Skip banner
HomeHow Do I?Site MapHelp
Return To Search FormFOCUS
Search Terms: millsite, House or Senate or Joint

Document ListExpanded ListKWICFULL format currently displayed

Previous Document Document 16 of 23. Next Document

More Like This
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




Previous Document Document 16 of 23. Next Document


FOCUS

Search Terms: millsite, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase:
   
About LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe Terms and Conditions Top of Page
Copyright © 2001, LEXIS-NEXIS®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.