And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:33:00 -0800
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forward by NWLPSN
OKANOGAN HIGHLANDS ALLIANCE ALERT
The Okanogan Highlands Alliance and other groups need your help to
stop a large scale open-pit cyanide leach mine proposed for north
centralWashington. Okanogan Highlands Alliance is circulating the
following sign-on letter asking Interior Secretary Babbitt and Forest
Service Chief Dombeck to uphold provisions of the 1872 Mining Law and
declare Battle Mountain Gold's plan of operation invalid.
As we all know, the 1872 Mining Law is a give-away to the mining
industry. Secretary Babbitt and Chief Dombeck need to know that it is
unacceptable to allow Battle Mountain Gold to skirt even the Mining
Act's weak standards.
You will notice the letter is fairly technical. The main point of the
letter however, is pretty straightforward. The 1872 Mining Law allows
a company to claim public land two ways. One may file a claim for
mining itself and a separate claim for an associated millsite. The ratio
of mining claims to millsite claims is laid out in the law. However,Battle
Mountain Gold is claiming far to many millsites. Therefore the
department of the Interior and the Forest Service needs to declareBattle
Mountain Gold's mining plan of operation invalid because it is based on
improper (illegal) claims. If the government cannot even enforce on of the
weakest environmental laws on the books, how can we protect our
nation's natural heritage? If Battle Mountain Gold is not shut down for
breaking the law, other mining companies will also take advantage on
non-existent government enforcement of the law.
Please sign on to the following letter. The deadline for your
signature is Tuesday, March 23.Thank you,Roger FeatherstoneGREEN
Director
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT TO DOTo sign onto this letter, send an email to David Kliegman
at the Okanogan Highlands Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please
include your group's name, the contact person, the city and state.
The deadline for this sign-on letter is the Close of Business, March23.
If you do not belong to a group or cannot get your group's permission
to meet the deadline, use this sign-on letter as a model for your own
letter to Secretary Babbitt and Chief Dombeck. (And send the Okanogan
Highlands Alliance a copy of your letter.)Pass this alert far and wide!
If you need more information contact OHA at509-485-3361
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
website http//www.televar.com/~kliegoha
OKANOGAN HIGHLANDS ALLIANCE ALERT
The challenge to the large scale open-pit cyanide-leach mine proposed
by Battle Mountain Gold (BMG) in North central Washington has taken
very intriguing twist. According to Interior Solicitor John Leshy, the
1872 Mining Law allows only one millsite claim per mining claim.
BMG's mine proposal uses 115-120 millsites for 20 mining claims, way
over the legal limit.
The mining industry is currently pressuring the Department of Interior
and the Forest Service for a political solution to the mining claim to
millsite claim ratio issue, specifically as it relates to the proposed
BMG's "Crown Jewel Mine". We are simple asking for the law to
beupheld.
You are probably well aware of the archaic 1872 Mining Law that has
been a free ride to mining companies and resulted in extreme
environmental damage. It is not too much to ask that companies
comply with its limitations. Secretary Babbitt and Chief Dombeck should
explain to the mining company that the Law does not permit them to
issue more millsites than mining claims and that their plan of
operations cannot be approved in it's current form.
This issue will have repercussions on mine proposals throughout the
West. A decision is expected on this issue in the next few weeks.
The letter that follows will be sent to Secretary Babbitt and Chief
Dombeck next week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~*SIGN-ON LETTER
Honorable Bruce BabbittSecretary of the Interior1849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240Mr. Michael DombeckChief, U.S. Forest
Service 201 14th Street at Independence Ave., SWWashington, D.C.
20250, Re Pending Plan of Operations Approval, Crown Jewel Mine,
Washington
Dear Secretary Babbitt and Chief Dombeck
As you may know, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service are currently considering whether to approve the Plan of
Operations (PoO) for the Crown Jewel Mine proposed by Battle
Mountain Gold, Inc., in north-central Washington State. This letter is
submitted by local, regional, and national conservation organizations to
alert you to the critical nature of your upcoming decision. The Mine
would be Washington State's first-ever large scale, open pit, cyanide
leach gold mine and has been vigorously opposed by citizens groups
and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation since it was
proposedin 1992.
The decision whether to approve the PoO, although certainly important
to local residents, the Tribes, and the environment, actually represents
an issue of critical importance for public lands management across the
West. In this case, the federal land agencies must determine whether to
approve a mining plan that is proposed on public lands that do not
contain valid mining and millsite claims under the 1872 Mining Law. A
number of other proposed open pit gold mines on federal land face
similar issues. The most pressing examples include the Imperial Project
in southern California and the Yarnell Mine adjacent to the town of
Yarnell, Arizona. Thus, your decisions at Crown Jewel will have
ramifications across the West.
The November 7, 1997 Memorandum Opinion entitled "Limitations on
Patenting Millsites under the Mining Law of 1872" from Interior
Solicitor Leshy to the Director of the BLM (with concurrence by
Secretary Babbitt on November 12, 1997) details the limited number of
millsite claims that can be utilized by operations associated with
mining claims under the Mining Law. In that Opinion, Secretary Babbitt
and Interior Solicitor Leshy held that "the Bureau [BLM] should not
approve plans of operations which rely on a greater number of millsites
than the number of associated claims being developed unless the use
of additional lands is obtained through other means."
The Opinion went on to note that, in the absence of valid millsite
claims (i.e., a greater number of millsite claims than associated
mining claims), a project applicant could nonetheless attempt to gain
the use of federal land. The examples discussed by the Opinion were
land exchanges under FLPMA Section 206 and "permits and leases
under Title III of FLPMA." In this case, the applicant has not applied for
such an exchange or a permit or lease under Title III. It should be
noted that any application for such an exchange or permit/lease would
be subject to full public review, comment, and appeal under federallaw.
In this case, the Crown Jewel Mine would develop approximately 10-15
mining lode claims utilizing approximately 115-120 millsite claims.
Based on recent Interior Department rulings interpreting federal mining
law, the PoO for the Crown Jewel Mine cannot be approved by your
agencies. Specifically, based on the number of millsite claims
proposed to be developed in relation to mining claims proposed to be
utilized, the PoO violates the strict limitations on millsite claims
under the Mining Law of 1872. 30 U.S.C.42. That statute prohibits
the location or use of millsite claims that exceed the number of
associated mining claims being developed.
The current Record of Decision and Final EIS would have to be
withdrawn. This is because those documents were based on the
perceived "limited discretion" available to federal land managers
reviewing operations with valid mining and millsite claims. For example,
the ROD acknowledges that due to the agencies' assumption that all the
project-related mining and millsite claims were valid, the Mining Law
"limits the scope of decision making discretion available to decision
makers." ROD at 13. The Final EIS similarly based the "Purpose and
Need" of the operation on the "statutory rights" of the applicant under
the mining laws. In this case, as shown below, there are no "statutory
rights" to operate on invalid millsite claims.
As a practical matter, since it is clear that the number of millsite
claims utilized for the waste rock, tailings and cyanide leach facility
far exceed the number of claims allowed by the Mining Law, the
company would have to revise its original PoO to "fit" it operations within
the constraints of the Law. As noted by the Millsite Opinion, the fact
that the millsite limitation may not comport with modern open pit
mining practices does not excuse the federal government from
complying with the law. "The evolution of the mining industry over the
years has increased the need, with some mining practices, to secure
the use of ancillary acreage to support locatable mining operations. For
some kinds of mining, the five-acre limitation precludes obtaining
that acreage."
Contrary to the likely assertions by the applicant, the fact that the
BLM and Forest Service issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and Final
EIS for the Crown Jewel Mine does not override the agencies' duties to
comply with the law. The decision whether to approve the plan of
operations in this case is not beholden to the previous ROD. In
essence, the applicant is arguing that the agencies are legally bound
to approve an illegal plan of operations. Obviously, that cannot be the
case.
The applicant is not entitled to a plan of operations simply because a
ROD was issued. The applicant appears to believe that the choice of
an alternative in the ROD is akin to approval of the Mine. It is not.
Whether to approve a plan of operations depends on a number of
requirements, including the requirement that the plan covers valid
claims. Issuance of the ROD does not override this mandate.
It is undisputed that the applicant has spent significant financial
resources in support of the Crown Jewel Mine. It is also true that the
public, as well as the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
have spent considerable (albeit less) resources in opposition to the
Mine. However, this is irrelevant to the agencies' decision making
process. The federal government's duty to uphold the law is not
dependent on the amount of money a project applicant, or any other
person, has spent in pursuit of its activities.Conclusion
The issue of approving mining projects without valid mining claims is
of critical importance to citizens across the West. The major decision
facing the BLM and Forest Service at Crown Jewel is whether to
approve the proposed Plan of Operations under the erroneous
assumption that all mining and millsite claims are valid, or to undertake
a revised review pursuant to a different regulatory regime than the one
under which the ROD and FEIS were issued.
A decision to deny the proposed plan of operations does not mean that
the applicant is precluded from developing the ore body. Rather, under
the proper regulatory regime, the revised plan could decrease the
proposed use of public lands or the applicant has the option of seeking
a land exchange for the disputed acreage. The decision whether to
proceed with such a revised plan would be up to the applicant.
In our view, compliance with federal law necessitates a substantial
revision of the proposed Mine plan. In this case, since it is clear
that the Crown Jewel Mine would exceed the strict limitations on
millsite claims under the Mining Law, the agencies must inform the
project applicant that the Plan of Operations cannot be approved.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this critical issue to your
attention. We look forward to your response.Sincerely,
[Your group and hundreds more!...]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
