Download Zipped Enrolled WordPerfect HB0264.ZIP
[Introduced][Amended][Status][Bill Documents][Fiscal Note][Bills Directory]

H.B. 264 Enrolled

                 

STATE LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLANS

                 
AMENDMENTS

                 
2005 GENERAL SESSION

                 
STATE OF UTAH

                 
Chief Sponsor: Michael E. Noel

                 
Senate Sponsor: Thomas V. Hatch

                 
                  LONG TITLE
                  General Description:
                      This bill modifies the duties of the state planning coordinator to require the state
                  planning coordinator to consider certain findings and policy considerations when
                  developing state policies, plans, and programs relating to federal lands and natural
                  resources on federal lands.
                  Highlighted Provisions:
                      This bill:
                      .    establishes certain findings to be considered when developing state policies relating
                  to federal lands and natural resources located on federal lands;
                      .    establishes considerations for recognition of state and local interests in the federal
                  land use management process;
                      .    establishes planning policies related to:
                          .    managing for the sustainability and health of the renewable resources such as
                  water, timber, forage, recreation, and wildlife;
                          .    managing public land for wilderness considerations;
                          .    allocation of grazing animal unit months;
                          .    transportation to and across federal land;
                          .    management of river segments;
                          .    designation of areas of critical environmental concern; and
                          .    creation of roadless or unroaded areas on federal lands;
                      .    requires that the state planning coordinator work in conjunction with state agencies


                  and political subdivisions when developing policies, plans, and programs;
                      .    requires that the state planning coordinator uphold and promote the policies, plans,
                  programs, and desired outcomes of the state and counties where federal lands are
                  located; and
                      .    makes technical changes.
                  Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
                      None
                  Other Special Clauses:
                      None
                  Utah Code Sections Affected:
                  AMENDS:
                      63-38d-401, as last amended by Chapter 184, Laws of Utah 2004
                 
                  Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
                      Section 1. Section 63-38d-401 is amended to read:
                       63-38d-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; and
                      (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.
                      (2) The state planning coordinator may:
                      (a) perform regional and state planning and assist [city, county, metropolitan, regional,
                  and] state government planning agencies in performing [local, metropolitan, regional, and] state
                  planning; [and]
                      (b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian
                  reservations[.]; and
                      [(3) The state planning coordinator may prepare plans, programs, or processes, and shall
                  coordinate the:]
                      [(a) development of policies concerning the management and use of federal lands and
                  natural resources on federal lands in Utah that promote maximum recognition of state and local
                  interest in the federal land use management process;]
                      [(b) development,]
                      (c) assist city, county, metropolitan, and regional planning agencies in performing local,


                  metropolitan, and regional planning, provided that the state planning coordinator and his 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 [of] factual information, legal analysis, and statements of
                  desired future condition for the state, or subregion of the state, as [are] necessary to support the
                  plans, policies, programs, processes, [or policies] and desired outcomes of the state and the
                  counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located;
                      [(c) establishment of] (e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and
                  federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal
                  natural resource regulatory agencies [which] 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


                      [(d) establishment of] (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 [which] 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) [If the] The state planning coordinator [submits] shall comply with the requirements
                  of Subsection 63C-4-102 (7) before submitting any comments on a draft environmental impact
                  statement or on an environmental assessment for a proposed land management plan[, before
                  submission, the state planning coordinator shall comply with the requirements of Subsection
                  63C-4-102 (7)].
                      (5) The state planning coordinator shall cooperate with and work in conjunction with
                  appropriate state agencies and political subdivisions to develop policies, plans, programs, [or]
                  processes, and desired outcomes authorized by this section [in cooperation with appropriate state
                  agencies and political subdivisions] by coordinating the development of positions:
                      (a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee;
                      (b) in [consultation] conjunction with local government officials concerning general
                  local government plans; [and]
                      (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 take into consideration the following findings in
                  the preparation of] shall recognize and promote the following principles when preparing any
                  policies, plans, programs, [or] 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 [the application of] applying
                  multiple-use and sustained-yield principles [when making decisions concerning the management
                  and use of the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest


                  Service;] in public land use planning and management; and
                      [(b)] (ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies
                  should develop and implement management plans and make other resource-use decisions [which
                  facilitate land and natural resource use allocation which would support the] that:
                      (A) achieve and maintain in perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of
                  mineral and various renewable resources from public lands;
                      (B) support valid existing transportation, mineral, and grazing privileges at the highest
                  reasonably sustainable levels;
                      (C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and
                  local governments [and which are];
                      (D) are designed to produce and provide the desired vegetation for the watersheds,
                  timber, food, fiber, livestock forage, and wildlife forage, and minerals that are necessary to meet
                  present needs and future economic growth [needs,] and community expansion[, and] without
                  permanent impairment of the productivity of the land;
                      (E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation
                  needs of the citizens of the state [without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land]
                  by providing access throughout the state;
                      (F) meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the state;
                      (G) meet the needs of wildlife;
                      (H) provide for the preservation of cultural resources, both historical and archaeological;
                      (I) meet the needs of economic development;
                      (J) meet the needs of community development; and
                      (K) provide for the protection of water rights;
                      (b) managing public lands for "wilderness characteristics" circumvents the statutory
                  wilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield management
                  standard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands that are
                  not wilderness areas or wilderness study areas;
                      (c) [the] all waters of the state are [the property of the citizens of the state,]:


                      (i) owned exclusively by the state in trust for its citizens;
                      (ii) are subject to appropriation for beneficial use[,]; and
                      (iii) are essential to the future prosperity of the state and the quality of life within the
                  state;
                      (d) the state has the right to develop and use its entitlement to interstate rivers;
                      (e) all water rights desired by the federal government must be obtained through the state
                  water appropriation system;
                      (f) land management and resource-use decisions which affect federal lands should give
                  priority to and support the purposes of the compact between the state and the United States
                  related to school and institutional trust lands;
                      (g) development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state is an
                  important part of the economy of the state, and of local regions within the state;
                      (h) [Utah has] the state should foster and support industries that take advantage of the
                  state's outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation;
                      (i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economic
                  opportunities for the state's citizens[, and];
                      (j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure [a viable
                  wildlife population within the state] the health of the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife
                  resources to provide for a continuous supply of resources for the people of the state and the
                  people of the local communities who depend on these resources for a sustainable economy;
                      [(j)] (k) forests, rangelands, timber, and other vegetative resources:
                      (i) provide forage for livestock[,];
                      (ii) provide forage and habitat for wildlife[,];
                      (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;
                      [(k)] (l) management programs and initiatives [which] that improve watersheds, forests,
                  and increase forage for the mutual benefit of [the agricultural industry and] 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
                      (ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due to
                  rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland conditions improve,
                  and should not be converted to wildlife use.
                      (7) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings in
                  the preparation of any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to
                  federal lands and natural resources on federal lands under this section:
                      (a) as a coholder of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way with the counties, the state supports its
                  recognition by the federal government and the public use of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and urges
                  the federal government to fully recognize the rights-of-way and their use by the public as
                  expeditiously as possible;
                      (b) it is the policy of the state to use reasonable administrative and legal measures to
                  protect and preserve valid existing rights-of-way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477, and to
                  support and work in conjunction with counties to redress cases where R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
                  are not recognized or are impaired; and


                      [(l)] (c) transportation and access routes to and across federal lands, including all
                  rights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state's economy and to the quality of life in
                  [Utah.] the state, and must provide, at a minimum, a network of roads throughout the resource
                  planning area that provides for:
                      (i) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;
                      (ii) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the
                  resource planning area, including:
                      (A) livestock operations and improvements;
                      (B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations;
                      (C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized
                  recreation;
                      (D) search and rescue needs;
                      (E) public safety needs; and
                      (F) access for transportation of wood products to market;
                      (iii) access to federal lands for people with disabilities and the elderly; and
                      (iv) access to state lands and school and institutional trust lands to accomplish the
                  purposes of those lands.
                      [(7)] (8) The state planning coordinator shall [take into consideration] recognize and
                  promote the following findings in the preparation of any [policies,] plans, policies, programs,
                  [or] processes, or desired outcomes relating to federal lands and natural resources on federal
                  lands pursuant to this section:
                      (a) the state's support for the addition of a river segment to the National Wild and Scenic
                  Rivers System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., will be withheld until:
                      (i) it is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times;
                      (ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is considered
                  outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three
                  physiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the conclusions
                  are disclosed;


                      (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent with
                  the plans and policies of the state and the county or counties where the river segment is located as
                  those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3);
                      [(iii)] (iv) the effects of the addition upon the local and state economies, agricultural and
                  industrial operations and interests, [tourism] outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water
                  resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream
                  directions from the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal
                  agency;
                      [(iv)] (v) it is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for
                  review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies;
                  [and]
                      [(v)] (vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison
                  with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use
                  mandate, and the results disclosed;
                      (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority over
                  the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild and
                  Scenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose
                  management standards outside of the federal land management plan;
                      (viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land and
                  resource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and
                  Scenic River System:
                      (A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and
                  fully for suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System;
                      (B) does not suspend or terminate any studies for inclusion in the National Wild and
                  Scenic River System at the eligibility phase;
                      (C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result
                  of the adoption of the plan; and
                      (D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and


                  Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals for
                  projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment;
                      (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the river
                  segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose Visual
                  Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with the
                  provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and
                      (x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and
                  conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System
                  will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with:
                      (A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and to
                  the rivers of the state as determined by the laws of the state; or
                      (B) local, state, regional, or interstate water compacts to which the state or any county is
                  a party;
                      (b) the conclusions of all studies related to potential additions to the National Wild and
                  Scenic River System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., 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 for addition and are forwarded to the United States
                  Congress;
                      (c) the state's support for designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
                  (ACEC), as defined in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702, within federal land management plans will be
                  withheld until:
                      (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;
                      [(ii)] (v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards
                  [have been analyzed by the federal agency for impacts] for irreparable damage and its potential
                  causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use,
                  sustained-yield principles, and [that this] 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;
                      [(iii)] (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;
                      [(iv)] (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation:
                      (A) is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; [and]
                      (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
                      [(v)] (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;
                      (f) [prime] agricultural and grazing lands should continue to produce the food and fiber
                  needed by the citizens of the state and the nation, and the rural character and open landscape of
                  rural Utah should be preserved through a healthy and active agricultural and grazing industry,
                  consistent with private property rights and state fiduciary duties;
                      (g) the resources of the forests and rangelands of the state should be integrated as part of
                  viable, robust, and sustainable state and local economies, and available forage should be
                  evaluated for the full complement of herbivores the rangelands can support in a sustainable
                  manner, and forests should contain a diversity of timber species, and disease or insect
                  infestations in forests should be controlled using logging or other best management practices;
                      (h) the state opposes any additional evaluation of national forest service lands as
                  "roadless" or "unroaded" beyond the forest service's second roadless area review evaluation and
                  opposes efforts by agencies to specially manage those areas in a way that:
                      (i) closes or declassifies existing roads unless multiple side by side roads exist running to
                  the same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the extra


                  roads;
                      (ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads;
                      (iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing and
                  proper forest harvesting;
                      (iv) interferes with the enjoyment and use of valid, existing rights, including water rights,
                  local transportation plan rights, R.S. 2477 rights, grazing allotment rights, and mineral leasing
                  rights; or
                      (v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue traditional
                  multiple-use activities;
                      (i) the state's support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld until the
                  appropriate plan revision or plan amendment clearly demonstrates that:
                      (i) established roads are not referred to as unclassified roads or a similar classification;
                      (ii) lands in the vicinity of established roads are managed under the multiple-use,
                  sustained-yield management standard; and
                      (iii) no roadless or unroaded evaluations or inventories are recognized or upheld beyond
                  those that were recognized or upheld in the forest service's second roadless area review
                  evaluation;
                      (j) the state's support for any recommendations made under the statutory requirement to
                  examine the wilderness option during the revision of land and resource management plans by the
                  U.S. Forest Service will be withheld until it is clearly demonstrated that:
                      (i) the duly adopted transportation plans of the state and county or counties within the
                  planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of information
                  from which plan provisions are derived;
                      (ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in any
                  way by the recommendations;
                      (iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by the
                  recommendations;
                      (iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of the


                  various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest health
                  activities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations;
                      (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;
                      [(h)] (k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into
                  [Utah] the state should be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented;
                      [(i)] (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 [Utah] 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;
                      [(j)] (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;
                      (E) that the authorized planning agency analyzed all proposed mineral lease stipulations
                  and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to other
                  significant resource values;
                      (F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determine
                  whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are no
                  longer necessary or effective;
                      (G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface


                  occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated:
                      (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for
                  each proposed no surface occupancy area;
                      (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management
                  prescriptions, demonstrates that the proposed no surface occupancy prescription, in effect,
                  sterilizes the mineral and energy resources beneath the area; and
                      (III) whether, if the minerals are effectively sterilized, the area must be reported as
                  withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and
                      (H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling
                  requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasible
                  from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint;
                      [(k)] (n) motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated
                  into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural framework of
                  multiple-uses in rural Utah, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced plan
                  of state and local economic support and growth;
                      [(l)] (o) off-highway vehicles should be used responsibly, [and] the management of
                  off-highway vehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions, and laws related to the use of
                  off-highway vehicles should be uniformly applied across all jurisdictions;
                      [(m)] (p) (i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should
                  be preserved and acknowledged;
                      (ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with both
                  state and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to provide a
                  network of roads throughout the planning area that provides for:
                      (A) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;
                      (B) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the
                  planning area, including access to livestock, water, and minerals;
                      (C) economic and business needs;
                      (D) public safety;


                      (E) search and rescue;
                      (F) access for people with disabilities and the elderly;
                      (G) access to state lands; and
                      (H) recreational opportunities;
                      [(n)] (q) transportation and access provisions for all other existing routes, roads, and
                  trails across federal, state, and school trust lands within the state should be determined and
                  identified, and agreements should be executed and implemented, as necessary to fully authorize
                  and determine responsibility for maintenance of all routes, roads, and trails;
                      [(o)] (r) the reasonable development of new routes and trails for motorized, human, and
                  animal-powered recreation should be implemented; [and]
                      [(p)] (s) (i) forests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary and
                  beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses;
                      (ii) [that] management programs and initiatives [which] that are implemented to increase
                  forage for the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife
                  species should utilize all proven techniques and tools;
                      (iii) [that] the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry
                  should be supported on the federal lands within [Utah] the state by management of the lands and
                  forage resources, by the proper optimization of animal unit months for livestock, in accordance
                  with the multiple-use provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43
                  U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., and
                  the provisions of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.;
                      (iv) [that] provisions for predator control initiatives or programs under the direction of
                  state and local authorities should be implemented; and
                      (v) [that] resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and
                  regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize
                  wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those
                  populations[.]; and
                      (t) management and resource use decisions by federal land management and regulatory


                  agencies concerning the scenic resources of the state must balance the protection of scenery with
                  the full management requirements of the other authorized uses of the land under multiple-use
                  management, and should carefully consider using Visual Resource Management Class I
                  protection only for areas of inventoried Class A scenery or equivalent.
                      [(8)] (9) Nothing contained in this section may be construed to restrict or supersede the
                  planning powers conferred upon state departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or advisory
                  councils of the state or the planning powers conferred upon political subdivisions by any other
                  existing law.
                      [(9)] (10) Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any lands withdrawn from
                  the public domain for military purposes, which are administered by the United States Army, Air
                  Force, or Navy.


[Bill Documents][Bills Directory]