Conservation Groups Challenge BLM’s Purple Sage Energy Center Over Threats to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail

General Authority and Limitations on Authority for Allowing Solar Development

As outlined above, the BLM’s authority for permitting solar development on general public lands stems from FLPMA – 43U.S.C. §1761(a)(4). However, as also discussed, that authority is limited by FLPMA at 43 U.S.C. §1732. In the present case, the “tract of land” where FLPMA authorizations are limited by “other provisions of law” are the lands encompassed by the statutory establishment of the OSNHT, and the allowances and limitations of the NTSA.

As aforementioned, in this particular instance the authority for assessment and issuance or not of a right-of-way for the PurpleSage project and related modification of two energy corridors is subject to the more exacting requirements of the NTSA, specifically the involvement of the NPS and application of national park system laws. See 16 U.S.C. §1248(a).

The FEIS fails to address the specific, noted requirements of the NTSA, fails to address analysis of applicable “national parksystem” laws, and fails to equally involve the NPS in the project NEPA analysis, and, therefore, said analysis for this project is insufficient and invalid.

It should also be noted, and will be further explained in the following comments that any question of the applicability of 16 U.S.C. 1248(a) on the basis of whether the project is “along” the OSNHT is unfortunately unresolved due to the Secretary ofthe Interior’s failure to establish a OSNHT NTSA right-of-way in accordance with 16 U.S.C. §1246(a)(2), and furthermore, the BLM’s failure to establish a OSNHT Trail Corridor, in accordance with BLM Manual 6280, in the Las Vegas Field Area RMPand its amendments. As will be presented, the current project should clearly be considered along the OSNHT, and within the OSNHT overdue, but prospective, NTSA right-of-way for all aspects of NEPA analysis.

Applicability of the BLM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development
#DOI-BLM-HQ-3000-2023-0001-RMPA-ROD (December, 2024)

Analysis and assessment of this project has moved forward without consideration of the new BLM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development requirements (henceforth, W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA).

Any assertion that the Purple Sage project is exempted from the planning provisions of W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA is a misreading of its exemption provisions.

The Purple Sage project is not exempt from the provisions of the W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA as not: (1) a project for which“[t]he BLM published a Draft EIS or EA by August 30, 2024”; or, (2) a project for which “[t]he BLM issued a final decision to issue a ROW grant or lease before the date of the Solar Programmatic EIS ROD, and for which no amendment to the lease is necessary.” See BLM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management PlanAmendments for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development #DOI-BLM-HQ-3000-2023-0001-RMPA-ROD (December, 2024) at p. 2-6; and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments forUtility-Scale Solar Energy Development #DOI-BLM-HQ-3000-2023-0001-RMP-EIS (henceforth FPEIS), §6.5 – Applicability to Projects under Review, pp. 6-40 – 6-42.

The Purple Sage project is only “partially exempted” from the W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA as described:

Project applications are considered “partially exempt” if the applicant and the BLM executed a Cost Recovery Agreement by April 18, 2024, i.e., the close ofthe 90-day comment period for the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS, or if one or more of the following milestones have been reached by August 30, 2024:

4. Projects for which the BLM has initiated NEPA by either: (a) publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, or (b) initiating public involvement on an EA through scoping.”

Id (emphasis added). (Notice of Intent for Purple Sage (fka Golden Currant) EIS/RMP Amendment – April, 2023. See https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2021533/570).

The FEIS, and Panorama Environmental, Inc. Analysis
are Based on an Assessment of Project Impacts Limited to an Arbitrary Ten Mile Wide OSNHT NTSA ROW and Management and Protective Trail Corridor

Both the project FEIS and its contracted OSNHT IAU contractor, Panorama Environmental, Inc. assessment of impacts to theOSNHT are limited to an illegitimate 10 mile wide NHT resource, values and landscape zone arbitrarily set by reference to a legally insufficient OSNHT Comprehensive Administrative Strategy released by the BLM and NPS in 2017.

The NTSA mandates that:

Within two complete fiscal years of the date of enactment of legislation designating a national historic trail [for the OSNHT,December, 2005] . . . the responsible Secretary [for the OSNHT, the Secretary of the Interior] shall, . . . submit to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, a comprehensive plan for the management, and use of the trail, including but not limited to, the following items:

1. 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, details of any anticipated cooperative agreements to be consummated with State and local government agencies or private interests, and for national scenic or national historic trails an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation;
2. the process to be followed by the appropriate Secretary to implement the marking requirements established in section 7(c) of this Act;
3. a protection plan for any high potential historic sites or high potential route segments; and
4. general and site-specific development plans, including anticipated 16 U.S.C. §1244(f)²Although a specific “protection plan” for identified “high potential historic sites or high potential route segments” is specifically required by the NTSA, the law generally protects all federal lands crossed by NHTs as “Federal protection components.” 16 U.S.C. §1242(a)(3). The NTSA defines “Federal protection components” of NHTs as follows: “those selected land and water based components of a historic trail which are on federally owned lands and which meet the national historic trail criteria established in this Act are included as Federal protection components of a national historic trail.” 16 U.S.C. §1242(a)(3). Because the NTSA directs that only historic trails and routes meeting established criteria be congressionally established as NHTs (see 16 U.S.C. §1244(b)(11)), it is clear that all congressionally selected and enabled NHTs meet such criteria, and all portions on federal lands are “Federal protection components” of such NHTs, including the OSNHT. All portions of the OSNHT on federal lands, including those portions crossing the proposed BLM project area, are “Federal protection components” of the OSNHT, and require assessment for potential adverse effects in the current NEPA process.

A full year after the mandated due date for a OSNHT CMP, the NPS and BLM Co-Administrators for the Trail issued a “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Old Spanish National HistoricTrail . . .” in the Federal Register. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail; New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California – NPS & BLM, 71 Fed. Reg. 11, 2956 (2006). That Notice stated that related documents were available from the Co-Administrators, and public comment was sought. The Notice also stated that: “Public participation elements will include, but not be limited to, public notices and press releases; newsletters and a project web page; public meetings (scoping, alternative development, and review of draft EIS); and depositories for public document review.” Id. at 2957. This statement confirms that the Notice, at least initially was for NEPA scoping purposes only. In fact, a Scoping Report was completed in August, 2006, and at that time implied that a Draft CMP/Draft EIS would follow. See, Scoping Report – Old Spanish National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement – U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, Division of Resources & National Park Service, National Trails System, Santa Fe (August 2006).

By all indications, the preparation of a OSNHT CMP and related EIS appear to have been abandoned as no such follow-up work exists.³It should be noted that no evidence exists of compliance with NEPA regarding the development of even a draft CMP for the OSNHT. Reference https://parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkId=456 which appears to be an accounting of all NPS “Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC)” documents. To date, the Secretary of the Interior has not completed, or submitted a “comprehensive plan for the management” of the OSNHT in accordance with the NTSA statutory mandate.

After years of foundering in regard to the NTSA required “comprehensive plan for management,” in approximately 2015, theBLM and NPS internally agreed to pursue the preparation of what they chose to title a Comprehensive Administrative Strategy (CAS) for the OSNHT. The CAS, completed in 2017 described the delinquency in planning and development of the CAS in this way:

On June 19, 2014, the NPS’s Intermountain Regional Director and the BLM’s Utah State Director met with the NPS / BLM jointagency planning and administrative team for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail regarding the completion of a comprehensive plan for the administration of the national historic trail. The planning and administrative team had completed a comprehensive management plan and draft environmental impact statement in compliance with the National Trails System Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. However, policy changes within the BLM then resulted in a lack of concurrence with the plan. To resolvethis issue, the NPS Regional Director and BLM Utah State Director agreed that the draft comprehensive management plan/environmental impact statement would be modified and presented as a comprehensive administrative strategy. They also agreed that the strategy would provide the BLM with the opportunity to outline how the agency would meet all applicable national historic trails policies separately after development of the strategy found in this document. The NPS agreed that the change to a comprehensive administrative strategy would not impede their collaborative efforts to administer trail resources and values. Comprehensive Administrative Strategy for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, NPS & BLM, p. viii (December, 2017).⁴No explanation for why “policy changes within the BLM precluded “concurrence with the plan” has ever been offered. No “modification” of a “environmental impact statement” for the CMP has ever been presented as related to the CAS. The BLM’s “opportunity to outline how the agency would meet all applicable national historic trails policies separately after development of the strategy found in this document” would have been achieved through subsequent BLM adherence to the policy process laid out in its Manual 6280 when developing, or amending, its field unit RMPs. Routinely, in regard to most, if not all BLM RMPs, those policies, have not been incorporated.

The CAS also stated:

The purpose of this strategy is to establish the administrative objectives, protocols, processes, and guidelines necessary to fulfill preservation and public use goals for the entire Old Spanish National Historic Trail. Although the National Trails System Act (NTSA) designating the Old Spanish National Historic Trail does not specifically require the development of a planning document, Section 5(f) of the Act requires that a comprehensive plan be developed for all designated national historic trails. This administrative strategy will function as the core component of the planning portfolio for the Old Spanish Trail comprehensive strategy, focusing on administration.

Id. at vii. This language specifically contradicts NTSA’s mandate and procedure for a CMP for each NHT. It also confuses the issue of an administrative strategy versus a comprehensive strategy versus a comprehensive plan, and which may be a sub-planof another, or whether a CMP will ever be completed.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that NEPA compliance was never achieved for the OSNHT CAS. It is worthy of note that other comprehensive plans for management of NSTs and NHTs which have been completed, have all undergone NEPA assessment.

The Administrators’ confused statement of intent regarding the CAS, the lack of NEPA compliance for the undertaking, and othershortfalls, demonstrate that the CAS does not suffice to legally replace a CMP. The completion of a “Old Spanish National Historic Trail Comprehensive Administrative Strategy” Issued by the Secretary of the Interior’s BLM and NPS OSNHT Co-Administrators in 2017 fails to meet NTSA mandates, or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and cannot be considered legally equivalent.⁵It should be noted that a lawsuit has been filed in Federal District Court challenging DOI’s failure to prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan for the OSNHT and requesting the Court to enjoin projects such as Purple Sage until such time as DOI complies with said CMP requirements of the NTSA. See Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, et. al. v. United States Department of the Interior, et. al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, (Civil Action No. 24-cv-3420) (December 9, 2024).

Regardless of its legal insufficiency as a CMP for the OSNHT, the BLM and Panorama Environmental have focused their analysis of potential impacts to the OSNHT on the following statement:

The Comprehensive Administrative Strategy provides for an informal protection corridor for the OSNHT ranging from zero to 5 miles on either side of the OSNHT alignment. The appropriate protection corridor width is meant to encompass trail-associated historic artifacts and resources, natural resources, as well as the historic viewshed from the trail alignment. The portion of the OSNHT that falls within 5 miles of the Project site is therefore included in this analysis as the primary inventory area.

Bureau of Land Management Purple Sage Energy Center Project Manual 6280 Inventory and Impacts Analysis for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail N-100225, Panorama Environmental, Inc., p. 3-1. The BLM has also directly bought into this 5-mile limitation of assessment of impacts to the OSNHT. See FEIS, p. 3-4.

The BLM FEIS reliance on a “suggested” yet unfounded protective zone of five miles from the centerline of the OSNHT limiting its responsibilities for assessing potential impacts on the Trail is neglectful and arbitrary. It is disingenuous that the BLM FEIS would cite the NPS Co-Administrator’s language concerning the “informal,” possible width of a trail management corridor, given that the CAS goes on to explain “[t]he BLM follows direction from their trail administration manual to establish a trail corridor” (CAS at p.5) and generally, that although “trail protection corridors range from zero to five miles (or more) on either side of the trail route” “[t]hese are arbitrary and conceptual approaches”, and that “[t]rail administrators will encourage a landscape- or viewshed based approach for trail corridor establishment and protection.” (Id. at p.21). Clearly, the BLM FEIS has “selectively” cited the CAS, and ignored its contextual discussion of Trail protection corridors, and BLM policy on Trail inventories and corridor establishment via said inventories and RMP amendments.

In addition, and as already partially discussed, a 10 mile wide NEPA and NTSA assessment zone for this project contradicts BLM policy on setting NHT NTSA ROW widths in BLM Manual 6250, conducting inventories of NHT resources, values, and publicopportunities – including inventories required by the W. States Solar PEIS and BLM Manual 6280, and policy concerningestablishment of Trail management and protective corridors in BLM Manual 6280.

Applicability of the BLM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development
#DOI-BLM-HQ-3000-2023-0001-RMPA-ROD (December, 2024)

As stated above, the Purple Sage Project is subject to the excluded areas analysis required by the W. State Solar PEIS/RMPA, which states:

The programmatic design features adopted in the Solar Programmatic EIS ROD (see Appendix B of this Final Programmatic EIS) will apply to partially exempt applications for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands.

For projects for which the BLM publishes a Draft EIS or EA after publication of this Solar Final Programmatic EIS but before publication of the Solar Programmatic EIS ROD, the BLM will assess whether the project complies with the programmatic design features in the Solar Programmatic EIS ROD. Before the BLM issues a final NEPA document or decision for these projects, the BLM must either: (1) determine that the project is in compliance with the applicable programmatic design features, including allowable variations as described in Appendix B; or (2) incorporate any programmatic design features that are determined to be absent and applicable to the proposed project.

Id. at p. 6-41. The Purple Sage FEIS makes no reference to the “partially exempt” status of the project, nor addresses the applicable programmatic design features for NHTs contained in the W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA.

The W. States Solar PEIS/RMPA clearly sets forth a programmatic design feature for utility scale solar energy projects on oradjacent to NHTs. Appendix H is titled “Implementation Support Information and Maps for Design Features” and includes asection titled “H.4 National Scenic and Historic Trail – Draft Inventory Analysis Units.” Id. at Appendix H, pp. H-1, H-6. The text of section H.4 states:

The map shown in Figure H.4-1 illustrates the locations of the National Scenic and Historic Trail
-Draft Inventory Analysis Units (IAUs). A higher resolution and interactive map illustrating the National Scenic and HistoricTrail Inventory Analysis Units is available using the following link: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/51e1b71274f248aaa8f831b229dcfc38.

Based on design feature SDLW-3, if a proposed solar project includes areas within these Draft IAUs, the projectdeveloper shall evaluate, in coordination with the BLM, whether the proposed development area has been adequately inventoried (per BLM Technical References 6280-1 Volumes 1 & 2) to inform about any adverse impacts on the resources, qualities, values, associated settings, and the nature and primary use or uses of the potentially affected trail. If adverse impacts are determined to be likely, avoidance or other mitigation measures must be identified in coordination with the BLM authorizing officer. Updates or refinements to the IAUs through the inventory process would supersede the Draft versions. (see Appendix B, Section B.2.16 for the entire design feature text).

Id. at Appendix H, p. H-1 & H-6. The referenced, relevant webpage on “Inventory Analysis Units” (IAUs) describes such units,lacking an RMP designated Trail Corridor to be 30 miles in width, or 15 miles either side of the congressionally designated centerline of a NHT, in this case, the OSNHT.

Neither the BLM Purple Sage FEIS, or its contractor’s aforementioned NHT assessment, based any NEPA analysis of impacts on theOSNHT on the required 30 mile wide IAU. Therefore, the current BLM NEPA analysis of potential impacts on the OSNHT is insufficient to conclude that there will be no “substantial interference” with the nature and purposes of the OSNHT, as required by the NTSA, and, therefore, the Secretary and BLM lack the authority to approve this project.

BLM Analysis of Potential Project Impacts on the OSNHT
Fall Short of its Own Policy Requirements and are Incomplete and Arbitrary

The NTSA states that all “selected land and water based components of a historic trail which are on federally owned lands and which meet the national historic trail criteria established in this Act are included as Federal protection components of a national historic trail.” (16 U.S.C. §1242(a)(3)).

Congress found that the 2700 miles of routes presented in the NPS “Old Spanish Trail – National Historic Trail Feasibility Studyand Environmental Assessment” of July, 2021, met “national historic trail criteria” established in the NTSA and, therefore statutorily added those routes to the National Trails System as the OSNHT. Therefore, all portions of the OSNHT crossing federally owned lands, including the lands in question under the subject action, are “Federal protection components” of the Trail.

The NTSA spells out land use allowances and disallowances along NHTs as follows:

• • “Within the exterior boundaries of areas under their administration that are included in the right-of-wayselected for a national recreation, national scenic, or national historic trail, the heads of Federal agencies may use lands for trail purposes . . .” (16 U.S.C. §1246(d)).
  • “National scenic or national historic trails may contain campsites, shelters, and related-public-use facilities,”“retracement” routes, trail “markers,” and “interpretation sites” within the Trail right-of-way (16 U.S.C. §1246(c)).
  • “Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail,may be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail” ( emphasis added). Therefore, other uses along the Trail which would substantially interfere with the Trail’s nature and purposes are disallowed (Id.).
  • The disallowance of “activities incompatible with the purposes for which such trails were established” ();
  • The limitation of the use of motor vehicles to those “which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail and which at the time of designation, . . . [were] allowed by administrative regulations” ()
  • The “nature and purposes” of the OSNHT are:
  • “to provide for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation” (16 U.S.C. 1241(a));
  • to include “the identification and protection of the historic route and its historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment” (16 U.S.C. §1242(a)(3));
  • the purpose of affording the public “an opportunity to vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route.” (Id. at §1251(2); and,
  • the conservation and protection of the “landscape” of the Trail ( & 16 U.S.C. §7202(a)). In summation, the conservation of the nature and purposes of the Trail entails protection of its cultural and natural resources and natural environment (including natural soundscapes and night skies), the protection of, or restoration of its landscape reminiscent of the period of significance of 1829 – 1848, and the protection of public opportunities for experiential recreation and education.

BLM policies on NT management contained in Manual 6280 – Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails (2012) direct the agency’s field office RMPs to conduct comprehensive inventories of NT resources, values, and opportunities on their respective lands, and identify “trail corridors” encompassing those resources, values and opportunities for management andprotection purposes. See id. at Chap. 3 (re: inventories) and Chap. 4 (re: land use planning for “trail management corridors).

To date, there is no indication that BLM has conducted the referenced, comprehensive OSNHT inventories in the Las VegasField Office area, or established a “trail management corridor” in that area as part of the relevant RMP in accordance with Manual 6280.

Without going into extreme detail, it must be pointed out that the BLM FEIS and its Contractor’s “Manual 6280 Inventory andImpacts Analysis” fall short of actual inventory and analysis requirements of BLM Manual 6280. That Manual requires comprehensive inventories of NHT cultural and natural resources of Trail corridors, Trail corridor viewsheds, Trail corridor landscapes, and public opportunities for experiential education and limited and appropriate recreation within Trail corridors. Examples of BLM’s abbreviated and circumscribed inventories abound.

One aspect of 6280 inventories should focus on natural resources and natural condition of Trail corridors. What really matters interms of the natural landscape of the 30 mile wide zone is the presence of flora and fauna indicative of the historic period of use of the OSNHT – 1829 – 1848. Do the same species largely exist without major disturbance across the length and width of the zone and are present to such an extent that the average citizen can experience that environment as it most likely existed during the noted time period? The same assessment should apply to fauna in the area. If these natural conditions do exist, or could possibly be restored, then any adverse affect of the project must be assessed and not allowed if degrading in anysubstantial degree. The existing FEIS and supporting analysis appear to discount these natural attributes as commonplace and existing elsewhere for people’s experience, and therefore, not protected by virtue of the NHT designation. This is contrary to NTSA and agency intent regarding management and protection of NHT corridors. The key is representative natural conditions along the statutorily designated Trail and corridor.

Recreational opportunities are also given short shrift in the BLM analysis. It is not whether such opportunities are currently pursued; it is whether they could be pursued and give participants the opportunity to vicariously experience and learn from a landscape reminiscent of the noted time period. BLM’s analysis seems to imply that if allowable, appropriate recreational opportunities such as hiking, equestrian use, nature study, vehicular use on routes authorized prior to 2002, and other visitationare not occurring, and that the opportunities for such use can be sacrificed to detrimental development. BLM also assumes that recreational activities such as hiking are not directly associated with NT recreation; an arbitrary and dangerous assumption in light of congressional intent regarding diverse, generally, non-motorized recreation along NTs. This violates the intent of the NTSA.

Impacts on the OSNHT viewshed are also negated in the BLM FEIS. BLM’s FEIS has done a very limited and simplistic viewshed analysis and improperly concentrates such analysis on only one or two viewpoints along the Trail, notably StumpSpring which although identified in the CAS as a high potential historic site, is no more important than all other federal protection components of the Trail throughout the project vicinity. If the project is visible from any point on the OSNHT in the area, even at a distance of up to 15 miles it will arguably impact the nature and purposes of the Trail, and, therefore possibly “interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.” BLM should double check possible disruptions of the OSNHT viewshed landscape from multiple points along the OSNHT in the broader area. BLM states in the FEIS (p. 3.9-7) that the proposed Purple Sage project will be visible from 13.8 miles of a total of 22.4 miles of Trail in the area of potential impact, or from 62% of the Trail mileage in the area. And, yet, BLM and its 6280 contractor have only assessed visible impacts from two KOPs along the relevant stretch of Trail.

It is also worthy of note that BLM Manual 6280 states “[t]o retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated, the BLM should consider establishing VRM classes at the most protective level practicable to meet National Trail scenery management objectives”, and strongly encourages a “VRM Class I or II designation for . . . National Historic Trail Federal Protection Components” (BLM Manual 6280 at p.4-8) as in the case of theOSNHT in the Pahrump Valley. However, neither the Las Vegas Field Office RMP, yet to be amended in accordance with Manual 6280, calls for such classification, or does the FEIS acknowledge such policy guidance.

All of these examples of the failure to meet explicit BLM Policy Manual 6280 requirements are reason for the retraction or thorough revision of the FEIS.

Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts on the OSNHT Have Not Been Properly Addressed

 The BLM FEIS does not properly address the reasonably foreseeable impacts of solar and transmission development in all locations in the Pahrump Valley on the OSNHT. On the contrary, the BLM seems to profess that approval or existence of other solar projects, within 15 miles of the OSNHT centerline, have, or will degrade the values of the OSNHT and, therefore, one more project will not matter. In actuality, many, if not all of the projects approved, and or developed since the establishment of theOSNHT in 2002, were approved without proper BLM NEPA analysis, and NTSA and BLM policy requirements. These inappropriate, and possibly illegal allowances should not be ignored, authorizations retracted where possible, and certainly fully and honestly assessed in regard to cumulative impacts in cumulative combination with the Purple Sage project.

Requested Withdrawal or Revision of the Purple Sage FEIS

The individuals and organizations submitting this protest request the withdrawal of the FEIS and the Purple Sage project on the following basis:

• Due to the failure of the DOI to complete a statutorily required comprehensive management plan for the OSNHT inaccordance with NEPA requirements, and therefore, a partial lack of guidance and direction concerning said Trail existing within the BLM and its field offices, the existing FEIS is deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Trail. The substitution of a procedurally defective comprehensive administrative strategy is ineffective and reliance thereon is arbitrary and capricious.
• Due to the failure of the DOI to designate a statutorily required NTSA right-of-way for the OSNHT, prior to considering the subject project, makes the existing FEIS deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Trail, and procedurally arbitrary and capricious.
• Due to the failure of the BLM Las Vegas Field Office area RMP to include a comprehensive inventory of OSNHTresources, values, and public opportunities in accordance with BLM policy (Manual 6280), the existing FEIS is deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Trail.
• Due to the failure of the BLM Las Vegas Field Office area RMP to include a designated OSNHT Trail Management and Protection Corridor in accordance with BLM policy (Manual 6280), the existing FEIS is deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Trail.
• Due to the failure of the Purple Sage FEIS to follow the NHT inventory requirements of the W. States Solar PEIS which requires a 30 mile wide IAU, the existing FEIS is deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Althoughthe FEIS references subsequent changes to its contracted 6280 inventory as serving as a substantial basis for reaching a conclusion of no substantial interference with Trail resources and values, the BLM has failed to make the revised version of the contracted inventory available to the public on the BLM EPlanning website or otherwise.
• Although BLM states that it acknowledges the commenters/protesters request for a meeting prior to proceeding beyond the DEIS, no contact has ever been made to facilitate such a meeting.
• Due to the failure of the FEIS to properly analyze the array of reasonable foreseeable potential impacts of the totality ofsolar development projects in the Pahrump Valley, the FEIS is deficient in its assessment of potential impacts to the Trail. For instance, the BLM acknowledges the visibility of the Yellow Pine project within the OSNHT viewshed as being detrimental to Trail nature and purposes, ir fails to acknowledge Purple Sage viewshed impacts although more
• As NTSA right-of-way procedures are referenced in the BLM/Panorama Environmental, Inc.“Manual 6280 Inventoryand Impacts Analysis” at page 2-1, and due to the failure of BLM to request DOI/NPS processing of a right-of-way application, assessment and approval by the NPS subject to NPS laws and regulations such as 54 U.S.C. § 100902 and 36 CFR Part 14, DOI and BLM have not complied with the right-of-way requirements of the NTSA at 16 U.S.C.1248(a). Consequently, the Purple Sage project has not been processed correctly, and without NEPA consideration of the NPS analysis related to issuance of a potential right-of-way, the FEIS is insufficient and must be withdrawn.

Sincerely,

Cc:
Patick Malone, NPS Intermountain Region National Trails Administrator
Rob Sweeten, BLM OSNHT Administrator, Utah
Justin Abernathy, Acting BLM Nevada State Director
Christina Price, Acting BLM Utah State Director
Bruce Sillitoe, Las Vegas Field Office Manager, BLM
Bert Frost, Acting Intermountain Regional Director, NPS