1186 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[PO4820000251] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan for the Rock Springs 

Field Office, Wyoming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces the 

availability of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) Amendment 

for the Rock Springs Field Office located 

in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The BLM 

Principal Deputy Director signed the 

ROD on December 20, 2024, which 

constitutes the decision of the BLM and 

makes the Approved RMP effective 

immediately. 

DATES: The BLM Principal Deputy 

Director signed the ROD/Approved RMP 

Amendment on December 20, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The ROD/Approved RMP is 

available online at the RMP ePlanning 

website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/ 

eplanning-ui/project/13853/510. Printed 

copies of the ROD/Approved RMP are 

available for public inspection at the 

Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) or can 

be provided upon request by contacting 

Kimberlee Foster, Field Manager, 

telephone (307) 352–0201; or at the 

address BLM Rock Springs Field Office, 

280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, 

WY 82901; email kfoster@blm.gov. 

A copy of the Protest Resolution 

Report is available at: https://

www.blm.gov/programs/planning-andnepa/public-participation/protestresolution-reports. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberlee Foster, Field Manager, 

telephone 307–352–0201; address 280 

Hwy. 191 N, Rock Springs, WY 82901; 

email BLM_WY_RockSpringsRMP@

blm.gov. 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 the individual 

listed above. Individuals outside the 

United States should use the relay 

services offered within their country to 

make international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

planning area is located in portions of 

Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta, Sublette, 

and Fremont counties in southwestern 

Wyoming, and encompasses 

approximately 3.6 million acres of 

public land. 

Resources on lands administered by 

the BLM within the planning area are 

currently managed under the Green 

River RMP (1997) and Jack Morrow 

Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP) 

(2006), as amended. The purpose of the 

Rock Springs RMP revision is to provide 

an updated, comprehensive, and 

environmentally adequate framework 

for managing and allocating uses of 

public lands and resources administered 

by the BLM in the RSFO. The Rock 

Springs RMP EIS evaluated a variety of 

resource conflicts and considered uses 

such as energy and minerals 

development, renewable energy, 

transmission infrastructure, lands and 

realty actions, and livestock grazing/ 

rangeland management, as well as 

resource protections for cultural and 

historic resources and wildlife habitat. 

The BLM published a notice of 

availability for the Draft EIS and RMP in 

the Federal Register on August 17, 

2023, which initiated a 152-day 

comment period (88 FR 56654). During 

the public comment period, the BLM 

received more than 35,000 unique 

written submissions containing 

approximately 4000 substantive 

comments. The Draft EIS comments 

helped the BLM refine the Final EIS and 

guided the development of the Proposed 

RMP. 

The BLM provided the Proposed RMP 

for public protest on August 23, 2024 

(89 FR 68187), for a 30-day protest 

period, and received 27 letters that 

contained valid protests. The BLM 

Assistant Director for Resources and 

Planning resolved all protests. 

Responses to protest issues were 

compiled and documented in a Protest 

Resolution Report (see ADDRESSES). No 

changes were made to the Approved 

RMP as a result of protest resolution. 

The BLM provided the Proposed RMP 

to the Governor of Wyoming for a 60- 

day Governor’s consistency review. The 

State Director made no changes to the 

Proposed RMP as a result of the 

Governor’s review. On December 13, 

2024, the Governor submitted an appeal 

to the BLM on the State Director’s 

response to the Governor’s consistency 

review. In accordance with planning 

regulations (1610.3–2), the BLM notified 

the Governor on December 20, 2024, of 

the reasons for the determination to 

reject the Governor’s recommendations. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR 1610.5– 

1) 

Andrew Archuleta, 

BLM State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00079 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

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 

hbernier@blm.gov. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 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-ofway (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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1188 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

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-andnepa/public-participation/protestresolution-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1