Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
June 15, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 751 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY June 15, 1999 MIKE MENGE SENATE ENERGY & NATURAL
RESOURCES FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT CROWN JEWEL MINE
BODY:
May 24, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO:Members and
Legislative Assistants Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management
FROM:Mike Menge, Professional Staff Member, Majority RE:June 15, 1999 oversight
hearing on issues related to vacating the Record of Decision and denial of a
Plan of Operations for the Crown Jewel Mine in Okanagan County, Washington On
Tuesday June 15, 1999 at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold an
oversight hearing to receive testimony on issues related to vacating the Record
of Decision and denial of a Plan of Operations for the Crown Jewel Mine in
Okanagan County, Washington. You will be alerted via e-mail as testimony becomes
available. BACKGROUND On March 29,1999 Battle Mountain gold company was notified
by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture that the Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Crown Jewel Mine in Okanagan County, Washington had been vacated, and
that the Plan of Operations (POO)for the property could not be approved as
submitted. Denial of the POO and vacating the ROD was based on a November 1997
opinion by the Solicitor of the Interior Department regarding the ratio of
millsites requested in support of the mining operation vs the
number of claims proposing to be developed. The opinion interpreted a section of
the Mining Law of 1872 to restrict 5- acre mill site claims to one for every
lode claim developed. This ruling was counter to what has been the practice of
the Department of the Interior since the passage of the general Mining Law for
granting as many 5 acre millsites as are necessary for the safe
and practical operation of a mine (without regard to the lode claims to mill
sites ratio). Based on the Solicitor's new interpretation of the mining law, the
government can only grant one millsite for each lode claim
being developed. As might be expected, the Solicitor's interpretation and
subsequent denial of the Plan of Operation elicited a strong negative response
from the mining industry. What follows is a list of points they believe run
counter the Solicitor's opinion. First, the Mining Law of 1872 contains no
express statement, implication, or hint of a ratio or numerical limitation on
the number of millsites which may be granted in support of a
mining operation. Second, they believe that there is near universal recognition
that the intent of Congress in enacting the General Mining Law of 1872 was to
encourage mining on federal lands. Any arbitrary limit on the number of
millsites per associated lode claim makes no practical sense
and would render many lode claims unminable. This would be directly counter to
the intent of congress in its passage of the general Mining Law. Third, over the
past 137 years, an enormous body of case law has developed interpreting the 1872
Act. Legal experts within the mining industry contend that there is no case in
which a party has argued that there is a restriction on the number of
millsites allowed per mining claim. Fourth, they point out that
over history, the courts have given great deference to federal agencies in the
interpretation of statutes they are charged with enforcing. Based on their
review, they know of no action taken by the federal government to limit the
number of millsites in any mining project based on a one-to-one
millsite/lode ratio. While the Solicitor's ruling was neither
company nor project specific, the immediate effects on the Crown Jewel Mining
project were impressive. The mine's final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and ROD were issued in January 1997 following five years of exceedingly thorough
study and well in advance of the Solicitor's opinion. The ROD stated that the
alternative selected by the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Services is
consistent with all laws, regulations, and policies, and would be implemented
through the approval of the Plan of Operations. This contention was underscored
by the fact that the EIS and ROD were upheld by the Regional Forester and, on
summary judgement by the United States District Court. At the time the
government vacated the ROD and disapproved the Plan of Operations, Battle
Mountain had already received over 50 state and local permits and had invested
more than $80 million in the Crown Jewel project. If left unchecked, the
solicitor's opinion could have widespread and devastating effects on the ability
of the domestic mining industry to continue operations on federal lands.
LOAD-DATE: June 16, 1999