(1) The state planning coordinator shall: (a) act as the governor's adviser on state, regional, metropolitan, and local governmental planning matters relating to public improvements and land use; (b) counsel with the authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, the State Building Board, the Department of Health, the Department of Workforce Services, the Labor Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the School and Institutional Trust Lands 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 by the federal government; (d) receive and review plans of the various state agencies and political subdivisions relating to public improvements and programs; (e) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of state agencies, prepare specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflicts and submit the recommendations to the governor for a decision resolving the conflict; (f) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of a state agency and a political subdivision or between two or more political subdivisions, advise these entities of the conflict and make specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflict; (g) act as the governor's planning agent in planning public improvements and land use and, in this capacity, undertake special studies and investigations; (h) provide information and cooperate with the Legislature or any of its committees in conducting planning studies; (i) cooperate and exchange information with federal agencies and local, metropolitan, or regional agencies as necessary to assist with federal, state, regional, metropolitan, and local programs; (j) make recommendations to the governor that the planning coordinator considers advisable for the proper development and coordination of plans for state government and political subdivisions; and (k) oversee and supervise the activities and duties of the public lands policy coordinator.

(a) act as the governor's adviser on state, regional, metropolitan, and local governmental planning matters relating to public improvements and land use;

(b) counsel with the authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, the State Building Board, the Department of Health, the Department of Workforce Services, the Labor Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the School and Institutional Trust Lands 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 by the federal government;

(d) receive and review plans of the various state agencies and political subdivisions relating to public improvements and programs;

(e) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of state agencies, prepare specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflicts and submit the recommendations to the governor for a decision resolving the conflict;

(f) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of a state agency and a political subdivision or between two or more political subdivisions, advise these entities of the conflict and make specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflict;

(g) act as the governor's planning agent in planning public improvements and land use and, in this capacity, undertake special studies and investigations;

(h) provide information and cooperate with the Legislature or any of its committees in conducting planning studies;

(i) cooperate and exchange information with federal agencies and local, metropolitan, or regional agencies as necessary to assist with federal, state, regional, metropolitan, and local programs;

(j) make recommendations to the governor that the planning coordinator considers advisable for the proper development and coordination of plans for state government and political 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 in performing state planning; (b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian reservations; 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 state planning coordinator's agents and designees recognize and promote the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of each planning agency whenever possible.

(a) perform regional and state planning and assist state government planning agencies in performing state planning;

(b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian reservations; 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 state planning 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, or processes related to the management or use of federal lands or natural resources on federal lands in Utah, the state planning coordinator shall: (a) incorporate the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located, to the maximum extent consistent with state and federal law, provided that this requirement shall not be interpreted to infringe 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, and desired outcomes of local government as early in the preparation process as possible, and seek resolution of the inconsistencies through meetings or other conflict resolution mechanisms involving the necessary and immediate parties to the inconsistency or conflict; (c) present to the governor the nature and scope of any inconsistency or other conflict that is not resolved under the procedures in Subsection (3)(b) for the governor's decision about the position of the state concerning the inconsistency or conflict; (d) develop, research, and use factual information, legal analysis, and statements of desired 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 the federal lands or natural resources are located; (e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to facilitate state and local participation in the development, revision, and implementation of land use plans, guidelines, regulations, other instructional memoranda, or similar documents proposed or promulgated for lands and natural resources administered by federal agencies; and (f) work in conjunction with political subdivisions to establish agreements with federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to provide a process for state and local participation in the preparation of, or coordinated state and local response to, environmental impact analysis documents and similar documents prepared pursuant to law by state or federal agencies.

(a) incorporate the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located, to the maximum extent consistent with state and federal law, provided that this requirement shall not be interpreted to infringe 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, and desired outcomes of local government as early in the preparation process as possible, and seek resolution of the inconsistencies through meetings or other conflict resolution mechanisms involving the necessary and immediate parties to the inconsistency or conflict;

(c) present to the governor the nature and scope of any inconsistency or other conflict that is not resolved under the procedures in Subsection (3)(b) for the governor's decision about the position of the state concerning the inconsistency or conflict;

(d) develop, research, and use factual information, legal analysis, and statements of desired 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 the federal lands or natural resources are located;

(e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to facilitate state and local participation in the development, revision, and implementation of land use plans, guidelines, regulations, other instructional memoranda, or similar documents proposed or promulgated for lands and natural resources administered by federal agencies; and

(f) work in conjunction with political subdivisions to establish agreements with federal land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource regulatory agencies to provide a process for state and local participation in the preparation of, or coordinated state and local response to, environmental impact analysis documents and similar documents prepared pursuant to law by state or federal agencies.

(4) The state planning coordinator shall comply with the requirements of Subsection 63C-4a-203(8) before submitting any comments on a draft environmental impact statement or on an environmental assessment for a proposed land management plan, if the governor would be subject to Subsection 63C-4a-203(8) if the governor were submitting the material.

(5) The state planning coordinator shall cooperate with and work in conjunction with appropriate state agencies and political subdivisions to develop policies, plans, programs, processes, and desired outcomes authorized by this section by coordinating the development of positions: (a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; (b) in conjunction with local government officials concerning general local government plans; (c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; and (d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.

(a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee;

(b) in conjunction with local government officials concerning general local government plans;

(c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; and

(d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.

(6) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following principles when preparing any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to federal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section: (a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and sustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and (ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should develop 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 highest reasonably sustainable levels; (C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and local 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 meet present needs and future economic growth and community expansion without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; (E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation needs 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 statutory wilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield management standard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands that are not 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 the state; (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 state water appropriation system; (f) land management and resource-use decisions which affect federal lands should give priority to and support the purposes of the compact between the state and the United States related to school and institutional trust lands; (g) development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state is an important 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's outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation; (i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economic opportunities for the state's citizens; (j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure the health of the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife resources to provide for a continuous supply of resources for the people of the state and the people of the local communities who depend on these 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 increase forage for the mutual benefit of wildlife species and livestock, logging, and other agricultural industries by utilizing proven techniques and tools are vital to the state's economy and the quality of life in Utah; and (m) (i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis; (ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses; (iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen'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 forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife; (B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment's forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for that purpose; (C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of the livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments; (iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for supposed reasons of rangeland health; (v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary and scientifically based upon rangeland conditions; (vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plans may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district 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 should be returned to active use when range conditions improve; (viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses in established grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and expand forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans and programs in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and (ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due to rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland conditions improve, and should not be converted to wildlife use.

(a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and sustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and (ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should develop 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 highest reasonably sustainable levels; (C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and local 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 meet present needs and future economic growth and community expansion without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; (E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation needs 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;

(i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and sustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and

(ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should develop 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 highest reasonably sustainable levels; (C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and local 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 meet present needs and future economic growth and community expansion without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; (E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation needs 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;

(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 highest reasonably sustainable levels;

(C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and local 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 meet present needs and future economic growth and community expansion without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land;

(E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation needs 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 statutory wilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield management standard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands that are not 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 the state;

(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 the state;

(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 state water appropriation system;

(f) land management and resource-use decisions which affect federal lands should give priority to and support the purposes of the compact between the state and the United States related to school and institutional trust lands;

(g) development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state is an important 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's outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation;

(i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economic opportunities for the state's citizens;

(j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure the health of the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife resources to provide for a continuous supply of resources for the people of the state and the people of the local communities who depend on these 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;

(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 increase forage for the mutual benefit of wildlife species and livestock, logging, and other agricultural industries by utilizing proven techniques and tools are vital to the state's economy and the quality of life in Utah; and

(m) (i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis; (ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses; (iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen'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 forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife; (B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment's forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for that purpose; (C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of the livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments; (iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for supposed reasons of rangeland health; (v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary and scientifically based upon rangeland conditions; (vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plans may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district 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 should be returned to active use when range conditions improve; (viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses in established grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and expand forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans and programs in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and (ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due to rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland conditions improve, and should not be converted to wildlife use.

(i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis;

(ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses;

(iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen'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 forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife; (B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment's forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for that purpose; (C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of the livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments;

(A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen'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 forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife;

(B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing allotment's forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment in the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly balanced committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the governor for that purpose;

(C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage caused by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of the livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing under the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments;

(iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for supposed reasons of rangeland health;

(v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary and scientifically based upon rangeland conditions;

(vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plans may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district 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 should be returned to active use when range conditions improve;

(viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses in established grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and expand forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans and programs in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and

(ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due to rangeland 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 in the preparation of any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to federal 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 its recognition by the federal government and the public use of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and urges the federal government to fully recognize the rights-of-way and their use by the public as expeditiously as possible; (b) it is the policy of the state to use reasonable administrative and legal measures to protect and preserve valid existing rights-of-way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477, and to support and work in conjunction with counties to redress cases where R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are not recognized or are impaired; and (c) transportation and access routes to and across federal lands, including all rights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state's economy and to the quality of life in the state, and must provide, at a minimum, a network of roads throughout the resource planning area 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 the resource planning area, including: (A) livestock operations and improvements; (B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations; (C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized recreation; (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 the purposes of those lands.

(a) as a coholder of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way with the counties, the state supports its recognition by the federal government and the public use of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and urges the federal government to fully recognize the rights-of-way and their use by the public as expeditiously as possible;

(b) it is the policy of the state to use reasonable administrative and legal measures to protect and preserve valid existing rights-of-way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477, and to support and work in conjunction with counties to redress cases where R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are not recognized or are impaired; and

(c) transportation and access routes to and across federal lands, including all rights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state's economy and to the quality of life in the state, and must provide, at a minimum, a network of roads throughout the resource planning area 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 the resource planning area, including: (A) livestock operations and improvements; (B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations; (C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized recreation; (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 the purposes of those lands.

(i) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;

(ii) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the resource planning area, including: (A) livestock operations and improvements; (B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations; (C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized recreation; (D) search and rescue needs; (E) public safety needs; and (F) access for transportation of wood products to market;

(A) livestock operations and improvements;

(B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations;

(C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized recreation;

(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 the purposes of those lands.

(8) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings in the preparation of any plans, policies, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to federal 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 Scenic Rivers 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 considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the conclusions are disclosed; (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent with the 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 and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from 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 of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; (vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results disclosed; (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority over the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose management standards outside of the federal land management plan; (viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land and resource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System: (A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and fully 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 and Scenic River System at the eligibility phase; (C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result of the adoption of the plan; and (D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals for projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment; (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the river segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose Visual Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with the provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and (x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with: (A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and to the 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 is a party; (b) the conclusions of all studies related to potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals for addition and are forwarded to the United States Congress; (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 be withheld until: (i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional requirements 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 is limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions to the 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 are already developed or used or to areas where no development is required; (iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which significantly threaten human life or safety; (v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards for irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the rationale for any special 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 plans and policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special management attention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements needed in addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws; (viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable 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 after 1993 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 management standards; and (x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, for review, 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 exchanges of school and institutional trust lands and federal lands without regard for a resource-to-resource correspondence between the surface or mineral characteristics of the offered trust lands and the offered federal lands; (e) federal agencies should support government-to-government exchanges of land with the state based on a fair process of valuation which meets the fiduciary obligations of both the state and federal governments toward trust lands management, and which assures that revenue authorized 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 needed by the citizens of the state and the nation, and the rural character and open landscape of rural Utah 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 of viable, robust, and sustainable state and local economies, and available forage should be evaluated for the full complement of herbivores the rangelands can support in a sustainable manner, and forests should contain a diversity of timber species, and disease or insect infestations 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 and opposes 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 to the same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the extra roads; (ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads; (iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing and proper 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 leasing rights; or (v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue traditional multiple-use activities; (i) the state's support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld until the appropriate 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 beyond those that were recognized or upheld in the forest service's second roadless area review evaluation; (j) the state's support for any recommendations made under the statutory requirement to examine the wilderness option during the revision of land and resource management plans by the U.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 the planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of information from which plan provisions are derived; (ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in any way by the recommendations; (iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by the recommendations; (iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of the various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest health activities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations; (v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-use management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state and the counties to the benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and (vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wilderness option are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress; (k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into the state should be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented; (l) management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the state should reflect serious consideration of 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 mutually exclusive; (B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources; (C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and energy resources; (D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and the 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 on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources; (ii) the state's support for mineral development provisions within federal land management plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan environmental impact statement clearly demonstrates: (A) that the authorized planning agency has: (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area 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 baseline mineral and energy potential; (B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for energy exploration and development; (C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to: (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.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 Land Policy 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 stipulations and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to other significant resource values; (F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are no longer necessary or effective; (G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for each proposed no surface occupancy area; (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management prescriptions, 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 as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and (H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasible from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint; (n) motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural framework of multiple-uses in rural Utah, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced plan of state and local economic support and growth; (o) off-highway vehicles should be used responsibly, the management of off-highway vehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions, and laws related to the use of off-highway vehicles should be uniformly applied across all jurisdictions; (p) (i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should be preserved and acknowledged; (ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with both state and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to provide a network 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 the planning 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 trails across 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 and determine 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 and beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses; (ii) management programs and initiatives that are implemented to increase forage for the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife species should utilize all proven techniques and tools; (iii) the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should be supported 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 the multiple-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 the provisions 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 state and local authorities should be implemented; and (v) resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those populations; and (t) management and resource use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the scenic resources of the state must balance the protection of scenery with the full management requirements of the other authorized uses of the land under multiple-use management, and should carefully consider using Visual Resource Management Class I protection only for areas of inventoried Class A scenery or equivalent.

(a) the state's support for the addition of a river segment to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 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 considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the conclusions are disclosed; (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent with the 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 and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from 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 of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; (vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results disclosed; (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority over the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose management standards outside of the federal land management plan; (viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land and resource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System: (A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and fully 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 and Scenic River System at the eligibility phase; (C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result of the adoption of the plan; and (D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals for projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment; (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the river segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose Visual Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with the provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and (x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with: (A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and to the 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 is a party;

(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 considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the conclusions are disclosed;

(iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent with the 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 and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from 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 of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies;

(vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results disclosed;

(vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority over the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose management standards outside of the federal land management plan;

(viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land and resource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System: (A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and fully 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 and Scenic River System at the eligibility phase; (C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result of the adoption of the plan; and (D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals for projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment;

(A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and fully 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 and Scenic River System at the eligibility phase;

(C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result of the adoption of the plan; and

(D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals for projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment;

(ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the river segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose Visual Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with the provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and

(x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with: (A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and to the 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 is a party;

(A) the state and its citizens' enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and to the 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 is a party;

(b) the conclusions of all studies related to potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals for addition and are forwarded to the United States Congress;

(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 be withheld until: (i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional requirements 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 is limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions to the 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 are already developed or used or to areas where no development is required; (iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which significantly threaten human life or safety; (v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards for irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the rationale for any special 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 plans and policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special management attention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements needed in addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws; (viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable 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 after 1993 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 management standards; and (x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, for review, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning documents;

(i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional requirements 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 is limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions to the 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 are already developed or used or to areas where no development is required;

(iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which significantly threaten human life or safety;

(v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards for irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the rationale for any special 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 plans and policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3);

(vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special management attention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements needed in addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws;

(viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable 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 after 1993 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 management standards; and

(A) is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation;

(B) is not a substitute for managing areas inventoried for wilderness characteristics after 1993 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 management standards; and

(x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, for review, 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 exchanges of school and institutional trust lands and federal lands without regard for a resource-to-resource correspondence between the surface or mineral characteristics of the offered trust lands and the offered federal lands;

(e) federal agencies should support government-to-government exchanges of land with the state based on a fair process of valuation which meets the fiduciary obligations of both the state and federal governments toward trust lands management, and which assures that revenue authorized 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 needed by the citizens of the state and the nation, and the rural character and open landscape of rural Utah 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 of viable, robust, and sustainable state and local economies, and available forage should be evaluated for the full complement of herbivores the rangelands can support in a sustainable manner, and forests should contain a diversity of timber species, and disease or insect infestations 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 and opposes 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 to the same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the extra roads; (ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads; (iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing and proper 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 leasing rights; or (v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue traditional multiple-use activities;

(i) closes or declassifies existing roads unless multiple side by side roads exist running to the same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the extra roads;

(ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads;

(iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing and proper 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 leasing rights; or

(v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue traditional multiple-use activities;

(i) the state's support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld until the appropriate 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 beyond those that were recognized or upheld in the forest service's second roadless area review evaluation;

(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 beyond those that were recognized or upheld in the forest service's second roadless area review evaluation;

(j) the state's support for any recommendations made under the statutory requirement to examine the wilderness option during the revision of land and resource management plans by the U.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 the planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of information from which plan provisions are derived; (ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in any way by the recommendations; (iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by the recommendations; (iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of the various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest health activities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations; (v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-use management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state and the counties to the benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and (vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wilderness option are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress;

(i) the duly adopted transportation plans of the state and county or counties within the planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of information from which plan provisions are derived;

(ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in any way by the recommendations;

(iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by the recommendations;

(iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of the various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest health activities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations;

(v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-use management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state and the counties to the benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and

(vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wilderness option are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other proposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress;

(k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into the state should be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented;

(l) management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the state should reflect serious consideration of 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 mutually exclusive; (B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources; (C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and energy resources; (D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and the 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 on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources; (ii) the state's support for mineral development provisions within federal land management plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan environmental impact statement clearly demonstrates: (A) that the authorized planning agency has: (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area 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 baseline mineral and energy potential; (B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for energy exploration and development; (C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to: (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.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 Land Policy 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 stipulations and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to other significant resource values; (F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are no longer necessary or effective; (G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for each proposed no surface occupancy area; (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management prescriptions, 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 as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and (H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasible from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint;

(i) it is the policy of the state that: (A) mineral and energy production and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; (B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources; (C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and energy resources; (D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and the 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 on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources;

(A) mineral and energy production and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive;

(B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources;

(C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and energy resources;

(D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and the 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 on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources;

(ii) the state's support for mineral development provisions within federal land management plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan environmental impact statement clearly demonstrates: (A) that the authorized planning agency has: (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area 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 baseline mineral and energy potential; (B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for energy exploration and development; (C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to: (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.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 Land Policy 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 stipulations and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to other significant resource values; (F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are no longer necessary or effective; (G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for each proposed no surface occupancy area; (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management prescriptions, 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 as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and (H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasible from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint;

(A) that the authorized planning agency has: (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area 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 baseline mineral and energy potential;

(I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the planning area 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 baseline mineral and energy potential;

(B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for energy exploration and development;

(C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to: (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.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 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.;

(I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.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 Land Policy 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 stipulations and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage to other significant resource values;

(F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that they are no longer necessary or effective;

(G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for each proposed no surface occupancy area; (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management prescriptions, 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 as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and

(I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for each proposed no surface occupancy area;

(II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other management prescriptions, 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 as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and

(H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is feasible from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint;

(n) motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural framework of multiple-uses in rural Utah, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced plan of state and local economic support and growth;

(o) off-highway vehicles should be used responsibly, the management of off-highway vehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions, and laws related to the use of off-highway vehicles should be uniformly applied across all jurisdictions;

(p) (i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should be preserved and acknowledged; (ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with both state and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to provide a network 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 the planning 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;

(i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should be preserved and acknowledged;

(ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with both state and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to provide a network 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 the planning 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;

(A) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;

(B) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the planning 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 trails across 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 and determine 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 and beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses; (ii) management programs and initiatives that are implemented to increase forage for the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife species should utilize all proven techniques and tools; (iii) the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should be supported 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 the multiple-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 the provisions 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 state and local authorities should be implemented; and (v) resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those populations; and

(i) forests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary and beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses;

(ii) management programs and initiatives that are implemented to increase forage for the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife species should utilize all proven techniques and tools;

(iii) the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should be supported 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 the multiple-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 the provisions 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 state and local authorities should be implemented; and

(v) resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those populations; and

(t) management and resource use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the scenic resources of the state must balance the protection of scenery with the full management requirements of the other authorized uses of the land under multiple-use management, and should carefully consider using Visual Resource Management Class I protection only for areas of inventoried Class A scenery or equivalent.

(9) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 63J-8-105.5, the state is committed to establishing and administering an effective statewide conservation strategy for greater sage grouse.

(10) Nothing contained in this section may be construed to restrict or supersede the planning powers conferred upon state departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or advisory councils of the state or the planning powers conferred upon political subdivisions by any other existing law.

(11) Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any lands withdrawn from the public domain for military purposes, which are administered by the United States Army, Air Force, or Navy.