63J-4-401 - Planning duties of the planning coordinator and office. - Utah Statutes

63J-4-401. Planning duties of the planning coordinator and office.
(1) The state planning coordinator shall:
(a) act as the governor's adviser on state, regional, metropolitan, and local governmentalplanning matters relating to public improvements and land use;
(b) counsel with the authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, theState Building Board, the Department of Health, the Department of Workforce Services, theLabor Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the School and Institutional TrustLands Administration, and other proper persons concerning all state planning matters;
(c) when designated to do so by the governor, receive funds made available to Utah bythe federal government;
(d) receive and review plans of the various state agencies and political subdivisionsrelating to public improvements and programs;
(e) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of state agencies, preparespecific recommendations for the resolution of the conflicts and submit the recommendations tothe governor for a decision resolving the conflict;
(f) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of a state agency and a politicalsubdivision or between two or more political subdivisions, advise these entities of the conflictand make specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflict;
(g) act as the governor's planning agent in planning public improvements and land useand, in this capacity, undertake special studies and investigations;
(h) provide information and cooperate with the Legislature or any of its committees inconducting planning studies;
(i) cooperate and exchange information with federal agencies and local, metropolitan, orregional agencies as necessary to assist with federal, state, regional, metropolitan, and localprograms;
(j) make recommendations to the governor that the planning coordinator considersadvisable for the proper development and coordination of plans for state government andpolitical subdivisions; and
(k) oversee and supervise the activities and duties of the public lands policy coordinator.
(2) The state planning coordinator may:
(a) perform regional and state planning and assist state government planning agencies inperforming state planning;
(b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indianreservations; and
(c) assist city, county, metropolitan, and regional planning agencies in performing local,metropolitan, and regional planning, provided that the state planning coordinator and the stateplanning coordinator's agents and designees recognize and promote the plans, policies, programs,processes, and desired outcomes of each planning agency whenever possible.
(3) When preparing or assisting in the preparation of plans, policies, programs, orprocesses related to the management or use of federal lands or natural resources on federal landsin Utah, the state planning coordinator shall:
(a) incorporate the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of thecounties where the federal lands or natural resources are located, to the maximum extentconsistent with state and federal law, provided that this requirement shall not be interpreted toinfringe upon the authority of the governor;

---

(b) identify inconsistencies or conflicts between the plans, policies, programs, processes,and desired outcomes prepared under Subsection (3)(a) and the plans, programs, processes, anddesired outcomes of local government as early in the preparation process as possible, and seekresolution of the inconsistencies through meetings or other conflict resolution mechanismsinvolving the necessary and immediate parties to the inconsistency or conflict;
(c) present to the governor the nature and scope of any inconsistency or other conflictthat is not resolved under the procedures in Subsection (3)(b) for the governor's decision aboutthe position of the state concerning the inconsistency or conflict;
(d) develop, research, and use factual information, legal analysis, and statements ofdesired future condition for the state, or subregion of the state, as necessary to support the plans,policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the state and the counties where thefederal lands or natural resources are located;
(e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and federal land managementagencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatoryagencies to facilitate state and local participation in the development, revision, andimplementation of land use plans, guidelines, regulations, other instructional memoranda, orsimilar documents proposed or promulgated for lands and natural resources administered byfederal agencies; and
(f) work in conjunction with political subdivisions to establish agreements with federalland management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal naturalresource regulatory agencies to provide a process for state and local participation in thepreparation of, or coordinated state and local response to, environmental impact analysisdocuments and similar documents prepared pursuant to law by state or federal agencies.
(4) The state planning coordinator shall comply with the requirements of Subsection63C-4-102(8) before submitting any comments on a draft environmental impact statement or onan environmental assessment for a proposed land management plan, if the governor would besubject to Subsection 63C-4-102(8) if the governor were submitting the material.
(5) The state planning coordinator shall cooperate with and work in conjunction withappropriate state agencies and political subdivisions to develop policies, plans, programs,processes, and desired outcomes authorized by this section by coordinating the development ofpositions:
(a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee;
(b) in conjunction with local government officials concerning general local governmentplans;
(c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development CoordinatingCommittee; and
(d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.
(6) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following principleswhen preparing any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to federallands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section:
(a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use andsustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and
(ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies shoulddevelop and implement management plans and make other resource-use decisions that:
(A) achieve and maintain in perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of

mineral and various renewable resources from public lands;
(B) support valid existing transportation, mineral, and grazing privileges at the highestreasonably sustainable levels;
(C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies andlocal governments;
(D) are designed to produce and provide the desired vegetation for the watersheds,timber, food, fiber, livestock forage, and wildlife forage, and minerals that are necessary to meetpresent needs and future economic growth and community expansion without permanentimpairment of the productivity of the land;
(E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportationneeds of the citizens of the state by providing access throughout the state;
(F) meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the state;
(G) meet the needs of wildlife;
(H) provide for the preservation of cultural resources, both historical and archaeological;
(I) meet the needs of economic development;
(J) meet the needs of community development; and
(K) provide for the protection of water rights;
(b) managing public lands for "wilderness characteristics" circumvents the statutorywilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield managementstandard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands that arenot wilderness areas or wilderness study areas;
(c) all waters of the state are:
(i) owned exclusively by the state in trust for its citizens;
(ii) are subject to appropriation for beneficial use; and
(iii) are essential to the future prosperity of the state and the quality of life within thestate;
(d) the state has the right to develop and use its entitlement to interstate rivers;
(e) all water rights desired by the federal government must be obtained through the statewater appropriation system;
(f) land management and resource-use decisions which affect federal lands should givepriority to and support the purposes of the compact between the state and the United Statesrelated to school and institutional trust lands;
(g) development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state is animportant part of the economy of the state, and of local regions within the state;
(h) the state should foster and support industries that take advantage of the state'soutstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economicopportunities for the state's citizens;
(j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure the healthof the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife resources to provide for a continuous supply ofresources for the people of the state and the people of the local communities who depend onthese resources for a sustainable economy;
(k) forests, rangelands, timber, and other vegetative resources:
(i) provide forage for livestock;
(ii) provide forage and habitat for wildlife;

---

(iii) provide resources for the state's timber and logging industries;
(iv) contribute to the state's economic stability and growth; and
(v) are important for a wide variety of recreational pursuits;
(l) management programs and initiatives that improve watersheds, forests, and increaseforage for the mutual benefit of wildlife species and livestock, logging, and other agriculturalindustries by utilizing proven techniques and tools are vital to the state's economy and the qualityof life in Utah; and
(m) (i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the amountof domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as wellas the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum number of animalunit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on anon-the-ground and scientific analysis;
(ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months infavor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses;
(iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored bycattlemen's, sportsmen's, and wildlife management groups such as chaining, logging, seeding,burning, and other direct soil and vegetation prescriptions that are demonstrated to restore forestand rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts andallotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife;
(B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment'sforage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federalland use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonableand fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted useshould be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee oflivestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for thatpurpose;
(C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals andpopulation census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused bydrought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlifepopulation goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of thelivestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under theterms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments;
(iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for supposedreasons of rangeland health;
(v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary andscientifically based upon rangeland conditions;
(vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plansmay not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category unlessthere is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment ordistrict in question will not sustain the animal unit months sought to be placed in suspended use;
(vii) any grazing animal unit months that are placed in a suspended use category shouldbe returned to active use when range conditions improve;
(viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management shouldrecognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses inestablished grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and expand

forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans andprograms in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and
(ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due torangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland conditions improve,and should not be converted to wildlife use.
(7) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings inthe preparation of any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating tofederal lands and natural resources on federal lands under this section:
(a) as a coholder of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way with the counties, the state supports itsrecognition by the federal government and the public use of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and urgesthe federal government to fully recognize the rights-of-way and their use by the public asexpeditiously as possible;
(b) it is the policy of the state to use reasonable administrative and legal measures toprotect and preserve valid existing rights-of-way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477, and tosupport and work in conjunction with counties to redress cases where R.S. 2477 rights-of-wayare not recognized or are impaired; and
(c) transportation and access routes to and across federal lands, including allrights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state's economy and to the quality of life inthe state, and must provide, at a minimum, a network of roads throughout the resource planningarea that provides for:
(i) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;
(ii) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout theresource planning area, including:
(A) livestock operations and improvements;
(B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations;
(C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorizedrecreation;
(D) search and rescue needs;
(E) public safety needs; and
(F) access for transportation of wood products to market;
(iii) access to federal lands for people with disabilities and the elderly; and
(iv) access to state lands and school and institutional trust lands to accomplish thepurposes of those lands.
(8) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings inthe preparation of any plans, policies, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating tofederal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section:
(a) the state's support for the addition of a river segment to the National Wild and ScenicRivers System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., will be withheld until:
(i) it is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times;
(ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is consideredoutstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the threephysiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the conclusionsare disclosed;
(iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent withthe plans and policies of the state and the county or counties where the river segment is located as

those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3);
(iv) the effects of the addition upon the local and state economies, agricultural andindustrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water resourceplanning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directionsfrom the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal agency;
(v) it is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for review ofpotential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies;
(vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison withprotections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-usemandate, and the results disclosed;
(vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority overthe river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild andScenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to imposemanagement standards outside of the federal land management plan;
(viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land andresource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild andScenic River System:
(A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely andfully for suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System;
(B) does not suspend or terminate any studies for inclusion in the National Wild andScenic River System at the eligibility phase;
(C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a resultof the adoption of the plan; and
(D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild andScenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals forprojects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment;
(ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the riversegment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose VisualResource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with theprovisions of Subsection (8)(t); and
(x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms andconditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River Systemwill not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with:
(A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and tothe rivers of the state as determined by the laws of the state; or
(B) local, state, regional, or interstate water compacts to which the state or any county isa party;
(b) the conclusions of all studies related to potential additions to the National Wild andScenic River System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., are submitted to the state for review and actionby the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included inany planning documents or other proposals for addition and are forwarded to the United StatesCongress;
(c) the state's support for designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern(ACEC), as defined in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702, within federal land management plans will bewithheld until:

---

(i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitionalrequirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(a);
(ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the area proposed for designation as an ACEC islimited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scopeto the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevantand important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions tothe minimum required to specifically protect human life or safety from natural hazards;
(iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area is limited only to areas that arealready developed or used or to areas where no development is required;
(iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and importanthistoric, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which areunique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards whichsignificantly threaten human life or safety;
(v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards forirreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistentwith the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the rationale for anyspecial management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values,resources, processes, or hazards;
(vi) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is consistent with the plansand policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as thoseplans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3);
(vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be appliedredundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands orresources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special managementattention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements needed inaddition to those specified by the other state and federal laws;
(viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC andnormal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination ofirreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short and long-term horizons;
(ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation:
(A) is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation;
(B) is not a substitute for managing areas inventoried for wilderness characteristics after1993 under the BLM interim management plan for valid wilderness study areas; and
(C) it is not an excuse or justification to apply de facto wilderness managementstandards; and
(x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, forreview, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning documents;
(d) sufficient federal lands are made available for government-to-government exchangesof school and institutional trust lands and federal lands without regard for a resource-to-resourcecorrespondence between the surface or mineral characteristics of the offered trust lands and theoffered federal lands;
(e) federal agencies should support government-to-government exchanges of land withthe state based on a fair process of valuation which meets the fiduciary obligations of both thestate and federal governments toward trust lands management, and which assures that revenueauthorized by federal statute to the state from mineral or timber production, present or future, is

not diminished in any manner during valuation, negotiation, or implementation processes;
(f) agricultural and grazing lands should continue to produce the food and fiber neededby the citizens of the state and the nation, and the rural character and open landscape of ruralUtah should be preserved through a healthy and active agricultural and grazing industry,consistent with private property rights and state fiduciary duties;
(g) the resources of the forests and rangelands of the state should be integrated as part ofviable, robust, and sustainable state and local economies, and available forage should beevaluated for the full complement of herbivores the rangelands can support in a sustainablemanner, and forests should contain a diversity of timber species, and disease or insectinfestations in forests should be controlled using logging or other best management practices;
(h) the state opposes any additional evaluation of national forest service lands as"roadless" or "unroaded" beyond the forest service's second roadless area review evaluation andopposes efforts by agencies to specially manage those areas in a way that:
(i) closes or declassifies existing roads unless multiple side by side roads exist running tothe same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the extraroads;
(ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads;
(iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing andproper forest harvesting;
(iv) interferes with the enjoyment and use of valid, existing rights, including water rights,local transportation plan rights, R.S. 2477 rights, grazing allotment rights, and mineral leasingrights; or
(v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue traditionalmultiple-use activities;
(i) the state's support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld until theappropriate plan revision or plan amendment clearly demonstrates that:
(i) established roads are not referred to as unclassified roads or a similar classification;
(ii) lands in the vicinity of established roads are managed under the multiple-use,sustained-yield management standard; and
(iii) no roadless or unroaded evaluations or inventories are recognized or upheld beyondthose that were recognized or upheld in the forest service's second roadless area reviewevaluation;
(j) the state's support for any recommendations made under the statutory requirement toexamine the wilderness option during the revision of land and resource management plans by theU.S. Forest Service will be withheld until it is clearly demonstrated that:
(i) the duly adopted transportation plans of the state and county or counties within theplanning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of informationfrom which plan provisions are derived;
(ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in anyway by the recommendations;
(iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by therecommendations;
(iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of thevarious multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest healthactivities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations;

---

(v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-usemanagement in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of multiple-usemanagement to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state and the counties tothe benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and
(vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wildernessoption are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and theresults, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or otherproposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress;
(k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into the stateshould be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented;
(l) management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatoryagencies concerning the vegetative resources within the state should reflect serious considerationof the proper optimization of the yield of water within the watersheds of the state;
(m) (i) it is the policy of the state that:
(A) mineral and energy production and environmental protection are not mutuallyexclusive;
(B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resourceswhile preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources;
(C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral andenergy resources;
(D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state andthe renewable resources of the state should be encouraged;
(E) the waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be prohibited;and
(F) requirements to mitigate or reclaim mineral development projects should be based oncredible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources;
(ii) the state's support for mineral development provisions within federal landmanagement plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan environmentalimpact statement clearly demonstrates:
(A) that the authorized planning agency has:
(I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planningarea as if the areas were open to mineral development under standard lease agreements; and
(II) evaluated any management plan prescription for its impact on the area's baselinemineral and energy potential;
(B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands forenergy exploration and development;
(C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas tomineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancyrestrictions by adhering to:
(I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.;
(II) other controlling mineral development laws; and
(III) the controlling withdrawal and reporting procedures set forth in the Federal LandPolicy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.;
(D) that the authorized planning agency evaluated whether to repeal any moratorium that

may exist on the issuance of additional mining patents and oil and gas leases;
(E) that the authorized planning agency analyzed all proposed mineral lease stipulationsand considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to othersignificant resource values;
(F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determinewhether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are nolonger necessary or effective;
(G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surfaceoccupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated:
(I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary foreach proposed no surface occupancy area;
(II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other managementprescriptions, demonstrates that the proposed no surface occupancy prescription, in effect,sterilizes the mineral and energy resources beneath the area; and
(III) whether, if the minerals are effectively sterilized, the area must be reported aswithdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and
(H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drillingrequirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasiblefrom an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint;
(n) motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated intoa fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural framework ofmultiple-uses in rural Utah, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced planof state and local economic support and growth;
(o) off-highway vehicles should be used responsibly, the management of off-highwayvehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions, and laws related to the use of off-highwayvehicles should be uniformly applied across all jurisdictions;
(p) (i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should bepreserved and acknowledged;
(ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with bothstate and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to provide anetwork of roads throughout the planning area that provides for:
(A) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;
(B) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout theplanning area, including access to livestock, water, and minerals;
(C) economic and business needs;
(D) public safety;
(E) search and rescue;
(F) access for people with disabilities and the elderly;
(G) access to state lands; and
(H) recreational opportunities;
(q) transportation and access provisions for all other existing routes, roads, and trailsacross federal, state, and school trust lands within the state should be determined and identified,and agreements should be executed and implemented, as necessary to fully authorize anddetermine responsibility for maintenance of all routes, roads, and trails;
(r) the reasonable development of new routes and trails for motorized, human, and

animal-powered recreation should be implemented;
(s) (i) forests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary andbeneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses;
(ii) management programs and initiatives that are implemented to increase forage for themutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife species shouldutilize all proven techniques and tools;
(iii) the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should besupported on the federal lands within the state by management of the lands and forage resources,by the proper optimization of animal unit months for livestock, in accordance with themultiple-use provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., and theprovisions of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.;
(iv) provisions for predator control initiatives or programs under the direction of stateand local authorities should be implemented; and
(v) resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and regulatoryagencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlifepopulations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those populations;and
(t) management and resource use decisions by federal land management and regulatoryagencies concerning the scenic resources of the state must balance the protection of scenery withthe full management requirements of the other authorized uses of the land under multiple-usemanagement, and should carefully consider using Visual Resource Management Class Iprotection only for areas of inventoried Class A scenery or equivalent.
(9) Nothing contained in this section may be construed to restrict or supersede theplanning powers conferred upon state departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or advisorycouncils of the state or the planning powers conferred upon political subdivisions by any otherexisting law.
(10) Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any lands withdrawn from thepublic domain for military purposes, which are administered by the United States Army, AirForce, or Navy.

Amended by Chapter 121, 2009 General Session