## Facts

- Environmental organizations sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) challenging two BLM rules governing administration of mining claims on federal public lands.
- The dispute arose from BLM’s post-rulemaking response to earlier litigation requiring Interior to give effect to FLPMA’s policy that the United States receive fair market value for certain uses of public lands.
- The challenged rules reflected BLM’s practice of presuming the validity of unpatented mining claims unless and until a formal claim-validity examination is conducted.
- BLM justified not conducting routine validity examinations by citing its longstanding practice and the administrative burden of examining more than 250,000 existing mining claims, which it stated would cost far more than its annual operating budget.
- Plaintiffs argued that mining-related uses—especially claims used for waste dumping and other ancillary uses—should not proceed unless BLM first determines the claim is valid (including a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit).
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the General Mining Law of 1872, FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mining Law of 1872 and FLPMA require BLM to conduct routine, pre-operation mining-claim validity examinations and bar a presumption of claim validity.
2. Whether the challenged rules failed to implement the prior remand requiring proper effect to FLPMA’s fair-market-value policy for certain non-mining uses of public lands.
3. Whether BLM violated NEPA by issuing the rules without adequate environmental review.
4. Whether the rules were procedurally or substantively unlawful under the APA (including notice-and-comment and arbitrary-and-capricious review).

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied; defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted.
- The court upheld BLM’s interpretation of the Mining Law and FLPMA as permitting a presumption of validity and not requiring routine validity examinations before mining operations or related activities proceed.
- The court held the rules reasonably responded to the earlier remand and permissibly reconciled FLPMA’s fair-market-value policy with the Mining Law’s structure.
- The court rejected the NEPA claims, concluding the rules did not themselves approve site-specific mining activity or constitute a major federal action requiring an EIS.
- The court rejected the APA claims, finding adequate notice-and-comment and reasoned decisionmaking, including reliance on administrative feasibility and budget constraints.

## Legal Principles

- Unpatented mining claims can confer a recognized possessory interest for mining purposes even though the United States retains ultimate title absent a patent.
- The Mining Law does not require an agency to conduct validity examinations for all mining claims as a precondition to allowing mining-related operations; an agency may presume validity absent a specific basis to initiate a formal contest or examination.
- FLPMA’s fair-market-value policy must be harmonized with the Mining Law’s access and claim-rights framework; a prior remand to consider fair-market-value policy does not necessarily compel a particular regulatory mechanism such as universal validity examinations.
- NEPA obligations turn on whether an agency action is a major federal action significantly affecting the environment; rules that primarily clarify standards and internal practices, without authorizing specific projects, may be upheld without an EIS.
- Under APA review, courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations and sustain rules supported by a rational explanation and compliant notice-and-comment procedures.

## Conclusion

The court sustained BLM’s mining rules that continue a presumption of unpatented mining-claim validity and limit routine claim-validity examinations, holding that plaintiffs failed to show violations of the Mining Law, FLPMA, NEPA, or the APA.


Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 496 F. Supp. 3d 472 (D.D.C. 2020)