Source: http://openjurist.org/print/209629
Timestamp: 2015-07-29 13:47:01
Document Index: 353578029

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1345', '§ 26', '§ 612', '§ 551', '§ 478', 'art 252', '§ 612']

599 F2d 290 United States v. N Richardson M
Home > 599 F2d 290 United States v. N Richardson M
599 F2d 290 United States v. N Richardson M 599 F.2d 290
13 ERC 1773, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,448
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ned N. RICHARDSON and Dorothy M. Richardson, husband andwife, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 77-2580.
May 11, 1979.Rehearing Denied July 9, 1979.
James W. Moorman, John H. Harmon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Some form of poetic justice may lie in the fact that this action arose in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the State of Washington, named for a man who was in the vanguard of conservationists and environmentalists.
In 1970 the appellants, Ned and Dorothy Richardson, filed notices of location for six mining claims in the Wind River Ranger District. The claims were situated at the confluence of Slide Creek and the East Fork of the Lewis River, an area reforested after a destructive fire some forty years ago. The area was heavily used by campers and fishermen.
Appellants explored and prospected their claims by use of heavy equipment (a bulldozer and a backhoe) and by blasting. Surface disturbance by bulldozing of three separate areas affected approximately 1.6 acres. Two trenches were excavated, one approximately 75 feet by 65 feet by twelve feet deep; the other approximately 300 feet by 100 feet by 15 feet deep. From the early days of these activities forest rangers remonstrated with the Richardsons respecting the excessive and unnecessary surface and environmental damage caused by their methods of prospecting and suggested core drilling as an alternative, but the suggestions were not heeded. Ultimately this action was filed to enjoin further blasting and bulldozing and to restore surface damage.
To place this case in proper perspective it should be said that these were genuine prospecting activities conducted at considerable expense (some $40,000) for the purpose of developing a mine. The Richardsons used the methods they deemed best for the purpose of removing the overburden and uncovering the ore body. Inasmuch as the prospect was, at best, a low grade copper deposit, it was essential to demonstrate the existence of a large body of ore for commercially feasible mining. The report of the government's own expert geologist states: "The prospect does justify continued exploration which should be designed to indicate the presence of commercial grade ore . . . " The report also stated:
"The goal of a successful exploration effort on a deposit such as this will be to delineate sufficiently large tonnages of 0.6-0.8% Copper equivalent rock which would be amenable to open pit or block caving mining methods. Using the above grades as one economic parameter, a minimum size deposit of 30,000,000 tons would justify probable production at 5,000 to 7,500 TPD. This size deposit would represent a volume block of 330,000,000 cu. ft. or 1,000' X 1,000' X 330' basic dimensions. The only acceptable initial approach to exploration of this type deposit would be core drilling after performance of all applicable surface geotechnical surveys. Small area excavations are virtually meaningless for this type of problem. Furthermore, the large tonnage minimum production rate requirement for ore of concentrator quality indicates that small-scale production is totally economically unacceptable. The ASARCO smelter in Tacoma would not accept the low-grade raw ore; only clean contract-stipulated concentrates and/or adequate flux to meet their environmental quality standards."
Following a court trial during which the district judge viewed the premises, the Court entered its decree and found:
"1. This Court has jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
"2. Stripping away over burden to expose rockbed, particularly in the initial exploration stages, is not proper mining procedure, under the circumstances shown by the evidence in this case.
"3. Defendants' utilization of blasting and bulldozing was destructive to the surface resources and consequently not a reasonable method of exposing subsurface deposits under the circumstances shown by the evidence in this case.
"4. Under the circumstances shown by the evidence in this case, the Forest Service may require the locator of an unpatented mining claim on national forest lands to use nondestructive methods of prospecting.
"5. Defendants and their successors and agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them are permanently enjoined from conducting prospecting operations by means of bulldozing or blasting on the following mining claims located in Sections 7, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 20, Township 4 North, Range 5 E.W.M., in Skamania County, Washington: Half Penny, Silver Lode No. 1, Big Twinkle Mine, Richardson Lodge Claim, Richardson Little Twinkle Mine, and Lucky Strike.
"Plaintiff shall have judgment against defendants Ned N. Richardson and Dorothy M. Richardson jointly and severally in the amount of $2,263.13 plus its costs and disbursements herein."
This case involves the interrelationship of federal statutes concerning the national forests and mining on public lands. These are 30 U.S.C. § 26, 30 U.S.C. § 612,1 16 U.S.C. § 551,2 and 16 U.S.C. § 478.3 Since 1897 the Secretary of Agriculture has had authority under sections 478 and 551 of Title 16 to promulgate regulations concerning the methods of prospecting and mining in national forests; yet it was not until 1974 that such regulations were adopted. (35 C.F.R. Part 252). No such regulations were in effect before this lawsuit was commenced in November, 1973 and the forest rangers relied on certain directives and guidelines issued by the department and upon 30 U.S.C. § 612 for their authority to restrain the unwarranted surfa