Court Opinion

ID: 9409306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 19:01:06.305317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.503951
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            JUL 17 2023
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT;                      No.   23-15259
WILDLANDS DEFENSE; GREAT
BASIN RESOURCE WATCH; BASIN                      D.C. Nos.
AND RANGE WATCH,                                 3:21-cv-00080-MMD-CLB
                                                 3:21-cv-00103-MMD-CLB
              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 and                                             MEMORANDUM*

BARTELL RANCH LLC; EDWARD
BARTELL,

              Plaintiffs,

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY;
BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE; ATSA
KOODAKUH WYH NUWU PEOPLE OF
RED MOUNTAIN,

              Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

 v.

ESTER M. MCCULLOUGH, District
Manager; BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR,

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
         Defendants-Appellees,

LITHIUM NEVADA CORPORATION,

         Intervenor-Defendant-
         Appellee.

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT;           No.   23-15261
WILDLANDS DEFENSE; GREAT
BASIN RESOURCE WATCH; BASIN           D.C. Nos.
AND RANGE WATCH; BARTELL              3:21-cv-00080-MMD-CLB
RANCH LLC; EDWARD BARTELL,            3:21-cv-00103-MMD-CLB

         Plaintiffs,

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY;
ATSA KOODAKUH WYH NUWU
PEOPLE OF RED MOUNTAIN,

         Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

and

BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE,

         Intervenor-Plaintiff-
         Appellant,

v.

ESTER M. MCCULLOUGH, District
Manager; BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR,

                                  2
         Defendants-Appellees,

LITHIUM NEVADA CORPORATION,

         Intervenor-Defendant-
         Appellee.

BARTELL RANCH LLC; EDWARD             No.   23-15262
BARTELL,
                                      D.C. Nos.
         Plaintiffs-Appellants,       3:21-cv-00080-MMD-CLB
                                      3:21-cv-00103-MMD-CLB
and

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT;
WILDLANDS DEFENSE; GREAT
BASIN RESOURCE WATCH; BASIN
AND RANGE WATCH,

         Plaintiffs,

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY;
BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE; ATSA
KOODAKUH WYH NUWU PEOPLE OF
RED MOUNTAIN,

         Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

ESTER M. MCCULLOUGH, District
Manager; BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR,

                                  3
              Defendants-Appellees,

LITHIUM NEVADA CORPORATION,

              Intervenor-Defendant-
              Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                  Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted June 27, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs1 appeal the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in

favor of the Federal Defendants2 and Lithium Nevada Corporation in Plaintiffs’

actions challenging a BLM’s approval of a Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project (the

“Project”). Bartell Ranch also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to

admit extra-record evidence. We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo. Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of

      1
       We refer to Western Watersheds Project, Great Basin Resource Watch,
Basin and Range Watch, and Wildlands Defense (collectively, “Western
Watersheds”); Bartell Ranch, LLC, and Edward Bartell (collectively, “Bartell
Ranch”); and the Burns Paiute Tribe collectively as the “Plaintiffs.”
      2
        We refer to Ester McCullough, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”),
and the U.S. Department of Interior collectively as the “Federal Defendants.”
                                           4
Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 598 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

      1. Because judicial review of agency decisions under the National

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the National Historic Preservation Act

(“NHPA”), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) is

governed by Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, we will uphold the

agency’s action unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)).

          A. The BLM did not abuse its discretion in determinating that the

Record of Decision (“ROD”) does not authorize violations of applicable water-

quality standards. The ROD states that the BLM conditioned its approval on

Lithium Nevada Corporation’s compliance with “monitor[ing] groundwater

sources according to [the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)]

standards” and “maintain[ing] water quality and quantity for wildlife, livestock,

and human consumption to State of Nevada standards.” The ROD also states that

Lithium Nevada Corporation must “regularly monitor groundwater levels in

designated wells” and “update the groundwater model with firsthand information.”

Additionally, the ROD does not impermissibly harm the greater sage-grouse

population, which are neither threatened nor endangered, see 43 C.F.R.

                                           5
§ 3809.420(b)(7). Thus, the BLM was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in

accordance with law in complying with FLPMA’s mandate “to prevent

unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b).

         B. The BLM’s approval of the Project was not arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with NEPA. See Or. Env’t

Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The reviewing court may

not substitute its judgment for that of the agency concerning the wisdom or

prudence of a proposed action.” (citation omitted)); id. (“The reviewing court may

not ‘fly speck’ an [Environmental Impact Statement (‘EIS’)].” (citation omitted)).

      First, the BLM properly addressed cumulative impacts in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”), see Notice of Availability of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Thacker Pass Project, 85 Fed.

Reg. 78349, 78349 (Dec. 4, 2020), with a cumulative effects chapter that provided

more than just vague and conclusory statements. See Ctr. for Cmty. Action &

Env’t Just. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 61 F.4th 633, 645–47 (9th Cir. 2023). The

FEIS included cumulative effects study areas for 20 resources with supporting

data, included a “Past and Present Actions” section that identified “[p]ast and

present development projects and other actions” in the study area, and included a

“Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions” section that identified other development

                                          6
predicted in the area. Additionally, the BLM quantified impacts for many

resources, including air quality.

      Second, the FEIS “contain[ed] ‘a reasonably complete discussion of possible

mitigation measures’” for groundwater pollution, wildlife impacts (such as

mitigation efforts for migratory birds, raptors, big game, nongame, and special

status species), air pollution, and groundwater quantity, in compliance with NEPA.

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

(citation omitted).

      Third, the BLM properly described baseline conditions for pronghorn

antelope, greater sage-grouse, and other wildlife; and analyzed effects compared to

these baselines, such as acknowledging habitat loss, in compliance with NEPA.

See Half Moon Bay Fishermans’ Mktg. Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 508 (9th

Cir. 1988) (“[A] reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the

probable environmental consequences” satisfies NEPA. (citation omitted)).

      Fourth, the BLM reasonably relied on springs and seeps baseflow data

collected by contractor Piteau Associates (“Piteau”) to create water resource

                                          7
baselines in compliance with NEPA,3 because the BLM “independently evaluate[d]

the [FEIS] prior to its approval,” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c) (1978), amended by 40

C.F.R. § 1506.5 (2020), by requesting Piteau’s datasets, providing comments on

Piteau’s reports, requesting supplemental information, and meeting with Piteau.

See id.; see also Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835 (9th Cir. 1986)

(citing Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Sands, 711 F.2d 634, 643 (5th Cir. 1983)).

      Fifth, the BLM did not violate NEPA by failing to publicly produce records

outside the formal NEPA process. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 1503.1–.4; Notice of

Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Resource

Management Plan Amendment, 85 Fed. Reg. 3413, 3414 (Jan. 21, 2020); Notice of

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 85 Fed. Reg. 45651,

45651 (July 29, 2020); 85 Fed. Reg. at 78349.

      Sixth, the BLM took the requisite “hard look” at impacts on cultural

resources in compliance with NEPA by “identif[ying] and document[ing]” historic

      3
         In some instances zero-flow measurements were accurate and not the result
of error; in other circumstances, the data collected by Piteau should have been
“revised to say ‘no measurement’ as opposed to ‘zero’” gallons per minute.
However, the BLM’s reliance on Piteau’s results and methodology was not
“arbitrary and capricious,” because the BLM was aware of these discrepancies and
explained that they were not material, and the FEIS still “conservatively assume[d]
that there [was] a potential risk that drawdown associated with the mine could
reduce baseflow to perennial springs.” See Idaho Wool Growers Ass’n v. Vilsack,
816 F.3d 1095, 1105 (9th Cir. 2016).
                                          8
properties “through archival background research and by conducting intensive

pedestrian inventories,” and by consulting three Tribes, which did “not raise[] any

concerns about specific traditional areas, sacred sites, or ceremonial areas or

activities in the Project area.”

          C. The BLM’s identification of tribes for consultation was not arbitrary

or capricious and did not violate NHPA, because the BLM reasonably and in good

faith identified tribes for consultation, see 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A). There

was no evidence before the BLM that suggested that the Burns Paiute Tribe

attached religious or cultural significance to sites in the Project area. The BLM

contacted the Burns Paiute Tribe for consultation for an ethnographic assessment

for the Winnemucca Resource Management Plan (RMP), which encompassed this

area. The Burns Paiute Tribe did not respond to these contacts; instead, its

representative responded that the Burns Paiute Tribe “would defer consultation to

the tribes that had reservations closer to the study area” and did not need to remain

on the mailing list. During the four other projects involving the Thacker Pass

Project area, the BLM never had any information that the Burns Paiute Tribe

claimed a cultural, religious, or historical interest in the Project area.

       2. We review a district court’s decision to remand without vacatur for an

abuse of discretion. Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th

                                            9
Cir. 2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering remand

without vacatur. The district court correctly stated the legal standard and found

that the BLM’s sole error weighed against vacatur, see Pollinator Stewardship

Council v. EPA, 806 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2015), and “there was ‘at least a

serious possibility that the [agency would] be able to substantiate its decision on

remand,’” see id. (quoting Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 988

F.2d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).

      3. We “review the district court’s decision to exclude extra-record evidence

for an abuse of discretion.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

100 F.3d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe

Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d 989, 997 (9th Cir. 1993)). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Bartell Ranch’s motion to admit extra-record

evidence, because the evidence from December 2021 post-dates the ROD, see

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Zinke, 889 F.3d

584, 600 (9th Cir. 2018). Additionally, none of the Lands Council exceptions

                                          10
apply to admit the extra-record evidence. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d

1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005).4

      AFFRIMED.5

      4
         We do not address whether the BLM violated FLPMA by approving the
Project without requiring compliance with certain RMP provisions, because the
district court awarded summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the threshold issue;
the Federal Defendants and Lithium Nevada Corporation did not appeal this issue;
and, if the Plaintiffs disagree with the BLM’s analysis on remand, they should
make those arguments first to a district court on the appropriate record. We
decline to address whether the BLM is required to inquire into the validity of
Lithium Nevada Corporation’s mining claims as to the water and power lines under
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 33 F.4th
1202 (9th Cir. 2022), because this argument was not specifically presented and
developed before the district court. See Villanueva v. California, 986 F.3d 1158,
1164 n.4 (9th Cir. 2021).
      5
      The motion of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern
Nevada to become an amicus is GRANTED (Dkt. 72).
                                         11