[Federal Register: March 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14561-14567]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr05-12]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 1600
[WO-350-2520-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD 57
Land Use Planning
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the BLM's planning regulations with
three objectives. It defines cooperating agency and cooperating agency
status. It clarifies the responsibility of managers to offer this
status to qualified agencies and governments, and to respond to
requests for this status. Finally, it makes clear the role of
cooperating agencies in the various steps of BLM's planning process.
The rule is necessary to emphasize the importance of working with
Federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments through
cooperating agency relationships in developing, amending, and revising
the Bureau's resource management plans. BLM's current planning
regulations do not mention the cooperating agency relationship.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 22, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Winthrop at (202) 785-6597 or
Mark Lambert at (202) 452-7763. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Procedural Matters
I. Background and Purpose
Why Is BLM Implementing This Rule?
BLM's policy emphasizes the importance of working with Federal and
state agencies and local and tribal governments to develop the Bureau's
resource management plans. BLM's current planning regulations do not
mention the cooperating agency relationship, an important tool for
working with other agencies and governments. This final rule:
Defines cooperating agency and cooperating agency status;
Clarifies the responsibility of managers to offer this
status to qualified agencies and governments, and to respond to
requests for this status; and
Formally establishes the role of cooperating agencies in
the various steps of BLM's planning process.
This final rule does not make any substantive changes in the public
participation requirements found at Sec. 1610.2. This rule directs BLM
to provide the public with meaningful opportunities to participate in
the preparation of plans, amendments, and related guidance. The
collaboration between BLM and cooperating agencies envisioned by this
final rule is in addition to existing requirements to engage the public
in the planning process.
Because cooperating agencies are government agencies, meetings
between BLM and agencies that hold cooperating agency status would not
normally be subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1. This is because section
204(b) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
provides that FACA does not apply to meetings held exclusively between
Federal officials and officers of state, local, and tribal governments.
BLM made other minor changes not directly related to cooperating
agencies that update our planning regulations to reflect our current
organizational structure. BLM was reorganized in many district and area
jurisdictions. We now use the term ``field office'' in referencing
these jurisdictions. Therefore, resource management plan boundaries do
not typically follow the previous ``resource area'' boundaries and
managers of these new jurisdictions have assumed the title of Field
Manager. These organizational adjustments are reflected in this final
rule.
Section by Section Discussion
Section 1601.0-4 Responsibilities
The changes for this section are editorial, and do not affect the
substance of this rule. This section remains as proposed.
Section 1601.0-5 Definitions
We amended this section by adding definitions of ``eligible
cooperating agency'' and ``cooperating agency.'' The definition of
cooperating agency makes clear that an agency becomes a cooperating
agency only after it has entered into a written agreement with BLM. In
the proposed rule, we used the terms ``cooperating agency'' and
``cooperating agency status.'' We changed these terms in the final rule
to improve clarity. We also revised subsection (d) (defining eligible
cooperating agency) in the final rule by imposing uniform eligibility
criteria for tribes, states, and local governments to become
cooperating agencies. Please see the Responses to Comments discussion
for an explanation of the changes.
We are also adding a definition for Field Manager. The purpose of
the definition is to update the regulations to reflect BLM's current
organizational structure. In many cases, BLM has moved away from having
district offices and subordinate area offices. BLM now has field
offices that we formerly called area offices or district offices.
However, in some instances, we maintain a district office with
subordinate field offices. Therefore, to avoid having to use the term
``District Manager and/or Field Manager'' we are defining Field Manager
to include both positions.
Section 1610.1 Resource Management Planning Guidance
The changes for this section are editorial, and do not affect the
substance of this rule. This section remains as proposed.
[[Page 14562]]
Section 1610.2 Public Participation
The changes for this section are editorial, and do not affect the
substance of this rule. This section remains as proposed.
Section 1610.3-1 Coordination of Planning Efforts
The changes to this section provide direction that explicitly
requires State Directors and Field Managers to utilize the cooperating
agency relationship in their efforts to coordinate with other Federal
and state agencies and local and tribal governments, where possible and
appropriate. We include language instructing State Directors and Field
Managers to invite eligible Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes to participate as
cooperating agencies in the development, amendment, and revision of
resource management plans. New language requires Field Managers to
consider requests for cooperating agency status from other Federal
agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian
tribes, and to inform the State Director if the Field Manager denies
the request. These changes provide a more consistent approach to the
use of cooperating agencies by the BLM. Other changes for this section
are editorial, and do not affect the substance of this rule. This
section remains as proposed with the exception of two minor edits: we
replaced the term ``tribal governments'' with ``federally recognized
Indian tribes'' in two places to be consistent with other changes made
to the rule (see the Responses to Comments discussion for an
explanation of the changes), and substituted ``eligible'' for
``qualifying'' in subsection (b).
Section 1610.4-1 Identification of Issues
We revised this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate
with cooperating agencies throughout the scoping process. Other changes
for this section are editorial, and do not affect the substance of this
rule. Other than a minor word change (deleting ``participating'' from
``participating cooperating agencies''), this section remains as
proposed.
Section 1610.4-2 Development of Planning Criteria
We revised the first sentence of this section expressly to include
cooperating agencies among those the BLM will coordinate with in
developing planning criteria for resource management plans and
revisions. This section remains as proposed with one exception: We
deleted ``participating'' from ``participating cooperating agencies.''
Section 1610.4-3 Inventory Data and Information Collection
We revised the first sentence of this section to instruct Field
Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in arranging for the
collection of data and information. Other changes for this section are
editorial, and do not affect the substance of this rule. Other than a
minor word change (deleting ``participating'' from ``participating
cooperating agencies''), this section remains as proposed.
Section 1610.4-4 Analysis of the Management Situation
We revised the first sentence of this section to instruct Field
Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in preparing the
analysis of the management situation. Other than a minor word change
(deleting ``participating'' from ``participating cooperating
agencies''), this section remains as proposed.
Section 1610.4-5 Formulation of Alternatives
We revised the first sentence of this section to instruct BLM to
collaborate with cooperating agencies in formulating alternatives. We
also emphasized that the decision to designate alternatives for further
development and analysis remains the exclusive responsibility of the
BLM. Other than a minor word change (deleting ``participating'' from
``participating cooperating agencies''), this section remains as
proposed.
Section 1610.4-6 Estimation of Effects of Alternatives
We revised this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate
with cooperating agencies in analyzing and displaying the effects of
implementing each alternative. Other changes for this section are
editorial, and do not affect the substance of this rule. Other than a
minor word change (deleting ``participating'' from ``participating
cooperating agencies''), this section remains as proposed.
Section 1610.4-7 Selection of Preferred Alternative
In the final rule, we changed the title of the section, and in the
first sentence deleted ``participating'' from ``participating
cooperating agencies.'' Please see the Responses to Comments discussion
for an explanation of this change. The first sentence instructs Field
Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in evaluating the
alternatives and identifying a preferred alternative. We rewrote the
second sentence to clarify terminology. The second sentence emphasizes
that the decision to select a preferred alternative remains the
exclusive responsibility of the BLM. Other changes for this section are
editorial, and do not affect the substance of this rule.
Changing Titles
Throughout part 1600, we changed our reference to position titles.
We replaced the title of District Manager and Area Manager with the
term Field Manager to reflect the current BLM organization.
II. Responses to Comments
In this portion of the Supplementary Information, we summarize the
comments received, and then discuss those sections of the proposed rule
addressed by comments. If we do not discuss a particular section or
paragraph, it means that no public comments addressed the provision.
The public comment period for 43 CFR part 1600 ended on September
20, 2004. BLM received 14 comments from agencies, organizations, and
individuals. Eleven of the comments supported the proposed rule change,
though often suggesting modifications. Several comments emphasized the
importance of including state and local governments in the planning
process. One comment suggested that other Federal land management
agencies should adopt similar policies. Another comment objected to the
proposed rule because of the Bureau's policies regarding the management
of wild horses; this comment is outside the scope of land use planning
or cooperating agency relationships and this rule.
A number of comments suggested how BLM should work with cooperating
agencies. These suggestions include:
BLM should notify potential cooperating agencies early in
the planning process;
The cooperating agency relationship should be formalized
through memoranda of understanding (MOUs);
Cooperating agencies should be involved in identifying
planning issues;
Cooperating agencies should be involved in selecting
contractors for plan preparation;
BLM should be more consistent in the application of
cooperating agency provisions, including the conditions under which
cooperating agencies may use consultants to represent them in its
planning process;
[[Page 14563]]
BLM should ensure that current plan language and proposed
changes are depicted in a single document throughout the planning
process;
BLM should respond to all written suggestions and comments
from cooperating agencies throughout the planning process; and
BLM managers should be directly involved in the planning
process.
We agree with many of these suggestions, but believe they are more
appropriate for BLM's internal guidance rather than its regulations.
The Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group is preparing a
desk guide for field offices on working effectively with cooperating
agencies. We will consider these comments in preparing the guide. In
addition, several points these comments raised, including the
importance of the Field Manager's involvement and the need to establish
the cooperating agency relationship through a written memorandum of
understanding, are addressed in recent BLM guidance: Instruction
Memorandum 2004-231, The Scope of Collaboration in the Cooperating
Agency Relationship.
Three comments urged BLM to ensure that all planning efforts
included an adequate assessment of local social and economic conditions
and impacts. We agree. The Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) is
under revision and will include specific direction for field office
staff to work with state, local, and tribal planning partners as well
as the public in identifying socio-economic issues, sources of data,
and methods of analysis (Planning Handbook, Appendix D, Sec. III.A). In
addition, every field office preparing a resource management plan is
required to conduct an economic strategies workshop to bring together
local government officials, community leaders, and BLM staff to review
regional conditions and trends, identify local economic and social
goals, and seek opportunities for advancing them through collaboration
in plans and policies (Planning Handbook, Appendix D, Sec. III.B).
Two comments urged the BLM to incorporate the suggested rule change
language into its Land Use Planning Handbook. Language in the Handbook
concerning cooperating agencies will be consistent with this final
rule.
In the remainder of this section we address those comments that
suggested changes in specific provisions of the proposed regulations.
Section 1601.0-5 Definitions
In reviewing the proposed rule for consistency with its regulations
and guidance, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) indicated that
use of the term ``participating'' (as in the phrase ``participating
cooperating agencies'') may lead to confusion with unrelated policy
proposals involving the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process. To correct this, we modified the term defined at subsection
(d) from ``cooperating agency'' to ``eligible cooperating agency,'' and
at subsection (e) from ``cooperating agency status'' to ``cooperating
agency.'' As a result ``cooperating agency'' now refers unambiguously
to a governmental entity that meets the requirements identified in
subsection (d) and has entered into a written agreement establishing
its cooperating agency status with the BLM as required by subsection
(e). This allowed us to strike the word ``participating'' from
Sec. Sec. 1610.4-1, 1610.4-2, 1610.4-3, 1610.4-4, 1610.4-5, 1610.4-6,
and 1610.4-7. We also made other minor changes to subsection (e) for
clarity.
Subsection (d): Eligible Cooperating Agency [formerly: Cooperating
Agency]. For a tribe to become a cooperating agency the CEQ regulations
require that there be effects on its reservation (40 CFR 1508.5). In
the proposed rule, we included this language, but added a second
option, allowing tribes to qualify when potential effects occur ``on
ceded public land with reserved treaty rights.'' In the final rule we
reorganized this section altogether to provide consistent criteria for
tribes, states, and local governments.
One comment recommended changing the criteria for tribal
eligibility because the proposed rule would restrict tribal
participation as a cooperating agency to situations where activities
authorized through a resource management plan may affect reservation
lands or those lands outside reservation boundaries in which tribes had
rights reserved through treaties. Thus, the comment explained that the
proposed rule would exclude almost all federally recognized Alaskan
native groups because their reservations were dissolved by the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1618(a)). The comment proposed
that we recast the criteria for tribal eligibility in terms of effects
(a) in ``Indian Country'' (a term defined in federal statute as lands
within the boundaries of a reservation, dependent Indian communities,
or Indian allotments (see 18 U.S.C. 1151)), or (b) ``outside of Indian
country where federally-recognized tribes have recognized rights and
interests protected by treaty, statute, judicial decisions or other
authorities.''
We agree that BLM's use of cooperating agency status should apply
consistently to all federally recognized Indian tribes, which the
proposed rule did not achieve. In reconsidering the rationale for
federally recognized Indian tribes to participate as cooperating
agencies, we also concluded that there was no justification to impose
different eligibility criteria for tribes than for state and local
governments. By applying the criteria used for state and local
governments to federally recognized Indian tribes, and deleting any
requirement to demonstrate potential effects on particular tribal lands
or resources, both inconsistencies are removed. All federally
recognized Indian tribes are potentially eligible, whether or not they
possess reservations. In the final rule we use the following language
at Sec. 1601.0-5(d):
(1) A Federal agency other than a lead agency that is qualified
* * * by virtue of its jurisdiction by law as defined in 40 CFR
1508.15, or special expertise as defined in 40 CFR 1508.26; or
(2) A federally recognized Indian tribe, a state agency, or a
local government agency with similar qualifications.
This has the merit of assessing tribal qualifications on the same
basis we use for other government entities: primarily for expertise
regarding the physical, biological, or socio-economic conditions of the
planning area and its environs.
Separate from the cooperating agency relationship, federal agencies
have a responsibility to consult with federally recognized Indian
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In a planning context, BLM
may also have specific statutory obligations, such as the tribal
consultation requirement established through the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)). The cooperating agency
relationship will complement such formal consultation efforts.
Subsection (e): Cooperating Agency [formerly: Cooperating Agency
Status]. One comment suggested that eligible entities seeking
cooperating agency status should have the right to waive the
requirement of a written agreement with BLM. We disagree. An essential
element of a productive relationship between BLM and its cooperating
agencies is that each party has a common understanding of its roles and
responsibilities throughout a planning process. A written agreement
provides this common understanding. The requirement is reasonable, will
benefit agency relationships, and should not prove burdensome for BLM
or its cooperating agency partners.
[[Page 14564]]
Section 1610.2 Public Participation
Two comments proposed that when a new or revised resource
management plan is prepared, the existing, approved plan and any
amendments be made available on the Internet (at proposed Sec.
1610.2(g)). This suggestion is more appropriate for internal BLM
guidance than regulation. The revised Land Use Planning Handbook will
encourage use of the Internet to communicate with our publics about
land use planning activities (Appendix A (II), Appendix G-1 (8)),
though it does not require Internet posting of approved plans.
Section 1610.3-1 Coordination of Planning Efforts
In subsection (b) we replaced ``qualifying Federal agencies'' with
``eligible Federal agencies,'' to make the wording consistent with the
revised definition at Sec. 1601.0-5 (d).
Several comments addressed the degree of discretion the proposed
rule would give Field Managers. One comment suggested that to ensure
that the planning team does not become unnecessarily large and
cumbersome, the invitation to cooperating agencies should be at the
discretion of the Field Manager rather than obligatory for all
qualifying Federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments
(at proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b)). In contrast, one comment stated that
the phrase ``where possible and appropriate'' as applied to
collaboration with cooperating agencies was unnecessarily discretionary
(at proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(a)(5)). Two comments suggested that it was
inappropriate to include the option for a Field Manager to deny a
request for cooperating agency status when the requesting agency is
qualified by ``special expertise'' as defined at 40 CFR 1508.26 (at
Sec. 1610.3-1(b)).
We believe that the rule provides an appropriate balance. While the
intent of the rule is to ensure that other government entities have
early and consistent involvement in BLM's planning efforts, the rule
also recognizes that the question of whether a potential cooperating
agency has ``special expertise'' relative to a given planning effort
must be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Field Manager. As noted
in the proposed rule and this final rule, the State Director may
overrule a Field Manager's denial of a request for cooperating agency
status (at section 1610.3-1(b)).
Two comments suggested that the language of Sec. Sec. 1610.3-
1(a)(1) and (2), which requires BLM managers to consider the plans of
other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes, be
modified to require consideration of programs and policies. Sections
1610.3-2(a) through (d) currently require BLM managers to seek
consistency with the plans, policies, and programs of other government
entities. We believe those requirements are sufficient to meet the
intent of these comments.
Section 1610.3-2 Consistency Requirements
Two comments proposed that the provision for a Governor's
consistency review of BLM's resource management plans, described in the
existing regulations at Sec. 1610.3-2(e), be expanded to include
comparable reviews by affected local and tribal governments. Because we
did not propose changes to this section of the planning regulations,
these suggestions fall outside the scope of the proposed rule. The
Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group may propose
additional changes to BLM's planning regulations in the future. If we
do so, we will consider these suggestions.
Section 1610.4-7 Selection of Preferred Alternative
One comment urged us to clarify the language concerning development
of the preferred alternative, suggesting that it was confusing to use
``identification'' to describe both collaboration with cooperating
agencies and the final decision reserved to BLM. We agree. The current
planning regulations use ``select,'' as does the planning handbook. The
last sentence of this section of the final rule reads: ``Nonetheless,
the decision to select a preferred alternative remains the exclusive
responsibility of the BLM'' (emphasis added). Therefore, we also
changed the title of Sec. 1610.4-7 from ``Identification of preferred
alternative'' to ``Selection of preferred alternative.''
III. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866. The effect of the rule is limited to governmental entities, and
merely clarifies within BLM's planning regulations the criteria for
cooperating agency relationships, and their application to BLM's
planning process. BLM does not have to assess the potential costs and
benefits of the rule under section 6(a)(3) of that order because it
does not result in economic impacts of $100 million or more per year,
does not propose any novel policy changes, does not cause any
significant sectoral impacts, and does not conflict with any other
regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The effect of the rule is limited
to governmental entities, and merely clarifies within BLM's planning
regulations the criteria for cooperating agency relationships, and
their application to BLM's planning process. While state agencies and
local and tribal governments may incur some expense in participating as
cooperating agencies in BLM planning processes, their participation is
voluntary. Moreover, this rule does not alter their opportunities to
participate as cooperating agencies, which is already provided for in
the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule does not have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not
cause an increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions. While state agencies and local and tribal governments may
entail some expense in participating as cooperating agencies in BLM
planning processes, their participation is voluntary. This rule does
not alter their opportunities to participate as cooperating agencies.
The rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
BLM has determined that this rule is not significant under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 532, because it will not
result in state,
[[Page 14565]]
local, and tribal government, or private sector expenditures of $100
million or more in any one year. This rule will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to
prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)
The rule does not represent a government action capable of
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore,
the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not
cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of
takings implications under this Executive Order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The rule only codifies existing policy that
allows states and local government to participate in land use planning
with BLM and neither adds nor removes these entities from a decision-
making role. Therefore, BLM has determined that this rule does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant BLM preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The rule will have ``tribal implications'' as defined in Section
1(a), in that it will enlarge the opportunities for tribal
participation as cooperating agencies in BLM's planning process. The
rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
tribal governments nor will it preempt tribal law. Therefore, neither
formal consultation with tribal officials nor preparation of a tribal
summary impact statement is required. Tribal governments are sovereign
dependent nations, standing in a government-to-government relationship
with the U.S. government; this provides the primary basis for
consultation with Federal agencies.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule would not unduly burden the judicial system
and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the
Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not contain any information collection
requirements.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
BLM has determined that this rule is categorically excluded from
environmental review under section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the Department of the Interior
Manual 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 1, Sec. 1.10, this rule qualifies
as a categorical exclusion because it is procedural in nature and
because its environmental effect is too broad, speculative or
conjectural to analyze. Furthermore, the rule does not meet any of the
10 criteria for exceptions to the categorical exclusions listed in 516
DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2.
Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4)
and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the
Interior, the term ``categorical exclusions'' means a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no
such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required.
Endangered Species Act of 1973
The final rule will have no effect on listed or proposed species or
on designated or proposed critical habitat under the Endangered Species
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Nothing in the final rule changes existing
planning processes and procedures that ensure the protection of such
species and habitat. Therefore consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act is not required. Further compliance with the
Endangered Species Act will occur when resource management plans are
developed, revised, or amended.
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, BLM has determined that
the rule will not have substantial direct effects on the energy supply,
distribution or use, including a shortfall in supply or price increase.
The principal authors of this final rulemaking are Robert Winthrop
and Mark Lambert, of BLM's Planning, Assessment, and Community Support
Group, assisted by Kelly Odom, of BLM's Regulatory Affairs Group and
Amy Sosin of the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor.
Lists of Subjects at 43 CFR Part 1600
Administrative practice and procedures, Environmental impact
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Public lands.
Dated: January 6, 2005.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
0
For reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority of the
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1740), BLM amends part 1600 of Title 43 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING
0
1. The authority citation for part 1600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1711-1712.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1601.0-4 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1601.0-4 Responsibilities.
* * * * *
(b) State Directors will provide quality control and supervisory
review, including plan approval, for plans and related environmental
impact statements and provide additional guidance, as necessary, for
use by Field Managers. State Directors will file draft and final
environmental impact statements associated with resource management
plans and amendments.
(c) Field Managers will prepare resource management plans,
amendments, revisions and related environmental impact statements.
State Directors must approve these documents.
0
3. Amend Sec. 1601.0-5 by redesignating paragraphs (d) through (k) as
paragraphs (g) through (n) respectively, by adding in a newly
designated paragraph (m) ``or field office'' following the word
``area'' in the first sentence and by adding new paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1601.0-5 Definitions.
* * * * *
(d) Eligible cooperating agency means:
(1) A Federal agency other than a lead agency that is qualified to
participate in the development of environmental impact statements as
provided in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5 or, as necessary, other
environmental documents that BLM prepares, by virtue of its
[[Page 14566]]
jurisdiction by law as defined in 40 CFR 1508.15, or special expertise
as defined in 40 CFR 1508.26; or
(2) A federally recognized Indian tribe, a state agency, or a local
government agency with similar qualifications.
(e) Cooperating agency means an eligible governmental entity that
has entered into a written agreement with the BLM establishing
cooperating agency status in the planning and NEPA processes. BLM and
the cooperating agency will work together under the terms of the
agreement. Cooperating agencies will participate in the various steps
of BLM's planning process as feasible, given the constraints of their
resources and expertise.
(f) Field Manager means a BLM employee with the title ``Field
Manager'' or ``District Manager.''
* * * * *
Sec. 1610.1 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 1610.1 by inserting after ``resource areas'' wherever it
appears, the term ``or field office.''
0
5. Amend Sec. 1610.2 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)
and revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.2 Public participation.
* * * * *
(c) When BLM starts to prepare, amend, or revise resource
management plans we will begin the process by publishing a notice in
the Federal Register and appropriate local media, including newspapers
of general circulation in the state and field office area. The Field
Manager may also decide if it is appropriate to publish a notice in
media in adjoining States. * * *
* * * * *
(g) BLM will make copies of an approved resource management plan
and amendments reasonably available for public review. Upon request, we
will make single copies available to the public during the public
participation process. After BLM approves a plan, amendment, or
revision we may charge a fee for additional copies. We will also have
copies available for public review at the:
(1) State Office that has jurisdiction over the lands,
(2) Field Office that prepared the plan; and
(3) District Office, if any, having jurisdiction over the Field
Office that prepared the plan.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 1610.3-1 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating existing paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) as
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
0
c. Revising newly designated paragraph (g); and
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.3-1 Coordination of planning efforts.
(a) In addition to the public involvement prescribed by Sec.
1610.2, the following coordination is to be accomplished with other
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized
Indian tribes. The objectives of the coordination are for the State
Directors and Field Managers to:
(1) Keep apprised of non-Bureau of Land Management plans;
(2) Assure that BLM considers those plans that are germane in the
development of resource management plans for public lands;
(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent practicable, inconsistencies
between Federal and non-Federal government plans;
(4) Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal
agencies, State and local government officials, both elected and
appointed, and federally recognized Indian tribes, in the development
of resource management plans, including early public notice of final
decisions that may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands; and
(5) Where possible and appropriate, develop resource management
plans collaboratively with cooperating agencies.
(b) When developing or revising resource management plans, BLM
State Directors and Field Managers will invite eligible Federal
agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian
tribes to participate as cooperating agencies. The same requirement
applies when BLM amends resource management plans through an
environmental impact statement. State Directors and Field Managers will
consider any requests of other Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes for cooperating
agency status. Field Managers who deny such requests will inform the
State Director of the denial. The State Director will determine if the
denial is appropriate.
* * * * *
(g) When an advisory council has been formed under section 309 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for the area
addressed in a resource management plan or plan amendment, BLM will
inform that council, seek its views, and consider them throughout the
planning process.
0
7. Amend Sec. 1610.4-1 by revising the second sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 1610.4-1 Identification of issues.
The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies,
will analyze those suggestions and other available data, such as
records of resource conditions, trends, needs, and problems, and select
topics and determine the issues to be addressed during the planning
process.* * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 1610.4-2 to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.4-2 Development of planning criteria.
(a) The Field Manager will prepare criteria to guide development of
the resource management plan or revision, to ensure:
(1) It is tailored to the issues previously identified; and
(2) That BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analyses.
(b) Planning criteria will generally be based upon applicable law,
Director and State Director guidance, the results of public
participation, and coordination with any cooperating agencies and other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and federally recognized
Indian tribes.
(c) BLM will make proposed planning criteria, including any
significant changes, available for public comment prior to being
approved by the Field Manager for use in the planning process.
(d) BLM may change planning criteria as planning proceeds if we
determine that public suggestions or study and assessment findings make
such changes desirable.
0
9. Amend Sec. 1610.4-3 by removing the paragraph designation and
revising the first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.4-3 Inventory data and information collection.
The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies,
will arrange for resource, environmental, social, economic and
institutional data and information to be collected, or assembled if
already available. * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 1610.4-4 by revising the first sentence of the
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.4-4 Analysis of the management situation.
The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies,
will analyze the inventory data and other information available to
determine the ability of the resource area to respond to
[[Page 14567]]
identified issues and opportunities. * * *
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 1610.4-5 by revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 1610.4-5 Formulation of alternatives.
At the direction of the Field Manager, in collaboration with any
cooperating agencies, BLM will consider all reasonable resource
management alternatives and develop several complete alternatives for
detailed study. Nonetheless, the decision to designate alternatives for
further development and analysis remains the exclusive responsibility
of the BLM. * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 1610.4-6 by revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 1610.4-6 Estimation of effects of alternatives.
The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies,
will estimate and display the physical, biological, economic, and
social effects of implementing each alternative considered in detail. *
* *
0
13. Amend Sec. 1610.4-7 by revising the section heading and revising
the first two sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.4-7 Selection of preferred alternatives.
The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies,
will evaluate the alternatives, estimate their effects according to the
planning criteria, and identify a preferred alternative that best meets
Director and State Director guidance. Nonetheless, the decision to
select a preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of
the BLM. * * *
0
14. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 43 CFR part 1600,
in the table below, for each section indicated in the left column,
remove the title indicated in the middle column from wherever it
appears in the section, and add the title indicated in the right
column.
Sec. Sec. 1601.0-5, 1610.1, 1610.2, 1610.3-1, 1610.3-2, 1610.4-8,
1610.4-9, 1610.5-1, 1610.5-3, 1610.5-5, 1610.5-7, 1610.7-1, and
1610.8 [Amended]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1601.0-5........................ District and Area Field Managers.
Managers.
1610.1.......................... District and Area Field Manager.
Manager.
1610.2.......................... District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.3-1........................ District or Area Field Manager.
Manager.
1610.3-2........................ District and Area Field Managers.
Managers.
1610.4-8........................ District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.4-9........................ District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.5-1........................ District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.5-3........................ District and Area Field Manager.
Manager.
1610.5-5........................ District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.5-7........................ District and Area Field Manager.
Manager.
1610.7-1........................ District Manager.. Field Manager.
1610.8.......................... District or Area Field Manager.
Manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-5683 Filed 3-18-05; 2:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P