A unit of
Glamis has been trying to permit the proposed gold mine for more than five years as a replacement for its depleted Picacho mine, some 8 miles distant. Although the project would bring millions to a regionally depressed economy, and local support is strong, the permitting effort has been rocky, owing to an unprecedented series of federal roadblocks, as well as cultural concerns expressed by the Quechan tribe.
The lawsuit arises from a 1999 legal opinion issued by John Leshy, chief solicitor for the Department of Interior, which concluded that BLM has the “discretionary authority” to deny the Imperial project because of alleged impacts on the historic, cultural or religious values of the Quechan Indians.
Although the Imperial project is not on tribal lands, the solicitor concluded that because it lies in a much larger traditional and cultural area (covering much of southern California, western Arizona and southern Nevada), a mine would introduce activities and intrusions “incompatible with the historic area.”
Babbitt supported and signed the opinion, which, given his longstanding anti-mining stance, did not come as a surprise. His actions effectively gave BLM the power to veto any project on cultural or religious interests. The opinion also gives native tribes a legal tool to block projects many miles distant from their tribal lands.
The California Mining Association (CMA) believes the opinion could affect other projects in the state and, accordingly, plans to make Glamis’s legal challenge the focus of its annual meeting in May.
“We commend Glamis for taking this step,” says Denise Jones, the CMA’s executive director. “The Leshy directive effectively overturns existing regulations and Congressional mandates, threatening not only Glamis and other mining projects but all development in the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA).”
Jones points out that the current permitting structure has served both the BLM and California effectively. Mining companies operating in the state have created management programs to protect endangered species, implemented award-winning native re-vegetation projects, completed economic backfilling and remediated abandoned mines.
“California’s mining industry operates under the strictest environmental laws in the country,” Jones stresses, “and Glamis Gold has a proven track record of successful mining, mitigation and reclamation in California.”
Glamis shows no sign of giving up without a fight. The company points out that the opinion was not authorized by Congress, is contrary to the long-standing practices of the BLM, and “disregards nearly twenty years of extensive land-use planning efforts in the southern California desert,” which restricted the use of large tracts of land. Glamis proceeded with development plans only after its project was made available for development.
In its lawsuit, filed in Reno, Nev., the company is seeking to declare the opinion unlawful and bar the government from applying it to the project.
In the meantime, the company has offered to work with the BLM and the tribe to reach a compromise, including changing the mining plan and backfilling two of the open pits.
“We continue to strive for dialogue with the Quechan people and believe we can successfully address their issues if given the opportunity,” says Glamis President Kevin McArthur.
Glamis has outlined 88 million tons of proven and probable reserves at Imperial averaging 0.017 oz. gold per ton, equivalent to 1.5 million oz. gold. Capital costs are expected to exceed US$50 million, whereas cash operating costs are pegged at US$200 per oz.
The company has been mining in the county for more than two decades. Its reclamation plan at Picacho has been adopted by the state as the standard to be applied to the closure of similar mines in the desert. It won the CMA’s Excellence in Reclamation Award in 1997, earning a commendation from the state assembly in 1998.
Be the first to comment on "Glamis sues BLM, Babbit over Imperial project ruling"