N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NOR THER

N PLAINS RESOUR C E C OUNC IL, INC .,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. U.S. B UREAU OF LAND M ANAGEM ENT a

nd U.S. DEPAR TM ENT OF THE INTER IOR , De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s, SIGNAL PEAK ENER GY, LLC ,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntAppe lle e . No. 16-35447 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00060-SPW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : LEAVY a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOB A YASHI, ** Distric t Judge . Northe rn Pla i ns R e sourc e C ounc il, Inc . (“ p la intiff” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in its ac tion c ha lle nging a de c ision by the U.S. B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt a

nd U.S. De pa

rtm e nt of the Inte rior (“ B LM ” ) to le a se c oa l loc ate d in M onta na ’ s B ull M ounta ins to de fe nda nt-inte rve nor Signa l Pe ak Ene rgy , LLC . Pla intiff a lle ge s tha t the B LM did not c o m

ply with the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“ NEPA” ), 42 U.S.C . §§ 4321–4370d, whe n it ana ly z e d the pote nt ia l e nvironm e nta l im pa c ts of the c oa l le a se in its Environm e nta l Asse ssm e nt (“ EA” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, Env tl. Prot. Info. C

tr. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv ., 451 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th C i r. 2006) (“ EPIC ” ). Judic ia l re vie w of a

n a ge nc y 's c om

plia nc e with NEPA is gove

rne d by the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure s Ac t, 5 U.S.C . §§ 701–06; K lamath Sisk

iy ou W ildlands C tr. v . Boody , 468 F.3d 549, 554 (9th C ir. 2006). Age nc y de c i sions m a

y be se t a side only

if the y are “ arbitra

ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or otherwise not in a c c orda

nc e with la

w.” Id. (som e c ita

tions omitte d) (quoting 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A)). “ Age nc y a c t ion is va lid if thea ge nc y c onside re d the re le va nt fa c tors

* * The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ha

w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion. 1 6 - 3 5 4 4 7 2and a

rtic u late d a

rat iona l c onne c tion be twe e n the fa c ts found a nd the c hoic e s m a de .” Lands C

ounc il v . Mc

N air , 629 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). 1. Pla intiff c onte nds tha

t the B LM ’ s c um

ulat ive -im

pa c ts a na ly sis viola

te d NEPA by fa iling to ad dre s s re a sona bly fore se e a ble m ining in the

“ m irror-im a ge ” m ine to the north of thee xisting m ine are a . W e re

j e c t this c onte ntion be c a

use the B LM re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t hy pothe tic a l future m ining a c tivity c onte m plate d to the north is not curre ntly a re a sona bly fore s e e a ble future a c tion. Se e Le agueof W ilde rne ss De fe nde rs/Blue

Mountains Biodiv

e rsity Proje c t v . C

onnaughton , 752 F.3d 755, 762 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ Although ‘ proje c t s ne e d not be fina liz e d be fore the y are re a sona

bly fore se e a ble ,’ the y m ust be m o re tha

n m e re ly ‘ c onte m plate d.’ ” (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d)); 36 C .F.R . § 220.3 (De finitions) (“ R e a sona bly fore se e a ble future a c tions. Those Fe de ra l or non-Fe de ra l a c t ivitie s not y e t unde rtake n, for whic h the re are e xisting de c isions, funding, or ide ntifie d proposa l s.” ). He re , future m ining a c tivity to the north wa s a

“ re m ote and highly spe c ulative c onse que n c e [] ” tha t did not wa

rrant a na ly sis in the

EA. Se e Ground Ze ro C tr. for N on–Viole n t

Ac tion v . U.S. De

p’t of N av y , 383 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th C ir. 2004). The sc ope , m a gnitude , a nd tim e fram e for future m ining in the north have not be e n

propose d or outline d. Se e Le agueof W i lde r ne s s De fe n d e rs , 752 1 6 - 3 5 4 4 7 3F.3d at 762. B e c a use a dditional m ining ha s not be e n propose d, “ a c um

ulative e ffe c ts a na ly sis would be b o th spe c ulative and pre m ature . ” Se e J one s v . N at’l Marine Fishe rie s Se rv . , 741 F.3d 989, 1000 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Lands C ounc il v . Pow e ll , 395 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th C ir. 2005)). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e nt on this issue . 2. The B LM did not im

prope rly “ tie r” its a

na ly sis to a

1990 Environme nta l Im pa c t Sta te m e nt (EIS). Fe de ra l re gula tions a llow “ tie ring,” or inc orporation by re fe re n c e , the ge ne ra l disc ussions in a pre vious EIS tha

t pe rta in to issue s spe c ific to a subse que nt a

na ly sis. Se e 40 C .F.R . § 1508.28. Agenc i e s m ay a lso tie r “ [f] rom an [EIS] on a

spe c ific a c tion a

t a n e arly sta ge ” to a subse q

ue nt a na ly s is a t a late r sta ge . 40 C .F.R . § 1508.28(b). He re , the B LM re a sona bly re fe re nc e d a

na ly sis from its 1990 EIS to supple

m e nt a nd fa c ilita te its a n a l y s is of the e nvironm e nta l e ffe c ts of c ontinue d m ining a ssoc iate d with its le a sing de c ision. Se e K e rn v . U.S. Bure au of Land Mgmt ., 284 F.3d 1062, 1073 (9th C ir. 2002) (tie ring is e nc o ura ge d to a v oid re pe titivedisc ussions of issue s pre viously inc lude d in a

nothe r EIS). Pla i ntiff a lso c onte nds tha t tie ring wa s im

prope r be c a

use the 1990 EIS da

ta is too

“ sta le ” to be re lia

ble . B ut pla intiff fa ils to point to a ny e vide nc e , othe r tha

n a ge , sugge s ting theunre lia

b ility of the 1990 da

ta . The a ge of data , without more , is not dispositive

a s to re lia

bility . Se e The odore Roose v e lt C onse rv ation P’ship v. 1 6 - 3 5 4 4 7 4Salazar , 616 F.3d 497, 512 (D.C . C ir. 2010) (“ NEPA doe s not lim

it tie ring to ana ly se s still on the

sc i e ntific c utting e dge . ” ). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on this issue . 3. Pla intiff c onte nds tha

t the B LM fa ile d to ta

ke the re q uisite“ ha rd look” at the m ining im

pa c t s upon the re le va

nt topogra

phy and wa te r re sourc e s. W e disa gre e be c a

use the EA c onta ine d a

n e x te nsive disc u ssion of theantic ipate d e ffe c ts tha

t furthe r m ining would ha ve on the are a ’ s topogra

phy and wa te r re sourc e s, inc luding the ground a nd surfa c e wate r qua lity , the hy drolic im pa c ts of groundwa te r, and the e ffe c ts of m ining ope rations on a re a springs. B e c a

use the B LM a de quate l y

c onside re d the e ffe c ts upon the a ffe c te d topogra

phy and wa te r re sourc e s, its de c ision wa s “ fully inform e d a

nd we ll-c o nside re d,” and is e ntitle d to judic ia l de fe re n c e . Se e Blue Mountains Biodiv

e rsity Proje c t v . Blac k

w ood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th C ir. 1998). 4. Pla intiff c onte nds tha

t the B LM ’ s signific ant im pa c ts a na ly sis wa s im prope r be c a

u se it re lie d on m itiga

tion m e a sure s tha

t m inim iz e d the im

pa c ts on surfa c e an d wate r re sourc e s. Although the B LM a c k

nowle d ge d the e xiste nc e of som e surfa c e e ffe c ts from subsisten c e , the B LM re a sona b ly c onc lude d tha

t the ove ra l l surfa c e e ffe c ts from subside nc e would bem inor in theshort te rm and ne gligiblein the long te rm . The B LM note d tha t Signa l Pe ak’ s c urre nt m ining 1 6 - 3 5 4 4 7 5pe rm it re q

uire d Signa l Pe ak to m itiga te short a nd long-te rm

hy drologic and we tla nd im pa c t s. The B L M did not re ly on a ny m itiga tion m e a sure s in its a

na ly sis to the e xte nt tha

t a n EIS would bere quire d, a nd its re a sone d de c ision is c onsiste nt with its NEPA obliga

tions. Se e Prote c t Our C ommunitie

s Found. v . J

e w e ll , 825 F.3d 571, 578, 583-85 (9th C ir. 2016). AFFIRM E D. 1

1 The m otion a

uthoriz ing withdra

w a l a s c o-c ounse l for Signa l Pe ak in this a ppe a l, file d by R o be rt L. B urns, Jr., Da nie l C . Ga

rfinke l, a nd the la w firm of B uc ha na n Inge rsoll & R o one y

PC , is gra

nte d. 1 6 - 3 5 4 4 7 6