An analysis of the State of County comprehensive planning in Utah

In Utah, it is no secret that there exists a large disconnect between stakeholders at the local, county, state, and federal levels in how our federal public lands should be managed. Activities that occur on these huge swaths of land have a direct impact on the well-being of adjacent communities, and the significant federal presence in Utah has historically led to conflict over things like the designation of wilderness areas and endangered species, oil, gas, coal, and uranium development, and grazing rights, to name just a few. At the root of the problem, state legislators cannot agree on how to most effectively gain more local influence over the management of federal lands, and are currently carrying out two very different approaches in an attempt to do so. The first involves suing the federal government for ownership rights of about 30 million federal surface acres in Utah, and the second implements a mandate that counties prepare resource management plans for use during Congressionally-provided opportunities to coordinate with federal land management agencies. This report analyzes the extent to which Utah counties are already utilizing the latter approach and participating in collaborative planning processes with federal land managers, as well as the extent to which the new mandate is set up to better facilitate those types of interactions.

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF CITY & METROPOLITAN PLANNING An Analysis of the State of County Comprehensive Planning in Utah: Do State Planning Mandates and Implementation Programs Provide for Effective Collaboration Processes with the BLM on Public Land Management Issues? Ashley Scarff December 2015 Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project Table of Contents Introduction Background Debate Over Public Lands in Utah Coordination, Consistency, and Cooperating Agency Status Utah's County Land Use, Development, and Management Act Research Questions and Methodology Research Findings Implications of Findings and Suggestions for Moving Forward Characteristics of the Counties' Current General Plans A Brief Review of the LUDMA RMP Mandate References Appendices December 2015 Introduction In Utah, it is no secret that there exists a large disconnect between stakeholders at the local, county, state, and federal levels in how our federal public lands should be managed. Activities that occur on these huge swaths of land have a direct impact on the well-being of adjacent communities, and the significant federal presence in Utah has historically led to conflict over things like the designation of wilderness areas and endangered species, oil, gas, coal, and uranium development, and grazing rights, to name just a few. At the root of the problem, state legislators cannot agree on how to most effectively gain more local influence over the management of federal lands, and are currently carrying out two very different approaches in an attempt to do so. The first involves suing the federal government for ownership rights of about 30 million federal surface acres in Utah, and the second implements a mandate that counties prepare resource management plans for use during Congressionally-provided opportunities to coordinate with federal land management agencies. This report analyzes the extent to which Utah counties are already utilizing the latter approach and participating in collaborative planning processes with federal land managers, as well as the extent to which the new mandate is set up to better facilitate those types of interactions. Background In the United States, Utah has the secondhighest proportion of land that is federally controlled, following Nevada (UF). Of the state's 54.3 million total acres, over 35 million acres are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), Department of Defense (DoD), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- the BLM manages the largest share, with 22.8 million acres of surface land under its control (Stambro, et al., 2014). Because the BLM manages 42 percent of surface land within the State of Utah, as well as subsurface mineral rights on all federal lands (Edwards & O'Toole, 2012), this report will focus solely on BLM land use planning and management practices, not those of other federal agencies. Debate Over Public Lands in Utah In Utah, it is no secret that there exists a large disconnect between stakeholders at the local, county, state, and federal levels in how our federal public lands should be managed. Activities that occur on these huge swaths of land have a direct impact on the well-being of adjacent communities. The significant federal presence has historically led to conflict over things like the designation of wilderness areas and endangered species, oil, gas, coal, and uranium development, grazing rights, and the ownership of local access roads, to name just a few. Countless lawsuits have been filed against the BLM, which are often initiated by environmental groups, and sometimes supported by individual counties and/or the state (Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO)). In some circumstances, the state intervenes in support of the federal agencies-this illustrates how case-specific and interestbased these issues are in nature. At the root of the issue is the disagreement between state lawmakers over how to most effectively gain more state and local input into federal land planning processes. Some believe that the best way to gain more influence over public land management is to transfer ownership of the lands to the state, which would allow important decisionmaking to occur at a more local level of government. Throughout Utah's history, there have been multiple initiatives aimed at achieving state ownership on the premise that, upon admitting Utah into statehood, the federal government promised to "extinguish title" to all federal lands in a timely manner (Morgan Lyon Cotti, 2013). Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project The validity of this argument is debatable, but in 2012, the Utah legislature passed H.B. 148, or the Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study (TPLA), which "call[s] on the federal government to transfer to the state all public land that is not designated as a national park or wilderness area or owned by Native American tribes- about 30 million acres in total" (Beitsch, 2015). TPLA supporters claim that state ownership of these lands would lead to more economic development opportunities without federal management practices and policies getting in the way. Utah's Constitutional Defense Council stated, "Examples of federal inefficiency and mismanagement abound. These difficulties are not attributable to the efforts of capable federal employees, but are, instead, symptomatic of the nonfunctioning federal land management policies and processes" (2012). Noted examples include large and frequent forest fires, bark beetle infestation, rampant wild horse and burro populations, and the "failure to produce the jobs, realize the revenue, and meet the nation's energy needs through increased oil and gas production" (Morgan Lyon Cotti, 2013). In December 2015, a state-commissioned legal analysis put forth the recommendation that Utah take the federal government to court over TPLA at an estimated cost of $14 million (Maffly, 2015). Despite the growing possibility of litigation aimed at transferring the title of federal lands to the state, Utah is also quietly preparing for another approach that could result in more control over the activities that occur on public lands. This alternative is based on existing federal laws that provide tools that local governments can utilize to gain more input into federal decision-making processes. The remainder of this section describes those laws and tools in more detail, and actions that the state is taking in support of a more collaborative approach that largely rests on the contents and December 2015 effectiveness of Utah's county general plans. Coordination, Consistency, and Cooperating Agency Status Actions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are largely directed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which includes language that gives local jurisdictions the right to participate in a coordination process with BLM officials, and enforces consistency between federal and local plans, to the maximum extent allowable by federal law. As an additional responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), most BLM planning activities require an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), whose processes provide an opportunity for local governments to participate under cooperating agency (CA) status. If local governments choose to use the coordination, consistency, and cooperating agency clauses to their full potential, they could hold substantial influence over land use decisions made on public lands, and federal-local planning relations could greatly improve. Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers its lands under numerous laws and regulations, with the most prominent being the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA was passed in 1976, and is referred to as the BLM's Organic Act because it streamlined and defined BLM's role in land management. "Many land and resource management authorities were established, amended, or repealed by FLPMA, including provisions on Federal land withdrawals, land acquisitions and exchanges, rights-ofway, advisory groups, range management, and the general organization and administration of BLM and the public lands" (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2001). Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project December 2015 With the enactment of FLPMA, the BLM was also established as "a multiple-use agency - meaning that management would be accomplished on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield i unless otherwise specified by law - and it provided that: basis that seeks to ensure officially approved local plans and policies are accommodated by planning and management decisions on federal lands" (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012). …the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts…" (FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(2)) (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2001). FLPMA also states that, as a result of the coordination process: This statement contains two important directives: 1. public lands and their resources are to be periodically inventoried and their present and future use projected through land use planning, and 2. this planning process must be coordinated with other federal and state planning efforts. The first directive is implemented via BLM resource management plans, which are typically updated every 15 to 20 years, and determine how resources within a defined area of land will be administered into the future. "For example, a plan may reduce or increase the amount of grazing AUMs available…determine how much (if any) timber, oil, gas, or mineral extraction is allowed…reduce motorized access in certain areas by restricting cross-country travel or by closing existing roads. Plans also contain strategies for fire…water…invasive species…range management, and a whole host of other issues that can impact surrounding communities in a multitude of ways" (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012). The second directive mandates a coordination process between the BLM and local governments that goes beyond merely informing local governments of their plans, or soliciting input from them. "Coordination calls for something beyond that: a negotiation on a government-to-government "Land use plans of the Secretary [of the Department of the Interior] under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with federal law and the purposes of this Act" (FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9)). In simpler terms, there is a consistency requirement in place that requires that the final BLM plan or decision is in agreement with local plans or policies, as long as achieving that consistency does not mean violating federal law. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) In 1969, prior to the enactment of FLPMA, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires all federal agencies (not just the BLM) to analyze potential environmental impacts of any proposed action before carrying it out. NEPA analyses may be conducted in two degrees of detail across multiple scales. If the proposed activity is assumed to have a large impact, an "environmental impact statement" (EIS) is prepared, which involves an in-depth analysis of potential impacts cause by the proposed action, as well as those which may be caused by alternative actions developed with public input. If the agency is not convinced that the proposal requires a full-scale EIS, a less detailed "environmental assessment" (EA) may be performed to determine if, in fact, an EIS is warranted. If the action does not require an EIS, the agency will issue a "finding of no significant impact," and the original proposal will move forward as intended. BLM Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project resource management planning required under FLPMA calls for NEPA analysis at a large scale because decisions made will potentially affect millions of acres of land over a 15-year period. "For this reason, BLM…like[s] to make the distinction between "project-level" NEPA and "planning-level" NEPA…It's the same basic process, but planning-level NEPA is on a much larger scale" (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Cooperating Agency Status, 2012). The NEPA language that calls for federallocal cooperation reads as follows: "…it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations…to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans" (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a), emphasis added). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has more detailed regulations for implementing NEPA that allow federal agencies (as the project lead) to invite other federal, state, local, and tribal governments to participate in the EIS process as a CA (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2012). The BLM's Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners states, "The CA relationship is distinctive, moving beyond consultation to engage officials and staff of other agencies and levels of government in working partnerships. The CAs share skills and resources to help shape BLM land use plans and environmental analyses that better reflect the policies, needs, and conditions of their jurisdictions and the citizens they represent" (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2012). As a CA, the local government representative sits at the table as a member of the team responsible for conducting the EIS or EA, and "NEPA regulations impose December 2015 significant obligations on the cooperating agency to participate in the process and to make both staff and financial resources available to the effort…[the] relationship is typically formalized in a memorandum of understanding" (Bryan, 2015). Having CA status may not mean that the local government will leave 100 percent satisfied with the resulting plan of action, but because the BLM must make a legitimate effort to consider their recommendations, it is more likely that the end result will be more agreeable to them than if they hadn't participated at all (Bryan, 2015). When it comes to the overall impact that the coordination function and CA status can have on federal-local collaboration processes, one important difference must be noted: The CA status occurs for the sole purpose of completing an EIS or EA, and is terminated as soon as a project or planninglevel decision is finalized. "Coordination takes place in the general context of working to achieve compatibility between BLM…plans and actions and local government plans and policies. Ideally, coordination is an ongoing process" (Bryan, 2015). Utah's County Land Use, Development, and Management Act Utah Code contains the Land Use, Development, and Management Act (LUDMA), which "establishes the legal framework for each locality to make zoning decisions, enact ordinances, and implement plans" (The State of Utah, 2015). The statute requires that each county create and adopt a general plan-these plans are considered advisory in nature, but components can be legally enforced by county government (The State of Utah, 2015). The code reads, "Each county shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, longrange general plan…for present and future needs of the county…for growth and development of all or any part of the land within the unincorporated portions of the county…as a basis for communicating and Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project coordinating with the federal government on land and resource management issues" (Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-401 (2015)). LUDMA's language is both mandatory and permissive. General plans must contain, at minimum, land use, transportation and traffic circulation, and moderate income housing elements, but planning for other topics such as the environment, economic development, public services and facilities, and infrastructure rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation is relayed as optional. In 2015, H.B. 323 was passed to amend LUDMA to include a requirement that each county create a resource management plan (RMP) by July 1, 2016, to be added to the general plan. The bill: • • • • • Establishes content requirements for a county's resource management plan; Requires the state to provide information and technical assistance to a county; Requires a county planning commission to coordinate with other counties; Establishes a county's general plan as a basis for coordinating with the federal government; and Establishes administrative duties of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office with regard to county resource management plans (H.B. 323 Resource Management Planning by Local Governments, Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-401-409 (2015)). The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO), as lead support agency for the implementation of HB 323, has created a County RMP Resource Center web site that outlines the rationale for RMPs, lists the 27 natural resources that must be considered in the plans, provides plan templates for counties to reference, and lists state and university personnel who can be contacted for assistance. The site notes December 2015 that, upon completion of the RMPs, each county is eligible for reimbursement of 50 percent of the planning costs (up to $50,000), and the PLPCO will combine each county RMP to form one statewide RMP. PLPCO also states that, due to the FLPMA coordination and consistency requirements, "it is essential that local and state governments have plans that reflect local and state policy, perspective and desires regarding the lands resources, landscapes, uses, access, and stakeholder interests…this provides the opportunity for state and county planning efforts to have more influence in management decisions and input into the planning process; the lack of rigorous Resource Management Plans, however, has significantly hampered the ability of local and state governments to alter the course and objectives of federal land management agencies" (Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO), 2015). Research Questions and Methodology Under FLPMA, the BLM is required by law to coordinate their management activities with state and local governments, and create resource management plans that are consistent with state and local plans and policies. NEPA also calls on the federal government to provide a place at the planning table for local governments to serve as CAs during the EIS and EA processes. The Utah legislature has realized that the county general plans required under LUDMA can be used as vehicles to more effectively influence the federal government in land use planning activities, and has amended the statute to establish the plans as the basis for coordination, and to mandate the creation of county RMPs in an effort to do so. However, the extent to which this approach is already being utilized at the county level is unclear, as well as the potential of the RMP mandate and PLPCO-headed implementation program to actually facilitate more productive collaboration processes between Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project the counties and federal land management agencies. This research report seeks to address the following question: To what extent are Utah counties currently (pre-RMP) utilizing the comprehensive planning process to collaborate with federal land management agencies, in an effort to achieve locally desired outcomes on nearby federal lands whose activities directly impact their communities? Also, are the LUDMA RMP mandate language and PLPCO implementation program structured to facilitate effective collaborative planning between counties and the federal government? To assess this question, I analyze: 1. How many of Utah's 29 counties have general plans in place, how accessible are they by the public, and how dated are they? The general plans for 26 of 29 counties were collected by making phone calls to the counties and various associations of government (AOGs) situated throughout the state. Three of the plans (Juab, Piute, and Rich Counties) could not be acquired despite numerous calls and emails to the county offices, AOGs, Utah Association of Counties (AOC), and even the local BLM field offices. Appendix 1 includes a spreadsheet that notes each plan's level of accessibility by the general public, and date of most recent adoption or amendment. December 2015 public lands element, or section titles that alluded to the inclusion of related topics. In Table 2 (Appendix 2), if the plan's table of contents directly listed the topic, it received a Y (yes). If the table of contents did not directly mention the topic, it received an N (no), and if there was text that alluded to the consideration of public lands management, the plan received an I (indirect). When a plan received an N or I, a quick review of the plan was carried out to ensure that the topic was not covered within other sections. If the review found that the county did consider planning for nearby federal lands or working with federal land management agencies in a relevant manner, the plan received an S (strong). If the review proved that the county did not consider the topic at all, or in a weak manner, the plan received no mark, or a W (weak), respectively. For example, San Juan County's general plan has a very limited table of contents that only lists major section headings; therefore, it received an N to indicate that its table of contents does not directly address the topic of federal or public lands management. A quick review of the plan found that there was actually an extensive discussion of FLPMA's coordination and consistency clauses, NEPA's CA status, and a breakdown of federal planning processes by agency. This was noted in Table 2, and the plan received an S to show that it actually does cover the topics comprehensively. 2. To what extent do the general plans address the management of adjacent federal lands, or efforts to collaborate with federal land management agencies? Because the LUDMA general planning mandate did not originally require any environmental resource planning, inclusion of these elements not only signifies the importance that the county places on proper management of adjacent public lands, but also the communities' and planners' capacity/ability to define priorities and set policies for desired management conditions. Each county plan was analyzed for the consideration of management of public lands that fall within county boundaries or mention of efforts to collaborate with federal land management agencies. The table of contents of each plan was checked for a 3. Based on existing literature, to what extent is the LUDMA resource management planning mandate set up to facilitate effective collaborative planning between counties and the federal government? Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project The limited available literature related to collaboration between local governments and federal land management agencies was reviewed for insight into "best practices" for successful collaboration processes. Next, the LUDMA RMP mandate and its implementation program as outlined on the PLPCO County RMP Resource Center website were analyzed for consideration of the "best practices" found in the literature. These reviews provide basis for further discussion of the LUDMA RMP mandate's potential for facilitating effective collaborative planning between the counties and federal agencies. By gathering and documenting the information described above, this report can serve as an archival snapshot of the county general plans currently in place, as well as each plan's level of usefulness for collaboration with the federal government. Noted strengths and weaknesses of the plans, and the analysis of the state's effort to address them (while subjective), can be considered benchmarks by the State of Utah and PLPCO while moving the current resource management planning initiative forward into the future. Research Findings 1. How many of Utah's 29 counties have general plans in place, how accessible are they by the public, and how dated are they? An attempt to gather general plans for all 29 of Utah's counties revealed varying levels of public accessibility, structure, and age (see Appendix 1). Ultimately, plans for 26 counties were acquired, with some requiring more effort than others. Twenty-three counties post general plans to their websites, and the other three counties' plans were obtained with assistance from planners at the county or regional Association of Government (AOG) offices. Counties, AOGs, the Utah Association of Counties (AOC), and even regional BLM December 2015 field offices were contacted during the search for the three elusive plans, to no avail. It is notable that the Rich County office indicated that their 1996 general plan can be reviewed in person, but staff was not willing to scan and email it. The Bear Lake Regional Commission was also contacted for the Rich County plan, which they indicated that they had in paper format, and would scan and email it-they never followed through. The Juab County and Six County AOG offices were emailed and called multiple times about the Juab County plan, but never responded. The Six County AOG was also the regional contact for the Piute general plan (never responded), and Piute County staff promised once to return a call with more information, and another time to call to facilitate emailing the plan, but never followed through with either intention. The first time Piute County was contacted, staff admitted that they did not know what a general plan was, or if the county had one in place. For these reasons, this report can only speak to 26 of the 29 counties' general plans. Each county plans for its unincorporated areas in different ways, with some completing one general plan for the entire county, and some preparing separate plans for each planning district, township, or community. Salt Lake, Summit, and Weber Counties take the latter approach, and have multiple general plans posted to their websites that cover different parts of their jurisdictions. As of December 2015, Salt Lake County has 11 general planning documents, and Summit and Weber Counties each have two-this increases the total number of plans being considered in this project from the originally-anticipated 26 to 38. The most recent date of adoption or official amendment of each general plan was also noted-because the extent of the amendment differs by plan (i.e. minor or significant), this paper reports the dates provided on the cover of each document. ii As of December 2015, 24 of the 38 total Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project procured plans were updated between 2005 and 2015, 11 were updated between 1995 and 2004, and three haven't been revised since 1993-1994. 2. To what extent do the general plans address the management of adjacent federal lands, or efforts to collaborate with federal land management agencies? A review of the 38 total plans' table of contents uncovered varying degrees of consideration of the management of adjacent federal lands, or mention of efforts to collaborate with federal agencies (refer to Appendix 2). Utilizing the protocol described in the methodology section above, 17 general plans had sections that directly related to federal public lands management in the table of contents (received a Y), 15 plans did not directly list a related topic (received an N), four plans had section headings that alluded to the inclusion of related topics (received an I), and two plans did not contain a table of contents. Of the 15 plans that did not directly refer to the topic in question (N), further review found that nine did not consider the topic in a relevant manner at all. It must be noted that, of these nine plans, seven were specific township or community plans for Salt Lake County-these planning areas may be small, residential neighborhoods that do not contain any federal lands, thus, don't require consideration of these types of issues. Further review also found that five of the plans that received an N mark did cover the topic, but in a weak (W) manner, and one plan included strong (S) discussion of the topic. The four plans that indirectly (I) alluded to the possibility of inclusion of relevant topics in the table of contents were the remaining township or community planning documents for Salt Lake County. These documents briefly mentioned things like significant USFS land ownership within the planning area, or included vague objectives to December 2015 support federal agency planning efforts by working with them on initiatives; however, this information was considered weak (W) in relation to other county plans. Last, of the two plans that did not contain tables of contents, it was found that one did not cover the topic at all, and the other strongly covered it, with an introductory vision statement that cites relevant Congressional policies like FLPMA's consistency and coordination elements. In sum, this research found that not all county general plans contain table of contents, and even when one is present, it is not always a reliable indicator of what is actually covered within the text. After a quick review of all 38 plans, it can be confidently stated that 19 strongly cover the topic of federal public land management, nine briefly cover the topic in a weak manner, and ten do not mention the topic at all. Of the 38 county plans currently in place, 19 could be considered useful tools for collaborative processes with the BLM. 3. Based on existing literature, to what extent is the LUDMA resource management planning mandate set up to facilitate effective collaborative planning between counties and the federal government? To answer this question, research was conducted in two parts. First, a limited amount of existing literature related to collaboration between local governments and federal land management agencies was first reviewed for insight into "best practices" for successful collaboration practices. Second, the LUDMA RMP mandate language and PLPCO-defined implementation program were analyzed in an attempt to find how well the "best practices" from literature are being applied. Bryan's exceptional article that examines collaborative functions between local governments and federal land management agencies states that, to effectively manage shared places in the name of large Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project landscape conservation, "federal lands planning thus requires partnerships with local governments that have planning authority over non-federal holdings within the landscape, and vice-versa" (Bryan, 2015). Local government expertise and support can benefit federal land managers whose resources are often stretched thin, and the meaningful inclusion of local government representatives in federal planning processes can prevent conflicts at an early stage, such as those commonly seen in Utah. Unfortunately, multiple factors often get in the way of widespread successful collaboration between the two entities. States that mandate comprehensive planning often require local governments to plan for natural resources or related elements which "squarely overlap with federal land use planning...Yet, even among the more detailed enabling statutes, there are very few that contemplate how local government planning might interface with federal planning on adjacent lands" (Bryan, 2015). For example, state planning enabling acts range from specifically instructing local governments to coordinate with federal agencies on certain topics, to vaguely instructing coordination with "others," to placing coordination responsibility solely with the state offices. Bryan notes Utah's 2011 law that mandated that the USFS and BLM "produce planning documents consistent with state and local land use plans to the maximum extent consistent with federal law" (Utah Code Ann. 63J-8-104(1) (2013)), and how this approach does not encourage collaboration, but submission by federal agencies to local demands. She concludes, "…western states could do much to advance the issue of local-federal land use planning by simply noting, in nonadversarial language, the importance of that issue in their enabling legislation" (Bryan, 2015). To develop recommendations for successful collaboration processes, Bryan conducted interviews of BLM officials in western states December 2015 who had recently created or amended a RMP. Recommendations for local governments included the following: • • Become credible experts and fully engage in federal planning; and Include federal lands and federal agencies in local land use planning. Federal and local governments will continue the current trend of planning for their respective jurisdictions within silos until efforts to reverse that trend are made. Local government officials should educate themselves of the rights afforded them through FLPMA and NEPA, and be persistent in voicing their desires to participate in federal land planning processes. When participation is achieved, local officials must retain credibility by recognizing their legal bounds. "In [BLM] Utah's Cedar Creek Resource Management Plan, for example, the counties passed an ordinance outright banning wilderness designations, and other ordinances regulating wild horses and road access, despite federal jurisdiction over those topics" (Bryan, 2015). These types of actions ultimately undermine the core intention of collaboration, and may lead to federal agencies being less willing to work with local representatives. Also, the consistency clause in FLPMA should not be misconstrued by local governments to mean that they can force compliance with local land use plans by simply providing the plan to federal land managers. "Instead of throwing a plan at the BLM and expecting them to conform, local governments should work with the BLM on creating mutually acceptable outcomes while keeping the consistency requirements as a backdrop" (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012). Planning for federal lands, and including federal agency representatives during local planning processes will also greatly benefit local governments. As found with Utah's county general plans as a part of this research, local jurisdictions may not always Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project consider lands beyond their direct control; however, one of Bryan's BLM-affiliated interviewees stated, "[t]o the extent possible, when there is substantive [local] planning, we have a goal to really conform to that planning" (Bryan, 2015). While county governments cannot mandate specific actions to be taken by federal land managers, "counties' socioeconomic wellbeing, safety, and culture are intimately tied to the management of surrounding lands…in light of this, local land use plans are used to state the general requirements a county…has of the surrounding federal lands in order to meet these responsibilities" (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012). Rieber, in her report on Coordination for the Public Lands Council, suggests that the local plan should generally outline requirements that the county has for management of nearby federal lands, without making demands that conflict with federal law. Examples include: • • A requirement that grazing be maintained at historic levels, sufficient to maintain the economic viability of ranches that support a county's tax base; A requirement that forage be grazed sufficiently to help prevent catastrophic wildfire to protect the safety and livelihood of residents (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012). Last, there are countless reasons to include federal agency representatives in local planning processes. They bring their expertise to the table, raising the overall credibility and usefulness of the local plan for potential collaboration processes concerning federal lands, and the extension of an invitation by local governments makes it more likely that they will receive the same consideration by federal managers in the future. The success of these types of collaborative processes largely hinge on the quality of relationships between stakeholders-if the opportunity to work together is approached in a tactful manner, December 2015 there is a higher chance that the exercise will prove productive. The findings from literature described in this section, while surely not comprehensive, are considered vital state and local governmental "best practices" for successful collaboration with the BLM. They provide the basis for some of the discussion in the following section when applied to the recently-enacted RMP mandate included within LUDMA. Implications of Findings and Suggestions for Moving Forward Characteristics of the Counties' Current General Plans Analysis of the general planning documents for Utah's 29 counties revealed varying levels of accessibility, structure, age, and coverage of topics related to management of federal lands. Twenty-three of the counties post general plans online, making them easily accessible by the public. Three more counties' plans were obtained fairly easily with calls to the county and regional AOG offices. The final three counties' plans were never procured, and county staff, when contacted, sometimes expressed confusion over what a general plan was, and if the county had one in place (despite being legally mandated to have one). Given current PLPCO efforts to assist Utah counties with resource management plans, which are supposed to be integrated into the larger general planning documents, this lack of awareness at the county level is surprising. It may signal a need for more outreach and education by PLPCO. The LUDMA mandate language could also be revised to require counties to post their plans to the internet-this would make the documents more visible to the general public, and possibly add pressure to planning staff to utilize or reference them more. Regardless of how much the plans would be utilized, the planners would at least know what a general plan is, and could confidently state that the county has one in place. Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project Each county plans for its unincorporated areas in different ways, with some completing one general plan for the entire county, and some preparing separate plans for each planning district, township, or community. In Utah, Salt Lake, Summit, and Weber Counties divide their jurisdictions into multiple parts, which increases the total number of county general planning documents in Utah from the assumed 29 to 38. While breaking the county into districts allows for more detailed planning at more focused levels, it is not clear how these counties will approach the development of the RMP (one RMP for the whole county or separate RMPs for each planning area). For example, Salt Lake County currently has eleven smaller general plans for specific townships or communities-it is doubtful that they will create eleven RMPs for each area, but possible. The LUDMA RMP mandate could be more prescriptive in nature, and specifically address how to handle this type of situation, especially since PLPCO has been instructed to compile all RMPs into one statewide RMP document. It is surely an issue that they will run into in the future. After reviewing the plans' latest dates of adoption or amendment, it was found that, as of December 2015, 24 of the 38 procured plans were updated within the past ten years, 11 were updated between 1995 and 2004, and the remaining three haven't been revised since 1993-1994. It is generallyaccepted best planning practice to update comprehensive planning documents once every five years, thus, the majority of Utah's county general planning documents are very out of date. It is assumed that this is due to a lack of updating requirements in the LUDMA general planning mandate, which does not mention periodic revisions of the plans at all. The review of the general plans made it apparent that, when the state first mandated county general planning, they provided document templates to illustrate to counties what a plan should look like. As a result, many of the existing plans contain the same type of sections with December 2015 identical section headers. An example of this is the "Using and Amending the XX County Plan" section, which was frequently seen, and whose language indicates the necessity of keeping plans relevant and up to date. If this was (assumedly) stateprovided language, it seems that the state was aware of the importance of periodically updating general plans, but did not deem it necessary to require those updates with the mandate. It is apparent that many Utah counties will not regularly revise their plans on their own accord, thus, the state may want to explore the option of adding updating requirements to LUDMA, and ways to enforce compliance. The review of the 38 total procured plans for inclusion of sections that address the management of nearby federal lands, or efforts to collaborate with federal land management agencies showed that, as of December 2015, 19 of the plans currently in place could serve as useful tools that the counties could use in federal collaboration processes. Nine of the plans briefly covered the topic in a weak manner, and ten did not mention the topic at all. As noted above, many of the plans that weakly covered the topic, or didn't cover it at all, were the smaller area plans created by Salt Lake, Summit, and Weber Counties. Some of these planning areas are small communities and/or neighborhoods that most likely don't contain any federal lands, therefore, don't require consideration of them in planning efforts. Further research not included in this report could take a look at the 19 counties that currently have plans deemed "useful" for collaboration, and analyze the federal shares of land within their boundaries-this would reveal if counties that should be planning for federal lands (those with the largest shares) are the ones who are actually doing so. It must also be mentioned that this report analyzed documents that were deemed by each county as part of the official "general plan." Some Utah counties may have created separate planning documents that directly relate to resource or environmental management, which were not Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project considered in this report. Future research on this topic could include a more thorough inventory of existing county planning documents, which would illustrate the bigger planning picture for each county. A Brief Review of the LUDMA RMP Mandate Future investigation into this topic would benefit from interviews with state planning and PLPCO staff to gain insight into things like the evolution of the LUDMA mandate and past local-state-federal conflict related to federal lands. Interviews with county planning staff or political leaders would further illustrate the extent to which counties are already utilizing coordination, consistency, and CA status tools, as well as their stance on the state RMP mandate, and the ways in which they are meetings its requirements. This section applies the "best practices" for successful collaboration with federal agencies to information gleaned from the LUDMA RMP mandate language, and implementation program as outlined on the PLPCO County RMP Resource Center website, which admittedly limits a comprehensive evaluation. It should also be noted that there will be numerous local factors that will affect the success of collaboration processes-the "best practices" considered here are not comprehensive, but they are important. First, the LUDMA mandate language was analyzed to address Bryan's call for western states to state the importance of federal lands management and coordination processes in their enabling statutes "in nonadversarial language" (Bryan, 2015). LUDMA language does establish the county plan "as a basis for communicating and coordinating with the federal government on land and resource management issues," and includes a section on coordination with the federal government that defines what coordination means to the state, and a list of minimum requirements that the federal government must follow to fulfill the act of coordinating (Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-401 December 2015 (2015)). A selected example states, "The federal government is not considered to have coordinated with a county or local government on a matter unless the federal government has…worked with the county in an amicable manner to reconcile any differences or disagreements, to the greatest extent possible under federal law, between the federal government and the county with regards to plans, policies, rules, or proposed management actions that relate to the matter (Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-401 (2015)). In general, LUDMA asserts the local governments' rights under FLPMA and NEPA in a confident and formal manner, but in this author's opinion, it is not adversarial. The importance of the matter to the state is evidenced by its comprehensive coverage of the topic, but the tone is not outright demanding. Bryan also called for local government officials to educate themselves on the ins and outs of the rights afforded them with FLPMA and NEPA, and to retain credibility by recognizing the legal boundaries of themselves, and the federal agencies. Many of the county general plans deemed "useful" for federal collaboration purposes in this report specifically cited their Congressional rights within the planning documents-this shows that they are aware of the laws, and what they generally mean for the county. The plan's policies for federal land management were not analyzed as part of this project, so it is unclear whether the counties are posturing their policies in an effective way that does not make impossible demands on agencies like the BLM. The afore-mentioned PLPCO County RMP Resource Center website does acknowledge the opportunities provided to the state and local governments under FLPMA, and that the counties' lack of comprehensive RMPs has "significantly hampered the ability of local and state governments to alter the course and objectives of federal lands management agencies" (Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO), 2015). The site does not directly attempt to educate Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project county governments on this topic, but perhaps a lesson on its importance can be included in future PLPCO-hosted coordination meetings, which are mentioned online. Links could also be posted to Public Lands Council-commissioned advisory documents that were frequently referenced in this report (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Coordination, 2012); (Rieber, A Beginner's Guide to Cooperating Agency Status, 2012). The last set of "best practices" calls on local governments to plan for nearby federal lands, and to also include federal land managers during local planning processes. While the LUDMA mandate language lists specific natural resource management topics that must be included within RMPs, many of which influence or are influenced by federal lands management (like grazing), there is no direct call for the consideration of federal lands within the county. Similarly, the PLPCO website states the importance of the county RMPs for negotiating with the federal government, but does not provide specific direction for considering federal lands, and does not list any federal agency contacts within its comprehensive list of "experts" who can be contacted for planning assistance. The state could further define its underlying intention in mandating the creation of county RMPs by addressing the topic head-on, and encouraging counties to consider the interplay between lands that they can directly control, and adjacent lands administered by the federal government. As this report shows, it is not a straightforward, easily-understood issue, but complex and difficult. Counties will surely require more direct assistance in producing the types of RMPs with content that the state is likely hoping for. Also, the lack of identifying, or encouraging consultation with any federal personnel during the development of the RMPs is discouraging. It's clear that the state does not value federal input into local planning processes, which significantly hampers the potential for fostering fruitful relationships between local and federal officials, which is December 2015 the core function of the collaboration processes addressed in this paper. It also opts out of an opportunity to develop county RMPs that are more closely aligned in content or structure with BLM RMPs, thus, more useful when engaging in planning processes related to the amendment of BLM plans. Referencing lessons learned from the brief review of the county general plans, it is likely that many Utah county RMPs will be developed by the mandate deadline, and subsequently placed on a shelf, unreferenced, for the next twenty years. The state needs to assist and encourage the development of truly useful plans that can be effectively used when working with federal land management agencies-cutting one of the core stakeholders out of the process is not "best practice." To conclude, this report finds that about 19 of 38 total Utah county general planning documents strongly consider the management of nearby federal lands, thus, could serve as useful tools for collaborating with federal land management agencies during coordination or NEPA processes. The recently-enacted resource management planning mandate, under LUDMA, provides counties with the authority to utilize county general plans as the basis for coordinating with federal land management agencies, and outlines expectations for the federal government in a factual, but not overly-aggressive manner. "Best practices" from literature on the subject were applied to the RMP process currently being carried out by PLPCO, and it was found that the state could do more to provide base knowledge of the rights provided for local governments with FLPMA and NEPA to county staff and officials. The state could also improve the clarity of its goals for the RMP documents, and direct counties to plan for nearby federal lands in a more explicit manner. Last, it was found that the state is not encouraging counties to consult federal land managers during the RMP process, which ignores a large opportunity to establish useful plans from Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project the start, and develop productive relationships with agencies like the BLM, which could only benefit future planning initiatives. References Beitsch, R. (2015, October 29). States Find Their Voice on Federal Land Use. Retrieved from The Pew Charitable Trusts: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2015/10/29/statescoordinate-challenge-feds-on-public-landuse Bryan, M. (2015). Cause for Rebellion? Examining How Federal Land Management Agencies & Local Governments Collaborate on Land Use Planning. Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, 1-20. Edwards, C., & O'Toole, R. (2012, February). Reforming Federal Land Management. Retrieved from CATO Institute: Downsizing the Federal Government: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interio r/reforming-federal-land-management Maffly, B. (2015, December 9). Republicans OK $14M land-transfer lawsuit, say Utah must regain sovereignty. Retrieved from The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/news/3287281155/utah-commission-votes-to-sue-feds Morgan Lyon Cotti, P. (2013, June). Sagebrush Rebellion Part II: Analysis of the Public Lands Debate in Utah. Retrieved from Utah Foundation: http://www.utahfoundation.org/reports/sageb rush-rebellion-part-ii-analysis-of-the-publiclands-debate-in-utah/ Rieber, A. (2012). A Beginner's Guide to Cooperating Agency Status. Public Lands Council. i December 2015 Rieber, A. (2012). A Beginner's Guide to Coordination. Public Lands Council. Stambro, J. E., Downen, J. C., Hogue, M. T., Pace, L., Jakus, P. M., & Grijalva, T. C. (2014, November 2014). An Analysis of a Transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The State of Utah. (2015). The Land Use, Development, and Management Act (LUDMA). Retrieved from Utah Department of Commerce: Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman: http://propertyrights.utah.gov/the-land-usedevelopment-and-management-act-ludma/ U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (2001). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976: How the State Was Set for BLM's "Organic Act". Retrieved from U.S. Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/flpma/organic.htm U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (2012). A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners. Utah's Constitutional Defense Council. (2012). Toward a Balanced Public Lands Policy: A Case Statement for the H.B. 148 Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act. Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO). (2015). County RMP Resource Center. Retrieved from Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO): http://countyrmp.org/ Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO). (n.d.). Current Projects. Retrieved from Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO): http://publiclands.utah.gov/current-projects/ Defined in FLPMA as follows: "The term "multiple use" means the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people…The term "sustained yield" means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use" (publicland.org). Ashley Scarff MCMP Professional Project December 2015 ii Box Elder County's general plan cover text does not mention an amendment, but it is obviously noted on subsequent sections that were updated in 2011. Table 1. Level of Accessibility and Date of Utah's County General Plans (GPs), December 2015 # Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Box Elder Cache Rich Davis Morgan Salt Lake 7 8 Tooele Weber 9 Summit 10 11 12 Utah Wasatch Daggett 13 Duchesne 14 Uintah 15 Juab 16 Millard 17 Piute 18 Sanpete 19 Sevier 20 Wayne 21 Beaver 22 Garfield 23 Iron 24 Kane 25 Washington 26 Carbon 27 Emery 28 Grand 29 San Juan Does the County have Is it Accessible a General Plan? (Y/N) Online? (Y/N) Y Y Unsure Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Unsure Y Unsure Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cover Date Spring 1998 January 27, 1998 Notes Land use/public lands elements updated January 28, 2011; two community plans added in 2004, one in 2006 GP never procured February 1, 2006 December 21, 2010 February 2004 May 2012 DRAFT September 11, 2012 September 11, 2012 September 11, 2012 February 1993 April 3, 1996 July 17, 2013 DRAFT July 17, 2013 DRAFT July 17, 2013 DRAFT May 2003 2008 August 28, 1996 September 23, 2003 June 17, 2015 August 13, 2013 December 2, 2014 February 4, 2010 February 3, 2009 Spring 1997 2005 (1) Copperton Township GP (2) Emigration Canyon Township GP (3) Kearns Township GP (4) Magna Township GP (5) Millcreek Township GP (6) Granite Community MP (7) Southwest Community MP (8) Parleys Canyon GP (9) Big Cottonwood Canyon GP (10) Little Cottonwood Canyon GP (11) Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan (1) Ogden Valley GP (2) West Central Weber County GP (1) Snyderville Basin Planning District (2) Eastern Summit County Planning District Amended Winter 1998; Winter 2005; June 25, 2007; April 16, 2012; and August 19, 2013 Amended February 27, 2012 GP never procured Fall 1998 GP never procured April 2010 February 2, 1998 May 2, 1994 Adopted April 1993 Adopted March 13, 1995 October 10, 1995 November 28, 2011 2010 October 1, 1997 Autumn 1996 2012 March 2008 Notes: 1. The Utah Association of Counties (AOC) does not maintain a repository of county GPs; 2. BLM field offices were also contacted for county GPs that were harder to find, to no avail Amended February 1999 Amended January 26, 1998 Amended August 2012 Revised 1999, 2012 Table 2. Consideration of Federal Lands Management in Utah's County General Plans, December 2015 Name Box Elder Community/District Plans (if applicable) Cache Davis Morgan Salt Lake Topic Included in Table of Contents? (Y/N/I)1 Y Topic Found with Further Review? (S/W)2 N No TOC W N W Notes Public Lands/Public Lands Access/Federal Planning Processes sections Land Use goal/strategy of working with federal agencies on wildfire hazard mitigation, but no other mention of topic Plan does not mention public lands Land Use section notes that BLM-managed lands are "managed in accordance with adopted resource and forest management plans"; later notes that local governments can have "considerable influence" over BLM planning processes; no further details on topic (1) Copperton Township GP N (2) Emigration Canyon Township GP (3) Kearns Township GP (4) Magna Township GP (5) Millcreek Township GP (6) Granite Community MP (7) Southwest Community MP (8) Parleys Canyon GP (9) Big Cottonwood Canyon GP (10) Little Cottonwood Canyon GP (11) Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan I N N N N N I I I N Y Plan does not mention public lands Developed a County RMP with 2004 GOPB initiative; comprehensive discussion of topic Ogden Valley GP Y West Central Weber GP N W Section 10.3 devoted to Public Lands Acknowledges that there is a federally owned military site within the county; does not discuss topic in detail N N N W Tooele Weber Plan does not mention public lands W W W W Public and Recreation Land Use section only acknowledges that USFS owns significant amount of land in Emigration Canyon Plan does not mention public lands Plan does not mention public lands Plan does not mention public lands Plan does not mention public lands Plan does not mention public lands A few objectives vaguely mention need to support/work with agencies Only mentions fact that USFS owns significant portion of land Includes objectives to support USFS in their efforts Summit Eastern Summit County GP Snyderville Basin GP Utah W Natural Resources/Environmental Quality objective is to "cooperate with State and Federal public land use agencies" Plan does not mention public lands Acknowledges that 60% of county land is federal; does not discuss topic in detail Wasatch Daggett Duchesne Uintah Millard Sanpete Sevier Wayne Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y No TOC Y Carbon Emery Y Y Grand San Juan Y N S S Chapter 5 is Public Land element Chapter 8 is the Public Lands Element First chapter/detailed list of topics under Public Land Use heading Public Lands/Public and Tribal Land Access sections Public Lands element Implementation Strategies chapter includes Public Land Management Strategies section Chapter 3 titled Land, Public Lands, Water and Natural Resources Plan Comprehensive; topic is considered in multiple sections Detailed TOC does not mention topic Comprehensive Public Lands Management section Land Use element includes detailed Public Lands section Introductory Vision Statement cites Congressional policy that gives county the right to participate in federal land planning Section II devoted to Public Lands; Section III devoted to the BLM; Appendix III is an RMP Public Lands & Resources section; sections of passed resolutions related to Public Lands & Resources Vision for Public Lands/Federal and State Agencies; Section 9 titled Public Lands TOC only has Federal Land Acreages in data section; further search shows Public Lands considered in Vision, Goals, and Strategies section TOC very limited; look at plan shows there many sections devoted to topic Notes: 1. Y = Yes; N = No; I = Indirectly, meaning there was text that alluded to consideration of public lands management, but inclusion needed to be confirmed via plan review 2. S = Strong; W = Weak, indicating level of coverage of topic found with further review