RE: Alternative Management Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Leigh D.Espy,Deputy State Director Dave Stout,Field Manager Karl Mendonca,Acting Field Manager U.S.Bureau of Land Management February 11,2011 Page 2 The key protective elements of the plan have not changed significantly since the October 1, 2009 Implementation Outline that was submitted to BLM. In particular, the Tier 1 Long-Term Protection Measures explained in the 2009 submittal will continue to form the backbone of the SG Plan. The primary items that I anticipate will be included in the plan that were not included in the 2009 Implementation Outline include (1) floatboating Resource Guides for Segments 4-7, (2) details of the ORV monitoring plan, (3) a section on governance that explains how the Stakeholder Group will make formal decisions, (4) a section on funding of the Stakeholder Group plan, and (5) a section describing how the Stakeholder Group anticipates coordinating with federal agencies. There are some additions to the plan and a few proposed changes in how parts of the plan will work(as compared to the 2009 Implementation Outline)that warrant mention: 1. The Stakeholder Group supports the neutral deferral of a suitability determination under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by BLM/USFS under the Stakeholder Group Plan. 2. As with the 2009 Implementation Outline, the plan will include ORV Indicators and Resource Guides. However,the version the Stakeholders will submit on February 28th likely will not trigger an "elevation" process (or any other affirmative action) if the Resource Guides are not met. Instead, the Resource Guides will be used, as with other available information, to guide and inform the Stakeholder Group's discussions about the ORVs. The Guides are not intended to be used as a test for plan success, nor for use by agencies or entities as the criterion for evaluating a project's effects on the ORVs, understanding that this will not limit the use of any data regardless of whether such data was used in the negotiation of the Guides. 3. The plan will not provide for the "elevation" of unresolved issues to the BLM for resolution, as we expect that the BLM/USFS will participate as non-voting members of the Stakeholder Group. Instead, the plan will continue to have an "internal" Stakeholder Group elevation process that includes potential mediation and referral of unresolved issues to `Board- level" representatives. If those efforts do not resolve the issue, the plan allows the Stakeholder Group to decide whether the dispute is substantial enough to terminate the plan (although we hope that would not occur). 4. The plan will not require new projects to demonstrate to the Stakeholder Group that the project can be operated consistent with the Resource Guides. Instead, the plan contemplates that the appropriate permitting agencies will consider the impacts of new projects based on statutory standards. For example, the proponent of a new project will have to demonstrate to the agencies that the project will not unreasonably diminish the ORVs, or demonstrate that project operations will be subject to mitigation to avoid unreasonably diminishing the ORVs. The plan is not meant to be used as a component of any demonstration that a project meets the statutory standards for protection of the ORVs (unless the Stakeholder Group agrees otherwise). Proponents of new projects also may"opt-in"to the plan and seek the endorsement of the Stakeholder Group (but are not required to so).