December 12, 2017: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Department of Interior's 2012 decision to bar the development of new uranium mining claims on about a million acres of land around the Grand Canyon for 20 years. This decision is important not only because it rejects an attempt to overturn the moratorium on new uranium mining claims, but also because it affirms the validity of the reasons for the ban, which including taking a precautionary approach to prevent potential significant harm to water resources and wildlife in the face of uncertainty, and protecting cultural and tribal resources. The Trump administration, through a Forest Service recommendation to the Department of Interior, recently recommended lifting the moratorium. The court's affirmation of the rationales underpinning the decision to put the moratorium in place may make it more difficult for DOI to explain a reversal of position.
In the decision published today, the court rejected challenges from pro-mining interests to each of the Secretary’s reasons for imposing the bar on new uranium mining. First, the court upheld the Secretary's finding that the action was necessary to protect water resources in the Grand Canyon watershed and the Colorado River from possible water contamination. The court found that the Secretary had reached a reasoned conclusion to be cautious in the face of uncertainty about the impacts and the potential for harm. Second, the court found that the Secretary had authority under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") to impose such a bar for the independent purpose of protecting cultural and tribal resources, and that protecting the lands from mining for that purpose did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Third, the panel upheld the Secretary's conclusion that the bar would eliminate significant impacts to visual resources and a risk of significant harm to wildlife from the development of new uranium mining claims. The court also upheld the Secretary's assessment of the amount of uranium in the area subject to the 20-year bar, and found that the Secretary's conclusion that environmental and cultural values outweighed economic interests in uranium development was consistent with the FLPMA obligation to manage the land for "multiple-use," affirming that FLPMA authorizes conservation that excludes economic uses. Finally, the court rejected the claim that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) informing the Secretary's decision failed to account for the effects of other legal regimes in reducing environmental impacts from mining, and rejected the claim that the EIS was inadequate in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to missing information.
Download the decision here.