File No. 34329
This rule was published in the January 15, 2011, issue (Vol. 2011, No. 2) of the Utah State Bulletin.
School and Institutional Trust Lands, Administration
Trust Land Management Planning
Notice of Expedited Rule
DAR File No.: 34329
Filed: 12/22/2010 01:53:04 PM
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The existing planning rule does not address coordination with federal land use planning. The proposed rule amendments would permit the agency to utilize the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) coordination and consistency obligations to the maximum extent feasible to ensure that the interests of the Utah school trust and its beneficiaries are adequately protected in the federal planning process. In accordance with the statutory procedure for expedited rulemaking, the director makes the following findings with respect to the proposed rule amendments: 1) Changes in Business Opportunities: federal land management agencies have an obligation to "coordinate" their plans with existing state and local plans during federal planning processes. The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) has never developed or submitted trust asset plans during federal planning processes. During the recent Piute County land planning effort, it became apparent that the BLM was not motivated to cooperate in addressing land tenure issues. It was also evident during the Resource Management Planning (RMP) efforts conducted by the BLM for the Vernal, Price, and Moab Districts, that land tenure adjustment issues were low priority considerations. The consequence of this lack of priority is the capture of significant trust resources within federal enclaves with no adequate RMP provision for repositioning trust assets to areas where revenue could be derived in fulfillment of SITLA's constitutional and statutory mandate. BLM has recently announced that it is starting the process to develop a RMP for the Cedar City Field Office (Iron and Beaver Counties). Scoping comments for this RMP are due on 12/27/2010. SITLA needs to expeditiously develop a plan indicating trust lands that can be acquired by the United States, and what federal lands should be made available for acquisition as the plan is developed. In addition, the federal plan needs to coordinate with SITLA's expectations of access to lands retained in trust ownership. In addition, the BLM has announced in the last two weeks that, in settlement discussions with environmental groups concerning RMPs in the eastern portion of the state, it is considering amending existing RMPs through Master Leasing Plan (MLP) and Travel Management Plan (TMP) processes, which may remove additional lands from availability for mineral development and/or limit access to trust lands. SITLA needs a formal mechanism for participation in the projected RMP amendment process to ensure that the interests of the trust are protected; 2) Potential Loss of Opportunities: SITLA's internal legal analysis indicates that the coordination and consistency requirements contained in BLM's statutory and regulatory provisions for land use planning provide a means for guiding BLM's planning efforts toward SITLA's planning objectives, particularly in the area of road access and land tenure adjustment. These regulatory requirements will provide an additional layer of involvement and guidance in addition to the State of Utah's role as a likely "cooperating entity" in the planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the RMPs and RMP amendments. In addition, development of SITLA plans would, to the extent that BLM's ultimate decisions are not protective of trust interests, provide an additional basis for protest/appeals of BLM's final planning decisions; 3) Need for Expedited Process: the "normal procedures" established under Section 63G-3-301 would not allow for the promulgation of a rule in time to affect the planning process. BLM's RMP process for the Cedar City Field Office area is in process now, and BLM has indicated that the litigation settlement that would initiate the MLP process for the Vernal RMP area is imminent; 4) Board Approval: the expedited rule amendment was approved by five board members, as required by rule; and 5) Rule Filing: a copy of the expedited rule amendment and the rule analysis, stating the specific reasons and justifications for its findings are hereby filed with the Division of Administrative Rules and interested parties have been notified as provided in Subsection 63G-3-301(10).
Summary of the rule or change:
Section R850-100-100 has been modified to remove "the public" and insert "interested parties" to reflect statute. Public notification and participation is through the RDCC process. Section R850-100-150 has been modified to reference other rules that allow specific agency actions to proceed notwithstanding the absence of a specific authorizing plan. This section is meant to confirm and ensure that a claim cannot be made that a plan is necessary before an individual agency action may proceed. Modifications to Section R850-100-175 enhance the agency's ability to use the coordination and consistency requirements of the federal land planning process to ensure agency goals are met with respect to the use of trust lands in particular areas, to protect access to trust lands, and to provide pre-planning for the disposition of trust lands where incompatible with federal management and acquisition of replacement lands. The modifications to Sections R850-100-300 and R850-100-400 clarify when planning may be undertaken in joint planning and that public review and comment on agency plans through the public RDCC process. The addition of Section R850-100-500 allows the agency to create land management, tenure adjustment, and access plans for particular areas, as determined by the director. Plans may designate areas where particular uses will be permitted or denied; identify trust lands for disposal to the United States or other entities as well as identify lands for acquisition from such entities; and, identify access routes necessary for the economic use of existing or acquired trust lands. These plans will require board approval after input from interested parties and review by RDCC (encompassing public comment).
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Subsection 53C-2-201(3)
- Subsection 53C-1-302(1)(a)(ii)
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
There is a potential savings to the state budget as the intent of these amendments will protect and safeguard the trust assets for future use against their being rendered unusable as a result of federal planning processes.
It is not anticipated that there will be any additional cost or savings to local government as a result of the amendments to this rule as they affect only the planning process for the trust lands and their use.
It is not anticipated that there will be any additional cost or savings to small businesses as a result of the amendments to this rule because they affect only the planning process for the trust lands and their use.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
It is not anticipated that there will be any additional cost or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities as a result of the amendments to this rule because they affect only the planning process for the trust lands and their use.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
The only anticipated compliance costs for affected persons would be in the event that person or entity was required to allow or provide for actions or use of the trust land as stipulated in a specific plan.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
As this rule is focused on developing plans regarding federal/trust asset management, there is no anticipated impact on individuals or small business.
Kevin S. Carter, Director
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:School and Institutional Trust Lands
675 E 500 S
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2818
Direct questions regarding this rule to:
- Kevin Carter at the above address, by phone at 801-538-5101, by FAX at 801-538-5118, or by Internet E-mail at email@example.com
This rule is effective on:
Kevin Carter, Director
R850. School and Institutional Trust Lands, Administration.
R850-100. Trust Land Management Planning.
This rule implements Sections 6, 8, 10,
and 12 of the Utah Enabling Act, Articles X and XX of the Utah
Constitution, and [
Sections] 53C-1-302(1)(a)(ii) and 53C-2-201(3) which
require that planning procedures be developed for trust lands, and
for the opportunity for [ the public] to participate in the planning
R850-100-200. Simultaneous Use of Trust Land Assets.
The agency shall encourage the simultaneous use of compatible, revenue generating activities on trust lands.
R850-100-300. Joint Planning.
The agency may participate in joint planning with other land management agencies when the director determines that the commitment of agency resources is justified .
R850-100-400. Assessments of Natural and Cultural Resources.
1. The Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC) process provides a natural resource assessment for purposes of trust land management. No other natural resource analysis is required beyond consultation with the RDCC. The public may comment on proposed trust land uses through the RDCC process.
2. Cultural resource analysis on specific actions shall be conducted pursuant to R850-60.
KEY: management, natural resource assessment, land use
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
July 16, 2002]
Notice of Continuation: August 15, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 53C-1-302(1)(a)(ii); 53C-2-201(3)
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2011/b20110115.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g., [
example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., ). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Kevin Carter at the above address, by phone at 801-538-5101, by FAX at 801-538-5118, or by Internet E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.