After the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved the expansion of lithium exploration on public lands in southeastern Oregon, conservation groups are fighting back.
The Oregon Natural Desert Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Great Basin Resource Watch filed suit against the agency on April 27, expressing concerns about the exploration project’s effects on the environment and wildlife species.
In late 2025, the BLM issued a Record of Decision approving Australian mining company HiTech Minerals to drill, pump groundwater, construct roads and other exploration activities on a 7,200-acre project area within the McDermitt Caldera at the southern end of Malheur County, OR, near the Nevada border.
“The HiTech lithium exploration project represents a significant step toward achieving the nation’s energy goals and reducing dependence on foreign critical minerals—key priorities under the President’s agenda,” said BLM Acting Malheur Field Manager Tara McLain in December.
The project is located entirely on BLM-managed lands.
“The authorized activities threaten not only sage-grouse and the dwindling habitat areas they and other sage steppe species rely upon in southeastern Oregon, but also scarce water resources, irreplaceable wildlands, and Tribal and local communities,” the lawsuit read.
Last spring, WLJ spoke with area rancher Nick Wilkinson about potential impacts from the proposed lithium exploration project.
“I’ve changed my operation from night and day from the way my dad ran it,” Wilkinson said at the time, “and it cost a lot of money to make it what it is today. And now that we’ve finally got on our feet and rolling to where it is a good operation, nobody cares about the fish or the sage grouse anymore.”
Wilkinson is a member of the Great Basin Resource Watch, one of the groups contesting the project’s approval.
“HiTech’s proposed actions threaten the ecological balance we have spent generations protecting and the very existence of our operation,” said Nick and Jaimi Wilkinson in a recent news release. “This is not theoretical harm—it is immediate, material, and permanent. HiTech’s project would dismantle critical habitat, degrade essential water resources, and ultimately eliminate a six-generation cattle operation that has long been part of the solution—not the problem.”
Oregon Natural Desert Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Great Basin Resource Watch have opposed the project since BLM began its planning process in 2023. BLM received more than 2,000 public comments on the project’s environmental assessment, with many comments raising issue with environmental impacts and how the agency’s draft assessment downplayed concerns, the groups said.
“People living near proposed mining activities deserve a greater voice in how and if these projects go forward,” said John Hadder, executive director of Great Basin Resource Watch. “They will have to shoulder the burdens brought by mining—potentially an unhealthy environment, loss of lifestyle, and permanent loss of culture associated with the lands.”
The groups asked the court to declare the BLM’s project approval as unlawful under the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit also asked the court to set aside and vacate the project approval until a new decision complies with legal requirements.
Plan details
BLM’s decision will allow HiTech to construct up to 168 drill sites, sumps for drilling waste, 21.5 miles of new access roads and a 90,000-square-foot equipment staging and laydown area. The project would pump an estimated 18,000 gallons of groundwater per day, the lawsuit said, although the company also obtained a state water permit authorizing up to 41,250 gallons per day.
“BLM estimates that HiTech will need to pump more than 31.5 million gallons (or 96.84 acre-feet) of groundwater over the five-year life of the exploration project,” the lawsuit read.
The suit plaintiffs are especially concerned with the wildlife habitat that falls within the project, all of which is designated as priority habitat for sage grouse conservation.
“Of the hundreds of species of fish and wildlife that live in southeastern Oregon, many are sagebrush ‘obligate’ species—meaning they rely upon healthy, intact sagebrush plant communities to provide their food, cover, and seasonal habitats year-round,” the suit read.
In its Record of Decision, the BLM said the proposed project is in accordance with the 2015 Oregon Greater Sage Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan.
“After the close of the comment period the BLM received additional comments from the public with concerns about sage-grouse, mule deer, and invasive annual grasses; these comments referenced a few recent papers and reports,” according to the Record of Decision. “The BLM considered these comments and the cited references and determined that they do not provide significant new circumstances or information that would impact the analysis or its outcome.”
While some sensitive plant species may experience minor impacts, the effects are limited and would not trend species toward listing under the Endangered Species Act, BLM said. In addition, the agency said that greater sage-grouse habitat would be minimally affected.
The Findings of No Significant Impact also determined the project would not result in significant impacts to the human environment, BLM said. — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
