Notice2025-00951
Response to Utah Governor's Appeal of the BLM Utah State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Proposed 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 16, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice to explain why the Department of the Interior denied the Governor of Utah's recommendations regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4781-4786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00951]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[PO #4820000251]
Response to Utah Governor's Appeal of the BLM Utah State
Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument Proposed 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
to explain why the Department of the Interior denied the Governor of
Utah's recommendations regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument (GSENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
ADDRESSES: A copy of the GSENM Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved
RMP is available on the BLM website at: <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020343/510">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020343/510</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#84ece6e1f6eaede1f6c4e6e8e9aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533b3136213d3a362113313f3e7d343c25">[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
Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the GSENM (89 FR 70662). In accordance with
the regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the Proposed
RMP/Final EIS for the GSENM to the Governor of Utah for a 60-day
Governor's Consistency Review for the Governor to review the Proposed
RMP and identify any inconsistencies with State plans, policies, or
programs. On October 29, 2024, the Governor of Utah submitted a
response for the GSENM Proposed RMP and Final EIS to the Acting BLM
Utah State Director. The Acting State Director reviewed and considered
the Governor's response and sent a written response to the Governor on
November 22, 2024. As explained in the response, the Acting State
Director accepted some of the Governor's recommendations but did not
accept the others for the reasons detailed in this response.
On December 20, 2024, the Governor of Utah appealed the Acting
State Director's decision to the BLM Director. The regulations at 43
CFR 1610.3-2(e) state that, in reviewing these appeals, ``[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 January 6,
2025, the Department of the Interior Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, issued a response to the
Governor detailing the reasons that the recommendations that the Acting
State Director rejected did not meet this standard. Pursuant to 43 CFR
1610.3-2(e), the basis for the BLM's determination on the Governor's
appeal is presented below. The BLM is publishing the appeal response
verbatim.
``This letter addresses the State of Utah's appeal of the response
provided by the BLM Utah Acting State Director regarding the
consistency review of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
(GSENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
The applicable regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) provide you with
the opportunity to appeal to the BLM Director the Acting State
Director's decision to not accept the recommendations you made in your
consistency review letter. Exercising the delegable authority of the
Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, I have chosen to assume the review and resolution of your
appeal from the BLM Director. The regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e)
guide 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
Utah's interest.
In your consistency review and your appeal, you allege 13
inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, and programs. The
alleged inconsistencies are as follows:
<bullet> ``BLM's Failure to Disclose All Key Inconsistencies (The
Failure to Accomplish the Prerequisite to the Governor's Consistency
Review) . . .
[[Page 4782]]
The State reaffirms its request that the BLM provide a complete
disclosure of all key inconsistencies it was aware of before the 60-day
review period began.''
<bullet> ``Coordination and Process Issues . . . The State
reaffirms its position that the BLM violated its duty to coordinate
with the State at appropriate stages of the planning process, as
required by the State RMP.''
<bullet> ``Monument Designation . . . The State reaffirms its
position that the BLM violated its duty to respect the State's
interests . . . on all designations of over 5,000 acres.
<bullet> ``Objects . . . The BLM's approach of maximal protection
in the absence of a finalized inventory of Monument objects is neither
required by law nor consistent with the BLM's legal obligations under
FLPMA and the State RMP.
<bullet> ``Rejection of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield . . . The
State has consistently maintained that when the BLM does not need to
diminish multiple-use activities to protect specific Monument objects,
it must not . . . The State RMP makes clear that non-use (saving the
land for conservation purposes) cannot trump multiple use principles,
only use limitations required to protect specific Monument objects can.
<bullet> ``Management Zones . . . The State asserts again that its
RMP specifically prohibits the management area approach.
<bullet> ``Management of WSAs [Wilderness Study Areas] and LWCs
[Lands with Wilderness Characteristics] . . . the BLM must manage LWCs
under the multiple-use and sustained yield framework unless such
management conflicts with the proper care of Monument objects . . .
Regarding WSAs, the BLM can meet its non-impairment obligations and
remain consistent with the State RMP by designating these areas as OHV
limited rather than fully closing them.''
<bullet> ``Travel Management, Land Access, and R.S. 2477 Rights-of-
Way . . . the BLM ignores that the regulations allow for land to be
designated as allowing ``limited'' OHV use, which is exactly what the
State RMP requires . . . . the BLM's response does not address the
inconsistency the State raised regarding the prohibition of
nonmotorized recreational trails, including paved and mechanized
trails, in the Primitive Area . . . The State also appeals the BLM's
decision not to provide access to claimed R.S. 2477 routes within the
GSENM . . . The State also appeals the BLM's decision to close the V-
Road.''
<bullet> ``Livestock Grazing . . . The State appeals the BLM's
decision not to accept the majority of its livestock grazing
recommendations. Foremost among these concerns are protecting and
accommodating livestock grazing and leaving lands available for
grazing.''
<bullet> ``Invasive Species Management . . . The State reaffirms
its recommendation to ensure that the Proposed RMP supports the State's
goal of eradicating Russian olive and tamarisk by 2030 and facilitates
their removal without unnecessary restrictions.''
<bullet> ``VRM [Visual Resource Management] Classifications along
the Highway 89 Utility Corridor . . . The State reaffirms its
recommendation to classify the entire utility corridor as VRM Class IV.
If the BLM rejects this recommendation, the State requests that the
four-mile segment be managed as VRM Class III . . .''
<bullet> ``Harvest of Forest Products . . . The State requests that
the BLM modify the Proposed RMP to allow for small-scale commercial
timber harvests (such as firewood sales) in appropriate areas and
remove the prohibition on noncommercial harvests in LWCs where it is
not detrimental to Monument objects as well as in all other areas where
a site-specific decision to limit harvest has not been made.''
<bullet> ``Camping and Recreation Restrictions . . . The State
reaffirms its recommendation to remove the blanket permit requirement
for all overnight camping in GSENM and to limit the requirement to
areas where it is genuinely needed for management purposes, such as in
high-traffic areas, to protect sensitive resources, or in areas where
additional safety, education, or visitor use data is needed.''
Your appeal included specific recommendations to resolve each of
these alleged inconsistencies, including that the BLM restart the
planning process. The national interest for this planning effort is
founded upon Proclamations 6920 and 10286, which make clear there is an
obligation to protect GSENM's vast and austere landscape and array of
historic and scientific objects for future generations to both
experience and learn from. For example, in Proclamation 10286,
President Biden stated ``it is in the public interest to ensure the
preservation, restoration, and protection of the objects of historic or
scientific interest on the Grand Staircase-Escalante lands, including
the entire Monument landscape . . .'' To protect that interest, the
Federal policy for this planning effort is to protect and restore the
Monument's landscape and resources for all Americans throughout the
nation. Considering this clear expression of national interest, and
upon review of your appeal, I find that the State's recommendations do
not present a reasonable balance between the national interest and the
State's interest for the reasons discussed below.
First, the State's appeal alleges that the BLM has failed to
identify inconsistencies with State and local planning and regulations;
however, I concur with the Acting State Director's finding that
Appendix O in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, which identifies key
consistencies and differences between the Proposed RMP and State and
county plans, is consistent with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). To the extent that
the State has now identified additional alleged inconsistencies in
writing through the consistency review and appeal process, the BLM has
considered and responded through the Acting State Director's November
22 reply and through this response to your appeal. Accordingly, I do
not accept the State's recommendation that the BLM provide the Governor
with an additional 60 days for supplementary review.
Second, regarding coordination, as the Acting State Director noted
in his reply, and as is outlined in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS,
particularly Chapter 4, sections 4.1 and 4.3, the BLM engaged
extensively with the State, counties, and local land managers
throughout the RMP development process. The BLM coordinated with the
State of Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office as the primary
contact and lead representative for all applicable state agencies. The
BLM also consulted with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources on the
proposed recreational shooting closures in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS,
as required by the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
Recreation Act. In addition, Kane County, Garfield County, Kane County
Water Conservancy District, Washington County Water Conservancy
District, and various local municipalities participated as cooperating
agencies throughout the development of the RMP. Moreover, the
components of Alternative E (i.e., the Proposed RMP) derive from the
alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and are within the range of
alternatives considered and analyzed in the Draft EIS and were informed
by BLM's engagement with State and local governments, as well as public
input received during the public comment period. As such, the BLM
complied with all applicable laws regarding coordination and
consultation, including, but not limited to, the National Environmental
Policy Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),
throughout the planning
[[Page 4783]]
process. Therefore, I do not accept the State's recommendation that the
BLM ``re-open'' the planning process or offer additional opportunities
for public comment.
Third, regarding the designation of the Monument, I concur with the
Acting State Director that the President's designation of the Monument
is not subject to the consistency review process set forth in 43 CFR
1610.3-2. Furthermore, your allegations regarding the lack of
coordination with the State regarding implementation of the
Proclamation and planning for the Monument are unfounded. Your
recommendations are therefore not accepted, as described in the
preceding paragraph.
Fourth, with respect to the inventory of objects of historic and
scientific interest protected by the designation of the Monument, I
agree with the Acting State Director that the Proposed RMP provides
reasonable and appropriate protections to both the objects identified
in Proclamation 6920 and 10286, as well as the resources discussed in
those proclamations that do not themselves qualify as Monument objects.
FLPMA provides the BLM with broad discretion to manage public lands in
a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,
historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water
resource, and archaeological values. That is especially true where, as
here, a Presidential proclamation issued in accordance with the
Antiquities Act has dedicated public lands to specific, protection-
oriented uses. Thus, while the BLM is under an obligation to manage
GSENM in a manner that is consistent with the protection of the objects
identified in Proclamations 6920 and 10286, the agency retains the
discretion to manage the Monument in a manner that also protects the
other resources located therein.
As the BLM explained in its July 29, 2022, Notice of Intent to
prepare an RMP for the Monument, the planning effort was intended to,
among other goals, protect and restore the entirety of the Monument's
landscape, its biological resources, its varied geology and associated
scenery, and its world-class outdoor recreation opportunities, in
addition to protecting and restoring the Monument objects for which
GSENM was designated. The Proposed RMP, which provides reasonable and
appropriate protection to both GSENM's objects and resources,
accomplishes those goals while allowing for a diverse array of uses in
the Monument. The Proposed RMP does not, however, provide ``maximum
protection'', as you allege, to GSENM's resources, as evidenced, in
part, by the fact that the Proposed RMP is not comprised of the most
restrictive management direction analyzed in the EIS. As such, I
disagree that the Proposed RMP is inconsistent with the State RMP's
direction that ``reasonable protection should not be translated to mean
the maximum amount of protection possible.'' Because I find that the
agency is providing reasonable and appropriate protection to resources
within the Monument, while meeting our obligation under Proclamation
10286 to protect Monument objects, your recommendations are not
accepted.
Fifth, you express concerns about the Proposed RMP's implementation
of the principles of multiple use and sustained yield in the Monument.
As described above, while the Proposed RMP provides appropriate
protections for both monument objects and other resources, it also
provides for other uses within the Monument, including livestock
grazing, motorized recreation, and several other forms of use. Further,
in managing the Monument, the BLM is obligated to comply with Section
302(a) of FLPMA, which requires the BLM to ``manage the public lands
under principles of multiple use and sustained yield . . . except that
where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses
according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in
accordance with such law.'' (43 U.S.C. 1732(a)). Thus, complying with
the directives of the Proclamation is paramount, per section 302(a) of
FLPMA. Overall, with respect to the nation's interest, as described
above, I find that that agency has appropriately balanced protection
and use with this plan.
Sixth, with regard to Management Zones, I acknowledge your
reiteration and clarification that the management area approach is
inconsistent with the State RMP. While I agree with the Acting State
Director that the management areas are not considered by BLM to be
``special designations,'' I understand from your appeal that the State
considers these management areas as special designations with respect
to the State RMP, and therefore finds them to be inconsistent with the
State RMP. Regardless, the BLM believes that using management areas is
the best way to protect and restore Monument objects, protect and
maintain intact and resilient landscapes in GSENM, and protect and
restore world-class outdoor recreation opportunities in the Monument.
Management areas, which are essentially a way to organize various
underlying management actions, allow the BLM to manage visitation and
allowable uses in a holistic manner that is readily understandable by
the public. By comparison, adopting the State RMP's approach would not
achieve Federal policy goals, as it would not provide the public with
an easy way to understand the allowable uses within given areas of
GSENM. When considering the balance between national and state
interests, I find that the use of management areas, which have been
largely in place as a successful tool since 2000, is the appropriate
way to manage recreation in the Monument in a way that visitors will
understand, and that provides the agency with the framework to minimize
user conflict, provide diverse experiences, and protect Monument
objects. Therefore, I do not accept the State's recommendation to
remove management areas from the Proposed RMP, as the State's approach
would not represent a reasonable balance between the national interest
and the State interest.
Seventh, concerning management of WSAs and LWCs, while I understand
that you find that the protection of the wilderness values of these
areas is inconsistent with the State RMP, I have determined that the
Proposed RMP's approach to managing WSAs and LWCs provides a reasonable
balance between the national and the State's interest, whereas the
State's approach does not. Wilderness character is a public land
resource, and the management direction in the Proposed RMP that would
require its protection in certain areas in GSENM is consistent with the
policy of protecting the Monument's large, remote, rugged, and markedly
impenetrable landscapes, as well as protecting and restoring the
biological resources in the Monument that owe, in part, to its
remoteness. Treating all areas of the Monument that contain wilderness
character as the State recommends would fail to achieve this policy
goal. Indeed, it would counteract it. Similarly, the closure of WSAs to
off-road vehicle (OHV) use is often the best way to ensure that WSAs
are managed in a manner so as not to impair their suitability for
preservation as wilderness, as is required under section 603 of FLPMA.
Closing WSAs to OHV use will also help achieve the goals stated above
concerning the protection and restoration of GSENM's remote landscape
and biological resources. By comparison, facilitating OHV use in the
Monument's WSAs by designating them as OHV limited would jeopardize the
BLM's ability to comply with section 603 and make it harder to achieve
the policy goals of the Federal Government,
[[Page 4784]]
including those outlined in the Proclamations and FLPMA. Because the
State's recommendations concerning LWC and WSAs are inconsistent with
Federal policy, and potentially inconsistent with Federal law, I do not
believe that the State's recommendations provide for a reasonable
balance between the national interest and the State's interest. It is
also worth re-stating the Acting State Director's observation that
closing WSAs to BLM designation of OHV routes does not preclude the BLM
from recognizing routes in these areas that are subsequently determined
to be held by the State or counties pursuant to R.S. 2477.
Eighth, regarding travel management, land access, and R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, under 43 CFR 8342.1, the BLM must designate all public
lands as either open, limited, or closed to OHVs based on the
protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the
safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of
conflicts among various uses of the public lands. Under the Proposed
RMP, the BLM applied OHV closures to areas within GSENM that (1) would
minimize damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, air and other
resources; (2) would minimize harassment of wildlife or significant
disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) would minimize conflicts between
off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses
of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the
compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas,
taking into account noise and other factors; and, (4) would minimize
potential adverse effects to primitive areas consistent with the intent
of the area. As noted in the Acting State Director's response,
maximizing motorized vehicle access in GSENM would be inconsistent with
the BLM's regulatory obligations under 43 CFR 8342.1 to minimize
resource impacts and user conflicts. Moreover, designating the entirety
of GSENM as OHV limited--to the extent it would be consistent with 43
CFR 8342.1--would be inconsistent with the Federal policy of protecting
and restoring GSENM's remote landscape, varied geology and associated
scenery, and biological resources. That is especially true given that
many of the areas of GSENM that the State recommends designating as OHV
limited have not experienced authorized OHV use in more than two
decades, despite the fact that the 2020 Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits,
and Escalante Canyons Units and Kanab Field Office-Escalante Area
Resource Management Plans designated these areas as OHV limited. I
therefore do not find the State's position, as described in the State
RMP, to be a reasonable balance between the national and the State's
interest. The Acting State Director also correctly summarized the
agency's approach to managing claimed R.S. 2477 rights-of-way,
including the V-Road. The BLM will update management accordingly if
routes in these areas are subsequently determined to be held by the
State or counties pursuant to R.S. 2477.
Your appeal also alleges that one of the State's recommendations
regarding nonmotorized recreational trails in the primitive area from
the Governor's letter was not addressed in the Acting State Director's
response. While the Acting State Director's response did not directly
address this recommendation, it was indirectly addressed as part of the
response regarding motorized trails in the primitive area that
explained that this area-based restriction is necessary to protect
Monument objects while balancing specific user experiences. The Acting
State Director's response further explained that this approach is
consistent with the State's policies to ensure a broad range of uses,
particularly for economic, cultural, and public safety purposes. For
instance, this management approach allows for a self-discovery approach
to recreation, including the opportunity to cross-county hike, rather
than being limited to a specific trail or trails. In addition,
construction of either new motorized or nonmotorized trails in the
primitive area could result in increased surface disturbance in a broad
swath of the Monument and inhibit the protection of the rugged and
remote Monument landscape, as required by the Proclamation. There
remain other opportunities in the Monument for more structured
recreation experiences including nonmotorized trail-based, mechanized,
and motorized experiences. Upon review of the recommendation through
this appeal, for the reasons described above, I decline to accept the
recommendation, as it does not provide for the reasonable balance
between the national interest and the State's interests.
Ninth, with regards to livestock grazing management and range
improvements, I find that, to the extent the Proposed RMP is
inconsistent exist with the State's plans, programs or policies, those
inconsistencies are necessary to comply with Federal law and policy. As
explained below, the Proposed RMP appropriately balances the needs of
livestock producers, wildlife populations, and the natural environment,
as required by FLPMA and Proclamation 10286.
Making certain allotments in the Monument unavailable to grazing is
necessary to comply with the Federal law and the Proclamations and is
consistent with the national interest. By prohibiting livestock grazing
in these areas for the time being, the Proposed RMP helps to mitigate
impacts to ecological and hydrological functions which, in turn,
enhances BLM's ability to comply with the requirement imposed by
section 302 of FLPMA and the Proclamations to provide proper care and
management to Monument objects. This management approach is likewise
necessary to achieving desired outcomes for the Monument, including the
Federal policy of protecting and restoring the entirety of the Monument
and its biological resources. By comparison, making these allotments
available to livestock grazing and introducing the possibility that
livestock would be reintroduced into these areas after being absent for
more than 20 years would undermine the national interest in protecting
GSENM's objects and resources for future generations. As a result, I do
not accept the State's recommendation to make these allotments
available to grazing, as this would be inconsistent with the national
interest.
With respect to the four pastures that are limited to trailing
until rangeland health standards are met, I find that the management
approach you propose, and the management approach the agency is now
taking (per the Acting State Director's November 22nd letter), are now
sufficiently aligned to be deemed consistent. I also appreciate your
offer of support to help perform future land health assessments.
Next, regarding the management direction involving modifications to
existing structural range improvements and the construction of new
range improvements, such actions are not prohibited under the Proposed
RMP. Rather, the Proposed RMP requires that such construction and
improvements be associated with documentation that the improvement or
its modification would support the achievement of rangeland health
standards (based on a land health assessment within the last 10 years)
and that the action is consistent with the protection of GSENM objects.
This is necessary to achieve the Federal policy of protecting and
restoring the entirety of the GSENM landscape and its associated
scenery, as well as its biological resources and processes. To ensure
consistency with the Proclamations, the Proposed RMP requires that
structural range
[[Page 4785]]
improvements and construction be tied to the protection of GSENM
objects. Eliminating the requirement, as the State recommends, would be
inconsistent with Federal policy, and therefore not represent a
reasonable balance between the national interest and State interest.
Similarly, I concur with the Acting State Director's response that
non-structural improvements primarily for an increase in forage would
not be consistent with the protection of GSENM objects, nor would it be
consistent with the Federal policy of restoring natural biological
processes in the Monument. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed RMP
prohibits a nonstructural range improvement from having a secondary
benefit that increases forage, as long as it is consistent with other
management in the plan.
Your appeal also notes that while the Acting State Director intends
to make changes to the Approved RMP for data used to inform drought
conditions, you remain concerned with drought management and AUM
limits. I find the concerns regarding drought management do not contain
an identified inconsistency with State or local policy, program or
plan, and the AUM limitations are addressed under concerns about
general grazing management. Further, the updated approach (per the
Acting State Director's November 22nd letter) regarding AUM adjustments
during drought conditions provide that adjustments would be based on
the data that informs drought severity at the appropriate scale,
including local rain gauges and field data collection of present forage
condition. Given this refinement in the type of data that indicates the
drought conditions, AUM reductions would be targeted and based on the
best available data.
Finally, with respect to livestock grazing, your appeal also
alleges that five of the State's recommendations from your letter were
not addressed in the Acting State Director's response. After my review
of the five recommendations, I have determined that the recommendations
do not provide for the reasonable balance between the national interest
and the State's interests, and I do not accept them for the reasons
noted below.
Regarding grazing recommendation #7, to ``allow two-sided
flexibility in AUMs'', the State's letter speaks to the potential for
increasing AUMs depending on forage availability. The BLM's grazing
regulations already provide for the consideration of temporary
adjustments in AUMs. In addition, as supported by resource conditions
and monitoring, suspended AUMs may also be restored to active use
without an additional land use plan-level decision. Therefore,
flexibilities exist to address potential increases in AUMs through
future plan implementation, and no inconsistency exists between the
Proposed RMP and the State's RMP, and I am not accepting your
recommendation.
Regarding grazing recommendation #9, to ``incorporate best
available science in decision-making,'' there are already present in
law, regulation, and policy requirements to collect and use the best
available information when making land use decisions and implementation
decisions, including for livestock grazing. It is unnecessary to repeat
the same requirement in an RMP, and accordingly, no inconsistency
exists here between the Proposed RMP and the State's RMP, and I am not
accepting your recommendation.
Regarding grazing recommendation #12, to ``prioritize other options
over reducing grazing'' in areas where rangeland health deteriorates,
the BLM considers all options that are consistent with the grazing
regulations when considering changes to implementation-level grazing
practices and does not elevate one option as a means to achieve healthy
rangelands. As such, the proposed RMP does not prioritize or minimize a
given approach if an area is not meeting rangeland health standards.
Rather, it directs to ``consider both a decrease in permitted use. .
.and changes to grazing practices. . .'' Such consideration would
provide the BLM a comparison from which to make informed decisions when
determining changes to improve rangeland health. Furthermore, in some
cases, based on the facts, the BLM may find that changes to grazing use
levels and practices are not necessary, and will rather implement
restoration actions to improve rangeland health, consistent with
several management actions in the plan. As such, I found that no
inconsistency exists here between the Proposed RMP and the State's RMP,
and I am not accepting your recommendation.
Regarding grazing recommendation #13, to focus on removing tamarisk
and Russian olive plants before closing grazing pastures to protect
riparian areas and address different aspects of riparian health, a
change was made, as described in the Acting State Director's November
22 response, to provide for an adaptive management opportunity to
remove the trailing-only restrictions in the four pastures when they
meet rangeland health standards. The adaptive management may include
such restoration actions that you describe in your appeal letter. This
adjustment strikes the balance between riparian health in the
identified pastures and the use of public lands for livestock grazing.
As such, I do not find that a substantive inconsistency exists between
the Proposed RMP and the State RMP, and I am not accepting your
recommendation.
Regarding grazing recommendation #14, to ``employ and rely on
stock-and-monitor to test rangeland effects,'' for areas available to
livestock grazing, the Proposed RMP directs the BLM to conduct land
health assessments and, if needed, causal factor determinations, to
inform the processing and issuance of grazing permits to support the
achievement of the BLM Utah Rangeland Health Standards and ensure
consistency with the protection of Monument objects. While this
language is similar in concept to the recommended ``stock-and-monitor
to test'' approach, it more accurately aligns with the direction in
BLM's grazing regulations. The grazing regulations also direct BLM to
identify in the RMP which lands are available for livestock grazing and
to set forth the constraints and general management practices needed to
achieve the management objectives, including managing the Monument for
healthy rangelands. As such, I do not find that a substantive
inconsistency exists between the Proposed RMP and the State RMP, and I
am not accepting your recommendation.
Tenth (noted as eleventh in the appeal letter), with regard to
invasive species management, as noted in the Acting State Director's
response, the BLM intends to eliminate inconsistency with the State's
RMP by expanding allowable management of invasive plants, including
Russian olive and tamarisk, where doing so is consistent with other
management direction and the protection of Monument objects. While the
BLM supports the State RMP's objective of removal of Russian olive and
tamarisk plants from all riparian areas by 2030, the BLM's proposed
management of invasive species is not inconsistent with the State's
plans or policies simply because it does not mirror the exact language
of the State's RMP. As a result, I do not accept the State's
recommendations regarding invasive species.
Eleventh (noted as twelfth in the appeal letter), regarding the
State's concerns about Visual Resource Management (VRM) along a four-
mile segment of the Highway 89 utility corridor, I find that these
concerns do
[[Page 4786]]
not raise an inconsistency with State or local plans, policies, and
programs. As explained in the Acting State Director's response,
management of this segment as VRM Class II is necessary for protecting
the visual resources associated with the Cockscomb formation, an object
identified for protection in Proclamation 10286, while still allowing
access, maintenance, or development of utilities, consistent with
Public Law 105-355 and consistent with the State RMP's intent to
protect access to utilities, improve infrastructure, and conduct
vegetation management activities near infrastructure. Because the State
has not identified any inconsistencies related to the VRM
classifications in the Proposed RMP, I do not accept the State's
recommendation to make changes to those classifications.
Twelfth (noted as thirteenth in the appeal letter), the State's
appeal alleges continued inconsistencies regarding commercial forestry
and woodland harvest within the proposed RMP. I concur with the Acting
State Director's finding that the limitations on commercial and
noncommercial harvests within the Monument are necessary for the
protection of various Monument objects identified in Proclamation
10286, including certain forest resources, as well as the overall GSENM
landscape. Commercial timber harvest has not been authorized in the
Monument for more than 20 years, and lifting this limitation could
jeopardize various Monument objects and would be inconsistent with the
Federal policy goal of protecting and restoring GSENM's landscape,
scenic attributes, and biological resources. In addition, because
commercial timber harvest is allowed on other Federal lands in southern
Utah, the prohibition in the Proposed RMP would not constrain the
general ability to harvest timber in the State. Accordingly, I find
that the State's recommendation to allow commercial timber harvest in
GSENM (even those that you describe as ``small-scale, local commercial
operations'') does not provide for a reasonable balance between the
national and the State's interest.
Regarding alleged inconsistency from the Proposed RMP's restriction
of noncommercial harvest in lands managed for the protection of
wilderness characteristics, this restriction provides for a reasonable
balance between the national and the state interests, in that it allows
for some noncommercial harvests in the Monument but does so in a way
that protects other resource values and management objectives. The
Proposed RMP's restriction of noncommercial harvest throughout portions
of the Monument, especially those portions managed for the protection
of wilderness characteristics, is necessary to facilitate the
protection and restoration of the Monument's biological, cultural, and
scenic resources. By comparison, the State's recommendation to allow
for noncommercial harvest in lands managed for the protection of
wilderness characteristics would hinder the BLM's ability to protect
and restore these resources and, therefore, would be inconsistent with
Federal policy. Moreover, noncommercial harvest is allowed on other
Federal lands in the vicinity, so the prohibition in the Proposed RMP
would not prohibit all noncommercial harvest of timber resources in the
area. Therefore, I also find that the State's recommendation to allow
for noncommercial timber harvest in lands managed for the protection of
wilderness characteristics does not provide for a reasonable balance
between the national and the State's interest.
Thirteenth (noted as fourteenth in the appeal letter), concerning
your appeal regarding permits for overnight camping, I agree with the
Acting State Director that the requirement in the Proposed RMP that all
overnight campers obtain free-use permits is not inconsistent with the
State RMP's vision of promoting balanced, accessible, and sustainable
outdoor recreation opportunities. Much like the State, the BLM supports
making access to public lands easy and affordable for all visitors. The
BLM is also required to protect Monument objects noted in the Monument
proclamation, and to ensure the safety of public land users. The
overnight camping permit requirement, which is intended to provide the
BLM with the opportunity to share messaging with overnight users
regarding safety and resource protection, to better track visitor use
to support informed management, and to help better track or locate
overdue parties, is consistent with both those goals. Notably, the
permit requirement in the Proposed RMP does not limit the number of
permits that will be issued, create a lottery to obtain a permit, or
otherwise impose restrictions that will reduce the public's ability to
camp in GSENM. In addition, the public would be able to obtain a permit
either in person or online. Accordingly, the permit requirement in the
RMP is consistent with promoting balanced, accessible, and sustainable
outdoor recreation opportunities. Balanced, accessible, and sustainable
outdoor recreation opportunities do not necessarily mean an entirely
unregulated experience. Because I disagree that a substantive
inconsistency exists between the Proposed RMP and the State RMP
regarding permits for overnight camping, I am not accepting your
recommendations.
Finally, the BLM has prepared the GSENM Proposed RMP/Final EIS in
accordance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
The BLM carefully reviewed and considered applicable State, local, and
other Federal agency plans, policies, and programs in the development
of the GSENM RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP is consistent, to the
extent practicable, with these plans as required by FLPMA and the
planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). In conclusion, to the
extent any inconsistencies exist, I find that the recommendations
outlined in your appeal do not provide for a reasonable balance between
the national interest and the State's interest for the reasons
discussed herein. Accordingly, I do not accept the State's
recommendations.''
(Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e))
Nada Wolff Culver,
Principal Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2025-00951 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-25-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 16, 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.