Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 4781 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi C. Wanner, Supervisory Land Law 

Examiner, BLM Alaska State Office, 

907–271–3153 or hwanner@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. 

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: As 

required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is 

hereby given that the BLM will issue an 

appealable decision to Cook Inlet 

Region, Inc. The decision approves 

conveyance of the surface estate in 

certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 

U.S.C. 1601, et seq.), as amended. 

Ownership of the subsurface estate will 

be retained by the United States. 

The lands are located within the 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge within 

T. 9 N., R. 4 W., Seward Meridian, 

Alaska, containing 0.40 acres. 

The decision addresses public access 

easements, if any, to be reserved to the 

United States pursuant to sec. 17(b) of 

ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1616(b)), in the lands 

approved for conveyance. 

The BLM will also publish notice of 

the decision once a week for four 

consecutive weeks in the ‘‘Anchorage 

Daily News’’ newspaper. 

Any party claiming a property interest 

in the lands affected by the decision 

may appeal the decision in accordance 

with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 

within the following time limits: 

1. Unknown parties, parties unable to 

be located after reasonable efforts have 

been expended to locate, parties who 

fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, 

and parties who receive a copy of the 

decision by regular mail which is not 

certified, return receipt requested, shall 

have until February 18, 2025 to file an 

appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the 

decision by certified mail shall have 30 

days from the date of receipt to file an 

appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in 

accordance with the requirements of 43 

CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have 

waived their rights. Notices of appeal 

transmitted by facsimile will not be 

accepted as timely filed. 

Heidi C. Wanner, 

Supervisory Land Law Examiner, 

Adjudication Section. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00949 Filed 1–15–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–10–P 

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 StaircaseEscalante 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 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 

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) . . . 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4782 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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 nonimpairment 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 smallscale 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 StaircaseEscalante 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 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 worldclass 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 offroad 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4784 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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-ofway, 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 offroad 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 crosscounty 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 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 nonstructural 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 planlevel 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 implementationlevel 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-andmonitor 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4786 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0039328; 

PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] 

Notice of Intended Disposition: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest, 

Anchorage, AK 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 

intends to carry out the disposition of 

unassociated funerary objects removed 

from Federal or Tribal lands to the 

lineal descendants, Indian Tribe, or 

Native Hawaiian organization with 

priority for disposition in this notice. 

DATES: Disposition of the human 

remains in this notice may occur on or 

after February 18, 2025. If no claim for 

disposition is received by January 16, 

2026, the human remains in this notice 

will become unclaimed human remains. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1