Download Zipped Enrolled WordPerfect HB0264.ZIP
[Introduced][Amended][Status][Bill Documents][Fiscal Note][Bills Directory]
H.B. 264 Enrolled
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 [
planning; [
(b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian
reservations[
[
[
[
(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 [
desired future condition for the state, or subregion of the state, as [
plans, policies, programs, processes, [
counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located;
[
federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal
natural resource regulatory agencies [
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
[
agreements with federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management
agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies [
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) [
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[
(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 [
(a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee;
(b) in [
local government plans; [
(c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development Coordinating
Committee[
(d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.
(6) The state planning coordinator [
policies, plans, programs, [
resources on federal lands pursuant to this section:
(a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by [
multiple-use and sustained-yield principles [
[
should develop and implement management plans and make other resource-use decisions [
(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 [
(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 [
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 [
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) [
(i) owned exclusively by the state in trust for its citizens;
(ii) are subject to appropriation for beneficial use[
(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) [
state's outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economic
opportunities for the state's citizens[
(j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure [
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;
[
(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[
(v) are important for a wide variety of recreational pursuits;
[
and increase forage for the mutual benefit of [
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
[
rights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state's economy and to the quality of life in
[
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.
[
promote the following findings in the preparation of any [
[
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);
[
industrial operations and interests, [
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;
[
review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies;
[
[
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;
[
[
causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use,
sustained-yield principles, and [
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;
[
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;
[
(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
[
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) [
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;
[
[
[
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 [
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;
[
and the renewable resources of the state should be encouraged[
(E) the waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be
prohibited[
(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;
[
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;
[
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;
[
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;
[
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;
[
animal-powered recreation should be implemented; [
[
beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses;
(ii) [
forage for the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife
species should utilize all proven techniques and tools;
(iii) [
should be supported on the federal lands within [
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) [
state and local authorities should be implemented; and
(v) [
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[
(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.
[
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.
[
the public domain for military purposes, which are administered by the United States Army, Air
Force, or Navy.
[Bill Documents][Bills Directory]