Summit Lake Paiute Tribe v. United States Bureau of Land Management
496 F. App'x 712
9th Cir.2012Background
- Summit Lake Paiute Tribe challenged BLM's amendment of rights of way and temporary use permits for Ruby Pipeline to reroute a four-mile segment northward.
- Construction of the pipeline was completed, prompting NHPA/NEPA challenges the Tribe argues may be moot, though some relief may still be available through mitigation.
- Court applies mootness principles from Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Gordon and Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander to assess ongoing effects and mitigation prospects.
- NHPA claims assert lack of consultation, bad-faith consideration of rerouting, and inadequate analysis of rerouted impacts; relief may arise from mitigation, so not moot.
- NEPA claims argue BLM failed to supplement the EIS; court examines BLM's NEPA adequacy determination and TCP boundary analysis to assess whether supplementation was required.
- Petition denied; BLM's consultation, field survey, TCP boundary determination, and NEPA adequacy determination were not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of NHPA/NEPA challenges | Tribe argues ongoing effects from pipeline mitigation are insufficient; reroute-related claims moot. | Construction completed; only reroute-related claims survive. | Not moot to extent mitigation could provide relief; reroute-based claims are moot. |
| NHPA consultation and good-faith consideration | BLM failed to consult adequately and to consider rerouting in good faith. | BLM held four site visits and ongoing tribe consultation; process fulfilled obligations. | BLM fulfilled consultation obligations. |
| TCP boundaries and impact analysis | BLM misdefined TCP boundaries and failed to analyze impacts on TCP. | BLM's TCP boundary determination and analysis were reasonable; re-route avoids TCP impacts. | BLM's TCP determination was not arbitrary or capricious. |
| NEPA supplementation necessity | BLM should supplement EIS due to new circumstances. | Determination of NEPA adequacy show no significant difference; supplementation unnecessary. | No supplementation required; determination not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1988) (mootness and relief considerations when injuries may continue via ongoing effects)
- Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (mootness when ongoing impacts can be mitigated)
- Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (consultation adequacy and taking into account prior consultation)
- Price Rd. Neighborhood Ass'n v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 113 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1997) (use of NEPA determinations in lieu of full EIS where appropriate)
- Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. Alexander, 222 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 2000) (limits on when determination documents may replace supplemental EIS/EA)
- North Idaho Community Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (hard look requirement and significance of new information for NEPA)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (standards for reviewing NEPA supplementation)