Open Letter to Washington State Representatives and Senators, Washington Media: DISTURBING MINING NEWS! KINROSS GOLD, BUCKHORN MINE CHESAW, WASHINGTON DISCLAIMER: Although I am a small scale mineral prospector and miner, I have no contractural or economic relationship with Kinross Gold, Buckhorn Mountain Mine. I am a concerned citizen. The following article appeared in the News Tribune, Local and Northwest section, May 30, 2014: CHESAW KINROSS ENDS EXPLORATION PROCESS. "after SPENDING $10 MILLION SEEKING PERMISSION TO EXPLORE FOR GOLD NEAR Chesaw, Kinross Gold says it is dropping the effort. The company says its proposal to drill more than 950 holes in search of more gold is being abandoned due to the cumbersome permit process. The Wenatchee World reports that Kinross has been working with the state and federal agencies to develop an environmental impact statement for gold exploration on about 9,200 acres. The company's existing Buckhorn Mine is scheduled to shut down in mid-2015 as it runs out of gold." The land to be tested is under the control of the Federal Agency, USFS. Having recently been able to read parts of a recently acquired FOIA received by Resources Coalition, Bill Thomas, President, it is plain to see that Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (to a small degree) played a role in the Company's decision as well as an overzealous environmental NGO, Okanogan Highlands Alliance, Dave Kliegman, President. What the newspaper article failed to state was that the permitting process began in 2009. The U.S. Forest Service has a fiduciary duty to follow the federal mining laws in their National Forests. The Multiple Use Act states: "Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources there of (EXCEPT MINERAL DEPOSITS SUBJECT TO LOCATION UNDER THE MINING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.) Any such mining claim shall also be subject prior to issuance of patent therefor,to the right of the United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT 'ANY USE OF THE SURFACE OF ANY SUCH MINING CLAIM BY THE UNITED STATES, ITS PERMITTEES OR LICENSEES, SHALL BE SUCH AS TO NOT TO ENDANGER OR MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH PROSPECTING, MINING OR PROCESSING OPERATIONS OR USES REASONABLY INCIDENT THERETO...' " 30 U.S.C. 612(b) (emphasis added). FLPMA in 1976 reiterated what is controlling in the Multiple Use Act and neither Act does not amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locator. Further: Congress has declared "the continuing policy of the Federal Government (NOTE: NOT THE STATE), IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO FOSTER AND ENCOURAGE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN...THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMICALLY SOUND AND STABLE DOMESTIC MINING, MINERALS, METAL AND MINERAL RECLAMATION INDUSTRIES". 30 U.S.C. 21a(1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has confirmed the "all-pervading purpose of the mining laws is to further the speedy and orderly development of the mineral resources of our country," United States v Nogueira, 403 F F.2d 816, 823 (9th Cir.1968). One of the most disturbing items found in the above mentioned FOIA is that there is a copy of a MOU (Memorandum of Agreement) between WDFW and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service NW Region signed and approved by the Forrest Service. This MOU is for only jobs being performed by the USFS and not by the mining community. I have no proof that this MOU did have any positive or negative influence in Kinross's decision to halt application for exploration drilling. That said, here is just another example in the state meddling in the affairs of the U. S. The date of this MOU is May 16, 2012, or, to put it another way, overreaching their authority over the affairs of the USFS thus costing the State of Washington lots of unnecessary spending. On March 14, 2014, Governor Jay Inslee wrote to Peter Goldmark, Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources; Maia Bellon, Director of DOE; Jesus Sanchez, Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance; Phil Anderson, Director of WDFW; and Brian Banlender, Director of Department of Commerce directing the following: "I am directing all respective agencies and staff to continue moving collaboratively and expeditiously on the EB environmental impact statement (EIS) and to find efficiencies in our regulatory process to keep the process moving. " "it is important that the permitting process be efficient, timely and predictable....by identifying the right people, the right resources, and the right information to this endeavor, we can move forward a project of critical importance to our state's economy and to the families and communities of Okanagan and Ferry Counties." It has also come to my attention that one of the US Senators from Washington State requested that the process be on a fast track. Because of so much state agency involvement, I believe that the time and cost spent by Kinross in the mere action of attaining for permission to drill on FEDERAL LAND led them to the conclusion to abandon the effort. Also, because they were unable to predict when they would be able to operate the drilling program, they had to cancel the project. They would have had to wait until sometime in 2016 for a decision despite the fact that they had put in a plan of operations in 2009. Should there be any question about the amount of historic mining that took place in the State of Washington, I refer you to the 5 volumes DISCOVERING WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC MINES, Oso Publishing, Authors Woodhouse, Jacobson, Petersen, Cady and Pisoni. Volume #5 is the most recent. Volume #1 is dated 1997. It is astounding the amount of mining that took place in this state and now being controlled to the extent of extinguishment. CONCLUSION There are too many agencies interfering with the permitting process for mining endeavors. It is continually the case that there are too many delays and costs ($10 million in this case) that need to be avoided. Big and small business alike need reassurance and timeliness, reasonable problem solving, reasonable fees and above all else, predictable outcomes and conditions. What ever happened to ONE STOP SHOPPING for a permit. My final thought is that mining needs to regain its importance to humanity. I don't need to indicate to you the financial loss to the communities, the job losses, fewer dollars for county operations, etc. but you must step back and realize how important gold is to NASA, National Security, National Defense, Microsoft and Boeing and thousands of similarly situated businesses and manufacturers, and more importantly the addition to the country's overall wealth. I do believe that the State of Washington would benefit from an un-biased, independent study or investigation as to what went wrong with this action between the State of Washington, USFS and Kinross Gold. A few years ago the reputation of Washington's friendliness towards mining was at the bottom of the list along with California in the entire world. (Frazer Institute). Mining and prospecting can be done in an environmentally safe manner but the overreaching by federal and state agencies needs to be decreased. Bruce M. Beatty 4602 Alameda Ave. West University Place, Wa 98466
June 4, 2014