adequate NEPA

compliance (See Figure 3). The NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) describes the screening process in

more detail.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

42

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

F. Plan Conformance

The term “plan conformance,” as defined in the BLM planning regulations, means either that the

plan specifically identifies a resource management action or (if not) the action is consistent with

the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan (43 CFR 1601.0-5(b)). Key

considerations in making and documenting conformance determinations include the following:

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

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

3. If the plan does not specifically mention the action, how clearly consistent is the

action with plan objectives, terms, conditions, and decisions?

G. Plan Conformance and Ongoing NEPA Activities

After the RMP is approved, any authorizations and management actions approved based on an

activity-level or project-specific EIS (or EA) must be specifically provided for in the RMP or be

consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP. A land use plan

amendment may be necessary to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, substantive new

data, new or revised policy, changes in circumstances or a proposed action that may result in a

change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the

approved RMP. If the BLM determines that a plan amendment may be necessary, preparation of

the EIS (or EA) and the analysis necessary for the amendment may occur simultaneously (43

CFR 1610.5).

In those instances when activity-level or project-specific EISs (or EAs) are being used to analyze

an action that may not conform to the current land use plan, the BLM has several options: adjust

the actions or condition the authorization to conform to the plan or achieve consistency with the

terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP; or prepare the EIS (or EA) as a RMP

amendment, as described in Section VII.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

43

Key for Evaluating New Proposals

This key poses the six critical screening questions (1 through 6 below) for any proposal or

action (see BLM NEPA Handbook [H-1790-1] for additional detail).

1. If the proposal or action conforms to existing land use plans, go to 2.

1. If the proposal or action does not, go to 1a.

1a. If proposal or action warrants further consideration, then amend plan

1

or modify

proposal to conform.

1a. If proposal or action does not, then deny action.

2. If proposal or action is an exception from BLM/NEPA requirements, then no

additional NEPA analysis is necessary.

2. If not, then go to 3.

3. If proposal or action normally requires an EIS, go to 3a.

3. If not, go to 4.

3a. If impacts are expected to be significant, go to 8.

3a. If not, go to 7.

4. If proposal or category of action is listed as a Categorical Exclusion, go to 4a.

4. If not, go to 5.

4a. If any of the 10 exceptions apply, go to 7.

4a. If none apply, then the proposal or action is Categorically Excluded.

5. If existing analysis and documentation is sufficient, then Document NEPA

Adequacy.

5. If insufficient, then go to 6.

6. If environmental impacts are expected to be significant, go to 8.

6. If insignificant, go to 7.

7. Complete EA; if no significant impacts are identified, then issue FONSI.

7. Complete EA; if significant impacts are identified, go to 8.

8. Proposal or action requires an EIS.

1

This may also be accomplished through a new plan, plan revision, or planning analysis.

Figure 3—Key for evaluating new proposals (an overview)

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

44

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

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

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

components can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited to

further refining, documenting, or clarifying a previously approved decision incorporated in the

plan. Maintenance must not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the

terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.

Plan maintenance is not considered a plan amendment and does not require formal public

involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use

plan decisions. Maintenance actions must be documented in the plan or supporting components

(i.e., recorded so that the change and Field Manager concurrence are evident). Examples of

maintenance actions include:

1. Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors in the planning

records after a plan or plan amendment has been completed;

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

3. applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area prior to the lease sale

based on new inventory data (e.g., apply an existing protective stipulation for sage-grouse

to a newly discovered sage-grouse lek);

4. refining the known habitat of a special status species addressed in the plan based on

new information;

5. modifying or waiving the lease stipulation language in the RMP consistent with the

criteria outlined in the land use plan; and

6. refining or adjusting the boundary of a fire management unit (FMU) or other

equivalent fire-related polygon through interagency coordination based on updated fire

regime condition class inventory, fire occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic

changes.

Plan maintenance must occur continuously so that the RMP and its supporting records reflect the

current status of decision implementation and knowledge of resource conditions.

VII. Amending and Revising Decisions

A. Changing Land Use Plan Decisions

Land use plan decisions are changed through either a plan amendment or a plan revision. The

process for conducting plan amendments is basically the same as the land use planning process

used in creating RMPs. The primary difference is that circumstances may allow for completing a

plan amendment through the EA process, rather than through the EIS or supplemental EIS

process. The process for preparing plan revisions is the same as for preparing new RMPs, and an

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

45

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

planning processes.

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

Plan amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, conditions, or

decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions may include those relating to desired

outcomes; measures to achieve desired outcomes, including resource restrictions; or land tenure

decisions. Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to:

1. Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan;

2. implement new or revised policy that changes land use plan decisions, such as an

approved conservation agreement between the BLM and the USFWS;

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

4. consider significant new information from resource assessments, monitoring, or

scientific studies that change land use plan decisions.

The BLM regulations in 43 CFR 1600 and the NEPA process detailed in the CEQ regulations in

40 CFR 1500 guide preparation of plan amendments. The process is tailored to the anticipated

level of public interest and potential for significant impacts. In simple, routine cases, it is

possible to complete the amendment process in less than 6 months. See Section III for

procedures for preparing land use plan decisions.

Plans needing amendment may be grouped geographically or by type of decision in the same

amendment process. Similarly, one amendment process may amend the same or related

decisions in more than one land use plan. The amendment process may also be used to update

plans adopted from another agency.

In reaching a decision to amend a land use plan, the BLM must not only consider the resource,

but also other workload priorities, budgetary constraints, and staff capabilities. In situations

where available budgets allow and staff capabilities are restricted, consider contracting for all or

portions of the plan amendment’s NEPA analysis, including baseline data acquisition. If the

manager decides not to amend, then nonconforming actions cannot be taken. Any proposal

requiring an activity-level or project-specific and programmatic EIS that could result in new or

modified RMP decisions, or the need to amend the current RMP prior to implementation, should

be prepared as a RMP amendment whenever feasible.

Activity-level or project-specific EISs that address significant new information or circumstances

not considered in the EIS for the current land use plan should be prepared as supplements to the

EIS for the RMP whenever feasible. In most cases, if a supplement to the RMP/EIS is necessary,

the BLM should also consider whether or not a simultaneous plan amendment is necessary.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

46

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

Where a proposal is not in conformance with the land use plan, the Field Manager may deny the

proposal without further review. The decision to deny is subject to appeal to IBLA.

An applicant may request that BLM amend the land use plan to allow an otherwise non-

conforming proposal. If the Field Manager determines that the request is warranted, a plan

amendment is initiated. If not warranted, the Field Manager submits to the State Director a

recommendation to deny, along with appropriate supporting documentation. Denial of a request

to amend the plan is a plan level decision made by the State Director and is protestable to the

BLM director under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) (Carrasco, 90 IBLA 39 (1985)).

The State Director may terminate an ongoing plan amendment at any point if the Field Manager

provides documentation that the amendment is no longer necessary or appropriate. This is also a

protestable decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a).

In either case, whether an appealable or protestable action is taken, the Field Manager should

provide public notice of the action and the applicable protest or appeal procedures through news

release, letter to mailing list, or other appropriate means. No Federal Register notice is required.

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

RMP revisions (see 43 CFR 1610.5-6) involve preparation of a new RMP to replace an existing

one. RMP revisions are necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or

revised policy, or changes in circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan or a major

portion of the plan no longer serve as a useful guide for resource management. Plan revisions

are prepared using the same procedures and documentation as for new plans.

As funding and capability permit, all MFPs will be replaced by RMPs. The priority for replacing

MFPs will be guided by the extent to which those plans fail to meet the statutory requirements

for land use planning in FLPMA (see Section II(A)), and the need to modify decisions to meet

resource management needs.

D. Changing Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are changed through an interdisciplinary NEPA process in conjunction

with the BLM resource program-specific guidance.

Any NEPA analysis that will be used to approve on-the-ground actions in conformance with the

current RMP should include the appropriate level of site-specific information to facilitate

approval of as many of the implementation actions as possible and reduce the need for additional

NEPA analysis.

During an on-going RMP revision, it is possible to amend the current RMP to implement an

action analyzed in an activity-level or project-specific EA or EIS. The BLM must carefully

consider the implications of the information and analysis being prepared for either document. At

a minimum, the documents must be carefully coordinated to ensure consistent utilization of

available information and analysis.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

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

47

E. Status of Existing Decisions During the Amendment or Revision Process

Existing land use plans decisions remain in effect during an amendment or revision until the

amendment or revision is completed and approved. The decisions of existing land use plans do

not change. For example, if current land use plans have designated lands open for a particular

use, they remain open for that use. Land use plan decisions may be changed only through the

amendment or revision process.

During the amendment or revision process, the BLM should review all proposed implementation

actions through the NEPA process to determine whether approval of a proposed action would

harm resource values so as to limit the choice of reasonable alternative actions relative to the

land use plan decisions being reexamined. Even though the current land use plan may allow an

action, the BLM manager has the discretion to defer or modify proposed implementation-level

actions and require appropriate conditions of approval, stipulations, relocations, or redesigns to

reduce the effect of the action on the values being considered through the amendment or revision

process. The appropriate modification to the proposed action is subject to valid existing rights

and program-specific regulations. A decision to temporarily defer an action could be made

where a different land use or allocation is currently being considered in the preferred alternative

of a draft or proposed RMP revision or amendment. These decisions would be specific to

individual projects or activities and must not lead to an area-wide moratorium on certain

activities during the planning process.

F. Coordinating Simultaneous Planning/NEPA Processes

When preparing an activity-level or project-specific EIS (or EA) during an on-going RMP

revision (with its accompanying EIS), there may be opportunities to consolidate some

components of the NEPA process, such as the cumulative effects analysis, and public

involvement activities, such as public meetings and mailings, to reduce overall costs and

simplify the overlapping processes for the public. Depending on the timing of the two decisions

(one for the activity-level or project-specific EIS or EA and one for the on-going RMP revision),

and the conformance of the management actions to be approved in the EIS or EA, the BLM may

chose to amend the RMP in order to implement the proposed actions being analyzed in the EIS

or EA prior to completing the on-going RMP revision. In such cases, the BLM must consider

the effect of amending the RMP on the on-going RMP revision process. Depending on the

nature of the new land use plan decisions, the alternatives to be considered in the on-going RMP

revisions process, such as the no action alternative, may need to be modified. Any land use plan

decision changed during the on-going RMP revision process could also have a “ripple” effect on

many elements of the analysis being prepared for the on-going RMP, such as the purpose and

need, affected environment, and environmental effects section.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Glossary - 1

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Following are the acronyms and definitions for terms used in this Handbook. Also see

definitions for terms used in Section 103 of FLPMA and the planning regulations at 43 CFR

1601.0-5. This glossary does not supersede these definitions or those in other laws or

regulations.

Terms

Activity plan a type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan); an activity plan

usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan

objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat

management plans, recreation area management plans, and allotment management plans.

Alternative dispute resolution any process used to prevent, manage, or resolve conflicts

using procedures other than traditional courtroom litigation or formal agency adjudication.

Amendment the process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and

decisions of approved RMPs or MFPs. Usually only one or two issues are considered that

involve only a portion of the planning area.

Assessment the act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose.

Beneficial outcomes also referenced as “Recreation Benefits”; improved conditions,

maintenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired

experiences.

Best management practices (BMPs) a suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to,

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the

land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a

plan amendment if they are not mandatory.

Broadscale data broadscale data sets are intended to support state, multi-state, or regional

information needs. Such data could be used for bioregional assessments and conservation

strategies, and typically employ a map scale of 1:250,000.

Categorical exclusion (CX) a category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which

neither an environmental assessment nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4).

Closed generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it

relates to off-highway vehicle use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and

restriction orders.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Glossary - 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Collaboration a cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other

lands.

Collaborative partnerships refers to people working together, sharing knowledge and

resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and

regulatory frameworks.

Community recreation-tourism market a community or communities dependent on public

lands recreation and/or related tourism use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in

facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target

demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management

actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific

activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through

maintenance of prescribed natural resource and/or community setting character and by

structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions

accordingly.

Conformance means that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use

plan or, if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or

standards of the approved land use plan.

Conservation agreement a formal signed agreement between the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries

and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate

or reduce threats to, or otherwise improve the status of a species. Conservation agreements can

be developed at a state, regional, or national level and generally include multiple agencies at both

the state and Federal level, as well as Tribes. Depending on the types of commitments the BLM

makes in a conservation agreement and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or

amendments may be required prior to signing the conservation agreement, or subsequently in

order to implement the conservation agreement.

Conservation strategy a strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and

animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the

USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries to be Federal candidates under the Endangered Species Act.

Consistency means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved

plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governments

(to the extent practical with Federal law, regulation, and policy).

Cooperating agency assists the lead Federal agency in developing an EA or EIS. The CEQ

regulations implementing NEPA define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction

by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal,

state, local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency

by agreement with the lead agency.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Glossary - 3

Designated roads and trails specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other

agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally

or year-long.

Desired outcomes a type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective.

Destination recreation-tourism market national or regional recreation-tourism visitors and

other constituents who value public lands as recreation-tourism destinations. Major investments

in facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to

target demonstrated destination recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation

management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for

specific activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced

through maintenance of prescribed natural resource setting character and by structuring and

implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly.

Director (BLM Director) the national Director of the BLM.

Documentation of Land Use Plan conformance and NEPA adequacy (DNA) a worksheet

for determining and documenting that a new, site-specific proposed action both conforms to the

existing land use plan(s) and is adequately analyzed in existing NEPA documents. The signed

conclusion in the worksheet is an interim step in BLM’s internal analysis process and is not an

appealable decision.

Environmental Justice the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate

share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and

commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and policies

(see Executive Order 12898).

Evaluation (plan evaluation) the process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still

valid and whether the plan is being implemented.

Explicit recreation management objective specifically targeted recreation activity,

experience, and benefit opportunities (i.e., recreation opportunity outputs) and their attainment

(i.e., recreation outcomes).

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA) a public lands unit identified in land use

plans containing all acreage not identified as a SRMA. Recreation management actions within

an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature.

Fine-scale data fine-scale data sets support local information needs and represent the highest

thematic detail and spatial accuracy. Data at this scale are intended for project-specific planning,

monitoring, and evaluation, and would be typically represented at the 1:24,000 map scale.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Glossary - 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Geographic information system a system of computer hardware, software, data, people and

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and graphically display a potentially wide array of

geospatial information.

Goal a broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have

established timeframes for achievement.

Guidelines actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes,

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the

land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan

specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43

CFR 4180.2.

Implementation decisions decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions;

generally appealable to IBLA under 43 CFR 4.410.

Implementation plan – an area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a

land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans (they are types

of implementation plans).

Indian Tribe (or Tribe) any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary

of the Interior recognizes as possessing Tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal Register).

Land use allocation the identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based

on desired future conditions.

Land Use Plan a set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of

land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600,

regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and

MFPs.

Land Use Plan boundary a BLM land use plan boundary is defined as the geographic extent

of a RMP or MFP.

Land Use Plan decision establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them.

Decisions are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are presented to

the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not

appealable to IBLA.

Limited generally denotes that an area or roads and trails are available for a particular use or

uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for

application to individual programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning

of “limited” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Glossary - 5

Management decision a decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management

decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions.

Midscale data midscale data sets support information needs at scales between the local and

state/regional. Such a level is usually represented at the 1:100,000 scale. Typical usage includes

land use planning, rangeland monitoring, and assessment.

Monitoring (plan monitoring) the process of tracking the implementation of land use plan

decisions and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of

land use planning decisions.

Multijurisdictional planning collaborative planning in which the purpose is to address land

use planning issues for an area, such as an entire watershed or other landscape unit, in which

there is a mix of public and/or private land ownerships and adjoining or overlapping Tribal, state,

local government, or other Federal agency authorities.

Objective a description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and

measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement.

Off-highway vehicle (off-road vehicle) any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for,

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any

nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement

vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly

authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use;

and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense.

Open generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to

off-highway vehicle use.

Planning analysis a process using appropriate resource data and NEPA analysis to provide a

basis for decisions in areas not yet covered by an RMP.

Planning criteria the standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource

management planning actions.

Project plan a type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan). A project plan

typically addresses individual projects or several related projects. Examples of project plans

include prescribed burn plans, trail plans, and recreation site plans.

Public land land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Glossary - 6

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of

Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

Recreation experiences psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism

participants as a direct result of their onsite leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity

participation or by non-participating community residents as a result of their interaction with

visitors and guests within their community and/or interaction with the BLM and other public and

private recreation-tourism providers and their actions.

Recreation management zones (RMZ) subunits within a SRMA managed for distinctly

different recreation products. Recreation products are comprised of recreation opportunities, the

natural resource and community settings within which they occur, and the administrative and

service environment created by all affecting recreation-tourism providers, within which

recreation participation occurs.

Recreation niche the place or position within the strategically targeted recreation-tourism

market for each SRMA that is most suitable (i.e., capable of producing certain specific kinds of

recreation opportunities) and appropriate (i.e., most responsive to identified visitor or resident

customers), given available supply and current demand, for the production of specific recreation

opportunities and the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource and/or

community setting character.

Recreation opportunities favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure

activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added

beneficial outcomes.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) one of the existing tools for classifying recreation

environments (existing and desired) along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and

inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence.

This continuum recognizes variation among various components of any landscape’s physical,

social and administrative attributes; and resulting descriptions (of existing conditions) and

prescriptions (of desired future conditions) define recreation setting character.

Recreation setting character conditions the distinguishing recreational qualities of any

landscape, objectively defined along a continuum ranging from primitive to urban landscapes,

expressed in terms of the nature of the component parts of its physical, social and administrative

attributes. These recreational qualities can be both classified and mapped. This classification

and mapping process should be based on variation that either exists (i.e., setting descriptions) or

is desired (i.e., setting prescriptions) among component parts of the various physical, social, and

administrative attributes of any landscape. The recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the

existing tools for doing this.

Recreation settings the collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and

sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Glossary - 7

Recreation-tourism market recreation-tourism visitors, affected community residents,

affecting local governments and private sector businesses, or other constituents and the

communities or other places where these customers originate (local, regional, national, or

international). Based on analysis of supply and demand, land use plans strategically identify

primary recreation-tourism markets for each SRMA—destination, community, or undeveloped.

Resource advisory council (RAC) a council established by the Secretary of the Interior to

provide advice or recommendations to BLM management. In some states, provincial advisory

councils (PACs) are functional equivalents of RACs.

Resource use level the level of use allowed within an area, based on the desired outcomes and

land use allocations in the land use plan. Targets or goals for resource use levels are established

on an area-wide or broad watershed level in the land use plan. Site-specific resource use levels

are normally determined at the implementation level, based on site-specific resource conditions

and needs as determined through resource monitoring and assessments.

Revision the process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan.

Scale refers to the geographic area and data resolution under examination in an assessment or

planning effort.

Setting character the condition of any recreation system, objectively defined along a

continuum ranging from primitive to urban in terms of variation of its component physical,

social, and administrative attributes.

Social science the study of society and of individual relationships in and to society, generally

including one or more of the academic disciplines of sociology, economics, political science,

geography, history, anthropology, and psychology.

Special recreation management area (SRMA) a public lands unit identified in land use plans

to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific,

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both

land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are

geared to a strategically identified primary market—destination, community, or undeveloped.

Special status species includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under

the Endangered Species Act; state-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive

species (see BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy).

Standard a description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required

for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired

outcome (goal).

State implementation plan (SIP) a strategic document, prepared by a state (or other

authorized air quality regulatory agency) and approved by the EPA, that thoroughly describes

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Glossary - 8

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

how requirements of the Clean Air Act will be implemented (including standards to be achieved,

control measures to be applied, enforcement actions in case of violation, etc.).

Strategic plan (DOI strategic plan) a plan that establishes the overall direction for all DOI

Bureaus, including the BLM. This plan is guided by the requirements of the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993, covers a 5-year period, and is updated every 3 years. It is

consistent with FLPMA and other laws affecting the public lands.

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) an estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all

sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding

applicable water quality criteria.

Travel management areas polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been

taken to classify areas open, closed, or limited, and have identified and/or designated network of

roads, trails, ways, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning

area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly

identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and

seasons or timeframes for allowable access or other limitations.

Tribe see Indian Tribe.

Undeveloped recreation-tourism market national, regional, and/or local recreation-tourism

visitors, communities, or other constituents who value public lands for the distinctive kinds of

dispersed recreation produced by the vast size and largely open, undeveloped character of their

recreation settings. Major investments in facilities are excluded within SRMAs where BLM’s

strategy is to target demonstrated undeveloped recreation-tourism market demand. Here,

recreation management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market

demand to sustain distinctive recreation setting characteristics; however, major investments in

visitor services are authorized both to sustain those distinctive setting characteristics and to

maintain visitor freedom to choose where to go and what to do—all in response to demonstrated

demand for undeveloped recreation.

Visual resource management classes categories assigned to public lands based on scenic

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective

which prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape.

Watershed approach – a framework to guide watershed management that: (1) uses watershed

assessments to determine existing and reference conditions; (2) incorporates assessment results

into resource management planning; and (3) fosters collaboration with all landowners in the

watershed. The framework considers both ground and surface water flow within a

hydrologically defined geographical area.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Glossary - 9

Acronyms

ACEC

area of critical environmental concern

ADR

alternative dispute resolution

AML

appropriate management level

AMS

analysis of the management situation

APD

application for permit to drill

AUM

animal unit month

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

BMP

best management practice

CEQ

Council on Environmental Quality

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CX

categorical exclusion

DM

Departmental Manual

DNA

documentation of land use plan conformance and NEPA adequacy

DOI

Department of the Interior

DR

decision record (for an EA)

EA

environmental assessment

EFH

essential fish habitat

EIS

environmental impact statement

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

EPS

Economic Profile System

EPSC

Economic Profile System for Communities

ERMA extensive recreation management area

ESA

Endangered Species Act

FACA

Federal Advisory Committee Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act

FOIA

Freedom of Information Act

FONSI finding of no significant impact

GIS

geographic information system

GSA

Government Services Agency

HA

herd area

HMA

herd management area

IBLA

Interior Board of Land Appeals

IDT

interdisciplinary team

LAC

limits of acceptable change

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Glossary - 10

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

MFP

management framework plan

MOA

memorandum of agreement

MOU

memorandum of understanding

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLCS

National Landscape Conservation System

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOA

notice of availability

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI

notice of intent

OEPC

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

OEPR

Office of Environmental Policy Review

OHV

off-highway vehicle (also refers to off-road vehicles)

OMB

Office of Management and Budget

PAC

provincial advisory council

PILT

payments-in-lieu-of-taxes

PSQ

probable sale quantity

RAC

resource advisory council

RMP

resource management plan

RMZ

recreation management zone

ROD

record of decision (for an EIS)

ROS

recreation opportunity spectrum

ROW

right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SRMA special recreation management area

T&E

threatened and endangered

TMDL

total maximum daily load

U.S.C.

United States Code

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM

visual resource management

WO

Washington Office

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Appendix A, page 1

Appendix A: Guide to Collaborative Planning

I. Principles

Collaboration implies that Tribal, state, and local governments, other Federal agencies, and the

public will be involved well before the planning process is officially initiated, rather than only at

specific points stipulated by regulation and policy. The first-hand experience of BLM Field

Managers and staff has resulted in the following suggested guidelines for collaboration.

A. Recognize Tribal, state, and local governments’ role in the planning process.

FLPMA, Section 202(c)(9), as paraphrased, requires meaningful participation by local

officials and consistency, to the extent practicable, with officially approved plans of

Tribal, state, and local governments so long as the plans are consistent with Federal laws

and regulations. Early involvement will help ensure that the BLM develops land use

decisions that are supported by and conform to other jurisdictions in the area to the

maximum extent possible.

B. Be inclusive and explicitly acknowledge the interests of distant groups, individuals,

industry, corporations, and other agencies. An effective collaborative process for public

land planning assures that local, regional, and national interests are integrated. Distant

interests are sought out and encouraged. Effective outreach is the best way to get beyond

the barriers to successful participation. Ensure multiple options for participation.

C. Clearly cite the authority of collaborative groups, including that of the BLM, and

ensure accountability. Participants must understand the roles of all parties in the

planning effort. If the planning effort includes other participants with jurisdictional

responsibilities or decision-making authority, the responsibilities of each must be clearly

identified. Decisions made by each jurisdiction must be within their own authorities.

The BLM retains decision-making authority for all decisions on BLM lands. The BLM

does not need to be the lead agency for agency personnel to participate in collaborative

efforts.

D. Use collaboration to enhance and complement standard public involvement

requirements. Individuals or groups that were unable or chose not to participate in a

collaborative process are still entitled to full input through legally required public review

and comment processes.

E. Recognize that collaborative processes may not be effective everywhere. The BLM

manager retains the authority to manage the planning process and may choose to move

forward with traditional planning processes if collaborative efforts are ineffective or

become unacceptably lengthy.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix A, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

II. Practices

A. Face-to-face or one-on-one communication provides the best means of building trust

and good working relationships. Be sure to ask yourself and others questions such as the

following:

1. Who else should I talk to? Who else should be involved? Whom do I need to

approach to ensure the best contacts are made? How can the BLM assure

sufficiently diverse participation to adequately reflect local, regional, and national

interests?

2. What formal and informal opportunities for communication could be used to

relay the BLM’s message?

B. On a local level, postings on local bulletin boards and face-to-face communication

may best serve community needs when presented in both English and local languages,

depending on the unique characteristics of each community. Consider the following

questions:

1. How does this community receive and send information? Would the use of

Internet technology, such as websites and e-mail, be effective?

2. Are there community meetings where information and ideas are exchanged?

Although this approach may seem time consuming at first, it is eventually very effective in

communicating efficiently with a large number of people, motivating people to implement the

agreed upon strategy, building trust, and encouraging broad-based participation. It may seem

daunting in urban settings, but the same approach can be effective once the above questions are

answered. This approach provides the BLM with a technique to more effectively engage the

public in the decision-making process, which normally leads to increased support for the

decisions ultimately reached. This approach also provides an early alert to emerging issues,

giving a BLM manager more time and flexibility to resolve issues up front. As issues are

resolved dynamically, conflict diminishes. These methods can be used in advance of, and are

complementary to, a standard communications plan that defines what communications products

are needed, who is responsible for producing them, and when specific products must be

delivered.

BLM offices should maintain mailing lists of individuals and organizations that request

involvement in specific activities or areas, such as rangeland developments or ACECs. NOIs

and NOAs for planning/NEPA processes, along with other materials should be provided as

requested. Offices should also maintain a listing of planned or ongoing planning/NEPA

processes, make these lists available to the public, and encourage public participation throughout

the decision-making process.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Appendix A, page 3

III. Benefits

Benefits of collaboration include the following:

A. Better decisions are made. Concerns are heard and addressed, information and

technical knowledge are shared, mutual goals and actions to achieve these goals are

agreed upon, and plans are easier to implement as a result. Solutions tend to be more

long-term and hold up to legal scrutiny. Through collaboration with different landowners

and jurisdictions, BLM can more effectively plan for the protection and use of the

resources it administers.

B. Resources are leveraged more effectively. There are a variety of cost-share

arrangements and grants available for collaborative and partnership initiatives that can

help implement on-the-ground projects.

C. Relationships are improved. Collaboration encourages people to continue to talk

despite differences and changing circumstances, thus improving the ability to resolve

conflict and build trust among participants.

IV. Tools

It is highly recommended that training on collaborative skills be completed before undertaking

initiatives to work with private citizens and groups. The BLM National Training Center offers a

series of courses, “The Partnership Series,” which can be taught in BLM locations to mixed

public-private audiences rather than at the National Training Center. Visit their website at

www.ntc.blm.gov/partner for more information.

Innovative partnerships and assistance agreements are very helpful to launching collaborative

efforts. The BLM Washington Office’s Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group

(WO-210) can provide more information.

The BLM and the Sonoran Institute have prepared “A Desktop Reference Guide to

Collaborative, Community-Based Planning” which is available at BLM state and field offices.

This guide provides suggestions and examples for collaborative planning.

Also see Executive Order 13352 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Appendix B, page 1

Appendix B: Federal Advisory Committee Act Considerations

I. Purpose

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.A. App. 2 (86 Stat. 770, as amended),

was enacted on October 6, 1972, to reduce narrow special-interest group influence on decision-

makers, to foster equal access to the decision-making process for the general public, and to

control costs by preventing the establishment of unnecessary advisory committees. The FACA

applies whenever a statute or an agency official establishes or utilizes a committee, board,

commission or similar group for the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations on issues

or policies within the agency official’s responsibility.

The BLM’s managers and staff must understand the provisions of FACA both when they are

gathering public input for decision-making processes and when they are working in collaborative

efforts, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, to ensure BLM’s collaborative efforts comply

with FACA. In essence, any time a group will be consulted or will be providing

recommendations to a BLM official, the BLM should verify whether FACA applies and, if so,

ensure that the FACA requirements are followed. If the BLM fails to comply with FACA, it will

leave its decisions and products open to challenge in court.

II. Implementing FACA

A. Avoiding Violations

To avoid violating the FACA, BLM managers should:

1. Consider whether FACA applies to any current or proposed collaborative or group

activity. FACA will apply if a group is established or utilized by the BLM for the

purpose of obtaining advice. In reaching decisions whether FACA will apply, managers

should refer to the General Services Administration’s (GSA) regulations at 41 CFR 102-3

and consult with the Office of the Solicitor. Further information about when FACA

applies, including the FACA regulations, can be found at

www.policyworks.gov/org/main/mc/linkit.htm or in the Committee Management

Secretariat section of the GSA website.

a. If FACA applies, establishing a committee requires consultation with GSA,

filing a charter, publishing a notice in the Federal Register, and opening meetings

of the group to the public. Also see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Committees).

b. Existing groups are covered by FACA if they are “utilized” by a Federal

agency. A group is “utilized” whenever a Federal agency exercises actual

management or control over its operation.

2. For those groups covered by FACA, verify that its requirements are followed,

including the filing of an appropriate charter, balancing the membership, informing the

public of its meetings (time, place, purpose, etc.) through Federal Register publication,

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix B, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

and opening the meetings to the public. Consult with FACA experts to ensure

compliance with its procedures. Also see 43 CFR 1784 (Advisory Committees).

Collaborative groups that are not initiated by the BLM can avoid application of FACA and can

continue to have active BLM participation by maintaining their independence from BLM actual

management or control.

B. Determining if FACA Applies

Figure 4 outlines the basic requirements to determine if the provisions of FACA apply. If there

is any doubt, the BLM field office should consult its Solicitor. The field office must determine

whether FACA applies to a particular collaborative effort, and if it does, whether it would be

beneficial to pursue the effort by chartering the group under FACA or making it a subgroup of a

RAC (see 43 CFR 1784.6-2). Answers to the following questions can be helpful in determining

whether FACA does or does not apply:

1. Does the group include individuals who are not employees of Tribal, state, or local

governments or other Federal agencies?

2. Does the group have a formal organizational structure?

3. How was the group or meeting initiated? Specifically, was the group established by

the BLM?

4. Is the group subject to agency actual management or control?

5. What is the function of the group? Is it providing consensus advice or

recommendations as a group to the agency?

FACA will not apply to any meeting of more than one individual initiated by the President or

Federal official(s) to obtain the advice of individual attendees, provided that the Federal official

does not exercise actual management or control over the group. FACA does not apply to

meetings held exclusively between Federal officials and Tribal, state, and local elected officials,

or their designated employees, where such meetings are solely for the purpose of exchanging

views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of Federal

intergovernmental programs (see Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534).

C. FACA Requirements

If a group is subject to FACA, there are a number of requirements that must be in place in order

to proceed. Subcommittees of established FACA committees may, under some circumstances,

be subject to these requirements as well. Specific requirements include:

1. A charter describing the committee’s function, duration, members, duties, frequency

of meetings, and costs.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK

Appendix B, page 3

2. A designated Federal employee to attend all meetings and to approve meeting

agendas.

3. Notices of meetings that are published in the Federal Register and other appropriate

venues.

4. Meetings that are open to the public, with detailed minutes prepared for public review.

Further explanation is provided in the BLM’s Natural Resource Alternative Dispute Resolution

Initiative Strategic Plan and Tool Kit, September 11, 1997, available at BLM state offices.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix B, page 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Do Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) Considerations Apply?

1. Is there a group providing advice to

a Federal agency which is not made up

entirely of Federal, Tribal, state, or

local governmental officials advising on

intergovernmental programs?

1

3. Does the group provide advice as a

group (rather than as individuals)?

2. Is the group established, managed,

or controlled by a Federal agency?

If yes to all questions: FACA considerations most likely

apply.

Note: This chart is for general guidance; final

determinations regarding the applicability of FACA should

be made in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor.

1

See 2 U.S.C. 1534 for details.

Figure 4.—Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) flow chart: Does FACA apply?

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 1

Appendix C: Program/Resource-Specific Decision Guidance

This appendix provides three categories of planning information for BLM program areas: (1)

Land Use Plan Decisions, (2) Implementation Decisions, and (3) Notices, Consultations, and

Hearings. Each program/resource heading contains resource-specific guidance for each

category. The guidance presented for each resource should be addressed in conjunction with the

guidance presented for other resources to maintain an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to

planning.

1. Land Use Plan Decisions. These broad-scale decisions guide future land

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land use

plan decisions fall into two categories: desired outcomes (goals and objectives), and

allowable uses and actions to achieve outcomes. Proposed land use plan decisions are

protestable to the BLM Director but are not reviewable by the Office of Hearings and

Appeals.

The application of program-specific guidance for land use plan decisions will vary,

depending on the decision category, and must be applied as follows:

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources: Decisions identified must be

made during the land use planning process if the resource exists in the planning

area.

II. Resource Uses: Decisions identified must be made during the land use

planning process if the BLM anticipates it may authorize or allow a resource use.

If uses are allowed, decisions must also be made regarding intensity and limits or

restrictions.

III. Special Designations: Special designation decisions identified must be made

during the land use planning process when the BLM anticipates it may authorize

or allow uses which could disqualify inventoried resource values from

designation. Special designation decisions may be made during the land use

planning process when there is no threat to the inventoried resource.

IV. Support: Support needs and decisions may be determined through the land

use planning process, based on individual planning situations.

2. Implementation Decisions. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s

final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of decisions

require site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. They may be incorporated into

implementation plans (activity or project plans) or may exist as stand-alone decisions.

Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use planning process, they

are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as prescribed by

specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to land use plan

decisions and makes a decision to adopt or amend the RMP (High Desert Multiple Use

Coalition, Inc. et al. Keith Collins, 142 IBLA 285 (1998)).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

3. Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. This section identifies resource-specific

requirements and suggestions for notices, consultations, and hearings when developing

Land use plan decisions that are in addition to those identified in Section III of this

Handbook. Note: Some laws or regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act,

National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Air Act, have notice, consultation, or

hearing requirements that apply to most resource programs, resource uses, or activities.

These requirements are identified in the primary program narrative but are not repeated

for each resource program, resource use, or activity that may be affected.

I. Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources

A. Air

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes and areawide criteria or restrictions, in

cooperation with the appropriate air quality regulatory agency, that apply to direct or authorized

emission-generating activities, including the Clean Air Act’s requirements for compliance with:

1. Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Section 109);

2. State Implementation Plans (Section 110);

3. Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (Section 118);

4. Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility impacts to mandatory

Federal Class I Areas (Section 160 et seq.); and

5. Conformity Analyses and Determinations (Section 176(c)).

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific emission control strategies, processes, and

actions to achieve desired air quality conditions from direct or authorized emission-generating

activities.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult, coordinate, and comply with applicable Tribal,

Federal, state, and local air quality regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act, Executive

Order 12088, and Tribal, Federal or state implementation plans. Each field office should work

closely with counties or states on the development or amendment of state implementation plans.

B. Soil and Water

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes (including standards or goals under the

Clean Water Act). Identify watersheds or specific soils that may need special protection from

the standpoint of human health concerns, ecosystem health, or other public uses. For riparian

areas, identify desired width/depth ratios, streambank conditions, channel substrate conditions,

and large woody material characteristics. Identify areawide use restrictions or other protective

measures to meet Tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. Identify measures,

including filing for water rights under applicable state or Federal permit procedures, to ensure

water availability for multiple use management and functioning, healthy riparian and upland

systems.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 3

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific management opportunities and priorities by

using a watershed approach and watershed assessment information. Identify the site-specific or

basin-specific soil, riparian, or nonpoint-source best management practices and rehabilitation

techniques needed to meet Tribal, state, and local water quality requirements.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult and coordinate with other Federal, state, and

local agencies, as directed by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.

1001-1009), and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) (see BLM Manual 7000). Collaborate

with local watershed groups when developing activity plans.

C. Vegetation

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes for vegetative resources, including the

desired mix of vegetative types, structural stages, and landscape and riparian functions; and

provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats and livestock forage. Desired outcomes

(goals and objectives) may be established at multiple scales. Identify areas of ecological

importance and designate priority plant species and habitats, including special status species and

populations of plant species recognized as significant for at least one factor such as density,

diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age. Identify the actions and areawide use

restrictions needed to achieve desired vegetative conditions.

Reference materials for establishing desired outcomes for vegetative resources include:

1. National Range and Pasture Handbook (1997): Natural Resource Conservation

Service (USDA- NRCS) Methodology of Vegetation Inventory, Monitoring, Analysis

and Management of Grazing Lands.

2. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health: BLM Technical Reference 1734-6.

3. Ecological Site Inventory: BLM Technical Reference 1734-7.

4. Rangeland Health Standards: H-4180-1.

5. Website examples of ecological site descriptions (use Internet Explorer):

• http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov

• http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/fotg/section-2/ESD.html

• http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/range/ecolsites/

In areas where Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorities are to be used, identify old growth

forest stands or describe a process for identifying old growth forest stands in the land use plan

based on the structure and composition characteristic of the forest type. Provide management

direction to maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of

old growth forest stands in areas where these authorities will be used. This management

direction should consider the pre-fire exclusion old growth conditions characteristic of the forest

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

type, taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed

health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old growth structure.

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific vegetation management practices such as

allotment grazing systems, vegetation treatments, or manipulation methods (including fuels

treatments) to achieve desired plant communities, as well as integrated vegetation management

techniques to rehabilitate weed infestations or otherwise control noxious and invasive weeds.

Identify old-growth stands and management practices to achieve old-growth management

direction where applicable. Identify old-growth stands and management practices to achieve

old-growth management direction where applicable.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

with the USFWS and/or NOAA-Fisheries for all actions that may affect listed species or

designated critical habitat or confer if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in the destruction of adverse modification of proposed critical habitat

(see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific

laws, agreements, or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state wildlife

agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats.

D. Special Status Species

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify desired outcomes, strategies, restoration opportunities, use

restrictions, and management actions to conserve and recover special status species. Desired

outcomes may incorporate goals and objectives from recovery plans and conservation strategies

or identify ecologically important areas or scarce, limited habitats. Goals and objectives may be

species or habitat specific and can be established at multiple scales (i.e., fine, mid, and broad) to

fully understand the context of the larger landscape.

Given the legal mandate to conserve threatened or endangered species and BLM’s policy to

conserve all special status species, land use planning strategies, desired outcomes, and decisions

should result in a reasonable conservation strategy for these species. Land use plan decisions

should be clear and sufficiently detailed to enhance habitat or prevent avoidable loss of habitat

pending the development and implementation of implementation-level plans. This may include

identifying stipulations or criteria that would be applied to implementation actions. Land use

plan decisions should be consistent with BLM’s mandate to recover listed species and should be

consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans, conservation

agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened and

endangered species.

Implementation Decisions. Identify the programmatic and site-specific actions needed to

implement planning decisions for conserving and recovering special status species. These

decisions may be identified in implementation plans for habitat management areas, ACECs, and

grazing allotments, etc.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 5

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consultation with the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries is

required by the Endangered Species Act for actions that may affect listed species and designated

critical habitat, and conferencing is needed if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat (see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Manual Section 6840). Depending on

state-specific agreements or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state

wildlife agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats.

1. Interagency Agreements on Consultation. The BLM has entered into a variety of

Memoranda of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding regarding consultation on

agency actions to help streamline and bring greater efficiency to the consultation process.

A key element of these includes utilizing early involvement of regulatory agency

personnel in the planning process. Including representatives from these agencies on the

planning team during development of alternatives could improve the BLM’s ability to

address and discuss the effects of management direction on listed and proposed species

and their critical habitats. For additional direction and guidance, consult the most current

versions of these Memoranda.

2. Initial Effects Determination. During preparation of draft land use plan decisions and

associated NEPA analysis, the BLM makes an initial determination of effects to listed or

proposed species. If the BLM makes a determination of “no effect” on the preferred

alternative, informal consultation is not required.

3. Informal Consultation. Informal consultation should be initiated on the preferred

alternative with the USFWS or the NOAA-Fisheries if the initial BLM determination is

“not likely to adversely affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. .“Not likely to

adversely affect” determinations are reached when effects of the action are insignificant,

discountable, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive

effects without any long-term adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects relate

to the size of the impact and cannot be meaningfully measured. Discountable effects are

those that have an extremely low probability of occurring.

Informal consultation is concluded if the Services concur with the BLM determination.

This concurrence must be documented in the planning record by a written letter of

concurrence from the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries. If the Services do not concur with

the BLM determination, formal consultation must be initiated.

3. Formal Consultation. Formal consultation is required when proposed management

direction and resource allocations in the preferred alternative are determined to be “likely

to adversely affect” to listed species or designated critical habitat. The Endangered

Species Act and 50 CFR 402.16 outline criteria for re-initiating consultation when there

has been significant change since the original consultation was completed. Based on

these criteria, consultation on land use plan and implementation decisions must be re-

initiated for any of the following reasons:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 6

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

a) New information shows that the plan decisions may affect listed or proposed

species or critical habitat in a way or to an extent not previously considered;

b) land use plan and/or implementation decisions are modified in a way that may

cause adverse effects to the listed or proposed species or critical habitat that were

not considered in the biological opinion;

c) implementation of existing land use plan decisions could affect a newly listed

species or newly designated critical habitat; or

d) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded.

4. Conferencing. The BLM will conference with the Services on any action which is

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. The conference is

designed to assist the Federal agency and any applicant in identifying and resolving

potential conflicts at an early stage in the planning process. Conferencing includes

informal discussions concerning an action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the proposed species or results in the destruction or adverse modification of

the proposed critical habitat at issue.

5. Consultation under Endangered Species Act with Indian Tribes. Department of the

Interior’s Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights; Federal-Tribal Trust

Responsibilities; and the Endangered Species Act; requires Interior agencies to consult

with Indian Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of

compliance with Endangered Species Act, affect or may affect Indian lands, Tribal trust

resources, or the exercise of American Indian Tribal rights. Consultation under this

Order should be closely coordinated with regional or field offices of the USFWS and/or

NOAA-Fisheries for game and non-game species.

E. Fish and Wildlife

Land Use Plan Decisions. Designate priority species and habitats, in addition to special status

species, for fish or wildlife species recognized as significant for at least one factor such as

density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age. Identify desired outcomes

using BLM strategic plans, state agency strategic plans, and other similar sources.

Describe desired habitat conditions and/or population for major habitat types that support a wide

variety of game, non-game, and migratory bird species; acknowledging the states’ roles in

managing fish and wildlife, working in close coordination with state wildlife agencies, and

drawing on state comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies. Identify actions and areawide

use restrictions needed to achieve desired population and habitat conditions while maintaining a

thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships. (Also see previous Section D,

Special Status Species.) Identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed fish species

(Oregon, Washington, California and Idaho only).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 7

Implementation Decisions. In coordination with state wildlife agencies, identify site-specific

actions, such as riparian fencing, guzzler placement, fuels management, etc., needed to manage

ecosystems for all species and habitat for special status species. Identify specific measures to

conserve and enhance EFH.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

with the USFWS and/or NOAA-Fisheries, for all actions that may affect listed species or

designated critical habitat or confer if actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat

(see 50 CFR 402.14 and 402.10; and BLM Handbook H-6840). Depending on state-specific

laws, agreements, or policies, there may be additional requirements to confer with state wildlife

agencies if Federal actions may affect state-listed species or their habitats. Consult with the

NOAA-Fisheries on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken that may impact EFH (through

existing environmental review processes in accordance with NEPA). Comply with Executive

Order 13186 for the conservation of migratory birds.

F. Wild Horses and Burros

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following (see 43 CFR 4700):

1. Herd Areas. Herd areas (HAs) are limited to areas of the public lands identified as

being habitat used by wild horses and burros at the time of the passage of the Wild Horse

and Burro Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340). HA boundaries may only be changed

when it is determined that (1) areas once listed as HAs are later found to be used only by

privately-owned horses or burros, or (2) the HA boundary does not correctly portray

where wild horses and burros were found in 1971.

2. Herd Management Area Designation. Herd management areas (HMAs) are

established only in HAs, within which wild horses and/or burros can be managed for the

long term. For HMAs, identify the following:

a) Initial and estimated herd size that could be managed while still preserving and

maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships

for that area.

b) Guidelines and criteria for adjusting herd size.

3. Herd Areas Not Designated as Herd Management Areas. Where appropriate, the land

use plan may include decisions removing horses from all or part of a HA. Examples

include intermingled and unfenced lands within HAs where private landowners do not

want to make them available for wild horse or burro use; or essential habitat components

are not available for wild horse or burro use within a HA.

4. Wild Horse and Burro Ranges. An HMA may be considered for designation as a wild

horse or burro range when there is a significant public value present, such as unique

characteristics in a herd or an outstanding opportunity for public viewing.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 8

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

5. Areawide Restrictions Needed to Achieve Objectives. For example, if domestic horses

in HMAs are not compatible with wild horse management policies, then, domestic horse

grazing must not be permitted in HMAs or adjacent to HMAs if domestic and wild horses

are likely to intermingle.

Implementation Decisions. Identify and set objectives for herd composition, animal

characteristics, and habitat development needs. Establish appropriate management levels

(AMLs) based on monitoring and evaluations, including the population range within which the

herd size will be allowed to fluctuate. (Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, et al.,

139 IBLA 24 (1997).)

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340) requires BLM to consult with Federal and state wildlife

agencies and all other affected interests during land use and implementation planning for the

management of wild horses and burros.

Public hearings are required when anticipated management activities involve the use of

helicopters to capture, or the use of motor vehicles to transport, wild horses and burros.

Hearings are held in the state where the activities are proposed and are normally conducted on an

annual basis (see 43 CFR 4740).

G. Cultural Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify special cultural resource restrictions that may affect the

location, timing, or method of development or use of other resources in the planning area.

Identify site-specific use restrictions from cultural resources currently being actively managed.

Identify area wide criteria for recognizing potential cultural resource conflicts, such as

geographic characteristics of sacred sites, historic properties, or cultural landscapes (springs,

ridges, peaks, caves, and rock shelters, for example). Consider these restrictions and criteria in

all proposed land and resource use decisions. Identify measures to pro-actively manage, protect,

and use cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties.

The scope and scale of cultural resource identification are much more general and less intensive

for land use planning than for processing site-specific use proposals. Instead of new, on-the-

ground inventory, the appropriate identification level for land use planning is a regional

overview: (1) a compilation and analysis of reasonably available cultural resource data and

literature, (2) a management-oriented synthesis of the resulting information that includes

priorities and a strategy for accomplishing needed inventory (see Manual Section 8110.) If land

use decisions, however, are more specific in terms of impacts, they may require a more detailed

level of identification of the scope and nature of cultural resources during land use planning.

RMPs will include at least the following two goals:

1. Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 9

(c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); Archaeological

Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)).

2. Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or

human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA Sec.

103(c), NHPA 106, 110 (a) (2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and

resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106.

All cultural properties in the RMP area, whether already recorded or projected to occur on the

basis of existing-data synthesis, including cultural landscapes, will be allocated to the uses listed

in Table C-1 according to their nature and relative preservation value. These use allocations

pertain to cultural resources, not to areas of land.

Table C-1.—Cultural use allocations and desired outcomes

Use allocation

1

Desired outcomes

a. Scientific use

Preserved until research potential is realized

b. Conservation for future use

Preserved until conditions for use are met

c. Traditional use

Long-term preservation

d. Public use

Long-term preservation, on-site interpretation

e. Experimental use

Protected until used

f. Discharged from management

No use after recordation; not preserved

1

The majority of the cultural properties in a given geographic area will fall into categories (a) and (f). The less-common properties in categories

(b)–(e) are likely to be associated with particular settings that can be delineated geographically in the planning process. As the plan is developed,

properties in categories b–d will require the most attention to balance their proactive uses with other land and resource uses.

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific information needs, impacted resources,

protection measures and opportunities to use cultural properties for scientific, educational,

recreational, and traditional purposes. Evaluate whether intended uses would result in changes to

cultural properties’ significance or preservation value, and if so, how resource condition should

be monitored, measured, and maintained at an acceptable level.

1. Cultural properties allocated to uses are subject to the management actions listed in

Table C-2 to realize their use potential.

Table C-2.—Cultural use allocations and management actions

Use allocation

Management

a. Scientific use

Permit appropriate research, including date recovery

b. Conservation for future use

Propose protective measures/designations

1`

c. Traditional use

Consult with Tribes; determine limitations

1

d. Public use

Determine permitted use

1

e. Experimental use

Determine nature of experiment

f. Discharged from management

Remove protective measures

1

Safeguards against incompatible land and resource uses may be imposed through withdrawals, stipulations on leases and permits, design

requirements, and similar measures which are developed and recommended by an appropriately staffed interdisciplinary team.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 10

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

2. Categorize geographic area as high/medium/low priority for future inventory of

cultural properties.

3. All authorizations for land and resource use will comply with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the objective

established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public interest

(NHPA Sec. 106, 101(d)(6), 110(a)(2)(E); national BLM-ACHP-NCSHPO Programmatic

Agreement of March 1997).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings.

1. Consistent with the national Programmatic Agreement and individual state BLM-

SHPO protocols, invite the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to participate

from the outset of planning in order to reduce the potential for cultural resource conflicts

with other resource uses as plans are implemented.

2. For states not operating under a BLM-SHPO protocol, such as Eastern states, consult

with the SHPO before plan approval concerning any actions that may be directly

implemented upon plan approval and could affect a cultural property listed in or eligible

for the National Register of Historic Places (see 36 CFR 800).

3. Formal consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

usually take place during implementation planning; however, consult with the SHPO

during land use planning regarding cultural resource evaluation recommendations (36

CFR 800.4(c)).

4. Consult Tribal leaders and traditional religious practitioners under the American

Indian Religious Freedom Act about any management objectives and actions that might

affect Native American religious practices, including access to sacred sites. Consult

Tribal leaders under the National Historic Preservation Act about any management

objectives or actions that might affect properties of traditional cultural importance.

H. Paleontology

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify criteria or use restrictions to ensure that (a) areas containing,

or that are likely to contain, vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils

are identified and evaluated prior to authorizing surface-disturbing activities; (b) management

recommendations are developed to promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of

fossils; and (c) threats to paleontological resources are identified and mitigated as appropriate.

Implementation Decisions. Identify appropriate protection measures and scientific, educational,

and recreational use opportunities for paleontological localities.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 11

I. Visual Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Manage visual resource values in accordance with visual resource

management (VRM) objectives (management classes). Designate VRM management classes for

all areas of BLM land, based on an inventory of visual resources and management considerations

for other land uses. VRM management classes may differ from VRM inventory classes, based

on management priorities for land uses (see BLM Handbook H-8410-1 for a description of VRM

classes).

Implementation Decisions. Manage resource uses and management activities consistent with

the VRM objectives established in the land use plan. Design all BLM resource uses,

management activities, and other implementation decisions to meet VRM objectives established

in the land use plan. Utilize visual resource design techniques and best management practices to

mitigate the potential for short- and long-term impacts. Contrast ratings are required for all

major projects proposed on public lands that fall within VRM Class I, II, and III areas which

have high sensitivity levels (see Handbook H-8341-1 for contrast-rating procedures).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist.

J. Wildland Fire Management

Land Use Plan Decisions. Fire management strategies must recognize the role of wildland fire

as an essential ecological process and natural change agent. Fire management strategies must

result in minimum suppression costs, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and

values to be protected; consistent with resource objectives. Fire management decisions (goals

and objectives, and allowable uses and management actions) must reflect that the protection of

human life is the single, overriding priority. Other priorities (protecting human communities and

community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources)

are based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection.

Consistent with these principles, identify landscape-level fire management goals and objectives,

which would be achieved through allowable uses and management actions. Use fire

regime/condition class methodology to identify desired wildland fire conditions. Wildland fire

management goals and objectives must be closely coordinated with vegetation management

goals and objectives.

Identify allowable uses and management actions to achieve the fire management goals and

objectives, and support the goals and objectives for vegetation, wildlife, and other resources.

As part of identifying allowable uses, identify the geographic areas that are suitable for wildland

fire use, provided conditions are appropriate. Also, identify the geographic areas where wildland

fire use is not appropriate due to social, economic, political, or resource constraints (e.g.,

wildland urban interface areas); and where suppression action would be taken.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 12

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

As part of identifying management actions to achieve goals and objectives, identify the types of

fuels management or vegetation management treatments (e.g., mechanical, biological, and

chemical treatments and prescribed fire) that would be implemented.

Allowable uses and management actions include the identification of restrictions on fire

management practices (including both wildfire suppression and fuels management) needed to

protect natural or cultural resource values. Restrictions may be structured to allow flexibility to

apply restrictions on a seasonal or annual basis, based on resource conditions, weather factors,

and operational capability.

Establish landscape-scale fire management priorities or provide criteria that will guide more site-

specific priorities at the fire management plan level.

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific fire management practices and fuels treatment

actions needed to meet the broad-scale land use plan goals and objectives (such as wildland fire

use, prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, biological, and chemical treatments) including their

location, size, and specific layout and project design features, as well as any measures needed to

protect sensitive resources.

For additional guidance, see the DOI and BLM Fire Management Manuals and Handbooks.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings.

1. Consult, coordinate, and comply with Tribes, Federal agencies, and state and local

governments regarding smoke management where required by the Clean Air Act,

Executive Order 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), and State

Implementation Plans.

2. Consult and coordinate with adjacent Tribes, Federal agencies, and state and local

governments to establish protection and fuels management priorities.

K. Wilderness Characteristics

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify decisions to protect or preserve wilderness characteristics

(naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive

and unconfined recreation). Include goals and objectives to protect the resource and

management actions necessary to achieve these goals and objectives. For authorized activities,

include conditions of use that would avoid or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics.

Implementation Decisions. Identify site-specific protection measures to insure protection of

wilderness characteristics.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 13

L. Cave and Karst Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify significant caves as mandated by the Federal Cave

Resources Protection Act of 1988. Criteria for identification of significant caves is set forth in

43 CFR 37.11(c). If it is determined that a cave meets these criteria, it must be designated as

significant as set forth in 43 CFR 37.11(f).

For each designated significant cave, consider whether or not an administrative designation (e.g.,

ACEC) is needed to provide adequate protection for significant cave resources (see III. Special

Designations). Regardless, it is vital that both management objectives and setting prescriptions

be set for each designated significant cave. Management objectives should be outcome-based

(i.e., not facility- or project-based). Setting prescriptions should specify conditions needed to

facilitate achievement of the management objectives.

Implementation Decisions. Address four basic but broad types of cave and karst resource

management actions for all significant caves:

1. Management (resources, visitors and facilities);

2. marketing (outreach, information and education, promotion, interpretation, and

environmental education);

3. monitoring (social, environmental and administrative indicators and standards); and

4. administration (regulatory, permit/fee/fiscal, data management, and customer liaison).

All BLM implementing actions must be conditioned by the specific management objectives and

accompanying setting prescriptions incorporated within land use plan decisions for each

significant cave.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Certain actions involving impacts to cave and karst

resources may require consultation and coordination with other Federal, state and local

government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations or individuals as mandated by Section

4 of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act; Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and Section 8 of the Public

Rangeland Improvement Act.

II. Resource Uses

A. Forestry

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify characteristics (indicators) to describe healthy forest

conditions (i.e., desired outcomes) for forest/woodland types found within the planning area

(also see I(C), Vegetation). Identify the suite of possible management actions (including

appropriate harvest, reforestation, and forest development methods), and associated best

management practices, that can be applied to meet desired outcomes.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 14

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Identify areas that are available and have the capacity for planned, sustained-yield timber harvest

or special forest product harvest. A probable sale quantity (PSQ) should be determined, if

possible, for those areas determined to be available for harvest. The PSQ is the allowable

harvest level that can be maintained without decline over the long term if the schedule of

harvests and regeneration are followed. PSQ recognizes a level of uncertainty in meeting the

determined level; this uncertainty is typically based on other environmental factors that preclude

harvesting at a particular time (for example, because of watershed or habitat concerns). A PSQ

is not a commitment to offer for sale a specific level of timber volume every year.

Implementation Decisions. Identify individual timber or special forest product sale locations

and schedules; site-specific intensive management practices, locations, and schedules; and

restrictions associated with forestry activities. Identify individual forest health treatment

activities by location and schedule (Headwaters, Inc., 116 IBLA 129 (1990)).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. There are no additional specific requirements.

B. Livestock Grazing

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify lands available or not available for livestock grazing (see 43

CFR 4130.2(a)), considering the following factors:

1. Other uses for the land;

2. terrain characteristics;

3. soil, vegetation, and watershed characteristics;

4. the presence of undesirable vegetation, including significant invasive weed

infestations; and

5. the presence of other resources that may require special management or protection,

such as special status species, special recreation management areas (SRMAs), or ACECs.

Decisions identifying lands available, or not available, for livestock grazing may be revisited

through the amendment or revision process if the grazing preference or permit on those lands has

been voluntarily relinquished, or if there are outstanding requests to voluntarily relinquish the

grazing preference or permit. If an evaluation of Land Health Standards identifies an allotment

or group of allotments where Land Health Standards cannot be achieved under any level or

management of livestock use, then decisions identifying those areas as available for livestock

grazing need to be revisited.

For lands available for livestock grazing, identify on an areawide basis both the amount of

existing forage available for livestock (expressed in animal unit months) and the future

anticipated amount of forage available for livestock with full implementation of the land use plan

while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships. The land

use plan needs to describe how these public lands will be managed to become as productive as

feasible for livestock grazing, including a description of possible grazing management practices

such as grazing systems, range improvements (including land treatments), changes in seasons of

use and/or stocking rates. In addition, identify guidelines and criteria for future allotment-

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 15

specific adjustments in the amount of forage available for livestock, season of use, or other

grazing management practices (Joel Stamatakis, Steve Stamatakis; 98 IBLA 4 (1987)).

Implementation Decisions. For areas available for grazing, identify allotment-specific (for one

or several allotments) grazing management practices and livestock forage amounts based on

monitoring and assessment information, as well as constraints and needs related to other

resources. Grazing management practices and levels of livestock grazing use must achieve the

desired outcomes outlined in the land use plan, including rangeland health standards (or

comprehensive Land Health Standards), or must result in significant progress toward fulfilling

rangeland health standards; they must also conform to the guidelines required under 43 CFR

4180.2(b).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Conduct appropriate consultation, cooperation, and

coordination actions as required under 43 CFR 4130.2(b). Copies of proposed decisions on

grazing use are sent to interested members of the public in accordance with 43 CFR 4160.1.

C. Recreation and Visitor Services

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify special recreation management areas (SRMAs).

Each SRMA has a distinct, primary recreation-tourism market as well as a corresponding and

distinguishing recreation management strategy. For each SRMA selected, determine whether

that primary market-based strategy will be to manage for a destination recreation-tourism

market, a community recreation-tourism market, or an undeveloped recreation-tourism market,

and state that determination in the land use plan. Then describe the market that corresponds to

that specific recreation management strategy (who they are and where they are located). Divide

recreation areas that have more than one distinct, primary recreation market into separate

SRMAs.

For each SRMA identified, delineate discrete recreation management zone (RMZ) boundaries.

Each RMZ has four defining characteristics - it: (1) serves a different recreation niche within the

primary recreation market; (2) produces a different set of recreation opportunities and facilitates

the attainment of different experience and benefit outcomes (to individuals, households and

communities, economies, and the environment); (3) has distinctive recreation setting character;

and (4) requires a different set of recreation provider actions to meet the strategically-targeted

primary recreation market demand. To address these four variables within each RMZ, make the

following land-use allocation decisions:

1. Identify the corresponding recreation niche to be served;

2. write explicit recreation management objectives for the specific recreation

opportunities to be produced and the outcomes to be attained (activities, experiences, and

benefits);

3. prescribe recreation setting character conditions required to produce recreation

opportunities and facilitate the attainment of both recreation experiences and beneficial

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 16

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

outcomes, as targeted above (the recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the existing

tools for both describing existing setting character and prescribing desired setting

character); and

4. briefly describe an activity planning framework that addresses recreation

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions (e.g., visitor

services, permits and fees, recreation concessions, and appropriate use restrictions)

necessary to achieve explicitly-stated recreation management objectives and setting

prescriptions (see Implementation Decisions subsection below).

Visual resource management classes need to be correlated with the recreation management

objectives and setting prescriptions that have been set for each RMZ delineated.

Anything not delineated as an SRMA is an extensive recreation management area (ERMA).

Management within all ERMAs is restricted to custodial actions only. Therefore, actions within

ERMAs are generally implemented directly from land use plan decisions and do not require

activity-level planning. Land use plan decisions must, therefore, include recreation management

objectives for all ERMAs. Consider addressing visitor health and safety, user conflict and

resource protection issues in particular through these recreation management objectives.

However, land use plan decisions for ERMAs need to also identify implementing recreation

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions of the kinds listed for

SRMAs under Implementation Decisions below (because no follow-up implementation decisions

at the activity plan level are required for ERMAs) Note: If recreation demand (i.e., from an

undeveloped recreation-tourism market) requires maintenance of setting character and/or

production of associated activity, experience, and benefit opportunities/outcomes, the area

should be identified and managed as an SRMA, rather than being custodially managed as an

ERMA.

Recognition of singularly dominant activity-based recreation demand of and by itself (e.g., heavy

off-highway vehicle use, river rafting, etc.), however great, generally constitutes insufficient

rationale for the identification of an SRMA and the subsequent expenditure of major recreation

program investments in facilities and/or visitor assistance. This does not mean that the

expenditure of substantial custodial funding is unwarranted when circumstances require it, but

such expenditures should be geared to take care of the land and its associated recreation-tourism

use and not to provide structured recreation opportunities which characterize SRMAs.

Identification, but not formal designation, of both SRMAs and ERMAs is required (see Manual

Section 8300).

Implementation Decisions. For all SRMAs, address four basic but broad types of recreation

actions:

1. Recreation management (of resources, visitors, and facilities [i.e., developed

recreation sites, roads and trails, recreation concessions, etc.]);

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 17

2. recreation marketing (including outreach, information and education, promotion,

interpretation, environmental education; and other visitor services);

3. recreation monitoring (including social, environmental, and administrative indicators

and standards); and

4. recreation administration (regulatory; permits and fees, including use restrictions

where necessary and appropriate; recreation concessions; fiscal; data management; and

customer liaison).

All BLM implementing actions for SRMAs must be conditioned by both the identified primary

recreation market strategy and the specific RMZ land use allocation objectives and

accompanying setting prescriptions incorporated within land use plan decisions. Since the BLM

is not the sole-source provider of public lands recreation, be sure to address any actions of other

key recreation-tourism providers within local service communities (i.e., local governments and

private recreation-tourism businesses). The BLM cannot dictate to its local government and

private business providers. Yet, without their collaborative engagement as managing partners in

plan design and implementation, recreation opportunities targeted by land use plan management

objectives cannot be produced over the long run, nor can prescribed recreation settings be

sustained.

To the greatest extent possible, and appropriate to the setting prescriptions for the area involved,

all new construction and modifications to recreation facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any

related programs and activities will be accessible to people with disabilities in accordance with

the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, and in conformance with relevant building standards, accessible outdoor program

guidance, and program regulations.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist.

D. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Land Use Plan Decisions. Delineate travel management areas and designate off-highway

vehicle management areas.

1. Delineating Travel Management Areas. Comprehensive travel management planning

should address all resource use aspects (such as recreational, traditional, casual,

agricultural, commercial, and educational) and accompanying modes and conditions of

travel on the public lands, not just motorized or off-highway vehicle activities. In the

RMP, travel management areas (polygons) should be delineated. Identify acceptable

modes of access and travel for each travel management area (including over-land, over-

water, over-snow and fly-in access [remote airstrips and float planes]). In developing

these areas, consider the following:

a. Consistency with all resource program goals and objectives;

b. primary travelers;

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 18

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

c. objectives for allowing travel in the area;

d. setting characteristics that are to be maintained (including recreation

opportunity system and VRM settings); and

e. primary means of travel allowed to accomplish the objectives and to maintain

the setting characteristics.

2. Designation of Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas. All public lands are

required to have off-highway vehicle area designations (see 43 CFR 8342.1). Areas must

be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. Criteria for open,

limited, and closed area designations are established in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g) and (h),

respectively.

For areas classified as limited consider a full range of possibilities, including travel that

will be limited to types or modes of travel, such as foot, equestrian, bicycle, motorized,

etc.; limited to existing roads and trails; limited to time or season of use; limited to

certain types of vehicles (OHVs, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, high clearance, etc.);

limited to licensed or permitted vehicles or users; limited to BLM administrative use

only; or other types of limitations. In addition, provide specific guidance about the

process for managing motorized vehicle access for authorized, permitted, or otherwise

approved vehicles for those specific categories of motorized vehicle uses that are exempt

from a limited designation (see 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)(1-5).

At a minimum, the travel management area designation for wilderness study areas

(WSAs) must be limited to ways and trails existing at the time the area became a WSA.

Open areas within WSAs are appropriate only for sand dune or snow areas designated as

such prior to October 21, 1976. Existing roads, ways and trails must be fully documented

and mapped. This applies to both motorized and mechanized transport (see Interim

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review H-8550-

1(I.)(B.)(11) for mechanized transport). In addition, future designations may be made for

a WSA if it is released from study.

Except as otherwise provided by law (e.g., the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act), congressionally designated wilderness areas are statutorily closed to

motorized and mechanized use. These areas should be shown in the land use plans along

with the acreage affected.

Existing laws, proclamations, regulations or Executive orders may limit the use of the

open area designation or impose additional requirements relating to travel management in

specific circumstances.

For RMP provisions related to national scenic, historic and national recreation trails,

national back country byways, or other byway designations (see Appendix C, III. Special

Designations).

Implementation Decisions. Complete a defined travel management network (system of areas,

roads and/or trails) during the development of the land use plan, to the extent practical. If it is

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 19

not practical to define or delineate the travel management network during the land use planning

process, a preliminary network must be identified and a process established to select a final

travel management network. Possible reasons for not completing the final network might be size

or complexity of the area, controversy, incomplete data, or other constraints.

If the final travel management network is to be deferred in the RMP, then the RMP should

document the decision-making process used to develop the initial network, provide the basis for

future management decisions, and help set guidelines for making road and trail network

adjustments throughout the life of the plan. The identification of the uncompleted travel

management networks should be delineated in the land use plan and the following tasks

completed for each area:

1) Produce a map of a preliminary road and trail network;

2) define short-term management guidance for road and trail access and activities in

areas or sub-areas not completed;

3) outline additional data needs, and a strategy to collect needed information;

4) provide a clear planning sequence, including public collaboration, criteria and

constraints for subsequent road and trail selection and identification;

5) provide a schedule to complete the area or sub-area road and trail selection process;

and

6) identify any easements and rights-of-ways (to be issued to the BLM or others) needed

to maintain the preliminary or existing road and trail network.

If the decision on delineating travel management networks is deferred in the land use plan to the

implementation phase, the work normally should be completed within 5 years of the signing of

the ROD for the RMP.

At the implementation phase of the plan, establish a process to identify specific areas, roads

and/or trails that will be available for public use, and specify limitations placed on use. Products

from this process will include:

1) A map of roads and trails for all travel modes.

2) Definitions and additional limitations for specific roads and trails (defined in 43 CFR

8340.0-5(g)).

3) Criteria to select or reject specific roads and trails in the final travel management

network, add new roads or trails and to specify limitations.

4) Guidelines for management, monitoring, and maintenance of the system.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 20

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

5) Indicators to guide future plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to

travel management network.

6) Needed easements and rights-of-ways (to be issued to the BLM or others) to maintain

the existing road and trail network providing public land access.

In addition, travel management networks should be reviewed periodically to ensure that current

resource and travel management objectives are being met (see 43 CFR 8342.3).

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements exist.

E. Lands and Realty

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for

natural resources within the planning area:

1. Lands for retention (43 CFR 2400), proposed disposal, or acquisition (based on

acquisition criteria identified in the land use plan; FLPMA Section 205(b)) (Oregon

Natural Resources Council, 78 IBLA 124 (1983)). Lands are to be retained in Federal

ownership, unless it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the

national interest (FLPMA Section 102(a)(1)). Land use plans should avoid prescribing

the method of disposal, acquisition, or property interest to be acquired.

2. Lands or interest in lands that are available for disposal under a variety of disposal

authorities, provided they meet the criteria outlined in FLPMA (Sales, Section 203, 43

U.S.C. 1713(a); Exchanges, Section 206, 43 U.S.C. 1716(a); and Reservation and

Conveyance of Minerals, Section 209, 43 U.S.C. 1719(a)) or other statutes and

regulations. Lands available for disposal must be identified by parcel or by specific areas

(on a map or by legal description).

3. Lands available for disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of

2000 (FLTFA). The FLTFA amended FLPMA to allow retention by the BLM of receipts

received from sale of land or interests in land under Section 203 of FLPMA or

conveyance of mineral interest under Section 209(b) of FLPMA provided a land use plan

was completed prior to July 25, 2000. The FLTFA currently does not apply to lands

identified for disposal after July 25, 2000. In Nevada, the FLTFA does not apply to lands

eligible for sale under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, Santini-

Burton Act, Mesquite Lands Act, or Lincoln County Land Act.

4. Proposed withdrawal areas including existing withdrawals to be continued, modified,

or revoked (including how the lands would be managed if the withdrawal were

relinquished and an opening order issued) (see 43 CFR 2300).

5. Land Classifications under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended

(43 U.S.C. 315f). The procedures applicable to Section 7 outlined in 43 CFR 2400 must

be followed. The following actions require classification: Recreation and Public

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 21

Purposes Act sales (see 43 CFR 2740) and leases (see 43 CFR 2912); agricultural entries

(see 43 CFR 2520, 2530, 2610); and state grants (see 43 CFR 2620). To the extent that

the land use planning procedures pursuant to 43 CFR 1600 differ from applicable

classification procedures under 43 CFR 2400, the latter procedures shall be followed and

applied. The analysis that supports classification decisions is normally the same analysis

utilized in the land use planning/NEPA process to make decisions concerning the

disposal or retention of public lands. For any classification decision made through the

land use plan, initiate the classification decision requirements (i.e., proposed and initial

decisions required under 43 CFR 2400) at the time the decision document is issued for

the land use plan.

6. Where and under what circumstances authorizations for use, occupancy, and

development (such as major leases and land use permits) may be granted (see 43 CFR

2740, 2912, 2911, and 2920, respectively).

7. Existing and potential right-of-way corridors (potential corridors include existing

right-of-way routes with the potential for at least one additional facility and thus can be

considered a corridor if not already designated) to minimize adverse environmental

impacts and the proliferation of separate right-of-ways (see 43 CFR 2806).

8. Existing and potential development areas for renewable energy projects (e.g., wind

and solar), communication sites, and other uses.

9. Right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas (areas to be avoided but may be available

for location of right-of-ways with special stipulations and areas which are not available

for location of right-of-ways under any conditions).

10. Terms and conditions that may apply to right-of-way corridors or development areas,

including best management practices to minimize environmental impacts and limitations

on other uses which would be necessary to maintain the corridor and right-of-way values.

Implementation Decisions. Identify exchange agreements, land sale plans, approvals of leases

and permits, and all subsequent phases of case processing. Identify issuance of site-specific

right-of-way grants and authorizations. Identify authorization notices for those actions that

require classification or other notices, including sales, exchanges, state selections, Recreation

and Public Purposes Act sales and leases, agricultural entries, and other land disposal actions.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Consult with parties to Interagency Agreements or

MOUs relating to corridor identification or use. The Western Utility Group must be consulted

when developing decisions affecting utility use. Consult with Indian Tribes and state and local

governments having an interest in or jurisdiction over lands proposed for disposal or acquisition.

F. Coal

Land Use Plan Decisions. The land use plan is the chief process by which public land is

reviewed to assess whether there are areas suitable for leasing or unsuitable for all or certain

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 22

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

types of coal mining operations under Section 522(b) of the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for natural

resources within the planning area:

1. Unleased coal lands that are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and

development and those that are not (see 43 CFR 3461).

2. Areas unsuitable for surface mining of coal (43 CFR 1610.7-1) under the criteria set

forth in 43 CFR 3461.5.

3. For acceptable lands, areas suitable for development by all mining methods or by only

certain stipulated mining methods, such as surface or underground mining (see 43 CFR

3461).

4. Any special conditions that must be met during more detailed planning, lease sale, or

post-lease activities, including measures required to protect other resource values (see 43

CFR 3461).

5. An estimate of the amount of coal recoverable by either surface or underground

mining operations or both (43 CFR 3420.1-4(d)). Only those areas that have

development potential may be identified as acceptable for further consideration for

leasing.

6. Areas that have development potential for coal leasing according to the screening

process outlined in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1–4).

7. Areas to be withdrawn from further consideration for leasing to protect other resource

values and land uses that are locally, regionally or nationally important or unique and that

are not included in the unsuitability criteria discussed in 43 CFR 3461.5.

Implementation Decisions. Offer leases with appropriate conditions and stipulations, process

lease exchanges, process preference right lease applications, and delineate coal tracts for

disposal.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings.

1. Prior to or as part of the initiation or update of a land use plan or land use analysis, a

call for coal and other resource information shall be made to formally solicit indications

of interest and information on coal resource development potential and on other resources

which may be affected by coal development for land in the planning unit. Industry, state,

and local governments and the general public may submit information on lands that

should be considered for coal leasing, including statements describing why the lands

should be considered for leasing (43 CFR 3420.1-2).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 23

The Call for Coal and other Resource Information may be combined with the notice of

intent to conduct land use planning published in accordance with 43 CFR 1601.3(g) or

with the issue identification process in accordance with 43 CFR 1600.

2. Publish in the Federal Register a notice under 43 CFR 3461.2-1(a)(2), providing for a

minimum 30-day comment period on the results of the application of unsuitability

criteria, exemptions, and exceptions.

3. Consult as required under 43 CFR 3461.5 for unsuitability criteria 7 through 11,

criteria 13 through 15, and criterion 17.

4. Consult qualified surface owners as required under 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4) and

1610.2(j) to determine their preference for or against surface mining. If a significant

number of qualified surface owners in an area do not support surface mining, BLM can

consider only underground mining unless one of the exceptions in 43 CFR 3420.1-

4(e)(4)(ii) or (iii) applies.

5. Consult Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and states as required under 43 CFR

3420.1-6 and 3420.1-7.

6. Hold a public hearing as required under 43 CFR 1610.2(k) and 43 CFR 3420.1-5 if

requested.

G. Oil Shale

Refer to the Fluid Minerals section (Appendix C, Section II.H below) for applicable decision

guidance, making decisions that consider the unique development aspects of oil shale, from

underground mining to in-situ production techniques.

H. Fluid Minerals: Oil and Gas, Tar Sands, and Geothermal Resources

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for

natural resources within the planning area (refer to H-1624-1):

1. Areas open to leasing, subject to existing laws, regulations, and formal orders; and the

terms and conditions of the standard lease form.

2. Areas open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints such as seasonal and controlled

surface use restrictions. (These are areas where it has been determined that moderately

restrictive lease stipulations may be required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or

resource values.)

3. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as no-surface-occupancy

stipulations on an area more than 40 acres in size or more than 0.25 mile in width.

(These are areas where it has been determined that highly restrictive lease stipulations are

required to mitigate impacts to other lands or resource values. This category also

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 24

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

includes areas where overlapping moderate constraints would severely limit development

of fluid mineral resources.)

4. Areas closed to leasing. (These are areas where it has been determined that other land

uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the most restrictive

lease stipulations; appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the lands to

leasing.) Identify whether such closures are discretionary or nondiscretionary; and if

discretionary, the rationale.

5. Resource condition objectives that have been established and specific lease

stipulations and general/typical conditions of approval and best management practices

that will be employed to accomplish these objectives in areas open to leasing.

6. For each lease stipulation, the circumstances for granting an exception, waiver, or

modification. Identify the general documentation requirements and any public

notification associated with granting exceptions, waivers, or modifications.

7. Whether the leasing and development decisions also apply to geophysical exploration.

8. Whether constraints identified in the land use plan for new leases also apply to areas

currently under lease.

9. Long-term resource condition objectives for areas currently under development to

guide reclamation activities prior to abandonment.

A plan-level decision to open the lands to leasing represents BLM’s determination, based on the

information available at the time, that it is appropriate to allow development of the parcel

consistent with the terms of the lease, laws, regulations, and orders, and subject to reasonable

conditions of approval. When applying leasing restrictions, the least restrictive constraint to

meet the resource protection objective should be used.

Implementation Decisions. Offer leases with appropriate stipulations. Address site-specific

actions such as geophysical exploration, approval or disapproval of applications for permit to

drill (APDs) with attached restrictions or conditions of approval, well siting, tank battery

placement, and pipeline routing.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Public notice shall be given 45 days before offering

lands for lease and 30 days before approving APDs or substantially modifying the terms of any

lease (43 CFR 3101.1-4).

I. Locatable Minerals

Land Use Plan Decisions. For lands that are open to the location of lode, placer, and mill

claims, the claimant has statutory authority under the mining laws to ingress, egress and

development of those claims. This authority means that those areas open to mineral entry for the

purposes of exploration or development of locatable minerals cannot be unreasonably restricted.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 25

Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives of locatable mineral exploration

and development in concert with the protection of natural resources within the planning area.

1. Areas recommended for closure to the mining laws for locatable exploration or

development (that must be petitioned for withdrawal).

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect other resource

values while conducting activities under the operation of the mining laws.

Implementation Decisions.

1. Process notices and plans of operations according to the 43 CFR 3809 regulations.

2. Manage the use and occupancy on public lands for the development of locatable

mineral deposits to that which is reasonably incident to prospecting, mining or processing

operations under the mining laws (43 CFR 3715).

3. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to locatable minerals.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more.

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive

public review and hearings as appropriate.

J. Mineral Materials

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify the following consistent with the goals and objectives for the

exploration, development, and disposal of mineral materials in concert with the protection of

natural resources within the planning area.

1. Areas open or closed to mineral material disposal.

2. Any terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect resource

values while operating under the mineral materials regulations.

Implementation Decisions.

1. Establish common use areas and community pits and process and approve disposal of

mineral materials through prospecting permits, free use permits, and competitive and

noncompetitive permits and sales.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 26

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

2. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to mineral materials.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more.

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive

public review and hearings as appropriate.

K. Non-energy Leasables

Land Use Plan Decisions. Applies to minerals leased under the mineral leasing acts and to

hardrock minerals leasable under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946. Identify the following

consistent with the goals and objectives for exploration, development, and disposal of non-

energy leasables in concert with the protection of natural resources within the planning area.

1. Areas open or closed to non-energy leasing and development.

2. Any area wide terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect

other resource values while exploring or developing minerals under the non-energy

leasable regulations.

Implementation Decisions.

1. Issue mineral use authorizations for prospecting permits, exploration licenses,

preference right lease, competitive leases, lease modifications, and use permits.

2. After a resource management plan or plan amendment in which lands are designated

unsuitable is approved, the authorized officer shall take all necessary steps to implement

the results of the unsuitability review as it applies to non-energy leasables.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Recommend proposed withdrawals to the Secretary of

the Interior for appropriate action pursuant to Section 204(a) of FLPMA. Comply with the

congressional notice provisions of Section 204(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(c)) for

withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more.

Areas that are petitioned for designation as unsuitable for mineral development shall receive

public review and hearings as appropriate.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 27

III. Special Designations

A. Congressional Designations

Land Use Plan Decisions. Develop stand-alone RMP/EIS-level plans for all national

monuments and congressionally designated national conservation areas, national recreation

areas, cooperative management and protection areas, outstanding natural areas, and forest

reserves (in accordance with the establishing statute or Presidential proclamation).

For designated national scenic and historic trails:

1. Identify goals, objectives and measures to achieve them, as well as allowable uses and

surface restrictions to avoid potential adverse affects. Land use plans must also

reference, incorporate, or be amended with provisions from applicable comprehensive

management plans required by the National Trails System Act.

2. Establish VRM designations; identify SRMAs, recreation management zones, and off-

highway vehicle designations; identify trail-related lands for retention, acquisition,

withdrawals, avoidance, and exclusion areas; identify appropriate special leasing

conditions, terms, constraints, or stipulations; designate trail segments as ACECs; and

identify interpretive measures.

3. Concentrate on high potential sites and segments along national historic trails, national

register eligible segments, and the primitive character and connection of national scenic

trail segments. Consider the historic context and/or current and future landscape

condition along the trails.

Implementation Decisions. Develop site-specific implementation actions and plans for

congressionally designated areas.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements.

B. Administrative Designations

Land Use Plan Decisions. Consistent with the goals and objectives for the planning area, make

the following determinations:

1. Manage WSAs under the interim management policy (H-8550-1) until they are

designated wilderness or released by Congress. Identify management direction for WSAs

should they be released from wilderness consideration by Congress.

2. Assess all eligible river segments and determine which are suitable or non-suitable per

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (see BLM

Manual 8351).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 28

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

3. Designate ACECs and identify goals, standards, and objectives for each area, as well

as general management practices and uses, including necessary constraints and mitigation

measures (also see BLM Manual 1613). This direction should be specific enough to

minimize the need for subsequent ACEC management plans. ACECs must meet the

relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a) and must require special

management (43 CFR 1601.0-5(a)) to:

a) Protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural

systems.

b) Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist.

4. Designate research natural areas and outstanding natural areas as types of ACECs

using the ACEC designation process.

5. Designate BLM Scenic or Back Country Byways. Detailed procedural guidance for

nomination and designation of BLM byways, as well as other byway designations

occurring on BLM lands (such as All American Roads, National Scenic Byways, State

Scenic Byways, Forest Scenic Byways, and similar) can be found in Handbook 8357-1:

Byways, 12/17/93.

6. Designate national recreation trails, watchable wildlife viewing sites, wild horse and

burro ranges, or other BLM administrative designations.

Subject to valid existing rights, avoid approval of proposed actions that could degrade the values

of potential special designations. Proposed actions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and

impacts to an area’s values will be assessed. The standard for this review is the protection of the

area’s resources and values so that the area will not be disqualified from designation. Subject to

valid existing rights, proposed actions that can not meet this standard should be postponed,

relocated, mitigated, or denied until the planning for the area is completed.

Implementation Decisions. Develop site-specific management actions and constraints. Evaluate

and issue permits for scientific, educational, or recreational activities, and develop project plans

for trails, interpretive exhibits, resource rehabilitation, and other site-specific activities.

Protective management provisions must be followed to enhance or protect identified resource

values and/or characteristics.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. Publish a Federal Register notice providing a 60-day

comment period on proposed ACEC recommendations and resource use limitations (see 43 CFR

1610.7-2(b)).

IV. Support

The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)(6) provide that land use plans may identify

support needs. These are based on individual planning situations.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix C, page 29

A. Cadastral

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify planning boundaries so the geographic extent of land use

decisions is clearly understood. The plan may identify areas where additional cadastral survey

work is needed to locate and mark boundaries on the ground, including those areas identified for

disposal. The plan may also identify the need to complete more detailed boundary management

plans.

Implementation Decisions. If necessary, develop a boundary management plan for locating and

marking priority areas. Identify areas needing immediate trespass resolution.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements.

B. Interpretation and Environmental Education

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify management goals and/or objectives for interpretation and

environmental education, and describe the significant resources or areas that will be made

available for interpretation/environmental education. For units of the NLCS, significant resource

or area descriptions should be based on the designation or proclamation language establishing

each area.

Implementation Decisions. Determine what management actions are necessary to achieve

identified interpretive and environmental education goals and/or objectives. Address the

techniques to be used, and the partners and volunteers needed, to implement these management

actions. The following factors should be considered for relevant activity-level interpretive and

environmental education plans:

1. Key stories unique to the area;

2. primary messages or themes;

3. educational goals which support management objectives;

4. primary recreation opportunities;

5. distinctive recreation setting character;

6. key resource as well as recreation-tourism attractions; and

7. administrative services and controls.

The key interpretive stories and educational themes are best identified by collaborating with: 1)

community groups; 2) service providers and other interested partners; and 3) other federal, state,

and local government agencies. These key stories and themes are often about unique historical,

biological, geological, or other resource and human values found within the planning area. The

interpretive and educational themes relate to the primary values of the areas and/or their

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix C, page 30

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

associated resources. LUP management goals should be incorporated into primary interpretive

messages where appropriate.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements.

C. Transportation Facilities

Land Use Plan Decisions. Identify land areas available or suitable for transportation facilities.

Identify types of transportation facilities that are appropriate for the planning area. Identify

limitations, if any, on the types or locations of facilities for specified areas.

Identify the area(s) having in-place transportation facilities that should be removed. Identify

road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction, and maintenance standards appropriate to

specific areas. Identify limitations, if any, on road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction,

and maintenance actions. Identify limitations, if any, on road density (i.e., miles/section) for

specific areas.

Also refer to Appendix C(II)(D), Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management.

Implementation Decisions. Develop a map or other type of specification document that displays

and describes the intended use of the individual geographic units within the planning area. In

conjunction with the process of identifying a road network (see Appendix C, Section II.D,

(Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management)), develop a transportation plan outlining

specific road types and designations such as Federal, state, county, and Tribal roads, BLM

administered/maintained roads, and BLM public roads. Identify roads in congressionally

designated conservation units, Presidential conservation designations, and administrative

conservation designations such as back country byways.

Notices, Consultations, and Hearings. No additional specific requirements.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 1

Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in Land Use Planning Decisions

I. Using Social Science in Land Use Planning

Appendix D provides guidance on integrating social science information into the planning

process. Any information gathered in support of a planning effort must be considered in the

context of BLM’s legal mandates.

The BLM is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield

and to meet the needs of present and future generations. As the human population continues to

increase and social values evolve, resource conflicts are likely to increase. More importantly, the

American public is increasingly aware of the importance of the public lands to its well-being and

is demanding a larger voice in resource management decisions. Given these realities, the

planning process can represent a constant balancing of competing needs, interests, and values.

The effective use of social science can be critical to understanding and reconciling these

differing perspectives.

Social science information in land use planning can include the economic, political, cultural, and

social structure of communities, regions, and the Nation as a whole; social values, beliefs, and

attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues. The social sciences

integrate a wide variety of disciplines, generally including economics, sociology, demography,

anthropology, archaeology, political science, geography, history, and landscape architecture.

Though the information appropriate to a given analysis depends upon the specific issues being

assessed, the social science information usually important for resource planning decisions can be

grouped in the following categories:

• Demography and Social Indicators

• Social Organization and Institutions

• Attitudes and Values

• Human Geography

• Economic Value

• Employment, Income, and Subsistence

• Public Finance and Government Services

• Environmental Justice

By statute, regulation, and Executive order the BLM must utilize social science in the

preparation of informed, sustainable land use planning decisions. Section 202(c)(2) of FLPMA

requires BLM to integrate physical, biological, economic, and other sciences in developing land-

use plans (43 USC 1712(c)(2)). FLPMA regulations 43 CFR 1610.4-3 and 1610.4-6 also require

BLM to analyze social, economic, and institutional information. Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA

requires Federal agencies to “insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences . . . in

planning and decision making” (42 USC 4332(2)(A)). Federal agencies are also required to

“identify and address . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income

populations in the United States” in accordance with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental

Justice.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

II. Incorporating Socio-economic Information

A. The Planning Process

To be effective, social scientific data and methods should be integrated into the entire planning

process, from preparing the pre-plan to implementation and monitoring. The main social science

activities for the various planning steps are outlined in Table D-1.

Table D-1.—Social science activities in land use planning

Planning steps

Social science activities

Steps 1 & 2—Identify Issues and Develop

Planning Criteria

▪ Identify publics and strategies to reach them

▪ Identify social and economic issues

▪ Identify social and economic planning criteria

Step 3—Inventory Data

▪ Identify inventory methods

▪ Collect necessary social and economic data

Steps 4—Analyze Management Situation

▪ Conduct social and economic assessment, including existing conditions

and trends and the impacts of continuing current management

▪ Document assessment methods in an appendix or technical supplement

Step 5—Formulate Alternatives

▪ Identify social and economic opportunities and constraints to help

formulate alternatives

Step 6—Estimate Effects of Alternatives

▪ Identify analysis methods

▪ Analyze the social and economic effects of the alternatives

▪ Document impact analysis methods in an appendix or technical

supplement

▪ Assess mitigation opportunities to enhance alternatives’ positive effects

and minimize their negative effects

Steps 7 & 8—Identify Preferred Alternative

and Finalize Plan

▪ Identify potential social and economic factors to help select the preferred

alternative

Step 9—Monitor and Evaluate

▪ Track social and economic indicators

B. Objectives of the Analysis

Beyond contributing to the public involvement strategy (see Appendix D, Section III), socio-

economic input to BLM’s resource management planning has three main elements: baseline

assessment, impact analysis, and mitigation.

1. Baseline assessment

Characterize existing conditions and trends in local communities and the wider region that may

affect and be affected by land use planning decisions. This baseline assessment should be

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 3

included or summarized and referenced in the Affected Environment section of the EIS. In

particular, the baseline assessment should:

a) Review and summarize the relevant published and unpublished literature on the

history, economy, and social system(s) of the study area;

b) characterize the economic structure and activity of communities and groups within the

study area that are affected by the management of BLM lands; and

c) characterize the social structure, activities, and values of such communities and

groups.

When preparing RMP amendments for activity- or implementation-level projects, the social

science and economic portions of the Affected Environment chapter may be referenced to the

original RMP or reduced in complexity, based on the actual issues associated with the proposed

actions.

2. Impact analysis

In the Environmental Consequences section of the EIS, characterize impacts to existing

conditions and trends from each of the alternatives under consideration, including the no action

alternative, relative to the baseline assessment. Impacts include direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects for all resources that make up the human environment. In particular, impact analyses

should:

a) Analyze the positive and negative economic effects of each alternative developed

within the RMP on those communities and groups;

b) analyze the positive and negative social effects of each alternative developed within

the RMP on those communities and groups; and

c) in fulfillment of Environmental Justice requirements, identify any disproportionate

negative effect on low-income or minority populations associated with one or more

proposed alternatives (see Appendix D, Section IV).

3. Mitigation measures

As appropriate, identify measures that may reduce or avoid potential adverse economic or social

effects of the alternatives, and maximize their positive effects. Determination of the preferred

alternative as expressed in the RMP ROD should reflect this analysis. Note that the preferred

alternative is not required to be the alternative with the least cumulative adverse impacts or that

provides full mitigation to all social and economic impacts.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

C. The Scope of Analysis

There is no standard scope of work for socio-economic analysis because the key topics and

methods are shaped in part by the social context and potential resource allocation decisions of a

given resource management plan. The social and economic assessment (affected environment)

and impact analysis (environmental consequences) should assist the reader to understand the

human context of the planning effort, and in particular to identify the potential effects,

constraints, and opportunities associated with planning alternatives. Table D-2 presents 27

topics of socio-economic information. We suggest ranking topics as follows:

1 Basic: topic should be addressed (example: population trends)

2 Optional: address if warranted by context and issues

3 Not currently indicated: address if indicated by new information

In Table D-2 some topics considered basic to all socio-economic analyses are assigned a priority

of 1. Field office staff responsible for directing the socio-economic aspect of a resource

management plan can use the list of topics to define an appropriate scope of work, identifying

which topics should be included in the analysis by ranking as 1 (basic), 2 (optional), or 3 (not

currently indicated).

These topics are available as a stand alone Checklist for Socio-Economic Analysis, available on

the BLM social science website (see Appendix D, Section VII). For each topic the checklist also

includes a field for “plan-specific guidance” to provide BLM staff or contractors with more

precise direction as to which groups, issues, and activities should receive particular attention.

Note also that the required Economic Strategies Workshop (see Appendix D, Section III[B])

provides an excellent opportunity to discuss with interested government leaders and the public

what topics should be emphasized in the socio-economic analysis.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 5

Table D–2.—Topics for socio-economic analysis

Topic

Planning relevance

Examples

Priority

Population

Potential demand on BLM

lands and resources

Population trends;

migration, distribution by

age and gender

1

Inequality

Differences in visibility and

influence; identify vulnerable

populations (Environmental

Justice)

Income distribution;

percent of households in

poverty

1

Social difference Barriers to public involvement;

different user needs and values;

identify distinctive populations

(Environmental Justice)

Ethnicity; languages

spoken in household;

Tribal affiliation

Demography

and Social

Indicators

Social indicators Can indicate community

strengths and weaknesses that

may have implications for

planning issues

Crime rates, divorce

rates, unemployment,

education, length of

residence

Government

Potential cooperating agencies;

contacts for plan coordination

(identified in pre-plan)

Municipal and county

governments in/near

planning area; special

districts; Tribal

governments

1

Non-govern-

mental

institutions

Potential partners for plan

implementation; sources of

economic and social resilience

Chamber of Commerce;

church groups; ethnic

advocacy organizations

Communities of

place

Local and regional population

centers relative to planning area

effects may differ by

community

Gateway communities;

natural resource-

dependent communities

1

Social groups

and networks

Opportunities for informal

contacts in seeking public

comment and communicating

plans and proposals

Networks linking

ranchers or retirees

Social

Organization

and

Institutions

Occupational

and interest

groups

Provide range of perspectives

on potential land use decisions,

effects may differ by distinct

group

Wilderness advocates; oil

and gas producers,

Cattleman’s Association

1

Attitudes and

Meanings

Attitudes and

beliefs

regarding local

environment and

its use

Local understandings may

shape acceptability of proposed

land use decisions

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups]

1

Survey to clarify local

understanding of effects

of coal bed methane

technology on ground-

water conditions

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 6

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Topic

Planning relevance

Examples

Priority

Significance of

proposed land

management

actions for

various publics

While public attitudes are

elicited in scoping, formal data

collection can identify

important differences between

groups, providing further

information to help identify

impacts and mitigation

strategies

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups]

1

Interviews to assess

social impacts of

prescribed burning

Quality of life

Can indicate community

perceptions that may have

implications for planning issues

Perceived access to

community resources;

satisfaction with

community conditions,

such as opportunities for

employment

Distribution of

communities,

roads, and

resources

Clarify geo-spatial context; can

predict potential conflicts and

impacts over proposed land use

allocations

Wildland-urban interface,

recreational demand from

nearby cities

1

Land ownership

and access

Can predict potential conflicts

and impacts over proposed land

use allocations

Split estate ownership of

sub-surface minerals

Human

Geography

Culturally and

socially

significant

places and areas

Identify constraints on site-

specific activities, help to

identify mitigation

(may be developed in cultural

resource analysis)

[formal techniques: surveys,

interviews, focus groups]

1

Locally valued buildings,

sites, and landscapes;

sense of place; traditional

religious/cultural use

areas

Interrelation-

ships among

producing

sectors

Regional economic sectors and

their interrelation as a context

for BLM management

decisions (when allocation

decisions are of sufficient scale

to have macroeconomic effects,

consider national–level

economic interrelationships)

Annual purchase and

sales by economic sector

(transaction matrix)

1

Economic

Value

Non-market

values of

resources and

activities

Consider the significance of the

non-market values associated

with resources managed or

impacts by BLM when

formulating the management

alternatives

Estimate the value of

open space, improved

riparian areas, improved

wildlife habitat

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 7

Topic

Planning relevance

Examples

Priority

Dependence on

BLM lands and

resources

Understand and quantify the

potential local and regional

impacts of land use decisions

Value of BLM timber

sales, visitor-day

expenditures, grazing and

mining to the local

economy

Employment

Quantify the anticipated

employment impacts by sector

to determine the population

changes and the associated

demand on the infrastructure in

the study area

Temporary jobs from oil

and gas development

versus service jobs

created by increased

recreational opportunities

1

Personal income Forecasting the anticipated

change in income, occurring as

a result of the BLM alternatives

Non-labor income

(dividends, transfer

payments)

1

Economic

diversity and

resilience

Ability of stakeholder

communities to respond to

external change

Level of dependence on

single economic sector

Regional

economic

organization

Identify amount and

geographic distribution of new

indirect and induced

employment resulting from

additional local investment

New local jobs resulting

from proposed increase in

oil and gas production on

public lands

Employment,

Income, and

Subsistence

Subsistence

activities

Non-market production from

BLM lands for local use

Amount and value of

subsistence hunting by

local residents

Government

revenues and

expenditures

Fiscal capacity and resilience

under change

Change in tax revenues

and county PILT receipts

Public Finance

and

Government

Services

Public

infrastructure

and services

Community services may be

impacted by resource or

recreational development of

public lands

Expenditures on schools,

roads, social services

Characterize

Environmental

Justice

populations in

planning area

See Demography and Social

Indicators: inequality, social

difference

Much of the commercial

harvesting of non-timber

forest products in Pacific

Northwest is organized

through ethnic networks

1

Environmental

Justice

Assess potential

for

disproportionate

impacts to

Environmental

Justice

populations

Identify whether

Environmental Justice issues

require further modification of

alternatives, or further

mitigation of impacts

Oil and gas development

in areas where American

Indian populations collect

medicinal plants

1

1

Primary (new) data collection methods may be subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. See Planning Handbook,

Appendix D, Section V(C). Secondary data may also be available.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 8

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

D. Deliverables in Contracting

It is recommended the field offices contracting for socio-economic analyses in resource

management plans require the following deliverables.

1. Baseline social and economic assessments, for inclusion in the AMS document.

2. Abbreviated baseline social and economic assessments, for inclusion in the Affected

Environment chapter of the plan/EIS.

3. Proposed impact analysis strategy, describing the social and economic variables, the

key data sources, and the analytic methods proposed. These should be based on

requirements provided by the contracting officer’s representative, issues identified in the

pre-plan, information obtained through scoping and other public involvement, guidance

from cooperating agencies, and the social and economic baseline assessments.

4. Social and economic impact analyses, for inclusion in the Environmental

Consequences chapter of the plan/EIS.

5. Analysis of Environmental Justice compliance.

6. A brief methodological statement, presented as an appendix to the plan/EIS,

summarizing the significant analytic assumptions and methods utilized in preparing the

statement of social and economic impacts.

E. Analytic Guidelines

Social science information provided for resource management plans should be consistent with

the following guidelines.

1. Scale and level of effort. The scope of analysis and level of effort should be

commensurate with the importance of the particular resource issues. In other words,

focus data collection and analysis on those issues and sectors that are important for the

agency’s decision-making or important for the publics, as identified through scoping and

other formal and informal forms of public involvement.

For example, a regional programmatic plan would likely provide a broad characterization

of communities within and near the planning region as well as an examination of

national-scale public land priorities. A single RMP would likely focus on a much smaller

area and include a more detailed analysis for each community. At the implementation

plan level, the analysis would focus on more site-specific information, such as the groups,

networks, or individuals affected by the decision under consideration.

2. Assessment area. The assessment (study) area for economic and social analysis may

be larger than the designated planning area (for example, because of a major retail center

outside but near the planning area). Depending on the issues, the boundaries of the social

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 9

and economic study areas may not be identical. The analysis may also require describing

populations that do not reside primarily in the assessment area, such as recreational users

coming from metropolitan areas.

3. Schedule. Information should be gathered early enough to be included throughout the

discussion and decision-making phases of the planning effort.

Note that the economic analysis (and indirectly, the social analysis) is dependent on

sound output projections for each significant resource, over each alternative to be

evaluated. For example, the economic analysis of recreation-related impacts (changes in

assessment area payroll and employment) cannot be done until the recreation specialists

have determined the changes in visitor days, by alternative. The economic analysis of

mineral development cannot be done until the geologists have developed an analysis of

the changes in mineral availability and production, by alternative.

4. Dimensions of impact analysis. Impact analyses must make clear how the social and

economic effects of each management alternative—both positive and negative—are

distributed among the communities and groups in the assessment area, and among other

relevant populations (for example, recreational users who live outside the study area).

Potential impacts have multiple aspects relevant to decision-making; a well-crafted

impact analysis should describe the aspects listed in Table D-3.

Table D-3.—Dimensions of impact analysis relevant to decision-making

Aspect

Describe

Space

▪

Impacts across multiple geographic scales: individual, household, community, region,

and where appropriate, national society.

Time

▪

Impacts across multiples time scales: short-term versus long-term.

Social identity

▪

Who would be affected, and in what ways. If different groups or publics (for example,

distinguished by income, ethnicity, gender, or occupation) will be unequally affected,

describe and explain why. Where low income, minority, or Tribal populations would be

disproportionately affected, ensure that this is documented in the Environmental Justice

assessment (see Section IV).

Magnitude

▪

The magnitude and significance of projected impacts.

Probability

▪

The likelihood of a projected impact occurring.

Causation

▪

The direct, indirect, and cumulative projected impacts.

Acceptability

▪

The anticipated desirability or acceptability of projected impacts.

5. Analysis of no-action alternative. For the Environmental Consequences section of the

EIS, characterize impacts to existing economic conditions and trends from each of the

alternatives under consideration, relative to the no action alternative. While the no action

alternative assumes no new actions within the RMP’s scope of decisions, it should

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 10

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

include other changes reasonably anticipated to affect the study area within the planning

timeframe.

6. Non-market value. The analysis of economic impacts for each plan alternative should

consider not merely anticipated expenditures (market transactions), but where feasible,

the anticipated consumer surplus generated by the proposed activity, as determined by

estimates of willingness-to-pay (non-market values). To estimate non-market values for

activities proposed under a plan alternative, it is often more practical to utilize benefit

transfer methods than to undertake new research within the study area, by applying

soundly derived non-market values established for comparable sites and activities.

III. Public Involvement

A. Integrating Social Science Into Public Involvement

Development of the social and economic analysis should take place as part of a larger

collaborative dialogue between BLM and the public. Staff or contractors responsible for social

science contributions to the RMP should integrate information from public involvement

processes with technical data collection and analysis. Moreover, social and economic analysis

can provide information about affected groups that can improve plans for public involvement.

To the extent feasible, BLM's public involvement process should seek not only attitudes and

values relevant to planning issues and alternatives, but also suggestions regarding sources of data

and methods of analysis. Involving local publics in discussions of appropriate data and methods

early in a planning process increases the likelihood that the resulting analysis of effects will be

considered credible and useful. State and field offices are encouraged to engage potential and

existing partners in the collection, preparation, and analysis of social and economic data leading

to the formulation of alternatives, their anticipated impacts, and potential mitigation.

Partners include other Federal agencies and state, Tribal, county, and municipal governments.

Information-sharing with partners is crucial to the formulation of cumulative social and

economic impacts from alternatives that span jurisdictional/regional boundaries. Consider

cooperating agency status where appropriate and look for opportunities to combine analysis with

partners' planning processes. Other participants, such as universities, communities, religious

institutions, industry representatives, and non-governmental organizations may also share vital

information not obtainable through standard data sources.

B. Economic Strategies Workshop

The public involvement effort on all new RMPs, RMP revisions, and RMP amendments

accompanied by EISs must include at least one economic strategies workshop. Such workshops

provide an opportunity for local government officials, community leaders, and other citizens to

discuss regional economic conditions, trends, and strategies with BLM managers and staff. Such

workshops must meet three objectives:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 11

1. Imparting skills on analyzing local and regional economic and social conditions and

trends;

2. assisting community members to identify desired economic and social conditions; and

3. collaborating with BLM staff to identify opportunities to advance local economic and

social goals through planning and policy decisions within the authority of BLM, its

cooperating agencies, or other partners.

Field Managers are welcome to select appropriate workshops from qualified vendors, or to work

with State Office or Washington Office social science staff to design a workshop appropriate to

their situations. The cost of such workshops should be included in the RMP planning budget and

indicated in the pre-plan. For sources of further information on such workshops, see Section VI,

Further Guidance.

IV. Environmental Justice Requirements

Environmental Justice involves the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair

treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from

industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and

Tribal programs and policies.

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, requires that “. . . each Federal agency shall make

achieving Environmental Justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”

A. BLM’s Environmental Justice Principles

1. The BLM will determine if its proposed actions will adversely and disproportionally

impact minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes (reference Executive

Order No. 12898, Environmental Justice) and consider aggregate, cumulative, and

synergistic effects, including results of actions taken by other parties. While

Environmental Justice analysis is specifically concerned with disproportionate effects on

the three populations, the social and economic analysis produced in accord with NEPA

considers all potential social and economic effects, positive and negative, on any distinct

group.

2. The BLM will promote and provide opportunities for full involvement of minority

populations, low-income communities, and Tribes in BLM decisions that affect their

lives, livelihoods, and health.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 12

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

3. The BLM will incorporate Environmental Justice considerations in land use planning

alternatives to adequately respond to Environmental Justice issues and problems facing

minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes living near public lands,

working with, and/or using public land resources.

4. Where disproportionately high adverse impacts are anticipated, the BLM will work

with local community groups/associations, governments, and Tribal leaders to determine

if land disposition and/or acquisition policies affect real estate values and real income of

minority and low income communities, and Tribes.

5. The BLM State and Field Offices will continue to make Environmental Justice a

mandatory critical element for consideration in all land use planning and NEPA

documents.

B. Incorporating Environmental Justice Efforts in the RMP/EIS Process

1. Consult with other Federal agencies, Tribal leaders, states and local governments,

community groups/associations, churches, etc., to identify minority and low-income

communities, and reservations, including migrant and/or seasonal workers. Work with

the above groups to determine any potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts

posed by the proposed action. With the cooperation of the partners, affected minority

populations, low-income communities, and Tribes, adopt and implement creative

measures to eliminate, minimize, and/or correct identified Environmental Justice impacts.

2. Through collaboration, identify potential planning areas where proposed action(s)

could have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on the health of minority

populations, low-income communities and Tribes or their surrounding environment, and

document findings and recommended solutions.

3. Share appropriate information about potential high and adverse impacts with minority

populations, and/or low-income communities, and/or Tribes through workshops, informal

meetings, or other forums and solicit feedback and recommendations.

4. Publish NOIs and NOAs announcing scoping/issue identification meetings in the local

media (newspaper, radio, or television) of identified minority and low-income

communities and Tribes informing them of such meetings.

5. Develop mailing lists of identified minority populations, low-income communities,

and Tribes. Become knowledgeable of the geographic areas of proposed actions and the

people that live there (minority and low-income including those in transitory status).

6. When appropriate, schedule scoping/issue identification meetings in minority and

low-income communities or on Tribal reservations; and

7. Consider the need to translate to other languages planning and NEPA documents

mailed/circulated to identified minority populations, low-income communities, and

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 13

Tribes. Consider also the need to have an interpreter present at all scheduled meetings if

there are potential language problems.

C. Documentation and Analysis

1. Pre-plans should identify known low-income, minority, and Tribal populations within

the assessment area, and should indicate what measures will be taken to encourage their

participation in the planning process.

2. Data and analyses needed to ensure Environmental Justice compliance should be

incorporated in work plans for social and economic impact analyses.

3. Environmental Justice considerations should be documented by the RMP/EIS social

and economic analyses in (a) the Analysis of the Management Situation, (b) the Affected

Environment chapter, and (c) the Impact Analysis (Environmental Consequences)

chapter. An explanation of how any Environmental Justice issues have been considered

and, where possible, mitigated should be included in the description and rationale for the

preferred alternative.

V. Data Management

A. Types of Data

The type of data to be collected and analyzed should be appropriate to the planning scale and the

issues identified through the scoping process.

There are numerous sources of data available at the national, state, and local levels from

government, university, and private sources. Utilize BLM sources as well as other governmental

agencies that routinely collect and report economic and social data. Much of the government

data is easily available online. Locally and regionally produced reports on social and economic

conditions that are produced on a one-time basis (such as county or community planning

documents and university extension studies) may also be useful.

Use existing data to the extent possible: planning documents and environmental impact

statements do not routinely require primary data collection. Nonetheless, collecting primary data

may be necessary, particularly for social impact assessment, using techniques such as surveys,

focus groups, or key informant interviews. Any plan to include primary data collection should

be justified in terms of gaps in available data or special circumstances.

B. Data Quality and Analytic Soundness

Social and economic analyses should be performed in a manner consistent with professionally

recognized approaches, methods, and techniques. In addition, the Information Quality Act

(Public Law 106-554, §515) requires Federal agencies to ensure that influential information,

such as that used in the preparation of resource management plans, be characterized by

reproducibility and transparency.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 14

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

BLM recognizes that influential information should be subject to a high degree of transparency

about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third

parties, to an acceptable degree of precision. It is important that analytic results have a high

degree of transparency regarding (1) the source of the data used, (2) the various assumptions

employed, (3) the analytic methods applied, and (4) the statistical procedures employed. It is

also important that the degree of rigor with which each of these factors is presented and

discussed be scaled as appropriate, and that all factors be presented and discussed. (See BLM’s

“Information Quality Guidelines,” available at: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/data_quality/.)

Data sources and methods of analysis must be clearly and briefly described in the text of the

RMP/EIS and described in more detail in a technical supplement or RMP appendix.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements for New Data Collection

RMP/EIS teams must ensure that any new (primary) data collection complies with the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13).

If answers to identical questions are to be collected from 10 or more members of the public—for

example, through a survey questionnaire—the Paperwork Reduction Act requires Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the study. Note that for purposes of the Act,

“public” also applies to state, local, and Tribal government employees, though not to employees

of the Federal government. OMB review is normally a lengthy process, which must be initiated

through the BLM Washington Office. Unless the proposed data collection can be processed by

expedited review under the terms of an existing generic OMB authorization (such as that for

Customer Satisfaction Surveys), approval is likely to be time consuming.

VI. Data Sources

A. Use of the Economic Profile System

Developed by the Sonoran Institute under an agreement with the BLM, the Economic Profile

System (EPS) and its companion, EPSC (for Community), produce standardized economic and

demographic profiles for a selected region, county, or community in any of the 50 states. EPS

and EPSC simplify the socio-economic research required for land use planning by gathering and

presenting, in a variety of useful formats, data from multiple Federal databases. These

information tools were created to improve planning and more efficiently accomplish the time-

consuming task of gathering important social and economic data. EPSC uses the Decennial

Census to provide in-depth community-level profiles. EPS draws upon a variety of governmental

databases to produce thorough and multi-faceted profiles of economic and demographic changes

over the past 30 years.

Field offices are encouraged to use EPS and EPSC as tools for characterizing economic and

social baseline conditions. EPS and EPSC profiles can be provided in an appendix to the AMS

or RMP/EIS, while selected figures and tables can easily be incorporated in the main RMP/EIS

text. Where a plan or NEPA analysis will be prepared by contractors, planning leads are

encouraged to have contractors utilize EPS in plan preparation, and to seek commensurate cost

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 15

savings in contracted work. Note that EPS and EPSC are not impact models: they cannot be

used to quantify the economic impacts of a proposed activity or planning alternative.

For further information on EPS and EPSC, see Section VI, Further Guidance.

B. References

The following references are provided as potential sources for social and economic information.

Data and information from these and other sources must be used within the context of the laws

governing BLM’s management of the public lands.

The Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy. Fedstats Website:

http://www.fedstats.gov/. This website provides access to a wide variety of data produced

by over 70 Federal agencies for public use. It provides access to statistics for demographics,

economics, natural resources, the environment, energy, health, education, and many other

areas. Much of this data is available at the county, state, and/or regional level.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The USDA Forest Service’s course 1900-03,

Social Impact Analysis: Principles and Procedures, includes a helpful student manual. This

source is available through Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC), USDA Forest

Service, but is not available online. [Yates Bldg. 3CEN, 201 14th Street, SW, Washington

DC 20250; 202-205-0895]

The Human Dimensions website contains much useful information about human dimensions

analysis and includes sites from which economic and demographic data can be downloaded.

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nris/hd/ or

http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/hd/software/hdmodule/index.shtml

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census data includes the economic

characteristics of cities, towns, counties, and states, as well as a wide variety of social and

demographic information such as population, age, and migration rates. The Census Bureau

also presents information on county governments including financial characteristics

[Website: http://www.census.gov].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Includes data for states, counties,

and economic regions for such factors as personal income and employment by industry,

gross state product, and more [Website: http://www.bea.doc.gov/].

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. This Federal agency collects and reports

data on the labor market, including labor trends, detailed information on employment by

industry, and unemployment rates. It also reports price indices such as the consumer price

index and the producer price index [Website: http://www.stats.bls.gov].

U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. The BLM collects data on a wide variety of commercial

uses of public lands. This data is useful for putting public land uses in the context of overall

use in a planning area. Examples of the data collected include grazing use, mining, timber

product sales, coal, oil and gas leases, recreation, rights of way, and payments-in-lieu-of-

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix D, page 16

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

taxes (PILT). To obtain this data, contact resource specialists for those uses or refer to

BLM’s annual Public Land Statistics publication [Website:

http://www.blm.gov/publications/].

The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment:

Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and

Project Appraisal 21(3), September 2003. This document provides a clear model, as well as

principles and steps for social impact assessment.

[http://www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/US%20principles%20fin

al%20IAPA%20version.pdf]

Local sources of data. There are many local government agencies and organizations that collect

data that can be useful in land use planning. Such sources of data include state and local

employment departments, city and county governments (e.g., building departments,

departments of motor vehicles, or county tax assessors), local and state Chambers of

Commerce, local and state economic development commissions, etc.

Resource-specific sources of data. There are many state and Federal agencies that collect and

report data on specific industries, such as agriculture (farming and ranching), mining,

forestry, and recreation. For agricultural data, the USDA Economic Research Service

(Website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ http://www.econ.ag.gov) and the National Agricultural

Statistics Service (Website: http://www.usda.gov/nass/) are two good sources of

information. The Economic Research Service also conducts studies on rural conditions and

trends.

The following text citations are provided as examples of possible sources for field offices:

Branch, K., et al. 1984. Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing Social

Change. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Rabel J. Burge, R.J., et al. 2004. The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact

Assessment. Social Ecology Press, Middleton, 2004.

Goldman, L.R., ed. 2000. Social Impact Analysis: An Applied Anthropology Manual. Berg

Publishing, New York, NY.

Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B. 2000. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A

Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan. USDA-Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-72, Fort Collins,

CO.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix D, page 17

C. Environmental Justice References

Table D-4.—Web-based Environmental Justice sources

The CEQ has prepared detailed guidance

on complying with Environmental Justice

objectives in the NEPA process:

“Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental

Policy Act, 1997,” available at:

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf

The Interagency Working Group on

Environmental Justice, organized by EPA,

has useful guidance and other resources:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/interagency

/index.html.

For assistance in identifying Tribal,

minority, and low-income populations

within a planning area:

“Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool,” available at:

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ej/

The Department of the Interior’s Office of

Environmental Policy and Compliance has

information on Environmental Justice

policy and projects:

http://www.doi.gov/oepc/justice.html

VII. Further Guidance

For further information on the topics in Appendix D, contact your state office social science

staff, or social science staff at the Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group,

Washington Office (WO-210). Effective use of other agencies’ plans and reports, including, but

not limited to local government, state agencies, and community development organizations is

strongly encouraged.

A website to provide social science guidance, tools, and information resources is under

development.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 1

Appendix E: Summary of Protest and Appeal Provisions

The BLM must distinguish between land use plan and implementation decisions in all proposed

RMP documents (new RMPs, revisions, or amendments) and related decisions (records of

decision [ROD] and decision records [DR]), and clearly describe for the public the

administrative remedies for each type of decision. The Dear Reader Letter or the Executive

Summary could be used to communicate this information to the public.

I. Land Use Plan Protests

The protest procedures in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 provide the public an administrative review of the

State Director’s proposed land use plan decisions. The BLM Director determines through this

process whether the State Director followed established procedure, considered relevant

information in reaching proposed decisions, and whether the proposed decisions are consistent

with BLM policy, regulation, and statute.

The Director has delegated signing of response letters to protests to the Assistant Director,

Renewable Resources and Planning (AD-200). Acting in support of the Director, the Group

Manager for Planning, Assessment, and Community Support (WO-210) is responsible for the

oversight of the entire process once a protest is filed through final resolution. Each protest is

considered in close coordination with the involved State Director and affected Washington

Office groups, other Washington Office policy officials, and as appropriate, the Office of the

Solicitor. The WO-210 Group Manager makes recommendations to the Assistant Director for

final resolution of the protest.

It will be the BLM’s goal to resolve all protests within 90 days. If it is not possible to resolve

and respond to the protest(s) within 90 days, the WO-210 Group Manager should send a letter

acknowledging receipt of the protest to the originating party, indicating that a more detailed

response will follow. Refer to Figure 5 for a summary of the protest process.

A. Washington Office Initial Evaluation of Protests

When possible, all actions in this section will be completed within 5 business days of receipt of

the protest letters:

1. The Protest Coordinator will establish a case file for each protest received. Each protest

will be consecutively serialized using the following coding: PP-SO-PN-FY-#

a) “PP” means Plan Protest,

b) “SO” means the responsible State Office,

c) “PN” means a plan name identifier of up to several letters,

d) “FY” means the last two digits of the fiscal year,

e) “#” is a sequential number assigned as the filings are received.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Protest Process Flow Chart

WO-210 Protest Coordinator

1) Establishes case file for each protest.

2) Determines if protests are timely filed.

3) Determines whether protests are “complete”.

4) Sends copies of timely-filed and “complete” protests to responsible state and field office.

State Office and Field Office

1

1) Determine “standing” for each protest.

2) Determine whether issues have been raised previously in the planning process.

3) Determine whether issues are germane to the planning process.

1

These steps occur in coordination/interaction with WO-210.

WO-210 Liaison

1) Reviews state office initial determination of issues.

2) Works with state office/field office to finalize list of issues and comments.

State Office Prepares and Provides WO-210

1) Detailed issue analysis.

2) Draft protest response (decision letters).

WO-210 State Liaison Conducts Final Review

1) Drafts protest response letter(s) based on field/state office input and independent evaluation of

the planning process (whether to uphold, remand plan, or uphold/remand in part).

2) Circulates draft letter(s) for Washington Office surnaming.

3) Works with protest coordinator to prepare final protest response letter(s).

Assistant Director (AD-200)

1) Signs letter(s) dismissing all protests, or

2) Remands protest(s) to State Director to correct flaws in proposed plan decisions and/or

underlying NEPA documentation.

2

2

ROD may be approved by the State Director covering just those parts of the plan that are upheld in the protest

review process; remanded decisions are reevaluated and/or subject to further NEPA analysis and subsequent

protest process and separate ROD.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Figure 5.—Protest process flow chart

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 3

2. The Protest Coordinator will check to ensure that each protest was filed within the

protest period (see 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)). Plan protests are deemed timely if the

postmark is not later than the last day of the protest period (see Receiving, Managing, and

Responding to Electronic Mail and Faxed Protests at the end of this section). Normally,

BLM does not need to actually receive a protest by the end of the protest period—the

protest letter must only be postmarked by that date. In certain instances, the BLM may

require that protests be received by the end of the protest period. This requirement may

only occur if the public is widely and officially notified (at a minimum, in the Federal

Register notice and Dear Reader Letter). In all cases, the protest period shall be 30 days

and always end on a business day. If the 30th day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the

protest period shall end the following Monday. The protest period may not be extended

for any reason. Due to security screening delays, some protests may arrive in

Washington, D.C., 3 weeks after the protest period ends, or later.

The following strict standards will determine timeliness:

a) If the originator filed a protest after the protest period, the Washington Office

will dismiss it and respond to the originator in writing.

b) If the originator filed a protest timely, proceed to the next steps.

c) The publication of the EPA’s Federal Register NOA starts the protest period

for EIS-level plans and amendments. The initiation of the protest period for EA-

level plan amendments is the publication of the notice of the amendment’s

effective date (generally, this notice would be included in the Dear Reader Letter

for the amendment).

3. The Protest Coordinator will examine each protest to see if it is complete (see 43

CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2)(i)-(v)). The term “complete” means that the following five protest

components are submitted in the protest filing:

a) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing

the protest;

b) a statement of the issue or issues being protested;

c) a statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested;

d) a copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted

during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the

issue or issues were discussed for the record; and

e) a concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decision is believed to

be wrong.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

The BLM will not dismiss a protest solely because the protest omits some of the

documentation required by item (3) above. If BLM is uncertain about standing (see B.1.a

below) and the missing materials are necessary for BLM to make this determination,

BLM shall request, in writing, the protesting party to provide the missing materials to the

protest coordinator. Requested materials must be postmarked no later than 10 days after

BLM’s request for these materials is received by the protesting party (return receipt

verified). If following BLM’s request for missing materials, the protest does not meet the

five protest components and if standing cannot be determined by this additional step, the

protesting party will be denied standing. Case-by-case consideration will be given to

appropriate actions for incomplete submissions. Minor omissions will not be used as a

reason to dismiss a protest.

The requirements for filing a protest in accordance with the regulations apply to each

protesting party. Merely attaching or referencing another protesting party’s protest is not

sufficient to qualify as a valid protest.

4. The Protest Coordinator will forward a copy of protest letters meeting the above five

components to the responsible state and field office(s) for further evaluation and a

detailed analysis. Protests that meet the requirements noted above will be forwarded to

the affected state as soon as practicable rather than waiting until the end of the protest

period. Washington Office liaisons should also ensure that copies of the protests are

distributed to all affected Washington Office program staffs.

B. State Office Evaluation and Determination

1. The State Director and field office(s) will use the following criteria to determine the

validity of the protest as documented on the “State Director’s Protest Analysis” form at

the end of this section:

a. Does the protesting party have standing? The protesting party must have an

interest which is or may be adversely affected and must have participated in the

planning process by:

1. Sending written comments;

2. making oral comments (at a hearing or meeting);

3. attending a public meeting;

4. calling the BLM field office; and/or

5. discussing the project with BLM employees in the field.

The administrative record should be checked for appropriate documentation of the

protesting party’s participation in order for BLM to substantiate the protesting

party’s standing. The responsible field office manager will review the planning

records to make this determination. If the record does not support the protester’s

allegations of participation, the field office shall attempt to verify the alleged

participation with the protesting party, giving the protester the benefit of doubt if

there is a dispute. If the determination is made that no participation has occurred,

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 5

no further review of the protest is required. The AD-200 will issue a written

decision that dismisses the protest for lack of standing. Even though the protest is

dismissed, the AD may address any comments that were raised.

Individual members of an organization do not obtain standing solely because their

organization has participated in the planning process. To file a protest as an

individual, the individual has to meet the requirements for standing (they must

have participated in the planning process). Conversely, an organization does not

obtain standing solely because one of its members has standing (an officer or

official representative of the organization must have participated in the planning

process on behalf of the organization in order for the organization to have

standing).

b. Have the issues been raised before in the planning process? Issues raised on

protest must have been previously raised for the record in the planning process.

The issue does not need to have been raised specifically by the protesting party.

If some of the issues were previously raised, the State Director’s analysis will

indicate which issues were raised previously and which are newly introduced. If

the responsible state/field office determines that one or more issues have not been

raised before, those issues will be treated as comments.

c. Are the issues raised germane to the planning process? An issue is not

germane to the planning process if it is beyond the scope of a particular planning

effort, or if it involves a matter normally addressed in plan implementation.

Issues that are not germane to the planning process will not be considered as

protest issues but treated as comments.

If the answers to the questions in a., b., and c. above are all yes, the State Director

should continue the analysis starting with Step 2 below. If the answers to one or

more of the questions is no, the State Director should complete a draft response

and forward the document to the appropriate WO-210 state liaison who will

complete a response that dismisses the protest wholly or in part.

2. A detailed analysis will be prepared for each issue or comment raised (see Section E,

State Director’s Protest Analysis) in a protest letter. The following factors must be

addressed in the State Director’s analysis:

a) Facts considered;

b) procedures followed;

c) authorities cited;

d) references from applicable documents; and

e) applicable BLM policies.

When citing published data from the planning record, the document, date of publication,

and page number(s) must be part of the analysis used in the response to the protest issue.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 6

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

When citing material from unpublished BLM records, sufficient information must be

included to show that the material existed and was relevant during the planning process.

3. The State Director will document the detailed analysis of each protest using the format

in the State Director’s Protest Analysis. The preparation of preliminary draft responses

will expedite the protest resolution process. Other pertinent information that would help

resolve the protest should also be included. Completed packages will be sent to the

Group Manager, WO-210, no later than 60 days after the protest is received in the state

office.

4. The State Director, in consultation with the Washington Office, may determine that

discussion and negotiation with protesting parties are appropriate if these discussions

may lead to resolution of one or more issues. When these discussions result in resolution

of protest issues, advise the protesting party to give the Director a written notice

withdrawing the protest. The protesting party may decline to withdraw the protest, but

may be willing to accept a clarification or minor change to the proposed plan that

effectively resolves the contested issues. This type of change must not trigger a “notice

of significant change” required by 43 CFR 1610.5-1(b). For large numbers of protests or

complex protests, the Washington Office may send a team to work with the state office

and field office in analyzing issues and preparing draft responses.

C. Washington Office Final Review

1. WO-210 state liaisons, in coordination with the respective state/field office, will

evaluate each protest for content. 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2)(v) requires that protests include

a “concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decision is believed to be

wrong.” Statements that merely reflect disagreement, express opinions, or make

demands or allegations without the support of this concise statement will be addressed as

comments and will not cause a change in the plan being protested.

2. The Group Manager, WO-210, will prepare a draft response and decision on each

protest. Decisions should have standard organization and phraseology. The decision

will:

a) Incorporate the results of the Washington Office and State Office evaluations;

b) incorporate the State Office and WO-210 analyses of the protest points; and

c) provide a clear statement of the action taken on the protest (dismissed, denied,

returned to the State Director for further consideration, or upheld in total or in

part).

The bases for upholding protests include:

a) Approval of the proposed plan or amendment would be contrary to the

Director’s policy guidance;

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 7

b) significant aspects of the proposed plan or amendment are based upon invalid

or incomplete information; or

c) the proposed plan or amendment does not comply with applicable laws,

regulations, policies, and planning procedures.

Protests upheld on any of the three bases above will be returned, in whole or in part, to

the State Director for:

a) Clarification;

b) further planning or consideration; or,

c) change, in whole or in part, of the proposed management decisions.

3. As the protest responses are drafted, WO-210 will coordinate with other Washington

Office program staffs. Program offices are consulted when a protest involves one or

more of the following:

a) Precedent-setting departures from the existing resource management practices;

b) failure to comply with national policy guidance and legal requirements;

c) a major change in the use of resources in the area covered by the plan; and/or

d) subject areas or matters where special expertise is required.

4. The WO-210 state liaison will forward the draft proposed response(s) for surnaming

to the appropriate Assistant Directors. The following strategy will be used for expediting

the surnaming process:

a) Use of staff from appropriate groups and directorates to prepare draft protest

responses.

b) WO-210 will provide “heads up” to AD-200 when draft protest responses are

ready for surnaming.

c) AD-200 will provide “heads up” at staff meetings to alert Group Managers of

the availability of draft protest responses.

d) WO-210 will provide briefings for Group Managers as needed (including

Group Managers from other Directorates as needed) 2 to 3 days prior to obtaining

necessary surnames. Requested changes should be substantive rather than

editorial.

e) WO-210 will conduct “working briefings” with the AD-200, Deputy Director,

Chief of Staff, etc. (including Departmental staff as necessary), early in the

process as possible and prior to approval of protest responses.

5. A formal surnaming package should be prepared for each protest response. The

format and content of the folder should include the following:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 8

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

a) Cover sheet prepared for surnaming by the following individuals:

1) Protest Coordinator

2) Author (generally the WO-210 state liaison)

3) Deputy Group Manager (DGM)

4) Group Manager (at the discretion of the DGM or author)

5) Washington Office Group Managers who have an interest in the EIS,

plan, or issues raised in a protest

6) Deputy Assistant Director (DAD)

7) Assistant Director (AD) at the discretion of the DAD

8) Director (at the discretion of the AD)

9) Others at the discretion of the author

b) The letter of protest.

c) A Summary Brief (one or two pages) in the following format:

1) Background concerning the plan (or plan amendment) and the NEPA

document (EA, EIS)—including what kinds of documents were prepared,

when were they completed, etc.;

2) date the protest period closed;

3) requirements statement as to whether all of the NEPA, FLPMA,

regulatory, and policy requirements were followed by the BLM State/Field

Office;

4) position of constituents or other sensitivities—factual, political,

litigation, etc;

5) summary of the major issues in the protest and responses to issues;

6) recommended decision or if you are recommending remand (return) in

whole or part, why and what are the circumstances;

7) state/field office collaboration, who you worked with in the state/field

office and whether they reviewed the draft letter; and

8) Washington Office coordination, who you worked with in the

Washington Office (make sure they are on the surnaming sheet).

Note: for large numbers of protests, the above information may be arranged in a

tabular format rather than preparing individual summary briefs for each protest.

d) Response letter.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 9

These are typical responses to protests where the State Director’s proposed

decision is being upheld. Protests where the State Director’s proposed decision is

being returned in whole or in part, or the boilerplate paragraphs below do not fit

the protest, will require a different response.

1) Standard Paragraphs

Each letter of response should contain the following paragraphs:

Paragraph 1: “The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has carefully

reviewed and considered your letter dated [insert date], regarding the

[insert name of plan]. As the Assistant Director for Renewable Resources

and Planning, I am responsible to the BLM Director for reviewing and

resolving all protests of BLM land use plans. The purpose of this letter is

to inform you of the results of my review.”

Paragraph 2: For protests that are determined to be invalid because the

protesting party does not have standing:

"As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because you have

not participated in the planning process or you do not have an interest that

is or may be adversely affected. Therefore, I am dismissing the protest.”

(Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, you provided a

comment(s), which is (are) addressed below.)

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed

after the protest period:

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because your letter

was not filed by the required date. The regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 do

not allow for an extension of the protest period for any reason. Therefore,

I am dismissing the protest.” (Optional: Even though your protest is

being dismissed, you provided a comment(s), which is (are) addressed

below.)

For protests that are determined to be invalid because they were filed

electronically or by fax and not followed with an original letter:

"As outlined in the Dear Reader letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because your letter

was filed electronically (or by fax) and you did not provide the original

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 10

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

letter by the close of the protest period. Therefore, I am dismissing the

protest." (Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, you

provided a comment(s), which is (are) addressed below.)

For all protests that contain only issues:

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you meet these requirements. Your protest issue(s) is

(are) addressed below.”

For protests that contain both issues and comments:

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you meet these requirements, in part, and therefore

portions of your protest letter are considered a valid protest. I have

determined that your letter also contained a comment(s) which is (are) not

considered a valid protest issue(s) because . . . ” (Explain why: “the

comment(s) represent opinions or observations not substantiated with a

concise statement of why the State Director’s proposed decision is

believed to be wrong, contains issues not previously raised in the planning

process, or the issues you raised are not germane to the planning process”,

etc.). “The issue(s) and comment(s) are addressed below.”

For protests that contain only comments:

“As outlined in the Dear Reader Letter for the proposed plan, the planning

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 outline the requirements for filing a valid

protest. I find that you do not meet these requirements because . . .” (see

above). “Therefore, your protest is not valid and is hereby dismissed.”

(Optional: Even though your protest is being dismissed, your letter

contained a comment(s). That (those) comment(s) is (are) addressed

below.)

2) Issues Identified by the Protesting Party

In the response letters, issues should be addressed within separate

paragraphs for the issue and response, in the same order as in the

submitted protest letter. Issues should be quoted wherever possible.

Where issues cannot reasonably be quoted (e.g., they are long, rambling or

contain material not pertinent to the issues), they should be clearly

summarized. It is sufficient to have some issues summarized and others

quoted. The statement of the issue must capture all pertinent points

addressed in the response. If comments are addressed (optional), they

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 11

should be addressed at the end of the response letter. Use the following

format for addressing issues and comments:

Issue/Comment #:

Response:

Protest response letters should clearly document whether BLM followed

the correct procedures in arriving at the proposed decision(s). Authors

should identify any regulatory basis for responding to a protesting party’s

assertion. Do not argue or be defensive in the response. BLM’s response

to each issue should cite page numbers, where possible, in the NEPA

document that specifically relate to the issue or comment and not rely

solely on what was said in meetings or derived from notes, files, or phone

calls. Focus on what was in writing or in the formal planning process.

3) Comments

If comments are addressed (optional) they are addressed in the same

manner as protest issues. The response letter must clearly identify why

comments are not treated as protest issues, either in the opening

paragraphs of the letter or the response to the comment. If comments that

are part of a valid protest are not addressed, they should be responded to

separately by the state or field office.

Letters addressed to the protest coordinator stating “this is not a letter of

protest” should be forwarded to the respective state office. A letter should

be sent to the sender from WO-210, informing the sender that BLM has

forwarded the letter to the respective state office for consideration as a

comment.

4) Standard Paragraphs after the Issues

Decision: For protests in which the State Director’s proposed decision is

being upheld (protests in which the decision is being returned, in whole or

in part, will require a different response):

“After careful review of your protest letter, I conclude that the BLM

[insert state] State Director and the [insert field office] field office

manager followed the applicable planning procedures, laws, regulations,

and policies and considered all relevant resource information and public

input in developing the [insert name of plan] proposed

RMP/amendment/final EIS. There is no basis for changing the Proposed

RMP/amendment as a result of your protest.”

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 12

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

“This decision is the final decision of the Department of the Interior on

your protest letter (43 CFR 1610.5-2(b)). The Interior Board of Land

Appeals (IBLA) does not hear appeals from a decision by the Director of

the BLM on protests concerning RMPs. Any party to a case who is

adversely affected by a decision of a BLM official to implement some

portion of an RMP may appeal such action to the IBLA at the time the

action is implemented.”

“Thank you for your participation (if the protest is being dismissed for

lack of standing, substitute “interest” for “participation”) in the

development of the [insert name of plan] proposed RMP/amendment/final

EIS, and for your interest in the public lands. Land use plans are designed

to balance the public demands for various land uses while ensuring

appropriate levels of resource protection. While there may be times when

BLM cannot meet the needs of all those interested in the public lands,

BLM strives to address all public input in a conscientious manner. I

encourage you to remain actively (for protests being dismissed for lack of

standing, substitute “become” for “remain actively”) involved in BLM’s

resource management activities and to provide information and input

during the implementation of the plan. If you have any questions, or wish

to further discuss any issues regarding the plan, please call [insert name],

field office manager, [insert phone number].”

When the revised draft response is surnamed, the WO-210 state liaison and the Protest

Coordinator will finalize each protest response and prepare a letter for signature by the

Assistant Director (AD), WO-200.

Once the AD has signed the protest response, the Protest Coordinator will send it to the

protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy will also be sent to the

appropriate State Director and Field Manager(s). The State Director may sign the land

use plan decision document only after all protest response letters have been signed and

mailed, and any other requirements for approval have been met.

Portions of the proposed plan not under protest or remanded for reconsideration may be

approved and implemented. In such cases, the state office should consult with the

Washington Office for further direction.

If the proposed decision and its supporting analysis are returned in whole or in part to the

State Director, WO-210 will negotiate the necessary follow-up with the affected state and

field office.

D. Receiving, Managing, and Responding to Electronic Mail and Faxed Protests

All protest letters sent to BLM via facsimile (fax) or electronic mail (e-mail) will be considered

invalid protests unless a properly filed protest is also submitted. BLM will refer to such

correspondence as “comments” and respond accordingly. If the protesting party also provides

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix E, page 13

the original signed copy of the protest postmarked by the close of the protest period, then the fax

and/or e-mail correspondence will be considered an advance copy of the protest. Advance

copies of protests provide BLM an indication of the number of protests that will come in after

the close of the protest period.

The planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2) require that all protests must be in writing.

“Electronic signatures” for certain types of correspondence are now recognized where systems

have been established and mechanisms are in place to enable the affected parties to verify the

authenticity of the electronic signature. Such systems and mechanisms are not in place for BLM

protest procedures. Consequently, BLM requires protests be sent to the protest coordinator via

regular mail or other delivery service.

New standard language regarding e-mail and fax protests to include in the Agency’s Federal

Register NOA and in the Dear Reader Letter is provided below:

“E-mail and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also

provides the original letter by either regular mail or other delivery service postmarked by the

close of the protest period. Under these conditions, BLM will consider the e-mail or faxed

protest as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide BLM

with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of the BLM protest

coordinator at [insert phone number], and e-mails to [insert e-mail address].”

E. State Director’s Protest Analysis

When citing published data from the planning record, the state/field office must provide the

document, date of publication, and page number(s).

State Office Analysis For Protest Number:

1) Plan Name:

2) Closing Date for Protest:

3) Name of Individual or Organization:

4) State Office Evaluation Results:

a. After review of all planning records, the protesting party has standing through

participation in some phase of the planning process (check one)?

Yes [ ] No [ ] (The protesting party must also show an interest that is or may be

adversely affected.)

b. Have the issues raised in the protest been raised before by the protesting party

or another party in some phase of the planning process (check one)?

Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indicate from the identified list of issues those not raised during

the planning process with an X.)

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix E, page 14

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

c. Are the issues raised in the protest germane to the planning effort (check one)?

Yes [ ] No [ ] (Indicate with an X from the list of identified issues those that are

not germane and why.)

5. List of Issues Raised:

6. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Issues:

7. State Office Detailed Analysis of Identified Comments:

8. State Office Recommendations or Opportunities for Resolution:

II. Governor’s Consistency Review Appeal Process

The planning regulations in 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) allow a state Governor an opportunity to appeal

to the BLM Director if the BLM State Director does not accept the Governor’s recommendations

on plan consistency.

Prior to approval of a proposed plan, revision, or amendment, the BLM State Director will

submit the proposed plan, revision, or amendment to the Governor(s) of the state(s) involved and

identify any known inconsistencies with approved state or local plans, policies, or programs.

The Governor has 60 days to identify inconsistencies and to provide written recommendations to

the BLM State Director. If the BLM State Director does not accept a Governor’s

recommendations, the BLM State Director must notify the Governor in writing; the Governor

then has 30 days from receipt of the State Director’s letter in which to submit a written appeal to

the BLM Director.

The BLM Director will accept the Governor’s recommendations if the Director determines that

the recommendations provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the

state’s interest. The Director must communicate to the Governor in writing and publish in the

Federal Register the reasons for accepting or rejecting the Governor’s recommendations.

III. Administrative Remedies of Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are subject to the administrative remedies set forth in the regulations

that apply to each resource management program of the BLM. These administrative remedies

for final implementation decisions usually take the form of appeals to the Office of Hearings and

Appeals, though for certain proposed or non-final implementation decisions, including those

affecting timber sales, oil and gas lease sales, land exchanges, and proposed grazing decisions,

the regulations provide for an internal agency review (usually a protest to the authorized officer)

which must be completed before the final implementation decision can be appealed to the Office

of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). This type of protest to the authorized officer should not be

confused with the protest of land use plan decisions to the BLM Director (there is no OHA

review of land use planning decisions).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 1

Appendix F: Standard Formats for Land Use Plan Documents

Appendix F-1: Recommended Format for Preparation Plans

Preparation plans should contain the following information and discrete sections.

A. Introduction and Background

B. Anticipated Planning Issues and Management Concerns

Issues are identified by BLM staff and managers based on their knowledge of the planning area

and its users. Planning issues may be based on:

1) Contacts or correspondence with users, adjoining districts or field offices, and

interested public (including other agencies).

2) Ongoing consultation, advisory council meetings, interagency and intergovernmental

coordination, and informal sessions with users and interested public. Preplanning does

not involve public notices or public participation activities since they are specifically

provided for in the RMP and NEPA processes and key preplanning results are publicly

reviewed during scoping.

3) Staff and management knowledge of resource uses, users, conditions, needs, and

trends.

Management concerns are generally of a program-specific nature, and while they may not be

externally generated or controversial, deserve the appropriate level of consideration in the

planning process.

C. Preliminary Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the development of the

plan. They ensure that plans are tailored to the identified issues and ensure that unnecessary data

collection and analyses are avoided. They focus on the decisions to be made in the plan and

achieve the following:

1) Provide an early, tentative basis for inventory and data collection needs.

2) Enable the manager and staff to develop a preliminary planning base map delineating

geographic analysis units.

3) Stimulate the development of planning criteria during public participation.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

D. Data and GIS Needs, Including Data Inventory

Managers of planning efforts are encouraged to use existing data compiled by other Federal

agencies; state, local, and Tribal governments; and private organizations, if applicable, to address

assessment questions. Data compiled by other agencies which are used in BLM land use plans

should be consistent across administrative boundaries and landscapes, where available.

Regardless of its source, sufficient metadata (data about data) should be provided to clearly

determine the quality of the data, along with any limitations associated with its use. To define

the information required to support each individual planning effort, each preparation plan should:

1) Create a list of currently available data (list by theme, data elements, and explain how

that data will support the plan in dealing with anticipated issues and planning

requirements).

2) Identify the anticipated data gaps in available data required to deal with the

anticipated issues, as well as the planning and analysis requirements.

3) Create a realistic data inventory and collection strategy (including work months,

personnel involved, costs and timeframes involved) for acquiring critically needed data

and information.

See Appendix G for more information on managing data and information throughout the

planning process.

E. Participants in the Process

1) Describe and list roles, responsibilities, and authorities.

2) Provide team lists (including management team, core team, interdisciplinary, and

support teams).

F. Process for the Plan

1) General steps and format.

2) Alternative formulation: Identify preliminary plan alternative themes that focus on

resolving anticipated issues and reflect the preliminary planning criteria.

3) Internal review of the plan.

4) Form of input from the interdisciplinary team and reviewers.

G. Plan Preparation Schedule

The schedule provides estimated timeframes for the completion of the required plan components.

It identifies:

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 3

1) All planning actions (43 CFR 1610.4) and support actions expected to be done either

consecutively or concurrently.

2) Target completion dates for each action.

3) Time periods needed for preparation and award of contracts, if any, and preparation

costs required for use in the budget process.

H. Public Participation Plan

The public participation plan is to be prepared as a part of the preparation plan. Every effort

should be made to assure meaningful public involvement throughout the planning process. This

includes:

1) Goals and objectives of public participation.

2) A description of the public known to be interested or affected and any contributions

they may make or information they may need during the planning process and the

involvement techniques most appropriate (including involvement of cooperating

agencies).

3) Target dates and other pertinent details for public participation activities, notices, and

availability of printed information.

4) Provisions for updating the plan, as necessary, during plan preparation.

5) A description of how the results of public participation activities will be summarized,

analyzed, documented, and used by the line manager in making decisions in the plan.

6) Internet technology that will be used to provide information to the public and/or

solicit comments.

I. Budget

The budget includes all costs associated with development of the plan including, data needs

collection, contracting costs, BLM staff work months, Federal Register notices, vehicle, travel,

and support costs. It should address the level of program sources funding provided by the field

or state office, as well as increased funding needs.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 4

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F-2: Recommended Format for Scoping Reports

The following is a suggested format for field offices to prepare scoping reports to achieve a

common and consistent approach that meets minimum requirements. It is recognized that some

situations (for example scoping reports dealing with an unusually large number of comments)

may require additional content and detail. Documents should be as brief, concise, and user-

friendly as possible. Authority for the scoping report can be found at 43 CFR 1610.2(d).

A. Cover Letter

Optional; signed by field office manager.

B. Introduction

a) Overview/purpose and need for the plan (tie to planning evaluation)

b) Brief description of the planning area (including a map)

c) Brief description of the scoping process (NOI history, meetings, contacts, etc.)

d) Cooperating agencies/invitees

e) Collaboration and consultation with Tribes

C. Issue Summary

a) Summary of public comments

b) Issues identified during scoping

c) Anticipated decisions to be made

d) Issues raised that will not be addressed (including rationale)

e) Valid existing management to be carried forward

f) Special designations, including nominations

D. Draft Planning Criteria

Include if not previously published in initial notice; otherwise incorporate by reference.

E. Data Summary/Data Gaps

Include if not previously published in initial notice; otherwise incorporate by reference.

a) Refer to more detailed lists in preparation plan or elsewhere (state that these are

available upon request)

b) Identify any relevant data provided or identified as available during scoping

c) List data gaps identified during scoping

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 5

F. Summary of Future Steps in the Planning Process

Identify planning process timelines and opportunities for public participation (including

webpage address and key contact address and information, etc.)

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 6

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F-3: Annotated Outline of the Analysis of the Management Situation

The analysis of the management situation (AMS) should describe the current conditions and

trends of the resources and the uses/activities in the planning area in sufficient detail to create a

framework from which to resolve the planning issues through the development of alternatives.

This analysis should be short, concise, and focused on the issues relevant to resource

management in the area. It should not be an exhaustive review of everything known about the

area.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of Analysis of the Management Situation

Describe the role of the AMS in the planning process.

B. General Description of Planning Area, Geographic Scope, and Resources/Programs

C. Key Findings

Summary of the most important conclusions drawn from the AMS.

CHAPTER 2. AREA PROFILE

This chapter describes the existing condition of the resources, resource uses, and other features

of the planning area (i.e., area profile). It should provide a context for resources and uses by

incorporating information compiled at multiple levels to describe the large-scale ecoregions

associated with the planning area. The information will become the basis for the Affected

Environment chapter of the RMP/EIS. Table F-1 shows the components of the area profile (not

necessarily all-inclusive).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 7

Table F-1.—Area profile

Resources

Resource uses

Special designations

Social and economic

Air quality

Geology

Soil resources

Water resources (surface and

groundwater)

Vegetative communities

1

Fish and wildlife

Special status species

Wild horse and burros

Wildland fire ecology and

management

Cultural resources

Paleontological resources

Visual resources

Wilderness characteristics

Cave and karst resources

Facilities

Forestry and woodland

products

Livestock grazing

Minerals (leasable,

locatable, salable)

Recreation

Renewable energy

Transportation and

access

Utility corridors and

communication sites

Land tenure

Land use

authorizations

Withdrawals

Areas of critical

environmental concern

Back country byways

National recreation

areas

National trails

Wild and scenic rivers

Wilderness

Wilderness study areas

Tribal interests

Public safety

(abandoned mines,

debris flows, and

hazardous materials)

Social and economic

conditions

1

Vegetative communities can be identified at a variety of scales and include forests, woodlands, rangelands, riparian areas, and wetlands.

A. Resources

The Resources section should have both an introduction common to all resources and a section

specific to each resource. The information presented in the introduction should help the planning

team relate the resources in the planning area to the regional setting, and define the current

condition and key features of those resources. It should also help the team highlight potential

management opportunities in Chapter 4 of the AMS by addressing the regional importance and

function of resources within the planning area.

1. Regional Context:

Different agencies and organizations have compiled geospatial datasets for large-scale

ecoregions such as the Wyoming Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Ecoregions of this scale range

in size from 3.5 million acres to 88 million acres (averaging 23 million acres). Most planning

areas will fall into one or two ecoregions, depending on the scale at which they were developed.

Planning boundaries may overlap ecoregional boundaries, so it is important for planning areas to

coordinate in collecting and sharing information.

These large-scale geospatial datasets provide broad-level biological information that

complements local planning efforts by identifying dominant patterns on the landscape and threats

to resources. Other existing fine and midscale data (e.g., state and Heritage programs, BLM-led

assessments such as Land Health Assessments, Recovery Plans, and Conservation Strategies)

used in combination with broad scale information can provide a complete picture of current

conditions and key features of the resources (definitions for broad, mid, and fine scale data are

provided in the Glossary). For example, BLM-led Land Health Assessments contain information

on upland, riparian, and stream channel condition that can be used to refine ecoregion conditions

from larger datasets. Use multiscale information to complete Table F-2.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 8

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Table F-2.—Ecoregion/Planning Area Information

Information about the ecoregion

Information about the planning area as it relates to the

ecoregion

Size and general geographic location.

Orientation of the planning area within the ecoregion.

Percent of the ecoregion that (1) all lands in the planning area

cover and (2) BLM lands in the planning area cover.

Overall ecoregion condition (past versus

present) and major issues affecting

function and resource trends (i.e., fire

suppression, habitat fragmentation, and

invasive species).

The overall condition of the BLM lands relative to the

condition of the ecoregion.

Information relative to how current land use allocations and

management BLM lands might be contributing to or helping to

alleviate the major ecological issues of the ecoregion.

Features of the ecoregion that are

unique or are particularly important to

ecological condition (e.g., large blocks

of grasslands or sagebrush).

The extent to which the planning area or portions within it

may be ecologically important to maintaining ecosystem

function.

1

1

This information may not be available depending on the source of ecoregion information used.

2. Resource-specific information

The AMS should include resource-specific information organized by the following five factors:

a. Indicators. Identify factors that describe resource condition such as ambient pollutant

level, visibility, and fire regime condition class. Indicators should be quantitative

whenever possible. There are many potential sources for indicators, including Standards

for Rangeland Health.

b. Current Condition. Describe the location, extent, and current condition of the

resource in the planning area. Condition can be determined by comparing the value of

indicator(s) to an established standard (current plan goal or objective) and/or benchmark.

Relate the condition assessment to Land Health Standards as appropriate. The scale of

the analysis may extend beyond the immediate planning area boundary and encompass a

logical landscape (the analysis area). For instance, the analysis can occur at different

levels such as by watershed, geographic area, or region.

c. Trends. Describe the degree and direction of change between the present and some

point in the past. Explain whether the trend is moving toward or away from the current

desired condition based on the indicators. Also describe the drivers or agents of change.

Note that for some resources, a desired condition has not been established or there will

not be enough information to describe trends. When describing trends, note whether the

trend is based on quantitative or qualitative information. For example, the trend for

ambient pollutant levels most likely can be described from a quantitative standpoint; that

is, based on changes in levels of criteria pollutants over time as recorded in published

data. For other resources where data are not available, a qualitative approach would be

used.

d. Forecast. Predict changes in the condition of resources given current management.

Describe the drivers or agents of the anticipated change.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 9

e. Key features. Describe the geographic location, distribution, areas or types of resource

features that should guide land use allocation or management decisions. For example,

certain areas may be particularly important to special status species habitat, or some soil

types may be better able to support certain land uses than others.

B. Resource Uses

For each resource use, describe the following:

1) Current level (including potential) and locations of use (map each use).

2) Forecast, or the anticipated demand for use (levels and locations)—the reasonable

foreseeable development.

3) Key features, or the areas of high potential for the use (these areas do not necessarily

have to be currently managed for the use).

C. Special Designations

Identify the location of existing special designations such as ACECs, wilderness areas,

wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other applicable designations. Also identify

areas meeting the relevance and importance criteria to be considered as potential ACECs or

potentially eligible river segments, etc.

D. Social and Economic Features

Listed below are the topics to describe for each of the social and economic features.

• Tribal interests—Identify the Tribes with interests in the planning area. Describe

features not otherwise described in the cultural resources section, such as treaty-based

subsistence uses, traditional use areas, and rights of access.

• Public safety (abandoned mines, debris flows, and hazardous materials)—Identify

areas where public safety is an issue.

• Social and economic conditions—See Appendix D.

CHAPTER 3. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

This chapter describes current management direction based on existing land use plans and

amendments by program (and later becomes the basis for the no action alternative). Provide a list

of management decisions and their sources for each resource or resource use. Identify

management decisions from all applicable BLM plans (RMPs, MFPs, and amendments for

planning-level decisions). Note that some resources will not have any management decisions

established.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 10

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

A. Relevant Plans and Amendments

The list of management decisions should be drawn from all applicable BLM plans (RMPs and

amendments). List all plans and amendments that influence current management. This list can

be displayed in a table such as the one below:

Table F-3.—Sample format for list of relevant plans and amendments

Document title

Year

Other relevant information

Admininstrative

record document

number

B. Management Decisions

Describe all management decisions that will become the no action alternative in the draft RMP.

Table F-4 is a recommended format.

Table F-4.—Current management for resources, resource uses, and social and economic features

Current management

decision

Planning decision

number

Decision source

Status

Insert decision title

and/or description.

Insert decision number or

other identifier if known.

Insert source document

for the decision, such as:

Lower Gila South RMP

Insert the status of the

decision: whether it was

completed and when,

progress if not completed,

etc.

To the extent possible, document decisions by logical management units or zones. Special

management areas (special designations) would be included in this manner. Types of special

management areas include ACECs, back country byways, national recreation areas, national

trails, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, and wilderness study areas.

CHAPTER 4. MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Identifying management opportunities is a process of considering changes in management to

respond to (a) information gathered in the area profile (Chapter 2) and (b) issues and concerns

elevated through scoping. It serves as a starting point for alternative formulation by providing a

list of possible management opportunities for later sorting and refining into a framework of

compatible alternatives. Consult Appendix C as a guide to the program-specific land use plan

decisions that should be made as part of the planning process when identifying management

opportunities.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 11

A. Analyze the Ability of Current Management Direction to Achieve Desired Conditions

and Address Resource Demands

Based on the current condition and trends of the resources and the current and trends of demands

on those resources, analyze the ability of current management direction to achieve desired

conditions and address resources and demands for use of the resources. Discuss field office(s)

capability in terms of staff, annual budget, summary of workload ranked by subactivity and/or

program elements.

While discussing the management adequacy of each decision, also discuss options for changing

the management if the decision does not adequately respond to current issues, changes in

circumstances, new information, etc.

Fill out Table F-5 for each resource, resource use, special management area and social and

economic feature. Notice that the table is similar to Table G-4 in Chapter 3(B), which describes

the management decisions.

Table F-5.—Adequacy of current management direction and options for change

Planning decision

Is decision

responsive

to current

issues?

Remarks (rationale)

Options for change

Insert decision title and/or

description.

(Y/N)

Describe why the decision is/is not

adequate.

Insert options for

changing management.

As appropriate, include

decisions from other

jurisdictions that

warrant consideration.

B. Identify Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide Land Uses and Management

Identifying areas of relative ecological importance enables planners to understand tradeoffs when

establishing land use allocations and management requirements. Regional knowledge, gained

through broad scale assessments, can highlight the importance of an area in the context of the

larger ecoregion. This information is fundamental to developing a range of alternatives and

analyzing the effects of the alternatives in the RMP/EIS, and to managing for “the health,

diversity, and productivity of the public lands.”

Understanding relative ecological importance should guide land use allocations and management

approaches, rather than preclude uses. For example, this information should feed into alternative

development by helping to identify opportunities for maintenance and/or restoration of habitats.

Note that relative ecological importance may change over time with new information and

changes in land uses and condition.

When assembling information on relative ecological importance, focus on dominant patterns

across the ecoregion, and on habitat extent, habitat condition, species connectivity requirements

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 12

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

and overall plant and animal species diversity within the planning area. There are many ways to

assemble this information. One way is to create maps using information and datasets collected

for both the ecoregion or for the preparation of the area profile and AMS. This approach is

described in Figure G-1, and can be applied using a geographic information system (GIS) or

transparencies.

CHAPTER 5. CONSISTENCY/COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS

Identify plans in areas surrounding the planning area and discuss the implications for the

planning area from these plans. Identify resources that are in common, dependent, or

interdependent.

1) County/city plans

2) State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies and State lands plans

3) Other Federal agency plans (including fire planning units)

Identify significant opportunities for enhancing coordination or gaining expertise through

cooperating agency relationships.

CHAPTER 6. SPECIFIC MANDATES AND AUTHORITY

All resource specialists should provide a description of laws, regulations, and policy applicable

to their resources. Information on Federal, state, local, as well as BLM policy should be

included.

CHAPTER 7. SCOPING REPORT OR SUMMARY OF SCOPING REPORT

CHAPTER 8. LIST OF PREPARERS

Provide the following information for each person working on the project: name, responsibility,

qualifications, and participation.

CHAPTER 9. GLOSSARY

CHAPTER 10. REFERENCES

Provide references for each resource section according to the format noted in the project work

plan. All references should be included and complete reference information should be submitted

with each resource section.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 13

Figure F-1.—One potential method for identifying areas of relative ecological importance

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 14

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F-4: Annotated Outline for a Draft and Final RMP (Amendment)/EIS

The following outline applies to draft and full text final EISs. If minor changes consisting of

technical, editorial, or nonsubstantive factual corrections are made in the draft EIS in response to

comments, then an abbreviated final EIS may be prepared. An abbreviated final EIS only

contains substantive comments received on the draft, responses to those comments, and an errata

section with specific modifications and corrections to the draft EIS in response to comments (see

40 CFR 1503.4).

Contractor logos should not be placed anywhere in the documents (although it is recommended

that the role of the contractor be acknowledged in the list of preparers in Chapter 5).

1. Abstract (Inside front cover)

2. Cover sheet or title page

3. Dear Reader Letter (include privacy statement)

4. Protest procedures (final EIS)

5. Table of contents

6. Summary (approximately 15 pages)

(Optional Reader’s Guide to help explain chapter format and contents)

7. Chapter 1. Introduction (approximately 5–10 pages)

A. Purpose and Need for the Plan

B. Planning Area and Map

C. Scoping/Issues

1. Issues Addressed

a. Issues used to develop alternatives

1

b. Issues addressed in other parts of the EIS

2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

a. Issues beyond the scope of the plan

b. Issues addressed through administrative or policy action

D. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints

E. Planning Process

1

Italics here show optional categories for issues.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 15

1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

2. Collaboration

a. Intergovernmental, inter-agency, and Tribal relationships

b. Other stakeholder relationships

F. Related Plans: Discuss consideration of state, local, and Tribal land use plans that

“are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands.”

2

G. Policy: Discuss policies and decisions that existed prior to the plan being written

that are outside the scope of the plan but may influence the decisions, constrain the

alternatives, or are needed to understand management of the area. Examples include:

proclamations, legislative designations, and court settlements.

H. Overall Vision:

3

Identify the overall vision for management of the planning area.

This vision should reflect the goals that are common to all alternatives. This can serve to

help integrate programs.

8. Chapter 2. Alternatives

4

A. General Description of each Alternative: Highlight the characteristics that

distinguish each alternative. Rather than naming alternatives, number or letter each

alternative and briefly describe the theme of each alternative.

B. Management Common to All Alternatives: Primarily goals for resource conditions

and resource uses.

C. No-Action Alternative: Description of existing management direction including

current decisions from relevant plans and reasonable, foreseeable, management

scenarios.

D. Action Alternatives:

5

Detailed description of each of the alternatives, by alternative,

needed to display a reasonable range of options to meet the stated Purpose and Need and

address issues. Each alternative description should address the issues or programmatic

areas. The decisions in the alternatives should follow the format for land use plan

“Management Decisions” provided in Appendix F-5.

2

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 202(c)(9).

3

Optional.

4

There has been some discussion of reversing the order of the Alternatives and Affected Environment

chapters of the EIS. However, the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance in the Department of

the Interior has issued guidance stating that we must follow the recommended format in the CEQ

regulations (40 CFR 1502.10) or obtain approval from OEPC to deviate from it.

5

At the draft stage in the preparation of an EIS, the preferred alternative is identified in Chapter 2 of the

draft EIS. At the final EIS stage, the proposed plan is presented with the alternatives. The proposed plan

should be in a clearly delineated section to make it easily identifiable and may also be pulled out as a

separate document.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 16

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

E. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

F. Comparison of Alternatives (table)

G. Comparison of Impacts (table)

9. Chapter 3. Affected Environment (keep as short and concise as possible): Limit

discussion to what is needed to understand issues and environmental consequences and provide

context for the Goals and Objectives. This chapter may also be formatted in the same way as the

Area Profile section of the Analysis of the Management Situation (See Appendix F-3).

A. Resources: Physical, biological, and cultural resources (current conditions and

trends). This is not necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Air Quality

2. Geology

3. Soil Resources

4. Water Resources

5. Vegetative Communities

a. Forests and Woodlands

b. Rangelands

c. Riparian and Wetlands

6. Fish and Wildlife

7. Special Status Species

8. Wild Horses and Burros

9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

10. Cultural Resources

11. Paleontological Resources

12. Visual Resources

13. Wilderness Characteristics

14 Cave and Karst Resources

B. Resource Uses: Resource uses (current conditions and trends). This is not

necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Facilities

2. Forestry and Woodland Products

3. Livestock Grazing

4. Minerals

a. Leasable Minerals (e.g. oil, gas, and geothermal)

b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver)

c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel)

5. Recreation

6. Renewable Energy

7. Transportation and Access

8. Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 17

9. Land Tenure

10. Land Use Authorizations

11. Withdrawals

C. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

2. Back Country Byways

3. National Recreation Areas

4. National Trails

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers

6. Wilderness

7. Wilderness Study Areas

D. Social and Economic

1. Tribal Interests

2. Public Safety

a. Abandoned Mines

b. Debris Flows

c. Hazardous Materials

3. Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice and other

considerations)

10. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. Document sufficient analysis to support all

conclusions. This chapter may also be formatted in the same way as the Area Profile section of

the Analysis of the Management Situation (See Appendix F-3.)

A. Introduction

1. Analytical assumptions (reasonably foreseeable development scenarios for oil

and gas, anticipated levels of vegetation treatment, etc.)

2. Types of effects to be addressed (direct, indirect, and cumulative)

3. Summarize critical elements that are addressed, not affected, or not present

4. Incomplete or unavailable information

For program areas, include discussions as outlined in 40 CFR 1502.16 for the alternatives

by program area listed below.

B. Resources: Physical and biological resources addressed in alphabetical order. This

is not necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Air Quality

2. Cave and Karst Resources

3. Cultural Resources

4. Fish and Wildlife

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 18

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

5. Geology

6. Paleontological Resources

7. Soil Resources

8. Special Status Species

9. Vegetative Communities

a. Forests and Woodlands

b. Rangelands

c. Riparian and Wetlands

10. Visual Resources

11. Water Resources

12. Wild Horses and Burros

13. Wilderness Characteristics

14. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

C. Resource Uses: Resource uses addressed in alphabetical order. This is not

necessarily a comprehensive list.

1. Facilities

2. Forestry and Woodland Products

3. Land Tenure

4. Land Use Authorizations

5. Livestock Grazing

6. Minerals

a. Leasable Minerals (e.g. oil, gas, and geothermal)

b. Locatable Minerals (e.g. gold and silver)

c. Salable Minerals (e.g. sand and gravel)

7. Recreation

8. Renewable Energy

9. Transportation and Access

10. Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

11. Withdrawals

D. Special Designations

1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

2. Back Country Byways

3. National Recreation Areas

4. National Trails

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers

6. Wilderness

7. Wilderness Study Areas

E. Social and Economic

1. Tribal Interests

2. Public Safety

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 19

a. Abandoned Mines

b. Debris Flows

c. Hazardous Materials

3. Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice and other

considerations)

11. Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination

A. Description of specific actions taken to consult and coordinate with:

1. Tribes

2. Intergovernmental (State, Local, County, and City)

3. Federal Agency

4. Interest Groups

5. National Mailing List

B. Describe additional collaboration

C. Responses to comments by issue area (FEIS only)

D. List of Preparers

12. Appendices

13. Glossary

14. References

15. Index

16. Abbreviations/Acronyms (inside back cover): Placement can also occur with the Reader’s

Guide, Summary, or in the Glossary.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 20

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F-5: Annotated Outline for Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

(Amendment)

At the end of the protest period on the final EIS and proposed plan and after protests are

resolved, the ROD

6

is issued. The ROD must be published in the same document with and

reference the land use plan (proposed plan from the final EIS as modified in response to protests

or other considerations between the final EIS and issuance of the ROD). The ROD/RMP serves

as a more concise and useful tool to land managers and stakeholders than a cumbersome EIS.

Separation of the approved RMP from the final EIS and attaching it to the ROD clarifies the

different roles served by a plan and the supporting NEPA analysis. Additionally a stand-alone

ROD/RMP will improve internal agency and partner understanding of the plan and improve our

long-term ability to implement the plan.

I. Record of Decision (ROD)

A. Introductory Material: (on a cover sheet or at the top of the first page)

1) Title

2) Preparing office and office location

3) Cooperating agencies (if any)

4) Signature and title of responsible official and concurring officials (if any)

7

5) Date of signature(s)

B. Summary: (if ROD exceeds 10 pages)

C. Decision: The primary decision is to approve the attached land use plan.

8

D. Alternatives: Briefly discuss the alternative or alternatives that were considered to be

“environmentally preferable.”

9

E. Management Considerations: Provide the rationale for the decision.

F. Mitigation Measures: In addition to identifying approved mitigation measures, state

whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative

6

The format for the ROD can be found in the NEPA handbook (H-1790-1), Chapter V, pages V-22 to V-

23.

7

Signatures and date of signatures can occur at end of ROD.

8

Example: “The decision is hereby made to approve the attached plan as the resource management plan

(Plan) for [insert title]. This Plan was prepared under the regulations implementing the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 CFR 1600). An environmental impact statement was prepared for

this Plan in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Plan is nearly

identical to the one set forth in the [insert title] Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final

Environmental Impact Statement published [insert here]. Specific management decisions for public lands

under the jurisdiction of the [insert here] Field Office are presented in Chapter [insert] of the plan. Major

decisions include: [insert here].

9

See 40 CFR 1505.2(b).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 21

selected have been adopted, and if not, why. Summarize any monitoring and enforcement

program being adopted for mitigation measures.

10

G. Plan Monitoring:

H. Public Involvement: Briefly describe public participation in planning process.

II. Approved Resource Management Plan

A. Introduction.

11

1. Purpose and Need for the Plan

2. Planning Area and Map

3. Scoping/Issues

a. Issues Addressed

i) Issues used to develop alternatives

12

ii) Issues addressed in other parts of the EIS

b. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

i) Issues beyond the scope of the plan

ii) Issues addressed through administrative or policy action

4. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints

5. Planning Process

a. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

b. Collaboration

i) Intergovernmental, inter-agency, and Tribal relationships

ii) Other stakeholder relationships

6. Related Plans: Discuss consideration of state, local, and Tribal land use plans that

“are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands.”

13

7. Policy: Discuss policies and decisions that existed prior to the plan being written that

are outside the scope of the plan but may influence the decisions, constrain the

alternatives, or are needed to understand management of the area. Examples include:

proclamations, legislative designations, and court settlements.

10

See 40 CFR 1505.2(c).

11

This introduction section is optional material for the land use plan document.

12

Italics here show optional categories for issues.

13

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 202(c)(9).

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 22

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

8. Overall Vision:

14

Identify the overall vision for management of the planning area.

This vision should reflect the goals that are common to all alternatives. This can serve to

help integrate programs.

B. Management Decisions.

15

List management decisions by issue or programmatic area,

making clear how decisions in one issue or programmatic area may affect others.

1. Goals:

16

Identify goals for resource conditions, resource uses, and other goals as

appropriate.

2. Objectives:

17

Identify objectives with their rationale (include associated goal[s]).

Reference which goals are advanced by the objective.

3. Management Actions: Make these adaptive as appropriate and practical. Relate

each decision to all goals and objectives impacted. This section should address special

designations and land tenure decisions.

a. Allowable uses: This should include allowable uses, restricted uses, and

prohibited uses. Incorporate maps where appropriate.

b. Actions: Management measures that will guide future and day-to-day

activities. Project design features, stipulations, best management practices,

standard operating procedures, and guidelines should be included in this section

as well.

c. Implementation decisions: Include any implementation decisions (see

appropriate guidance for distinction) related to particular land use planning

decisions.

4. Monitoring (and adaptive management if applicable): Describe plans for monitoring

to assess progress toward meeting goals and objectives. If appropriate, discuss plans of

action if monitoring indicates actions are not meeting goals and objectives or if actions

are no longer needed.

C. Public Involvement. Describe how the public and partners can be involved in

implementation.

D. Management Plan Implementation. To the extent practical and appropriate, identify

priorities and costs of the management program. Costs should be estimated at a scale that is

14

Optional.

15

The format of this section is designed to (a) clarify the distinction between goals, objectives, and

management actions; (b) move toward (or demonstrate) objectives and management decisions that will

work toward meeting multiple goals; (c) demonstrate the connectivity between programs; and (d) reduce

conflicts internal to the document.

16

Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes; and usually not quantifiable.

17

Objectives are specific desired conditions; usually quantifiable and measurable and may have timeframes

for achievement.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 23

useful for budgeting (thousands of dollars and whole work months). It may be useful to identify

priorities into two groups: one time projects and ongoing tasks.

E. Plan Evaluation/Adaptive Management. Identify a tentative schedule for land use plan

evaluations and the management actions that could be taken after an evaluation.

F. Appendices

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix F, page 24

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F-6: Recommended Administrative Record File Plan

for Land Use Planning Projects

For draft EISs, final EISs, and records of decision (ROD)

A. General Information

1) Federal Register Notices

2) Issues, Concerns, Opportunities

3) Planning Criteria

4) Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Membership

5) Project Schedules

6) Preparation Plan

B. Public Information and Involvement

1) Public Involvement Plans

2) Public Information Documents, Letters, Notices

3) Mailing Lists

4) News Reports and Clippings

5) General Correspondence

6) Meetings/Workshops

7) Public Comments: Scoping

8) Public Comments: prior to draft EIS

9) Public Comments: draft EIS

10) Protests and Final EIS Comment Letters Received

11) Protest Responses

12) Governor’s Consistency Review Comments/Response (if any)

C. External Communications

1) Other Federal Agencies

2) Cooperating Agencies

3) Tribes

4) State Agencies

5) Local Agencies

6) Elected Officials

7) Organizations

8) Individuals

9) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests and Responses (FOIA officer is

responsible for maintaining these files)

D. Internal Communications

1) Project Management Correspondence

2) IDT Correspondence

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix F, page 25

3) IDT Meeting Agendas and Notes

4) FOIA Exempt Documents

5) Quality Assurance Determination

E. Materials (Background/Supporting) Used to Develop Planning Documents (Draft EIS,

Final EIS, ROD)

1) Introduction

2) Alternatives

3) Affected Environment

4) Environmental Consequences

5) Appendices

F. Data Used in Support of Planning Decisions

1) Planning Data

2) Data Standards

3) Metadata

G. References

H. Planning Documents

1) Scoping Report

2) Analysis of the Management Situation

3) Draft EIS

4) Final EIS

5) ROD/Approved RMP

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix G, page 1

Appendix G: Managing and Applying Data and Information

A successful land use planning effort always employs rigorous standards for maintaining,

managing, and applying data and derived information. Standardized, accurate, and reliable data

and information are critical to the development of plan assessments, alternatives, impact

analyses, and planning decisions. All data used in supporting planning decisions are considered

corporate data. Corporate data are those data and applications that are exchanged across

administrative units, shared with the public, used repetitively through time, and applied in

decision-making.

The data and resultant information for a land use plan must be carefully managed, documented,

and applied to withstand public, scientific, and legal scrutiny, and at the same time, facilitate the

efficient development and operation of the Bureau’s mapping and data management systems

such as GIS. For these reasons, the corporate data used in plans require a high level of

consistency, standardization, and established quality control procedures.

I. Metadata Standards and Requirements

Metadata is the term used to describe the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of

data. By Executive order, geospatial data used by the Bureau must be: (1) accompanied by

metadata in the format set forth by the Federal Geographic Data Committee and (2) be accessible

to all interested parties. The BLM also requires that non-spatial planning data must be

accompanied by Federal Geographic Data Committee-compliant metadata.

In developing a plan, a distinction must be made between new data and existing data. New data

includes both raw data and derived information or products such as new GIS themes, or applying

new analyses or modeling methods. New data may be collected by BLM or contractors, or it

may be acquired from external sources. For additional information on metadata requirements,

metadata fields, and standards, refer to the BLM Data Administration Handbook (H-1283) and

the BLM Intranet through the IRM Data Management website. The site contains information on

project contacts and assistance, frequently asked questions, guidelines and directives, a data

standards reference library, data quality, and a data management toolkit.

II. Identifying Data Needs for a Land Use Plan

Data collection and management are significant costs when developing a land use plan. Data

needs are collectively determined by planning criteria, management concerns, and issues. It is

important to start identifying data needs at the inception of a planning project through the

development of the preparation plan. The BLM planning project manager must identify existing

data and information sources, and determine what additional data must be collected. A table of

information should be prepared by the planning project manager and planning team which

describes the specific data required to answer planning questions associated with the plan, along

with the availability and status of the data. The table will reveal data deficiencies and identify

strategies to obtain missing or incomplete data or information.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

Appendix G, page 2

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

III. Data Sources

Managers of planning efforts are encouraged to use existing data compiled by Tribes, Federal,

state, and local government agencies, and other entities where appropriate to fulfill planning data

needs. Data partnerships are also encouraged to reduce costs and to achieve data standardization

across jurisdictional boundaries.

Regardless of the sources used, all metadata should be documented to identify the quality of the

data, along with its limitations for application. When data or information is extracted from an

outside source, the development and maintenance of the material is the responsibility of the

outside entity. However, the data or information that is actually used by BLM in a plan must be

treated as BLM corporate data. Project planners and planning teams also should always

judiciously validate all data sources for accuracy, reliability, and limitations. At the very least,

outside data and information sources will usually require reformatting, which should be taken

into account in terms of project costs and time.

IV. Managing Data During Land Use Plan Development

Planning data should be stored and maintained for easy access to planning team members and to

ensure that the team is using the same data and information. At a minimum, data should be

updated and archived at the stages of the management situation analysis, issuance of the draft

plan or amendment, issuance of the proposed plan, and the final product approved through the

ROD. Throughout the duration of a planning project, it is also important for the project planner,

planning team, and GIS-data management staff to routinely check on the quality, consistency,

and accuracy of the data that is being managed, analyzed, and displayed.

With the increased emphasis on collaborative planning, there is an additional need to make data

available to interested publics, both during and upon completion of a plan or plan amendment.

Under the Bureau-wide e-Planning Initiative, continued efforts will help bring the BLM land use

planning process into an electronic business climate, reduce planning costs, and allow better

public access to decision making. In the interim, access to planning data may be made available

through BLM’s state websites or through distribution by CDs or hard copies of a planning

document.

Although individual land use plans will have their own specific data requirements, some base

mapping themes are common to all planning efforts. For example, the Public Land Survey

System landnet, land status, and administrative/jurisdictional boundaries are base themes needed

to define the geographic extent of a given planning area. Other themes such as topography,

transportation, vegetation, soils, hydrography, and cultural features are also common to most

analyses.

Maintaining high-quality geospatial data supports the planning process as well as a variety of

other needs. With regular updating and maintenance, the same geospatial data that supports the

development of plans can be instrumental for plan implementation, monitoring, and periodic

assessments.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05

H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK – (Public)

Appendix G, page 3

V. Integrating Data Application and Display

The availability of appropriate analytical models and tools to apply and display data is important.

Quality data that is inappropriately applied has the same disastrous effect as using poor or

erroneous data. A geographic information system (GIS) provides the essential tools to bring data

together at various scales and formats for spatial analysis and display, usually through maps and

accompanying charts and tables. Spatial models, such as those used to predict erosion loss or to

determine areas suitable or unsuitable for various uses, also allow data to be applied in

addressing planning and management issues.

At the beginning of a land use planning project, it is important for the project planner to work

with the GIS support staff, and identify and agree on how data and information will be integrated

into the development of different displays. This includes, for example, determining the desired

sets of map products that will be used in a hard copy version of a plan, public exhibits, website

postings, press releases, and public notices. This avoids unnecessary production costs by

planning ahead, identifies potential data-display technical problems at the inception of a project,

and streamlines and ensures the development of standardized data sets and the display of data.

BLM MANUAL

Rel. 1-1693

Supersedes Rel. 1-1667

03/11/05