Public Involvement in Land Use Planning Under Attack

[noharleyyet]

...puckishly realistic.

 

[RunWilderness]

Assuming HJ Res 44 is referring to the same thing, it looks like the motion to kill public input is up for discussion tomorrow. From Simpson e-blast:

"TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7TH
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business.

H.J.Res. 44 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Liz Cheney / Natural Resources Committee)"

I've emailed him once but haven't heard how he stands in the issue. I'll see if his answering machine is still taking calls...

 

[1_pointer]

Cliff Notes Here:
• The revised BLM planning rule will increase agency transparency and opportunities for public involvement, something that nearly all stakeholder groups have been calling for.
• Under the old planning process, the public submitted scoping comments which seemed to go into some black box, then two or three years later the BLM issued a draft RMP out of the blue. This process resulted in increased public frustration and excessive legal action at the end of the planning process.
• With the new planning rule, the BLM provides three additional opportunities for public involvement at the start of the planning process. These include the public envisioning process, assessment process, and the issuance of preliminary alternatives. These extra steps will enable the BLM to gather public opinions and the best available information at the start of the planning process and vet the preliminary alternatives before issuing the draft RMP. These upfront steps should increase public satisfaction in the planning process and create more efficiency at the back end by reducing conflict.
• The “assessment” process on the front end of planning provides the best opportunity to identify critically important habitats for wildlife, including migration corridors that have all but been ignored by BLM in the past, intact landscapes, and areas important for sportsmen.
• The final BLM planning rule made several changes to accommodate requests from county commissioners and state governments, including 1- making the special cooperator status requirements more closely resemble FLPMA, 2- publishing notices more frequently in the federal register, and 3- lengthening the duration of comment periods
• The notion that the final rule provides less opportunity for local governments to have meaningful and significant input, in violation of FLPMA, is simply not true. In fact, local governments will have even more opportunity to engage throughout the planning process (three additional opportunities for each and nothing lost). Governors will get 30 opportunities to be involved in an RMP revision process, and local and tribal cooperators will get 27 opportunities to be involved. The general public will get 12 opportunities.
• A Congressional Review Act repeal of Planning 2.0 would eliminate Planning 2.0, revert planning to the outdated and problematic 1983 planning rule, and likely eliminate the BLM’s authority to revise their planning regulations ever again in the future. Once utilized, the CRA prevents new rules from being developed that are “substantially the same.” Given the nature of planning regulations, it would be hard to create something substantially different.

Take Action Here:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/sit...&NONCE_TOKEN=CB0A19F0E36C43C2640A088530D65FE6

Thank you for the Cliff Notes!! You're last bullet point is the most important IMO.

As an aside, have you seen any estimates as to how much time they anticipate this to add to the current planning process? I can't imagine this will make it shorter...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Raul Labrador Celebrating.....

 

[RunWilderness]

Simpson voted 'Yea', too.