Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, CIV.A.01-00073(HHK).

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Citation292 F.Supp.2d 30
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A.01-00073(HHK).,CIV.A.01-00073(HHK).
PartiesMINERAL POLICY CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale NORTON, et al., Defendants, and National Mining Association, Defendant-Intervenor.
Decision Date18 November 2003

Page 30

292 F.Supp.2d 30
MINERAL POLICY CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs,
Gale NORTON, et al., Defendants, and
National Mining Association, Defendant-Intervenor.
No. CIV.A.01-00073(HHK).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
November 18, 2003.

Page 31

James Bryan Dougherty, Washington, DC, Jeffrey C. Parsons, Roger Flynn, Boulder, CO, for Plaintiffs.

Gregory D. Page, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Robert Timothy McCrum, Crowell & Moring, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Intervenor Defendant.


KENNEDY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Mineral Policy Center, Great Basin Mine Watch, and Guardians of the Rural Environment,1 bring this action to

Page 32

challenge the revision of federal mining regulations promulgated by defendant, Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), United States Department of the Interior ("Interior"), on October 30, 2001.2 According to plaintiffs, the regulations, codified at 43 C.F.R. § 3809 (2003) ("2001 Regulations") "substantially weaken, and in many instances eliminate, BLM's authority to protect the public's lands, waters, cultural and religious sites, and other resources threatened by industrial mining operations in the West." Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. at 1. Plaintiffs therefore contend that the regulations run counter to BLM's statutory duty, as set forth in its guiding statute, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. (2000) ("FLPMA"), to "take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the [public] lands." 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). Accordingly, plaintiffs ask this court to vacate and remand any portion of the 2001 Regulations not in accordance with federal law.

Before this court are the parties' and intervenor's cross-motions for summary judgment.3 Upon consideration of the motions, the oppositions thereto, and the record of this case, the court concludes that each motion should be granted in part and denied in part.


A. Regulatory Background

1. The Mining Law

A correct resolution of the issues presented by this case requires an understanding and analysis of the pertinent legislative scheme and must begin with the General Mining Law, 30 U.S.C. §§ 21 et seq. (2000) ("Mining Law"), a law that was enacted in 1872. The Mining Law provides: "All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase ... by citizens of the United States ...." 30 U.S.C. § 22. The Mining Law gives claimants the right to "a unique form of property." Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 335, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963). It gives any citizen the right to enter onto federal public lands,4 stake a claim on these lands, and obtain the exclusive right to extract the minerals thereon-all without payment to the United States and without acquiring title to the land itself. Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 348-49, 39 S.Ct. 308, 63 L.Ed. 635 (1919). Alternatively, the Mining Law gives a claimant the right to obtain title to the lands, by proving the location of a valuable mineral deposit on her mining claim, and paying a nominal fee

Page 33

($5.00 per acre for certain claims, $2.50 per acre for others). 30 U.S.C. §§ 29-30, 37.

2. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Much changed in this nation in the 100 years following the Mining Law's 1872 enactment. Accordingly, in 1976, Congress enacted FLPMA to amend the Mining Law and reflect the nation's changed view toward land and minerals. It is this law that is primarily at issue here.

FLPMA establishes standards for BLM to regulate hardrock5 mining activities on the public lands. Such regulation is vital. BLM administers roughly one-fifth of the land mass of the United States6 and, while the surface area of the land physically disturbed by active mining is comparatively small, the impact of such mining is not. See Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 737 (10th Cir.1982); Defs.' Ex. A at 1 (NRC Report). Mining activity emits vast quantities of toxic chemicals, including mercury, hydrogen, cyanide gas, arsenic, and heavy metals. The emission of such chemicals affects water quality, vegetation, wildlife, soil, air purity, and cultural resources. See Northwest Mining Ass'n v. Babbitt, 5 F.Supp.2d 9, 11 (D.D.C.1998) (discussing hardrock mining's environmental consequences); Pls.' Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 10, 11 (Decl. of Randolph); Defs.' Ex. A at 27-30 (NRC Report). The emissions are such that the hardrock/metal mining industry was recently ranked the nation's leading emitter of toxic pollution. Pls.' Ex. 2 at ¶ 11 (Decl. of Randolph) (citing EPA's 1998 Toxic Release Inventory, issued May 11, 2000).

FLPMA thus attempts to balance two vital-but often competing-interests. On one hand, FLPMA recognizes the "need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands," 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(12), and, on the other hand, FLPMA attempts to mitigate the devastating environmental consequences of hardrock mining, to "protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air, and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values," id. § 1701(a)(8). Put another way, FLPMA "represents an attempt by Congress to balance the use of the public lands by interests as diverse as the lands themselves." Watt, 696 F.2d at 738; accord Northwest Mining Ass'n, 5 F.Supp.2d at 11; see also NMA's Reply at 12.

The heart of FLPMA amends and supersedes the Mining Law to provide: "In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands." 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b) (emphasis added); see Watt, 696 F.2d at 738 n. 2; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. at 4 (recognizing that FLPMA amends the Mining Law). Also important for our purposes, FLPMA: (1) requires that the Secretary "manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield," 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); (2) 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); and (3) "declares that it is the policy of the United States that ... the United States receive fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute," id. § 1701(a)(9).

Page 34

3. The 1980, 2000, and 2001 Regulations

After FLPMA was enacted in 1976, BLM commenced a rulemaking to implement it. BLM issued its proposed rules on December 6, 1976, and finalized them on November 26, 1980. See 41 Fed.Reg. 53,428 (Dec. 6, 1974); 45 Fed.Reg. 78,902 (Nov. 26, 1980). These rules, commonly known as the "1980 Regulations," established "procedures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of Federal lands which may result from operations authorized by the mining laws." 45 Fed.Reg. at 78,909-10 (Nov. 26, 1980). The 1980 Regulations defined "unnecessary or undue degradation," commonly referred to as "UUD," as being: (1) "surface disturbance greater than that which would normally result when an activity is being" conducted by "a prudent operator in usual, customary, and proficient operations"; (2) "failure to comply with applicable environmental protection statutes and regulations thereunder"; and (3) "[f]ailure to initiate and complete reasonable mitigation measures, including reclamation of disturbed areas or creation of a nuisance." Id. at 78,910. These rules, formerly codified at 43 C.F.R. § 3809.0-5(k) (1999), governed the mining industry for quite some time.

In the 1990s, however, Interior conducted a comprehensive review of the 1980 Regulations, and on January 6, 1997, commenced a rulemaking to amend them. 62 Fed.Reg. 16,177 (Apr. 4, 1997). During the rulemaking period, Congress intervened by passing the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. Pub.L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). Pursuant to this Act, Congress directed the National Research Council ("NRC") of the National Academy of Sciences7 to review the adequacy of existing state and federal regulation of hardrock mining on federal lands, without regard to Interior's proposed amendments.8 Pub.L. No. 105-277, division A, § 101(e), 112 Stat. 2681 (§ 120(a) of Gen. Provisions, Dep't of Interior) (1999). Congress also prohibited Interior from promulgating a new rule until after publication of the NRC report. Id. at § 120(d). The NRC published its report, entitled Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, in late September 1999 ("NRC Report"). In support of this publication, later that year, Congress provided that the rule to emerge from Interior's rulemaking process must not be "inconsistent with the recommendations contained in the National Research Council report." Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill, Pub.L. No. 106-113, App. C, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501 A-210 (§ 357 of tit. III Gen. Provisions) (1999); see also Dep't of Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 Pub.L. No. 106-291, 114 Stat. 922, 962 (2000).

Interior finally amended the 1980 Regulations in 2000. The 2000 Regulations, which were promulgated on November 21,

Page 35

2000, and became effective in the final hours of the Clinton Administration, on January 20, 2001, adopted the NRC Report's recommendations-but differed in fundamental ways from the previous 1980 Regulations.9 65 Fed.Reg. 69,998 (Nov. 21, 2000). Most importantly, the 2000 Regulations replaced the 1980 Regulations' UUD "prudent operator" standard with a new and more restrictive UUD standard, commonly referred to as the "substantial irreparable harm" or "SIH" standard. 65 Fed.Reg. at 70,115 (formerly codified at 43 C.F.R. § 3809.5(f) (2001)).

The "substantial irreparable harm" standard is so named because in the 2000 Regulations, for the first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Hammond v. Norton, No. CIV.A.01-2345(PLF).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 13 mai 2005
    ...analysis. There is no single test to determine what constitutes "major federal action." See Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 54 (D.D.C.2003) (citing Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. Fed. Highway Admin., 950 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1992) and Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, Civil Action No. 15-477 (EGS), Civil Action No. 16-910 (EGS) (
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 28 janvier 2020
    ...approach ‘seem[ed] especially sound,’ but deciding case on procedural grounds under the APA") and Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30, 38–40 (D.D.C. 2003) ("noting that ‘confusion in this Circuit remains’ regarding the application of the Flores test to facial challenges to age......
  • Theodore Roosevelt Conserv. Partnership v. Salazar, Civ. Action No. 07-01486 (RJL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 31 mars 2009
    ...in cases such as this because the Court's review is based entirely on the administrative record. See Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 36 (D.D.C.2003). Of course, the Court will only grant summary judgment when there are "no genuine issues of material fact" and the party is e......
  • Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Action No. 09-1972 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 octobre 2020
    ...The BLM and Interior promulgated the 2008 Rule in direct response to the court's decision in Mineral Policy Center v. Norton (MPC) , 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003).6 In MPC , the plaintiffs challenged an earlier generation of BLM regulations governing mining claims, alleging that they vio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 1, March 2021
    • 22 mars 2021
    ...[section] 1702(0. (299) Id. [section][section] 1711, 1712. (300) Id. [section] 1732(b). (301) Compare Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30, 43 (D.D.C. 2003) (giving the statutory terms independent meaning), with Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66, 76......
  • Arbitrary and Capricious: the Dark Canon of the United States Supreme Court in Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-1, October 2020
    • 1 octobre 2020
    ...Zinke Statement in Support of President Trump’s American Energy Executive Order (Mar. 28, 2017). 43. Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003) (interpreting Federal Land Policy and Management Act provision prohibiting “unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands”.) 4......
  • A Road Map to Net-Zero Emissions for Fossil Fuel Development on Public Lands
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 50-9, September 2020
    • 1 septembre 2020
    ...of Land Management’s Inirm Compensatory Mitigation Policy , 30 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (2019). 61. See Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30, 42 (D.D.C. 2003) (“FLPMA, by its plain terms, vests the Secretary of the Interior with the authority—indeed the obligation—to disapprove......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT