## Facts

- Oregon enacted Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), which prohibits motorized in-stream mining equipment in rivers and streams designated as essential salmon habitat to protect threatened fish populations.
- SB 3 applies statewide, including waterways located on federal lands.
- The plaintiffs were miners and mining organizations holding federal mining claims in Oregon who historically used motorized equipment (including suction dredges) to mine in streams.
- The miners alleged SB 3 effectively prevented mining on their federal claims and functioned as a state land-use planning measure regulating federal lands.
- The miners sued state officials, asserting SB 3 was preempted by the Mining Law of 1872, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Oregon; the miners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 3 is field-preempted by NFMA and FLPMA as an impermissible state land-use planning regulation applied to federal lands and federal mining claims.
2. Whether SB 3 is conflict-preempted because it allegedly obstructs the purposes and objectives of the Mining Law of 1872 and federal land-management statutes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Oregon and held SB 3 was not preempted.
- The court treated SB 3 as an environmental regulation governing mining methods in sensitive habitat, not as a state land-use planning law.
- The court concluded NFMA and FLPMA did not field-preempt SB 3 because the statute did not purport to allocate land uses through comprehensive planning.
- The court found no conflict preemption because SB 3 imposed a method restriction in certain waters, did not categorically bar mining, and did not render federal mining rights wholly unusable.
- A dissent would have treated SB 3 as a land-use regulation preempted by NFMA and FLPMA.

## Legal Principles

- State environmental regulations may apply on federal lands and to activities conducted under federal mining laws unless Congress has displaced the relevant regulatory domain or the state law directly conflicts with federal objectives.
- For preemption analysis, a statute restricting how an activity may be conducted (method/impact control) can be treated differently from a state land-use plan that allocates or zones uses of federal land.
- Conflict preemption requires more than increased cost or reduced profitability; a state restriction generally must negate federal rights or stand as an obstacle to Congress’s objectives.
- Reasonable state environmental limits on mining methods in environmentally sensitive areas can be consistent with the Mining Law of 1872 and federal land-management frameworks.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon’s SB 3 as a permissible environmental restriction on motorized in-stream mining in essential salmon habitat, concluding it was neither field-preempted by NFMA/FLPMA nor conflict-preempted by the Mining Law of 1872 because it regulated mining methods without nullifying federal mining rights.


Bohmker v. Oregon, 903 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018)