Great Basin Resource Watch v. BLM, No. 14-16812 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs challenge the BLM's approval of the Mt. Hope Project, a proposed molybdenum mining operation near Eureka, Nevada. Plaintiffs argue that the BLM’s review of the Project under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., was inadequate and that the approval of the Project violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), and the laws governing lands withdrawn under the executive order known as Public Water Reserve No. 107 (PWR 107). The court agreed with plaintiffs' assertion 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. The court declined to address plaintiffs' PWR 107 claims because 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, and the proper analysis of the PWR 107 claim turns in large part on whether four springs in the area of the Project are “covered” by PWR 107, but the BLM’s position on that question is unclear. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to vacate the record of decision and remand to the BLM.
Court Description: 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.” 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WATCH V. BLM 3 The panel declined to address plaintiffs’ claim that the BLM violated its duty to protect lands “withdrawn from settlement, location, sale or entry” under Executive Order Public Water Reserve No. 107 (Apr. 17, 1926).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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.