Plan of Operations Coordination Process (43 CFR 3802, 3809)

Pre-plan submittal meetings for operators seeking authorizations for plans of operations and plan modifications are voluntary, but are highly encouraged by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is BLM’s policy that appropriate agency personnel will meet with the operator of a proposed plan of operations under 43 CFR subparts 3802 and 3809, if that operator requests, before the plan is submitted to the BLM for processing. 

The BLM’s Surface Management Handbook, H-3809-1 (Rel. 3-336) emphasizes and encourages pre-plan submittal meetings. Section 4.3.1 of the handbook states:

The BLM is available to meet with the operator and other local, state, or Federal agencies that may be involved in the approval process to discuss (1) what to include in the Plan of Operations and (2) what may be needed to support the NEPA analysis, especially for large projects. It may be beneficial to all parties for the BLM to informally review a pre-plan, conceptual plan, or study plan prior to the formal filing of the Plan of Operations to give the operator guidance on what to include in the submission and how the review process will be conducted. 

Attachment 1 provides the recommended pre-plan submittal coordination process. It is critical that the BLM inform the operator that all discussions during the pre-plan submittal stage are preliminary and non-binding. Any feedback from the BLM to the operator during this process should not be in the form of a decision. The BLM should also seek to expand any pre-plan submittal meeting to include the relevant local, state, other Federal agencies, and Tribal governments. This approach is designed to provide the operator with early and holistic feedback for the proposed operations, aiding the operator in submitting a complete plan of operations or plan modification, and allowing concerns from other governmental parties to be aired when there is still ample time for plan adjustments to be made.   

The BLM offices are encouraged to reach out to national, state, and local mining organizations and mining companies to publicize the BLM’s availability to meet with operators before they submit proposed plans of operations or plan modifications. In addition, because the needs of individual states may differ, State Offices (SOs) are encouraged to consider whether additional state-specific guidance and Federal/state agreements would help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of processing plans and modifications. The SOs are encouraged to consult with BLM Headquarters, as needed, to be consistent with national priorities.  

If the operator chooses not to participate in the pre-plan submittal process, then the Field Office will process the plan according to the procedures in the regulations and Surface Management Handbook. 

Establishing Federal/State Agreements 

Federal/state agreements under 43 CFR § 3809.200, usually in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), have proven to be useful tools for administering the surface management regulations. Many SOs already have suitable statewide MOUs and/or processes that meet the intent of this IM. If a State Office does not have a MOU in place or its existing plan requires an amendment, the steps listed in Attachment 1 should be incorporated into the agreement to create a more formalized and consistent pre-plan submittal coordination program. Please keep in mind, per the BLM’s Memorandums of Understanding Manual Section, MS-1786 (Rel. 1-1770), all MOUs should be reviewed every five years for adequacy, effectiveness, and continuing need. 

To ensure efficiency during all stages of the review process, including the pre-plan submittal phase, SOs should include appropriate state and Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in any overarching programmatic agreement, or in any MOU under the Federal/State agreement regulations, as described at 43 CFR § 3809.200. The agreement should describe roles and responsibilities of each agency in coordinating the other agencies’ permitting with the BLM’s processing of plans of operations and plan modifications, as well as conflict resolution and issue escalation (refer to the example multiagency agreement in Attachment 2). The agreement should address concurrent review under the other agencies’ various authorities where appropriate, paying special attention to similar or overlapping laws, regulations, and policies. Each SO should adapt this process to fit their specific situations, as each state has unique laws and varying cooperating state agencies that regulate mining operations. 

In addition to programmatic agreements and MOUs, reviews of plans of operations and plan modifications may benefit from a project-specific MOU to further delineate roles and responsibilities between the cooperating agencies and the operator (refer to the example in Attachment 32). These project specific MOUs have shown utility in establishing single points of contact for the operator, environmental contractor, and cooperating agencies. An MOU will help establish and define the agencies’ roles and responsibilities and those of the operator. It should also contain information and methods for resolving conflict to help ensure the project stays on track for meeting the milestones described below.  

Tribal Notification, Consultation, and Cooperating Agencies 

When initiating the pre-plan submittal coordination process with the operator, District and Field Office staff should reach out to any Tribe that has historically expressed an interest in the area— or that would be affected by the plan—to ensure timely notification and consultation for processing the plan of operations. This outreach should build on any exploration notice-level outreach the BLM may have done, consistent with IM 2024-048. Reaching out to Tribes as early as possible at the project level can help resolve issues that may not otherwise be identified until later in the plan of operations review process and that may cause unforeseen permitting delays. Considerations for identifying which Tribes have historically expressed interest in that area include, but are not limited to, previous government-to-government consultation records, correspondence from the Tribes, Indian Claims Commission maps, existing ethnographic/ethnohistoric studies, and advice from BLM cultural resources staff. BLM offices are encouraged to work with their local Tribal Liaisons and follow the guidance in the Improving and Sustaining BLM-Tribal Relations Handbook, H-1780-1 (Rel. 1-1781).  

Reaching out during the pre-plan submittal coordination process will afford Tribes a better opportunity to decide whether and to what extent they will participate as a cooperating agency during the plan of operations or plan modification NEPA process. State, District, and Field Offices should be aware that any participation by a Tribe during pre-plan submittal coordination does not relieve the BLM of formal Tribal consultation responsibilities.

Implementation of the Processing Model for All Operations Under 43 CFR 3802 and 3809 

Within one year of this IM’s release, each SO is directed to issue policy guidance for processing plans of operations (including plan modifications that will require new NEPA analysis) under the surface management regulations that implements the pre-plan coordination process discussed above. Each SO’s process should account for any local and state laws and regulations that necessitate state-specific adaptations. 

Each SO’s pre-plan submittal policy guidance will keep track of the following dates, milestones, and related actions, as applicable: 

Milestone 1 – Operator initiates pre-plan submittal coordination with the BLM. 

• The date on which the operator requested a pre-plan submittal coordination meeting. 

• The date(s) on which BLM requested local, state, other Federal, and Tribal agencies to participate in a pre-plan submittal coordination meeting, or the date on which the operator declined to have other agencies participate.

Milestone 2 – The BLM completes the pre-plan submittal coordination process with the operator. 

• The date(s) on which BLM held the pre-plan submittal coordination meeting(s). 

• The date(s) of Tribal engagement, including the dates on which BLM notified the Tribes, the dates on which BLM sought Tribal consultation, and the dates on which any Tribal meetings were held.3 

• The date on which BLM made a baseline data needs determination(s), if different from the date of the pre-plan submittal meeting(s).4 

• The date on which BLM deemed the environmental baseline studies to be complete.

Milestone 3 – Processing a plan of operations, from complete plan received to the BLM’s decision. 

• Operator submits a complete plan of operations, and the BLM accepts the plan, per 43 CFR 3809.401. 

For plans of operations requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (less than 2 years): 

• The date the field office deemed the plan of operations to be complete. 

• The date the field office entered the plan into ePlanning. 

• The date the field office surnamed the draft Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Document Tracking System (DTS.) 

• The date of publication of the NOI in the Federal Register. 

• The date(s) on which BLM consulted with Tribes. 

• The date(s) of public involvement (public meetings, comment periods). 

• The date the field office surnamed the draft Notice of Availability (NOA) in DTS.  

• The date of publication of the Draft (EIS in the Federal Register. 

• The date the field office surnamed the draft NOA for the Final EIS. 

• The date of publication of the Final EIS in the Federal Register.  

• The date of BLM’s issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). 

• The date that BLM determined that the financial guarantee is acceptable. 

For plans of operations requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) (less than 1 year): 

• The date that the field office deemed the plan of operations to be complete. 

• The date that the field office entered the plan of operations into ePlanning. 

• The date(s) on which BLM engaged in consultation with Tribes. 

• The date(s) of public involvement (public meetings, comment periods). 

• The date on which the field office posted the EA.  

• The date the field office signed the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or the date the field office determined an EIS is necessary. 

• The date of public availability of the completed EA and FONSI, if different from above. 

• The date of issuance of the Decision Record (DR). 

• The date on which BLM determined that the financial guarantee is acceptable.

Milestone 1 and 2 should be tracked in a project file, prior to the creation of the case file.  Milestone 3 can be tracked by data entry in the Mineral and Land Record System (MLRS) once the case file is created.   

Each SO will develop timeframe goals for completing each task towards accomplishing the three milestones. The timeframes for Milestones 1 should be approximately 2 months or less, and the timeframe for Milestone 2 should be approximately 2 years or less. The timeframe for Milestone 3 needs to be consistent with applicable BLM NEPA policy guidance. The BLM is committed to completing each milestone within the timeframes established in the SO’s IM developed under this IM. Please note, the initiation of Milestone 1 is not within the control of the BLM. However, the SOs need to set a timeframe describing the time between an operator requesting to initiate the pre-plan submittal coordination process and when the BLM requests the participation of cooperating agencies and schedules the project presentation meeting.