PLNR-21-3 Public Process and Participation in the Development and Implementation of Public Lands Resource Management Plans

WHEREAS over 70% of the Western Slope is public lands; and

WHEREAS Club 20 counties have actively participated, for many decades, in the development of the Western Slope Resource Management Plans required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPM), and continue to develop long-standing partnerships with scholars, professionals, scientists and other experts who possess knowledge specific to the landscapes of the Western slope; and

WHEREAS Pursuant to Federal Land Management Policy Act 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9) “The Secretary of Interior shall (9 coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located 

WHEREAS the National Forest Management Act states “the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain, and as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and management planning process of state and local governments and other Federal agencies (16 U.S.C. 1604 ((a)).

WHEREAS Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration are separate and distinct processes in proposed planning actions and land and resource management decisions.

WHEREAS Coordination involves state, local governments, and taxing districts to align policies across jurisdictions. Coordination harmonizes federal, state, and local plans for consistent policy application among governing bodies with planning and taxing authority and:

WHEREAS Cooperation allows Federal, State and local governments to contribute expertise, data, and studies to the analysis of specific planning actions when and Environmental Impact (EIS), required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being prepared and;

WHEREAS Collaboration gives the public and stakeholders a chance to contribute to planning. It helps agencies, state and local governments, stakeholders, and special interest groups come together to create shared goals, objectives, and suggested strategies, which are important considerations throughout the process of managing public lands.  

WHEREAS the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) both have the policy and procedural direction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide Cooperating Agency status in their planning processes for County and State Governments. These agencies have made excellent use of this tool to integrate County and State land use and resource plans in a substantive manner in the development of Resource Management Plans.

WHEREAS as many special interests weigh in, it is ever more important to utilize the data collected from local expertise and scientific professionals when considering the implementation of management plans which are developed for these public resources; and

WHEREAS while the management of public lands falls to the USFS and BLM these lands are pivotal economic drivers for the communities in which they are located. The economic interests may differ between counties, even those in the same region. Consideration for the local interests even when they differ politically with federal interests is imperative to maintain public and local government support; and

WHEREAS local and state governments are charged to provide fire protection, public education, public safety, road and bridge infrastructure, and health and human services across the public lands; yet, as a result of the immunity of federal lands from paying local and state taxes, they create a financial burden on state and local governments;

WHEREAS land exchanges, sales and disposals allow land management agencies to reposition or consolidate lands into more manageable units and to meet community expansion needs. Public land sales, exchanges, disposals, or other related actions should be conducted in coordination with local governments and taxing districts.

WHERAS local communities have the benefit of unique knowledge and insights of the environment, economy, and management history of the place they call home which many federal and state lawmakers do not have; and

WHEREAS many recent legislative efforts have shown little appreciation for the local knowledge and scientific expertise which have made our cooperative management plans sustainable; and

WHEREAS there has been a significant increase in proposed new laws – both state and federal that are in direct conflict with current management plans developed cooperatively with local input and in conjunction with the state and federal agency partners; and

WHEREAS the process for conducting public land management planning is a democratic process, with subsequent protections of said process to allow broad public input and requires all parties to follow the process, and is heavily regulated by state and federal law; and

WHEREAS many public and private organizations have spent considerable time and effort to reach management agreements on potentially contentious issues during the planning processes.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that CLUB 20 believes that:

·         Legally mandated Land Management Plans should guide the management of both national forests and BLM lands.  These processes have worked well for decades and ensure management plans for our public lands consider local, site specific input and science as well as all slices of the public; 

·   Coordination, Cooperation and Collaboration are separate and distinct processes, and Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statements must clearly detail the methods and processes used for coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. This explicit reporting ensures that the procedures followed are transparent and allows for clear documentation of how consistency with local, state, and federal plans and policies was achieved.

·         Public land management efforts should be open, transparent, and comprehensive processes;

·         Both FLPMA and NFMA provides guidance for County led Coordination Plans which are an important tool in adoption and revisions of Resource Management Plans;

·         GLPMS obligates the federal government to coordinate the development of resource management plans with local governments with the intent of being consistent with local government planning;

·         New public land designations, such as Wilderness or 30 X 30 efforts, are best developed using Resource Management Plans and similar public planning processes that allow affected local governments and all stakeholders and the public to directly participate in their development and implementation in a meaningful way;

·         Special interest group driven planning processes should not bypass NFMA and FLPMA.  Elected and appointed officials at the local, state and federal levels should defer to the legally mandated Federal processes as they ensure local public input into and the management plans which are developed to address unique needs of the community;

·          All interests must find ways to work together for the benefit of the common good of public lands and all the multiple uses dependent on them. We also recognize that the management of those areas disproportionately impacts the surrounding communities which rely on the access to those adjacent public lands to stimulate their economies and serve sustainable recreational needs;

·         Input from local communities as it concerns these management plans should be given special consideration to adequately address their unique needs as they relate to the management of adjacent public lands.

(Formerly 07-9-PL-2 and PLNR-07-2)

Adopted 9/10/2021

Amended 4/17/26

For Resolution in PDF Format