The BLM conducted a public scoping process to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in this RMP and EIS. Scoping is a public involvement process to identify issues to address during the planning process. As part of this public involvement process, the BLM solicited comments and issues (including during six public scoping meetings [see Chapter 5]) from the public, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state, and local agencies, as well as from BLM specialists. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005b) defines planning issues as “…disputes or controversies about existing and potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related management practices.” Issues identified during scoping for this RMP and EIS comprise two categories:
Issues within the scope of the EIS and used to develop alternatives or otherwise addressed in the EIS.
Issues outside the scope of the EIS or that could require policy, regulatory, or administrative actions.
The BLM used issues determined to be within the scope of the EIS to develop one or more of the alternatives or addressed those issues in other parts of the EIS. For example, as it refined planning issues, the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to develop a reasonable range of alternatives designed to address or resolve key planning issues, such as which areas should be open to energy and mineral resource development. A reasonable range of alternatives provides various management approaches for the BLM and cooperating agencies to address this and other key planning issues, including management of resources and resource uses in the Planning Area. In other words, key planning issues serve as the rationale for alternatives development. The key planning issues the BLM used to develop the alternatives analyzed in this RMP and EIS follow.
Key Planning Issues
| Climate Change | How can the BLM incorporate climate change adaptation and/or responses into its land management practices? |
| Watershed and Air Quality Management | How can the BLM manage the use of public lands while protecting watershed and air quality? |
| Energy and Minerals Management | Which areas should be open to mineral and energy development, and how should the BLM manage such development while protecting human health and natural and cultural resources? |
| Fire and Fuels Management | How can the BLM manage fire and fuels to protect public safety and natural and cultural resources? |
| Invasive and/or Noxious Species | How can the BLM manage the spread of and mitigate impacts associated with invasive species and/or noxious weeds? |
| Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species | How can the BLM manage public land use while maintaining and improving terrestrial and aquatic habitats? |
| Wild Horses | How can the BLM manage wild horses on public lands while also protecting natural and cultural resources? |
| Cultural and Paleontological Resources | How can the BLM manage paleontological, cultural, and traditional resources to provide both resource protection and opportunities for public education and study? |
| Visual Resources | How can the BLM manage public lands for visual qualities? |
| Lands and Realty | What land tenure and management adjustments are needed to meet access and development needs while also protecting natural and cultural resources? |
| Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, and OHVs | How can the BLM manage travel on public lands? |
| Lands with Wilderness Characteristics | Should the BLM manage to protect wilderness characteristics by designating Wild Lands? If so, where and how? |
| Recreation and Visitor Use | How can the BLM provide recreational opportunities on public lands while protecting public safety, and natural and cultural resources? |
| Livestock Grazing | How can the BLM manage livestock use on public lands while also protecting natural and cultural resources? |
| Special Designation Managemen t | How can the BLM manage areas that contain unique or sensitive resources? |
| Socioeconomic Resources | How can the BLM manage public land use with the preservation of local tradition and local economies that rely upon BLM-administered land? |
In addition to key planning issues, the BLM identified other issues, themes, and positions during the scoping process. The BLM did not use issues determined to be outside the scope of the EIS or that could require policy, regulatory, or administrative actions to address, to develop alternatives and did not carry such issues forward in this EIS.
The list below summarizes suggestions from the public that the BLM considered but did not carry forward for detailed study in the EIS because they were outside the scope of the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project, already required by law or policy, or would require the BLM to exceed its authority.
Analyze impacts from specific actions or activities that will occur or be addressed during subsequent RMP implementation decisions. See Appendix D for the basic elements of implementing the RMP.
Adopt or otherwise ensure the revised RMPs are compatible with specific regulations, policies, mandates, guidance, or plans, or integrate one or more of these items into the planning process.
Change the BLM’s planning or public involvement processes.
Address issues that are outside of the agency’s jurisdiction or manage resources outside of the Planning Area.
Conduct site-specific analyses, inventories, or surveys.
Vague comments in which the issue or concern was not clear.
For a description of the issues identified during scoping, see the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project Scoping Report (BLM 2009h). The scoping report describes the public involvement process and the issues the public identified. The report, which is incorporated here by reference, is available on the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn/docs.html.