I noticed a series of back and forth exchanges on TOB regarding whether there would be another RoD required (i.e., starting from scratch).  Based on my own research, the answer is no:

In referencing the NEPA Report: R47205 (congress.gov)

you will see a specific section on Page 9 which specifically states:

"Courts have created an equitable exception, sometimes ordering remand without 

vacatur. That remedy allows the agency’s original action or decision to remain in place while the 

agency corrects a deficiency in its NEPA compliance."

****************

In support of that, in Lithium Nevada's August 11th filings they specifically requested the following:

"Any Remand Should Be Without Vacatur or Injunction.

 ENGOs make no attempt to save any injunctive relief request. ENGOs agree that vacatur is 

“not automatically applied” under the APA but argue remand without vacatur is “rare,” so the 

Court should vacate the ROD. But the Ninth Circuit observed that “[r]emand without vacatur is 

common,” Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893, 930 (9th Cir. 2020), and the frequency 

is irrelevant: vacatur “depends on how serious the agency’s errors are and the disruptive 

consequences of an interim change.” 350 Mont. v. Haaland, 29 F.4th 1158, 1177 (9th Cir. 2022). 

The Court must consider the “environmental, economic, and energy-related consequences of 

vacatur.” Id. Remand without vacatur is appropriate in circumstances beyond undesirable 

environmental consequences. Pac. Rivers v. U.S., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1018 (E.D. Cal. 2013) 

(it is “not correct” to withhold vacatur “only in situations where environmental harm is likely to 

flow from” vacatur). The disruptive consequences and harms to Lithium Nevada, its employees, 

surrounding communities, and the Nation would be severe, ECF 242 at 38-40. The alleged errors 

are minimal; BLM could substantiate its decision on remand. The economic and energy-related 

concerns at stake are grave: current and future jobs, financial investment, and lithium our Nation 

desperately needs.53 Id. The ROD should not be vacated because it would create “a disruptive,” 

“expensive” consequence harmful to the public. Pac. Rivers, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 1022. "

****************

Likewise, in the document and in LAC's filings, there is discussion that shows an injunction is not mandatory in such a circumstance.

While this does not guarantee that the court will decide to vacate or not or place an injunction or not, it does allow for the opportunity (which I can only imagine they would given the circumstances) to cure the deficiencies.

I hope that clarifies the issue,

IRR