Coalition Submits Comments to ACHP Regarding Termination of Section 106 Consultation on the Lava Ridge Wind Project

Section 110(a)(2) of the NHPA directs each Federal agency to establish a preservation program to identify, evaluate, nominate, and protect historic properties that are eligible for the National Register. The agency shall ensure that such properties “as are listed or may be eligible for the National Register are managed and maintained in a way that considers the preservation of their historic, archeological, architectural, and cultural values in compliance with Section 106 of this Act. This section also directs that “preservation of properties not under the jurisdiction or control of the agency, but subject to be potentially affected by agency actions are given full consideration in planning. (Emphasis added)

The provisions of Section 110 are proactive, not reactive, and are reinforced in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs.¹⁹https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-04-24/pdf/98-10972.pdf Specifically, Standards 2 and 3 state the following (emphasis added to underlined sections):

• Standard 2. An agency provides for the timely identification and evaluation of historic properties under agency jurisdiction or control and/or subject to effect by agency actions. (Sec. 110(a)(2)(A), and sec. 112)
• Standard 3. An agency nominates historic properties under the agency’s jurisdiction or control to the National Register of Historic Places. (Sec. 110(a)(2)(A)).

These responsibilities are acknowledged in the 1986 Monument RMP (p. 41), which states:

The Bureau of Land Management is required to identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources on public lands under its jurisdiction and to ensure the Bureau-initiated or Bureau-authorized actions do not inadvertently harm or destroy non-federal cultural resources. These requirements are mandated by the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 as amended by P.L. 933-191, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593 (1971), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. (Emphasis added)

Similarly, on a project-by-project basis, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) guidance on “Meeting the ‘Reasonable and Good Faith’ Identification Standard in Section 106 Review”²⁰https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018-05/reasonable_good_faith_identification.pdf states:

The regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“Protection of Historic Properties,” 36 CFR Part 800) require federal agencies to identify historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) that may be affected by their undertakings. Section 800.4(b)(1) of these regulations states that federal agency officials shall make a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties. (Emphasis added)

However, it appears that BLM has never given consideration to the potential eligibility of the 34,000-acre Minidoka WRC for listing on the NRHP prior to receiving MVE’s application for a permit. Despite a small portion of the area being nominated for and listed on the NRHP in 1979, BLM’s 1986 Monument Resources Management Plan (RMP) made no mention of the site. Most recently, both Appendix 9 of the 2023 DEIS and Appendix 6 of the draft PA (which confusingly is located in Appendix 8 of the FEIS), titled “Cultural Resources Potentially Affected by the Action Alternatives,” identify over 5,600 individual “sites” that may or may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the WRC itself is not identified in either appendix.

In our experience, given the historical significance of the World War II era Minidoka WRC, the entire WRC is an obvious candidate for listing on the NRHP as either one or both of the following:

• A “rural historic landscape,” which is described in National Register Bulletin 30²¹https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB30-Complete.pdf as:

The rural historic landscape is one of the categories of property qualifying for listing in the National Register as a historic site or district. For the purposes of the National Register, a rural historic landscape is defined as a geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features. Rural landscapes commonly reflect the day-to-day occupational activities of people engaged in traditional work such as mining, fishing, and various types of agriculture. Often, they have developed and evolved in response to both the forces of nature and the pragmatic need to make a living. Landscapes small in size and having no buildings or structures, such as an experimental orchard, are classified as sites. Most, however, being extensive in acreage and containing a number of buildings, sites, and structures–such as a ranch or farming community–are classified as historic districts. (Emphasis added)

And/or as:

• A “traditional cultural property,” which is described in National Register Bulletin 38²²https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf as:

The traditional cultural significance of a historic property [] is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. A traditional cultural property [] can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. (Emphasis added)

Given the national significance of the site, either of the above designations would be particularly appropriate for the Minidoka WRC in its entirety. In general, the historical significance and potential eligibility of Minidoka WRC for listing on the NRHP has been known for decades. An initial 6-acre portion of the WRC was nominated by the Bureau of Reclamation and listed on the NRHP as long ago as 1979,²³https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/internment/reporta6.htm  which notably predates BLM’s 1986 Monument Management Plan²⁴https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/36121/42518/45285/monumentRMP_ok.pdf. The 1979 Nomination Form acknowledged that “[t]he property being nominated was only a small part of the Minidoka Relocation Center.”²⁵https://history.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Minidoka_Relocation_Center_79000791.pdf (Emphasis added)Over two decades later, on January 17, 2001, a larger 72.75 acres portion of Minidoka WRC was designated as Minidoka Internment National Monument making the site the 385th unit of the national park system. On May 8, 2008, the U.S. Congress expanded the park unit to 388 acres by passing Public Law 110-229, which changed the name to Minidoka National Historic Site and added the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial in Washington State to the national park unit.²⁶http://npshistory.com/publications/foundation-documents/miin-fd-overview.pdf

In other words, the potential historical significance of the Minidoka WRC was recognized PRIOR to preparation of the most recent BLM land use plan for the project area, which is the 1986 Monument RMP. Yet, despite this recognition, the BLM never conducted further study to consider the eligibility of the WRC in its entirety and never submitted a nomination for listing the site on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as required under the Secretary’s Standards. More recently, we understand that the Friends of Minidoka (rather than BLM, the responsible agency) commissioned a TCP study that was submitted to BLM Idaho in December 2022.

While BLM acknowledges the TCP study in the FEIS, Appendix 8 (the draft PA) of the FEIS indicates that BLM will not submit a nomination for listing the TCP on the NRHP to the Keeper for determination until AFTER the programmatic agreement is signed. As stated previously, given the uncertain status of the PA, deferring a determination of eligibility for the proposed TCP is extremely problematic because the FEIS does not adequately evaluate potential adverse effects to the TCP. The FEIS, p. 3-136, plainly states, “Since a TCP is yet to be defined, the BLM [only] analyzed impacts to historic properties within the current Minidoka NHS boundary.”

While Section 110 requires federal agencies to “identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources on public lands under its jurisdiction,” BLM Idaho has heretofore failed to consider the potential eligibility for listing or to submit a nomination for the 34,000-acre WRC to be listed on the NRHP. Similarly, BLM has not identified the 34,000-acre WRC as a “Cultural Resource[] Potentially Affected by the Action Alternatives” in either Appendix 9 of the 2023  DEIS or Appendix 6 of the draft PA in Appendix 8 of the 2024 FEIS.

The implications of BLM’s failure to exercise its responsibilities under Section 110 are potentially devastating in this case. Had BLM properly and proactively identified the WRC as a historic property that is potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, it seems likely that the Bureau would not have accepted and given full consideration to MVE’s original proposal to construct up to 400 massive wind turbines in which “[t]he project would be located within Minidoka WRC and within 0.9 mile of a Minidoka NHS undeveloped property and 1.5 miles from the Minidoka NHS Visitor Center.” (FEIS, p. 3-135)  In addition, “[t]he project’s physical APE (Area of Potential Effect) overlaps up to 4,818 acres of Minidoka WRC (see Figure 3.5-1), and the entire Minidoka WRC is within the non-physical APE (see Figure 3.5-2), as the APE is defined in Table 3.5-1.” (FEIS, p. 3-136)

If BLM had previously instituted an effective “preservation program to identify, evaluate, nominate, and protect historic properties that are eligible for the National Register” as required under Section 110(a)(2) of the NHPA, BLM would have already recognized that the WRC (not just the much smaller NHS) is potentially historically significant; and proactively determined whether it is eligible for listing on the NRHP. Depending upon that determination, BLM could or should have taken appropriate steps to manage and protect the historic WRC from the impacts of major development (e.g., through setbacks or exclusions zones) well before MVE submitted its current Project proposal. In our view, BLM’s failure to proactively address its Section 110 responsibilities during the past 40+ years, and BEFORE accepting a proposal for developing a large wind farm in the area, is the root cause for the current situation.

2. If BLM approves the FEIS’s Preferred Alternative as its Selected Action in a Record of Decision (ROD), it would cause significant new direct and indirect adverse effects to historic properties within the Project area, including to Minidoka NHS and the proposed Minidoka Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). We have previously submitted extensive written comments to BLM expressing concerns about a variety of adverse impacts associated with the Project. We acknowledge that the FEIS evaluates a plethora of potential direct and indirect adverse effects to a variety of natural and cultural resources in and near the Project area. We will focus our comments here on adverse effects, including visual impacts, to the historic landscape setting of Minidoka NHS and the larger WRC.

As described in the FEIS, the proposed action requested by MVE could have up to 400 3-megawatt (MW) turbines or up to 349 6-MW turbines, or a combination of 3-MW and 6-MW turbines not to exceed 400. The maximum height of the turbines would be between 390 and 740 feet, depending on their MW capacity. MVE’s proposed project would be located within Minidoka WRC and within 0.9 mile of a Minidoka NHS undeveloped property and 1.5 miles from the Minidoka NHS Visitor Center. (FEIS, p. 3-135)

In contrast, BLM has proposed a new Preferred Alternative in the FEIS in which the nearest turbine siting corridor would be 8.9 miles from the Minidoka NHS Visitor Center and 8.7 miles from the Minidoka NHS Honor Roll. (FEIS, p. 3-166) The Preferred Alternative would also reduce the size of the wind farm but would still allow up to 241 3-MW or 5MW turbines with a maximum turbine tip height limit of 660 feet. The nearest turbine to the park site would be located (i.e., set back) approximately 9.5 miles from the NHS Visitor Center; however, turbines could be located (i.e., set back) as close as 4 miles from the WRC boundary (the latter distance was estimated from Figure 2.4-4 in the FEIS).

We have commented previously that these setback distances from the NHS Visitor Center, whether 1.5 miles as in MVE’s proposed action or 9.5 miles as in BLM’s preferred alternative, are patently inadequate for preventing significant visual impacts to these historic properties. A 2012 study²⁷https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279850731_Wind_Turbine_Visibility_and_Visual_Impact_Threshold_Distances_in_Western_Landscapes sponsored by the BLM and conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory “made 377 observations of five wind facilities in Wyoming and Colorado under various lighting and weather conditions. Under favorable viewing conditions, the wind facilities were judged to be major foci of visual attention at up to 19 km (12 mi) and likely to be noticed by casual observers at >37 km (23 mi). A conservative interpretation suggests that for such facilities, an appropriate radius for visual impact analyses would be 48 km (30 mi), that the facilities would be unlikely to be missed by casual observers at up to 32 km (20 mi), and that the facilities could be major sources of visual contrast at up to 16 km (10 mi).” (Emphasis added) This finding suggests that large wind turbines should be setback at least 20 miles from environmentally and culturally sensitive resource sites in order to minimize intrusive visual impacts as seen from those sites.

Plainly stated, the BLM sponsored a major study²⁸Ibid. of “wind turbine visibility and visual impact threshold distances in western landscapes” similar to the setting of Minidoka, yet BLM has failed to apply the findings of that study to the Lave Ridge Wind Project. This is unacceptable.

3. BLM proposes to defer seeking a determination of the eligibility (DOE) of the WRC for listing on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) until AFTER a programmatic agreement (PA) is signed. Given the uncertain status of the PA, this deferral is extremely problematic because, lacking such a determination, the FEIS did not adequately assess adverse impacts to the potential TCP – As described in stipulation D.8 in the draft programmatic agreement (PA) in Appendix 8 of the FEIS, BLM would defer nominating the WRC as a TCP until AFTER the PA is signed. Given the possibility that the WRC is, in fact, eligible for listing, it is clear that the FEIS did not adequately assess adverse impacts to the potential TCP. The FEIS, p. 3-136, plainly states, “Since a TCP is yet to be defined, the BLM [only] analyzed impacts to historic properties within the current Minidoka NHS boundary.”

As described previously, the largely undeveloped landscape setting that would be encompassed by the proposed TCP provides important historical context for preserving and communicating the story of the Nikkei incarceration. This is why the landscape setting has been identified as fundamental resource and value in the Foundation Document ²⁹Ibid. for Minidoka NHS.

To address these concerns, ACHP should work with the parties involved to resolve any questions about the proposed TCP’s boundary; and then should recommend that BLM proceed with submitting a TCP nomination to the Keeper of the National Register so that a determination decision can be completed in a timely manner. While it remains to be seen what happens with the Lava Ridge Wind Project, we understand that there are other renewable energy projects (e.g., solar) being considered by the Shoshone Field Office. It is therefore critical that the status of the proposed TCP be resolved BEFORE BLM accepts additional project proposals so that BLM can avoid giving full consideration to additional inappropriately located renewable energy projects in the vicinity of Minidoka.

4. The 1986 Monument Resources Management Plan (RMP)³⁰https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/36121/42518/45285/monumentRMP_ok.pdf provides guidance to the Shoshone Field Office in the event that a project site is “determined to be… eligible for [listing] on the National Register of Historic Places.” The RMP provides that if methods to mitigate impacts and protect Register eligible historic properties “are not considered adequate,” then a project will be abandoned.

Specifically, p. 42 of the RMP states:

Cultural resource values discovered in a proposed work area will be protected by adhering to the following methods: 1) Redesigning or relocating the project; 2) Salvaging, through scientific methods, the cultural resource values pursuant to the SHPO agreement; 3) Should the site be determined to be of significant value; eligible for or on the National Register of Historic Places; and/or the above mentioned methods are not considered adequate, the project will be abandoned.” (Emphasis added)

Currently available information strongly suggests that the proposed TCP may be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The Project will clearly result in a variety of adverse effects to the TCP that cannot be adequately mitigated. Recently, both the Idaho SHPO and ACHP have terminated Section 106 consultation with BLM because “further consultation would not lead to feasible measures to resolve these [adverse] effects.” As a result, BLM must “abandon the project” as provided in the Monument RMP. BLM should therefore deny MVE’s ROW grant application because of the adverse impacts to historic properties, including the proposed TCP, within the Project area.

5. The proposed action violates the letter and intent of P.L. 109-441, an Act to Provide for the Preservation of Japanese American Confinement Sites³¹https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ441/PLAW-109publ441.pdf – The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program “for the purpose of identifying, researching, evaluating, interpreting, protecting, restoring, repairing, and acquiring “historic confinement sites in order that present and future generations may learn and gain inspiration from these sites and that these sites will demonstrate the Nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law.” (Emphasis added.) As described in the law, this is an “all of the above” mandate, not a discretionary or “one or none of the above” decision option for Interior agencies.

Although portions of the FEIS acknowledge the history of Japanese American incarceration at Minidoka WRC, the fact remains that all proposed action alternatives, including BLM’s preferred alternative, would cause substantial adverse effects to the site. And while BLM has made concerted efforts to document the concerns of the Japanese-American community, the accommodations made in response to those concerns have been modest at best.

As a result, BLM’s planning process continues to seem indifferent to the unjust treatment suffered by, and the amazing resiliency demonstrated by, the Nikkei community at Minidoka WRC³²https://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/building-a-prison-camp-in-the-high-desert.htm during one of the gravest American civil rights injustices of the 20^thcentury. Moving forward, consistent with P.L. 109-441, BLM should carefully re-consider the historical and cultural context of the Minidoka landscape that BLM’s proposed action would irreparably harm.

6. Similar to the Secretary of the Interior’s responsibility for protecting historic confinement sites, the Secretary also has an “absolute duty” under the NPS Organic Act, as amended,³³https://www.justice.gov/enrd/nps-organic-act to protect the resources and values of Minidoka NHS from unacceptable impacts – As the chief executive of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Secretary is responsible for ensuring the Department and its bureaus comply with a variety of agency-specific legal mandates. For example, as stated in the FEIS (p. 1-1), FLPMA “requires the BLM to manage public lands for multiple use and sustained yield and authorizes the BLM to issue ROW grants on public lands for systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy (FLPMA Title V).” While FLPMA emphasizes managing public lands for multiple uses, at its core it is a conservation law. Section 102 (a)(8) of the Act states, in part: “the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values[.] (Emphasis added.)

In contrast to the BLM’s “multiple use mandate” under FLPMA, the NPS-managed resources at Minidoka NHS are protected under the “conservation mandate” of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and subsequent amendments. The Organic Act established the fundamental purpose of units of the National Park System, which is:

to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (54 USC § 100101(a))

Congress supplemented and clarified the NPS Organic Act’s 1916 provisions through enactment of the General Authorities Act in 1970, and again through enactment of a 1978 amendment commonly referred as the “Redwood amendment” because it was included in a bill expanding Redwood National Park. Key language from these amendments includes the following:

Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System… shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title [the Organic Act provision quoted above], to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1) (Emphasis added)

Congress intended the language of the Redwood Amendment to the General Authorities Act to reinforce the provisions of the Organic Act, not create a substantively different management standard. As stated in the Senate committee report:³⁴S. Rep. No. 95-528, 95th Congress, 1st Session at 13-14 (1977)

The Secretary is to afford the highest standard of protection and care to the natural resources within . . . the National Park System. No decision shall compromise these resource values except as Congress may have specifically provided. . . . The Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised, to fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Act to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system. (Emphasis added)

Similarly, the House committee report described the Redwood amendment as a “declaration by Congress” that the promotion and regulation of the National Park System are to be consistent with the Organic Act. The House report³⁵H. Rep. No.95-581, 95th Congress, 2nd Session at 21. (1978) stated:

The Secretary is to afford the highest duty of protection and care [to parklands]. (Emphasis added)

In other words, while FLPMA Title V may “authorize the BLM to issue ROW grants on public lands for systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric public lands,” the Secretary of the Interior has overarching responsibility over all bureaus of the Department. The Secretary’s responsibility includes “an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised,…to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system,” including Minidoka NHS.

As a result, the Secretary cannot and should not approve a BLM project that would be damaging to NPS resources and values located adjacent to the BLM project area.

7. On August 1, 2024, U.S. Senator James Risch (R-ID) introduced legislation (S. 4936³⁶https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4936) that “would prevent the Secretary of the Interior from authorizing the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project until a GAO study is conducted to analyze the projects impact to the Minidoka National Historic Site.”³⁷https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=88EA8741-85FF-4EFB-A6C8-8D98FC0A04E2 Given ongoing concerns about the adequacy of the FEIS’s analysis of adverse effects to Minidoka NHS and the proposed Minidoka TCP, BLM should defer on issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) until AFTER the legislative proposal is resolved (i.e., either passed and signed into law or not).

8. Idaho SHPO’s and ACHP’s recent terminations of Section 106 consultation with BLM illustrate the level of controversy and disagreement between BLM and other entities regarding the potential level and severity of adverse effects that the Lava Ridge Wind Project will cause to cultural resources, including Register-eligible properties, in the Project area. The federal agencies involved should consider utilizing a formal environmental conflict resolution (ECR) process, such as a pre-decisional referral to CEQ, to try to resolve the conflicts. This situation is ripe for an effective ECR process to help all involved find a mutually agreeable, environmentally appropriate, and socially just solution. Absent an effective ECR process, it is highly likely that BLM’s pending decision, once finalized, will led to contentious litigation that could last for years. Such litigation could unnecessarily drain considerable agency and stakeholder staff time and financial resources.

Despite the termination of Section 106 consultation by both the Idaho SHPO and ACHP, the BLM still appears poised to issue a ROD authorizing construction of a large scale wind farm in close proximity to Minidoka NHS and the Minidoka WRC, as described in the FEIS’s Preferred Alternative. Before a ROD is issued, we urge ACHP to take the steps necessary to file a “pre-decisional referral” to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as provided for in 40 CFR Part 1504.³⁸https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1504

The CEQ referral process permits federal agencies to bring to CEQ interagency disagreements concerning proposed major federal actions that might cause unsatisfactory environmental effects. Under CEQ regulations in 40 CFR Part 1504, any federal department or agency may refer a proposed major federal action to CEQ no later than 25 days after the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been made available to the public, commenting agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).³⁹https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-practice/referrals-to-ceq-dec-2016.pdf The regulation provides that CEQ will not accept a referral that is submitted more than 25 days after the lead agency has issued an FEIS, except when the lead agency grants an extension of the 25-day filing period (emphasis added). Because BLM issued the final EIS on June 7, 2024⁴⁰https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/07/2024-12460/notice-of-availability-of-the-final-environmental-impact-statement-for-the-proposed-lava-ridge-wind, ACHP would first need to request an extension of the referral filing period from BLM in order for CEQ to accept the referral request.

At this point in the process, a CEQ referral may be the best and only way left for ACHP to influence a positive outcome to this troubling situation, an outcome that gives full consideration to the preservation of historic properties within the project area and respectful consideration of stakeholder’s environmental and cultural concerns; an outcome that results in an environmentally appropriate and socially just Project decision.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Despite the many concerns described in this letter, ACHP still has the opportunity to influence a positive outcome to this troubling situation, both through the feedback you provide in your final consultation letter and/or through actions you could take to facilitate an environmental conflict resolution process. We urge ACHP to consider including the following recommendations and findings in its final consultation letter to the BLM:

• Given available information, BLM should proceed with nominating the WRC as a TCP for listing on the NRHP. BLM should defer on issuing a ROD until after the Keeper has issued a determination regarding the NRHP eligibility of the TCP.
• Considering the proposed wind farm’s size, scale, and proximity to listed or proposed historic properties, the proposed mitigation measures would be inadequate and ineffective at reducing or eliminating the significant adverse effects of the Project to those properties. Because of this, BLM should “abandon the Project” (i.e., deny MVE’s permit application) as provided for in the 1986 Monument RMP.
• The Secretary of the Interior has an “absolute duty” to protect national park resources and values under the NPS Organic Act, including protecting such resources and values from the actions of other agencies within DOI. Because of this duty and the variety of adverse effects of this Project that cannot be adequately mitigated, the Department should deny MVA’s permit application request.
• BLM should defer on issuing a ROD until after Congressional action on S. 4936 is resolved.
• Because of the level of disagreement regarding the impacts of the Project, ACHP should notify BLM that ACHP plans to file a pre-decisional referral to CEQ. Because the normal filing deadline for a referral has passed, ACHP would need to request and receive an extension of the filing deadline from BLM before CEQ would accept a referral request.

In closing, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,