[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68466-68467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27262]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY920000 L51010000.ER0000.LVRWK09K0990.13X]


BLM Director's Response to the Idaho Governor's Appeal of the BLM 
Idaho State Director's Governor's Consistency Review Determination

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice 
to explain why the BLM Director is denying the Governor of Idaho's 
recommendations regarding the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 
analyzed in the Gateway West Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Amme, Acting Division Chief for 
Decision Support, Planning and NEPA, telephone 202-912-7289; address 
1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240; email 
[email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. 
The FIRS 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. A copy of the Gateway West Final EIS and 
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments is available on the BLM Wyoming Web 
site at: http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/cfodocs/gateway_west/index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April, 26, 2013, the BLM released the 
Gateway West Final EIS and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments. On June 
27, 2013, the Governor of Idaho (Governor) submitted a Governor's 
Consistency Review and Finding of Inconsistency for the Gateway West 
Final EIS and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments (Finding) to the BLM 
Idaho State Director (State Director). The State Director determined 
the Governor's Finding was outside the scope of the Governor's 
Consistency Review process and did not accept the Governor's 
recommendations. A written response was sent to the Governor on July 
26, 2013, addressing the issues raised in the Governor's Finding.
    On August 23, 2013, the Governor appealed the State Director's 
decision not to accept his recommendations to the BLM Director. The BLM 
Director issued a final response to the Governor affirming the State 
Director's decision. Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3-2, the substantive 
portions of the Director's response to the Governor are printed as 
follows:
    ``With regard to your Greater Sage-Grouse Plan concerns, your 
letter did not identify inconsistencies between your Plan and any of 
the BLM proposed land use plan amendments for the Gateway West 
Transmission Project. The regulations that provide for the Governor's 
consistency review process at 43 CFR 1610.3-2, require BLM to ensure 
that resource management plans or plan amendments `are consistent with 
officially approved or adopted' State and local government resource 
related plans, and policies and programs in those plans so long as the 
plans `are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of 
Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.' The 
regulations further provide the Governor of the State involved in a 
proposed plan or amendment to identify inconsistencies between State or 
local plans and the proposed plan or amendment and provide 
recommendations to the BLM State Director. The consistency review 
submitted by the Governor must identify, with specificity, how a 
proposed plan amendment is inconsistent with specific State or local 
plans. If the State Director denies such recommendations, the Governor 
is afforded an opportunity to appeal the BLM State Director's denial of 
recommendations to the BLM Director pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e).
    ``Your letter to the BLM State Director and your appeal do not meet 
the regulatory requirements by specifically identifying inconsistencies 
between the Greater Sage-Grouse Plan and the proposed land use plan 
amendments in the Gateway West Transmission Project FEIS. Your appeal 
only generally states that your Plan, which you submitted to the BLM on 
July 1, 2013, is inconsistent with the Gateway West National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The scope of the Governor's 
consistency review process is narrow. It

[[Page 68467]]

is limited to the proposed land use plan amendment associated with the 
Gateway West Project and does not include the remainder of the project 
application or wholesale challenges to impacts analyzed in the FEIS. 
The absence of any identification of a specific inconsistency supports 
my decision to deny the recommendations in your appeal.
    ``Your appeal also requests clarification of BLM Idaho's statement 
that your Greater Sage-Grouse Plan was `not sufficiently final' to be 
considered in the FEIS. While the Plan may represent a final proposal 
from you, the larger Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort being 
undertaken by the BLM in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and other states, including Idaho, is not yet final. The Idaho 
BLM State Director was attempting to explain that the Greater Sage-
Grouse planning effort and the Gateway West Transmission Project 
represented two separate and distinct processes. Your plan is one of 
two co-preferred alternatives being fully analyzed in the Idaho and 
Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan 
Amendment/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As we have 
discussed in person, the BLM is very committed to continuing to work 
with the State of Idaho on Greater Sage-Grouse to meet our shared 
goals. We have appreciated your efforts to develop a thoughtful and 
detailed alternative.
    ``With respect to Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act, your letter 
to the BLM Idaho State Director and your appeal again do not 
specifically identify inconsistencies between local comprehensive plans 
and the proposed land use plan amendments for the Gateway West 
Transmission Project. Instead, you generally state that local counties 
have jurisdiction over the siting of utility transmission corridors, 
and that these local governments have comprehensive planning and zoning 
plans. You suggest that the local governments prefer that transmission 
siting occur on Federal land. Finally, you suggest that the BLM's 
review process for the Gateway West Transmission Project lacked 
meaningful public involvement. No specific inconsistencies between 
proposed land use plan amendments for the Gateway West Transmission 
Project and State or local plans were identified as required under BLM 
regulations, and thus, I am denying your consistency appeal as it 
relates to Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act.
    ``The BLM has taken considerable steps to coordinate with the local 
counties. In fact, the BLM coordinated extensively with local 
governments in the development of alternatives that crossed their 
jurisdictions, including meetings with the Cities of Melba and Kuna and 
various counties. Additionally, the BLM recognizes that after the 
Record of Decision is signed, the individual counties have authority 
under Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act to adjust the final location 
for the portions of each proposed action or alternative that are 
located on non-federal land.
    ``After careful consideration, it is my conclusion that the appeal 
has not identified where the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent 
with specific provisions of approved or adopted resource-related State 
or local policies and programs. Therefore, I affirm the BLM Idaho State 
Director's response to your Finding of Inconsistency and deny the 
appeal.''

    Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e).

Michael D. Nedd,
Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-27262 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P