Anaconda Mine Cleanup

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Plans to Sell Lands for $0 at the Anaconda site

According to the Final Environmental Assessment developed by the BLM:

“The BLM is processing an application to dispose of 2,062 acres of public lands, including the underlying mineral estate administered by BLM within and adjacent to the ACMS, to ARC. ARC is responsible for certain remedial action under CERCLA as a potentially responsible party (PRP).  The conveyance of these lands would assist ARC in facilitating the remediation of health and safety hazards located on the ACMS. If the land were private, more robust land use restrictions could be placed on the parcels after remediation. As federal land, use restrictions and institutional controls would not be perpetual and subject to alteration through the resource management planning process under FLPMA.” ( Final EA, page 2)

However, there have been plans to re-mine portions of the Anaconda site by Singatse Peak Services (SPS), which is wholly owned by Lion Copper and Gold Corp,  If the lands are sold to ARC (Atlantic Richfield Corp), who is required to remediate the Anaconda Copper Mine Superfund Site, then ARC is planning to convey title to all minerals to SPS and the parties will execute a Surface Use Agreement allowing SPS the right to explore and mine the property ( according to a Preliminary Economic Assessment).  Once than lands are sold then the BLM will no longer have a role in what happens at the Anaconda site including re-mining activities.  This also means that a re-mining plan would not be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and the requirement of an environmental review.  Thus, the public will loose a voice the process.

It is unacceptable that re-mining of the Anaconda site does not go through the environmental review process. At Great Basin Resource Watch we see the land sale as a way for re-mining to proceed without the requirement of a federal environmental review and not reasons stated in the Final EA quoted above.

Great Basin Resource Watch combined with Prayer Horse Inc, and Taboosi Dikudu NO’Obatu Numma Cooperative to stop the land sale and file in federal court.  Our legal complaint centered on the following aspects:

1. This sale does not support the public interest. Under federal law, land sales can only occur if they are in the public interest. BLM’s public interest assessment must include consideration of the burden as well as the benefits that might flow from a land exchange or sale. This determination requires that BLM give “full consideration” to securing important objectives that include “[p]rotection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of recreation opportunities and public access according to regulations. But, BLM treats the land sale as merely a transfer of ownership and ignores its duties under federal law. However, without public-lands and federal oversight the scope and level of cleanup will be reduced. Removing public ownership and review is not in the best interest of the public.
2. BLM failed to Ensure “Fair Market Value” Payment and Failure to Comply with Federal Appraisal Standards and Requirements. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires land sales to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (UASFLA), “When appraising the federal land portion of the exchange, the regulations require that the appraiser ‘estimate the value of the lands and interests as if in private ownership and available for sale in the open market.” UASFLA at 53. BLM erroneously ignored the reasonably future market uses and values of the lands – which the record shows is for mining or re-mining of the parcels. The sale of public lands to private interests is of important interest to the public and must be a fully transparent process. But, BLM has failed to provide a detailed discussion of how land sale values were determined.
3. BLM failed to justify the land disposal. BLM failed to justify its decision to eliminate its oversight duties to protect public lands and ensure their continued use for the public good. BLM states that the sale is needed because: “Robust land use restrictions can be placed on the parcels to protect the remedial action, if made private.” But BLM does not show that it cannot also require “robust land use restrictions” under federal law (when added to any state or local requirements).
   The FEA provides no convincing evidence that the public is better served with no BLM oversight of lands that it has been entrusted to protect, and ignores BLM’s substantial regulatory authority over the lands under FLPMA (such as the requirements to “prevent unnecessary or undue degradation”).
4. The FEA completely ignores the re-mining/mining plans. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires reasonably foreseeable actions to be analyzed. Lion Copper and Gold (LCG) and its wholly owned Singatse Peak Services LLC (SPS) have clear plans for re-mining/mining the Anaconda site, which are publicly detailed in a Preliminary Economic Assessment report which states: “In order to facilitate remediation by ARC, advanced discussions are ongoing between ARC and BLM for ARC to acquire the BLM unpatented mining claims at the Yerington Property. Upon acquisition, ARC will convey title to all minerals to SPS and the parties will execute a Surface Use Agreement allowing SPS the right to explore and mine the property.” The report goes on to detail the re-mining/mining plans as part of the Yerington Copper Project including draining the Anaconda pit lake. None of this is analyzed in the FEA, and a serious violation of US law.
5. BLM is ignoring consequences related to the Walker River. Removal of lands that might affect resources associated with the Walker River, such as riparian areas and recreation, also not addressed in the FEA.
6. Indigenous culture aspects are not sufficiently addressed. The lands included for sale are part of the traditional territory of the Yerington Paiute Tribe. This sale will impact cultural sites of significance to the Tribe.

We have also filed for a preliminary injunction to to stay the land sale while our legal case is heard in federal court.    On July 16, 2026 the US District Court in Reno, Nevada granted our request for a an injunction and the land sale is current on hold.

Background Documents:

Final Environmental Assessment on the Land Sale (FEA)

GBRW comments on the FEA

GBRW protest of FEA and Finding of No Significant Impact

GBRW legal filing in federal court

GBRW filing for Preliminary Injunction

US District Court Ruling Granting the Injunction

On July 31, 2017, the State of Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) sent a formal “Request for Deferment” to the US EPA Region 9 for the Anaconda Mine near Yerington, Nevada not to be placed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).  This is a dramatic development in the long history of attempted cleanup of this toxic, abandoned mine.  Under deferment the site will not receive funds from the federal Superfund program and the State of Nevada would assume lead agency control and responsibility for the cleanup process.

Region 9 EPA has never executed a deferment process, so this would be new for both EPA and Nevada.  In other cases of deferment outside of Region 9, sites were smaller and in the early stages of investigation, making deferment for this large, complicated and toxic site unique.

In order for EPA to agree to deferment a number of conditions must be met, including assurance that a CERCLA (Superfund) equivalent feasibility study will be conducted at the Site; that the remedy selected be substantially similar to a CERCLA response; and that appropriate enforcement mechanisms will be in place during cleanup activities at the site. In addition, the state must assure support for Tribal involvement (both the Yerington Paiute tribe and the Walker River Paiute Tribe), as well as other affected community members.

The directly affected communities (those whose health could be affected) first learned of the listing deferment approach in February of 2017.  However, the State of Nevada, Atlantic Richfield Corp. (ARC, responsible for most cleanup costs), BLM, and EPA had been discussing deferment in private meetings for at least six months prior to February.  Finally, on May 23, 2017 the State of Nevada and EPA organized the first of what would be three roundtable meetings on the deferment approach with other stakeholders.

GBRW participated in all three roundtables, has discussed the situation with the directly affected community, and met with NDEP.  We found four main issues that need to be addressed in the final deferment agreements and process.

1.  The public engagement process must improve and be responsive to public concerns.

The public learned at the end of June that the State of Nevada and ARC had already signed a preliminary “Framework Agreement” document on June 13, 2017 that formed the basis for how the cleanup will proceed and expresses the tone and priorities and liabilities of the cleanup process (This document will be superseded by a more detailed document currently in draft form, which was publically released). As a result, GBRW found that people in the directly affected community, who are primary stakeholders, do not trust the deferral strategy, since they were left out of early discussions.  NDEP must develop a community involvement plan that maximizes transparency with regular updates, allows ample time for document review, and incorporates public comment into the decision making.

At the most recent roundtable on July 17 the Yerington Paiute Tribe requested an as needed 60 day period to review documents under the state lead cleanup scenario. The state responded that a 60 day review period would compromise the cleanup timeline proposed by ARC.  A 60 day review period is the law under CERCLA; NDEP must allow as much review time.  In addition, EPA conducts government-to-government meetings with the tribes as required by federal law, but no such law exists in Nevada, so Nevada must establish legal MOU’s to address this community and EPA priority.

2.  The State of Nevada must demonstrate that it will enforce full cleanup.

Many in the affected community recall that prior to 2000 the State of Nevada did not require sufficient bonding for a portion of this site, and NDEP was unable to get ARC to pay for more than token activities prior to EPA involvement. Under EPA lead, ARC (owned by British Petroleum) has spent more than 100 million dollars in assessment and emergency response cleanups at the site. This has left many in the directly affected community feel that it is a risk to return to state control of the cleanup.

Due to the size, risk, complexity, and history of the site the directly affected community is concerned that only through EPA using its authority under CERCLA will be able to manage the complete cleanup of the mine site.  NDEP will need to marshal very large resources to manage and enforce the cleanup process.

3.  The agreements between the State of Nevada and Atlantic Richfield Corp. must contain a commitment to aquifer restoration.

The mine contaminated groundwater under the mine boundary and beyond the boundary, primarily to the north.  The groundwater has been used for both drinking water and for agricultural irrigation. The goal of the cleanup should to restore the groundwater to those “beneficial” uses.  It will likely require decades to clean up to the legal standards required under CERCLA.   For example, the Homestake Mining Company Superfund site in Cibola County, New Mexico has a commitment to background level restoration and has been treating the various aquifers since 1989.

The goal of aquifer restoration must be clearly stated in both the deferment agreement between EPA and the State of Nevada and all other agreement documents.  The Statement of Work must include a schedule to develop a feasibility analysis for remediation strategies to restore the aquifer.

4.  The State of Nevada must require that ARC redraft a realistic site cleanup completion schedule.

The draft deferral agreement puts the site completion date in 2029.  The site contains five acid heap leach pads, and there is no example of an acid heap leach facility that has been closed to date.  In addition to the acid leach pads, are the waste rock dumps, a pit lake, tailings piles, evaporations ponds, massive topsoil needs, and groundwater that need to be addressed.  “Long-term institutional management is likely for many more decades,” according to Dr. Glenn Miller, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada.   For this reason and the need for ample time for public review and input the cleanup schedule must be redrafted.

GBRW and many in the affected community foresee costs for work, like groundwater cleanup, extending  past 2029 and will therefore be borne by Nevada citizens. The agreement the State of Nevada is proposing to ARC is without precedent with a serious risk of allowing their responsibility to end on a date even if the job is left undone.