3912 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices 

For a period until January 15, 2027, 

the public lands described earlier will 

be segregated from location and entry 

under the United States mining laws 

and from leasing under the mineral and 

geothermal leasing laws, but not from 

the disposal of mineral materials under 

the mineral materials disposal laws, 

subject to valid existing rights, unless 

the application is denied or canceled, or 

the withdrawal is approved prior to that 

date. Licenses, permits, cooperative 

agreements, or discretionary land use 

authorizations of a temporary nature 

may be allowed on a case-by-case basis 

during the temporary segregation period 

if they would comply with the 

applicable BLM land use plans for the 

described public lands located within 

the boundary of the proposed 

withdrawal. 

This application will be processed in 

accordance with the regulations set 

forth in 43 CFR part 2300. 

(Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1714) 

Kimberly Prill, 

Acting State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00814 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–21–P 

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 UtilityScale 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 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 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
3914 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices 

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 projectspecific 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_NV_FRN_MO4540000292; 

NVNV106391927] 

Proposed Withdrawal and Public 

Meeting for the Amargosa Valley, 

Nevada 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior 

proposes to withdraw 308,890 acres of 

Federal lands located in Nye County, 

Nevada, from location and entry under 

the United States mining laws, and from 

leasing under the mineral and 

geothermal leasing laws, for 20 years, 

subject to valid existing rights. The area 

also includes approximately 40,000 

acres, more or less, of non-Federal lands 

that would be subject to the withdrawal 

if they are subsequently acquired by the 

United States. The purpose of the 

proposed withdrawal is to protect the 

cultural, recreational, and biological 

resources of these lands. Publication of 

this notice temporarily segregates the 

lands for up to 2 years from location and 

entry under the United States mining 

laws and leasing under the mineral and 

geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid 

existing rights. The lands will remain 

open to disposal under the mineral 

materials laws. This notice initiates a 

90-day public comment period and 

announces a public meeting on the 

proposed withdrawal, including input 

related to ongoing mining activities for 

sepiolite, saponite, and bentonite within 

the study area related to projected 

development of valid existing rights. 

DATES: All Comments must be received 

by April 15, 2025. 

The BLM will hold a Public Meeting 

on the withdrawal proposal on February 

27, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. Pacific time at the 

Amargosa Community Center located at 

1640 E. Amargosa Farm Road, Amargosa 

Valley, NV 89020. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

submitted to the BLM Pahrump Field 

Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 

Pahrump Field Office, Attn: Amargosa 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1