81 FR 76905 - Proposed Supplementary Rules for Fort Ord National Monument, California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 214 (November 4, 2016)

The California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to establish new supplementary rules related to dog management and public safety on public lands at Fort Ord National Monument (FONM), California. Furthermore, these proposed rules would clarify some of the existing restrictions that have been in place on the FONM since 1996. These proposed rules are consistent with the national monument proclamation of 2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the BLM's 2007 Resource Management Plan.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76905-76908]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26457]



[[Page 76905]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 8360

[LLCAC09400 L19200000.NU0000 XXXL1109RM LRORBX619900]


Proposed Supplementary Rules for Fort Ord National Monument, 
California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed supplementary rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) is proposing to establish new supplementary rules related to dog 
management and public safety on public lands at Fort Ord National 
Monument (FONM), California.
    Furthermore, these proposed rules would clarify some of the 
existing restrictions that have been in place on the FONM since 1996. 
These proposed rules are consistent with the national monument 
proclamation of 2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the BLM's 2007 
Resource Management Plan.

DATES: Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the 
proposed supplementary rules until January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by mail, hand-delivery, or 
electronic mail. Mail: FONM Manager, BLM, Central Coast Field Office, 
940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933. Electronic mail: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Morgan, FONM Manager, Bureau of 
Land Management, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 
93933, at (831) 582-2200, or [email protected]. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal 
business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a 
week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You 
will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Comment Procedures

    You may mail or email comments to the Central Coast Field Office, 
at the addresses listed above (See ADDRESSES). Written comments on the 
proposed supplementary rules should be specific and confined to issues 
pertinent to the proposed rules, and should explain the reason for any 
recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the 
specific section or paragraph of the proposal that the commenter is 
addressing. The BLM is not obligated to consider or include, in the 
Administrative Record for the final supplementary rules, comments 
delivered to an address other than those listed above (See ADDRESSES) 
or comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment period 
(See DATES), unless they are postmarked or electronically dated before 
the deadline.
    Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact 
information for respondents, will be available for public review at 940 
2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933, during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays). Before 
including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal 
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to 
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

II. Background

    The BLM California State Director is proposing to establish new 
supplementary rules related to dog management and other public safety 
issues for public lands on the FONM in Monterey County, California. 
Furthermore, the State Director is supplementing some of the existing 
land restrictions that have been in place on the monument since 
December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64530), that are consistent with the national 
monument proclamation of 2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the BLM's 
2007 Resource Management Plan. The proposed supplementary rules are 
necessary to support the mission of the BLM by protecting the natural 
resources and enhancing the health and safety of those using and 
enjoying the public lands.
    These proposed rules would implement restrictions prescribed within 
the FONM Dog Management Plan that was approved on July 5, 2016. The 
plan was analyzed under environmental assessment DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-
0021-EA (Fort Ord National Monument Dog Management Plan), and 
associated Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact. The 
plan considered various dog management prescriptions across the 
monument within four different planning units. One of the planning 
units, the Inland Range Planning Unit, contains extremely hazardous 
military munitions and public use opportunities are greatly limited.

III. Discussion of Proposed Supplementary Rules

    When the former Fort Ord military installation closed in 1994, the 
Secretary of the Army transferred administration of approximately 7,205 
acres to the BLM via a letter of transfer to the Secretary of Interior 
on October 18, 1996. Those lands are now part of the 14,651 acre FONM 
that was designated by President Obama under Proclamation 8803. The 
Army currently manages approximately 7,446 acres of the FONM and will 
transfer those lands to the BLM for administration following a 
munitions cleanup being performed under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
    The BLM issued a notice of emergency closure and established 
restrictions on use of public lands on the former Fort Ord on December 
5, 1996 (61 FR 64530). Since that time, the BLM has applied those 
restrictions as they pertain to public use, but those restrictions did 
not address management of dogs on these public lands. On September 7, 
2007, the BLM State Director approved a Record of Decision for the 
Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California Resource 
Management Plan (RMP) that directed the BLM's Central Coast Field 
Office to develop a dog management plan for FONM due to conflicts 
between visitors, attacks on livestock, and impacts to wildlife. On 
April 8, 2015, the BLM notified the public of its intent to develop a 
dog management plan and, using the 1996 emergency closure, initiated an 
interim dog leash restriction on public lands at FONM due to increasing 
conflicts between visitors, attacks on livestock, hazards from 
munitions, and impacts to wildlife. The BLM held three public scoping 
workshops (July 28 and 29, 2015, and August 5, 2015) to solicit public 
input on the development of the draft dog management plan. The proposed 
supplementary rules are the logical conclusion of the dog management 
planning process.
    On May 17, 2016, the BLM released the Draft FONM Dog Management 
Plan and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-
0021-EA) for a 30 day comment period. The proposed supplementary rules 
were included with the draft plan and were analyzed within the 
environmental assessment. One comment was made on the proposed 
supplementary rules that

[[Page 76906]]

resulted in a minor editorial change regarding the definition of 
``yield'' as is described in the proposed rule text.
    On July 5, 2016 the BLM approved the Final FONM Dog Management Plan 
and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-0021-EA). 
The proposed supplementary rules (when approved) will supplement some 
of the December 1996 restrictions and April 2015 restrictions under 43 
CFR 8364.1 and 43 CFR 8341.2 and enact new rules that are specified in 
the Final FONM Dog Management Plan. The proposed supplementary rules 
also would implement existing Monterey County ordinances germane to dog 
use under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 
43 U.S.C. 315a that were disclosed and analyzed within the approved 
plan.
    The proposed supplementary rules are broken into three categories. 
Proposed supplementary rules numbered 1 through 9 are new and would 
implement new direction from the approved dog management plan. Proposed 
supplementary rules 10 through 15 are not new, but would implement 
previous restrictions that were established in 1996 (see 61 FR 64530) 
and that are consistent with the national monument proclamation of 2012 
(i.e. Proclamation 8803), and the BLM 2007 Resource Management Plan. 
Finally, proposed supplementary rules 16 and 17 are existing Monterey 
County ordinances that the BLM proposes to adopt as supplementary rules 
in order to facilitate cooperation between BLM rangers and local law 
enforcement officials.

IV. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    The proposed supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory 
action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. They would not have an 
effect of $100 million or more on the economy. The proposed 
supplementary rules would not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health and safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. The proposed supplementary rules would not create a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency. The proposed supplementary rules would not 
alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan 
programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients, nor do they 
raise novel legal or policy issues. They would merely impose rules of 
conduct and impose other limitations on certain recreational and 
commercial activities on certain public lands to protect natural 
resources and human health and safety.
Clarity of the Supplementary Rules
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments 
on how to make these proposed supplementary rules easier to understand, 
including answers to questions such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the supplementary rules clearly stated?
    (2) Do the supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with their clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the supplementary rules (grouping and order 
of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
clarity?
    (4) Would the supplementary rules be easier to understand if they 
were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
    (5) Is the description of the supplementary rules in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in 
understanding the supplementary rules? How could this description be 
more helpful in making the supplementary rules easier to understand?
    Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the rule to the 
addresses specified in the ADDRESSES section.
National Environmental Policy Act
    The BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed 
different dog management alternatives on FONM under Section 102(2)(C) 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C). On July 5, 2016, the BLM approved the Final FONM Dog 
Management Plan and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-
C090-2016-0021-EA). The proposed supplementary rules are also 
consistent with the Record of Decision for the Southern Diablo Mountain 
Range and Central Coast of California RMP approved in 2007.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not 
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA 
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a 
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a 
substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules 
would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational or 
commercial activities on public lands in order to protect natural 
resources and the environment, and provide for human health and safety. 
Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed 
supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    The proposed supplementary rules are not a ``major rule'' as 
defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed supplementary rules would 
merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of 
public lands and would not affect commercial or business activities of 
any kind.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    The proposed supplementary rules would not impose an unfunded 
mandate of more than $100 million per year; on State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate; or on the private sector; nor would they 
have a significant or unique effect on small governments. The proposed 
supplementary rules would have no effect on governmental or tribal 
entities and would impose no requirements on any of these entities. The 
proposed supplementary rules would merely revise the rules of conduct 
for public use of limited areas of public lands and would not affect 
tribal, commercial, or business activities of any kind. Therefore, the 
BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information 
required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at 2 U.S.C. 1531.
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)
    The proposed supplementary rules do not represent a government 
action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property 
rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the proposed 
supplementary rules would not cause a taking of private property or 
require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive 
order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The proposed supplementary rules would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National 
Government and

[[Page 76907]]

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with 
Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that the proposed 
supplementary rules would not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
    Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that the 
proposed supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial 
system, and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that 
the proposed supplementary rules do not include policies that would 
have tribal implications. The proposed supplementary rules would merely 
revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public 
lands.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation
    In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined 
that these proposed consolidated supplementary rules would not impede 
facilitating cooperative conservation; would take appropriate account 
of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other 
legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources. The 
rules would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal 
decision-making process, and would provide that the programs, projects, 
and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
Information Quality Act
    In developing these proposed supplementary rules, the BLM did not 
conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review 
under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). In accordance with 
the Information Quality Act, the DOI has issued guidance regarding the 
quality of information that it relies on for regulatory decisions. This 
guidance is available on the DOI's Web site at http://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/iq.cfm.
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    Under Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that the 
proposed supplementary rules would not comprise a significant energy 
action, and that they would not have an adverse effect on energy 
supplies, production, or consumption.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    The proposed supplementary rules do not directly provide for any 
information collection that the Office of Management and Budget must 
approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. 
Moreover, any information collection that may result from Federal 
criminal investigations or prosecutions conducted under the proposed 
supplementary rules are exempt from the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 
3518(c)(1).
Author
    The principal author of these proposed supplementary rules is Eric 
Morgan, Monument Manager, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, 
Marina, CA 93933.
Proposed Supplementary Rules
    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities 
for supplementary rules found under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 
16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a, the BLM California State 
Director proposes to issue supplementary rules for public lands managed 
by the BLM within the boundaries of the FONM, to read as follows:
Definitions
    Designated route means any road or trail that the BLM has signed 
and shown on trail maps where public use is authorized.
    Dog means any domestic dog that is not classified as a ``service 
animal.''
    ``Off-leash-opportunity-route'' means a specific road or trail on 
FONM that has been designated by the BLM to allow some opportunities 
for dogs to be off leash under specific circumstances.
    Service animal means a dog that is individually trained to do work 
or perform tasks for people with disabilities as covered under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    Street-legal vehicle means a vehicle, such as an automobile, 
motorcycle, or light truck, that is equipped and licensed for use on a 
public street and/or highway and that is subject to registration under 
the California Vehicle Code 4000(a)(1).
    Unattended dog means any dog that is unaccompanied by an owner and/
or handler whether on tether or otherwise.
    Yield means slowing or stopping forward progress to a point where 
it is possible to safely pass another visitor without injuring, 
startling, or surprising that visitor. For bicycles, the passing speed 
shall be no greater than 10 mph on roads, and 5 mph on single-track 
trails.

Prohibited Acts

    Unless otherwise authorized by the BLM, the following prohibitions 
apply to all BLM-managed public lands on the Fort Ord National Monument 
(FONM):
Proposed Supplementary Rules From the Dog Management Plan
    1. You must not bring a dog into the Inland Range Planning Unit. 
Service animals accompanying a disabled person as accommodated by the 
Americans with Disabilities Act are excluded from this provision.
    2. You must physically restrain, or keep your dog(s) on a leash or 
cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, at all times while you are on a 
road or trail that has not been designated as an ``off-leash-
opportunity-route.''
    3. You and/or your dog must not walk or roam off a designated 
route, including any route designated as an ``off-leash-opportunity 
route.''
    4. You must physically restrain, or keep your dog on a leash or 
cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, on a designated ``off-leash-
opportunity-route'' when you are within 100 feet of another person and/
or dog that is not with your party.
    5. You must not allow your dog to roam over 50 feet away from you 
while on a designated ``off-leash-opportunity-route.''
    6. You must not allow your dog to enter any vernal pool or pond, or 
roam within 20 feet of any such area, unless you and your dog are on a 
route designated for public use.
    7. You must carry a leash for each dog you have with you.
    8. You are prohibited from leaving a dog unattended, even if on 
tether, within a crate, or within an unoccupied motor vehicle.
    9. Visitors must yield the path, on both roads and trails, to other 
visitors in the following manner: Bicycles must yield to pedestrians 
and equestrians; and pedestrians must yield to equestrians. For 
bicycles, the passing speed shall be no greater than 10 mph on roads, 
and 5 mph on single-track trails.

[[Page 76908]]

Proposed Supplementary Rules That Clarify Existing Restrictions 
Established in 1996 and Direction From the 2007 Record of Decision
    10. Motorized vehicles and other motorized devices, including 
electronic bicycles, are prohibited on all roads and trails excluding 
Creekside Terrace Road and Badger Hills Driveway. Motorized vehicle use 
on these two roadways is restricted to highway licensed street-legal 
vehicles.
    11. Use and/or occupancy of all lands within the FONM, including 
leaving personal property unattended, is prohibited between \1/2\ hour 
after sunset and \1/2\ hour before sunrise.
    12. All use (including pet use) is restricted to designated routes 
and trails. Open routes and trails are indicated on BLM maps and signed 
with route or trail markers. Any unsigned route which does not appear 
on the most current BLM map is closed to all uses.
    13. Campfires and other open flame fires are prohibited.
    14. Possession or discharge of fireworks, including ``safe and 
sane'' fireworks, is prohibited.
    15. Wood cutting and the collection of downed wood are prohibited.
Proposed FONM Supplementary Rules That Are Currently Monterey County 
Ordinances
    16. It shall be unlawful for the owner or person having custody of 
any dog, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or 
control, to allow said dog to defecate and to allow the feces 
thereafter to remain on FONM other than within trash receptacles 
provided for such purposes. This includes bagged feces--Reference 
Monterey County ordinance, 8.36.030.
    17. All dogs under four months of age shall be kept under physical 
restraint by the owner, keeper, or harborer when on FONM--Reference 
Monterey County ordinance, 8.20.020.
    18. Dogs on FONM shall wear a license tag with or without a chip 
implant at all times. The tag shall be attached at all times to a 
collar, harness, or other suitable device upon the dog for which the 
license tag was issued--Reference Monterey County ordinance, 8.08.040.
Exemptions
    The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: 
Any Federal, State, or local officer or employee in the scope of their 
duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-
fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose 
activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.
Enforcement
    Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be 
tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 
U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) 
and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both.
    In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may 
also impose penalties for violations of California law.

Jerome E. Perez,
State Director, California.
[FR Doc. 2016-26457 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P