## Facts

- Conservation and community groups challenged the Department of the Interior and BLM’s October 30, 2001 revisions to hardrock mining regulations governing public lands (43 C.F.R. pt. 3809).
- Plaintiffs alleged the 2001 revisions unlawfully reduced BLM’s ability to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public lands as required by FLPMA.
- The 2000 regulatory regime had included authority to deny a plan of operations expected to cause “substantial irreparable harm” to significant resource values that could not be effectively mitigated.
- The 2001 revisions removed that “substantial irreparable harm” denial provision and relied instead on plan review, performance standards, financial guarantees, and other tools to prevent harmful impacts.
- Defendants asserted FLPMA affords BLM discretion to implement the UUD standard through different regulatory mechanisms, consistent with mining rights recognized under the General Mining Law.
- The case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, with the National Mining Association intervening in support of the federal defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether FLPMA’s requirement that BLM “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation” permits BLM to eliminate the “substantial irreparable harm” plan-denial standard and revise its interpretation of UUD.
2. Whether challenged components of the 2001 regulations were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to FLPMA under the APA, including whether Interior adequately explained its policy change from the 2000 approach.
3. Whether the 2001 regulatory framework, taken as a whole, reasonably ensures prevention of UUD while remaining consistent with mining rights under the General Mining Law.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part each party’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that FLPMA’s UUD mandate is a binding, affirmative duty and authorizes substantial federal regulation of mining-related activities on public lands.
- The court rejected the claim that FLPMA compels a single, specific regulatory mechanism identical to the 2000 “substantial irreparable harm” denial provision.
- The court held that Interior could revise or withdraw prior regulatory approaches, but only with a satisfactory, reasoned explanation and a rational connection between the record and the policy choice.
- The court upheld some portions of the 2001 regulations as permissible exercises of BLM’s discretion, but vacated or remanded other portions where the rules or explanations did not adequately ensure prevention of UUD or did not satisfy APA reason-giving requirements.

## Legal Principles

- FLPMA requires BLM to take necessary action to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation,” imposing a mandatory stewardship obligation.
- The UUD phrase is sufficiently ambiguous to permit agency construction; reasonable interpretations may receive Chevron deference if consistent with the statute’s protective function.
- The agency may change regulatory policy, including withdrawing prior protections, but must provide a reasoned explanation addressing the change and supporting it with the administrative record.
- Compliance with FLPMA may be achieved through a combination of enforceable performance standards, plan-approval criteria, operational conditions, and financial assurance, provided the framework reasonably prevents serious degradation.
- A rule that effectively nullifies the “undue” component of UUD, or that lacks a coherent explanation for weakening protections, is vulnerable under the APA and FLPMA.

## Conclusion

The court sustained BLM’s authority to implement FLPMA’s UUD duty through multiple regulatory tools rather than a single “substantial irreparable harm” denial standard, but required that the 2001 revisions both preserve meaningful protection against undue degradation and be supported by adequate, reasoned explanations under the APA, resulting in partial affirmance and partial vacatur/remand.


Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003)