Opinion ID: 876844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: hardrock mining act

Text: The HRMA, section 82-4-301 et seq., MCA, provides in part that no person shall engage in mining in the state without first obtaining an operating permit from the board to do so. Section 82-4-335, MCA. State Lands is given the responsibility of administering the HRMA. Section 82-4-321, MCA. The application for a permit under this Act must contain several specific items of information including a proposed reclamation plan, and a plan of mining. Section 82-4-335, MCA. Among other claims of error in issuing the permit, plaintiffs argue that there was no mining plan for 410 acres of the 500 acres included in Permit 41A. A review of the two-page mining plan indicates that this is true. The application requested a permit covering 500 acres, yet the mining plan only refers to 90 acres. Nothing is said about the plans for the other 410 acres. Defendant State Lands argues that this deficiency can be cured later by requiring Anaconda to submit a mining plan for the additional acres. It must be noted that the mining plan must be submitted before the permit is issued. To allow the issuance of a permit for the entire 500 acres when there is a mining plan for only 90 acres violates the express requirements of HRMA. Although the deficiency of the mining plan is sufficient grounds for voiding the permit, three other independent grounds exist for invalidating it: 1. A reclamation plan must be included in every application for a permit under the HRMA. Section 82-4-335(3), MCA. Rule 5A3, A.R.M. 26-2.10(2)  S10030, requires that pertinent climatic conditions be described in the reclamation plan. In the Permit 41A application Anaconda devotes one sentence to climatic conditions. This one sentence merely gives the annual rainfall in the Butte area. There is no mention of temperature, wind patterns or any other pertinent climatological data which would give the agency an opportunity to correctly evaluate the proposed uses of the reclaimed land. This one sentence description is inadequate as a matter of law. For State Lands to approve this description in light of the purposes for which this data must be used is an abuse of discretion. 2. Section 82-4-303(10)(a) requires that the reclamation plan include a proposed subsequent use of the land after reclamation. This is omitted from the Permit 41A reclamation plan. There is a statement on page 1 of the plan that upon termination of mining and associated disturbances the Company will consider offering the land for other uses. This Court notes that a statement as to the subsequent use of the disturbed land is central to any meaningful decision concerning the adequacy of the reclamation plan. State Lands could not possibly make an informed or adequate evaluation of the reclamation plan unless they were given a sufficient statement as to what the reclamation plan is supposed to accomplish. To allow the statement, The Company will consider offering the land for other uses as an adequate statement of subsequent use would be to make a mockery of the HRMA. Such statement is inadequate as a matter of law. 3. Section 82-4-335(5), MCA, requires that a map be submitted showing the area which will be disturbed by the proposed mining activity. In this case a map covering only 90 acres was submitted and a permit for 500 acres was granted. This is a clear violation of the HRMA. For these reasons the permit was invalid. The present mining operations on the 500 acres covered by Permit 41A cannot be continued until an adequate application is made and a valid permit pursuant to the HRMA is issued.