EUREKA COUNTY COMMISSION
STATEMENT ON MT. HOPE PROJECT
RECORD OF DECISION
On November 16, 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Mt. Hope Project which provides Eureka Moly, LLC (EML) with BLM required permits to develop the proposed molybdenum mine 22 miles north of the Town of Eureka.
This Eureka County Board of Commissioners has been consistent in supporting the Mt. Hope Project if done right. We have tried to ensure that the Mt. Hope Project is consistent with the formally adopted policies and plans of the County by not endangering the County’s mandate to protect resources and community custom and culture or placing any individual citizen’s health, rights, or livelihood in jeopardy. We have actively participated as a cooperating agency in the BLM permitting process to try to adequately identify and proactively address the many adverse impacts that will occur for more than four decades of mining and ground water pumping and will persist for decades after mining ceases. Many outstanding issues still remain which we have strived to resolve with BLM and EML over the past 6 years. Ultimately, these issues must be addressed. We are disheartened with the choice by BLM and EML to delay addressing these issues by saddling future decision makers and Eureka County citizens with this responsibility. Our issues and concerns are specifically outlined in multiple rounds of comment provided by the County on two Administrative Draft EISs, the public Draft EIS, the Preliminary Final EIS, and the Final EIS (all comment letters available upon request).
The ROD intends to ensure that EML extracts the minerals and uses water in a responsible manner while minimizing effects to all resources. The ROD contains requirements, assurances, and processes which will be tested months and years from now when impacts arise. As water levels and stream and spring flows decline, the ROD relies on the promise of still-contingent measures that BLM and EML may internally develop, depending on the circumstances, without public participation, far into the future. Provisions spelled out in the ROD do not adequately protect natural resources and private property rights in the area.
We believe, and BLM and EML have acknowledged, that Eureka County’s participation as a cooperating agency has resulted in stronger and more defensible analyses and better monitoring, management and mitigation requirements found in the ROD than would have been developed if we had not been a participant in the process.
During the six years of our involvement as a cooperating agency, we advocated design of a project that would protect private property rights and balance all the needs of the County’s resources—socially, environmentally, and economically. We also strongly advocated transparency, public involvement, and adequate resource monitoring, management and mitigation with involvement from stakeholders including Eureka County. The ROD promises that the County will have a minor role in the monitoring of water related impacts only through a yet-to-be-established advisory committee empowered merely to “meet on a periodic basis and make recommendations.” We continue to be concerned that the ROD allows loopholes for the most severe impacts to be attributed to other causes or be “mitigated” through financial compensation to federal and state agencies allowing for off-site mitigation, far removed from where the impact occurs, rather than through effective on-the-ground management. One of our primary fears is that the ROD only calls for mitigation of impacts to surface waters that are considered “perennial.” This continues to be an issue because there are literally dozens of surface waters predicted to be impacted, according to the mine’s own studies, many of which do not meet the strict definition of being perennial but may still be connected to the ground water system that will supply the mine. These surface waters all have associated vested water rights. The ROD allows for EML to adversely impact these important rights and resources.
Also, conspicuously missing from the ROD is discussion about inconsistencies with County plans, policies, and controls. We spent tremendous effort pointing out specific inconsistencies to BLM while highlighting their obligation to include discussion of such in the ROD. Specifically, it is required that “In the Record of Decision, the decisionmaker [BLM] must explain what the decision was, how it was made, and what mitigation measures are being imposed to lessen adverse environmental impacts of the proposal, among the other requirements . . . This provision would require the decisionmaker [BLM] to explain any decision to override land use plans, policies or controls for the area” (emphasis added). (Source: Council on Environmental Quality, FAQ 23c). Omission of this information in the ROD underscores our belief that BLM has not properly coordinated with Eureka County on this project by defining a project that minimizes these inconsistencies to the maximum extent possible.
While we remain concerned about the latitude granted to the Mt. Hope project under the ROD, this Board remains hopeful that Eureka County citizens and future County leaders will require coordination by regulatory agencies and a constructive relationship with EML as the remaining permits are obtained, the financial assurances are provided, construction begins, and the project becomes operational. Housing, public safety, traffic impacts, and baseline resource monitoring are some of the immediate issues that must be addressed by the County as this large project begins to take shape in 2013.
Link to Record of Decision: HYPERLINK “http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/mount_hope_project.Par.28223.File.dat/2012%2011%2016_MountHope_ROD_FINAL.pdf” http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/mount_hope_project.Par.28223.File.dat/2012%2011%2016_MountHope_ROD_FINAL.pdf