: Mining law changes and Indian Pass mine and

Dear Sacred Earth Activists,

I know you are very busy folks. Perhaps you could find some time to Fax a
letter to Interior Department Secretary Norton regarding Indian Pass mine
and Quechan religious rights. (See information below and attached letter
from Seventh Generation Fund)

Thanks,

Jolie Lonner
Special Project Coordinator
Seventh Generation Fund

The Bush Interior Department is in the process of weakening mining
regulations and reversing some Clinton-era provisions. Before Clinton\'s
regulations, mining on public lands was governed by a weaker
set of regulations approved by the Interior Department in 1980. In March,
President Bush\'s BLM proposed suspending Clinton\'s regulations interpreting
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act passed by Congress in 1976.

Among provisions being removed is one giving the interior secretary
authority
to prohibit new mine sites on federal land where they could cause lasting
harm to communities and the environment.

In addition, the Interior Departments top-ranking attorney, Bill Myers, is
reversing a legal
opinion issued under former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to block Glamis
Gold Ltd. of Reno, Nev., from putting an open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold
mine on
Quechan cultural and religious sites. Rescinding DOI\'s Record of
Decision is probably next, a huge step backwards for the Quechan in
particular and sacred land protection in general.

Babbitt had said the sites sacred to the Quechan Tribe would be irreparably
harmed by opening the mine on 1,571 acres of BLM property about 45 miles
northwest of El Centro, Calif. According to industry officials, 120
well-paying jobs and 1.1 million ounces of gold worth about $300 million
were at stake.

Myers\' new opinion says the legal basis for blocking the mine was flawed and
could enable the mining proposal to be revived, a senior interior official
said.

Please:
Fax a letter to Interior Department Secretary Norton -- as soon as
possible -- stating that it would be an outrage in Indian country for her to
rewrite the Solicitor\'s Opinion on Hardrock Mining as it applies to the
Congessionally-protected California Desert Conservation Area and asking her
to direct the Department of Justice to vigorously defend the well-supported
decisions to deny the proposed Imperial Project mine and approve the
withdrawal of the Indian Pass sacred area from mineral entry and location.

>Gale Norton, Interior Secretary, FAX: 202.208.6950
>Neal McCaleb, Assistant Interior Secretary, Indian Affairs, FAX:
202.208.6334
>William G. Myers III, Interior Solicitor, FAX: 202.208.2225
>J. Steven Griles, Deputy Interior Secretary, FAX: 202.208.1873


Talking Points

The Clinton administration properly denied the proposed Imperial
Project cyanide heap leach gold mine in Indian Pass California near Yuma (on
off-reservation, Class L BLM administrated public lands) and withdrew about
9,000 acres from mineral location and entry to protect the traditional
culture properties and religious ceremonial sites of the Quechan Indian
Tribe
(and other Colorado Indian Tribes) from certain destruction. Glamis Gold
then
>sued Interior and BLM in March 2001 seeking to overturn the denial of its
>mine, revoke the withdrawal, challenge the Government\'s authority and
process
>for withdrawals, and claiming that these actions violate the Establishment
>Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We have reason to believe that industry,
>working closely with the new administration, will seek to rewrite the
>Solicitor\'s Opinion underpinning the Government\'s prior decisions.
>
>The denial of the mine was based on existing statutes, prior Congressional
>direction and adopted Plans - NOT on newer regulations on-hold or under
>review by the new administration. That these items must be given
independent
>consideration.
>
>This could be the first test of whether the new administration intends to
>implement the sacred sites executive order. The project was proposed in an
>area that is a Holy Land to the Quechan Tribe and other Colorado River
Tribes
>(and on lands of great passive recreational and biological value to the
>people of California).
>
>That Interior must not abrogate the federal government\'s Indian trust
>responsibilities to these tribes and their federally recognized governments
>in federal lands management.
>
>That the President has often spoke about his goal of upholding religious
>freedom for all Americans. This must include Indian Americans.
>
>Whether or not Norton or her assistant secretaries specifically agree with
>Leshy\'s Solicitor\'s Opinion, this decision should stand - it is the right
and
>moral decision.
>
>That the BLM\'s decisions were thoughtful and carefully made over the span
of
>many years, made only after receiving abundant input from the mining
company,
>conducting many local public hearings and site visits.
>
>That the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation\'s comment letter
embodies
>the seriousness of the adverse impacts to this Tribe if the mine were
allowed
>to proceed it is rare that the Council issues such comment. That those
>findings were the product of meetings with both the Tribe and the company,
on
>the site and off site, public hearings and its Task Force\'s independent
>review.
>
>That a denial of a mine, even in protected lands such as these, is so
unusual
>highlights the very important resource and human values at stake in this
>issue, concerning this mine. The company has not gone out of business,
other
>mines in America are proceeding. And public resources of high value remain
>protected in the California Desert Conservation Area. This is a success
story
>- not a story to be rewritten by a new administration.
>
>That the decisions (to deny the mine and approve the withdrawal) are
examples
>of where government-to-government consultation worked. To consider
>dismantling these two decisions would raise grave concerns about how this
>administration intends to work with, and in, Indian country.