82 FR 6634 - BLM Director's Response to the Alaska Governor's Appeal of the BLM Alaska State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 12 (January 19, 2017)
Bureau of Land Management
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 12 (January 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 6634-6636 | |
| FR Document | 2017-01199 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 6634-6636] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-01199] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [17X.LLAKF02000. L16100000. DR0000. LXSS094L0000] BLM Director's Response to the Alaska Governor's Appeal of the BLM Alaska State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination for the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice contains the Director of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) response to the Alaska Governor's appeal of the BLM Alaska State Director's response to the State of Alaska's Governor's consistency review letter for the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The BLM Director determined not to accept the recommendations of the Alaska Governor's consistency review letter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Baker, Division Chief for Decision Support, Planning and NEPA, at 202-912-7282. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 29, 2016, the BLM released the PRMP and FEIS for the Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan in Alaska. In accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the BLM submitted the PRMP and FEIS for a 60-day Governor's Consistency Review. On September 28, 2016, the Governor of Alaska submitted a Governor's Consistency Review letter to the BLM Alaska State Director asserting inconsistencies between the PRMP and State land use plans, programs, and policies. After careful consideration of the concerns raised in the Governor's Consistency Review letter, the State Director decided not to adopt the recommendations made by the Governor. On October 12, 2016, the State Director sent a written response to the Governor describing the reasons for which the State Director believes that the PRMP is consistent with State land use plans, policies, and programs. On November 8, 2016, the Governor appealed the BLM Alaska State Director's decision to not accept his recommendations to the BLM Director. In the Governor's appeal letter, the State of Alaska requested the BLM Director to reconsider the issues and recommendations raised in the Governor's Consistency Review letter. The BLM Director issued a final response to the Governor that declined to accept the recommendations of the Governor and affirmed the BLM State Director's decision. Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the basis for the BLM Director's determination on the Governor's appeal is published verbatim below. ``This letter addresses your appeal of the response provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State Director regarding your consistency review of the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (referred to hereafter as the PRMP or plan). The Governor's consistency review is an important part of the BLM land use planning process, and we appreciate the significant time and attention that you and your staff have committed to this effort. The BLM developed the Eastern Interior PRMP with extensive local involvement. As a result of more than 15 months of public comment periods, we received 590 comments, including those from the State of Alaska, Chalkyitsik Village Council, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government, miners from the Fortymile area, and industry groups. Of the total comments, 171 submissions were from rural Alaska residents who qualify as Federal subsistence users. All of these stakeholder groups provided important information about their current and anticipated future uses of the lands in the planning area. I believe that this effort has led to the creation of a strong resource management plan that properly balances responsible development with the protection and conservation of subsistence use, important habitats for fish and wildlife, and other special values in the planning area. For example, the plan recommends opening more than one million acres of currently-withdrawn lands to mineral location, entry, and leasing, while also providing protection of priority habitats for caribou, Dall sheep, and other wildlife critical for subsistence use. 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 your appeal. In reviewing your appeal, I must first consider whether you have identified inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. If such inconsistencies are identified, I then must consider whether your recommendations both address the inconsistencies and provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State's interest. In your consistency review letter, you identified three key issues that the Alaska State Director determined to be outside the scope of the Governor's consistency review: The PRMP is inconsistent with Federal statutes implementing the goals of the Alaska Statehood Act that protect the State's resource management responsibilities; the PRMP is inconsistent with previous BLM plans and the BLM's multiple use mandate; and the PRMP frustrates the [[Page 6635]] State and Federal governments' obligations under the Statehood Act and the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. Your letter also stated that the PRMP is inconsistent with State land use plans, programs, and policies, which the State Director responded to in greater depth. While you raised multiple issues in both your consistency review and appeal letters, your overarching recommendation to address these issues was to revoke all Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) withdrawals. Further, in your consistency review letter, you requested that recommendations for new mineral withdrawals be removed. As described in this letter and supported by the State Director's response to your consistency letter, there is a strong national interest in protecting subsistence use and conserving important habitats for fish and wildlife. I find that the recommendations in your letter do not meet the standard for granting your appeal. I agree with the State Director that the issues dismissed in the response to your consistency review do not identify inconsistencies with State resource related plans, policies, or programs. Nevertheless, I have fully considered these issues as well as your responses to the State Director's findings. Below is my review of the issues and recommendations presented in your appeal letter. 1. The plan does not respect the congressional mandate in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to make multiple use lands not already designated as conservation system units available for intensive use, and instead applies layers of protective measures to buffer conservation system units within the planning area (e.g., the Fortymile Wild and Scenic River). Upon review, I have determined that the PRMP is consistent with the provisions of ANILCA. As you are aware, ANILCA Sec. 101(d) states that the designation and disposition of the public lands pursuant to this Act represent a proper balance between the reservation of national conservation system units and those public lands necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and designation, further stating that Congress believes the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservation areas, or new national recreation areas, to be ``obviated.'' The PRMP does not recommend designating any new conservation system units, national conservation areas, or national recreation areas, but rather recommends revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals on a total of approximately 1.7 million acres in order to open these lands to mineral location entry and leasing, including 1.1 million acres of the Fortymile Subunit. While the PRMP does recommend new withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), this action is not precluded by ANILCA. Specifically, ANILCA (Sec. 1326(a)) outlines a process for withdrawing lands in Alaska, which indicates that Congress did envision the possibility of future withdrawals. Such withdrawals are consistent with ANILCA and Secretarial withdrawal authorities. The PRMP recommends only temporarily retaining the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals until new withdrawals under FLPMA can be enacted in these areas. 2. The plan relies on outdated ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals to support restrictions on access, use, and resource development instead of recognizing that existing Federal and State environmental laws and regulations already protect resource values. The BLM recognizes that Federal and State laws and regulations provide for the protection of resource values. FLPMA and its implementing regulations are included among these Federal laws. FLPMA mandates that the BLM manage on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, and makes clear that the term ``multiple use'' does not mean that every use is appropriate for every acre of public land. Rather, the Secretary can ``make the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use . . .'' (FLPMA Sec. 103(c)). In your appeal letter, you reference Article 8, Section 2 of the Alaska State Constitution, which states, ``[t]he legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit to the people.'' You also highlight similarities between State statutes and FLPMA, both of which provide for the balance of resource development and conservation. While section 102 of FLPMA expresses Congressional policy that public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, that same section also references protection of the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values, and FLPMA section 103(c) expressly includes similar values in its definition of multiple use (including values such as ``recreation . . . . wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and historical values''). The BLM also recognizes that all of the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals should not remain in place. As previously mentioned, the PRMP recommends revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals on approximately 1.7 million acres to open these lands for mineral entry. The PRMP recommends retaining certain portions of these withdrawals, but only until recommended withdrawals under FLPMA can be put in place. The PRMP also recommends eventual revocation of all ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals to clean up the land record and remove duplicate withdrawals. Your appeal states that the plan provides no explanation as to why existing laws and regulations provide insufficient protection for resource values. However, I find that the effects of the proposed alternative, including the rationale for these actions, are adequately analyzed and disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS. I concur with the determination in the PRMP that additional protections, such as FLPMA withdrawals to protect water quality and river values, are warranted. 3. The plan frustrates the State's ability to prioritize land selections and interferes with the State's ability to develop a resource-based economy. While I have fully considered your concerns, I concur with the State Director's response that these statements do not identify inconsistencies with State plans, policies, or programs. In your appeal, you state that the PRMP impedes the State's ability to prioritize land selections. Based on analysis completed by BLM Alaska in June 2016, only an estimated 197,100 acres of the State's top three priorities of top-filed lands are encumbered solely by 17(d)(1) withdrawals on a statewide basis. Affected lands within the planning area would be even less. The State is currently over-selected on their land entitlement by 242 percent. Further, in regards to the assertion that retaining 17(d)(1) withdrawals interferes with the State's ability to explore, locate, and define the mineral resource on large tracts of lands identified for selection, all State and Native-selected lands are segregated from mineral entry. Should 17(d)(1) withdrawals be revoked, the lands are not open to the staking of mining claims until the selections are relinquished, including State selections. Once a 17(d)(1) withdrawal is revoked and the State's top-filing attaches to a selection, the State's selection itself segregates the [[Page 6636]] land and makes it unavailable for mining claims, until such time as the selection is requested by the State and tentatively approved. For the reasons described throughout this letter, I do not think the plan will interfere with the State's ability to develop a resource-based economy, but that the PRMP will promote future opportunities for mineral exploration and development, where appropriate. 4. The plan does not provide sustainable opportunities for mineral exploration or development consistent with State area plans, including areas in the White Mountain National Recreation Area (NRA) that have high potential for rare earth elements. In your consistency review and appeal letters, you assert that the PRMP preempts mineral exploration and development, and by doing so, the PRMP is inconsistent with State plans, policies, and programs. However, I concur with the State Director's finding that the PRMP is consistent with the State's plans, policies, and programs, including the State's policy to make mineral resources available for development. As noted in the State Director's response, the PRMP recommends revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals on 1.7 million acres to open lands to mineral location, entry, and leasing, including 1.1 million acres in the Fortymile Subunit, 4,000 acres in the White Mountains Subunit, 547,000 acres in the Draanjik (Upper Black River) Subunit adjacent to State and State-selected land, and 30,000 acres in the Steese Subunit adjacent to State land. These recommendations are consistent with making mineral resources available for mineral development. Moreover, revoking the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would not allow for new mining claims in the White Mountains NRA, as that area would remain withdrawn from the mining law by ANILCA. As noted in the response to comments on FEIS pp. 1520-1521, the PRMP recommends maintaining the ANILCA withdrawals for the Steese NCA and White Mountains NRA. It also recommends to the Secretary that the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals (Public Land Orders 5180 and 5179) be revoked as applied to these areas since they are duplicative of the ANILCA withdrawals and thus not necessary. Additionally, Public Land Order 5180 does not close the national conservation area to location of metalliferous mining claims (such as gold), so its protective effect is limited. Removing the 17(d)(1) withdrawals would clean up the public land record by removing duplicative withdrawals, but it would not result in opening the lands to the mining law. Your overarching recommendation is to revoke all ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals, unconditionally. However, based on the foregoing, I find that the recommendations provided in your appeal letter do not meet the standard identified above for granting an appeal in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). Therefore, I affirm the Alaska State Director's response to your finding of inconsistency and respectfully deny your appeal. The reasons outlined above for my decision on your appeal will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the applicable BLM regulations. Further, please note that the BLM gave due consideration to the State's concerns raised in the protest letter dated August 29, 2016. For a detailed response to these issues, many of which were raised in your consistency review letter, I refer you to the Director's Protest Resolution Report. The BLM and the State of Alaska have a long history of working cooperatively on the development of resource management plans. I appreciate the resources and input that you and your staff have put into the process of developing the PRMP for the Eastern Interior planning area. As mentioned, I believe this plan balances responsible development with the protection and conservation of subsistence use, important habitats for fish and wildlife, and other special values. I look forward to our continued coordination as our teams work together to implement this plan.'' Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). Kristin Bail, Assistant Director, Resources and Planning. [FR Doc. 2017-01199 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
![6634 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Notices
DATES). We intend any final action Proposed Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement
resulting from this proposal to be as (PRMP) and Final Environmental (referred to hereafter as the PRMP or
accurate and as effective as possible. Impact Statement (FEIS). The BLM plan). The Governor’s consistency
Therefore, we request comments or Director determined not to accept the review is an important part of the BLM
suggestions on this proposed recommendations of the Alaska land use planning process, and we
authorization. Governor’s consistency review letter. appreciate the significant time and
We particularly seek comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: attention that you and your staff have
concerning: Leah Baker, Division Chief for Decision committed to this effort.
• Whether the proposed Support, Planning and NEPA, at 202– The BLM developed the Eastern
authorization, including the proposed 912–7282. Persons who use a Interior PRMP with extensive local
activities, will have a negligible impact telecommunications device for the deaf involvement. As a result of more than
on the species or stock of the southern (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 15 months of public comment periods,
sea otter. Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to we received 590 comments, including
• Whether there are any additional contact the above individual during those from the State of Alaska,
provisions we may wish to consider for normal business hours. FRS is available Chalkyitsik Village Council, Gwichyaa
ensuring the conservation of the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government,
southern sea otter. a message or question with the above miners from the Fortymile area, and
You may submit your comments and individual. You will receive a reply industry groups. Of the total comments,
materials concerning this proposed during normal business hours. 171 submissions were from rural Alaska
authorization by one of the methods residents who qualify as Federal
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
listed in ADDRESSES. Before including subsistence users. All of these
29, 2016, the BLM released the PRMP stakeholder groups provided important
your address, phone number, email and FEIS for the Eastern Interior
address, or other personal identifying information about their current and
Resource Management Plan in Alaska. anticipated future uses of the lands in
information in your comment, you In accordance with the regulations at 43
should be aware that your entire the planning area.
CFR 1610.3–2(e), the BLM submitted the I believe that this effort has led to the
comment—including your personal PRMP and FEIS for a 60-day Governor’s
identifying information—may be made creation of a strong resource
Consistency Review. On September 28, management plan that properly balances
publicly available at any time. While 2016, the Governor of Alaska submitted
you can ask us in your comment to responsible development with the
a Governor’s Consistency Review letter protection and conservation of
withhold your personal identifying to the BLM Alaska State Director
information from public review, we subsistence use, important habitats for
asserting inconsistencies between the fish and wildlife, and other special
cannot guarantee that we will be able to PRMP and State land use plans, values in the planning area. For
do so. programs, and policies. example, the plan recommends opening
Authority: We issue this notice under the After careful consideration of the more than one million acres of
authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371 et concerns raised in the Governor’s currently-withdrawn lands to mineral
seq.). Consistency Review letter, the State location, entry, and leasing, while also
Dated: January 6, 2017. Director decided not to adopt the providing protection of priority habitats
Paul Souza, recommendations made by the for caribou, Dall sheep, and other
Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region. Governor. On October 12, 2016, the wildlife critical for subsistence use.
[FR Doc. 2017–01271 Filed 1–18–17; 8:45 am]
State Director sent a written response to The applicable regulations at 43 CFR
the Governor describing the reasons for 1610.3–2(e) provide you with the
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
which the State Director believes that opportunity to appeal the State
the PRMP is consistent with State land Director’s decision to not accept the
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR use plans, policies, and programs. recommendations you made in your
On November 8, 2016, the Governor consistency review letter. These
Bureau of Land Management appealed the BLM Alaska State regulations also guide my review of
Director’s decision to not accept his your appeal. In reviewing your appeal,
[17X.LLAKF02000. L16100000. DR0000. recommendations to the BLM Director. I must first consider whether you have
LXSS094L0000] In the Governor’s appeal letter, the State identified inconsistencies with State or
BLM Director’s Response to the Alaska of Alaska requested the BLM Director to local plans, policies, or programs. If
Governor’s Appeal of the BLM Alaska reconsider the issues and such inconsistencies are identified, I
State Director’s Governor’s recommendations raised in the then must consider whether your
Consistency Review Determination for Governor’s Consistency Review letter. recommendations both address the
the Eastern Interior Proposed The BLM Director issued a final inconsistencies and provide for a
Resource Management Plan and Final response to the Governor that declined reasonable balance between the national
Environmental Impact Statement to accept the recommendations of the interest and the State’s interest.
Governor and affirmed the BLM State In your consistency review letter, you
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Director’s decision. Pursuant to 43 CFR identified three key issues that the
Interior. 1610.3–2(e), the basis for the BLM Alaska State Director determined to be
ACTION: Notice. Director’s determination on the outside the scope of the Governor’s
Governor’s appeal is published verbatim consistency review: The PRMP is
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: This notice contains the below. inconsistent with Federal statutes
Director of the Bureau of Land ‘‘This letter addresses your appeal of implementing the goals of the Alaska
Management’s (BLM) response to the the response provided by the Bureau of Statehood Act that protect the State’s
Alaska Governor’s appeal of the BLM Land Management (BLM) Alaska State resource management responsibilities;
Alaska State Director’s response to the Director regarding your consistency the PRMP is inconsistent with previous
State of Alaska’s Governor’s consistency review of the Eastern Interior Proposed BLM plans and the BLM’s multiple use
review letter for the Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan and Final mandate; and the PRMP frustrates the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_6646/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Notices 6635
State and Federal governments’ revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals expressly includes similar values in its
obligations under the Statehood Act and on a total of approximately 1.7 million definition of multiple use (including
the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration acres in order to open these lands to values such as ‘‘recreation . . . .
Act. mineral location entry and leasing, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,
Your letter also stated that the PRMP including 1.1 million acres of the scientific, and historical values’’).
is inconsistent with State land use Fortymile Subunit. While the PRMP The BLM also recognizes that all of
plans, programs, and policies, which the does recommend new withdrawals the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals should
State Director responded to in greater under the Federal Land Policy and not remain in place. As previously
depth. While you raised multiple issues Management Act (FLPMA), this action mentioned, the PRMP recommends
in both your consistency review and is not precluded by ANILCA. revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals
appeal letters, your overarching Specifically, ANILCA (§ 1326(a)) on approximately 1.7 million acres to
recommendation to address these issues outlines a process for withdrawing open these lands for mineral entry. The
was to revoke all Alaska Native Claims lands in Alaska, which indicates that PRMP recommends retaining certain
Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) Congress did envision the possibility of portions of these withdrawals, but only
withdrawals. Further, in your future withdrawals. Such withdrawals until recommended withdrawals under
consistency review letter, you requested are consistent with ANILCA and FLPMA can be put in place. The PRMP
that recommendations for new mineral Secretarial withdrawal authorities. The also recommends eventual revocation of
withdrawals be removed. PRMP recommends only temporarily all ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals to
As described in this letter and retaining the ANCSA 17(d)(1) clean up the land record and remove
supported by the State Director’s withdrawals until new withdrawals duplicate withdrawals.
response to your consistency letter, under FLPMA can be enacted in these Your appeal states that the plan
there is a strong national interest in areas. provides no explanation as to why
protecting subsistence use and 2. The plan relies on outdated ANCSA existing laws and regulations provide
conserving important habitats for fish 17(d)(1) withdrawals to support insufficient protection for resource
and wildlife. I find that the restrictions on access, use, and resource values. However, I find that the effects
recommendations in your letter do not development instead of recognizing that of the proposed alternative, including
meet the standard for granting your existing Federal and State the rationale for these actions, are
appeal. I agree with the State Director environmental laws and regulations adequately analyzed and disclosed in
that the issues dismissed in the already protect resource values. the PRMP/FEIS. I concur with the
response to your consistency review do The BLM recognizes that Federal and determination in the PRMP that
not identify inconsistencies with State State laws and regulations provide for additional protections, such as FLPMA
resource related plans, policies, or the protection of resource values. withdrawals to protect water quality
programs. Nevertheless, I have fully FLPMA and its implementing and river values, are warranted.
considered these issues as well as your regulations are included among these 3. The plan frustrates the State’s
responses to the State Director’s Federal laws. FLPMA mandates that the ability to prioritize land selections and
findings. Below is my review of the BLM manage on the basis of multiple interferes with the State’s ability to
issues and recommendations presented use and sustained yield, and makes develop a resource-based economy.
in your appeal letter. clear that the term ‘‘multiple use’’ does While I have fully considered your
1. The plan does not respect the not mean that every use is appropriate concerns, I concur with the State
congressional mandate in the Alaska for every acre of public land. Rather, the Director’s response that these statements
National Interest Lands Conservation Secretary can ‘‘make the most judicious do not identify inconsistencies with
Act (ANILCA) to make multiple use use of the land for some or all of these State plans, policies, or programs. In
lands not already designated as resources or related services over areas your appeal, you state that the PRMP
conservation system units available for large enough to provide sufficient impedes the State’s ability to prioritize
intensive use, and instead applies layers latitude for periodic adjustments in land selections. Based on analysis
of protective measures to buffer use . . .’’ (FLPMA § 103(c)). completed by BLM Alaska in June 2016,
conservation system units within the In your appeal letter, you reference only an estimated 197,100 acres of the
planning area (e.g., the Fortymile Wild Article 8, Section 2 of the Alaska State State’s top three priorities of top-filed
and Scenic River). Constitution, which states, ‘‘[t]he lands are encumbered solely by 17(d)(1)
Upon review, I have determined that legislature shall provide for the withdrawals on a statewide basis.
the PRMP is consistent with the utilization, development, and Affected lands within the planning area
provisions of ANILCA. As you are conservation of all natural resources would be even less. The State is
aware, ANILCA § 101(d) states that the belonging to the State, including land currently over-selected on their land
designation and disposition of the and waters, for the maximum benefit to entitlement by 242 percent.
public lands pursuant to this Act the people.’’ You also highlight Further, in regards to the assertion
represent a proper balance between the similarities between State statutes and that retaining 17(d)(1) withdrawals
reservation of national conservation FLPMA, both of which provide for the interferes with the State’s ability to
system units and those public lands balance of resource development and explore, locate, and define the mineral
necessary and appropriate for more conservation. While section 102 of resource on large tracts of lands
intensive use and designation, further FLPMA expresses Congressional policy identified for selection, all State and
stating that Congress believes the need that public lands be managed in a Native-selected lands are segregated
for future legislation designating new manner which recognizes the Nation’s from mineral entry. Should 17(d)(1)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
conservation system units, new national need for domestic sources of minerals, withdrawals be revoked, the lands are
conservation areas, or new national that same section also references not open to the staking of mining claims
recreation areas, to be ‘‘obviated.’’ The protection of the quality of scientific, until the selections are relinquished,
PRMP does not recommend designating scenic, historical, ecological, including State selections. Once a
any new conservation system units, environmental, air and atmospheric, 17(d)(1) withdrawal is revoked and the
national conservation areas, or national water resource, and archeological State’s top-filing attaches to a selection,
recreation areas, but rather recommends values, and FLPMA section 103(c) the State’s selection itself segregates the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_6646/page/2.svg)
![6636 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Notices
land and makes it unavailable for withdrawals, but it would not result in Federal Land Policy and Management
mining claims, until such time as the opening the lands to the mining law. Act of 1976 (FLPMA) to convey the
selection is requested by the State and Your overarching recommendation is federally owned mineral interests in a
tentatively approved. For the reasons to revoke all ANCSA 17(d)(1) 799.57-acre parcel of land, located in
described throughout this letter, I do not withdrawals, unconditionally. However, Maricopa County, Arizona, to the
think the plan will interfere with the based on the foregoing, I find that the surface owner, REO Funding Solution
State’s ability to develop a resource- recommendations provided in your IV, LLC. Publication of this notice
based economy, but that the PRMP will appeal letter do not meet the standard temporarily segregates the federally
promote future opportunities for identified above for granting an appeal owned mineral interests in the land
mineral exploration and development, in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e). covered by the application from all
where appropriate. Therefore, I affirm the Alaska State forms of appropriation under the public
4. The plan does not provide Director’s response to your finding of land laws, including the mining laws,
sustainable opportunities for mineral inconsistency and respectfully deny for up to 2 years while the BLM
exploration or development consistent your appeal. The reasons outlined above processes the application.
with State area plans, including areas in for my decision on your appeal will also DATES: Interested persons may submit
the White Mountain National Recreation be published in the Federal Register written comments to the BLM at the
Area (NRA) that have high potential for pursuant to the applicable BLM address listed below on or before March
rare earth elements. regulations. 6, 2017.
In your consistency review and Further, please note that the BLM ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land
appeal letters, you assert that the PRMP gave due consideration to the State’s Management, Phoenix District Office,
preempts mineral exploration and concerns raised in the protest letter 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
development, and by doing so, the dated August 29, 2016. For a detailed 85027. Detailed information concerning
PRMP is inconsistent with State plans, response to these issues, many of which this action is available for review at this
policies, and programs. However, I were raised in your consistency review address.
concur with the State Director’s finding letter, I refer you to the Director’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
that the PRMP is consistent with the Protest Resolution Report. Benedict Parsons, Realty Specialist, at
State’s plans, policies, and programs, The BLM and the State of Alaska have the address above, or by telephone at
including the State’s policy to make a long history of working cooperatively 623–580–5637, or email at bparsons@
mineral resources available for on the development of resource blm.gov. Persons who use a
development. As noted in the State management plans. I appreciate the telecommunications device for the deaf
Director’s response, the PRMP resources and input that you and your (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
recommends revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) staff have put into the process of Service at 1–800–877–8339 to contact
withdrawals on 1.7 million acres to developing the PRMP for the Eastern the above individual during business
open lands to mineral location, entry, Interior planning area. As mentioned, I hours. The Service is available 24 hours
and leasing, including 1.1 million acres believe this plan balances responsible a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message
in the Fortymile Subunit, 4,000 acres in development with the protection and or question for the above individual.
the White Mountains Subunit, 547,000 conservation of subsistence use, You will receive a reply during normal
acres in the Draanjik (Upper Black important habitats for fish and wildlife, business hours.
River) Subunit adjacent to State and and other special values. I look forward
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
State-selected land, and 30,000 acres in to our continued coordination as our
is processing an application under
the Steese Subunit adjacent to State teams work together to implement this
section 209 of the Federal Land Policy
land. These recommendations are plan.’’
and Management Act (FLPMA), 43
consistent with making mineral Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e). U.S.C. 1719(b), to convey the federally
resources available for mineral owned mineral interests that aggregate
development. Kristin Bail,
Assistant Director, Resources and Planning. 799.57 acres, situated in Maricopa
Moreover, revoking the ANCSA County, Arizona. The location of the
17(d)(1) withdrawals would not allow [FR Doc. 2017–01199 Filed 1–18–17; 8:45 am]
federally owned mineral interest
for new mining claims in the White BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P
proposed for conveyance is intended to
Mountains NRA, as that area would be identical in location as the privately
remain withdrawn from the mining law owned surface interest of the applicant,
by ANILCA. As noted in the response to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
and is described as follows.
comments on FEIS pp. 1520–1521, the
Bureau of Land Management AZA–036156
PRMP recommends maintaining the
ANILCA withdrawals for the Steese [LLAZP02000.L54100000.FR0000. Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa
NCA and White Mountains NRA. It also LVCLA15A5240.241A; AZA–36488 and AZA– County, Arizona
recommends to the Secretary that the 36156] T. 6 N., R 4 E.,
ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals (Public Parcel No. 1
Notice of Realty Action: Application for
Land Orders 5180 and 5179) be revoked A parcel of land situated in the southwest
Conveyance of Federally Owned
as applied to these areas since they are quarter of section 12, being more particularly
Mineral Interests in Maricopa County,
duplicative of the ANILCA withdrawals described as follows:
AZ COMMENCING at the southwest section
and thus not necessary. Additionally,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Public Land Order 5180 does not close AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, corner of said section 12, which bears North
the national conservation area to 89°14′17″ West, a distance of 2644.37 feet
Interior.
from the south 1⁄4 section corner of said
location of metalliferous mining claims ACTION: Notice. section 12;
(such as gold), so its protective effect is THENCE South 89°14′17″ East, along the
limited. Removing the 17(d)(1) SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land south section line of said southwest 1⁄4 of
withdrawals would clean up the public Management (BLM) is processing an section 12, a distance of 330.55 feet to the
land record by removing duplicative application under section 209 of the point of beginning;
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_6646/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-01 15:15:49
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 15:15:49
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Contact | Leah Baker, Division Chief for Decision Support, Planning and NEPA, at 202-912-7282. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 6634 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR