ACTION: Mt Hope Project

Comments URGENT on EIS for Mount Hope Project (Due March 1, 2012)

Full draft EIS for the Mt. Hope project can be found here:

PLEASE send comments to:

via email (subject line ATTN: Angelica Rose / EIS MT. Hope Project Comment) 

postmarked by March 1 via US mail to:                                                                          BLM Battle Mountain District Office                                                                                    attn: Angelica Rose  –  50 Bastian Road  – Battle Mountain NV 89820

Tell BLM that they must choose the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.

Sample points below:

1) The proposed impact to the populations of effected  wild horseHMA’s is unacceptable. The population numbers are already below genetic viability and the potential impact to water and legal grazing area is not acceptable.

2) One foot and five foot water draw down maps must be created before any decisions can be proposed for the project. To formulate a record of decision without this information is inappropriate and negligent to the mandate of “thriving ecological balance.”

3) This project encroaches on considerable acreage within three HMA’s. Roberts Mountain has over 13,000 acres within the scope of the project with over 5,000 acres of proposed surface disturbance. Whistler Mountain HMA has more than 8,000 acres within the project scope and over 3,000 projected for surface disturbance. Fish Creek also has areas that would have surface disturbance.

4) As the populations in this area are confined (predominately re: Fish Creek) by boundary lines that include limited to no water and move from those HMA’s the impact to these areas and consequence to any future populations must be of primary focus as “multiple use” is mandated under law.

5) The project will require 7000 gallons of water per minute for the lifetime of the proposed use (40-50 years) and will remove more than 11,300 acre feet of water annually. This is not acceptable considering the already fragile sources available to wild herds.

6) The known patterns of movement of these horses in these three areas indicates that HMA boundary lines were/are flawed. The lack of water sources within the boundary lines indicate they were faulty in their inception.

7) It is not enough to mitigate damages with spring repair after the projects construction phase has ended. If the project is to be considered new boundary lines should be mitigated to ensure that populations do not go any lower than they already are. Mitigation of damages needs to ensure that the horses do not lose any grazing acreage available to them. In the event of impact that adjacent, equal acreage is provided.

8) This project does not fully study the impacts and potential areas for mitigation for Wild Horses.

The “No Action” Alternative must be chosen until the full impacts to this legally mandated use is appropriately assessed.


PLEASE comment on the EIS for this project or you will be commenting on an EA to remove animals from this area next. By the time we get to wild horse EA’s it is often “too late.”

Horses Released in Battle Mountain District’s Stone Cabin Area. Last removed in 2007. 2012 roundup in this area saw adults returned after birth control.


9 thoughts on “ACTION: Mt Hope Project

  1. Poor Ginger says:

    Surface water evaporation must be taken into account as well. I didn’t see anything about that in the EIS, just the evaporation from the holding ponds.

    Then there’s the fissure issue:

    “Impact Differential subsidence could result in the development of fissures, creating a potential to degrade waters of the state. Fissures could provide a preferential flow path for uncontained process fluids or chemical or hydrocarbon releases. Capture of surface runoff by fissures, may form erosional fissure gullies, which represent a safety risk to wildlife, livestock, wild horses, and people.

    “Significance of the Impact: The impact WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT if fissure gullies formed.”

    The company has promised to fill and overseed any fissures that appear, but, even when included in contracts, historical evidence shows few live up or are required by the government to live up to those legal obligations.

    And China is a player in Mt. Hope. A Chinese company now holds a 25% stake in the mine, and has a member on the BOD.

    “Mt. Hope’s high grade ore could be mixed with China’s low grade moly to produce a desired mixture needed for its massive infrastructure plans. China cast(s) covetous eyes on this AMERICAN BONANZA as steel demand is increasing. The country has major infrastructure plans, such as 27 nuclear reactors and 10 million social housing units, requiring a lot of steel. China has also classified molybdenum as a national resource, CURBING ITS OWN DOMESTIC PRODUCTION and forcing banks to look OVERSEAS.”

    It’s increasingly clear that China intends to rape U.S. (and world) natural resources in favor of keeping their own for future use or marketing once thier victims have either run low or run out. At that point, markets outside China will have no choice but to pay whatever prices they set for imports of raw materials and finished goods.

  2. Poor Ginger says:

    Laura, are there any active or proposed lawsuits against the expansion of Mt. Hope and the water issues? From what I read, the area’s farming co-op was bought off for $12 million (chump change!) in exchange for dropping their very vigorous opposition. I also read there was a $5 billion suit against the corporation (and the BLM?) several years ago. Has that been dropped, excluded, or settled?

  3. Barbara says:

    Many thanks for this, Laura. BTW the video isn’t working here.

  4. Barbara says:

    Video works when I forward it though. weird.

  5. Paula Denmon says:

    Video is wonderful.. The old grey mare (much like me) making her way up the hill to her friend is so touching and beautiful. I hope she is able to spend the rest of her days in freedom.
    I will use your talking points and mail a letter today. Ginger, you seem to have another angle too. I know from all the “fracking” that has been done in Texas, and some of the disasters that have happened with those chemicals including a huge industrial fire right here in Waxahachie, Tx. that these “new” techniques can be very dangerous to the OLD EARTH.
    I don’t know if the China angle is fact or fiction. I’m always skeptical of conspiratorial theories.. But I’m going to see what I can find out about that too.
    Letter on its way.

    • Debbie Coffey says:

      Paula, I did the research on the article about Mt. Hope and China, and I back up every sentence with credible sources. It’s NOT a conspiracy theory. I list all of my sources under my articles, so you can read for yourself. Best regards, Debbie Coffey

  6. Annie Mond says:

    12-08-2010 1:58 am – Debbie Coffey

  7. Barbara says:

    Thanks, Debbie. Your information is always well researched and accurate.
    I think this whole disasterous plan is against NEPA as no cumulative results are taken into consideration. The whole stae of NV should be up in arms over it but I wonder how few people even know about it. The BLM is supposed to be protecting our public lands and HORSES but instead is destroying them both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s