Conservation Groups Unite to Protect the Old Spanish National Historic Trail from Utah Oil and Gas Leasing

Protest – DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2026-0005-EA – BLM Utah 2026 Third Quarter Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment and FONSI

August 21, 2026

Bureau of Land Management
Utah State Office

To whom it may concern:

This protest regarding the proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) project: DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2026-0005-EA – BLM Utah 2026 Third Quarter Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), is submitted by the following individuals and organizations: John W. Hiscock; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Western Watersheds Project; and Basin and Range Watch.

The focus of this protest is on the severe impacts of the project on the North Branch Route and the Northern Route of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (OSNHT) within the Moab Field Office area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in southeast Utah. Specifically, we express profound concerns regarding the Department of the Interior (DOI), BLM, and National Park Service (NPS) compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Trails System Act (NTSA), the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA), the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and said parties administration, management, and protection of the OSNHT, its resources, and its values in the immediate vicinity of the proposed oil and gas lease parcels: 1805, 1806, 1809, 7935, 7937, 7941, and 7947, all of which are crossed by or proximate to the congressionally designated North Branch Route and Northern Route of the OSNHT, as well as recommendations for North Branch Route realignments by the OSNHT Co-Administrators – the NPS and BLM.

This protest to the Environmental Assessment (EA) and FONSI are preceded by scoping phase comments dated April 15, 2026, and EA comments dated June 21, 2026 from this same coalition. We maintain that those scoping and EA comments are entirely pertinent and valid, yet largely or wholly disregarded by the BLM. Consequently, they are hereby formally incorporated and resubmitted as, respectively Appendix A and Appendix B to this protest submittal and should be further considered by BLM in its decision-making process on this project. The current EA fails to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), fails to meet the legal requirements of the NTSA, exceeds DOI and BLM authorities under the FLPMA and MLA, and violates the restraints of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In addition to the failure of DOI and BLM to fulfill statutory requirements of the NTSA described in the aforementioned scoping and EA comments, the following additional problems exist with the project as related to the noted proposed lease parcels.

The DOI, and Delegated Co-Administrators’ (NPS and BLM) Failure to Complete the Statutorily Mandated Comprehensive Plan for the Management of the OSNHT, and Designation of a NTSA Right-of-Way for the OSNHT Precludes the Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale

The Department of the Interior (DOI), and its delegated Co-Administrators for the OSNHT – the BLM and NPS have violated non-discretionary statutory mandates under the (NTSA) and the NEPA by:

• Failing to complete and submit a statutorily required NTSA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to the designated congressional committees.
• Attempting to substitute an informal, non-NEPA-compliant “Comprehensive Administrative Strategy” (CAS).
• Failing to establish and publish a designated NTSA right-of-way (ROW) and corridor width in the Federal Register.
• Unlawfully authorizing discretionary, surface-disturbing projects under general land statutes (FLPMA and the MLA) across an undesignated and unstudied trail corridor, as in the current instance.

1. The Agencies Have Unlawfully Withheld Non-Discretionary Action.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) of the APA, reviewing courts must “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” A claim lies where an agency fails to take a discrete, legally required action. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004).

• Mandatory Statutory Deadline for OSNHT CMP: Congress designated the OSNHT in December 2002 (P.L. 107-325). The NTSA provides that within two complete fiscal years following designation (by late 2004/2005), the administering Secretary (Interior in the case of the OSNHT) shall submit a “comprehensive plan for the management, and use of the trail” (CMP). 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f).
• Mandatory Submission to Congress: Section 5(f) of the NTSA explicitly requires that the Secretary “shall submit the comprehensive plan to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.”16 U.S.C. § 1244(f).
• Unreasonable Delay Under the TRAC Standard: Under the six-factor test in Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C.Cir. 1984), statutory deadlines carry primary weight. A 24-year default (2002–2026), as in this instance constitutes an unlawful withholding of agency action as a matter of law. See, Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1190 (10th Cir. 1999).

2. The NPS and BLM OSNHT Co-Administrator Comprehensive Administrative Strategy (CAS) Fails as a Legal Substitute for the Mandated CMP and Violates NEPA

The DOI and BLM reliance on the 2017 Comprehensive Administrative Strategy (CAS) as a substitute for a statutory CMP is legally invalid:

• Failure to Satisfy Congressional Reporting and Oversight: Congress mandated an official CMP submitted directly to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to ensure legislative oversight and accountability. 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f). The CAS was implemented strictly as internal administrative guidance and was never submitted to Congress, therefore, not fulfilling the mandated reporting requirement of § 1244(f).
• Failure to Comply with NEPA: A statutory NTSA CMP is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that requires a full programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). NT CMPs have routinely gone through the NEPA EIS process. Promulgating the CAS as an informal guidance document without preparing an EIS—or a public Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing a reasonable range of protective alternatives— negates its force and effect and reliance on it as fulfilling NTSA requirements violates NEPA.
• Evasion of Mandatory Public Participation: By using the CAS instead of a formal CMP/EIS, the agencies bypassed mandatory public notice-and-comment procedures, inter-agency consultations, and formal environmental review mandated by 16 U.S.C. §1244(f) and 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500–1508.

3. Failure to Select and Publish a Defined Corridor Width Violates 16 U.S.C. §1246(a)(2)

• Statutory Requirement for Corridor Selection: Under 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2), the administering Secretary shall select the trail ROW and publish notice in the Federal Register, establishing a designated corridor width sufficient to protect trail values.

Furthermore, BLM policy on NT Administration (6250) and NT Management (6280) state that: National Trail Right-of-Way: Defined as the corridor selected by the Trail Administering Agency in the Comprehensive Plan and published in the Federal Register pursuant to NTSA § 7(a)(2) that is “of sufficient width to encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings, and the primary use or uses”. Manual 6250 glossary at p. G 6-7.

• Informal Guidance Is Legally Insufficient: While the CAS discusses informal visual corridors, non-binding concepts do not satisfy the statutory mandate to establish a binding, formally designated NTSA ROW published in the Federal Register.
• The Merced River Doctrine Applied to Linear Corridors: In interpreting the companion Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.), the Ninth Circuit held that an agency cannot manage, authorize uses within, or protect a linear conservation corridor without first formally adopting specific, quantifiable boundaries and protective management indicators. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d789, 796–99 (9th Cir. 2003); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024,1033–36 (9th Cir. 2008). Leaving the OSNHT corridor without a formally established width undermines the statutory protections mandated by Congress.

4. Specific NTSA Conservation Mandates Subordinate General Authorities Under FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act

Under established canons of statutory construction, specific statutory protections control over general discretionary authorities (lex specialis derogat legi generali). See Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153 (1976); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550–51 (1974).

5. Site-Specific Approvals Are Unlawful in the Absence of a Valid CMP Baseline

• The Yaak Valley Prohibition on Premature Approvals: Under Yaak Valley Forest Council v. Vilsack, 817 F.3d 680, 686–89 (9th Cir. 2016), an agency cannot authorize site-specific ground disturbance when it has failed to establish the foundational environmental baselines and programmatic cumulative impact analyses required by law.
• The “No Substantial Interference” Standard Cannot Be Evaluated: Under 16U.S.C. § 1246(c), land uses (including MLA mineral leases such as in this instance) are permitted only if they do not “substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.” Because the agencies have substituted an invalid, non-NEPA-compliant CAS for a CMP and failed to formally publish a NTSA OSNHT right-of-way with a designated corridor width, in compliance with mandatory agency policies they have no lawful baseline against which to evaluate impacts or enforce the statutory non-interference mandate.
• Approving discretionary permits, leases, or rights-of-way across or adjacent to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail while in persistent default of mandatory CMP and ROW duties constitutes arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Beyond NTSA Statutory Requirements, BLM NT Management Policy Requires Strict Protection of Trail Resources and Values Including Comprehensive NEPA Analysis

BLM Policy Manual 6280 sets forth mandatory policy for protection of NT resources and values. The subject EA has failed to fulfill these requirements.

In the absence of an approved Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) mandated under National Trails System Act (NTSA), 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f), the Bureau of Land Management is not operating in a regulatory vacuum. BLM Manual 6280 (Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation) serves as an authoritative, binding administrative framework. It provides detailed procedural mechanisms to safeguard the National Trail Resources, Qualities, Values, and associated settings (NTVS) of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (OSNHT) during discretionary land-use authorizations.

1. Preservation of the Statutory Mandate (NTSA & FLPMA Integration)

• Substantive Baseline: While NTSA Section 5(f) calls for a programmatic CMP, Section 7(c) independently restricts activities that would cause substantial adverse impacts to trail values.
• Operationalizing FLPMA: Manual 6280 bridges the NTSA with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), ensuring that the designation itself immediately triggers heightened management standards prior to CMP completion.

2. Standardized Inventory and Setting Delineation

In place of CMP-defined management corridors, Manual 6280 establishes precise technical requirements that field offices must execute before authorizing site-specific projects:

• Trail Corridor Identification: Requires staff to map the physical trail traces, high-potential historic sites, high-potential route segments, and the broader landscape setting (viewsheds, auditory buffers, and night sky resources).
• Baseline Inventory: Mandates pre-project resource inventories (Class III cultural resource inventories, Visual Resource Management assessments, historic landscape characterizations including natural resources, and appropriate recreational opportunities) specifically tailored to the OSNHT’s historical context.

3. Rigorous Project-Level NEPA Analysis Framework

Manual 6280 provides an explicit, step-by-step review process for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents when evaluating proposed undertakings (e.g., rights-of-way, energy developments, grazing permits):

• Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impact Assessment: Project leads must evaluate how an action affects the historical integrity, continuous recreation/travel experience, and scenic backdrop of the trail.
• Mitigation Hierarchy: Imposes a strict sequential mandate: Avoid adverse impacts to trail resources first; Minimize impacts through design modifications, spatial buffers, or camouflage where avoidance is unfeasible; and Rectify/Compensate for residual impacts to ensure non-impairment of the trail’s “nature and purpose.”

A critical dimension of BLM Manual 6280 is that its protective scope extends beyond physical historic artifacts and trail tread. Under the National Trails System Act (NTSA) and Manual 6280, the BLM must protect the natural landscape and environmental setting to preserve the visitor’s ability to experience the corridor as it existed during the trail’s period of historic significance (e.g., 1829–1848 for the Old Spanish Trail).

4. Landscape Protection and the “Period of Historic Significance”

Under Section 1.6 and Chapter 3 of Manual 6280, the conservation of a National Historic Trail’s “nature and purposes” encompasses both cultural and natural elements:

• Cultural and Natural Landscapes as Co-Equal Resources: The manual defines the “associated settings” of an NHT to include the natural topography, vegetation communities, hydrological features, and landforms that defined the historic traveler’s journey.
• Preserving Experiential Authenticity: Manual 6280, Section 3.2 explicitly requires field offices to evaluate and protect experiential qualities:
  • Intact Viewsheds: Minimizing modern visual intrusions to retain a landscape character reminiscent of the period of historic significance.
  • Natural Soundscapes (Acoustic Environment): Protecting auditory baselines so modern industrial/transportation noise does not disrupt the historic setting.
  • Night Skies / Atmospheric Clarity: Maintaining dark sky and air quality values where night-sky navigation, historical bivouacs, and unimpeded long-distance vistas were fundamental to the historical experience.
• Protecting Setting Integrity (Section 3.2.D): Requires assessing whether a proposed undertaking would degrade the feeling and association of the surrounding landscape—directly tying public land health and natural resource management to the trail’s historic integrity.

5. Mandatory Pre-CMP Procedural Steps (Manual 6280 Provisions)

• Section 1.6(A)–(C) (Programmatic Non-Impairment Floor): BLM shall manage National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHTs) to protect their nature and purposes, primary use(s), and associated settings, regardless of whether a CMP is in place. Environmental Law Reporter
• Section 3.1 (Comprehensive Baseline Inventory): Dictates that the BLM shall inventory physical traces, artifacts, high-potential historic sites, high-potential route segments, and surrounding natural landscapes before approving actions.
• Section 3.2 (Setting and Landscape Characterization): Mandates rigorous inventory of the visual, auditory, and vegetative environment to evaluate landscape condition against the trail’s historic baseline.
• Section 4.1 & 4.2 (Implementation-Level NEPA & Substantial Interference): Requires site-specific NEPA documents to analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on natural and cultural setting components. The BLM shall reject applications or select the No Action Alternative if a project causes unmitigated “substantial interference” with the nature and purpose of the trail.
• Section 4.3 (Mitigation Hierarchy): Enforces a strict Avoid →Minimize →Rectify/Compensate sequence, prioritizing complete avoidance of intact historic viewsheds and natural landscapes.
• Section 5.1 & 5.2 (Inter-Agency & Tribal Consultation): Directs field offices to coordinate with Trail Co-Administrators (e.g., the National Park Service) and consulting Tribes to ensure consistent, landscape-scale management.

6. Institutionalized Inter-Agency Consistency

Because the OSNHT is co-administered by the BLM and the National Park Service (NPS), the absence of a CMP risks disjointed management:

• Manual 6280 formalizes coordination protocols, requiring BLM field offices to consult directly with Trail Administrators and the NPS before issuing decision records.
• It standardizes terminology and evaluation standards across field, district, and state boundaries.

Core Legal Conclusion

BLM Manual 6280 functions as an enforceable administrative stopgap. It transforms the broad conservation directives of the NTSA into actionable, mandatory procedures—ensuring that the Old Spanish Trail’s historic alignment, cultural significance, and surrounding landscapes receive full procedural and substantive protection pending the release and adoption of a formal CMP.

The argument that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 6280 creates a mandatory, legally binding operational framework in the absence of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) rests on two foundational legal pillars: BLM’s internal Directives System architecture and the long-standing administrative law doctrine governing agency self-regulation.

7. Baseline Authority: The BLM Directives System (Manual Section 1221)

The BLM does not treat its Manuals as mere aspirational suggestions. Under BLM Manual Section 1221 (Directives System), the agency establishes the governing hierarchy and legal force of its internal issuances:

• Mandatory Character of Primary Manuals: Manual 1221 formally designates BLM Manual Sections as permanent, primary policy containing mandatory program guidelines, standards, and procedures.
• Imperative Language as an Enforceable Standard: Manual 1221 dictates that provisions using the terms “shall” or “must” prescribe non-discretionary obligations binding upon all BLM officials.
• Substantive Scope of Manual 6280: Throughout Manual 6280 (Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails), the BLM repeatedly employs mandatory phrasing (e.g., requiring that field offices must conduct pre-project inventories, shall delineate National Trail Setting components, and must apply the mitigation hierarchy). Under the rules of Manual 1221, these procedural safeguards operate as binding directives across all field, district, and state jurisdictions.

8. Administrative Law & The Accardi Doctrine: Binding Effect of Agency Directives

Federal courts consistently hold that when an administrative agency establishes formal rules and procedures limiting its own discretion, it is legally bound to follow them under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

• The Accardi Principle: In United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), the Supreme Court established that an agency must comply with its own internal rules, regulations, and established procedures. An agency’s departure from its own published operational standards constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action.
• Application to Internal Manuals (Morton v. Ruiz): In Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that internal agency manuals and policy guidelines intended to govern agency actions have the force of law when they affect substantive rights and procedural consistency: “Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.”
• Judicial Enforcement in Federal Land Management: In public lands jurisprudence, federal courts (notably in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits) enforce agency manual provisions containing mandatory “shall/must” language:
  • In Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management, 531 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Idaho 2021), and Western Watersheds Project v. Matejko, 468 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2006), the courts examined internal agency manual commitments, establishing that clear procedural mandates constrain agency discretion.
  • In Montana Wilderness Association v. Fry, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1149–51 (D. Mont. 2004), the court struck down BLM actions for failing to abide by its own internal guidance documents and stipulations designed to protect cultural and historical resources.

9. Synthesis: Legal Operation in the Absence of a CMP

1. Statutory Non-Impairment Floor: Section 7(c) of the NTSA requires federal land managers to prevent substantial adverse impacts to National Scenic and Historic Trails.
2. Administrative Execution: Because a programmatic CMP has not been finalized for the Old Spanish Trail, BLM Manual 6280 supplies the mandatory administrative criteria—inventory protocols, Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class assignments, setting delineations, and impact evaluations—necessary to satisfy Section 7(c).
3. Legal Enforceability: Because Manual 1221 establishes Manual 6280’s provisions as mandatory agency policy, any BLM authorization that fails to execute the step-by-step procedural protections in Manual 6280 violates the Accardi doctrine and APA § 706(2)(A).

Problems With BLM Project Analysis Due to Improper and Non-Compliant OSNHT Route Revisions

The BLM EA and accompanying maps lack any explanation or clarity regarding which OSNHT route alignments have been used in its NEPA analysis of project impacts. The parties to this protest have previously pointed out this problem and provided a chart of distances of the proposed lease parcels from (a) the congressionally enacted alignments of the Northern Route and the North Branch Routes of the OSNHT; and (b) the NPS/BLM Co-Administrator recommendations for revisions of said routes depicted in the non-compliant CAS. This failing has not only compromised the NEPA analysis of project impacts, but seriously compromised the public’s understanding of what lands need to be evaluated for potential impacts.

The unilateral “recommended” route alterations and corridor adjustments put forward by the DOI – NPS and BLM OSNHT Co-Administrators in the CAS are legally invalid as formal route relocations under the NTSA. However, until legal revisions may be formally and properly put in place, for the purposes of ongoing and future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews—specifically for proposed oil and gas leasing parcels—the agency cannot ignore either alignment. The agency must evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts against both the statutory congressionally established alignment and the Co-Administrators’ supposed expertise resulting in suggested CAS route modifications.

1. Administrative Route “Recommendations” Are Legally Ineffective to Modify the Trail Because No Initial Right-of-Way Was Ever Established

The NTSA sets forth a strict statutory hierarchy for establishing and subsequently modifying a National Trail’s right-of-way (ROW):

• The Statutory Relocation Mechanism Requires a Prior Valid ROW: Section 7(b) of the NTSA authorizes the Secretary to relocate segments of a national trail right-of-way only after a determination of necessity and compliance with statutory criteria. 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b). That section states: After publication of notice of the availability of appropriate maps or descriptions in the Federal Register, the Secretary charged with the administration of a national scenic or national historic trail may relocate segments of a national scenic or national historic trail right-of-way with the concurrence of the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the lands involved, upon a determination that: (I) Such a relocation is necessary to preserve the purposes for which the trail was established, or (ii) the relocation is necessary to promote a sound land management program in accordance with established multiple-use principles: Provided, That a substantial relocation of the rights-of-way for such trail shall be by Act of Congress. 16 U.S.C. §1246(b) (emphasis added). As a matter of basic administrative logic and statutory construction, an agency cannot legally “relocate” or “modify” a right-of-way that was never formally selected, defined, and published in the Federal Register in the first instance pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2).
• Ultra Vires Agency Action: Because the administering agencies failed to publish a formal ROW and corridor width in the Federal Register, the informal route revisions or “recommendations” contained in the CAS carry no binding legal effect to alter the congressionally designated route established by statute in 2002 (16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(22)). Attempting to substitute administrative map revisions for formal statutory selection and relocation procedures constitutes an ultra vires act that fails to satisfy §1246(a)(2) or § 1246(b).
• The Congressional Route Controls as the Default Legal Baseline: In the absence of a legally finalized CMP and a published Federal Register ROW determination, the congressionally described route in the 2002 enabling legislation remains the sole legally established statutory alignment.

2. Under NEPA, the Agencies Must Evaluate Environmental Impacts Against Both the Congressionally Established Route and the CAS Recommended Route

While the CAS recommendations cannot lawfully displace the congressionally designated route as a matter of formal NTSA ROW designation, the agency cannot disregard its own supposed “expert” findings in site-specific NEPA analyses for oil and gas leasing:

A. Duty to Analyze the Congressionally Designated Route

The agency must assess all direct, indirect, and visual/auditory impacts to the congressionally designated line (16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(22)). Because Congress created the trail along this alignment, leasing parcels or surface-disturbing authorizations that overlap or visually intrude upon the statutory route violate the NTSA’s non-interference mandate (16 U.S.C. §1246(c)) and NEPA’s hard-look requirement (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)) if evaluated against an unauthorized, altered alignment.

B. Duty to Analyze the CAS Recommended Route as Best Available Science and Agency Knowledge

Under NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.15, 1502.23), an environmental review must utilize high-quality information, the best available scientific data, and the agency’s own expert historical/geographical determinations.

• The Co-Administrators generated the CAS “recommended” route alterations based on ground-truthing, archaeological evidence, historical trail diaries, cooperative organization consultation, and updated scholarship identifying the actual historical path and high-potential route segments.

To ignore the CAS recommendations during oil and gas lease parcel evaluations would constitute a failure to consider an important aspect of the problem, rendering the NEPA document arbitrary and capricious. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Therefore, any plausible, legitimate NEPA analysis must assess the potential impacts of the proposed project on both the legal, congressional alignments of the OSNHT routes, and the procedurally faulted Co-Administrator CAS recommendations. And, any such plausible NEPA analysis must be explained to the public in detail to allow pertinent comment.

The BLM must assess and protect both baselines before committing public lands to oil and gas leasing.

BLM’s Distinction of High Potential Site Segments of the OSNHT Versus Other Federal Protection Components of the OSNHT Is Unfounded

In certain portions of its EA the BLM distinguishes federal lands crossed by the OSNHT as unworthy of resource and value protection due to the fact that the Co-Administrator CAS does not recommend such sections as “high potential route segments.” In other instances, the BLM questions and challenges the Co-Administrators recommendations of “high potential route segment” designation for certain federal lands. See EA, Sec. 3.6.4.2 regarding Segment 2 Green River Crossing to Floy Wash. Both the North Branch CAS route – in regard to the Book Cliffs HPRS; and, the Northern CAS route – in regard to the Blue Hills HPRS are related to this issue.

The BLM interpretation that the resources and values of “high potential route segments” of the OSNHT are more worthy of protection than other federal lands crossed by the OSNHT is legally unfounded. All federal lands crossed by the OSNHT are “federal protection components” of the OSNHT and subject to similar NEPA analysis of potential project interference with the nature and purposes of the Trail and its resources and values. Furthermore, the fact that the Co-Administrators’ recommendations of “high potential route segments” is only a facet of a non-compliant CAS, without complete public review guaranteed by NEPA casts doubt on any legitimate analysis of such distinctions.

The argument that all federal lands crossed by congressionally designated National Historic Trails constitute protected federal lands—and that “High Potential Route Segments” (HPRS) and “High Potential Historic Sites” (HPHS) do not define the outer boundary of federal protection—rests on plain statutory text, structural context, and the legislative purpose of the 1978 National Trails System Act (NTSA) amendments.

1. Plain Text of 16 U.S.C. § 1242(a)(3): The Definition of “Federal Protection Components”

The threshold statutory hook for historic trails is found in Section 3(a)(3) of the NTSA (16U.S.C. § 1242(a)(3)): “Only those selected land and water based components of an historic trail which are on federally owned lands and which meet the national historic trail criteria established in this chapter are included as Federal protection components of a national historic trail.”

• Inclusion by Federal Ownership: When Congress designates a National Historic Trail (NHT), the entire route identified in the statute and study report receives congressional recognition. By explicit statutory definition, the federal segments along that congressionally designated alignment constitute the “Federal protection components.”
• Absence of HPRS/High Potential Historic Site (HPHS) Qualification in § 1242(a)(3): Congress did not draft §1242(a)(3) to read: “Only high potential route segments and high potential sites on federal lands are federal protection components.” Had Congress intended to limit federal protection strictly to HPRS and HPHS, it would have incorporated those defined terms into Section 3(a)(3). The plain text contains no such limitation.

2. The Narrow Statutory Function of HPRS and HPHS under 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f) and 16USC1251.

Congress introduced the definitions of “high potential historic sites” and “high potential route segments” in the 1978 amendments (P.L. 95-625; 16 U.S.C. § 1251). Their statutory role is specifically delineated in 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f), governing Comprehensive Management Plans (CMPs):

• § 1244(f)(3) Mandate: Requires the CMP to include “a protection plan for any high potential historic sites or high potential route segments.”
• § 1244(f)(1) General Mandate: Separately requires “specific objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the trail, including the identification of all significant natural, historical, and cultural resources to be preserved…”

If HPRS and HPHS were the only protected components of the trail, § 1244(f)(1) ‘s universal mandate to preserve resources along the entire trail would be rendered surplusage—a result strictly forbidden by standard canons of statutory construction (see TRW Inc. v. Andrews,534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)).

3. Legislative Mechanics: HPRS and HPHS Were Designed to Address the Non-Federal Patchwork

• The fundamental challenge Congress faced when creating National Historic Trails in 1978 was jurisdictional: NHTs span thousands of miles of private, state, and tribal lands.il
• Prioritizing Limited Acquisition and Assistance: On non-federal lands, the Secretary cannot manage land directly without owner consent. 16 U.S.C. § 1246(e) and 16 U.S.C. § 1246(h) govern land acquisition, certification, and cooperative agreements. Congress created HPRS and HPHS as prioritization filters to direct limited federal acquisition funds, technical assistance, and state/private cooperative agreements to the most critical, threatened, or evocative parcels outside the federal domain.
• Preserving Baseline Federal Title: Congress did not need HPRS/HPHS to establish authority over federal lands. The federal government already holds title, jurisdiction, and land management authority under the Property Clause and agency organic statutes (FLPMA, NFMA, NPS Organic Act). Applying HPRS/HPHS as a prerequisite for protection on federal land inverts Congress’s intent by stripping protection from land the public already owns.

4. 16 U.S.C. §1246 Management Mandates Apply Across the Full Federal Right-of-Way

16 U.S.C. §1246 of the NTSA sets forth the administration and management standards across the entire trail corridor:

• 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a): Directs the Secretary to establish a right-of-way that encompasses the trail.
• 16 U.S.C. § 1246(c)): Imposes a substantive statutory standard governing all uses within the trail right-of-way:

“Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency having jurisdiction over the trail…”

• The “Substantial Interference” Standard: This restriction applies across the entire trail right-of-way on federal land, not merely within delineated HPRS or HPHS nodes. If an agency were free to approve incompatible surface disturbance or rights-of-way across any federal segment simply because it lacked an HPRS label, the “substantial interference” bar in 16 U.S.C. § 1246(c) would be rendered meaningless across vast reaches of public trail corridors.

5. Summary of the Statutory Construction

Section 3(a)(3) designates federal lands crossed by the trail as Federal protection components by virtue of federal ownership and inclusion in the congressionally authorized alignment.

Section 12 and Section 5(f)(3) establish HPRS and HPHS as specific planning and preservation classifications designed to prioritize cooperative agreements, marking, certification, and targeted acquisitions across non-federal lands, and to direct heightened development planning in CMPs.

Section 7(c) mandates baseline protection and non-interference across all federal lands within the trail corridor, confirming that HPRS and HPHS are supplemental prioritization overlays rather than exhaustive prerequisites for federal protection.

Although HPRS and HPHS designation are important for negotiations with intervening non-federal land negotiations, they are not controlling in analyzing proposed project impacts to federal protection components of NHTs – all federal lands crossed by NHTs.

6. Existing HPRS and HPHS Status as Mere Administrative Recommendations

Incorporating the specific administrative history of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (OSNHT) reinforces the statutory argument: using High Potential Route Segments (HPRS) and High Potential Historic Sites (HPHS) as the sole threshold for federal protection is not only contrary to the plain text of the National Trails System Act (NTSA), but on the OSNHT, it also relies on an ultra vires administrative posture derived from a legally deficient document rather than a statutory plan.

The Administrative Status of HPRS/HPHS on the OSNHT: The CAS vs. Statutory CMP

The administrative history of the 2017 Comprehensive Administrative Strategy (CAS) underscores why these designations cannot legally serve as prerequisites for federal protection.

A. Statutory Mechanism: 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f) Requires Formal CMP Designation

• Under 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f), Congress established a clear, mandatory mechanism for identifying, adopting, and administering trail components:

Section 1244(f) mandates that the administering Secretary submit a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to Congress.

Section 1244 (f)(3) specifies that the CMP must include “a protection plan for any high potential historic sites or high potential route segments.”

Formal administrative actions under Section 1244(f) require full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (requiring public scoping, environmental analysis, alternatives, and an EIS/EA with a Record of Decision), as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

B. The 2017 CAS is an informal guidance document, not a binding CMP

Instead of completing the statutorily mandated CMP, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)and National Park Service (NPS) co-administrators issued the 2017 Comprehensive Administrative Strategy (CAS):

• Non-NEPA Compliant: The CAS was issued without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), without public notice-and-comment rulemaking, and without a formal Record of Decision.
• Non-NTSA Compliant: The CAS expressly disclaimed itself as a full CMP, serving merely as an internal interagency coordination strategy.
• Recommendations Only: Because the CAS lacks the force of law of a federally approved, NEPA-cleared CMP, any identification of HPRS and HPHS within the CAS amounts strictly to agency staff recommendations and preliminary inventories, not legally binding or final agency designations under 16 U.S.C. § 1244(f).

7. The Legal Absurdity of Treating CAS Recommendations as Exclusions

Conditioning federal trail protection exclusively on whether a segment is listed as an HPRS/HPHS in the CAS creates an untenable administrative contradiction:

• Attempting to Substitute an Informal Study for Statutory Mandates: 16 U.S.C. § 1242(a)(3) establishes that federal lands traversed by the congressionally designated trail are Federal protection components by operation of law. An agency cannot use informal, non-NEPA “recommendations” from an unadopted administrative document to restrict, narrow, or abrogate a protection status established directly by Congress.
• Leaving Non-HPRS Federal Lands in a Regulatory Vacuum: If an agency argues that federal lands on the OSNHT are protected only if they are designated HPRS/HPHS, yet admits that no formal HPRS/HPHS designations have ever been finalized through an approved NTSA CMP, the agency’s logic would strip Section 1246(c) non-interference protections from 100% of the federal trail miles. Congress did not create a National Historic Trail to have its protections nullified by administrative delay in completing a CMP. Arbitrary and Capricious Line-Drawing: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706), an agency action that grants protection to “Recommended Segment A” while denying baseline Section 1246(c) protection to “Uninventoried Federal Segment B” based solely on the CAS relies on a legally unvetted, non-final list. Because the public and affected parties were never afforded NEPA participation to evaluate the boundaries or criteria of the CAS recommendations, relying on them as hard regulatory cutoffs for surface-disturbing federal projects is legally indefensible.

8. Expanded Conclusion

Direct Statutory Inclusion: All federal lands along the congressionally designated OSNHT alignment are Federal protection components pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §1242(a)(3) and carry the substantive non-interference mandate of § 1246(c).

Role of HPRS/HPHS: Statutorily conceived to prioritize non-federal land acquisitions and cooperative agreements, and to focus internal planning under § 1244(f)(3).

Deficiency of OSNHT Designations: On the OSNHT, HPRS and HPHS exist solely as staff recommendations within an unpromulgated, non-NEPA-compliant CAS. They do not constitute formal administrative decisions and cannot legally be used to circumscribe, diminish, or supplant the statutory protection that applies across all federal lands crossed by the Trail.

In the Current Instance of the BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Proposal, Past BLM Neglect of Protective OSNHT Actions Cannot Now be Justification for Allowances Based on Arguments that OSNHT Resources and Values are Already Degraded

It is clear that a OSNHT CMP is long overdue and that as a result, BLM has excused itself from properly assessing intervening authorizations of land disturbing activities that have been inappropriate and degrading to OSNHT resources and values. This past neglectful degradation cannot now serve as justification for proceeding with additional potential interference with Trail nature, purposes, resources and values. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot legally or administratively justify new oil and gas leasing within the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (OSNHT) corridor by asserting that the landscape is already degraded by prior agency-authorized disturbances that failed to comply with the National Trails System Act (NTSA) and BLM Manual 6280.

Relying on past agency non-compliance to lower the conservation threshold constitutes arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the NTSA, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

1. Violation of the Substantive NTSA Mandate

Congress designated the OSNHT in 2002 (P.L. 107-325; 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(22)) to preserve its historical route, cultural resources, and associated visual settings.

• The “Substantial Interference” Standard: Under Section 7(c) of the NTSA (16 U.S.C. § 1246(c)), the Secretary of the Interior is prohibited from approving uses that “substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.”
• Mandatory Trail Corridor Protection: BLM Manual 6280 (§ 1.4, § 3.2) establishes that the BLM must identify and manage a National Trail Management Corridor (NTMC) of sufficient width to protect the trail’s resources, qualities, values, and associated settings (RQVS), including landscape and viewshed integrity.
• Statutory Permanence: Statutory conservation mandates do not dissolve or diminish because an agency historically neglected its procedural or substantive management duties. A preexisting failure to comply with NTSA or Manual 6280 does not redefine Congress’s statutory mandate to preserve the trail’s scenic and historic integrity.

2. Impermissible “Bootstrapping” and Shifting Baselines Under NEPA

Using past unauthorized or non-compliant agency actions to create a diminished environmental baseline violates NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.):

• No Self-Justifying Degradation: An agency cannot use its own past failures to enforce protective standards as a rationale for compounding harm. In High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), the court rejected agency attempts to rationalize further energy development by downplaying the incremental value of roadless/protected areas.
• Flawed Baseline Analysis: Establishing a baseline that treats unauthorized industrial encroachment as a permanent justification for more development violates the requirement for an accurate environmental baseline (Half Moon Bay Fishermans Mktg. Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988)). An agency must account for statutory conservation obligations rather than merely accepting an artificially degraded status quo created by its own regulatory bypass.
• The “Tyranny of Small Decisions” / Ratchet Effect: Under NEPA’s cumulative impact requirements (40 C.F.R. § 1508.1), an agency cannot segment degradation to argue that because an area is “already compromised,” additional disturbance has no significant impact (Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002)). Applying a “diminished value” standard creates an unlawful downward ratchet where each unlawful approval makes the next approval easier to justify.

3. Arbitrary and Capricious Review Under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))

Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “relie[s] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”

• Congress intended for the BLM to evaluate the OSNHT based on its national significance and historic/scenic integrity—not through an artificial discount applied because the BLM failed to perform NTSA evaluations on post-2002 authorizations.
• When BLM asserts that landscape preservation values are denigrated by its own historic non-compliance, it relies on an impermissible factor: self-inflicted administrative default. The agency cannot cite its past failure to enforce BLM Manual 6280 to waive current compliance obligations.

4. FLPMA and Non-Impairment of Congressionally Designated Lands

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.):

• 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a): Multiple-use management is expressly made subject to “the laws applicable to such public lands.” Where public lands intersect a National Historic Trail, the specific conservation duties of the NTSA control over general mineral leasing.

Unnecessary or Undue Degradation (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)): Authorizing industrial oil and gas development within a designated historic viewshed without a valid NTSA Section 7(c) determination and without adherence to BLM Manual 6280 constitutes unnecessary or undue degradation of trail resources

The Lack of Non-Surface Occupancy (NSO) and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) Stipulations in the Current Lease Sale Offering on the Noted OSNHT Parcels is Arbitrary and Capricious and In Conflict with NTSA Protections

Illegality of Offering Oil and Gas Leases Overlapping or Adjacent to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail Without Mandatory No Surface Occupancy (NSO) and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) Stipulations

1. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to offer oil and gas lease parcels within or proximate to the Congressionally designated corridor of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (OSNHT) without attaching binding No Surface Occupancy (NSO) and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulations violates the National Trails System Act (NTSA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and governing Department of the Interior policy (BLM Manual 6280).

BLM’s reliance on non-binding Lease Notices (LNs)—under the rationale that uninventoried trail segments lack formal “High-Potential Route Segment” (HPRS) classification, or that visual, physical, and recreational impacts can be addressed later at the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) stage—constitutes an unlawful deferral of environmental review and an irretrievable commitment of public resources in direct contravention of settled Tenth and Ninth Circuit precedent.

2. STATUTORY & CASE LAW ARGUMENT

A. Issuance of Leases Without Mandatory NSOs Constitutes an Unlawful Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Under NEPA and the Mineral Leasing Act

Under foundational NEPA jurisprudence governing federal mineral leasing, the decision to issue an onshore oil and gas lease constitutes a final, irreversible commitment of resources that surrenders the government’s authority to preclude surface occupancy altogether.

• Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1414–15 (D.C. Cir. 1983): The court held that the Department must either prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the cumulative effects of surface development prior to lease issuance OR retain absolute authority to prevent surface-disturbing activities by attaching an NSO stipulation.
• Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1451 (9th Cir. 1988): The court affirmed that BLM cannot sell non-NSO leases based on the promise of future environmental review at the APD stage, because the lease sale itself sells the right to occupy the surface: “The government cannot predict at the leasing stage which sites will be developed, but that does not excuse its failure to evaluate the environmental consequences of leasing… unless it reserves the right to preclude surface activity entirely through an NSO stipulation.”
• Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1159–60 (10th Cir. 2004): Applying this principle within the Tenth Circuit, the court confirmed that post-leasing environmental conditioning cannot cure a failure to address foreseeable surface impacts and lease stipulations at the pre-leasing stage.

Application: A Lease Notice (LN) is purely informational; under 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2, an LN does not alter the terms of the lease contract or reserve the authority to prohibit surface occupancy. At the APD stage, BLM’s regulatory authority under 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 is strictly limited to minor site relocations (up to 200 meters) and operational delays (up to 60 days). Because a 200-meter shift is physically incapable of shielding the multi-mile visual, auditory, landscape, and recreational settings of the OSNHT, issuing leases without upfront NSO/CSU stipulations illegally surrenders BLM’s statutory duty to protect these resources.

B. All Federal Lands Crossed by the OSNHT Are “Federal Protection Components” by Operation of Law, Independent of HPRS Inventory

BLM’s administrative stance that Trail protections apply strictly to pre-mapped HPRSs or narrow GIS overlays misinterprets the text of the National Trails System Act:

• 16 U.S.C. § 1242(a)(3) (NTSA § 3(a)(3)): “Only those selected land and water based components of an historic trail which are on federally owned lands and which meet the national historic trail criteria established in this chapter are included as Federal protection components of a national historic trail.”
• 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2) (NTSA § 7(a)(2)): Mandates that the Secretary shall establish a trail management corridor to protect the scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities of the areas through which such trail passes.

The Distinction: Under the NTSA, “High-Potential Route Segments” (16 U.S.C. § 1251) and “High-Potential Historic Sites” are statutory mechanisms designed to prioritize public access, interpretation, federal funding, and voluntary certification of non-federal lands (16 U.S.C. § 1246(h)).

Congress did not establish HPRS status as an exclusionary threshold for federal lands. Every acre of federally owned land traversed by the OSNHT is a Federal Protection Component by operation of law. Treating non-inventoried or non-HPRS federal trail segments as unprotected generic public land suitable for unencumbered surface occupancy contradicts the plain language of 16 U.S.C. § 1242(a)(3).

C. BLM Violated Its Own Binding Administrative Mandates (BLM Manual 6280)

BLM Manual 6280 (Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study) establishes binding internal policy governing how the agency must evaluate National Trails during land use and mineral leasing decisions:

• Manual 6280, Chapter 1, § 1.6(E): BLM must protect the Nature and Purposes and the National Trail Resources, Qualities, Values, and Associated Settings (RQVS) across all designated federal segments, not merely physical tread/ruts. This includes the visual landscape, auditory environment, cultural landscape, and primitive non-motorized recreational opportunities.
• Manual 6280, Chapter 3, § 3.2(B): Requires BLM to inventory and delineate a National Trail Management Corridor before authorizing discretionary actions that could permanently impair the trail setting.
• Manual 6280, Chapter 5, § 5.3(A): Directs that discretionary surface-disturbing activities (including fluid mineral leasing) must apply lease stipulations (NSO, CSU) to prevent substantial adverse impacts to the trail corridor.

By omitting NSO/CSU stipulations on parcels intersecting or directly adjacent to the OSNHT corridor, the EA violates BLM’s own programmatic guidance, rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (see Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (agencies are bound to follow their own internal rules and manuals)).

D. Failure to Satisfy Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 106’s Cumulative Viewshed Mandates

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. § 306108, and 36 C.F.R. Part 800:

• The OSNHT is eligible for and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A (historical association) and Criterion C (landscape/design values).
• Under 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(2)(v), an adverse effect includes the “introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.”

Issuing mineral leases burdened only by generic Cultural Resource Lease Notices illegally bifurcates Section 106 review. Because oil and gas infrastructure (drill rigs, pump jacks, flaring, compressor stations, access roads, and heavy traffic) introduces visual, auditory, and atmospheric elements that permanently degrade the trail’s landscape setting and recreation experience, BLM’s failure to attach upfront NSOs constitutes an evasion of its duty to avoid or mitigate adverse effects prior to making an irretrievable commitment of agency authority.

3. SUMMARY

BLM’s decision to offer oil and gas lease parcels within or proximate to the OSNHT without mandatory NSO stipulations (to protect the physical trace, landscape, and recreational experience) and CSU stipulations (to protect the extended viewshed/auditory corridor) is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to:

1. NEPA & the MLA (Sierra Club v. Peterson; Conner v. Burford; Pennaco Energy v. DOI);
2. NTSA Sections 3(a)(3) and 7(a) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1242(a)(3), 1246(a));
3. FLPMA Section 302(b) (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)—prevention of undue degradation);
4. BLM Manual 6280; and
5. NHPA Section 106 (54 U.S.C. § 306108).

Conclusion

In conclusion the parties submitting these comments urge the BLM, in regard to parcels 1805, 1806, 1809, 7935, 7937, 7941, and 7947 in the Moab Field Office Area to either: (1) withdraw the overlapping/adjacent parcels from the lease sale entirely or (2) amend the sale documentation to apply a mandatory, non-waivable No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation across the entire Congressionally designated trail corridor and its associated viewshed/setting. The EA fails to support any other alternative being adopted and doing so would clearly be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act provisions at 5 U.S.C. §706 as:

• arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
• in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
• without observance of procedure required by law.

Please consider each of the signatory parties to these comments to be interested parties regarding this proposed action and keep the parties informed of subsequent related actions.

---

¹ John Hiscock is a retired 38-year veteran of the National Park Service, having worked as a park ranger, regulatory specialist, superintendent, state coordinator, and leader of numerous management initiatives. He also served as Association Manager (retired) and is a life member of the Old Spanish Trail Association. He is also a member of PEER, CPANP, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Western Watersheds Project.

Attachments

• Appendix A – Scoping Comments of April 15, 2026
• Appendix B – EA Comments of June 21, 2026
• Appendix C – Map of noted subject parcels in relation to OSNHT congressional route alignment and OSNHT CAS recommended realignment.