Summit Lake Paiute Tribe

Nevada Tribes Sue Interior over Lithium Mine Approvals

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. Haaland (N. Nev.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload

Update in Ruby Pipeline Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Guess the big win wasn’t all that big. Here are two unpublished opinions from the Ninth Circuit in related cases that are not so excellent for the tribes.

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERS. V. BLM

SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE V. BLM

Ninth Circuit Hands Summit Lake Paiute Tribe & Fort Bidwell Indian Community Big Win in Challenge to BLM Approval of Ruby Pipeline

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM.

An excerpt:

Our case concerns a decision by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to authorize the Ruby Pipeline Project (“Project”). The Project involves the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from Wyoming to Oregon, over 678 miles. The right-of-way for the pipeline encompasses approximately 2,291 acres of federal lands and crosses 209 rivers and  streams that support federally endangered and threatened fish species. According to a Biological Opinion (“the Biological Opinion” or “the Opinion”) formulated by the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), the project “would adversely affect” nine of those species and five designated critical habitats. The FWS nonetheless concluded that the project “would not jeopardize these species or adversely modify their critical habitat.” The propriety of the FWS’s “no jeopardy” conclusion, and the BLM’s reliance on that conclusion in issuing its Record of Decision, are at the heart of this case. This opinion addresses those challenges to the Project that petitioners Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife et al., and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe have raised under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Specifically, we resolve petitioners’ claims that the Biological Opinion and its accompanying Incidental Take Statement were arbitrary and capricious because: (1) the Biological Opinion’s “no jeopardy” and “no adverse modification” determinations relied on protective measures set forth in a conservation plan not enforceable under the ESA; (2) the Biological Opinion did not take into account the potential impacts of withdrawing 337.8 million gallons of groundwater from sixty-four wells along the pipeline; (3) the Incidental Take Statement miscalculated the number of fish to be killed, by using a “dry-ditch construction method” for water crossings; and (4) the Incidental Take Statement placed no limit on the number of “eggs and fry” of threatened Lahontan cutthroat
trout to be taken during construction. We agree with the first two contentions and so set aside the Biological Opinion as arbitrary and capricious. We also set aside the Record of Decision, as it relied on the invalid Biological Opinion.

Briefs here.

Congrats to Colette Routel and the tribes.