Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams
98 F. Supp. 3d 1044
D. Ariz.2015Background
- Canyon Mine is a breccia-pipe uranium mine in Kaibab National Forest, with a Plan of Operations approved after an EIS and ROD in 1986; mining construction began but was put on standby in the 1990s.
- DOI issued a large 2012 land Withdrawal closing lands to new mineral location/entry but expressly preserving “valid existing rights”; BLM guidance requires VERs for new plans on withdrawn lands but not for previously approved plans absent material change.
- Energy Fuels notified the Forest Service in 2011 it intended to resume operations; the Forest Service performed a Mine Review and a Valid Existing Rights (VER) Determination in 2012, concluded rights existed, and recommended resumption under the 1986 Plan.
- The Forest Service treated Red Butte as a newly listed Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and applied NHPA post-review discovery procedures, using 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b)(3) rather than a full § 106 re-initiation; it conducted consultations with tribes but litigation interrupted further MOA work.
- Plaintiffs (Havasupai Tribe, environmental groups) sued under the APA alleging NEPA and NHPA violations and that the VER Determination was deficient; the district court granted defendants’ summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VER Determination was legally required and thus a major federal action triggering NEPA | VER was required on withdrawn lands and was an approval enabling mine resumption, so NEPA EIS triggered | Withdrawal/BLM guidance require VER only for new plans; mine would resume under the 1986 Plan already EIS-reviewed, so no new major federal action | VER was not legally required for a previously approved plan; no new EIS required (claim 1 denied) |
| Whether the VER Determination was final agency action subject to APA review | VER culminated agency decision and enabled mining, so is reviewable | VER has no adjudicative legal effect (BLM/DOI are adjudicators); it was discretionary and internal | Court treated VER as final for review because it had practical precondition effect, so NEPA/NHPA claims are reviewable (but ruled for defendants on merits) |
| Prudential standing to challenge VER substance under Mining Law (claim 4) | Plaintiffs can challenge VER substance as APA claim tied to Mining Law | Plaintiffs’ interests are environmental/cultural, not within the Mining Law’s zone of interests (which protects mineral-right claimants/economic interests) | Plaintiffs lack prudential standing for claim 4; summary judgment for defendants on that claim |
| Whether NHPA §106 post-review procedure (36 C.F.R. §800.13) was applied correctly and complied (claims 2–3) | Agency should have conducted a full §106 (b)(1) because TCP listing is a significant new discovery and (b)(3) is for emergencies; ACHP advised (b)(1) | (b)(3) applies when undertaking was approved and construction commenced; 1986 Plan approved and construction commenced; Forest Service reasonably applied (b)(3) and conducted consultation consistent with (b)(3) | Applying (b)(3) was not arbitrary or capricious; Forest Service complied adequately with (b)(3); claims 2–3 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (agency action reviewability under APA)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (final agency action test)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (standing for environmental plaintiffs)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085 (resumption of mining under an existing, EIS-approved plan does not require new EIS)
- Pit River Tribe v. United States Forest Service, 469 F.3d 768 (extension/renewal that grants substantive rights can trigger NEPA review)
- Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 943 F.2d 32 (prior challenge upholding 1986 EIS and ROD)
- Columbia Riverkeeper v. United States Coast Guard, 761 F.3d 1084 (practical effects considered in final-action analysis)