Opinion ID: 148925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Groups May Appeal Their Phased Development Claim.

Text: As a threshold issue, the lessees contend that subsequent drilling mooted phasing development in the Basin. Lessees Br. at 23-25. They alternately argue that the groups did not preserve this claim for appellate review. Id. at 25-29. First, a case is moot if a court cannot provide effectual relief. Chihuahuan Grasslands Alliance v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 884, 891 (10th Cir.2008). The lessees have not proven mootness because undeveloped land remains in the project area and the project's ten-year time frame has not yet ended. Aplt. Reply Br. at 26-29; Lessees Br. at 24, add. 2. Even where it is `too late to ... provide a fully satisfactory remedy' the availability of `a partial remedy' will prevent the case from being moot. Utah Envtl. Congress v. Russell, 518 F.3d 817, 824 (10th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). Second, a party challenging an agency action must first exhaust any administrative remedies. See Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764-65, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004). Here, the lessees argue that every group must protest the Bureau's decision administratively. Lessees Br. at 25-29; see 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2(a). But because one group, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, protested the Bureau's decision, it exhausted the administrative processes for all the groups. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 495 F.3d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir.2007). Third, a litigant who does not argue an issue in the district court may not seek appellate relief. United States v. Jarvis, 499 F.3d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir. 2007). To adequately challenge the Bureau's decision, the groups needed to show the district court the unreasonableness of the Bureau's six independent reasons for dropping phased development. Here, it is a close question whether the groups did so. Below, they argued only that the Bureau had the authority to impose phased development. Aplt. Supp. Reply App. at 2-27. This allegation did not directly attack any of the Bureau's six stated reasons, which were a mix of legal, policy, and factual considerations. The groups also gave phased development very little attention compared to their other claims. Since then, however, a district court in another circuit has required the Bureau to consider phased development in a separate project. N. Plains Res. Council v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4678, -29 (D.Mont. Feb. 25, 2005). No doubt that outcome inspired the groups because they now submit lengthy appellate briefs solely discussing phased development. Because this is a close case on forfeiture, we exercise our discretion to overlook any forfeiture of this claim. In a future appeal, we might very well deem such minimal district court argument a forfeiture. `In order to preserve the integrity of the appellate structure, we should not be considered a second-shot forum, a forum where secondary, back-up theories may be mounted for the first time.' Cummings v. Norton, 393 F.3d 1186, 1190 (10th Cir.2005) (citation omitted).