To the Friends of the Panamints

Letters to the BLM are needed. Please send one.

Briggs Mine Exploration of New Areas

July 2, 2002

The Environmental Assessment (called the EA) describing the Briggs Mine’s proposed exploration of new areas in the Panamints was released by the BLM in Ridgecrest last week. Briggs wants to extend the current open-pit heap-leach mine that is now creating a big hole and tailings pile in the southern Panamints.

BLM may have sent you a notice that the EA is available. They did not send the EA itself – you would have to ask for it. I’ve attached to this email a scan of the notice, and the EA. (The EA is in Word 2000 format. Email me if you would like it in PDF or some other format.)

The BLM has given less than a month to comment (July 23 deadline). It’s important that you send your comments to the BLM. This is scary stuff, and the more they hear the more they must pay attention.

The salient facts are:

·   Briggs has already torn a big hole in the southern Panamints. The scar is huge, and is geologically permanent.

·   Briggs has announced their intention to continue the destruction:

“Canyon plans to systematically explore the entire claim block with the objective of the development of several mines on the "Panamint Range Property.”

This is a direct quote taken from http://www.canyonresources.com/projects/explore.html. “Canyon” refers to Canyon Resources, Inc., the owner of the Briggs mine. The claim block is “14,000 acres of mining claims in the Panamint Range of southeastern California adjacent to the operating Briggs gold mine” that they hold. It extends north of Ballarat.

·   The EA describes an exploration project. This activity is preliminary to mining, needed to verify existence of ore, and more precisely locate it if it exists.

·   As an exploration activity only, it is presented as benign, and indeed certainly is not anywhere near as destructive as the open pit mine it could well become. This gives Briggs and the BLM cause to say that the impact of this exploration is minimal.

·   The area they intend to explore is centered on the South Park Canyon road. It’s 3000 acres, approximately 2 miles wide by 3 miles high. The eastern boundary intersects the South Park Canyon road almost exactly where the road enters the canyon. (This is several miles in from the Goler Wash Road , after the road has dropped down in to get to the canyon bottom.)

 

Problems with the Environmental Assessment (EA):

·   Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

An EA is inadequate. An EIS, properly done, is needed before considering approval of any more mining activity.

An EIS is a much more detailed analysis. Done right, it reveals what can happen. The EA is a quick way out, allowing Briggs to quickly get on with the job. Briggs is concerned with gold extraction, not with the destruction that extraction would cause. But the public owners of the land are concerned about potential destruction, and require the information an EIS would reveal.

Section 1.4 of the EA states that the BLM has a lot of knowledge about Panamint mining. This knowledge should be applied to an EIS, not kept where it access is impractical.

·   Cumulative Impact

The EA does not address ‘cumulative impact’. In fact, it argues (Section 4) that analysis of cumulative impact is inappropriate at this time. Cumulative impact is the concept that a large impact can’t be broken up and analyzed in small pieces, each of which has insignificant impact. This exploration is in anticipation of a mine, and the cumulative impact includes the mine. Analyzing cumulative impact in fact is appropriate at this time.

The EA discards cumulative impact analysis because “it is not possible to predict even the most rudimentary elements.” But, it is possible to analyze possible scenarios. A decision of this importance requires analysis of potential impacts under potential scenarios in order to judge the impacts that could possibly occur.

·   100 Acres Of Disturbance

The EA says the disturbance caused by the exploration will be less than 100 acres. A hundred acres may not sound like much. But the EA does not describe how the 100 acres is figured. Here’s some arithmetic: An acre is 43,560 ft², so 100 acres is 4,356,000 ft². If their exploration roads are 20 feet wide, 100 acres is 4,356,000/20 = 217,800 feet of road, which is a little over 41 miles of road. Thus, Briggs could bulldoze 41 miles of 20-foot road in that 2x3-mile area without violating the EA. Obviously this would be unacceptable.

·   Slate Range Crossing

The part of the Panamints that Briggs wants is first viewed going north from Trona, just after going over the Slate Range Crossing. The current Briggs mine is too far south to be very noticeable. If Briggs intention becomes reality this first view of the Panamints will be of the destruction caused by the mine. This is another reason an EIS is needed, since it would be thorough enough to analyze this impact.

·   The Timbisha Shoshone

The EA recognizes the Timbisha’s strong relation to the Panamints. And, it recognizes the insult to the Timbisha caused by the current mining and by proposed future mining activities (Sections 3.9 and 4.9). In spite of this, however, the EA proposes no mitigation or solution.

 

Write a Letter

Address is to:

Hector Villalobos, Field Manager

BLM Ridgecrest

300 South Richmond Road

Ridgecrest , CA   93555

 

When you write, make it you own letter. Points to consider:

·   “Cookie cutter” letters, all saying the same thing in the same way, have less impact and can be discounted. Use the points in this email as a guide, but make it your own letter.

·   Be sincere and respectful. Words such as “When will you guys get your act together” are ineffective and insulting.

·   If you have explored the Panamints and been enchanted by them, say so. Include your experiences. This is important, since that kind of quality experience will be highly impacted by extending the mine.

·   If you have ever used the South Park Canyon road, say so. Since this exploration area centers on South Park Canyon , it can’t help but be impacted.

 

Personal Comment

I am offended by tearing apart the Panamints for gold. If you consider the short and long range benefits and cost, there is no question. Consider:

·   Short term benefits:

§         A small number of jobs. Most of these people would have jobs elsewhere if there were no Briggs Mine.

§         Economic activity for Ridgecrest .

§         About $500,000 annual salary for the people running Canyon Resources.

§         Some royalty revenue for Inyo County .

§         Contribution to the world gold supply of about 0.1% of the world’s production.

A few years after Briggs is done, any short term benefits will be forgotten and no longer relevant.

·   Long Term Benefits.

§         There are none. This is not like making a permanent structure – a building, a bridge, a road – that would benefit people over the long term. When the gold is exhausted all benefits cease.

·   Long Term Cost

§         Permanent destruction of this part of the Panamint slopes. Concentrate on the word ‘permanent’. The impact will be repaired only by geologic time – millions of years. Your descendents, as far as you can see into the future, will have the destruction. A hundred years from now history books will explain what happened there. A thousand years from now archeologists will try to explain. Ten thousand years from now who knows how it will be explained. The scar will last longer than our species has been in existence. Tearing up the Panamints for the few immediate benefits is arrogance almost as large as the mine pit itself. It doesn’t balance.

Drawing of the Proposed Exploration Area