Facts

The United States Forest Service approved the proposed mining exploration project submitted by KORE Mining, Limited for a site on public land near Mammoth Lakes, California.

The Forest Service concluded preliminarily that KORE's project fell entirely within the categorical exclusion for mineral investigations, thus excluding the project from the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) more rigorous review requirements. Later, after receiving public comments and modifying the plan, the Forest Service began to review KORE's plan partially as a habitat restoration project. It thus began relying on both mineral exploration and habitat improvement exclusions. The Forest Service ultimately determined the project would not cause any significant effects on the environment.

Four advocacy organizations--Friends of the Inyo, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club--disagreed with the Forest Service's assessment. They filed this action to challenge the Forest Service's decision under the Administrative Procedures Act, and KORE intervened as a defendant.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the project would disturb a unique sage grouse population. Specifically, sage grouse used the area where KORE intended to drill for both brooding and foraging. Sage grouse nest on the ground and return to the same mating grounds, known as "leks," every year; they depend on large, continuous expanses of sagebrush for their survival. Plaintiffs contended that whatever reduces or fragments this habitat would threaten sage grouse, from fences to roads to mining and grazing to wildfires and climate change.
Plaintiffs contended that the Forest Service's reliance on both mineral exploration and habitat improvement exclusions violated NEPA and the Organic Administrative Act by tasking the Forest Service with regulating the National Forest System. Under the Organic Act, mining operations in the national forest system are regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. Plaintiffs contended the exclusion for mineral investigations did not cover the project because more than a year would pass by the time KORE would regrade and reseed the drill pads and temporary access roads. As for the habitat improvement exclusions, plaintiffs argued that KORE was exploring a mining claim, not restoring habitats, so the categorial exclusion was essentially an irrelevant end-run around NEPA's more rigorous provisions. In the alternative, plaintiffs contended that the Forest Service's decision was arbitrary and capricious because KORE's project would have significant effects on the unique sage grouse population and the endangered chub. These effects were extraordinary circumstances and required an EIS or assessment even if the project would otherwise have been categorically excluded. Finally, plaintiffs argued the Forest Service's decision violated its Organic Act regulations because it did not issue a special use permit required for all non-mining projects, such as the proposed habitat rehabilitation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.