| << Previous Section (63J-4-301) | Next Section (63J-4-501) >> |
Budgeting | |
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget | |
Section 401 | Planning duties of the planning coordinator and office. |
|
63J-4-401. Planning duties of the planning coordinator and office. (1) The state planning coordinator shall: (a) act as the governor's adviser on state, regional, metropolitan, and local governmental planning matters relating to public improvements and land use; (b) counsel with the authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, the State Building Board, the Department of Health, the Department of Workforce Services, the Labor Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, and other proper persons concerning all state planning matters; (c) when designated to do so by the governor, receive funds made available to Utah by the federal government; (d) receive and review plans of the various state agencies and political subdivisions relating to public improvements and programs; (e) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of state agencies, prepare specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflicts and submit the recommendations to the governor for a decision resolving the conflict; (f) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of a state agency and a political subdivision or between two or more political subdivisions, advise these entities of the conflict and make specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflict; (g) act as the governor's planning agent in planning public improvements and land use and, in this capacity, undertake special studies and investigations; (h) provide information and cooperate with the Legislature or any of its committees in conducting planning studies; (i) cooperate and exchange information with federal agencies and local, metropolitan, or regional agencies as necessary to assist with federal, state, regional, metropolitan, and local programs; (j) make recommendations to the governor that the planning coordinator considers advisable for the proper development and coordination of plans for state government and political subdivisions; and (k) oversee and supervise the activities and duties of the public lands policy coordinator. (2) The state planning coordinator may: (a) perform regional and state planning and assist state government planning agencies in performing state planning; (b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian reservations; and (c) assist city, county, metropolitan, and regional planning agencies in performing local, metropolitan, and regional planning, provided that the state planning coordinator and the state planning coordinator's agents and designees recognize and promote the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of each planning agency whenever possible. (3) When preparing or assisting in the preparation of plans, policies, programs, or processes related to the management or use of federal lands or natural resources on federal lands in Utah, the state planning coordinator shall: (a) incorporate the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located, to the maximum extent consistent with state and federal law, provided that this requirement shall not be interpreted to infringe upon the authority of the governor; (b) identify inconsistencies or conflicts between the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes prepared under Subsection (3)(a) and the plans, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of local government as early in the preparation process as possible, and seek resolution of the inconsistencies through meetings or other conflict resolution mechanisms involving the necessary and immediate parties to the inconsistency or conflict; (c) present to the governor the nature and scope of any inconsistency or other conflict that is not resolved under the procedures in Subsection (3)(b) for the governor's decision about the position of the state concerning the inconsistency or conflict; (d) develop, research, and use factual information, legal analysis, and statements of desired future condition for the state, or subregion of the state, as necessary to support the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the state and the counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located; (e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to facilitate state and local participation in the development, revision, and implementation of land use plans, guidelines, regulations, other instructional memoranda, or similar documents proposed or promulgated for lands and natural resources administered by federal agencies; and (f) work in conjunction with political subdivisions to establish agreements with federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to provide a process for state and local participation in the preparation of, or coordinated state and local response to, environmental impact analysis documents and similar documents prepared pursuant to law by state or federal agencies. (4) The state planning coordinator shall comply with the requirements of Subsection 63C-4-102(8) before submitting any comments on a draft environmental impact statement or on an environmental assessment for a proposed land management plan, if the governor would be subject to Subsection 63C-4-102(8) if the governor were submitting the material. (5) The state planning coordinator shall cooperate with and work in conjunction with appropriate state agencies and political subdivisions to develop policies, plans, programs, processes, and desired outcomes authorized by this section by coordinating the development of positions: (a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; (b) in conjunction with local government officials concerning general local government plans; (c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; and (d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. (6) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following principles when preparing any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to federal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section: (a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and sustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and (ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should develop and implement management plans and make other resource-use decisions that: (A) achieve and maintain in perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of
mineral and various renewable resources from public lands; (iii) provide resources for the state's timber and logging industries; (iv) contribute to the state's economic stability and growth; and (v) are important for a wide variety of recreational pursuits; (l) management programs and initiatives that improve watersheds, forests, and increase forage for the mutual benefit of wildlife species and livestock, logging, and other agricultural industries by utilizing proven techniques and tools are vital to the state's economy and the quality of life in Utah; and (m) (i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis; (ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses; (iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen's, sportsmen's, and wildlife management groups such as chaining, logging, seeding, burning, and other direct soil and vegetation prescriptions that are demonstrated to restore forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife; (B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment's forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for that purpose; (C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of the livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments; (iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for supposed reasons of rangeland health; (v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary and scientifically based upon rangeland conditions; (vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plans may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district in question will not sustain the animal unit months sought to be placed in suspended use; (vii) any grazing animal unit months that are placed in a suspended use category should be returned to active use when range conditions improve; (viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses in established grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and expand
forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans and
programs in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and
those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); (i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(a); (ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the area proposed for designation as an ACEC is limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions to the minimum required to specifically protect human life or safety from natural hazards; (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area is limited only to areas that are already developed or used or to areas where no development is required; (iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which significantly threaten human life or safety; (v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards for irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the rationale for any special management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values, resources, processes, or hazards; (vi) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is consistent with the plans and policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special management attention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements needed in addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws; (viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short and long-term horizons; (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation: (A) is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; (B) is not a substitute for managing areas inventoried for wilderness characteristics after 1993 under the BLM interim management plan for valid wilderness study areas; and (C) it is not an excuse or justification to apply de facto wilderness management standards; and (x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, for review, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning documents; (d) sufficient federal lands are made available for government-to-government exchanges of school and institutional trust lands and federal lands without regard for a resource-to-resource correspondence between the surface or mineral characteristics of the offered trust lands and the offered federal lands; (e) federal agencies should support government-to-government exchanges of land with the state based on a fair process of valuation which meets the fiduciary obligations of both the state and federal governments toward trust lands management, and which assures that revenue authorized by federal statute to the state from mineral or timber production, present or future, is
not diminished in any manner during valuation, negotiation, or implementation processes; (v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-use management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state and the counties to the benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and (vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wilderness option are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress; (k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into the state should be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented; (l) management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the state should reflect serious consideration of the proper optimization of the yield of water within the watersheds of the state; (m) (i) it is the policy of the state that: (A) mineral and energy production and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; (B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources; (C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and energy resources; (D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and the renewable resources of the state should be encouraged; (E) the waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be prohibited; and (F) requirements to mitigate or reclaim mineral development projects should be based on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources; (ii) the state's support for mineral development provisions within federal land management plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan environmental impact statement clearly demonstrates: (A) that the authorized planning agency has: (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area as if the areas were open to mineral development under standard lease agreements; and (II) evaluated any management plan prescription for its impact on the area's baseline mineral and energy potential; (B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for energy exploration and development; (C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to: (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.; (II) other controlling mineral development laws; and (III) the controlling withdrawal and reporting procedures set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.; (D) that the authorized planning agency evaluated whether to repeal any moratorium that
may exist on the issuance of additional mining patents and oil and gas leases;
animal-powered recreation should be implemented;
Amended by Chapter 121, 2009 General Session |
| << Previous Section (63J-4-301) | Next Section (63J-4-501) >> |