```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4781-4786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020343/510.

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 
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:
     ``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.''
     ``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.''
     ``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.
     ``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.
     ``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.
     ``Management Zones . . . The State asserts again that its 
RMP specifically prohibits the management area approach.
     ``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.''
     ``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.''
     ``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.''
     ``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.''
     ``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 . . .''
     ``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.''
     ``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
```