Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Action No. 09-1972 (RC)
Citation | 496 F.Supp.3d 472 |
Decision Date | 26 October 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 09-1972 (RC) |
Parties | EARTHWORKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Edward S. Scheideman, DLA Piper LLP, Washington, DC, Jeffrey C. Parsons, Pro Hac Vice, Roger Flynn, Pro Hac Vice, Western Mining Action Project, Lyons, CO, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph H. Kim, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A coalition of environmental groups ("Plaintiffs") challenges two mining-related rules issued by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior ("Interior"). Plaintiffs allege that the rules were not promulgated in compliance with various statutory authorities, including the General Mining Law of 1872 ("The Mining Law"), 30 U.S.C. §§ 22 – 47 ; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ; the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. ; and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 701 – 06.
Currently pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion and grants Defendants’ motions.
The Mining Law allows citizens to explore unappropriated public lands and, without any prior government permission or paying any royalties, stake (or "locate") a mining claim. 30 U.S.C. § 22 ; United States v. Locke , 471 U.S. 84, 86, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985). After discovering a valuable mineral deposit and satisfying certain minimal procedures (including paying a location fee), claimants obtain an "unpatented" mining claim and have the exclusive right to possess the land for mining purposes. See 30 U.S.C. § 26 ; see also Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. , 371 U.S. 334, 336, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963). Valid mining claims are "a unique form of property," Best , 371 U.S. at 335, 83 S.Ct. 379, describable as "fully recognized possessory interest[s]," Locke , 471 U.S. at 86, 105 S.Ct. 1785. But ultimate title to the claimed land remains with the United States unless the mining claimant takes the further step of filing for fee title, called a "patent." See id. ; Best , 371 U.S. at 336, 83 S.Ct. 379. Claimants can obtain a patent by submitting an application to the Secretary of the Interior and complying with further requirements, including paying a nominal per-acre fee. 30 U.S.C. § 29 ; Locke , 471 U.S. at 86, 105 S.Ct. 1785.1 "Even without a patent, claimants can maintain their mining rights indefinitely so long as they comply with federal, state, and local requirements." Orion Rsrvs. Ltd. P'ship v. Salazar , 553 F.3d 697, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009). These requirements include paying annual claim maintenance fees. See 30 U.S.C. § 28f(a) ; 43 C.F.R. §§ 3834–3835.
As implemented, the claim system tolerates a degree of uncertainty (or, at least, the language used to describe the legal status of a claim is not always precise). Formally speaking, a claim is valid against the United States only if there is a valuable mineral deposit within the limits of the claim. See 30 U.S.C. § 23 ( ); Best , 371 U.S. at 336, 83 S.Ct. 379 ( ). "Cameron v. United States , 252 U.S. 450, 460, 40 S.Ct. 410, 64 L.Ed. 659 (1920) (emphases added); see also Cole v. Ralph , 252 U.S. 286, 296, 40 S.Ct. 321, 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920) ().
In practice, however, the BLM does not immediately confirm the validity of a claim but instead treats it as presumptively valid. See W. Shoshone Def. Project , 160 IBLA 32, 56 (2003) ( ); see also 4 George Cameron Coggins & Robert L. Glicksman, Public Natural Resources Law § 42:9 (2d ed. 2020) ( ); Mark Squillace, The Enduring Vitality of the General Mining Law of 1872 , 18 Env't. L. Rep. 10,261, 10,266 (1988) ( ). As a matter of both law and practice, validity proceedings are largely discretionary. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.451-1 ; see also Swanson v. Babbitt , 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993) (). Validity examinations generally take place only when a claimant applies for a patent,3 see 43 C.F.R. § 3862.1-1(a) ; seeks to conduct operations on lands that have since been withdrawn from the public domain,4 see id. §§ 3809.11, 3809.100; engages in obvious abuse amounting to trespass, see, e.g. , United States v. Goldfield Deep Mines Co. of Nev. , 644 F.2d 1307, 1308 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1981) ( ); or operates on land in which the government has an interest, see, e.g. , Ickes v. Underwood , 141 F.2d 546, 546 (D.C. Cir. 1944) ( ).
Facing such a challenge, a claimant has certain procedural rights. See Cameron , 252 U.S. at 460, 40 S.Ct. 410 ( ). Additionally, a claimant may have rights against rival claimants prior to discovery under the old mining doctrine of pedis possessio. See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Smith , 249 U.S. 337, 346–47, 39 S.Ct. 308, 63 L.Ed. 635 (1919) ( ); 5 Nancy Saint-Paul, West's Federal Administrative Practice § 5856 (2020) (). But ultimately, "[p]rior to validity proceedings, unpatented claims amount to a potential property interest, since it is the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and satisfaction of statutory and regulatory requirements that bestows possessory rights." Freeman v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 83 F. Supp. 3d 173, 178 n.6 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd , 650 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam); see also Foster v. Seaton , 271 F.2d 836, 838 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam) .
The Mining Law also allows the location and patent of lands for a "mill site." 30 U.S.C. § 42(a). These sites must be located on nonmineral lands and cannot be contiguous to a mine or lode, but they can be used for mining or milling activities in connection with a claim (such as milling, chemical processing, and waste dumping). Id. ; see also 43 C.F.R. § 3832.31 ( ). No mill site location "shall exceed five acres." 30 U.S.C. § 42(a).
In 1976, after a "broad[ ] inquiry into the proper management of the public lands in the modern era," Congress passed the FLPMA. Locke , 471 U.S. at 87, 105 S.Ct. 1785 ; see also Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Watt , 696 F.2d 734, 738 (10th Cir. 1982) ( ). The FLPMA supersedes or supplements the Mining Law in certain ways. For example, it requires the Secretary, "[i]n managing the public lands," to "take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation," 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b), and encourages the "harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment," id. § 1702(c). As relevant here, it also "declares that it is the policy of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Victim Rights Law Ctr. v. Cardona
...-- indeed, they are encouraged -- to modify proposed rules as a result of the comments they receive." Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 496 F. Supp. 3d 472, 498-99 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. E.P.A., 358 F.3d 936, 951 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam)). ......
-
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
... ... Civil Action No. 21-930 (BAH) United States District ... the Secretaries of Commerce and of the Interior ... variously to “promulgate regulations ... Cir. 2019))); Earthworks v. Dep't of Interior , ... 496 F.Supp.3d ... Haaland , No. 21-cv-2317 (RC), ... 2022 WL 254526, at *19 (D.D.C. Jan ... ...
-
Dakota Rural Action v. United States Dep't Of Agric.
... ... Civil Action No. 18-2852 (CKK)United States District ... See ... Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 496 ... 2022) (RC) ... (cleaned up) (quoting In re Core ... ...