And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Subject: Fw: Okanogan Highlands Sign-on Letter against cyanide
heap-leach mine
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 99 19:40:13 PST
From: "KOLA International Campaign Office" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <clipped>
References: 1 , 2
Please reply to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_not_ to KOLA
----------
Date: Monday 22 March 1999 09:15:22
From: Wild Rockies InfoNet
To: Wild Rockies Alerts
Subject: Okanogan Highlands Sign-on Letter against cyanide heap-leach
mine
March 18, 1999
Folks,
The Okanogan Highlands Alliance and other groups need your help to stop
a
large scale open-pit cyanide leach mine proposed for north central
Washington.
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 declare Battle 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 Featherstone
GREEN Director
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT TO DO
To 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, March 23.
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 at
509-485-3361 or
[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 be
upheld.
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 Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mr. Michael Dombeck
Chief, U.S. Forest Service
201 14th Street at Independence Ave., SW
Washington, 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 proposed in 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 federal law.
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/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
