Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar
791 F. Supp. 2d 687
D. Ariz.2011Background
- Arizona 1 uranium mine operates in the Arizona Strip, 35 miles south of Fredonia, under BLM oversight.
- The 1988 plan of operations approved by BLM governed mining, including reclamation and interim management.
- Mine ceased operations in 1992; Denison acquired the site in 2007 and resumed in 2009 under the 1988 plan.
- Plaintiffs—environmental groups and nearby tribes—sued BLM for alleged FLPMA, NEPA, and mining-law violations seeking injunctions and declarations.
- BLM argued the 1988 plan remained effective for periods of operation and temporary closures, requiring no new plan before resumed mining.
- The court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on four claims, with one claim remanded for further NEPA explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can BLM resume Arizona 1 mining under the 1988 plan without a new plan? | Plaintiffs: the 1988 plan became ineffective after 1992 closure. | BLM: plan remains effective; resumed operations under interim management within the plan. | BLM's interpretation is permissible; Denison may resume under 1988 plan. |
| NEPA supplementation required for 1988 EA before resumed mining? | Plaintiffs: need NEPA supplement due to new circumstances. | Defendants: no new major federal action; no supplement required. | No NEPA supplementation required; summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Was the free use permit to Robinson Wash proper under NEPA categorical exclusion? | Plaintiffs: must consider connected, indirect, and cumulative impacts; exclusion inappropriate. | Defendants: exclusion applies; no need for full EIS where extraordinary circumstances lack. | Remand for fuller explanation of cumulative impacts; jeopardizes categoricial exclusion validity. |
| Does the increased reclamation bond trigger NEPA review or constitute major federal action? | Plaintiffs: bond adjustment is a major action needing NEPA. | Defendants: bond adjustment is administrative oversight, not a major action. | No NEPA requirement; summary judgment for Defendants on claim five. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2004) (agency action review; presumes validity under APA)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court 1997) (agency's interpretation of its own regulations controlling unless plainly erroneous)
- Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007) (NEPA categorical exclusions; need for reasoned explanation)
- SUWA v. Norton, 542 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2004) (ongoing agency monitoring does not necessarily require NEPA supplementation)
- Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2004) (NEPA review ends after major federal action; ongoing monitoring not major action)
- Wong v. Bush, 542 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2008) (categorical exclusions limit NEPA requirements; no action alternatives context)