Plan Maintenance on Landscape-Scale, Multi-District Resource Management Plans and Plan Amendments

OR-IM-2017-006
Instruction Memorandum

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Oregon State Office
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208

NOV 24 2016


IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610 (OR932) P

EMS TRANSMISSION 11/28/2016
Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2017-006
Expires: 09/30/2020 EXTENDED 09/30/2021

To: District Managers, Associate District Managers, District Planning and Environmental Compliance Specialists
From: Acting State Director, Oregon/Washington
Subject: Plan Maintenance on Landscape-Scale, Multi-District Resource Management Plans and Plan Amendments

Program Area: All Resource Programs, National Environmental Policy Act and Land Use Planning.

Purpose: This instruction memorandum (IM) sets forth guidance on the process the Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will use to conduct plan maintenance actions for landscape-scale, multi-district Records of Decision (ROD)/Resource Management Plans (RMP) and plan amendments with land use allocations and management directions that cross traditional BLM administrative boundaries. This policy will ensure consistency across administrative boundaries when minor corrections or clarifications are needed.

Current landscape-scale plans and plan amendments that cross administrative boundaries include:

  1. The 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah;
  2. The 2016 Northwestern & Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts, and the Swiftwater Field Office of Roseburg District; and
  3. The 2016 Southwestern Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Klamath Falls Field Office of Lakeview District, Medford District, and South River Field Office of Roseburg District.

Policy/Action: Plan maintenance actions described in the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601, amended, Chapter VI (H), will be conducted for landscape-scale plans as described in the process section below and concurred with by the Deputy State Director for the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection.

Timeframe: This IM is effective immediately.

Budget Impact: Plan maintenance is already required by BLM regulation 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.5-4 and BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 1601, Chapter VI (H). Minimal additional cost is anticipated from this new process.

Background: The BLM Regulation 43 CFR 1610.5-4 and BLM Handbook 1601 – Land Use Planning, Chapter VI (H), describe land use plan maintenance including correcting “minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors in the planning records after a plan or plan amendment has been completed.” Maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, or clarifying a previously approved decision. In addition, plan maintenance is a continual process that reflects the current status of decision implementation.

Plan maintenance does not require formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or National Environmental Policy Act analysis. Plan maintenance must be documented so that specific changes and responsible official concurrence are evident.

These new landscape-scale, multi-district plans present new challenges for plan maintenance actions which may now potentially apply across multiple field and district offices, as well as multiple RMPs or amended RMPs. Certain maintenance actions will need to be discussed, coordinated, communicated, and tracked across multiple offices and levels of the agency.

Consequently, the following decision process will be used to determine the appropriate level of concurrence for a proposed plan maintenance action for a landscape-scale, multi-district RMP such as the three examples above.


Process: The decision tree below will be used in considering a potential plan maintenance action.

1. Any staff member who identifies a need for a potential plan maintenance action will work with a field, district, or Oregon State Office Planning and Environmental Coordinator (P&EC). In cases where the plan maintenance is related to changes in data, the Geographic Information System (GIS) leads/data administrators should be involved in order to describe the needed maintenance action (see Information Needs discussion below).

2. Field and district P&ECs will coordinate with an Oregon State Office P&EC to determine whether the proposed maintenance action will affect multiple RODs/RMPs or district/field offices.

a. If a proposed maintenance action corrects minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data and will affect only one district office and only one ROD/RMP, as determined in Step 1, the office may proceed with review, concurrence, and tracking of the maintenance action according to the affected district office’s procedures. A copy of the maintenance action and responsible official concurrence must be submitted by the district or field office P&EC to the appropriate Oregon State Office P&EC for tracking purposes.

b. If a proposed maintenance action will likely affect more than one district office or ROD/RMP, the local and Oregon State Office P&ECs will coordinate and facilitate needed discussions among the potentially affected field, district, and Oregon State Office personnel. In some instances, other states and/or the national office may need to be brought into these discussions. Initial discussions should clarify and identify who should be involved in the deliberations and who will develop the needed information described below. Plan maintenance actions in these multi-district cases must receive written concurrence from the Deputy State Director (DSD) for the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection (OR-930). Once the DSD’s written concurrence has been received, the Oregon State Office P&EC will notify and make available to the field and district P&ECs copies of the plan maintenance action. The Oregon State Office P&ECs will set up systems to track these landscape-scale, multi-district plan maintenance actions.

c. Where there are differences in opinion about the correct interpretation or meaning of language or intent in one of these landscape-scale plans the DSD for the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection with input from the districts and Oregon State Office specialists will work to come to a consensus on the appropriate meaning/interpretation. Where disagreement persists, the DSD for the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection may make an interpretive/meaning decision or escalate that decision up to the Oregon State Director as appropriate.

Information Needs: To review and concur with a proposed plan maintenance action the responsible official will need certain kinds of information, depending on the type of corrective action to be taken. In general, the following should be included in any review and concurrence process:

  1. Name of the plan(s) to be updated – e.g., Brothers/La Pine, Three Rivers, and Lakeview RMPs, as amended by the Greater Sage-grouse Approved RMP Amendment of 2015.
  2. Planning area(s) that would be affected by the proposed change – e.g., BLM lands in the Lakeview, Vale, and Burns Districts.
  3. Location in the plan of the proposed change – e.g., chapter or appendix; page/paragraph/sentence; table, figure, or map number; or section identifier or specific spatial data set(s) to be maintained/updated.
  4. A description of the change being proposed – i.e., describe as precisely as possible what is to be deleted, added, updated, re-written, or clarified.
  5. Explanation of the reason(s) the change is needed – provide the rationale for the change.
  6. Explanation for how the change meets the criteria for plan maintenance.
  7. Additional information that is relevant to and important to the context and need for the proposed change review and concurrence process.

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: None

Coordination: The draft IM was discussed, reviewed, and edited within the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection, Branch of Science, Planning, and Resources (OR-932). In addition, the draft IM was provided to the district and field office P&EC specialists and Information Resources Management (OR-955) for review and comment.

Contact: Please direct any questions concerning this IM to Kathy Stangl, Deputy State Director for the Division of Resource Planning, Use, and Protection (OR930) at (503) 808-6415; Jim Regan-Vienop, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at (503) 808-6062; or Anne Boeder, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at (503) 808-6628.

Districts with unions are reminded to notify their unions of this IM and satisfy any bargaining obligations before implementation. Your servicing Human Resources Office or Labor Relations Specialist can provide you with assistance in this matter.


Signed by
Sally J. Sovey
Acting Associate State Director

Authenticated by
K. Wentworth
Records Section

Distribution
WO 212 (Leah Baker)
OR 930 (Kathy Stangl, Cathy Harris,)
OR 932 (Lee Folliard, Leanne Mruzik, Jim Regan-Vienop, Anne Boeder, Brenda Lincoln-Wojtanik, Leslie Frewing)
OR 934 (Jeff Fedrizzi, Craig Goodell)
OR936 (Lenore Heppler, Steve Storo, Janet Cheek)
OR955 (Arthur Miller)
ID910 (Johanna Munson)