COL. PAUL COOK HOUSE COMMITTEE on: 3TH DISTRICT. Cnumnum AHMED SERVICES HOUSE ON 1222 Den-:5 NATURAL RESOURCES s. ?5 of. the dilute: Sutures HOUSE COMMITTEE ON leaner at Washington, BIL 20515?0505 June 8, 2017 The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary, The Department of the Interior U-S- Department of the Interior 1849 Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 RE: Review of National Munuments Dear Secrafi?zmlte: This letter is in response to your request for my thoughts regarding the ongoing review of National Monuments related to President Donald Trump?s Executive Order 13792. I appreciate your willingness to not only listen to my perspective on the matter, but also the views of my constituents. As you might be aware, my district contains four National Monuments that were recently established through the Antiquities Act. These designations were controversial and left many of my constituents feeling excluded from the process. In this letter, I?ve addressed the major points of contention for each monument, and, again, I appreciate your interest in addressing these concerns, as they are of great importance to my constituents and California as a whole- Castle Mountains National Monument The Castle Mountains National Monument was designated by former President Obama on February 12, 2016. It covers 20,920 acres of BLM land in San Bemardino County. This land was transferred to National Park Service management when the monument was designated. Although this is the smallest of the four monuments in my district, it is also the. most problematic. This menument was created without any local Outreach or input. It was designated for one purpose: to prevent the reopening of the Castle Mountain Mine operated by NewCastle Gold. If reopened, this mine will employ hundreds of workers and could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and tens of millions of dollars in revenue for local governments. For these reasons, in 1994, when the nearby Mojave National Preserve was established, the Castle Mountains area was excluded frOm the designation in order to allow continued mining operations. While there have been proposals to add to the Mojave National Preserve some PRINTED UN PAPEFI components of the Castle Mountains area that are not needed for mining, there has never been a legislative proposal to establish a separate Castle Mountains National Monument. The ?rst time such a monument was proposed was in the fall of 20] 5, mere months before former President Obama unilaterally designated the monument. The sole public meeting on the proposal was held on October 13, 2015, and it was located in a different county, over 200 miles from the site of the proposed monument. Additionally, despite repeated promises by administration of?cials that the new desert monuments would preserve existing uses of public land, the Castle Mountains National Monument immediater banned hunting despite the fact that hunting is allowed in the nearby Mojave National Preserve and had been allowed in the Castle Mountain area prior to the monument designation. I have enclosed letters from both the County of San Bemardino and NewCastle Gold detailing the issues that the two primary local stakeholders have with the monument designation. While Castle Mountains National Monument is less than 100,000 acres, the aforementioned letters and the evidence I?ve provided here make clear that there was no real public outreach or coordination and thus is worthy of the utmost scrutiny by your department. I request that the President revise the boundaries of the monument as depicted on the enclosed map entitled ?Proposed Castle Mountain National Monument Boundary Revisions? (dated May 18, 2017). Furthermore, I would like to endorse the proposed changes to the proclamation establishing the monument detailed in NewCastle Gold?s letter. Finally, I request that the administration restore management of all land in the Castle Mountains to the Bureau of Land Management and allow hunting within the remaining Castle Mountains National Monument. Moiave Trails Na?ooal Menumcnt The Mojave Trails National Monument was designated via proclamation by former President Obama on February 12, 2016. It covers 1.6 million acres of Bureau of Land Management managed land in San Bernardino County and is one of the largest National Monuments in our country. Mojave Trails National Monument was ?rst proposed in legislation by Senator Feinstein nearly a decade ago and has been widely debated in San Bemardino County ever since. Without a doubt, many of the areas within the monument possess strong conservation value, however there are also a number of active mining claims that were adversely affected by the designation. In my opinion, the monument boondary was drawn Specifically to disrupt these operations adding little by way of conservation value, but furthering the goal of the Obama administration and many others in shutting down all mineral extraction in the desert. In particular, the Bagdad Chase Mine and Baxter Iron Mine include mineral claims that are located partially or entirely within the monument. While the proclamation included language protecting valid existing rights, the monument designation could prevent the future expansion of the mines during periods of high commodity prices. I request that the President modify the boundaries of the monument as depicted on the enclosed map titled ?Pr0posed Mojave Trails National Monument Revisions? (dated June 6, 2017) to remove both mines and the surrounding lands from the boundaries of the monument. Furthermore, after numerous legislative preposals in Congress to establish a Mojave Trails National Monument failed, most notably Senator Feinstein?s California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act (S. 414) during the 114?h Congress, President Obama disregarded agreed-upon monument boundaries in favor of a significantly larger one that had never been considered by Congress. Rather than use the 970,000 acre footprint established in numerous pieces of legislation, President Obama nearly doubled the monument?s size to over 1.6 million acres. Some of this expansion made sense from a land management perspective: the Trilobite, Clipper MDuntain, Piute Mountains, and Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness areas are all located entirely within the Monument and are a critical component of any management plan. On the other hand, former President Obama also included hundreds of thousands of acres of non-designated BLM land to the south - well beyond the boundaries proposed in legislation which complicates the land management process by creating multiple enclaves of private land within the monument. The expanded version of the monument was never debated in a public setting, and no public outreach was conducted with any of the local desert communities affected by the denision. While some of the public lands included in this eXpansion contain historic and conservation value, monument designation should only be given after extensive public debate and input. I request that the President modify the boundaries of the monument to eliminate this expanded southern area as depicted on the enclosed map entitled ?Proposed Mojave Trails National Monument Revisions? (dated June 6, 2017). Finally, I would like to highlight a major omission in the Mojave Trails National Monument. Five congressionally?designated Wildemess areas that are located partially within the Monument or immediately adjacent to it were not included in the designation. The Kelso Dunes, Bristol Mountains, Stepladder Mountains, Turtle Mountains, and Chemehuevi Mountains Wildemess areas were all designated as Wilderness after an extensive legislative process and are a critical part of the desert ecosystem. Their inclusion in the Mojave Trails National Monument would improve the monument by including some of the most stunning natural features that the Mojave Desert has to offer. Additionally, it would allow the monurnent?s management plan to act as a comprehensive land management plan for most of the BLM land in the southern Mojave Desert. 1 request that the President revise the monument boundary to include these five wilderness areas as depicted on the enclosed map entitled ?Proposed Mojave Trails National Monument Revisions? (dated June 6, 2017). San Gabriel Mountains National Monument The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument was designated via proclamation by fer-mar President Obama on October 10, 2014. It spans a total of 346,] acres across Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties in California. While significant public outreach was conducted throughout Los Angeles County during the planning process for the monument, there was virtually no outreach with regard to communities in San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino County portion of the monument includes 4,873 acres of non-wildemess Forest Service land, in addition to the Sheep Mountain Wilderness area. The Sheep Mountain Wilderness was designated through the legislative process, and have no objections to its presence in the Monument. However, the inclusion of 4,8?3 acres of non-wildemess Forest Service land was widely opposed by local residents due to its encroachment on local communities and economic activity including a ski resort and for its potential impact on forest management activities. I request that the President revise the boundary of the monument to remove these 4,873 acres as depicted on the enclosed map entitled ?Proposed San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Boundary Revisions? (dated May 10, 2017). Sand to Snow Na?ggal Monument The Sand to Snow National Monument was designated via proclamation by former President Obama on February 12, 2016. It covers 154,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service managed land across San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California. With regard to federal land-use policies, I ?nd it preferable that monument designations be carried out through the legislative process, as opposed to unilateral designation through the Antiquities Act. However, in cases where the Antiquities Act is utilized, the Sand to Snow National Monument should be the standard-bearer for future monument designations. The boundaries of the monument largely match previous legislative proposals that were vetted by local communities and stakeholder groups for the better part of a decade. Numerous public meetings occurred to discuss the designation, which resulted in widespread public support among local elected leaders and the public. In fact, I, along with Senator Feinstein, introduced legislation in the 114lh Congress to designate a Sand to Snow National Monument largely along the same boundaries Created by President Obama. With extensive public input and demonstrated local support, I recommend that the President leave the boundaries of the Sand to Snow National Monument intact. My only request is that the management plan for the monument include a provision allowing for the installation of a telecommunications facility in the ?Morongo Gorge? region of the monument, as depicted on the enclosed map entitled ?Proposed Sand to Snow National Monmnent? (dated August 4, 2015). This has long been one of the most dangerous segments of State Route 62, and the lack of cellular phone service in the gorge puts public safety at risk by preventing the timely reporting of accidents and dangerous situations. A teleconummications tower in the gorge would eliminate this dangerous cellular phone dead zone. I hope you find this information helpful to your efforts. It?s important to note that my aforementioned comments should not be construed as having a bias against conservation. I?ve been lucky to represent California's most ecologically rich congessional district, with a landscape including both the highest (Mount Whitney) and lowest (Death Valley) points in the lower 43 states and three of the largest and most beautiful National Parks in America. I visit Joshua Tree National Park regularly and consider it one of the crown jewels of our parlt system. However, in addition to being a conservationist, I?m also a strong proponent of the philosophy that public lands should be managed with multiple uses in mind. It is becoming increasingly apparent that federal policies implemented over the last decade have fav0red a myopic environmentalism at the expense of economic and recreational activities. Anything that you can do to restore this balance would be of tremendous bene?t to my district. If you need additional information regarding the issues raised in this letter, don?t hesitate to contact me or my sta? at (202) 225-5 861. I appreciate the hard work you do on behalf of the American public. Congressman, 8tl1 District of California Enclosures (6): 1. ?Proposed Castle Mountains National Monument Boundary Revisions? Map 2. ?Proposed Mojave Trails National Monument Revisions? Map 3. ?Proposed San Gahn'el Mountains National Monument Boundary Revisions" Map 4. ?Proposed Sand to Snow National Monument? Map 5. San Bemardino County Letter to Secretary Zinke 6. NewCastle Gold Letter to Secretary Zinke Proposed Castle Mountain National Monument Boundary Revisions May18,201? - mun-annual? rgf'Junumm-cm- - Huh-Imam LlIdSl?us nil-I?m lulu-Immanu- In: i3. 2:5; .9 #33: 2: an anal?PE to? .m 25.. 2053mm EmEscoE dmcormz 2.5; 930$ 333$ Proposed San Gabriel National Monument Boundary Revisions May 1o, 201? nu- Propdsad Sand u: Snow Natlonal Monument August 4, 2015 This map prepared at Ihe newest of Represeniame Pall Cook A I I I lb- Um.? u" mm ltd" pm. 385 North Arrowhead Avenue. Floor, San Bernardino CA 82415-0120 Phone: 808.387.4821 Fax: 909.387.5430 Josh Candelaria SAN BERNARWNO County Administrative Of?ce . Director OUNTY Governmental 8: Legislative Affairs May 31, 2017 The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary U.S. Department of Interior 1849 Street, NW. Washington, D.C., 20240 Dear Secretary Zinke: On behalf of the County of San Bernardino, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Executive Order issued April 28, 2017 by President Donald J. Trump: Review of Designations under the Antiquities Act. As you may be aware, there were four national monuments recently designated under The Antiquities Act that affect San Bernardino County: The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument designated on October 10, 2014, of which a portion is in our County, the Mojave Trails National Monument, and the Castle Mountains National Monument. both of which are wholly in San Bernardino County, and the Send to Snow National Monument, in both San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The latter three were established February 12, 2016. In the years leading up to the designations, the County?s position has been that any national monument designations should go through the legislative process, rather than by Presidential Proclamation under The Antiquities Act. The legislative process provides for substantial vetting and public input by stakeholder groups in the establishment of boundaries and permissible activities. (Please see our letter to President Obama dated August 21, 2015, attached.) The County has long been committed to striking a balance beMeen conservation and economic development. indeed our adopted Countywide Wsion states in part, ?We envision a sustainable which develooment complements our natural resources and environment?. Our public lands are one of San Bernardino County's greatest assets, providing recreation, solace, and stunning vistas within a few hours of millions of Southern Californians, and millions more from throughout the country and around the world. It also provides additional bene?t from direct economic activities, including tourism. ?lming of commercials and movies, grazing, and mining. Our County is one of the most geologicaliy diverse in the world, with deposits of minerals from simple aggregates to silver, gold and rare earth elements. We regulate approximately 100 mines in our County alone, which provide high-paying jobs, revenue that supports County services and materials essential for building the state?s infrastructure. National monument designations withdraw federal lands from mineral entry, to valid existing rights?, which can provide an additional legal burden for small mine operators. Roma: :1 law. RI. ?nth-Ruins HI linen-n. Gawain Sums ll'u-ll'inr'. ri-l {ht-?Ind ill-?mt lium Ilium: Iii-4m: As your review of the monuments moves forward, we would like to make you aware of issues that concern San Bemardino County. which was expressed to the previous administration and other stakeholders. Mojave Trails National Monument At 1.6 million acres, the Mojave Trails National Monument is nearly 700,000 acres larger than the monument proposed by legislation in previous Congresses (most recently 8. 414 in the 114th Congress), which was developed after years of outreach to stakeholder groups, including mining operators, tribes, environmental groups and the off-highway vehicle recreation community. However. when the monument boundaries were set by Presidential Proclamation, the boundaries covered the footprint of existing mining operations that were otherwise excluded from the proposed legislation boundaries. This makes access and future expansion problematic and increases the risk of abandonment liabilities for the County. We respectfully request that any modi?cations to the boundaries or management prescriptions exclude and accommodate the existing mining Operations, and provide for their continued access and potential for expansion when their reserves are diminished. Send to Snow At 154,000 acres, the Send to Snow National Monument is subject to review by the Executive Order. The designation covered federal lands already protected and managed by the Bureau of Land Management and US. Forest Service, and the designation was generally supported by the local communities. San Gabriel Mountains National Monument At 346,000 acres, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument also quali?es for review. Before designation, there was a proposal to have the boundaries extend deep into the San Bernardino National Forest. A potential monument had long been discussed in Los Angeles County, but there were no discussions in San Bernardino County. Our County objected on grounds that our residents, business owners and other stakeholders had no opportunity to discuss or debate the potential bene?ts or impacts of such a designation. The boundaries established by Presidential Proclamation covered existing federal lands within the Angeles National Forest, and largely excluded San Bemardino County, except for 4,000 acres of an already designated wilderness area. Castle Mountains National Monument At 21,000 acres, the Castle Mountains National Monument falls under the 100,000-acre threshold for review, however, the Executive Order also states: the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of this order." The Castle Mountains area was previously excluded from being included in the Mojave National Preserve, established by the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, because it was the site of a sizable active mining operation. The mine idled for a time, but is now going through the rigorous regulatory process of reopening. The mine itself remains under the jurisdiction of the County and the Bureau of Land Management, but the Monument area surrounding it was transferred to the National Park Service. If you choose to review the Castie Mountains National Monument under the April 16 Executive Order. we respectfully request that issues of access through the monument to the mine and access to water needed to service the mine be needed to accommodate future expansion, be addressed. The County believes that raised concerns were being addressed with the proposed legislation until the Presidential Proclamation ceased the dialogue. We look forward to working with your department as this review process moves fonrvard and we thank you for taking the concerns of San Bernardino County into consideration. If you have any questions regarding the County's position, please do not hesitate to contact Josh Candelaria, Director of Governmental and Legislative Affairs at (909) 387-4821 orjcandelaria@sbcounty.gov. Sincerely, Ma ROBERT A. LOVINGOOD First District Supervisor Chairman, San Bernardlno County Board of Supervisors c: San Bernardino County Legislative Delegation BM jailer Mange-i5 Butler 8. Ml?l?l?tli - jl?iljr?l?if?l'n Two Embarcadero Center, 5111 Floor Kerry Shapiro . . . Direct: (415) 934-9612 San Francisco. California 94111-3313 (415) 398-3080 (415) 393-5534 Fax ww.imbm.mm June I, 2017 VIA WEB AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Ryan Zinke, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior Monmnent Review, M34530 1849 Street NW. Washington, DC 20240 32,01 lootua?u Re: Review of Certain National Moments Established Since l996; Comments of NewCastle Gold on Castle Mountains National Monument Dear Secretary Zinke: On behalf of NewCastle Gold, and its wholly-owned subsidiary Castle Mountain Venture, i write to comment on the designation of the Castle Mountains National Monument as part of the Department of the Interior?s ("Department") ongoing ?Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.? 32 Fed. Reg. 22,016 (May 1 i, 2017). The 21,000-aere Chm, designated in February 2016 by President Obama, is not directly on the list of National Monuments undergoing ?initial review" (see 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,017), but is among those monuments that ?should be reviewed because they were designated or expanded after January 1, 1996 ?without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders'" Id. {quoting Executive Order 13292 (Apr. 26, 201?), 82 Fed. Reg. 20,429 (May 1, 2017)). As discussed below, unlike other recent national monuments, the CMNM was never identi?ed in any legislative initiative, and received only minimal input by stakeholders, including NewCastle Gold. indeed, the CWM appears to have been a ?last-minute? designation for the sole purpose of severely constraining if not outright eliminating NewCastle Gold?s Castle Mountain Gold Project (?Project? or ?Minc?), a longstanding mine with an exemplary history of responsible operation on public lands. The CLJINM is jeopardizing the Project?s potential to contribute quality jobs and millions of dollars in public revenue to local communities, and state and local governments; it also fails to meet the other criteria set forth in Executive Order 13792. For these reasons, the CW should he reduced in size and its proclamation amended to allow the Project to proceed. These modest revisions will provide for the responsible, multiple use of public lands, thereby creating a balanced approach for meeting stakeholder interests and concerns, without sacri?cing the purposes and values. A Limited Liability Law Partnership including Corporations Los Angela-s - San Francisco . Dranae Counts,r Eras-tartar? Secretary Ryan Zinke June 1, 2017 Page 2 . I. Reasons why the CMNM boundaries should be adjusted and its proclamation revised. A. Background: The Castle Mountains area was, for decades, a buffer area supporting the Castle Mountain Gold Mine. The area of California?s Mojave Desert where the MNM is located has a long history of management by the Department for multiple uses, in coordination with affected stakeholders. In 1994, Congress enacted the California Desert Protection Act, which established the 1.6 million- acre Mojave National Preserve ("Preserve") to be managed by the National Park Service primarily for conservation purposes. Importantly, the Preserve surrounds on three sides, but, as discussed below, speci?cally does not include, the Project and adjoining areas. In 1991, three years before the Preserve was created, the Bureau of Land Management after consulting with its sister agencies, the County of San Bernardino ("County"), and other stakeholders, approved a plan of operations for the Project, then known as the Viceroy Gold Mine. In 1998, BLM approved an expanded plan of operations, again after extensive coordination with interested stakeholders, that remains valid to this day. NewCastle Gold or its predecessor also signed an agreement with conservation groups to advance environmental values in the region. Thus, from the beginning, relevant stakeholders?NewCastle Gold, permitting agencies, NGOs, and so on?have known of and supported the Project as a valid and important use of public land. The area that the Project occupied and would need to occupy has also been recognized from the inception of the Preserve in 1994, when approximately 29,000 acres (or about 1.8% of the Preserve area) were excluded from or carved-out of the Preserve. That area, known as the Castle Mountain Mine Area ("Mine Area"), consisted of (1) about 7,458 acres of the Mine company's holdings, including patented and unpatented mining claims (the Project boundary), and (2) about 21,812 acres of adjoining ELM?managed public land (the Buffer Area, most of which is now within the CMNM boundary). The Department, through the NPS and BLM, had always treated the Buffer Anna surrounding the Project boundary as a zone between the Preserve and the Project, to be managed by BLM under its multiple?use mandate, including for Project-related purposes. In short, there was, and has always been, a commonly held understanding that the Preserve and the Project (including the Buffer Area) could and would co?exist, particularly given the small size of the Project relative to the Preserve and the Project?s close oversight by BLM and the County. B. The CMNM was established on the basis of inadequate and incorrect information. As discussed above, in 1994, the California Desert Protection Act excluded the Mine Area (Project Boundary and Buffer Area) from the Preserve because the Proj eet was active at the time the legislation was passed. On August 3, 2015, a request was made by Senator Feinstein to SF 3548121117 Secretary Ryan Zinke June 1, 2017 Page 3 President Obama that he designate almost the entire Castle Mountains Mine Area, with little or no buffer area, as a national monument. One of the rationales offered was that ?the mine ceased operations in 2001.? This statement was plainly incorrect. In 2002, the Project, like many other operations at that time, suspended operations due to the low price of gold ($271 per ounce). The Project had not exhausted its reserves at that time and was merely responding to prevailing economic conditions (which have now again become favorable). For this reason, NewCastle Gold maintained its entitlements and completed a progressive reclamation program to ensure that any environmental liabilities associated with the site were minimized. Since that time, NewCastle Gold has continued progressive reclamation activities, while also undertaking new exploration activities that have successfully expanded the gold resources associated with the Project. NewCastle Gold has retained its key operational permits and is poised to start operations once gold ore reserve estimates, environmental studies, and mine planning are completed. Thus, the initial purpose in 1994 for carving-out the Project boundaryr and surrounding Buffer Area from the Preserve?~40 allow the Project to operate and expand?applies equal!)r stroneg today in 2017. The premise in 2015 that a national monument was appropriate because there was no active or viable mining operation was erroneous. C. The CMN was established without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, in an unreasonable ?ve-month period with no environmental review. Given the history of the Mine and the 1994 legislation, it was surprising and disappointing when, in February 2016, President Obama exercised his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the 21,000-acre CMNM without any consultation with NewCastle Gold, and, as far as we are aware, little or no consultation with most other stakeholders or with Congress.I Before the designation, a single public meeting was held for combined input on three separate potential monuments, along with several other ACECs and wilderness areas. Compare, for example, the designation of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in southern California, which, according to the prior administration, was ?buil[t] on more than a decade of public support from business, tourism, environmental justice, conservation, academic and cultural preservation communities and on the leadership from members of Congress.? Of?ce of the Press Secretary, The White House, ?President Obama Designates San Gabriel Mountains National Monument" (Oct. 10, 2014) (available at hops." ohalnay. grif?n- 30H- 1 El Other recent monuments, including Mojave Trails National Monument and Sand to Snow National Monument, were comprised larger of lands that Congress had already approved as wilderness. See The White House, ?In Photos: President Obama Designates 3 National Monuments in California" (Feb. 17, 2016) (25% congressionally designated wilderness for Mojave Trails, 65% for Sand to Snow) (available at lutpsi- ohantau?li?gm?searc ianatcs-S -nat ional: moms?org: tom In). SF 35-13I23v? Secretary Ryan Zinke June 1, 2017 Page 4 NewCastle Gold wrote a letter expressing concerns that went unanswered. No meeting with CEQ occurred. The County also submitted a letter, dated August 21, 2015, stating that ?[o]ne of our chief concerns is that designation of a national monument withdraws lands from mineral entry.? The County explained that mining provided critical minerals and thousands of high- paying jobs. Indeed, the Castle Mountains Gold Project alone was expected to generate annually mere than $7 million in direct revenue for the County and State and create 271 jobs at its peak operation. This minimal public outreach was made worse by the "fast-track" timing of the designation. As discussed above, the request to designate the CMNM was made in August 2015. The CMNM was designated just six months later, on February 12, 2016. Not only did this compressed schedule preclude opportunities for meaningful public involvement, it meant that there were no reviews of the designation?s potential environmental or economic effects. As the County explained in its letter, adequate public outreach includes public meetings, opportunities for public comment, environmental and economic reviews, and opportunities for public comment on those reviews. ?Stakeholder input is imperative," the County admonished, ?to ensure any proposed designation creates a net positive bene?t for the variety of interests that use the desert and that critical multiple use activities are preserved.? These and other reasonable requests for an open and nansparent process went unheeded. D: The CMNM was established without any congressional debate or mandate. The most e?'eetive forum for considering withdrawals of public lands is Congress, where the need for a particular withdrawal and its purposes and boundaries can be debated and determined in an open and transparent way. As far as we are aware, and in contrast to other recently-established national monuments, there was never a proposal introduced into the Congress to establish the CMN M. For example, Senate Bill 414 (Feinstein, 2015), would have created both the Mojave Trails and Sand to Snow National Monuments. See 8.414, Titles XII-XIV. That same bill proposed that part of the Castle Mountains Mine Area be added to the Preserve, not designated a national monument. See id. Title XVII. Without even a proposal to establish the CMNM, Congress never had the opportunity to weigh in on whether a monument was appropriate. E. The CMNM was established for narrow purposes, to the Project?s detriment. Not only is the designation procedurally inadequate, it also is substantively problematic. The CMNM is especially disappointing due to its; (1) sole focus on preserving habitat, wildlife linkages, and sacred sites and other cultural resources; (2) withdrawal of the lands surrounding the Project boundary, including much of the Buffer Area, that had been - reserved for the Project and other multiple uses, for that narrow preservation purpose; and (3) provision that the Project area will be transferred to NPS jurisdiction within ten years unless SF 3511512313 Secretary Ryan Zinlte June 1, 2017 Page 5 certain conditions are met. The designation also reserves ?the availability of water resources, including groundwater resources, needed for monument purposes." See generally Presidential Proclamation Establishment of the Castle Mountains National Monument (Feb. 12, 2016) (m??ilabie a! 30] b.5033]? "presidential" Under NPS regulations and the federal reserved water rights doctrine (as well as BLM's restrictive September 2016 Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan), these provisions have the potential to severely limit any activity the Project might propose to undertake outside its already-approved Mine boundary. It will be dif?cult to explore for and develop new mineral and water resources, develop ancillary facilities, or expand the existing operational area. Indeed, the NPS is already requesting mineral validity examinations for water exploration activities on NewCastle Gold?s pie?existing mill site claims (which were already validated when the Mine?s previous owner applied for a patent) within the ave National Preserve boundaries. F. Executive Order 13792 factors In addition to the above, the CMNM should be reduced and its proclamation amended for several other reasons, based upon the factors set forth in Executive Order 13792, 82 Fed. Reg. 20,429?20,43 0), including: (1): the 21,000 acre area is larger than needed; (2) the CMNM protects resources not contemplated under the Act; (3) the CMNM is inconsistent with multiple use principles; (4) the MNM jeopardizes resources and bene?ts for the localities including County; and (S) the CMNM lacks adequate funding. Were: a more detailed discussion ofihese Executive Orderfociors is provide in Exhibit 1, attached hereto to this letter.) II. Requested action NewCastle requests that the Department of the Interior recommend to the President that he exercise his authority under the Antiquities Act to: - Reduce the sin of the CMNM by roughly 50%, as shown on the attached map (Exhibit 2; revised monument boundary shown by blue line); and - Revise the proclamation as shown on the attached redline, to allow the Project the ?exibility it needs to explore for and develop new mining claims, Water resources, and ancillary facilities (Exhibit 3). Conclusion We expect ?om our government decisions that are considered, balanced, and transparent. For decades the federal public lands that make up the Castle Mountains area were managed according to these principles, with interested stakeholders and agencies working together to achieve the highest and best uses of these public lands. The Castle Mountains Gold Project, SF ESJSIZSVT Secretary Ryan Zinke June I, 2017 Page 6 conservation, recreation and other uses existed in equilibrium, with changes supported by extensive review and coordination The CMNM disregards this history and these principles of good governance. The decision to designate the CMNM was made without public process and with little or no consultation with affected stakeholders or Congress. The designation effectively forecloses managing the public lands within the boundaries for any use other than conservation. Indeed, the restrictions are so signi?cant that they make the Project dif?cult or impossible to operate, even on lands outside of the Monument. That outcome ignores the Project?s long history of responsible operation and the substantial economic benefits it provides to local communities, San Bernardino County, and the State of California. And the designation is unnecessary given the effective protection of ecological, cultural, and recreational resources provided by the surrounding 1.6 million?acre Mojave National Preserve. Modest changes to the boundaries and proclamation to allow for the Project?s long-contemplated operation and expansion will restore sensibility, credibility, and balance to the federal govenunent's public land management. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, .r . 45 KERRY HAPIRQ of .1 offer angels By?er Mitchell LLP Attachments (Exhibits 1-3) cc: Congressman Paul Cook (with attachments) Gerald Panneton, CEO, NewCastle Gold (with attachments) SF 3548123v7 Secretary Ryan Zinke June 1, 2017 Page '7 EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Factors Set Forth in Executive Order 13792 (April 26, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 20,429-20-430 (May 1, 2017) 2 Map of proposed revised boundaries of the Castle Mountains National Monument 3 Proposed revised proclamation for the Castle Mountains National Monument SF EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 Factors Set Forth in Executive Order 13792 (April 26, 2017}, 82 Fed. Reg. NAM-20430 (little)r 1, 2017) The CMNM should be reduced and its proclamation amended for reasons based upon the factors set forth in Executive Order 13792, 82 Fed. Reg. 20,429-20,43 D, as set forth below: The CWMfails to meet ?the requirements and original objectives oftlre [Antiquities] Act. including the 'Act?s requirement that resenratians of land not exceed ?the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected (quoting 54 U.S.C. 320301(b)). The CMNM is nearly 21,000 acres, far larger than needed to protect wildlife, wildlife habitat and linkages, cultural resources, and Springs. The Mojave National Preserve, designated in 1994, already exists to protect over 1.6 million acres of cultural and ecological resources. There was no need to withdraw another 66% of the remaining 30,000 acres of land that had been set aside for the Project to operate and expand. The CMNM could be cut in half and still protect those resources must deserving of long-term conservation. (ii) The lana's designated as part ofthe CMNM are not "appropriately classi?ed under the [Antiquities] Act as ?ltistoric landmarks, historic andprehistoric structures, [or] other objects oflristaric or scienti?c interest (quoting 5 4 U.S. C. 3 203 Gila?. According to its plain language, the Antiquities Act is aimed at preserving historic and prehistoric resources, as well as objects of ?scienti?c interest." Yet apart ?'om scattered references to historic mining artifacts and unusual geologic formations, the proclamation is clearly aimed at protecting ?habitat linkages, wildlife corridors, and intact ecosystems? and recreational opportunities. Even if these resources somehow qualify for protection under the Antiquities Act, they are not unusual and are of relativer low quality compared to similar resources in the existing Mojave National Preserve. And again the relative scale of the CMNM next to the Preserve is relevant: the lands that now make up the CMNM are just a tiny fraction of the Mojave National Preserve, and are not (at least not all of them) needed to ensure that the Preserve-?5 conservation goals are met. The designation has profound and adverse e?ects on ?tire available uses of designated Federal lands, including consideration oftlre multiple-use policy of section 102(c)(7) of the ederol Land Policy and Management Act {43 US. C. i as well as the e?ects on tire available uses ofFederai lands beyond the monument boundaries. As discussed above, the Castle Mountains area has a long history of being managed for multiple uses?since long before the Mojave National Preserve was created and nearly 25 years since. The Castle Mountains Gold Project has been approved and operating since 1991, to the economic bene?t of local conununities, San Bernardino Command the State of California. Throughout this entire period the Project has been a lawful and accepted use of federal public lands. However, if it is le? in place, the CMNM will constrain or end the Project. BLM and other permitting agencies have long understood the Project?s need to explore for and develop additional mineral and water resources, and expand operations, outside the approved Mine Boundary. The CMNM renders those activities legally and practically dif?cult, if not impossible. Indeed, by constraining what the Project does outside its approved Mine Boundary, the CMNM curtails what the Project does inside its Boundary, since water development and other ancillary activities are necessary to support existing operations. Such profound and adverse effects on reSponsible, economically valuable uses of public lands are yet another reason why the CMNM must be modi?ed. (iv) The designation has profound and adverse efects on ?the use and ety'oytnent ofnon-Federal lands within or beyond monument boundaries. Much of the Project area, within the approved Mine Boundary, consists of patented mining claims owned in fee by NewCastle Gold. Like NewCastle Gold?s operations on unpatented claims, the operations on its patented claims will be severely and adversely affected by the CWM if it is left unmodi?ed. See above. (it) The CWMfaits to take account of "concerns ofState. tribal, and local governments ejected by a designation, including the economic development and ?scal condition ofa?iected States, tribes, and localities. The Project has long been an important source of revenue for nearby communities, San Bernardino County, and the State of California. The County explained in its August 21, 2015, letter objecting to the then-proposed CMNM that the Project was likely to generate more than $7 million in revenue for the County and State, and create 271 jobs at its peak operation. NewCastle explained in its own letter (dated September 12, 2015), that combined federal, state, and local revenues would be $300 million over the life of the Project and bene?t local communities through direct expenditures. Constraining or eliminating the Project by virtue of the CMNM would eliminate theses revenues and benefits. This loss is unlikely to be offset by, for example, additional recreational visitors to the CMNM, given how remote and intemperate the CMNM is. (in) There is no evidence ofsu?icient of ederoi resources to property manage designated areas in the Cams/I. Prior to the designation, the Project provided funds for the administrative costs of its management. In withdrawing yet another 21,000 acres of public lands 2 (vii) from multiple-use management, the CMNM provided no source of funding for managing those lands for conservation-only purposes. BLM must new fund any environmental studies and related documents itself. BLM already has far too few resources to manage the pubiic lands; eliminating yet another revenue stream while adding to the agency?s burdens is not good governance. Otherfoctors support modification. As discussed above, the CMNM was an end-run around Congress and was rushed through with no environmental review. A decision With such profound, long-term consequences deserves greater deliberation. NewCastle Gold is aware of the ongoing debate among legal scholars as to the authority of the President to revoke or modify the national monument designations of prior administrations. For the well-reasoned arguments set forth in John You 3: Todd Gaziano, American Enterprise Institute, ?Presidential Authority to Revolte or Reduce National Monument Designations? (Mar. 201?) (availabie at iutns:- ?vim .aciora as well as in other authorities, we think such authority is inherent and unmistakable. We wish to emphasize that we are not proposing that the Department of the Interior recommend to the President that he revoke Castle Mountains National Monument. Consistent with what has always been our position?that the Castle Mountains Gold Project and conservation of resources surrounding the Mine can co?exist?we simply ask that the Department recommend the CMNM to achieve a more sensible balance between those multiple uses. We discuss our speci?c requests in the next section. EXHIBIT 2 m; . 915305 l. . -V {ifu?t gym-m 3' amas??] . 9001sz 3" i 6712135022 . 3M5 a; 31:31}! 39.5471?; i?lE?s In