```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3912-3914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20125356/251025336/Solar%20PEIS%20ROD_Vol%201_Final%2012.19.2024.pdf.

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 [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 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
```