I want to credit Neil from TOB who took the time to summarize and provide commentary on the main elements of the lawsuit that will be heard later this month. I don't think Neil is on this forum.

"Water Quality/Quantity - the lawsuit claims the approval of the project by the BLM violates federal law, as the project could contaminate groundwater, based on State of Nevada standards. The Record of Decision however, was issued with a number of Conditions of Approval, including “LNC will monitor groundwater sources according to NDEP standards and will maintain water quality and quantity for wildlife, livestock, and human consumption to State of Nevada standards.” Further, this process will be overseen by the Water Resources Technical Advisory Group (WRTAG), comprising the BLM, NDEP and other regulators.

The Conditions of Approval recognise that controlling water quality and quantity in a dynamic environment requires ongoing, proactive management. If LNC were to violate these conditions, presumably the mine would have to suspend operations until the violations were addressed to the satisfaction of the WRTAG.

Although not relevant to the lawsuit, the NDEP will impose their own conditions when issuing the Water Pollution Control permit. They have already flagged a condition that mining will not be allowed below the water table, until additional studies are completed.

Air Quality - the lawsuit claims the approval of the project by the BLM does not ensure compliance with air quality standards required by state and federal law. In particular, the lawsuit claims the BLM did not adequately review the effectiveness of the “state of the art” scrubbing control committed to be installed by LNC. The Conditions of Approval do not specifically address this issue. Perhaps the BLM didn’t see that as necessary, given the acid plant will have a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), where emissions data is collected every 6 minutes, and the NDEP Air Pollution Control permit will require compliance with air quality standards.

Sage Grouse - the impact on Sage Grouse, if any, is difficult for anyone to know. The Conditions of Approval require the development of a mitigation plan (avoid, minimise, mitigate), consistent with the Conservation Credit System (CCS), in consultation with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. BLM claims the CCS ensures a net benefit for the species. The lawsuit claims this to be false, on the basis that the Sage Grouse impacts are understated. It seems to me the mitigation plan will be dynamic, such that even if the impacts are initially understated, they will eventually be captured and mitigated.

It seems to me that the ROD Conditions of Approval, coupled with the NDEP permitting process and related conditions, provide strong control over adverse environmental risks. In my view, the claims made in the lawsuit with respect to these issues are more technical/procedural than substantive, and in the worst case might only result in a short delay to the project timetable."