Opinion ID: 148933
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Provide Plan of Operations Components

Text: Plaintiffs first argue that the BLM's approval of the Amendment without obtaining information from Cortez as required in 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b) violated the FLPMA. Section 3809.401(b) requires that mining operators describe the proposed operations at a level of detail sufficient for BLM to determine that the plan of operations prevents unnecessary or undue degradation. . . . 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b). The BLM require[s] less information about smaller and simpler mining operations. 65 Fed.Reg. at 70,004. In general, information specified under § 3809.401(b)(2) is only required to the extent it is applicable to the operation. 65 Fed.Reg. at 70,040-42; see also 43 C.F.R. §§ 3809.401(b)(2), 3809.401(b)(5). We quickly dispose of several of Plaintiffs' challenges to alleged deficiencies in the Amendment's plan of operations because they are simply not applicable to the Amendment. We reject Plaintiffs' vague and unsupported contentions that (1) the plan of operations failed to contain a number of detailed plans and descriptions as set forth in 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b), and (2) the BLM failed to require an interim management plan under 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b)(5), or cross sections, preliminary or conceptual designs, and operating plans for approved projects under 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b)(2)(ii). These regulations apply to mining operations, not exploration projects like the HC/CUEP. See 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b)(2)(ii) (requiring information only for mining areas, processing facilities, and waste rock and tailing disposal facilities); 65 Fed.Reg. at 70,042 (explaining that the interim management plan regulation was added pursuant to Recommendation 5 of the National Research Council's Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands 101 (1999), which addresses the need for interim plans for mine closure). With regard to the information that is required, we reject Plaintiffs' arguments that the BLM approved the Amendment without the benefit of a complete description of the proposed operations, a general schedule of operations, and a monitoring plan. See 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b). These elements can be found in the Amendment's proposal and EA. Because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the Amendment did not describe the proposed operations at a level of detail sufficient for BLM to determine that the plan of operations prevents unnecessary or undue degradation, these arguments fail. 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b). We also reject Plaintiffs' argument that the BLM's approval of the Amendment was improper because it did not have [m]aps of the project area at an appropriate scale showing the location of exploration activities, drill sites . . . and access routes. . . . 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b)(2)(i). They argue that in so doing, the BLM failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation under the FLPMA. The IBLA considered a similar argument in Great Basin Mine Watch and concluded that the BLM had not violated 43 C.F.R. § 3809.401(b)(2)(i) or the FLPMA when it approved a plan of operations for a similarly phased exploration project that did not provide any significant details for the phases other than Phase I. [22] Great Basin Mine Watch, 159 IBLA at 345; see id. at 347-48. In the NEPA and NHPA contexts, we found Great Basin Mine Watch's reasoning to be persuasive regarding the level of detail required for approval of phased exploration projects. We have no reason to resolve this issue any differently in the FLPMA context. We therefore conclude that the BLM's approval of the Amendment without all of the details for the separate phases of exploration did not violate the FLPMA.