```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1186-1188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/admin/project/35315/570.

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 [email protected]. 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:

     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);
     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;
     That the Proposed RMP does not address the concerns or 
plans to address those in the Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan 
(NWATP);
     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;
     That the North Slope Area Plan (NSAP) did not find any 
lands requiring management areas of critical environmental concern 
(ACEC);
     That the RMP fails to meet commitments in the Master 
Memorandum of Understanding with Alaska Department of Fish and Game;
     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;
     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;
     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: (https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports).
    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
```