Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-16812/USCOURTS-ca9-14-16812-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH;

WESTERN SHOSHONE DEFENSE

PROJECT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;

AMY LUEDERS, BLM State Director;

CHRISTOPHER J. COOK, BLM Mt.

Lewis Field Manager,

Defendants-Appellees,

EUREKA MOLY, LLC,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-16812

D.C. No.

3:13-cv-00078-

RCJ-VPC

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 18, 2016

San Francisco, California

Filed December 28, 2016

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 1 of 31
2 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

Before: Susan P. Graber and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit

Judges, and Mark W. Bennett,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Graber

SUMMARY**

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated

in part the district court’s judgment, and remanded for further

proceedings in an action brought by plaintiffs challenging the

Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Mt. Hope

Project, a proposed molybdenum mining operation near

Eureka, Nevada.

Addressing plaintiffs’ challenge to several aspects of the

BLM’s analysis of the Project under the National

Environmental Policy Act, the panel held that the BLM’s

selection of baseline levels of certain air pollutants was

unreasonable, that the BLM’s analysis of cumulative air

impacts was deficient, that the BLM took the required “hard

look” at the potential impacts of poor pit-lake water quality

on ground water, and that the BLM’s discussion of long-term

mitigation and reclamation in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement was “reasonably complete.”

* The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 2 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 3

The panel declined to address plaintiffs’ claim that the

BLM violated its duty to protect lands “withdrawn from

settlement, location, sale or entry” under Executive Order

Public Water Reserve No. 107 (Apr. 17, 1926). First, the

panel held that the BLM should be given an opportunity to fix

the errors in its analysis of the Project under NEPA before

challenges to the approval of the Project itself are entertained.

Second, the panel held that the proper analysis of the claim

turned in large part on whether four springs in the area of the

Project were “covered” by the Executive Order, but the

BLM’s position on that question was unclear. The panel

remanded for clarification.

COUNSEL

Roger Flynn (argued) and Jeffrey C. Parsons, Western

Mining Action Project, Lyons, Colorado; Julie CavanaughBill, Cavanaugh-Bill Law Offices LLC, Elko, Nevada; for

Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Robert J. Lundman (argued) and Mark R. Haag; John C.

Cruden, Assistant Attorney General; Environment & Natural

Resources Division, United States Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.; Luke Miller, Office of the Solicitor,

United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.;

for Defendants-Appellees.

Francis M. Wilkstrom (argued), Salt Lake City, Utah, for

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 3 of 31
4 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Great Basin Resource Watch and the Western

Shoshone Defense Project challenge Defendant Bureau of

Land Management’s (“BLM”) approval of the Mt. Hope

Project (“Project”), a proposed molybdenum mining

operation near Eureka, Nevada. Plaintiffs argue that the

BLM’s review of the Project under the National

Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (“NEPA”) was inadequate

and that the approval of the Project violated the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”) and the

laws governing lands withdrawn under the executive order

known as Public Water Reserve No. 107 (“PWR 107”). 

Because we conclude that the BLM’s environmental review

of the Project violated NEPA in several ways, we affirm in

part the district court’s judgment, reverse in part, vacate in

part, and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

A. The Mt. Hope Project

The Mt. Hope Project “will be located in Eureka County,

Nevada approximately 23 miles northwest of the town of

Eureka . . . and will consist of a proposed molybdenum mine

including a power transmission line, a water well field, and

all associated facilities to be located on public land

administered by the BLM . . . and on private land controlled

by [Eureka Moly, LLC, the Project’s operator]. The Project

will utilize an open pit mining method and will process the

mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. A total of

8,355 acres of disturbance is proposed within the 22,886-acre

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 4 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 5

Project Area.” Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dep’t of Interior,

Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of Operations

Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-WayGrants,

p. i (Nov. 2012). Of those 22,886 acres, 22,608 are public

lands administered by the BLM. Id. at 6. “The 80-year

project will have an 18- to 24-month construction phase, 44

years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation,

and five years of post-closure monitoring. . . . Additionally,

long-term post-reclamation obligations will follow final

reclamation.” Id. at 1.

The active mining phase of the Project will last 32 years,

during which time the mine will produce approximately 1.7

billion tons of waste rock. During that phase, pumps will be

used to extract water from the open mining pit; at the end of

the active mining phase, the pit will be allowed to fill slowly

with ground water, forming a mine-pit lake that is expected

to reach a depth of 900 feet. Pumping of ground water will

also take place in the Kobeh Valley, which is adjacent to Mt.

Hope, to provide fresh water for various mining and ore

extraction purposes.

B. Environmental Review of the Project

Eureka Moly filed its first plan of operations for the

Project with the BLM in June 2006. The BLM determined

that approval of the Project was a “major Federal action”

under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332, and thus required the

preparation of an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). 

The BLM released a draft EIS (“DEIS”) in December 2011. 

After receiving nearly 2,000 comments on the DEIS, the

BLM prepared a final EIS (“FEIS”), which was released in

October 2012.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 5 of 31
6 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

Throughout the NEPA review process, Plaintiffs raised

concerns about several aspects of the Project. Many of those

concerns related to the adequacy of the BLM’s analysis of

environmental impacts in the DEIS and FEIS. In comments

on the DEIS, Plaintiffs criticized the BLM’s analysis of the

Project’s cumulative impacts, impacts to water quantity and

quality, and impacts to cultural, religious, and historical

resources. Plaintiffs renewed those criticisms in their

comments on the FEIS, and they offered fresh criticisms

concerning, among other things, the FEIS’ discussion of

funding for long-term mitigation and reclamation.

In addition to criticizing the BLM’s analysis of

environmental impacts under NEPA, Plaintiffs expressed

their view to the BLM that approval of the Project would

violate the agency’s duties under the FLPMA and PWR 107. 

In comments on both the DEIS and FEIS, Plaintiffs opined

that approval of the Project would violate FLPMA’s

requirement that the BLM “prevent unnecessary or undue

degradation of the lands” that it administers, 43 U.S.C.

§ 1732(b). Plaintiffs also pointed out that the Project would

affect some springs and water holes located on lands that they

claimed had been withdrawn by PWR 107.

Plaintiffs were not alone in criticizing the BLM’s analysis

of the Project’s environmental effects. The Environmental

Protection Agency(“EPA”) reviewed the FEIS and found that

the BLM’s analyses of air impacts, water quantity impacts,

and the funding aspects of long-term mitigation were lacking. 

Eureka County also criticized several aspects of the BLM’s

NEPA review, including the agency’s analysis of air impacts.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 6 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 7

C. Approval of the Project

In November 2012, a little more than a month after

releasing the FEIS, the BLM issued a record of decision

approving the Project. Plaintiffs petitioned for review of that

decision with the BLM’s State Director for Nevada, who

rejected the petition in January 2013. Plaintiffs then brought

this action in the district court under the Administrative

Procedure Act, alleging that the BLM’s review of the Project

under NEPA was deficient and that its approval of the Project

violated FLPMA and PWR 107. Soon after Plaintiffs filed

suit, the district court granted Eureka Moly leave to intervene

on the side of the BLM.

The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment and granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of

judgment in favor of the BLM. Plaintiffs timely appeal from

that judgment.

DISCUSSION

A. NEPA Claim

“A district court’s determination on summary judgment

that the BLM complied with NEPA is reviewed de novo.” 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989, 992

(9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The

agency’s actions, findings, and conclusions will be set aside

if they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id.(internal quotation

marks omitted).

NEPA “is a procedural statute that requires . . . Federal

agencies to assess the environmental consequences of their

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 7 of 31
8 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

actions before those actions are undertaken.” Id. at 993. “For

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment, the agency is required to prepare an

[EIS]. An EIS is a thorough analysis of the potential

environmental impacts that provides full and fair discussion

of significant environmental impacts and informs

decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives

which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance

the quality of the human environment.” Id. (citations,

internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

“[I]n reviewing the adequacy of an EIS, this circuit

employs a ‘rule of reason’ that asks whether an EIS contains

a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of

the probable environmental consequences. Under this

standard, once satisfied that a proposing agency has taken a

‘hard look’ at a decision’s environmental consequences, the

review is at an end.” Or. Nat. Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d

521, 526 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (citations, internal

quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

Plaintiffs challenge several aspects of the NEPA analysis. 

They assert that the BLM’s selection of baseline levels of

certain air pollutants was unreasonable and that the BLM’s

analysis of cumulative impacts was deficient. As we will

explain below, we agree. Plaintiffs also challenge the

adequacy of the BLM’s consideration of various mitigation

measures. With respect to those arguments, we either are not

persuaded or need not reach the issues.

1. Air Pollution Baselines

Plaintiffs first argue that the BLM did not assess

adequately the baseline levels of certain air pollutants when

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 8 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 9

conducting the air impacts analysis. Establishing appropriate

baseline conditions is critical to any NEPA analysis. 

“Without establishing the baseline conditions which exist . . .

before [a project] begins, there is simply no way to determine

what effect the [project] will have on the environment and,

consequently, no way to comply with NEPA.” Half Moon

Bay Fishermans’ Mktg. Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510

(9th Cir. 1988). An agency need not conduct measurements

of actual baseline conditions in every situation—it may

estimate baseline conditions using data from a similar area,

computer modeling, or some other reasonable method. See

Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Jewell, 840 F.3d 562, 570 (9th Cir.

2016) (holding that it would not necessarily be impermissible

for the BLM to estimate baseline conditions in one area by

extrapolating from another area). But whatever method the

agency uses, its assessment of baseline conditions “must be

based on accurate information and defensible reasoning.” Id.

When determining baseline air pollution levels for the

Project, the BLM did not use actual measurements from the

Project site because none were available. In the DEIS, the

BLM used baseline values taken from measurements in Clark

County, Nevada—the county in which Las Vegas is

located—for some pollutants, and used the “default values”

for unmonitored rural areas suggested by the Nevada

Department of Environmental Protection’s (“NDEP”) Bureau

of Air Pollution Control for some other pollutants. The DEIS

noted that the baseline numbers drawn from the Clark County

measurementswere “conservativelyhigh” given the relatively

urban character of the monitoring locations.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 9 of 31
10 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

In preparing the FEIS, the BLM instructed Eureka Moly1

“to follow NDEP’s guidance in selecting the background

concentrations for the air quality analysis.” A permitting

supervisor from the NDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control

had previously advised (by means of a short email) that the

agency “assumed” a baseline of zero for all pollutants other

than 10-micron particulate matter, and the FEIS adopts most

of those baseline values in place of the “conservatively high”

baseline values used in the DEIS. Specifically, the FEIS uses

baseline values of zero for carbon monoxide, nitrogen

dioxide, one- and three-hour time-averaged sulfur dioxide,

and lead, while the DEIS had used measured values from

Clark County for those pollutants. The FEIS continues to use

the same Clark County data for the two longest time-averaged

sulfur dioxide baselines, and it uses measurements taken at

Great Basin National Park2for 2.5-micron particulate matter

baselines.

Plaintiffs first argue that it was unreasonable for the BLM

to use data from Great Basin National Park, a pristine area

more than 100 miles away from the Project, to establish

baselines for 2.5-micron particulate matter. Although it is

true that this choice may have caused the agency to

underestimate the baselines for 2.5-micron particulate matter,

the BLM explained its choice adequately, and its explanation

is reasonable. The Project is located in a rural area, and the

BLM used data from a different rural area to estimate

1 Eureka Moly contracted with an air quality consulting firm, Air

Sciences, Inc., to conduct the air impacts analysis. That analysis, in turn,

was submitted to the BLM, which relied on it when preparing the FEIS.

2 The FEIS cites a different NDEP official as the source of the

baseline values for 2.5-micron particulate matter concentrations.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 10 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 11

baseline conditions. Plaintiffs have not shown that this

choice rested on inaccurate information or indefensible

reasoning. Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n, 840 F.3d at 570.

Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the baseline choices for

10-micron particulate matter and the two longest timeaveraged sulfur dioxide concentrations are similarly

unconvincing. Like the baselines for 2.5-micron particulate

matter, the baselines for 10-micron particulate matter relied

on measurements taken at Great Basin National Park. The

baselines for the two sulfur dioxide concentrations were

“conservatively high,” as the BLM noted in the DEIS. By

acknowledging the shortcomings in its data while using those

data to make an estimate of baseline conditions, the BLM

complied with NEPA. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d

1019, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “NEPA . . . requires

up-front disclosures of relevant shortcomings in the data or

models”).

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the BLM’s use of a zero

baseline value for the remaining pollutants was unreasonable. 

The BLM and Eureka Moly respond that the choice of a zero

baseline for those pollutants was reasonable because it was

“based on recommendations from the [NDEP’s Bureau of Air

Pollution Control], the agency with Nevada-specific

expertise.” The FEIS similarly invokes the expertise of the

NDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control (“BAPC”),

prefacing the table of baseline values with the note that “[t]he

BAPC was contacted to obtain representative background

concentrations for the modeling analysis.” And the air

impacts analysis prepared for Eureka Moly and submitted to

the BLM—the study that underlies the FEIS’ air impacts

analysis—also notes that the “NDEP-BAPC recommends

assuming zero background for” the remaining pollutants.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 11 of 31
12 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

It turns out, though, that the only “expert

recommendation” in the record is a short email from an

NDEP official—the email is, in fact, cited in the FEIS as the

sole source of the zero baseline value. That email reads, in

relevant part, as follows:

In an un-monitored area, BAPC uses 10.2

ìg/m^3 for a 24-hour average background and

9.0 ìg/m^3 for an annual average background

for PM10. All other pollutants are assumed

to be 0. If there is on-going quality assured

monitoring representative of an area, we can

rely on that data to set a different background. 

I’m not aware of any monitoring being

performed by BAPC in the area you propose.

(Emphasis added.) Crucially, this email does not explain how

or why the NDEP arrived at zero. Such a bare assertion of

opinion3coming from an expert within the BLM, without any

supporting reasoning, would not pass muster in an EIS. See

Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th

Cir. 1998) (“NEPA requires that the public receive the

underlying environmental data from which a [reviewing

agency] expert derived her opinion.”), overruled on other

grounds by Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc); see also Tri-Valley Cares v. U.S. Dep’t of

3 What value to use as a baseline concentration for a particular air

pollutant, in the absence of data, is a question of expert judgment, not one

of fact. There is no doubt that the baseline pollutant levels are not, as a

factual matter, zero; the question is what to use as an estimate of baseline

levels for purposes of modeling. In fact, the email to the NDEP official

asked for “some guidance on what background concentration values . . .

to use for a modeling analysis in [the] Mount Hope area.” (Emphasis

added.)

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 12 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 13

Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1124 (9th Cir. 2012) (“At a

minimum, an agency must support its conclusions with

studies that the agency deems reliable.”). The fact that it

comes from an expert at a state agency is of no significance

to the analysis. Cf. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1412–14 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“[I]n a rulemaking

which must be supported by substantial evidence, [an agency]

may not rely without further explanation on an unelaborated

order from another agency. Neither we as a reviewing court

nor participants in the rulemaking can possibly discover the

substantive basis of [the second agency’s] edict.”).

We might reach a different conclusion had the NDEP

official explained why an estimate of zero was appropriate, or

had the BLM independently scrutinized that estimate and

decided that it was reasonable, and then explained why. But

none of that happened—the BLM simply used baseline

estimates of zero for some pollutants in reliance on one

conclusory sentence in an email from an NDEP official, an

email that itself contained no supporting reasoning. This

important information, which affects the air impacts analysis,

was essentially immune from meaningful scrutiny by the

public because the BLM never provided any data or

reasoning in support of it. A baseline estimate “must be

based on accurate information and defensible reasoning.” Or.

Nat. Desert Ass’n, 840 F.3d at 570. The BLM provided

neither when it came to its baseline estimates of zero.

Eureka Moly argues that the FEIS’ air impacts analysis is

nonetheless adequate because it relies in part on the fact that

the NDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control issued a Clean

Air Act permit for the Project. This argument evinces a

misunderstanding of the nature of NEPA and its relationship

to “substantive” environmental laws such as the Clean Air

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 13 of 31
14 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

Act. See S. Fork Band Council of W. Shoshone of Nev. v.

U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 726 (9th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam) (holding that a failure to discuss mercury emissions

from a nearby mining facility in an EIS was not excused by

the fact that the facility “operate[d] pursuant to a state permit

under the Clean Air Act,” because “[a] non-NEPA document

. . . cannot satisfy a federal agency’s obligations under

NEPA”). The failure to explain the zero baseline assumption

frustrated the BLM’s ability to take a “hard look” at air

impacts, and the reference to the Project’s Clean Air Act

permit did nothing to fix that error.

The BLM argues that it corrected any error in its baseline

estimates by conducting a “double check” analysis following

the issuance of the FEIS. The BLM conducted this analysis

using measured baseline values from an undeveloped area in

New Mexico that EPA had suggested might have similar air

quality to the Project area. The BLM claims that those

measurements confirm that the pollution from the Project

would not violate air quality standards. Although that

statement may end up being true, a post-EIS

analysis—conducted without any input from the public—

cannot cure deficiencies in an EIS. Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 349 F.3d 1157, 1169 (9th Cir.

2003). The public never had an opportunity to comment on

the “double check” analysis, frustrating NEPA’s goal of

allowing the public the opportunity to “play a role in . . . the

decisionmaking process.” Robertson v. Methow Valley

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).

In conclusion, we hold that the BLM’s analysis of air

impacts in the FEIS was inadequate because the agency did

not provide any support for its use of baseline values of zero

for several air pollutants.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 14 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 15

2. Cumulative Impacts

Plaintiffs next argue that the BLM’s analysis of

cumulative impacts was deficient. Plaintiffs point out that,

although the FEIS mentions that there will be cumulative

impacts stemming from the Project and nearby mining,

agricultural, and other activities, “there is no detailed

discussion about the . . . impacts,” nor is there a “quantified

assessment” of those impacts.

The cumulative impact from an action means “the impact

on the environment which results from the incremental

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions . . . . Cumulative

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Accordingly, “[i]n a cumulative impact

analysis, an agencymust take a ‘hard look’ at all actions” that

may combine with the action under consideration to affect the

environment. Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S.

Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2010)

(emphasis added). Furthermore, simply listing all relevant

actions is not sufficient. Rather, “some quantified or detailed

information is required. Without such information, neither

the courts nor the public . . . can be assured that the [agency]

provided the hard look that it is required to provide.” 

Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d

1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998).

The BLM completed the first step of the cumulative

impacts analysis by identifying the relevant “past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions,” 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.7, that might affect the environment in the area of the

Project. And the BLM provided a “useful analysis of the

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 15 of 31
16 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

cumulative impacts” of those actions on some environmental

resources. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 994

(internal quotation marks citation omitted). For instance, the

FEIS includes a relatively thorough discussion of cumulative

impacts to water quantity, complete with a quantitative

analysis.

However, the discussion of cumulative impacts to other

resources in the FEIS falls short. In particular, the discussion

of cumulative air impacts is insufficient. That discussion

reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Each of the identified individual projects

within the [study area], including existing and

proposed mining operations, emit air

pollutants. With the possible exception of

motor vehicle emissions, the existing and

proposed mining operations are the major

sources of criteria pollutants within the [study

area]. The modeling for the Proposed Action,

as well as the Ruby Hill Mine . . . , shows that

the levels of these pollutants are below the

applicable standards. The Proposed Action

would not result in a significant cumulative

impact to air resources. The [reasonably

foreseeable future actions] would result in

additional emissions similar to those currently

emitted by the existing operations within the

[study area]. In addition, the major sources of

pollutants (except for motor vehicle

emissions) within the [study area] would

operate under permit conditions established

by the [NDEP BAPC] and therefore would not

be significant.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 16 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 17

That analysis suffers from many of the same

shortcomings as the BLM’s analysis in Great Basin Mine

Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006). There, we

faulted the BLM for failing to include “mine-specific or

cumulative data” in its analysis of cumulative impacts to air

resources. Id. at 973. The BLM had “merely stat[ed] that

ambient air quality data for the region currently reflects

impacts of existing mining operations in the airshed,” but did

not “identify and discuss the impacts that will be caused by

each successive project, including how the combination of

those various impacts is expected to affect the environment.” 

Id. at 973–74 (internal quotation marks and alterations

omitted). For that reason, we held that the FEIS was

insufficient. Id. at 972–73. Similarly, the BLM in this case

did not provide sufficiently detailed information in its

cumulative air impacts analysis. The BLM made no attempt

to quantify the cumulative air impacts of the Project together

with the Ruby Hill Mine and vehicle emissions. Nor did the

BLM attempt to quantify or discuss in any detail the effects

of other activities, such as oil and gas development, that are

identified elsewhere in the FEIS as potentially affecting air

resources.

The cumulative air impacts analysis also suffers from the

same problem that plagued the air impacts analysis—namely,

the choice of a baseline value of zero for certain pollutants.

It was impossible for the BLM to take a “hard look” at

cumulative air impacts given its unjustified use of a zero

baseline for those pollutants.4

4 Counsel for the BLM conceded during oral argument that if we were

to conclude that the assumption of a zero baseline for several air pollutants

rendered the air impacts analysis deficient, we would necessarily have to

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 17 of 31
18 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

The BLM and Eureka Moly argue that the air impacts

analysis contained elsewhere in the FEIS suffices because

that other analysis takes into account existing emissions. But,

as already discussed, the modeling assumed baseline values

of zero for many pollutants and, therefore, the analysis

plainly does not take into account emissions from other

sources in the area. The BLM and Eureka Moly also argue

that the reference in the FEIS to the cumulative air impacts

analysis conducted in connection with the Ruby Hill

Mine—an unrelated mining project—renders the cumulative

air impacts analysis in this FEIS adequate. But the analysis

of the Ruby Hill Mine did not consider the Mt. Hope Project,

so its cumulative impacts analysis is of very limited

relevance.

The cumulative air impacts portion of the FEIS fails to

“enumerate the environmental effects of [other] projects” or

“consider the interaction of multiple activities.” Or. Nat. Res.

Council Fund v. Brong, 492 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we hold that the cumulative impacts portion of

the FEIS does not comply with NEPA.

3. Mitigation: Mine-Pit Lake

Plaintiffs’ next argument concerns the FEIS’ discussion

of the lake that will eventually form in the mining pit. 

Plaintiffs argue that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to

consider mitigation measures aimed at reducing the possible

adverse environmental effects of poor pit-lake water quality. 

Under NEPA, “an agency must . . . consider appropriate

mitigation measures that would reduce the environmental

conclude that the cumulative air impacts analysis suffered from the same

deficiency.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 18 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 19

impact of the proposed action.” Protect Our Cmtys. Found.

v. Jewell, 825 F.3d 571, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). When reviewing

an agency’s discussion of mitigation measures, “[w]e need

only be satisfied that the agency took the requisite ‘hard look’

at the possible mitigating measures.” Okanogan Highlands

All. v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468, 473 (9th Cir. 2000).

The FEIS states that “[i]nitial pit lake water quality is

predicted to be good” but that, “[a]s evaporation from the

lake surface concentrates the dissolved minerals, some water

quality constituent concentrations would be predicted to

increase over time relative to baseline concentrations and to

exceed the present Nevada water quality standards.” The

FEIS further predicts that “[t]here would be a low potential

for impacts to ground water quality due to the formation of a

ground water sink in the open pit,” but that the impact is “not

considered significant.” The FEIS states that “[a]ccess to the

open pit by humans and livestock would be restricted” and

that “[t]he lake is not intended to be a drinking water source

for humans or livestock or to be used for recreational

purposes.” Plaintiffs claim that the BLM failed to consider

any mitigation measures to address the potential effects of

poor pit-lake water quality. They argue that this omission is

problematic for two reasons: (1) the FEIS states that there is

a “low potential” for impacts to ground water quality, rather

than “no potential” for impacts, and (2) the pit-lake water

may at some point be needed by “future water users” in the

area.

We hold that the BLM complied with NEPA in discussing

possible mitigation measures to address the effects that would

flow from poor pit-lake water quality. Although the BLM did

not include any discussion of possible mitigation measures in

the portion of the FEIS discussing pit-lake water quality,

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 19 of 31
20 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

other portions of the FEIS contain discussions of such

measures. The listing of “applicant committed practices”—

measures that Eureka Moly has promised to take and that are

“considered part of the operating procedures” of the

Project—states that the company will “periodically review

and update . . . pit lake studies to incorporate new information

accumulated during operations. . . . These updates would . . .

provide quantitative predictions of water quality during the

operational and post-closure period.” Additionally, the

agency responded to a comment on the DEIS

5

 by noting that

it would rely on future monitoring “to further understand the

ground water and surface water hydraulics and any potential

impacts to waters of the State. Based on further monitoring

and evaluation, additional mitigation measures . . . can be

implemented at any time . . . .”

This sort of “wait and see” approach to mitigation does

not always suffice under NEPA. Putting off an analysis of

possible mitigation measures until after a project has been

approved, and after adverse environmental impacts have

started to occur, runs counter to NEPA’s goal of ensuring

informed agency decisionmaking. See Robertson, 490 U.S.

at 353 (“Without [a reasonably complete] discussion [of

mitigation], neither the agency nor other interested groups

and individuals can properly evaluate the severity of the

adverse effects.”). But that approach was reasonable in the

circumstances given the relatively low probability and

temporal remoteness of adverse impacts to ground water. 

And though the BLM did not consider any mitigation

measures for the potential impact of poor pit-lake water

quality on “future water users,” it was not required to do so,

5 The comments on the DEIS and the BLM’s responses thereto are

included as appendices to the FEIS.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 20 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 21

because the existence of any such users is speculative. See

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory

Comm’n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1030 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n impact

statement need not discuss remote and highly speculative

consequences.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To be sure, the BLM’s mitigation analysis in this case

was not as thorough as that of the agency in Okanogan

Highlands. In that case, the Forest Service prepared an EIS

for a mining project that would produce a mine-pit lake much

like the one here. Okanogan Highlands, 236 F.3d at 471. 

The agency concluded in the EIS that “seepage from the open

pit is expected to have a low overall impact on ground water

quality in the vicinity of the pit,” but it nonetheless discussed

several mitigation measures, including monitoring. Id. at

474–75. We held that the agency had complied with NEPA

by considering “extensively the potential effects and

mitigation processes.” Id. at 477.

In this case, by contrast, the BLM discussed only

monitoring. But the disparity in the scope and depth of the

agencies’ discussions in the two cases reflects important

differences between the projects being analyzed, rather than

a difference in the adequacy of the agencies’ analyses. The

mining project in Okanogan Highlands was set to last eight

to ten years, id. at 471, and the pit lake was expected to

overflow and discharge water that would exceed pollution

standards, id. at 474. Here, by contrast, the pit lake will fill

slowly, and will not begin to fill at all until after the end of

open pit mining, some 32 years after the start of the Project. 

Furthermore, the water quality in the pit lake is expected to be

good at first. Faced with an adverse impact that is predicted

to be insignificant and that will not occur for decades, the

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 21 of 31
22 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

BLM in this case reasonably decided to rely on a monitoring

scheme to develop future mitigation measures.

In short, we are satisfied that the BLM complied with

NEPA by taking a “hard look” at the potential impacts of

poor pit-lake water quality on ground water.

4. Mitigation: Reclamation Bonding

Plaintiffs argue that the BLM’s NEPA review was

deficient because the agency “never reviewed the

consideration or establishment of [financial guarantees] under

NEPA.” Plaintiffs argue that this failure rendered the

discussion of mitigation in theFEIS inadequate and prevented

the public from providing input into the reclamation bonding

process. The BLM and Eureka Moly respond that (1) NEPA

does not require that “third parties should be able to

participate in the process of determining financial

guarantees,” and (2) in any event, the FEIS contains an

adequate discussion of financial guarantees.

The BLM’s regulations require that an operator who files

a plan of operations must, “[a]t a time specified by BLM, . . .

submit an estimate of the cost to fully reclaim [its]

operations.” 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(d).6 Although the “time

6 Reclamation means taking measures . . . following disturbance of

public lands caused by operations to meet applicable performance

standards and achieve conditions required by BLM at the conclusion of

operations. . . . Components of reclamation include, where applicable:

(1) Isolation, control, or removal of acid-forming, toxic,

or deleterious substances;

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 22 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 23

specified by BLM” need not be the same as the time at which

the plan of operations is filed, the estimate must be submitted

and accepted before operations can begin, because “a

financial guarantee that meets the requirements of this

subpart [must be provided] before starting operations.” Id.

§ 3809.500. The regulations instruct operators to “estimate

the cost to reclaim your operations as if BLM were hiring a

third-party contractor to perform reclamation of your

operations after you have vacated the project area.” Id.

§ 3809.554(a).7 The financial guarantee provided by the

operator must cover this estimated cost. Id. § 3809.552(a). 

In addition, the BLM may require “a trust fund or other

(2) Regrading and reshaping to conform with adjacent

landforms, facilitate revegetation, control drainage, and

minimize erosion;

(3) Rehabilitation of fisheries or wildlife habitat;

(4) Placement of growth medium and establishment of

self-sustaining revegetation;

(5) Removal or stabilization of buildings, structures, or

other support facilities;

(6) Plugging of drill holes and closure of underground

workings; and

(7) Providing for post-miningmonitoring, maintenance,

or treatment.

43 C.F.R. § 3809.5.

7 The requirements of 43 C.F.R. § 3809.552 and 3809.554 apply to

operators, like Eureka Moly, that plan to use an individual financial

guarantee, rather than a “blanket” guarantee covering multiple operations,

§ 3809.560, or a pre-existing state-approved guarantee, § 3809.570.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 23 of 31
24 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

funding mechanism . . . to ensure the continuation of longterm treatment to achieve water quality standards and for

other long term, post-mining maintenance requirements. The

funding must be adequate to provide for construction, longterm operation, maintenance, orreplacement of any treatment

facilities and infrastructure, for as long as the treatment and

facilities are needed after mine closure. BLM may identify

the need for a trust fund or other funding mechanism during

plan review or later.” Id. § 3809.552(c).

The BLM and Eureka Moly assert that the details of a

long-term funding mechanism and the amount of a financial

guarantee (also called a “reclamation bond”) need not be

discussed in an EIS because they are “regulatory

requirement[s] . . . driven by the NEPA-reviewed reclamation

plan.” For support, they cite the BLM Surface Management

Manual, which states that “[a]ny decision concerning the

need, amount, acceptability, and/or forfeiture of a financial

guarantee . . . do[es] not require an environmental review

under NEPA and [is] not to be included in NEPA documents

used to review a proposed operation.” BLM Surface

Management Manual at 2–6 (2012). They also cite our

decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706

F.3d 1085, 1096 (9th Cir. 2013), for the proposition that

setting an amount for a financial guarantee does not trigger

NEPA requirements.

Salazar does not support the position taken by the BLM

and Eureka Moly. In Salazar, we held that the BLM’s

approval of an update to an operator’s financial guarantee

was not a “major Federal action” for NEPA purposes where

the reclamation plan being funded by the guarantee had

already been approved and was not itself being changed. Id.

at 1095–96. We characterized the BLM’s action as consisting

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 24 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 25

of “the ministerial tasks of feeding reclamation data from the

[reclamation] plan into [a]software program, comparing [the]

estimate [from that program] with that of [the operator], and

then accepting [the operator’s] proposed bond amount, which

was greater than” the estimate. Id. at 1096. We held that

“[s]uch post-project-approval functions are the type of

monitoring and compliance activities that . . . do not trigger

NEPA’s requirements.” Id.

For two reasons, this case differs from Salazar. First, the

reclamation plan here is in the process of being approved, and

determining the contours of the financial guarantee

(particularly the long-term funding mechanism) at this stage

is not a mere “ministerial task.” Second, Plaintiffs’ legal

theory for why NEPA requires a discussion of reclamation

funding differs from that advanced by the plaintiffs in

Salazar. In Salazar, the plaintiffs argued that the update to

the reclamation bond was a “major Federal action” requiring

the preparation of an EIS. Id. at 1095. By contrast,

Plaintiffs’ argument is that the approval of a plan of

operations requires an EIS; the EIS should discuss possible

reclamation and post-closure mitigation measures; and a

reasonably complete discussion of those measures requires

some discussion of the long-term funding mechanism and

reclamation bond.

We need not address any further the broad argument that

reclamation bonding need never be discussed in NEPA

documents. We assume, without deciding, that long-term

mitigation and reclamation funding issues must be “discussed

in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences

have been fairly evaluated.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. 

Making that assumption, we hold that the FEIS contains an

adequate discussion of those issues.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 25 of 31
26 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

The FEIS discusses several specific long-term mitigation

measures that the long-term funding mechanism may fund. 

It also states that the funding mechanism “would be reviewed

annually during the operation phase of the Project and

potentially increased to meet the monitoring and mitigation

needs associated with the Project.” Elsewhere, the FEIS

discusses some of the long-term mitigation measures in more

detail. For instance, the FEIS considers, in several places, the

use of evapotranspiration cells to control long-term discharge

from mining waste.

The FEIS also contains a relatively thorough discussion

of possible reclamation measures, complete with a proposed

timeline. As for the reclamation bond, the FEIS states that,

“[w]ithin three years following Plan approval and at least

every three subsequent years, [Eureka Moly] would update

the guarantee to reflect the actual disturbance and whatever

additional disturbance is planned for the Project phase

anticipated over the next three-year period. Changes to

equipment, consumables, and man power costs would also be

incorporated during the updates.”

The BLM’s discussion of long-term mitigation and

reclamation in the FEIS is “reasonably complete” and does

not violate NEPA. Although the BLM could have discussed

its options vis-à-vis the long-term funding mechanism and

reclamation bond in more detail, its discussion of those

aspects of the long-term mitigation and reclamation plans is

not so deficient as to preclude the agency or the public from

“properly evaluat[ing] the severity of [the Project’s] adverse

effects” on the environment. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. 

And the reclamation and long-term mitigation discussion,

taken as a whole, contains an adequate evaluation of the

effectiveness of possible reclamation and long-term

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 26 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 27

mitigation measures despite the relatively sparse treatment of

the funding aspects of those measures. See S. Fork Band

Council, 588 F.3d at 727 (“An essential component of a

reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an assessment

of whether the proposed mitigation measures can be

effective.”).

5. Mitigation: Surface and Ground Water Quantity

Plaintiffs next challenge the adequacy of the BLM’s

discussion of mitigation measures to address impacts to

surface and ground water quantity. The Project will require

a great deal of water to support mining and milling

operations. This water will come from two sources: ground

water pumped out of wells located in one of the valleys

surrounding Mt. Hope and water pumped from the open

mining pit. The predicted effects of the pumping on certain

stream and spring flows—unlike the predicted effect of the

pit lake on ground-water quality—are “potentially

significant.”

The FEIS discusses several mitigation measures aimed at

addressing those impacts, including a monitoring scheme to

keep track of the status of spring and stream segments, water

hauling, and piping in water from other locations to replace

lost surface water. In non-technical—but accurate—terms,

many of the mitigation measures amount to measuring how

much each spring or stream segment’s flow has been reduced

and replacing that water. The replacement water—which the

BLM estimates at about 302 acre-feet of water, or nearly 100

million gallons, per year—“would at least initially come from

[Eureka Moly]’s existing water rights if additional water

rights have not yet been secured.”

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 27 of 31
28 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

Plaintiffs contend that the discussion of mitigation

measures is inadequate because “there is no analysis of where

th[e] [replacement] water will come from, or the impacts

from its withdrawal.”8 Plaintiffs note that EPA criticized the

BLM for this omission during the NEPA process and asked

the BLM to prepare a supplemental EIS. Eureka Moly

responds that “the FEIS thoroughly analyzed the effect of

using water from [its] production wells, [so] the effect of

using some of it as substitute water was necessarily analyzed

because it is the same water.”

Although Eureka Moly’s argument is factually

incorrect—the analysis of ground water pumping in the FEIS

does not take into account the roughly 200 gallons per minute

needed to replace depleted spring and stream water—that

error appears to be quite small, raising questions about

whether it might be harmless.9See Idaho Wool Growers

Ass’n v. Vilsack, 816 F.3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The

harmless-error analysis asks whether the [agency’s error]

materially impeded NEPA’s goals—that is, whether the error

caused the agency not to be fully aware of the environmental

consequences of the proposed action, thereby precluding

informed decisionmaking and public participation, or

otherwise materially affected the substance of the agency’s

8 Plaintiffs also appear to argue that the discussion of mitigation

measures is deficient because it puts off the development of a mitigation

plan until after monitoring reveals depletion. This argument is factually

incorrect—the FEIS includes a map showing the future location of

pipelines that could be used to bring water to depleted springs.

9 The analysis in the FEIS assumes a ground water pumping rate of

between 6,540 and 7,000 gallons per minute, so failing to include the

additional 200 gallons per minute needed to replace spring and stream

flows amounts to a roughly 3% error.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 28 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 29

decision.”). But no party has briefed the issue of

harmlessness. And because the BLM’s NEPA analysis is

deficient in other respects, the ultimate disposition of this

appeal does not depend on the resolution of this portion of

Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim. Accordingly, we decline to reach

this portion of Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim.

B. PWR 107 Claim

Plaintiffs’ other major claim is that the BLM violated its

duty to protect lands “withdrawn from settlement, location,

sale or entry” under the executive order known as PWR 107,

Public Water Reserve No. 107 (Apr. 17, 1926). Plaintiffs

also argue that PWR 107, which withdrew lands surrounding

certain springs and water holes, created an implied

reservation of water rights to the federal government in some

springs in the area of the Project, and that the Project will

unlawfully interfere with those water rights.

We decline to address Plaintiffs’ PWR 107 claim, for two

reasons. First, the BLM should be given an opportunity to fix

the errors in its analysis of the Project under NEPA before

challenges to the approval of the Project itself are entertained. 

“Having addressed the problems [with the EIS], the BLM

may decide to make different choices. NEPA is not a paper

exercise, and new analyses may point in new directions. . . . 

The problems [with the approval of the Project itself] may

never arise once the BLM has had a chance to see the choices

before it with fresh eyes.” Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. BLM,

625 F.3d 1092, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).10

10 For this reason, we also decline to address Great Basin’s FLPMA

claim.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 29 of 31
30 GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM

Second, the proper analysis of the PWR 107 claim turns

in large part on whether four springs

11

in the area of the

Project are “covered” by PWR 107—that is, whether those

four springs are located on lands that were withdrawn by

PWR 107—but the BLM’s position on that question is

unclear.12 Prudence counsels in favor of remanding to the

agency to clarify its position, rather than addressing legal

questions that may end up being irrelevant to the disposition

of the claim. Cf. Su Hwa She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958,

963–64 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e lack the clairvoyance

necessary to confidently infer the reasoning behind the

[agency]’s conclusion. Rather than countenance a decision

that leaves us to speculate based on an incomplete analysis,

we remand the case to the [agency] for clarification.”

(footnote omitted)).

11 The springs at issue are McBride’s Spring, also referred to as SP-1

or Spring 612; Mt. Hope Spring, also referred to as SP-4 or Spring 619;

Garden Spring, also referred to as SP-2 or Spring 597; and Lone Mountain

Spring, also referred to as Spring 742.

12 The FEIS is internally contradictory, suggesting in some places that

the four springs are covered by PWR 107 and in other places that they are

not. We note that the BLM had previously submitted “Notification of

Public Water Reserve” forms for the four springs to the State of Nevada. 

Each of those forms lists an amount of water that the United States wishes

to claim as a federal reserved water right and cites PWR 107 as authority

for the reservation. The notifications have never been rescinded. If, on

remand, the BLM decides that the springs are not important, it should at

the very least explain why it has apparently changed its position. Cf.

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2126 (2016) (“[A]n

‘unexplained inconsistency’ in agency policy is ‘a reason for holding an

interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency

practice.’” (brackets omitted) (quoting Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n

v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005))).

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 30 of 31
GREAT BASIN RESOURCE WATCH V. BLM 31

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATED

in part, and REMANDED with instructions to vacate the

record of decision and remand to the BLM. The parties shall

bear their own costs on appeal.

 Case: 14-16812, 12/28/2016, ID: 10247696, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 31 of 31