Management plans for National Monuments

I'm hoping that some of you can clarify a few things for me in regards to the process by which a management plan is created for a National Monument.

So, once the monument is created and a managing agency(ies) is chosen, a notice of intent must be issued for the development of the plan, correct?

Once the NOI is issued, is the public input process the same as any other management plan revision, update, etc?

Is there a difference in how public input is to be considered when a management plan is being created for a National Monument vs. any other management plan?

In the case of the USFS or BLM, does FLPMA still apply to multiple use so long as it does not conflict with protection of the monument?

I am asking these questions because it seems that national monuments are the current bogeyman venue by which hunting is to be eliminated. Obviously I have a bias, but there are others on here who are much more versed on public land policy than I am and I would like your input. I believe monuments are a good thing, so long as hunters were involved at the grass roots level and had a place at the table. By and large, are hunters/anglers viewed as a legitimate entity when discussing monument priorities and values?

Thanks.

JLS said:

I'm hoping that some of you can clarify a few things for me in regards to the process by which a management plan is created for a National Monument.

So, once the monument is created and a managing agency(ies) is chosen, a notice of intent must be issued for the development of the plan, correct?

Once the NOI is issued, is the public input process the same as any other management plan revision, update, etc?

Click to expand...

That's the way I understand it and from what I've seen happen there are scoping meetings, etc. etc. that take place.

JLS said:

Is there a difference in how public input is to be considered when a management plan is being created for a National Monument vs. any other management plan?

Click to expand...

No difference that I can see. Many people consider their input not being adopted as the managing agencies "ignoring them"...well, that's called life. The agencies are required to consider public input, but they are also required to follow the laws, acts, and RMP's and FP's. The agencies can not just adopt some wingnut idea that is conflict with environmental law, Forest Plan, etc. On the other side of the coin, if the managing agencies are taking actions that are in violation of their FP's, RMP's, etc. then the public can file an objection during the planning process. Formal objections are one small step from litigation. After the objection process the last stop is filing a lawsuit.

JLS said:

In the case of the USFS or BLM, does FLPMA still apply to multiple use so long as it does not conflict with protection of the monument?

Click to expand...

Yes.

In the case of the NPS being the managing agency they have to comply with Public Law 95-625 (National parks & Recreation Act of 1978). In that Act they are required to revise GMP (General Management Plans) for monuments every 15 years or so. During plan revisions, public input is part of the process as well as the right for the public to file objections, etc.

JLS said:

I am asking these questions because it seems that national monuments are the current bogeyman venue by which hunting is to be eliminated. Obviously I have a bias, but there are others on here who are much more versed on public land policy than I am and I would like your input. I believe monuments are a good thing, so long as hunters were involved at the grass roots level and had a place at the table. By and large, are hunters/anglers viewed as a legitimate entity when discussing monument priorities and values?

Click to expand...

I agree and hunters and anglers should be involved. If they aren't involved its likely because they didn't make themselves legitimate entities in the planning process. The bottom line is that hunters and anglers need to flat take the time to get involved in the various planning processes. This shouldn't be just limited to the planning process's regarding National Monuments. It should be involving themselves in BLM RMP's, National Forest Plans, Travel Management Plans, etc. etc. Any group is only as relevant as they make themselves.

The NMs that have been made so far in AZ have continued to have hunting controlled by AzGFD. The entrances have had nice fancy signs put up, but I've not seen any noticeable improvement in road maintenance. I'm not sure if there have been any serious problems with waterhole project improvements or maintenance either. Some of my compadre's from AZ may have better info. G J

My anecdotal "experience" with a NM planning process agrees with what Buzz posted in regards to the "how" things are done. The rest I agree with on principle...

JLS,

Another thing to consider, is that usually when a new monument is designated, it triggers a RMP/FP amendment and/or revision in the case of the BLM and FS being the managing agencies.

That means that you go through the "process" again in regard to the monument and future management plan....scoping process, public meetings, objections, etc. etc.

Are National Monument plans required by law to be updated at specified intervals? Is the administering agency allowed to update and/or revise the plan or does this require Congressional direction to do so?

Land use plans do have an "expected life span". However, the process of getting one through the process is now taking as long or longer than the life span...

JLS said:

Are National Monument plans required by law to be updated at specified intervals? Is the administering agency allowed to update and/or revise the plan or does this require Congressional direction to do so?

Click to expand...

I believe that's the case, but I'm not sure how long between updates. IIRC, in the case of national parks, the 95-625 law, states "about every 15 years" for GMP revision. That's the trouble with ambiguity on the one hand, that agencies may take the liberty of not revising plans in a timely manner. But then on the other, being required to revise a plan, when its not really warranted, is a huge time and revenue commitment. Balance is best, but when left to discretion, is often abused one way or the other.

Pointer??? How about RMP's?

The Forest Service has to adhere to the RPA (resources planning act), which requires them to submit to congress a program every 5 years and an updated assessment every 10. Its used in conjunction with NFMA.

The trouble with the RPA and NFMA is that the Agriculture Secretary has a lot of discretion and Congress has largely stayed out of it (perhaps congress staying out of it is better, depending on who you ask). Surely congress can put significant pressure on the Secretary in regard to Forest Planning, in particular if the RPA program or assessments shows the need for a revised Forest Plan.

But, I don't believe that I've ever read an actual time requirement for forest plan revisions. Like pointer said, the plan revisions can take many years and a large part of that is due to the amount of public involvement. Again, that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on who you ask and what ax they're trying to grind.

But, the important thing, is that under NFMA-RPA there is significant public involvement, and there is the ability to object and also litigate plan revisions. There are several ways to object or litigate to an action/rule in a revision: 1. the rules were not authorized by the statute. 2. rule was arbitrary and without merit. 3. abuse of the discretion of statute. 4. proper procedures were not followed in developing the rule (like not following public involvement practices required by the act).

I think there has been enough litigation that the Agencies are pretty well in compliance with regard to public involvement and one of the reason the revisions happen very slowly.

I also feel that putting off RMP or FP revisions is pretty irresponsible since priorities and management directions change quite regularly in regard to public lands. Its irresponsible to be managing under an outdated forest plan, IMO.

1_pointer said:

Land use plans do have an "expected life span". However, the process of getting one through the process is now taking as long or longer than the life span...

Click to expand...

Let's be fair. Many of the plans never got updated from the 60's or 70's...

RMPs have an expected life expectancy of 20yrs. However, an office cannot start a revision without the thumbs up and funding from DC. That does not often concur to the 20yr plan. Where I used to work, the "new" plans were finalized in 1986. Still in use today...

I do not know the status, but when I left UT there were RMPs there that had been in progress for a decade...

JoseCuervo said:

Let's be fair. Many of the plans never got updated from the 60's or 70's...

Click to expand...

Never said they weren't. You don't have to internet bully me...

1_pointer said:

RMPs have an expected life expectancy of 20yrs. However, an office cannot start a revision without the thumbs up and funding from DC. That does not often concur to the 20yr plan. Where I used to work, the "new" plans were finalized in 1986. Still in use today...

I do not know the status, but when I left UT there were RMPs there that had been in progress for a decade...

Click to expand...

So in the case of monument designation, is Congress forced to fund the process of developing a management plan? Am I correct in assuming that monument designation is sought because it creates a mandate to reassess management with resource protection as the #1 priority?

I'd say yes to the first question. It'll be mostly as was before until that new plan is completed.

The second is one that cannot, IMO, be answered without a healthy dose of personal bias...

1_pointer said:

I'd say yes to the first question. It'll be mostly as was before until that new plan is completed.

The second is one that cannot, IMO, be answered without a healthy dose of personal bias...

Click to expand...

I'm all ears to hear the answer, bias included. You can PM me if you wish.

1_pointer said:

Land use plans do have an "expected life span". However, the process of getting one through the process is now taking as long or longer than the life span...

Click to expand...

Why is the process taking so long?

JLS said:

I'm all ears to hear the answer, bias included. You can PM me if you wish.

Click to expand...

My take is that the majority of National Monuments are created more for political reasons, which can vary greatly, than for true resource protection or management. At least that's my rationale for some being made in the 11th hour of an administration vs. earlier when the President could have his appointees helping guide the plans.

1_pointer said:

My take is that the majority of National Monuments are created more for political reasons, which can vary greatly, than for true resource protection or management. At least that's my rationale for some being made in the 11th hour of an administration vs. earlier when the President could have his appointees helping guide the plans.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see your point there. In your opinion, since the Clinton Administration, have monuments been an overall positive or negative for hunters and anglers? Based upon what I've been reading, it seems that many of the most recent monuments are quite favorable to these uses.

JLS said:

Why is the process taking so long?

Click to expand...

It's the system at work. More folks are interested and involved in certain aspects of public lands management. Comments have to be addressed. Protests have to be addressed. Appeals happen. If these go to court that proceeding can take a long time for a decision to be reached, then there are multiple level of appeals to higher/other authorities. The result can often be that the process be restarted to an extent. The next RMP is longer and more detailed to help stem that, which provides more opportunity for comment, protest, and appeal.

I found this opinion piece today that has me wondering. I'm well aware of the opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed NM from the AZ DGF, which seems to be somewhat of any anomaly compared to other proposals recently. This appears to shed some light on the issue (though I have to question the stark contrast in regardsome to no requests and several requests) and I've heard this before regarding guzzlers.

In CA there has been some anecdotal evidence towards this too in areas designated for special conservation status that guzzlers could no longer be maintained.

Is this an issue (no maintenance of water sources) unique to desert areas designated for special conservation status? Is this a result of special interests? In all the proclamations I've seen wildlife management has been left to the state, but this particular issue seems to limit it. Does anyone have any additional insight on this?

http://m.azdailysun.com/news/opinio...cle_b91f07bf-4735-50ea-a434-9e6f7acb58e9.html

I saw this article last week. Odd, I'm not sure what to make of it