American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2017 - 124

resources on public lands, by potentially
subjecting each step in the process to a
new round of objections by parties committed to opposing resource development."
The proposed rule, IPAA and API
said, would "throw out BLM's longstanding policy expressed in FLPMA to
maximize resource values for the public
in favor of a structure that would discourage investment in public land use,
facilitate large-scale withdrawal of public
lands from consideration for multiple
use, and give BLM unfettered authority
to impose planning decisions."
The IPAA/API comments may be
viewed at www.ipaa.org under "Issues &
Policies" and then "Letters and Comments."
Cosmetic Differences
None of those concerns are addressed
in the final rule, released Dec. 1, according
to Sgamma. She says, "The final rule
generally adopts the draft rule as written
with minor, cosmetic changes. It doesn't
address the substantive concerns raised
by numerous stakeholders, and several
(Western state) counties promptly filed a
lawsuit challenging the final rule (see related story).
"We support the counties in their effort
to overturn this troublesome rule, and
believe Congress and the new administration should and will consider revoking
it," Sgamma adds.
Among the differences between the
final and draft rules, according to a fact
sheet released by BLM in conjunction

with the final rule, is increasing the minimum public comment period on draft
RMPs from 90 to 100 days. The draft
rule would have decreased the minimum
comment period from 90 to 60 days.
Additionally, BLM points out, the
final rule reduces the 90-day comment
period for plan amendments at the environmental impact statement level to 60
days, whereas the draft rule would have
reduced it to 45 days.
BLM says the proposed rule removed
the default planning area boundary and
replaced references to state directors with
"deciding official," and references to field
manager with "responsible official." The
final rule, according to BLM, "adopts
the proposed terminology changes to responsible official and deciding official,
but provides that, when land-use plans
do not cross state boundaries, the default
deciding official will be the BLM state
director."
The proposed rule would have distinguished between planning-level decisions
(plan components) and strategies to implement the plan (implementation strategies), BLM continues. "The final rule,"
it says, "adopts the proposed plan components, which provide planning-level
management direction, but does not adopt
the proposed implementation strategies."
And in response to comments that
worried the proposed rule would restrict
which agencies could participate as "cooperating agencies," BLM says, "This
language was removed. The final language
tracks the Council on Environmental

Quality's National Environmental Policy
Act implementation regulations and the
Department of Interior's NEPA implementation regulations."
Planning 2.0
BLM says Planning 2.0 "establishes
a new, upfront assessment of base-line
conditions in the planning area before
drafting a resource management plan,"
called the planning assessment, which
"provides an opportunity for the BLM to
work with state and local governments,
tribes, stakeholders, and the public to
gather all the relevant information, understand the issues and conditions, and
identify planning areas."
BLM says it will first solicit input
from stakeholders "to help identify public
views, define the planning area boundary,
and collect the best available information."
The bureau adds that it will develop preliminary alternatives, which will be made
available to the public, before it publishes
a draft RMP.
BLM says its concept of landscapescale resource management will enable
it "to consider the full context of resource
values, the uses that people make of those
resources, environmental and ecological
conditions, and social and economic needs
and concerns . . . at scales appropriate
for the resources being managed."
It says planning area boundaries will
be selected "that best address the issues
to be considered, the geographic extent
of the resources, and the interests of national, regional, and local communities."

Western Counties Challenge Planning 2.0
GEORGETOWN, TX.-Counties in six
Western states and a soil and water conservation district are challenging the Bureau
of Land Management's "Planning 2.0"
final rule for resource management planning
in federal court, alleging it will severely
impair their ability to work with BLM on
future planning and management issues
while changing the way public lands are
managed to the detriment of their citizens,
according to the American Stewards of
Liberty, a private property rights organization that is managing the litigation.
The petitioners in the lawsuit filed
Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah (Kane County et al
v. U.S. Department of Interior et al) are
Kane County, Ut.; Big Horn County,
Wy.; Chaves County, N.M.; Custer County, Id.; Garfield County, Co.; Modoc
County, Ca.; and the Dona Ana Soil and
Water Conservation District in New
Mexico.
124 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

The American Stewards says the Planning 2.0 process violates the coordination
requirements imposed by the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and instead allows only limited
local government involvement, effectively
treating Western counties and districts
like members of the general public. By
contrast, American Stewards points out,
there are specific coordination requirements for states as well as governmentto-government consultation with Indian
tribes. "What is missing is the statutorily
required coordination process for local
governments," American Stewards declares.
It explains that Section 202(c)(9) of
FLPMA places specific requirements
on BLM to resolve conflicts with local
land-use plans during its inventory, planning and management activities. It also
requires the BLM's land-use plans be
consistent with local plans to the extent

practical. While BLM's new rules recognize this responsibility, American
Stewards says, Planning 2.0 places the
responsibility on local governments to
identify the inconsistencies between
plans at the end of the process, instead
of considering local needs and planning
constraints at the beginning.
American Stewards comments that
the impetus for Planning 2.0 are the
Obama administration's Climate Change
Adaptation Program and its LandscapeScale Mitigation Program. These programs were created by secretarial order
and direct BLM and other Interior Department agencies to develop landscapescale strategies for development and
conservation planning, and for responding
to future climate change. American Stewards says the counties' lawsuit alleges
these programs also are being implemented in violation of federal law. r
American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2017
