Protest Procedures for BLM and Forest Service Planning Efforts
undefined
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council Presentation
June 12, 2015
One process that applies to both BLM
and the Forest Service.
For this planning effort, the Forest
Service has waived their objection
procedures under 36 CFR 219.59, and
adopted the BLM’s protest procedures
outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2.
Must have previously participated in the
Planning Process.
Has an interest which is or may be adversely
affected by the planning decisions.
A protest may raise only those issues which
were submitted for the record during the
planning process.
Protest must be in writing and filed
with Washington Office BLM Director.
Must be filed within 30 calendar days
of the date the EPA published the
notice of receipt of the FEIS (May 29,
2015) in the Federal Register.
The Protest shall contain:
Name, mailing address, telephone number and interest
of the person filing the protest.
A statement of the issue(s) being protested.
A statement of the part(s) of the plan amendment being
protested.
A copy of all documents addressing the issue(s) 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.
A concise statement explaining why the State Director’s
decision is believed to be wrong.
The Director shall promptly render a decision
of the protest.
The decision shall be in writing and shall set
forth the reasons for the decision.
The decision shall be sent to the protesting
party by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
The decision of the Director shall be the final
decision of the Department of the Interior
(and Forest Service).
Questions??
Governor’s Consistency Review
applies only to the BLM under 43
CFR 1610.3-2(e).
The Forest Service does not have
a Governor’s Consistency Review
requirement in their CFRs.
May 29, 2015: BLM submitted the
Proposed Plan/FEIS to the Governor
with a notification letter requesting
consistency review within 60-days.
If the Governor does not respond
within 60-days, the plan amendment
shall be presumed to be consistent.
If the written recommendation(s) of the Governor
recommends changes in the Proposed Plan
Amendment which were not raised during the
public participation process, the State Director
shall provide a public opportunity to comment on
the changes.
If the State Director does not accept the
Governor’s recommended changes, the State
Director will notify the Governor’s Office, and the
Governor shall have 30 days to file a written
appeal with the BLM Washington Office Director.
The BLM Director shall accept the written
recommendations of the Governor if he
determines that they provide for a reasonable
balance between the National interest and the
State’s interest.
The BLM Director shall communicate to the
Governor, in writing, and publish in the Federal
Register his reasons for the determination to
accept or reject the Governor’s
recommendations.
The Record of Decision will then be signed.
Questions??
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council Presentation
June 12, 2015
Different Planning Regulations:
BLM is under Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA)
Forest Service is under National
Forest Management Act (NFMA)
Draft RMPA/Draft EIS has an Appendix which
identified that the Forest Service would have a
separate Plan Amendment and portrayed an
example of how it would look.
Although there are two separate plan
amendments in Chapter 2 of the Proposed
Plan, they are analyzed under one EIS.
BLM planning requires Goals, Objectives, and
Management Actions
Forest Service planning requires Desired
Future Conditions, Objectives, and
Standards/Guidelines.
Forest Service has a “style guide” for crafting
language for their planning requirements,
BLM does not.
Basically, the Forest Service and BLM plans
provide for similar conservation for Greater
Sage-Grouse.
All allocation decisions are identical.
Coordination decisions (coordination with
SETT) and future processes (prioritization for
actions and recommended withdrawals) are
not required planning decisions for the Forest
Service.
Much of this information will be addressed in
the Forest Service Record of Decision.
Questions??
The protest procedures for planning efforts involving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service are outlined in this document. Key points include who can participate, filing requirements, and the process for protest resolution. The importance of addressing issues raised during the planning process is emphasized, along with the final decision-making authority of the respective Directors.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council Presentation June 12, 2015
One process that applies to both BLM and the Forest Service. For this planning effort, the Forest Service has waived their objection procedures under 36 CFR 219.59, and adopted the BLM s protest procedures outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2.
Must have previously participated in the Planning Process. Has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the planning decisions. A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process.
Protest must be in writing and filed with Washington Office BLM Director. Must be filed within 30 calendar days of the date the EPA published the notice of receipt of the FEIS (May 29, 2015) in the Federal Register.
The Protest shall contain: Name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest. A statement of the issue(s) being protested. A statement of the part(s) of the plan amendment being protested. A copy of all documents addressing the issue(s) 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. A concise statement explaining why the State Director s decision is believed to be wrong.
The Director shall promptly render a decision of the protest. The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior (and Forest Service).
Governors Consistency Review applies only to the BLM under 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). The Forest Service does not have a Governor s Consistency Review requirement in their CFRs.
May 29, 2015: BLM submitted the Proposed Plan/FEIS to the Governor with a notification letter requesting consistency review within 60-days. If the Governor does not respond within 60-days, the plan amendment shall be presumed to be consistent.
If the written recommendation(s) of the Governor recommends changes in the Proposed Plan Amendment which were not raised during the public participation process, the State Director shall provide a public opportunity to comment on the changes. If the State Director does not accept the Governor s recommended changes, the State Director will notify the Governor s Office, and the Governor shall have 30 days to file a written appeal with the BLM Washington Office Director.
The BLM Director shall accept the written recommendations of the Governor if he determines that they provide for a reasonable balance between the National interest and the State s interest. The BLM Director shall communicate to the Governor, in writing, and publish in the Federal Register his reasons for the determination to accept or reject the Governor s recommendations. The Record of Decision will then be signed.
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council Presentation June 12, 2015
Different Planning Regulations: BLM is under Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) Forest Service is under National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
Draft RMPA/Draft EIS has an Appendix which identified that the Forest Service would have a separate Plan Amendment and portrayed an example of how it would look. Although there are two separate plan amendments in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan, they are analyzed under one EIS.
BLM planning requires Goals, Objectives, and Management Actions Forest Service planning requires Desired Future Conditions, Objectives, and Standards/Guidelines. Forest Service has a style guide for crafting language for their planning requirements, BLM does not.
Basically, the Forest Service and BLM plans provide for similar conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse. All allocation decisions are identical. Coordination decisions (coordination with SETT) and future processes (prioritization for actions and recommended withdrawals) are not required planning decisions for the Forest Service. Much of this information will be addressed in the Forest Service Record of Decision.
