Tuesday, January 28, 2002

To the Friends of the Panamints

 Status Update

1) BLM Has Approved the Briggs Exploration

2) California’s ‘Backfill’ Requirements

1) Briggs Exploration Approved

As expected BLM Ridgecrest issued a FONSI approving the Briggs exploration north of the current open-pit cyanide heap-leach operation. FONSI is the jargon used to avoid saying Finding Of No Significant Impact. It means that BLM concluded that the impact of Briggs’ proposed new exploration is insignificant. Of course, this is no surprise.

The decision became official in late December. Last week I drove out to Panamint Valley with Christie Whiteside from Great Basin Mine Watch. We drove up onto the bench where Briggs will explore, using the roads they scraped in ten years ago for the few holes they drilled then. There is no sign of new exploration activity. Briggs must post a bond before they can begin, and indications are that this has not happened.

Great Basin Mine Watch is a Reno-based organization concerned with ensuring responsible mining in the Great Basin. Most of their work is in Nevada, because Nevada has a huge amount of gold mining. They became interested in the Briggs situation because it is their area of interest, it’s adjacent to Death Valley National Park, and it’s in the virgin and pristine (except for the existing Briggs operation) Panamint Mountain range.

With help from another organization, the Western Mining Action Project, we have submitted an appeal to the IBLA. That’s the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the Interior Department’s internal appeals board. IBLA appeals commonly take a long time, up to several years, to resolve. So we also requested the IBLA ‘stay’ BLM’s approval while the appeal is pending. If the stay is granted Briggs can’t explore unless the appeal is decided in its favor. The basis of the stay is, of course, that should the exploration happen the damage to the environment is irreversible, but should the exploration be delayed the economic benefit is only delayed, not destroyed.

 

Meantime —— The current mine several miles south of the exploration area is growing. At night its lights are visible from the north end of the valley, when driving south from Highway 190. Daytime, driving south on the Trona-Wildrose road, you can see the scar on the mountain long before getting to the Ballarat turnoff. The valley fills with haze from the mine on still days. It appears they are working the Gold Tooth deposit immediately south of the original pit. From the fence we could see the gigantic mining trucks, dwarfed by the piles of waste rock and the cyanide leach pad, crawling out of what looked like a pit, up to the top of the waste rock pile. The top of the leach pile is wet from being sprinkled with cyanide solution.

 

 

2) Backfill Regulations – the State Mining and Geology Board

The SMBG is proceeding with their intent to make open pit mines fill in their pits after mining. California has the Surface Mining And Reclamation Act, commonly called SMARA, which requires mined lands be reclaimed—left so they can be used for something else . Open pits are almost always considered unusable.

The catalyst for backfill at this time is the Glamis Mine proposal in Imperial County, which has received considerable public awareness because of its size and its impact on sacred Indian lands. If allowed, the pit alone would cover almost 300 acres, and be 800 feet deep. Everything from the pit would be left in large adjacent piles. The large unfilled pits and the piles are useless forever, can be hazardous, and can cause environmental damage even beyond the pit area. As of now, the Mining and Geology Board has temporary regulations requiring backfill for new mines. They are in the process of making these permanent.

Although backfilling seems undeniably reasonable, miners see an excessive cost burden. Backfill requirements don’t prohibit open-pit mining. But they do shift the equation by increasing the cost of mining, demanding a higher gold price for profitable mining. Looked at that way, backfill is a reflection of the value society puts on environmental quality vs. the recognized value of mineral extraction – a reflection of how much environmental degradation should be allowed for mining to operate. Historically, this value has changed from early mining, with absolutely no regulation and huge environmental costs, to now, with substantial regulation and much reduced environmental cost.

A proper question might be: What took so long?

 

The mining board will accept comments from the public. Please email or call me if you would like to do this. As the situation clarifies, I may send out another email suggesting comment letters be written.

 

 

Websites of interest:

BLM Ridgecrest:	http://www.ca.blm.gov/ridgecrest/	Environmental Assessments, press releases, the FONSI decision.
Canyon Resources:	http://www.canyonresources.com/	Canyon Resources Corp. owns CR Briggs, the operator of the current mine. CR Briggs is technically the company proposing this exploration. The ‘Gold Mines and Projects’ page, and the ‘Exploration’ page describe their Panamint interests.
Bob Ellis’ website:	http://www.desertwilderness.net/BriggsMine.htm	Lots of interesting related pictures, and past notices.
State Mining and Geology Board	http://www.consrv.ca.gov/SMGB/	The December 12 meeting results, and the proposed backfill regulations are here.
Great Basin Mine Watch:	http://www.greatbasinminewatch.org/

 

Tom Budlong, TomBudlong@Adelphia.net (Email comments, and to be added or removed from the list.)