Notice2025-00072
BLM Director's Response to the State of Alaska Governor's Appeal of the BLM Alaska State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 7, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice of the reasons for the BLM Director's determination to reject the Governor of Alaska's recommendations regarding the Central Yukon Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1186-1188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00072]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[PO #4820000251]
BLM Director's Response to the State of Alaska Governor's Appeal
of the BLM Alaska State Director's Governor's Consistency Review
Determination for the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice
of the reasons for the BLM Director's determination to reject the
Governor of Alaska's recommendations regarding the Central Yukon
Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved
RMP is available on the BLM website at: <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/admin/project/35315/570">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/admin/project/35315/570</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Bernier, Division Chief for
Decision Support, Planning, and National Environmental Policy Act;
telephone 303-239-3635; address P.O. Box 15129, Lakewood, CO 80215;
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff979d9a8d91969a8dbf9d9392d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660e040314080f031426040a0b48010910">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services
for contacting Ms. Bernier. Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered within their country to make
international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 26, 2024, the BLM released the
Central Yukon Proposed RMP and Final EIS (89 FR 32457). In accordance
with the regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the
Central Yukon Proposed RMP/Final EIS to the Governor of Alaska for a
60-day Governor's Consistency Review in order for the Governor to
review the Proposed RMP and identify any inconsistencies with State
plans, policies, or programs. On June 25, 2024, the Governor of Alaska
submitted a response for the Central Yukon Proposed RMP/Final EIS to
the BLM Alaska State Director.
After careful review and consideration of the concerns raised in
the Governor's Consistency Review
[[Page 1187]]
letter, the State Director decided not to adopt the recommendations
made by the Governor. On August 13, 2024, the State Director sent a
written response to the Governor describing the reasons for which the
State Director believes that the Proposed RMP is consistent with State
land use plans, policies, and programs to the maximum extent allowed
under Federal law.
On September 13, 2024, the Governor of Alaska appealed the State
Director's decision not to accept his recommendations to the BLM
Director. In the Governor's appeal letter, the State of Alaska
requested the BLM Director to reconsider many of the issues and
recommendations raised in the Governor's Consistency Review letter. In
reviewing these appeals, the regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) state
that ``[t]he Director shall accept the (consistency) recommendations of
the Governor(s) if he/she determines they provide for a reasonable
balance between the state's interest and the national interest.'' On
November 12, 2024, prior to the State Director's approval of the
Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan,
the BLM Director issued a response to the Governor detailing the
reasons that the recommendations did not meet this standard. Pursuant
to 43 CFR 1610.3-2, the BLM Director's response to the Governor
providing the basis for the BLM Director's determination on the
Governor's appeal is published verbatim below.
``This letter addresses the State of Alaska's appeal of the
response provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State
Director regarding your consistency review of the Central Yukon
Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Governor's consistency review is an important part
of the BLM land use planning process, and we appreciate the significant
time and attention that you and your staff have committed to this
effort.
The applicable regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) provide you with
the opportunity to appeal the State Director's decision to not accept
the recommendations you made in your consistency review letter. These
regulations also guide my review of the appeal, in which I must
consider whether you have raised actual inconsistencies with State or
local plans, policies, and or programs. If inconsistencies are raised,
I consider whether your recommendations address the inconsistencies and
provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the
State of Alaska's interest.
In your appeal of the BLM Alaska State Director's response to your
consistency review, you asserted the following nine issues that the
Alaska State Director determined to be outside the scope of the
Governor's consistency review:
<bullet> That significant conveyances to the State are blocked by
BLM's failure to revoke Public Land Order (PLO) 5150, and subsistence
impacts are the justification for this failure, which is in direct
violation of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
section 810(c);
<bullet> That failure to lift PLO 5150 and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) section 17(d)(1) withdrawals is a land
entitlement issue and is inconsistent with approved State plans;
<bullet> That the Proposed RMP does not address the concerns or
plans to address those in the Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan
(NWATP);
<bullet> That the Proposed RMP is inconsistent with Federal
statutes that implement the goals of the Alaska Statehood Act and
protect the State's resource management responsibilities, including the
Alaska Statehood Act, ANCSA, and ANILCA;
<bullet> That the North Slope Area Plan (NSAP) did not find any
lands requiring management areas of critical environmental concern
(ACEC);
<bullet> That the RMP fails to meet commitments in the Master
Memorandum of Understanding with Alaska Department of Fish and Game;
<bullet> That the Proposed RMP is inconsistent with the Alaska
Wildlife Action Plan (2015) which identifies sentinel species that were
not included in the species identified by BLM in the Proposed RMP/FEIS;
<bullet> That guidance to communicate on land use planning and
sustainable fish and wildlife populations should be developed in
collaboration to achieve State goals and objectives, and;
<bullet> That the Proposed plan is inconsistent with the John D
Dingell, Jr Conservation Management and Recreation Act (Dingell Act)
with regard to hunting and fishing opportunities.
Upon review, I find that these abovementioned issues do not
identify an inconsistency with State or local plans, policies, or
programs. Therefore, they do not fall within the scope of 43 CFR
1610.3-2(e). Even though the State Director found that these issues
were out of scope, he responded to each of them to explain why. Even if
they were within the scope of the Governor's Consistency Review, the
Proposed RMP was not inconsistent with State plans, policies, or
programs. I affirm all the State Director's responses to the
abovementioned issues.
The majority of issues identified in your appeal relate to whether
the BLM's recommendations to the Secretary regarding ANCSA section
17(d)(1) withdrawals and PLO 5150 frustrate the State's land
entitlement under the Statehood Act and whether such recommendation is
inconsistent with State plans, particularly the NSAP, the Dalton
Highway Master Plan, and the NWATP. While the NSAP and the Dalton
Highway Master Plan are discussed in general terms, neither the
consistency review nor the appeal identified any provisions of those
plans that are inconsistent with the recommendation in the Central
Yukon Proposed RMP to retain PLO 5150. The consistency review letter
and appeal do provide more detail about the NWATP, but do not explain
how the Governor's recommendation provides a reasonable balance between
the State's interest and the national interest.
Even if the inconsistencies identified with the NWATP were within
the scope of the Governor's consistency review, the Central Yukon
Proposed RMP is not inconsistent with that plan. First, the Governor's
consistency review letter argued that retention of PLO 5150 is
inconsistent with the NWATP because the Central Yukon Proposed RMP
would limit the ability of the State to develop good quality road
material sources across the planning area. However, as explained in the
State Director's Response, PLO 5150 and ANCSA section 17(d)(1)
withdrawals do not restrict BLM's ability to grant right-of-way (ROW)
or conduct material sales within the planning area.
In response, your appeal letter argues instead that the location of
ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would have significant impacts on the
State's ability to ensure regional connectivity and that the BLM give
attention on the location of ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in
relation to State identified areas of potential resource value. The
letter, however, does not identify any examples where a ROW exclusion
or avoidance area would limit the State's access to ``areas of
potential resource value'' and the NWATP does not identify any such
areas. Therefore, the Governor has not identified any inconsistencies
between the NWATP and the Central Yukon Proposed RMP.
Further, as explained in the State Director's response to your
appeal, the Proposed RMP/FEIS recommends a partial revocation of the
ANCSA section 17(d)(1) withdrawals within the Central
[[Page 1188]]
Yukon planning area for the limited purpose of allowing Alaska Native
Vietnam-era veterans to select allotments under section 1119 of the
Dingell Act, but to stay otherwise withdrawn. The Central Yukon
planning effort determined that it is in the public interest to
continue the protection afforded by the ANCSA section 17(d)(1)
withdrawals for the lands within the planning area, particularly with
regards to ensuring subsistence access and maintenance of subsistence
resources. Revocation of the PLO 5150 corridor and the overlying ANCSA
section 17(d)(1) withdrawals would result in loss of access for the
rural subsistence users to Federal public lands on both sides of the
Dalton Highway.
As described in the Central Yukon Proposed RMP/FEIS, the ANCSA
section 17(d)(1) withdrawals and PLO 5150 are still fulfilling the
purposes for which each were created. While the BLM understands the
importance that the State places on receiving lands within the 5150
corridor, the BLM's recommendations in the Central Yukon planning
effort must also consider the need to protect the public interest of
the land. Overall, the Proposed RMP/FEIS analysis shows that revocation
of the PLO 5150 and ANCSA section 17(d)(1) withdrawals would have
significant environmental impacts and impacts to the public interest,
and for those reasons the BLM does not recommend revocation of either
at this time. The BLM is ready to convey the remaining acres of
entitlement as soon as the State requests the conveyance of lands from
its selections. Therefore, I affirm the State Director's determination
in regard to the revocation of PLO 5150 and the ANCSA section 17(d)(1)
withdrawals and do not accept the Governor's recommendation because it
does not provide a reasonable balance between the State's interest and
the national interest.
Your appeal identified an issue within the scope of the Governor's
Consistency Review where you believed that the Proposed RMP is
inconsistent with State land use plans, programs, and policies, to
which the State Director also provided an in-depth response.
Specifically, you allege that the Central Yukon RMP is inconsistent
with the NSAP emphasis on access to lands for fish and game and
infrastructure development, and that the State asserts that the
proposed backcountry conservation area, extensive recreation management
area, special recreation management area assignments conflict with the
transportation corridor for the Dalton Highway. It is your
recommendation on this specific issue that the BLM should analyze how
the plans relate to BLM's management and address the State's access
interests. As explained in the State Director's response letter, the
BLM did review the NSAP in the Central Yukon RMP planning process,
found no inconsistencies, and added a reference to the NSAP in the
approved RMP, appendix C, Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and
Programs.
Under all alternatives, the proposed management decisions would be
subject to valid existing rights. Similarly, this planning effort is
not intended to provide any evidence bearing on or addressing the
validity of any Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477) assertions and does not
adjudicate, analyze, or otherwise determine the validity of claimed
ROWs. RS 2477 rights are determined though a separate process outside
of the land use planning process. In order to remove any potential
confusion on the adjudication status of the claimed RS 2477 routes, the
maps no longer label any routes as RS 2477 route. Instead, the maps
will simply refer to existing routes as trail or road. The BLM will
adjust its management as necessary if the Federal courts adjudicate the
existence or scope of any RS 2477 ROWs. Because the BLM did review the
NSAP as part of the planning process and concluded that it is not
inconsistent with the Central Yukon Proposed RMP, I have determined
that the Governor's recommendation to reopen the analysis to further
analyze the interaction between the State and Federal plans does not
strike a reasonable balance between the State's interest and the
national interest.
The BLM has prepared the Central Yukon Proposed RMP/FEIS in
accordance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
The BLM did carefully review and consider applicable State, local, and
other Federal agency plans, policies, and programs in the development
of the Central Yukon Proposed RMP/FEIS. The BLM is consistent, to the
extent practicable, with these plans as per the provisions of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the planning
regulations at 43 CFR 1610-3-2.
In conclusion, I find that the State Director properly consider all
applicable State and local plans, policies, and programs in the Central
Yukon planning effort, and when he responded to the Governor's
consistency review. I have determined that, for most issues, you either
did not raise any inconsistencies or recommendations to resolve any
inconsistencies. For the issue in which you did identify an alleged
inconsistency and provided a recommendation, I found it did not present
a reasonable balance between the State's interest and the national
interest.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the recommendations provided in
your appeal letter do not meet the standard identified above for
granting an appeal in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). Therefore, I
affirm the Alaska State Director's response to your finding of
inconsistency and respectfully deny your appeal. The reasons outlined
above for my decision on your appeal will also be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the applicable BLM regulations.
Further, please note that the BLM gave due consideration to the
State's concerns raised in the protest letter dated May 28, 2024. For a
detailed response to these issues, many of which were raised in your
consistency review letter, I refer you to the Director's Protest
Resolution Report which can be found at this link: (<a href="https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports">https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports</a>).
The BLM and the State of Alaska have a long history of working
cooperatively on the development of resource management plans. I
appreciate the resources and input that you and your staff have put
into the process of developing the Proposed RMP for the Central Yukon
planning area. As mentioned, I believe this plan balances responsible
development with the protection and conservation of subsistence use,
important habitats for fish and wildlife, and other special values. I
look forward to our continued coordination as our teams work together
to implement this plan. An identical response has been sent to the
cosigners of your letter.''
(Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e))
Nada Wolff Culver,
Principal Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2025-00072 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-10-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 7, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.