2018-08-20_REVISION - C1980007

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 8/20/2018
• From: DRMS
• To: Wild Earth Guardians
• Type & Sequence: PR15
• Email Name: LDS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

CENTER for
BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY
�WMDEnRTx
GuARDIANs
A FORCE FOR NATURE
;,��,SIERRA
�i�% CLUB
F_"Lty C017,
� \ o
2
Despite this clear mandate, Conservation Groups were denied access to private lands that
are part of the mine plan and necessary for gathering relevant information. Based on review of
the mine plan maps, these lands have existing roads that could be better utilized to avoid, reduce,
and minimize impacts to private and/or public lands. Conservation Groups maintain the position
that using existing roads on these private lands may reduce surface impacts on private and/or
public lands. Because Conservation Groups were denied our right to access to these private lands
during the site -tour, we were deprived of necessary on -the -ground information about the
condition of these existing roads and the feasibility of using them to decrease impacts on private
and/or public lands.
Access to these lands is important as certain features under the contour line interval will
not show up on a topographic map. The map that was provided to the Division and Conservation
Groups in late July has 20 -foot contour lines.' Accordingly, any feature under 20 -feet will not
show up on the map, even if it is a cliff face. Thus, being denied access to these private lands not
only deprived Conservation Groups of our ability to collect information about the condition and
state of existing roads but also about whether and how those roads could be used to reduce
surface impacts on private and/or public lands and thereby comply with the Division's
requirement to "minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operations on fish, wildlife,
and related environmental values." MLRB Rule 4.18(1).
The Division's regulations require the minimization of disturbances and adverse impacts.
This means that the Division may not merely take a proposal at face value or blindly defer to
aspects of a proposed mine plan (such as claiming that they are "business decisions"). The
Division is required to ensure that all aspects of its regulations are complied with, including
ensuring access to private lands as discussed herein and that the proposed mine plan will
minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on wildlife and other resources values. See e.g.
MLRB Rule 4.18(1); MLRB Rule 4.03.1(1)(b), MLRB Rule 4.03.2(1)(b), MLRB Rule
4.03.3(1)(b) (requiring that roads "shall not cause damage to fish, wildlife, and related
environmental values"); MLRB Rule 4.04 ("Support facilities required for, or used incident to
surface or underground mining activities ... shall be designed, constructed or reconstructed, and
maintained, and the area restored to: Prevent ... Damage to fish, wildlife, and related
environmental values ... Prevent damage to public or private property.").
The Division's failure to ensure that Conservation Groups would have access to these
private lands that "are necessary for the gathering of information relevant to the conference,"
requires that the Division ensure the groups are given such access and are provided with another
opportunity for an informal conference following a regulation compliant site visit. MLRB Rule
2.07.3(6)(b)(iii).
II. The Division's Completeness Finding Was Premature.
' The original map that was provided to the Division, and consequently the public did not provide contour
line intervals.
2