Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams
38 F. Supp. 3d 1073
D. Ariz.2014Background
- Canyon Mine located near Grand Canyon National Park and a sacred site for Havasupai Tribe; EFN proposed mining in 1984; Forest Service approved a Plan of Operations after an EIS in 1986; prior litigation upheld Forest Service and surface structures were built; by 2012 DOE withdrew lands including Canyon Mine from mineral location; VER Determination in 2012–2012 confirmed valid existing rights; Plaintiffs filed suit March 2013 challenging renewed operations; Defendants moved to dismiss in 2018 on jurisdiction, res judicata, and statute of limitations; Court denied the motion to dismiss and analyzed jurisdiction under APA; discovery completed May 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VER Determination is a final agency action under the APA | Plaintiffs contend VER is agency action and final | Defendants argue VER is not final | VER is final agency action under Bennett test |
| Whether claims 1 and 4 are reviewable under the APA | VER supports review of final agency action on NEPA/FLPMA | VER not final for NEPA/other claims | Yes, VER is final; claims 1 and 4 reviewable under APA |
| Whether NHPA §106 consultation would have been a final agency action | §106 consultation would be final and enforceable MOA | §106 consultation not final or no MOA | Yes, §106 consultation would constitute final agency action allowing APA challenge |
| Whether Claim 2 is barred by res judicata | Claim 2 concerns NHPA §106 not raised in prior action | Identity of claims; same core action | Not barred by res judicata |
| Whether Claim 2 is barred by statute of limitations or laches | §106 claim timely; VER in 2012 triggers timing | ROD 1986 barred; six-year period | Not barred; timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) as events occurred within period |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (facial vs factual attacks on jurisdiction; burden on plaintiff)
- Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Service, 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (finality interpreted pragmatically for agency action)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (two-prong test for final agency action; consummation and legal effects)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1992) (core question: direct effect on parties; practical finality)
- Norton v. Sierra/ SUWA, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (final agency action; discrete agency action; private right of action")
- Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (NHPA §106 consultation considerations)