Notice2025-00753
BLM Director's Response to the Appeals by the Governors of California and Utah of the BLM State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development Resource Management Plan Amendments, Also Known as the Updated Western Solar Plan
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 15, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice of the reasons for the BLM Principal Deputy Director's determination to reject the recommendations of the Governors of California and Utah regarding the Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPAs).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3912-3914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00753]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[PO #4820000251]
BLM Director's Response to the Appeals by the Governors of
California and Utah of the BLM State Director's Governor's Consistency
Review Determination for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development
Resource Management Plan Amendments, Also Known as the Updated Western
Solar Plan
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 Principal Deputy Director's determination to
reject the recommendations of the Governors of California and Utah
regarding the Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development Resource
Management Plan Amendments (RMPAs).
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Record of Decision (ROD) and RMPAs for
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development are available on the BLM website
at: <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20125356/251025336/Solar%20PEIS%20ROD_Vol%201_Final%2012.19.2024.pdf">https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20125356/251025336/Solar%20PEIS%20ROD_Vol%201_Final%2012.19.2024.pdf</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 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215;
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95fdf7f0e7fbfcf0e7d5f7f9f8bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41292324332f28243301232d2c6f262e37">[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 August 30, 2024, the BLM released the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Proposed
Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPAs) for Utility-Scale Solar
Energy Development (89 FR 70660). In accordance with the regulations at
43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the Proposed RMPAs for Utility-
Scale Solar Energy Development to the Governors of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming for a 60-day review to identify any inconsistencies with
State or local plans, policies, or programs.
The Governors of California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming submitted a response regarding the Proposed
RMPAs for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development to the relevant BLM
State Directors. After careful consideration of the concerns raised by
the Governors, the relevant State Directors decided not to adopt the
recommendations made by the Governors and sent a written response to
each respective Governor.
The applicable regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) provide these
Governors with the opportunity to appeal the State Director's decision
to not accept the recommendations made in the respective consistency
review letters. The Governors of California and Utah appealed the
respective State Director's decisions to the BLM Director. 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 national interest and the State's interest.''
On December 19, 2024, the BLM Principal Deputy Director issued a
response to each Governor detailing the reasons that the
recommendations did not meet this standard. Each appeal response letter
provides the basis for the BLM's determination on the respective
Governor's appeal (pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)). The appeal
responses are being published verbatim.
California
On August 30, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released
the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed
Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPA) for Utility-Scale Solar
Energy Development. In accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR
1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the Proposed RMPAs for Utility-Scale
Solar Energy Development to the Governors of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming for a 60-day review to identify any inconsistencies with
State or local plans, policies, or programs.
A representative from the California Governor's Office of Land Use
and Climate Innovation submitted a response regarding the Proposed
RMPAs for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development to the BLM California
State Director. After careful consideration of the concerns you raised,
the BLM California State Director Joseph Stout decided not to adopt the
recommendations you made and sent you a written response detailing why.
The applicable regulations at 43 CFR 161-3-2(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, polices, and or programs. To the extent inconsistencies
are raised, I then consider whether your recommendations address the
inconsistencies and provide for a reasonable balance between the
national interest and your State's interest. In reviewing your appeal,
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 national
interest and the State's interest.''
This letter addresses your appeal of the response provided by the
BLM California State Director regarding your consistency review of the
Proposed RMPAs for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development. The
Governor's consistency review is an important part of the BLM land use
planning process, and we appreciate the significant time
[[Page 3913]]
and attention that you and your staff have committed to this effort.
I have completed my review of your appeal and determined that the
recommendations you have provided do not meet the standard described
above for the following reasons.
In your appeal, you raise a concern that the reduction in public
land available for solar development in southern Nevada will reduce the
potential for solar generation and transmission development that the
State of California has planned on to meet its energy needs. You
suggest that if the BLM approves the proposed RMPAs, certain
transmission upgrades may become stranded assets and the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) would need to update its assumptions
about administration of public lands in the area because the CPUC's
integrated resource planning process has traditionally assumed the
availability of land in southern Nevada consistent with the BLM's 2012
Western Solar Plan. You recommend that BLM reconsider the exclusion
criterion for habitat for species protected under the Endangered
Species Act, which applies in some areas in southern Nevada.
Although the BLM California State Director responded to the
concerns in your consistency letter to clarify aspects of the proposed
RMPAs, I find that you have not identified a specific inconsistency
with an approved or adopted State or local plan, policy, or program.
While you express concern that the proposed RMPAs could harm solar
development, you do not identify specific elements of State plans or
policies that conflict with the proposed RMPAs and potential effects
are speculative. To the extent you are concerned about the continued
viability of solar projects that are already under construction or
where applications are under review by the BLM, the proposed RMPAs
include provisions designed to reduce disruption during the transition
between plans by limiting the effect of the proposed RMPAs on some
pending applications. Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed
RMPAs on California's energy planning process is speculative, and the
present appeal does not identify a specific inconsistency.
In your appeal you recommend that the BLM remove the exclusion for
certain habitat for species protected under the Endangered Species Act
from the proposed RMPAs, at least as it applies in southern Nevada. You
recommend that the BLM instead protect habitat through the consultation
process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on an individual
project basis. While you did not make this recommendation in your
original consistency letter, the BLM State Director's response
explained the BLM's rationale for the habitat exclusion. The BLM
conducted programmatic consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate the potential
impacts of the proposed RMPAs on species protected under the Endangered
Species Act, and the habitat exclusion areas were developed as part of
that consultation. The BLM agrees that Section 7 consultation will be
required on a project-specific basis, but there is a Federal interest--
and obligation under the Endangered Species Act--to consider impacts to
species at the planning level. I find that eliminating the habitat
exclusion in southern Nevada is not a reasonable balance of the
national interest in protecting species habitat and the State's
interest in facilitating solar projects. Exclusion based on the
criteria identified in the proposed RMPAs promotes balance between
renewable energy development and protection of important ecological,
cultural, and other resources in accordance with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act's direction to manage the public lands under
principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
I have found that no changes to the proposed updated Western Solar
Plan are necessary in response to your appeal as it does not identify
inconsistencies with any approved or adopted State or local plans,
policies, or programs and does not provide for a reasonable balance
between the State's interest and the national interest (43 CFR 1610.3-
2(e)).
Utah
On August 30, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released
the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed
Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPA) for Utility-Scale Solar
Energy Development. In accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR
1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the Proposed RMPAs for Utility-Scale
Solar Energy Development to the Governors of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming for a 60-day review to identify and inconsistencies with
State or local plans, polices, or programs.
You submitted a response regarding the Proposed RMPAs for Utility-
Scale Solar Energy Development to the BLM Utah State Director. After
careful consideration of the concerns you raised, the BLM Acting Utah
State Director Matthew Preston decided not to adopt the recommendations
you made and sent you a written response detailing why.
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. To the extent inconsistencies
are raised, I then consider whether your recommendations address the
inconsistencies and provide for a reasonable balance between the
national interest and your State's interest. In reviewing your appeal,
the regulations at 43 CFR 161-.3-2(e) state the ``[t]he Director shall
accept the [consistency] recommendations of the Governor(s) if he/she
determines they provide for a reasonable balance between the national
interest and the State's interest.''
This letter addresses your appeal of the response provided by the
BLM Acting Utah State Director regarding your consistency review of the
Proposed RMPAs for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development. 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.
I have completed my review of your appeal and determined that the
recommendations you have provided do not meet the standards described
above for the following reasons.
In your appeal, you identify the following three issues: (1) the
potential for conflicts between solar and geothermal energy
development; (2) concern about the extent of available areas relative
to the BLM's reasonably foreseeable development scenario; and (3)
alleged conflicts between solar energy development and the treatment of
livestock grazing under Utah's and Beaver County's Resource Management
Plans. To address these issues and alleged inconsistencies, it is your
recommendation that the BLM withdraw and reconsider the proposed
updated Western Solar Plan.
Potential Conflicts Between Solar and Geothermal Energy Development
I have considered your concerns about potential conflicts between
solar and geothermal energy development but find that you have not
identified an inconsistency with any approved or
[[Page 3914]]
adopted State or local plan, policy, or program. You explain in your
appeal that the Utah Energy Policy emphasizes a diverse energy
portfolio. The proposed updated Western Solar Plan appropriately
balances the potential for development from both solar and geothermal
sources of energy. First of all, where a current geothermal lease
already exists, no solar right-of-way (ROW) may be issued that would
interfere with the grantee's use of the public lands consistent with
the terms and conditions of the geothermal lease. Where a solar project
is proposed in an area with geothermal potential but no existing ROW,
the BLM will assess the best use of the land subject to the proposal.
In evaluating solar project applications, the BLM will consider and
address the impacts of utility-scale solar development on the ability
to exploit geothermal resources. I decline to adopt your recommendation
that the BLM include a separate planning-level exclusion of lands with
potential geothermal resources in the proposed RMPAs because it does
not address an identified inconsistency with a Utah plan, and it is not
prudent or necessary in light of the presence of further review at the
implementation stage.
Extent of Lands Available
I have considered your concerns about the extent of lands available
under the proposed updated Western Solar Plan but find that you have
not identified an inconsistency with any approved or adopted State or
local plan, policy, or program. Further, the BLM is proposing to
identify an appropriate number of acres of public lands as available,
both in Utah and the broader planning area for this effort. It is true
that the scope of available areas goes well beyond the acreage that the
BLM anticipates will be developed in fact based on the reasonably
foreseeable development scenario (RFDS), but that approach to land
allocation and management is appropriate. The proposed updated Western
Solar Plan identifies over 5 million acres in Utah as available for
future solar projects, whereas the RFDS estimates that slightly less
than 40,000 acres of development is expected to occur in Utah by 2045.
It is appropriate for broad-scale planning efforts to make orders-of-
magnitude more lands available for a given use than the RFDS estimates
would be put to that use. Complexity and controversy involved in
navigating technical challenges, environmental concerns, community
interests, and other potential uncertainties involved in the
deliberative permitting process make that approach prudent. Making
significantly more acres available than the BLM estimates will be
developed will help to ensure solar projects are not only sited for
feasibility and legal compliance but also in a way that is
environmentally responsible and works for local communities. The fact
that more lands are allocated as available than the RFDS suggests will
be developed in fact does not represent an inconsistency with the Utah
plans identified in your appeal, and I therefore decline to adopt your
recommendation to make the proposed RMPAs commensurate with the RFDS.
Alleged Inconsistency With Treatment of Livestock Grazing Under State
and County Plans
The proposed updated Western Solar Plan appropriately balances use
of the public lands for solar energy development and use of the public
lands for livestock grazing, in keeping with the BLM's obligation to
manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained
yield. As your appeal recognizes, the proposed updated Western Solar
Plan would not approve any solar project or result in the reduction of
authorized unit months (AUM) associated with public land livestock
grazing permits or leases in Utah. A future decision to issue a ROW for
solar development within a grazing allotment would be subject to
project-specific review and would need to comply with the applicable
grazing regulations and the design features included as part of the
proposed updated Western Solar Plan, including those, such as design
feature LG-1, designed to minimize conflicts between solar development
and grazing. To the extent that the potential for future reductions in
AUMs resulting from solar ROW grants represents an inconsistency with
the Utah or Beaver County Resource Management Plan, I considered your
recommendation to add an exclusion criteria and additional design
features related to livestock grazing. This recommendation does not
provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the
State's interest because the BLM has determined that the national
interest in supporting use of public land for solar development is
incompatible with an exclusion that would make all lands within grazing
allotments unavailable.
Conclusion
I have found that no changes to the proposed updated Western Solar
Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised in your appeal as
they either do not identify inconsistencies with any approved or
adopted State or local plans, policies, or programs or do not provide
for a reasonable balance between the State's interest and the national
interest (43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)).
Nada Wolff Culver,
Principal Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2025-00753 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-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 15, 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.