Facts

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) was a 370-megawatt solar concentrating thermal power plant, which is being constructed on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) administered land in the Mojave Desert. The project area will include an administrative building, an operation and maintenance building, a substation, roads, utility lines, and construction staging areas, and will take up 3,471 acres, or 5.4 square miles. On Nov. 6, 2007, the BLM published a notice of its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the project and decided to take no action with respect to alternatives to the project. The BLM issued a supplemental statement on April 16, 2010, which analyzed two additional alternatives. In October 2010, the BLM issued an approved decision to include the ISEGS as a power generating location and to grant four rights of way that were authorized as routes of travel within the project site. On Nov. 23, 2011, La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Site Protection Circle Advisory Committee and several other organizations and individuals filed suit against the U.S. Dept. of the Interior and the BLM in relation to the approvals for the project.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief under the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Energy Policy Act of 2005, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and public participation rights pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.

Plaintiffs argued the BLM failed to adequately define a public purpose and need for the ISEGS, was required to operate a programmatic environmental impact statement for the other solar electricity projects taking place around the same time, failed to take into account scenic-resource values, air quality impacts, impacts to the desert tortoise, impacts to soil and water, and cultural values. Next, plaintiffs argued that the BLM failed to seek information appropriately and that the construction of the ISEGS subjected plaintiffs' to criminal trespass for using the land that is required for their religious rituals.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that no violation of law occurred, and that they properly undertook public comment procedures, and received additional information regarding the proposed project and its potential alternatives, impacts and mitigation measures. Defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit against them as well.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs' motion for the same.