McKown v. United States
908 F. Supp. 2d 1122
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff appeals an IBLA decision denying APA review of the Interior Department’s mining-claims validity ruling for White Cap Nos. 1-3.
- The Government contends the three claims were invalid for lack of discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, and that the prima facie case was not rebutted by Plaintiff.
- Kiavah Wilderness withdrawal and CDPA restricted mining, enabling a validity contest focused on pre-withdrawal discovery and post-withdrawal proof.
- Forest Service mineral examiners conducted multiple site inspections; White Cap Nos. 2-3 showed no exposed mineralization; White Cap No. 1’s quartz was economically inadequate.
- ALJ Heffernan found all three claims invalid; IBLA affirmed, holding Plaintiff failed to prove a profitable discovery at withdrawal and at the hearing.
- Court reviews under the APA deferential standard, affirming the IBLA’s factual and legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff discovered a valuable mineral deposit for all three claims. | McKown contends there is a valuable discovery and marketability. | McKown failed to prove a profitable discovery at withdrawal and at hearing. | IBLA and ALJ correctly found no valid discovery for Nos. 1-3. |
| Whether Plaintiff was improperly deprived of road access to the claims. | McKown asserts historic public access via Horse Canyon Road and RS 2477 rights. | Access restrictions were not prohibitive; road status aligned with wilderness designation and legal descriptions. | Access restrictions did not affect validity; no right to mine existed regardless. |
| Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to take core samples to support discovery. | Core sampling would prove quality/quantity and profitability of the deposit. | Request was untimely and lacked a proper plan of operations; exploratory drilling prohibited. | ALJ properly denied core-sampling request; unpersuasive to overturn IBLA. |
| Whether the IBLA/ALJ standard of review was correctly applied and supported by substantial evidence. | Standard was misapplied to re-litigate evidence showing validity. | IBLA applied proper standard; substantial evidence supports invalidity. | Yes; IBLA’s decision upheld as not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by law or evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.1999) (discovery standard for mining claims; competing interests of withdrawal)
- Hjelvik v. Babbitt, 198 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.1999) (prima facie case and burden shifting for invalid mining claims)
- Lara v. Sec’y of Interior, 820 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir.1987) (discovery burden and dual-date validity standard)
- United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (Supreme Court 1968) (prudent-man and marketability tests for valuable deposits)