FRIENDS OF PANAMINTS ALERT LETTER 12

Friday, December 20, 2002

To the Friends of the Panamints

Status Update

1) Briggs Exploration Approval Expected

2) State Mining and Geology Board Requires Backfill

1) Briggs Exploration Approval Expected

BLM Ridgecrest is about to approve the Briggs mine’s request to explore new territory north of the present open-pit cyanide heap-leach mine in Panamint Valley. To do this, BLM has concluded:

a) they have no obligation to consider the visual destruction of the area

b) they cannot consider this exploration in conjunction with the impact of the current mine or future Briggs operations in the area.

Recall that the Briggs Mine in Panamint Valley wants to expand several miles north of their present operation. The BLM Ridgecrest office issued an Environmental Assessment, and then a revision to the EA, describing the exploration that would lead to a mine. They asked for comments on the content of the EA and the revision. The comments they received indicated a lot of interest and concern about the damage caused by such mining.

It was quite clear from BLM’s answers to the comments, and the way the EA documents were written, that the EA was being treated as part of the process for permitting the exploration, rather than a tool to determine if the exploration would cause ‘significant impact’.

On December 13 Hector Villalobos, the BLM Ridgecrest Field Manager (runs the office) stated he was preparing a FONSI. ‘FONSI’ means ‘Finding Of No Significant Impact’. It’s the conclusion the Field Manager must make after evaluating the exploration EA in order to permit the exploration. The alternative is an Environmental Impact Statement – the miners do not want this since it’s expensive, time consuming, and would reveal the magnitude of destruction caused by the exploration.

The statement that he was preparing a FONSI was made during a District Advisory Council field trip to nearby Surprise Canyon. About 50 others attended. After walking the canyon the group went to Briggs’ proposed exploration site, several miles south, where Hector told of his plans to issue the FONSI. The logic of the conclusions mentioned above went like this, as told by other BLM personnel there (I’ve asked Hector for confirmation, since the explanation was given outdoors verbally, with lots airplane noise):

a) Visual Impact: The California Desert Conservation Area Plan mentions nothing about visual impact. Therefore, BLM is not obligated to consider visual impact. This is surprising since both the EA and the revised EA talked about (and attempted to minimize) visual impact. If BLM cannot consider visual impact, why did it consider visual impact (and ask for comment) in the EAs?

b) Cumulative Impact: (You can’t approve many small insignificant projects which would add to a large significant project).
BLM can’t consider cumulative impact. Through some involved logic I don’t yet understand, BLM would be liable for ‘takings’ if cumulative impact were considered. ‘Takings’ are economic damage done by after-the-fact regulations. Another surprise. If the BLM can’t consider cumulative impact, why did it consider it in the revised EA?

These conclusions contradict NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. Appropriate sections of NEPA have the following wording: “… trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.”; “attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment…”; …assure…esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings”. Then the regulations implementing NEPA talk about: “Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to … park lands…”; “Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.”

BLM’s contrived contradictions do make it appear the BLM is squarely in favor of permitting the exploration, in violation of their position as “… trustee of the environment for succeeding generations” (NEPA Title 1, Section 101, Paragraph (b) (1).)

2) State Mining and Geology Board Requires Backfill

A little over a month ago the California State Mining and Geology board proposed regulations to require backfill of open pit mines—mines must fill in their pits after the ore is extracted. Expensive, so the miners don’t like it. It appears the action is specifically to stop the very controversial Imperial County Glamis mine.

On December 12 they met in Sacramento and voted to implement these regulations on a 120 day emergency basis. On the surface this would, if made permanent, kill any new Briggs mine in the Panamints at the current gold price. But the board also indicated it would exempt the Briggs operation. It’s unclear at this time why the exclusion.

The December 12 meeting was open to the public. In attendance were the environmentally concerned, who understand the long-term damage. Mining interests, who understand the short-term profit potential were also there. Among the miners was Dick DeVoto, CEO of Canyon Resources Corp (runs the Briggs Mine), who didn’t like the backfill idea so much that he stated all operations at the Briggs mine would cease if the regulations stopped his new mine: “I write the checks, I make the decisions. We would stop operations.”

Stay tuned.

Websites of interest:

BLM Ridgecrest: http://www.ca.blm.gov/ridgecrest/

Canyon Resources: http://www.canyonresources.com/

Canyon Resources Corp. owns CR Briggs, the operator of the current mine and the company proposing this exploration.

Bob Ellis’ website: http://home.earthlink.net/~bobellisds/BriggsMine/PanamintValleyMainPage.htm

Lots of interesting related pictures, and past notices.

State Mining and Geology Board website:

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/SMGB/

The December 12 meeting results are here.

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

FRIENDS OF THE PANAMINTS ALERT LETTER 12/20/02
The following Email was sent to all on the Friends of the Panamints Alert List. Let Tom Budlong know if you want to get on the List back to main page
Friday, December 20, 2002 To the Friends of the Panamints Status Update 1) Briggs Exploration Approval Expected 2) State Mining and Geology Board Requires Backfill 1) Briggs Exploration Approval Expected BLM Ridgecrest is about to approve the Briggs mine’s request to explore new territory north of the present open-pit cyanide heap-leach mine in Panamint Valley. To do this, BLM has concluded: a) they have no obligation to consider the visual destruction of the area b) they cannot consider this exploration in conjunction with the impact of the current mine or future Briggs operations in the area. Recall that the Briggs Mine in Panamint Valley wants to expand several miles north of their present operation. The BLM Ridgecrest office issued an Environmental Assessment, and then a revision to the EA, describing the exploration that would lead to a mine. They asked for comments on the content of the EA and the revision. The comments they received indicated a lot of interest and concern about the damage caused by such mining. It was quite clear from BLM’s answers to the comments, and the way the EA documents were written, that the EA was being treated as part of the process for permitting the exploration, rather than a tool to determine if the exploration would cause ‘significant impact’. On December 13 Hector Villalobos, the BLM Ridgecrest Field Manager (runs the office) stated he was preparing a FONSI. ‘FONSI’ means ‘Finding Of No Significant Impact’. It’s the conclusion the Field Manager must make after evaluating the exploration EA in order to permit the exploration. The alternative is an Environmental Impact Statement – the miners do not want this since it’s expensive, time consuming, and would reveal the magnitude of destruction caused by the exploration. The statement that he was preparing a FONSI was made during a District Advisory Council field trip to nearby Surprise Canyon. About 50 others attended. After walking the canyon the group went to Briggs’ proposed exploration site, several miles south, where Hector told of his plans to issue the FONSI. The logic of the conclusions mentioned above went like this, as told by other BLM personnel there (I’ve asked Hector for confirmation, since the explanation was given outdoors verbally, with lots airplane noise): a) Visual Impact: The California Desert Conservation Area Plan mentions nothing about visual impact. Therefore, BLM is not obligated to consider visual impact. This is surprising since both the EA and the revised EA talked about (and attempted to minimize) visual impact. If BLM cannot consider visual impact, why did it consider visual impact (and ask for comment) in the EAs? b) Cumulative Impact: (You can’t approve many small insignificant projects which would add to a large significant project). BLM can’t consider cumulative impact. Through some involved logic I don’t yet understand, BLM would be liable for ‘takings’ if cumulative impact were considered. ‘Takings’ are economic damage done by after-the-fact regulations. Another surprise. If the BLM can’t consider cumulative impact, why did it consider it in the revised EA? These conclusions contradict NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. Appropriate sections of NEPA have the following wording: “… trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.”; “attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment…”; …assure…esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings”. Then the regulations implementing NEPA talk about: “Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to … park lands…”; “Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.” BLM’s contrived contradictions do make it appear the BLM is squarely in favor of permitting the exploration, in violation of their position as “… trustee of the environment for succeeding generations” (NEPA Title 1, Section 101, Paragraph (b) (1).) 2) State Mining and Geology Board Requires Backfill A little over a month ago the California State Mining and Geology board proposed regulations to require backfill of open pit mines—mines must fill in their pits after the ore is extracted. Expensive, so the miners don’t like it. It appears the action is specifically to stop the very controversial Imperial County Glamis mine. On December 12 they met in Sacramento and voted to implement these regulations on a 120 day emergency basis. On the surface this would, if made permanent, kill any new Briggs mine in the Panamints at the current gold price. But the board also indicated it would exempt the Briggs operation. It’s unclear at this time why the exclusion. The December 12 meeting was open to the public. In attendance were the environmentally concerned, who understand the long-term damage. Mining interests, who understand the short-term profit potential were also there. Among the miners was Dick DeVoto, CEO of Canyon Resources Corp (runs the Briggs Mine), who didn’t like the backfill idea so much that he stated all operations at the Briggs mine would cease if the regulations stopped his new mine: “I write the checks, I make the decisions. We would stop operations.” Stay tuned. Websites of interest: BLM Ridgecrest: http://www.ca.blm.gov/ridgecrest/ Canyon Resources: http://www.canyonresources.com/ Canyon Resources Corp. owns CR Briggs, the operator of the current mine and the company proposing this exploration. Bob Ellis’ website: http://home.earthlink.net/~bobellisds/BriggsMine/PanamintValleyMainPage.htm Lots of interesting related pictures, and past notices. State Mining and Geology Board website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/SMGB/ The December 12 meeting results are here. Tom Budlong, TomBudlong@Adelphia.net (Email comments, and to be added or removed from the list.)