## Facts

- A mining company proposed the Buckhorn Mountain Project, a large open-pit gold mine on and around Buckhorn Mountain in northeastern Washington, involving National Forest System lands.
- The project would use a cyanide-vat leach process and would process thousands of tons of ore and waste rock daily over approximately eight years, directly disturbing hundreds of acres.
- The Forest Service prepared an EIS evaluating seven alternatives, including a surface-mining option (Alternative B) and an underground-mining option (Alternative C).
- The EIS identified Alternative C as the most environmentally preferable because it would reduce surface disturbance, but it would increase costs and reduce gold recovery.
- The Forest Service approved Alternative B in a Record of Decision, finding Alternative C would substantially harm project economics and that Alternative B’s impacts could be addressed through mitigation, reclamation, and monitoring conditions.
- Environmental groups and an intervening tribe challenged the EIS and approval, arguing inadequate mitigation analysis (especially for water quality, acid mine drainage, and cyanide risks), improper rejection of Alternative C, and breach of federal trust obligations to the tribe.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service and the mining company, and the challengers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether review under the APA was improperly based on materials outside the administrative record.
2. Whether the EIS’s mitigation discussion was so incomplete that the Forest Service failed to take NEPA’s required “hard look.”
3. Whether the Organic Administration Act required the Forest Service to choose the most environmentally preferable but still profitable alternative (Alternative C).
4. Whether the Forest Service breached enforceable federal trust obligations to the tribe by approving the project as authorized.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service and the mining company.
- The court held the lower proceedings did not improperly rely on extra-record materials in violation of the APA.
- The court held the EIS’s mitigation discussion was adequate under NEPA and not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
- The court held the Organic Act did not compel selection of the most environmentally preferable alternative where doing so would conflict with valid mining uses.
- The court held no enforceable trust obligation was breached because the asserted duties were not grounded in specific statutory or regulatory commands and the agency considered tribal interests without showing significant impairment of reserved rights.

## Legal Principles

- APA review generally focuses on the administrative record; limited extra-record consideration may be permitted for recognized purposes such as explaining technical matters, absent prejudice or reversible error.
- NEPA is procedural and requires a reasonably thorough discussion of environmental consequences, including mitigation, sufficient to demonstrate an informed decision and a “hard look.”
- An EIS may describe mitigation in general or programmatic terms when it provides an overall framework for mitigation and monitoring; NEPA does not require fully engineered, guaranteed mitigation plans before approval.
- An agency may account for and rely in part on other regulators’ permitting and standards (e.g., state water-quality regimes) without unlawfully shifting NEPA responsibilities, so long as the federal analysis remains adequate.
- The Organic Act authorizes regulation to protect national forest resources but does not require the Forest Service to select the most environmentally protective alternative where that choice would substantially constrain recognized mining operations.
- Federal trust responsibility to tribes is judicially enforceable only when tied to specific statutory or regulatory duties; generalized trust principles, without a concrete mandate and demonstrated serious impairment, do not independently invalidate agency action.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the Forest Service’s approval of a surface-mining alternative for the Buckhorn Mountain Project, concluding that the EIS adequately addressed mitigation under NEPA, the Organic Act did not require adoption of the most environmentally preferable alternative, and the record did not support a breach of enforceable tribal trust obligations.


Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 2000)