Opinion ID: 2818498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pit River’s NEPA, NHPA, and Fiduciary Duty

Text: Claims The district court concluded that Pit River’s NEPA, NHPA, and fiduciary duty claims failed because § 1005(a) is non-discretionary—BLM is not permitted to consider 28 PIT RIVER TRIBE V. BLM environmental factors in making lease continuation decisions and any environmental review would be superfluous. We agree with the district court that § 1005(a) is non-discretionary, see Pit River I, 469 F.3d at 780 (citing Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004)), but, as discussed, the district court incorrectly circumscribed Pit River’s claims. If Pit River prevails on its claim that the leases here were eligible only for extension under § 1005(g), BLM will be required to comply with NEPA and NHPA, including by consulting with affected tribes. Id. at 787–88. Therefore the district court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings on Pit River’s NEPA, NHPA, and fiduciary duty claims.