Code of Federal Regulations (Last Updated: November 8, 2024) |
Title 43 - Public Lands: Interior |
Subtitle B—Regulations Relating to Public Lands |
Chapter II—Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior |
SubChapter F—Preservation and Conservation (6000) |
Part 6100 - Ecosystem Resilience |
Subpart 6102 - Conservation Use To Achieve Ecosystem Resilience |
§ 6102.5 - Management Actions for Ecosystem Resilience.
-
§ 6102.5 Management Actions for Ecosystem Resilience.
(a) Authorized officers must:
(1) Identify priority watersheds, landscapes, and ecosystems that require protection and restoration efforts (see §§ 6102.2 and 6102.3.1);
(2) Develop and implement plans and strategies, including protection, restoration, and mitigation strategies that effectively manage public lands to protect and promote resilient ecosystems (see §§ 6102.1, 6102.3.1, 6102.5.1, 6103.1.2);
(3) Develop and implement monitoring and adaptive management strategies for maintaining sustained yield of renewable resources, accounting for changing landscapes, fragmentation, invasive species, and other disturbances (see § 6103.2);
(4) Report annually on the results of land health evaluations, and determinations (see § 6103.1.2);
(5) Ensure that watershed condition assessments incorporate consistent analytical approaches (see § 6103.2) both among neighboring BLM State Offices and with the fundamentals of land health; and
(6) Share watershed condition assessments in a publicly available national database to determine changes in watershed condition and record measures of success based on conservation and restoration goals.
(b) In taking management actions, and as consistent with applicable law and resource management plans, such as where an area is managed for recreation or is degraded land prioritized for development, authorized officers must:
(1) Make every effort to avoid authorizing uses of the public lands that permanently impair ecosystem resilience;
(2) Promote opportunities to support conservation and other actions that work toward achieving land health standards and ecosystem resilience;
(3) Issue decisions that promote the ability of ecosystems to passively recover or the BLM's ability to actively restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function;
(4) Meaningfully consult with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations during the decision-making process on actions that are determined, after allowing for Tribal input, to potentially have a substantial effect on the Tribe or Corporation;
(5) Allow State, Tribal, and local agencies to serve as joint lead agencies consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7(b) or as cooperating agencies consistent with 40 CFR 1501.8(a) in the development of environmental impact statements or environmental assessments;
(6) Respect Indigenous Knowledge, by:
(i) Improving engagement and expanding co-stewardship of public lands with Tribal entities;
(ii) Encouraging Tribes to suggest ways in which Indigenous Knowledge can be used to inform the development of alternatives, analysis of effects, and when necessary, identification of mitigation measures; and
(iii) Communicating to Tribes in a timely manner and in an appropriate format how their Indigenous Knowledge was included in decision-making, including addressing management of sensitive information;
(7) Seek opportunities to restore or protect ecosystem resilience when the effects of potential uses are unknown; and
(8) Provide justification for decisions that may impair ecosystem resilience.
(c) Authorized officers must use high-quality inventory, assessment, and monitoring data, as available and appropriate, to evaluate resource conditions and inform decision-making across program areas (see § 6103.2(c)), specifically by:
(1) Identifying clear goals or desired outcomes relevant to the management decision;
(2) Gathering high-quality information relevant to the management decision, including standardized quantitative monitoring data and data about land health;
(3) Selecting relevant indicators for each applicable management question (e.g., land health standards, restoration effectiveness, assessments of intactness);
(4) Establishing a framework for translating indicator values to condition categories (such as quantitative monitoring objectives or science-based conceptual models); and
(5) Summarizing results and ensuring that a clear and understandable rationale is documented, explaining how the data were used to make the decision.