A User’s Guide to BLM Policy on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Instruction Memorandum 2011-154 and Manuals 6310 and 6320 set out the BLM’s approach to protecting wilderness characteristics on the public lands. This guidance acknowledges that wilderness is a resource that is part of BLM’s multiple use mission, requires the BLM to keep a current inventory of wilderness characteristics, and directs the agency to consider protection of these values in land use planning decisions. The policy provides opportunities to trigger a reassessment of wilderness characteristics and to advocate for protection of wilderness characteristics. This guide is intended to highlight the most important elements of each document so that advocates can effectively use the policy to protect wilderness-quality lands. 1. Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2011-154 (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2 011/IM_2011-154.html ) The IM (issued July 25, 2011) directs offices to “conduct and maintain inventories regarding the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics, and to consider identified lands with wilderness characteristics in land use plans and when analyzing projects under [NEPA].” The IM reiterates BLM’s commitment to continuing inventory for wilderness characteristics, although stating that inventory will not necessarily change or prevent change of management of the inventoried lands. The IM also commits to considering wilderness characteristics in planning and making project-level decisions. There is no specific guidance on how to address wilderness characteristics in project-level decisions. The IM has 2 attachments that provide specific guidance on “Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands” and “Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process.” However, these attachments are now incorporated into 2 new manuals, discussed in detail below. 2. Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands – Manual 6310 (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_man ual.Par.38337.File.dat/6310.pdf) This manual (issued March 15, 2012) sets out the process and factors for evaluating lands to determine if they have wilderness characteristics. The key concept is for BLM to have clear direction on how to conduct a proper inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics. BLM’s wilderness inventory must be updated when: • The public or BLM identifies wilderness characteristics as an issue during scoping in a NEPA analysis;

• • • •

Undertaking a land use planning process (See Manual 6320); BLM has new information concerning resource conditions, including public or citizens’ wilderness proposals; A project that may impact wilderness characteristics is undergoing NEPA analysis; or Additional lands are acquired. (See, 6310.06.A)

Key provisions: Minimum standard for proposals (.06.B.1): There are three things required in a wilderness proposal (i.e., from citizens) in order to meet the minimum standard for BLM to consider it in an inventory and to consider it as new information: • Detailed map with specific boundaries; • Detailed narrative of the wilderness characteristics; and • Photographic documentation. Once there is new information that meets these standards, then “as soon as practicable, the BLM shall evaluate the information,” including field checking as needed and comparing with existing data to see if previous conclusions remain valid. Further, BLM will document its rationale and make it available to the public. (.06.B.2) Documentation is to be completed in forms attached as Appendices A (File), B (Inventory Area Evaluation), C (Route Analysis), D (Photo Log). These forms also provide helpful structure for submitting citizen inventories to the BLM. Requirements for determining lands have wilderness characteristics (.06.C.2): Lands with Wilderness Characteristics must possess the following traits: • Size o Sufficient roadless area to satisfy size requirements (5,000 acres, of sufficient size to make management practicable or “any roadless island of the public lands”; or contiguous with Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, USFWS areas Proposed for Wilderness, FS WSAs or areas of Recommended Wilderness, NPS areas Recommended or Proposed for Designation); o If size criteria is not met BLM must document this, but does not have to continue with the inventory. • Naturalness – o Affected primarily by the forces of nature – some features are allowed so long as “substantially unnoticeable.” Examples include trails, bridges, fire rings, minor radio repeater sites, air quality monitoring devices, fencing, spring developments, and stock ponds; o Human impacts – noticeable human impacts must be documented and some are acceptable so long as they are “substantially unnoticeable”; o Outside human impacts – impacts outside the area are generally not considered, but major outside impacts should be noted and evaluated for direct effects on the entire area (the manual explicitly cautions BLM to “avoid an overly strict approach”); o Notes that the criteria is “apparent naturalness” which depends on whether an area looks natural to “the average visitor who is not familiar with the biological composition of natural ecosystems versus human affected ecosystems.” This is 2

•

•

important to cite to note the difference between ecological integrity and apparent naturalness. o Determination and documentation – determine whether naturalness is met and document the finding with a written rationale; o If naturalness criteria is not met BLM must document this, but does not have to continue with the inventory. Outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation o Area does not have to possess both opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation; o Area does not have to have outstanding opportunities on every acre; o BLM cannot compare lands in question with other parcels; o BLM cannot use any type of rating system or scale. Supplemental values (e.g. scientific, scenic, historical) should be documented although not required traits.

Boundary delineation (of roadless area): • Lands between individual human impacts should not be automatically excluded from the area; • No setbacks or buffers allowed; • Boundaries should be drawn to exclude developed rights-of-way; • “Undeveloped rights-of-way and similar possessory interests (e.g.,as mineral leases) are not treated as impacts to wilderness characteristics because these rights may never be developed”; • Areas can have wilderness characteristics even though every acre within the area may not meet all the criteria; • Boundary should be based on wilderness inventory roads and naturalness rather than opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Definition of “road” for the purposes of determining what constitutes “roadless” areas from the Glossary: • For inventorying wilderness characteristics, BLM will use the “road” definition from FLPMA’s legislative history; the term “road” and “wilderness inventory road” are interchangeable in this guidance. • “Wilderness inventory roads” are routes which have been: o (1) improved and maintained (when needed), o (2) by mechanical means (but not solely by the passage of vehicles), o (3) to insure relatively regular and continuous use (including access roads for maintaining recreational facilities, stock water tanks, and mining claims).  Note: routes that do not need mechanical maintenance or improvements for regular and continuous use can still qualify as a “road” in those circumstances where the road would be maintained if the need arises. Thus, although the route might be practically maintained by the passage of vehicles and no mechanical equipment is necessary, the route may still qualify as a “road.”  Note: the purpose of the road can provide context in applying the criteria for determining whether the route is a “road” or not. Thus, BLM may consider 3

•

why the route is being used to determine whether a route that has not been improved or maintained by mechanical means could be considered a “road.” “Primitive routes” are transportation linear features located within areas that have been identified as having wilderness characteristics and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition.

3. Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process – Manual 6320 (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_man ual.Par.52465.File.dat/6320.pdf) This manual (issued March 15, 2012) provides specific guidance on how BLM will consider lands with wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process – both revisions and amendments. The key concept is that, during land use planning, BLM will consider lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs 1 - as identified in Manual 6310) to fulfill its duties to keep a current inventory and manage wilderness as a resource under FLPMA. In order to do this, BLM must: • Update the wilderness inventory for the planning area using Manual 6310, which must include citizens’ proposals and existing information; • Provide opportunity for public participation; • Disclose impacts of each alternative to identified LWCs; • Consider a range of alternatives for managing LWCs; and • Ensure compliance with all applicable laws. Key provisions: Designation may be outside the scope of certain planning processes (.06) –some planning processes will not require consideration of management alternatives for LWCs, such as targeted amendments to address specific projects or proposals. However, in this situation, the NEPA document must still analyze the effects of alternatives on LWCs. Outcomes for management of LWCs may include (.06.A): • Emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics; • Emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness characteristics; • Protection of wilderness characteristics as apriority over other multiple uses. Considering LWCs in land use planning requires consideration of (.06.A.1.a and b): • Wilderness characteristics – consider and document the wilderness characteristics for each area identified; • Manageability – whether the lands can be effectively managed to protect their wilderness characteristics (should also consider if boundary modification would improve manageability) including: valid existing rights, land status, access to inholdings, external impacts (although should not be a determining factor that incompatible activities can be seen or heard unless “pervasive and omnipresent”), other statutory requirements (including O&C Act and NPRA as requirements to consider); 1

Note that BLM does not use this acronym in the manuals – presumably since it was used in the previous manuals issued under Secretarial Order 3310 (Wild Lands policy).

4

•

Other resource values and uses – presence, development potential, availability, economic importance, compatibility with protection.

Consideration given to released Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (.06.A.1.c) – BLM is specifically “take in serious consideration” the previous Congressional action (but also any changed circumstances) in subsequent land use planning decisions. So, when deciding if protective management is appropriate, BLM will presumably take into account the reasons for the initial release. BLM should address LWCs in each stage of the Land Use Planning Process (.06.A.2) • Preparation Plan – identify as an issue, include in planning criteria, data needs and budget • Scoping – include lands with wilderness characteristic in the Notice of Intent if they will be addressed, initiative government-to-government consultation, and document comments in scoping report • Analysis of Management Situation – describe current management of LWCs, prepare area profile for LWCs, include analysis of factors for consideration described above and management opportunities • Formulation of Alternatives o NEPA document must contain “a full range of reasonable alternatives”; o Delineate LWCs as discrete units to which management prescriptions may be applied; o Each alternative should include management actions and allowable uses (or restrictions). Alternatives to protect LWCs must include management actions to achieve protections, which could include but are not limited to: i. Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry. ii. Close to leasing or allow leasing only with no surface occupancy with no exceptions, waivers, or modifications. iii. Designate as right-of-way exclusion areas. iv. Close to construction of new roads. v. Designate as closed to motor vehicle use, as limited to motor vehicle use on designated routes, or as limited to mechanized use on designated routes. vi. Close to mineral material sales. vii. Exclude or restrict with conditions for certain commercial uses or other activities (e.g., commercial or personal-use wood-cutting permits). viii. Designate as Visual Resource Management Class I or II. ix. Restrict construction of new structures and facilities unrelated to the preservation or enhancement of wilderness characteristics or necessary for the management of uses allowed under the land use plan. x. Retain public lands in Federal ownership.

5

- Note: None of these management prescriptions are mandatory for lands being managed to protect wilderness characteristics, so BLM has discretion to determine what prescriptions are appropriate to protect wilderness characteristics. •

In areas where the management decision is not to protect wilderness characteristics, BLM must consider measures to minimize impacts on wilderness characteristics.

•

Affected Environment – describe the inventory and map LWCs

•

Environmental Consequences – describe the effects of management alternatives on lands with wilderness characteristics and the effects of managing to protect wilderness characteristics on other affected resources. In describing the effects of managing lands to protect wilderness characteristics, the BLM is required to look at: o the degree to which resource use is compatible with or conflicts with management of LWCs; and o the degree to which protective management for LWCs enhances other multiple use benefits on or near the area, such as protecting watersheds, habitat, plants, cultural resources, scenic quality, and similar natural values.

Contacts: Nada Culver, 303-650-5818 Ext. 117, [email protected] Phil Hanceford, 303-650-5818 Ext. 122, [email protected]

6