FLPMA requires BLM to coordinate and resolve conflicts with public land management. 43 U.S.C. §§1712(a), (c)(9); 1739(e). The NAW threatens Mohave County's concrete interests in implementing its General Plan by directly cutting off significant severance tax revenues.

Plaintiffs are wrong, however, in asserting that provisions of state and local plans must be adopted as long as they are consistent with FLPMA. FLPMA requires that BLM resolve inconsistencies with state and local plans “to the maximum extent,” that the Secretary finds that those plans are consistent with “Federal law and the purposes of [FLPMA],” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9), and BLM’s regulations interpreting this provision require consistency only so far as state and local plans are also consistent with the “purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws.” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2(a)-(b) (emphasis added).

Case 2:10-cv-00970-DB-BCW Document 182 Filed 01/17/14 Page 60 of 64 48 deferral of certain parcels pending additional evaluation does not, as a matter of law, equate to a revision of the relevant RMP. Moreover, Plaintiffs ignore that under the MLP Policy and Manuals 6310 and 6320, any proposed changes to existing land use plans will be carried out in accordance with both FLPMA, including compliance with 43 U.S.C. §§ 1712(c)(9) and 1712(f), and NEPA, which requires public involvement. Def. Exs. 2, 3, 5, and 6. D. Utah’s Eighth Cause of Action Fails to State a Claim.

Thus, not only is BLM’s consideration of a ‘no further leasing’ alternative reasonable, but arguably consideration of such an alternative is required pursuant to BLM’s multiple use mandate under FLPMA.10 “Multiple use requires management of the public lands and 10 BLM is duty bound to develop and revise land use plans according to its congressional mandate at 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8), so as to “observe the principles of multiple use.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1). “Multiple use” means “a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, Case 1:16-cv-00376-MCA-WPL Document 22 Filed 11/18/16 Page 51 of 60 42 their numerous natural resources so that they can be used for economic, recreational, and scientific purposes without the infliction of permanent damage.”

4 State officials may furnish the Secretary advice regarding the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, rules, and regulations for the public lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9). Case 3:15-cv-00491-MMD-VPC Document 4 Filed 09/28/15 Page 7 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 50 W. LIBERTY ST., STE. 950 RENO, NEVADA 89501 (775) 229-4219 8   BLM failed to cooperate or coordinate with the State and local governments and to analyze whether the State and local plans, policies, and proposals will benefit and conserve GRSG.

Land use plans require BLM to follow principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c). Land use plans developed or in development before 1979 were called “Management Framework Plans” (“MFP”).

FLPMA directs BLM to develop land use plans, such as RMPs, providing for the use of public lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). An RMP “describes, for a particular area, allowable uses, goals for future condition of the land, and specific next steps.”

Rig or equipment availability, particularly offshore;  Oil and natural gas prices;  High capital costs and available capital;  Skilled labor shortages;  Leases in the development cycle (e.g., conducting environmental reviews, permitting, or exploring) but not producing; 23 Bureau of Land Management, “Average Application for Permit to Drill (APD) Approval Timeframes: FY2005- FY2015,” http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/statistics/apd_chart.html. 24 Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Resource Management Plans or Land Use Plans (43 U.S.C. 1712) are required for tracts or areas of public lands prior to development. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must consider environmental impacts during land-use planning when RMPs are developed and implemented.

4 Gregory Yount’s declaration is attached to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit 4. Case 3:11-cv-08171-DGC Document 167 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law 4 In passing FLPMA, Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior to “manage the public lands under principles of multiple use, in accordance with the land use plans developed . . . under [43 U.S.C. § 1712] . . . . ” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (emphasis added); 43 U.S.C. § 1701(7) (it is the policy of Congress that the public lands be managed “on the basis of multiple use”). Although “multiple use” is not a precise concept one thing is sure: Congress did not intend for the Secretary to make a land management decision until all the facts had been considered.

8 That Congress believed vetoes were key to accomplish the purposes of FLPMA is evident from Congress’ use of similar vetoes in other contexts. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e)(2) (reserving veto authority if the Secretary excludes a “principal or major use,” such as mining (43 U.S.C. § 1702(l)), from more than 100,000 acres); 43 U.S.C. § 1713(c) (reserving veto authority over sales of land in excess of 2,500 acres); 43 U.S.C. § 1714(l)(2) (reserving veto authority over the termination of existing withdrawals). Case 3:11-cv-08171-DGC Document 124 Filed 03/01/13 Page 18 of 40 NWMA’s Opposition to Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. FLPMA’s Severability Clause Is Not A Panacea.