[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ABANDONED MINED LANDS:
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT,
IMPROVING SAFETY AND
CREATING JOBS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 14, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-405 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
RUSH D. HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democrat Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Mike Coffman, CO Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Dan Benishek, MI CNMI
David Rivera, FL Martin Heinrich, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Betty Sutton, OH
Bill Flores, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Vacancy
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
TN
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 14, 2011.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, Thomas Martin, Chairman of the Board, Appalachian
Wildlife Foundation, on behalf of Safari Club International 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Burke, Hon. Marcilynn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Heck, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada.................................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Holtrop, Hon. Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Mittal, Anu K., Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Highlights............................................... 29
Pagel, Lauren, Policy Director, Earthworks................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Pineda, Loretta, Director, Division of Reclamation, Mining
and Safety, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on
behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs....... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director,
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, on Behalf of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs, May 18,
2011, submitted for the record......................... 42
Skaer, Laura, Executive Director, Northwest Mining
Association................................................ 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Email submitted for the record........................... 73
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ``ABANDONED MINED LANDS: INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
FOR RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT, IMPROVING SAFETY AND CREATING JOBS.''
----------
Thursday, July 14, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:33 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Thompson, and Holt.
Mr. Lamborn. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman
notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee Rule 3(e)
is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources is meeting today to conduct an oversight hearing on
``Abandoned Mined Lands: Innovative Solutions for Restoring the
Environment, Improving Safety, and Creating Jobs.''
Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask for
unanimous consent to include any other Members' opening
statements in the record if submitted to the Clerk by close of
business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Good afternoon. Because of the series of votes
and the subsequent delay in convening the hearing, we are going
to do things a little differently. Thank you for your patience
in waiting while we went through that sort of lengthy series of
votes earlier.
And I do want to apologize on behalf of the staff to the
Minority for not getting the word out to everybody like we
should have that we were delaying the opening of the hearing
until after the series of votes, because we knew that would
interfere right at the beginning.
We will have two panels today. Representative Heck from
Nevada will testify first, and then we will consolidate
everyone else in one large panel so that we can just finish
with one round of questions, and expedite things because of the
lateness of the day.
Now, for the rest of my statement, I would like to say
this. We are here today to discuss the Nation's abandoned mined
lands, and to look at innovative solutions to help restore the
environment, improve safety, and examine opportunities for job
creation.
During the Subcommittee's hearing to examine the
President's budget proposal for the energy and minerals program
at the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest
Service, Ms. Skaer had recommended a Good Samaritan approach to
help address problems associated with abandoned hardrock mines
in the West, an approach that has been successfully employed by
the State of Pennsylvania to augment the abandoned mined land
program that is part of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, that governs coal mining in the
United States.
Mr. Holt, my colleague, and Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, was intrigued by the prospect and interested in
trying to understand why private industry, the mining industry
in particular, would be willing to voluntarily help address a
problem that was in part created by others.
These predecessors prospected and mined without the current
framework of environmental laws and regulations, or the modern
mining techniques and reclamation and mine closure practices
that are now part and parcel of mining activity for both coal
and hardrock operations.
So, maybe we can learn more about the motivation, and what
propels people to do these good things. The Federal Government
also shares some responsibility for some of the abandoned mined
lands, and some of the environmental issues associated with
others.
In particular, during World War II, the government closed
down all but one gold mine, and directed how other mines would
operate for other minerals as part of the war effort.
Compliance with the Defense Stockpile Act also contributed to
the problem of abandoned land sites, mine land sites, as we
will hear from Congressman Heck shortly.
Representative Heck recently introduced the ``Three Kids
Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act'', an abandoned mine site
that was used to stockpile manganese as recently as 2003. I
will let him give the details of what the Act is about, and the
history of it.
During the 111th Congress, I introduced H.R. 3203, the
``Cleanup of Inactive and Abandoned Mines Act'', a Good
Samaritan bill with provisions similar to what Ms. Skaer will
discuss today in her testimony.
I also would like to welcome Director Pineda from my home
State of Colorado. I look forward to the insight that you can
provide as the person in Colorado responsible for overseeing
much of the State's abandoned mine land cleanup efforts under
SMCRA.
We will also hear from the Bureau of Land Management and
the United States Forest Service about their hardrock abandoned
mine land programs that have been in place since about 1997.
Mr. Baker, representing Safari Club International, is
responsible for reintroducing elk to Kentucky on reclaimed
mined land. I look forward to hearing about this story and
insights that he may have.
We also have the GAO and Earthworks testifying today. I
believe that this will be a productive hearing. I look forward
to what everyone has to offer. All of the witnesses and Members
share the same goal: an abandoned mined land program that
works, mine reclamation that improves the environment, and the
reduction of hazards to keep people safe.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes for his
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Good afternoon because of the series of votes and the subsequent
delay in convening the hearing we are going to do things a little
differently than normal.
We will have two panels; Mr Heck will testify first and then we
will seat everyone else for one big panel so that everyone that has
traveled here from outside the beltway has an opportunity to fully
participate in the hearing.
Traditionally we would have a separate government only panel,
however due to the delay imposed by votes we will empanel everyone
together. Hopefully it will help to engender a positive flow of ideas
amongst our witnesses and the Members.
Now for the meat of my statement--we are here today to discuss the
Nation's abandoned mined lands and look at innovative solutions to help
restore the environment, improve safety and examine opportunities for
job creation in the process.
During the subcommittee's hearing to examine the President's budget
proposal for the Energy and Minerals Programs at the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service, Ms. Skaer had recommended a
Good Samaritan approach to help address problems associated with
abandoned hardrock mines in the west; an approach that has been
successfully employed by the State of Pennsylvania to augment the
abandoned mined land program that is part of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act--SMCRA--that governs coal mining in the United
States.
Mr. Holt, my colleague and the Ranking Member of this committee,
was intrigued by the prospect and interested in trying to understand
why private industry--the mining industry in particular--would be
willing to voluntarily help address a problem that was in part created
by their predecessors prospecting and mining without the benefit of the
current framework of environmental laws and regulations or the modern
mining techniques and concurrent reclamation and mine closure practices
that are part and parcel of modern mining activity for both coal and
hardrock operations.
I say that the industry and their predecessors are only in part
responsible because the Federal government shares responsibility for
some abandoned mined lands and environmental issues associated with
others. In particular during World War II--the government closed down
all but one gold mine and directed how the other mines would operate as
part of the war effort.
Compliance with the Defense Stockpile Act also contributed to the
problem of abandoned mined land sites as we will hear from Congressman
Heck shortly.
Mr. Heck recently introduced the ``Three Kids Mine Remediation and
Reclamation Act,'' an abandoned mine site that was used to stockpile
manganese as recently as 2003.
In this case the City of Henderson's redevelopment council along
with the State of Nevada is interested in acquiring the property from
the Bureau of Land Management, cleaning up the site and redeveloping
it. In the process they would assume all environmental liability from
the federal government, take care of an environmental and physical
hazard ultimately repurposing the area adding value to the community of
Henderson. Rather than telling the whole story here I'll let Mr. Heck
provide the details.
During the 11th Congress, I introduced H.R.--3203, the ``Cleanup of
Inactive and Abandoned Mines Act,'' a Good Samaritan bill with
provisions similar to what Ms. Skaer will discuss today in her
testimony.
I also would like to welcome Director Pineda from my home state of
Colorado. I look forward to the insight you can provide as the person
in Colorado responsible for overseeing much of the state's abandoned
mined land cleanup efforts under SMCRA.
We will also hear from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service about their hardrock abandoned mine land programs that
have been in place since about 1994.
Mr. Baker, representing Safari Club International, is responsible
for reintroducing Elk to Kentucky on reclaimed mined land; I look
forward to hearing more about his story and the insights he may have
for us looking for a solution for the problem at hand.
We also have GAO and Earthworks testifying today. I believe this
will be a productive hearing and look forward to what everyone has to
offer. All of the witnesses and Members share the same goal--an
abandoned mined land program that works, mine reclamation that improves
the environment and reduction of hazards that keep people safe!
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cleaning up abandoned
mines presents a significant challenge. The environmental
legacy of abandoned mines really can't be underestimated.
Even decades after closure, mines continue to leach lead,
arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals, into waterways. It is
striking that in the Western United States the Environmental
Protection Agency has estimated that about 40 percent of the
headwaters of rivers and streams have been affected by
discharges from abandoned hardrock mines, which threatens water
supplies, increases the costs of water treatment, and limits
fishing, recreation, and other activities.
The size of the problem is daunting. The GAO says that we
don't even know the exact number of abandoned mines across the
country. The EPA and BLM estimate that there might be half-a-
million abandoned mine locations.
We need to take steps to prevent the creation of new
abandoned mines. That is one thing at least that we can do by
ensuring that mining companies post sufficient bonding and
financial assurances to allow the land to be fully reclaimed
after operations cease.
The EPA is in the process of developing regulations to
require financial assurances from mining companies on private
lands, but just this week the Majority approved an amendment to
the Interior Appropriations bill that will cut off all funding
for the EPA to develop nationwide rules on minimum financial
assurances for cleaning up mining operations under the CERCLA,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act.
Over half of all abandoned mines are on private lands, and
we shouldn't prevent the EPA from moving forward with its
rulemaking. On public lands the Bureau of Land Management has
regulations that require financial assurances for cleanup.
However, the GAO has concluded that current bonding is
often inadequate to fund fully all of the cleanup activities
which can result in creating more of the kind of problem sites
that we have been left with from earlier years.
We should consider adopting policies that require the
mining industry, which caused the abandoned mines in the first
place that created the hazard, to take responsibility and pay
for the cleanup of these sites.
This idea of polluter pays is already used in reclaiming
and cleaning up abandoned coal mines under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. Under current law, coal mining
companies pay a fee to fund the cleanup of legacy coal mines
throughout the Nation.
In its budget request, the Administration included a
proposal to institute an abandoned mine lands fee for hardrock
mining, and I look forward to hearing more about this proposal
from our witnesses.
I also look forward to hearing about proposals to encourage
voluntary cleanup of abandoned mines through the Good Samaritan
action. Good Samaritan provisions, I think, if crafted
properly, have the potential to help reclaim abandoned mines.
But I think we should be clear and clearheaded that we
can't gut all environment laws so that large mining
corporations can squeeze more money out of public lands under
the guise of cleaning up abandoned mines.
We do want to encourage the cleanup, and I am eager to find
the ways to do that. So, I thank the witnesses for traveling. I
thank you for waiting to accommodate our voting schedule on the
Floor, and I am looking forward to the testimony. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Cleaning up abandoned mine lands presents a significant challenge.
The environmental legacy of abandoned mines should not be
underestimated. Even decades after their closure, some mines continue
to leach lead, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals into nearby
waterways or drinking water supplies. The problem of abandoned mines is
particularly acute in the Western United States, where the
Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that approximately 40% of
the headwaters in rivers and streams have been impacted by discharges
from abandoned hardrock mines, threatening water supplies, increasing
water treatment costs, and limiting fishing and recreation activities.
The size of the abandoned mine lands problem is daunting. The EPA
and BLM estimate that there may be over half a million abandoned mines
locations scattered across the country. In fact, according to the GAO,
we don't even know the exact number of abandoned mines across the
country.
And we need to take steps to prevent the creation of new abandoned
mines by ensuring that mining companies post sufficient bonding and
financial assurances to allow the land to be fully reclaimed after the
mine ceases operations.
The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of developing
regulations to require financial assurances from mining companies on
private lands. But just this week, the Majority approved an amendment
to the Interior Appropriations bill that will cut off all funding for
the EPA to develop nationwide rules on minimum financial assurances for
cleaning up mining operations under CERCLA. Over half of all abandoned
mines are on private lands and we should not prevent the EPA from
moving forward with this rulemaking.
On public lands, the Bureau of Land Management has regulations that
require financial assurances for cleanup. However, the GAO has
concluded that current bonding is often inadequate to fully fund all
cleanup activities, which can result in new abandoned mine sites.
We should consider adopting policies that require the mining
industry, which caused the abandoned mines in the first place, to take
responsibility and pay for the cleanup of these sites. This polluter-
pays principle is already utilized for reclaiming and cleaning up
abandoned coal mines under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act. Under current law, coal mining companies pay a fee to fund the
cleanup of legacy coal mines throughout the nation. In its budget
request, the administration included a proposal to institute an
abandoned mine lands fee for hardrock mining and I look forward to
hearing more about this proposal from our witnesses.
Finally, I look forward to hearing about proposals to encourage
voluntary cleanup of abandoned mines by Good Samaritans. Good Samaritan
provisions, if crafted properly, have the potential to help reclaim
abandoned mines. But let us be clear, we should not gut all
environmental laws so that large mining corporations can squeeze more
money from public lands under the guise of allowing Good Samaritans to
clean up abandoned mines.
With that said, I want to thank all the witnesses for traveling so
far today to join us. I look forward to hearing from all of you.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. Congressman Heck, you
are on the first panel by yourself. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Heck. Well, thank you, Chairman Lamborn, and Ranking
Member Holt, for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee
on what I think is an innovative solution for restoring the
environment, and improving safety, and creating jobs in my
district in Southern Nevada.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss legislation that I
introduced just this week, the ``Three Kids Mine Remediation
and Reclamation Act'', H.R. 2512, to address a serious
environmental, public safety, and abandoned mine reclamation
issue in the City of Henderson, Nevada.
As the Chair mentioned, the ``Three Kids Mine'' is an
abandoned manganese mine and mill site, consisting of
approximately 1,262 acres of both Federal and private lands
which lies within the Henderson City limits, and is literally
across Lake Mead Parkway, a major roadway, from an increasing
number of homes and businesses, and it is depicted on the map
to my right.
The ``Three Kids Mine'' was owned and operated by various
parties, including the U.S. Government, from approximately 1917
through 1961, and was used as a storage area for Federal
manganese ore reserves from the late 1950s through 2003.
The project site contains numerous large, unstable shear-
cliff open pits, as deep as 400 feet, huge volumes of mined
overburden/tailings, mill facility remnants, and waste disposal
areas, as can be seen on the photographs in front of me.
To give a sense of scale, the mine overburden is 10 stories
high in some areas. Abandoned waste ponds are up to 60 feet
deep, and filled with over one million cubic yards of
gelatinous tailings containing high concentrations of arsenic,
lead, and petroleum compounds.
Reclaiming the project site will require the excavation and
management of at least 12 million cubic yards of material,
enough to fill a modern sports stadium, six times. The
presumptive remedy for the project site is to use the existing
mine pits as permanent repositories for the mine residue in an
appropriately engineered manner.
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has
identified the ``Three Kids Mine'' as a high priority for the
implementation of a comprehensive environmental investigation,
remediation, and reclamation program.
Numerous unsuccessful proposals to clean up and redevelop
the project site have been advanced over the years, but all
were ultimately abandoned due to unrealistic estimates of the
scale of the required remediation.
The legislation I have introduced, with the support of the
entire Nevada delegation, is the result of over four years of
work among the City of Henderson Redevelopment Agency, the
Department of the Interior, the State of Nevada, and private
entities, to develop a program to finally clean up the ``Three
Kids Mine'' site.
Boiled down to its simplest form, the Secretary of the
Interior will convey the Federal lands at the project site,
approximately 948 acres, at fair market value, taking into
account the costs of investigating and remediating the entire
site, which includes an additional 314 acres of now private
lands that were used historically in mine operations.
The Federal Government will receive a release of liability
for cleanup of both the Federal lands and the private lands.
Under the legislation, before the Federal lands are conveyed,
the State must enter into a binding consent agreement under
which the cleanup of the entire project site will occur.
The consent agreement must include financial assurances to
ensure the completion of the remediation and reclamation of the
site, and the cleanup will be financed with private capital,
and Nevada tax increment financing at no cost to the Federal
Government.
According to preliminary estimates, the cleanup costs range
from a low of $300 million to a high of nearly $1 billion. The
BLM's preliminary estimate of the value of the lands to be
conveyed, as if they were clean, ranges from $95 million to
$190 million.
So, as you can clearly see, the cleanup costs will far
outweigh the value of the lands to be conveyed. But before any
conveyance of Federal land, the legislation requires an
executed mine remediation and reclamation agreement between a
responsible party and the State of Nevada that would govern the
CERCLA-protective cleanup program for the entire project site.
Finally, in exchange for the conveyance of the lands, the
United States would receive a complete release of liability for
all existing environmental and hazardous safety conditions
associated with the entire project site.
This is indeed a unique and complex public and private
partnership proposal. It will finally lead to the cleanup of
the ``Three Kids Mine'' site at no cost to the Federal
Government.
In closing, I want to once again thank Chairman Lamborn and
Ranking Member Holt, as well as other members of the
Subcommittee, for holding a hearing on the serious problem of
abandoned mined lands, and innovative solutions for addressing
the problem. Again, thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joe Heck, a Representative in Congress
from the 3rd District of Nevada
Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Holt, thank you for inviting me
to testify before the Subcommittee on an innovative solution for
restoring the environment, improving safety, and creating jobs in my
District in southern Nevada. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
legislation that I introduced this week--the Three Kids Mine
Remediation and Reclamation Act--to address a serious environmental,
public safety, and abandoned mine reclamation issue in the City of
Henderson, Nevada.
The Three Kids Mine is an abandoned manganese mine and mill site
consisting of approximately 1,262 acres of Federal and private lands
which lies within the Henderson City limits and is literally across
Lake Mead Parkway from an increasing number of homes and businesses.
The Three Kids Mine was owned and operated by various parties,
including the United States, from approximately 1917 through 1961, and
used as a storage area for Federal manganese ore reserves from the late
1950s through 2003. The project site contains numerous large unstable
sheer-cliff open pits as deep as 400 feet, huge volumes of mine
overburden/tailings, mill facility remnants and waste disposal areas.
To give a sense of scale, mine overburden is ten stories high in some
areas; abandoned waste ``ponds'' are up to 60 feet deep and filled with
over one million cubic yards of gelatinous tailings containing high
concentrations of arsenic, lead and petroleum compounds. Reclaiming the
Project Site will require the excavation and management of at least 12
million cubic yards of material (enough to fill a modern sports stadium
six times). The ``Presumptive Remedy'' for the Project Site is to use
the existing mine pits as permanent repositories for the mine residue,
in an appropriately engineered manner.
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has identified the
Three Kids Mine as a high priority for the implementation of a
comprehensive environmental investigation, remediation, and reclamation
program. Numerous unsuccessful proposals to clean up and redevelop the
Project Site have been advanced over the years. All were ultimately
abandoned due to unrealistic estimates of the scale of required
remediation, as well as the complexities posed by the mix of private
and Federal ownership at the Project Site. Something must be done to
address this serious blight on the Henderson community.
The legislation I have introduced, with the support of the entire
Nevada Delegation, is the result of over four years of work among the
City of Henderson Redevelopment Agency, the Department of the Interior,
the State of Nevada, and private entities to develop a program to
finally clean up the Three Kids Mine site. Boiled down to its simplest
form, the Secretary of the Interior will convey the Federal lands at
the project site--approximately 948 acres--at fair market value taking
into account the costs of investigating and remediating the entire
site, which includes an additional 314 acres of now-private lands that
were used historically in mine operations. The Federal Government will
receive a release of liability for cleanup of both the Federal lands
and the private lands. Under the legislation, before the Federal lands
are conveyed, the State must enter into a binding consent agreement
under which the cleanup of the entire Project Site will occur. The
consent agreement must include financial assurances to ensure the
completion of the remediation and reclamation of the Site. The cleanup
will be financed with private capital and Nevada tax increment
financing at no cost to the Federal Government.
In more detail, the legislation would direct the Secretary to
convey the 948 Federal acres of the Three Kids Mine project site to the
Henderson Redevelopment Agency for fair market value, discounted to
reflect the costs of cleanup of the entire Project Site. According to
preliminary estimates, the cleanup costs for the Project Site range
from a low of $300 million to a high of nearly $1 billion. The BLM's
preliminary estimate of the value of the lands to be conveyed as if
they were ``clean'' ranges from $95 million to $190 million. The value
and costs will be determined by the Secretary under the legislation
using established national appraisal methods, environmental assessment
standards, and cost estimating procedures. We fully expect the cleanup
costs to substantially exceed the value of the lands to be conveyed.
Moreover, given the mix of private and Federal lands at the project
site and the substantial cleanup costs involved, there is no viable
solution to remediate and reclaim the Federal lands without the private
lands.
Before any conveyance of Federal land, the legislation requires an
executed Mine Remediation and Reclamation Agreement between a
responsible party and the State of Nevada that would govern the
``CERCLA-protective'' cleanup program for the entire Project Site
(Federal and private lands) and ensure that the program is fully
funded. Finally, in exchange for the conveyance, the United States
would receive a complete release of liability for all existing
environmental and hazardous safety conditions associated with the
entire Project Site.
Fundamental to the economic viability of the entire project is the
availability of ``tax increment financing'' under the Nevada Community
Redevelopment Law. The Nevada Redevelopment Law allows the
Redevelopment Agency to fund the cleanup of blighted conditions such as
an abandoned mine and environmental contamination through use of an
``increment'' of property taxes collected within a designated
redevelopment area over a 30-year ``capture period.'' The ``increment''
is a portion of the assessed value of the property which predictably
increases in value following cleanup and as the subsequent commercial
and residential redevelopment build-out occurs. To advance this
important project, the City of Henderson completed annexation of the
Three Kids site in January 2009, and the Lakemoor Canyon Redevelopment
Area was established in February 2009.
This is a unique and complex ``public/private partnership''
proposal. It will finally lead to the cleanup of the Three Kids Mine
site at no cost to the Federal Government. Millions of dollars have
been spent on this effort to date on environmental assessment work at
the Project Site and to advance discussions and negotiations among
project stakeholders. I believe that this initiative offers a viable
solution for the cleanup and reclamation of the Three Kids Mine and
could serve as a model for other similar sites across the country. I
would respectfully request that the Subcommittee grant expeditious
consideration of the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act.
In closing, I want to once again thank Chairman Lamborn and Ranking
Member Holt, as well as the other members of the Subcommittee, for
holding a hearing on the serious problem of abandoned mined lands, and
innovative solutions for addressing the problem. I would be happy to
answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. I want to thank you for your
testimony and for being here today. If anyone submits questions
to you, we would ask you to answer them in writing, and we will
excuse you now, and we will go to the second panel.
Mr. Holt. If I may ask one question before he leaves.
Mr. Lamborn. Certainly.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Since I can't see the graphics here,
you say that this is a residential area surrounding it?
Mr. Heck. Across from this area is a residential area. That
is correct.
Mr. Holt. And what is the anticipated use, or what might
you imagine of the use of this land then?
Mr. Heck. Once fully reclaimed or remediated, it is being
considered by the City of Henderson as a mixed-use development
site.
Mr. Holt. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. And I would like to
invite everyone else to come up to form the second panel, and
we are consolidating things for the sake of time, and I once
again apologize for having that vote series earlier, but that
was out of our control.
So, The Honorable Marcilynn Burke, The Honorable Joel
Holtrop, Anu Mittal, Loretta Pineda. Let us see. Marcilynn
Burke is the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
Joel Holtrop is the Deputy Chief of the United States Forest
Service.
Anu Mittal is the Director of the Natural Resources and
Environment Section of the GAO, the Government Accountability
Office. Loretta Pineda is the Director of the Division of
Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, and is also here on behalf of the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission, and the National Association of
Abandoned Mine Land Programs.
Laura Skaer is the Executive Director of the Northwest
Mining Association. Thomas Martin Baker is the Chairman of the
Board of the Appalachian Wildlife Foundation and is here on
behalf of Safari Club International and Lauren Pagel, Policy
Director of Earthworks.
Now, like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear
in full in the hearing record, and so I ask that you keep your
oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our invitation
letter to you.
You will have to turn on the microphone because they are
not automatic. The five-minute light starts when you begin
speaking, and the yellow light comes on when there is one
minute left, and the red light comes on when your five minutes
are over.
Now, I am going to take one witness out of order. We
normally go--and I intend to always go with our Federal
Government witnesses first as a courtesy. We have one person
here who has to catch a plane, and so Mr. Baker, I am going to
ask that you go first, and then you may be excused to go catch
your plane, and then at that point, we will just finish with
the rest of our panel. So, you may begin, Mr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MARTIN BAKER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
APPALACHIAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, AND ON BEHALF OF SAFARI CLUB
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Baker. I
am a hunter, a sportsman, and a conservationist. Just as a side
note, my three oldest sons are active duty United States
Marines, proudly serving our country, and my wife and I have
been married 30 years.
I can tell you that 30 years ago when I met her, she told
me that she loved stuffed animals. That meant something
entirely different to me than it did to her. Over a century ago
a group of concerned individuals banded together to save a
place known as Yellowstone.
The story that follows from the efforts of these
visionaries of the Boone and Crockett Club is cherished as one
of our Nation's greatest accomplishments. The history of the
Hunter Sportsman is a tale of over 100 years of measured and
thoughtful commitment to conservation.
It is a commitment that balances human needs with wildlife
needs, a commitment that sees deep value in preserving the
hunting tradition, as well as in conserving wildlands and
wildlife.
It is a commitment that grows out of a powerful love of
wildlife, but is also shaped by common sense and a business
like approach to managing natural resources. By the turn of the
century, unrestricted killing of wildlife for markets, for
pioneer settlement of the West, and Native American government
conflicts, had taken their toll on most North American big game
populations, and on many species of bird and fish.
At that time a national conscience that opposed the
destruction of America's wildlife and natural resources was in
its infancy. Over the next several decades, Theodore Roosevelt,
along with Members such as Aldo Leopold, and ``Ding'' Darling,
championed the passage of laws, the establishment of
institutions, and the designation of wildlands, which today
make up our Nation's conservation system, our National Forests,
our National Parks, our National Wildlife Refuge System, exists
today in large part because of the extensive efforts of the
Boone and Crockett Club, and the sportsmen and women of
America.
The fundamental policy behind management of our Federal
lands is multiple use. Sportsmen recognize that. Let me offer
you a following example of the success that is attainable when
sportsmen groups cooperate with mining companies.
In 1996, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation pledged over
$1.4 million to the State of Kentucky's Elk Restoration
Project. On December 18th, 1997, seven elk that had been
captured in Western Kansas were released at the Cyprus Amax
Wildlife Management Area in Eastern Kentucky.
This was the first of a series of releases that continued
through the winter of 2002. The plan originally contemplated
releasing 1,800 elk at a rate of 200 per year for nine years
across the 15 county restoration zone.
The translocations were discontinued in 2002 with just over
1,500 elk having been released at eight different sites, 500 of
them in the final 12 months of the releases. Since 1997 the
Foundation has increased its funding of the project to $2
million.
The elk have thrived in Kentucky. They are achieving a 90
percent breeding success rate, and a 92 percent calf survival
rate. The absence of predators, relatively mild Kentucky
winters, and abundant food sources, have not only contributed
to the remarkable population growth, but also account for the
fact that the Kentucky elk are on an average 15 percent larger
than elk found in the Western States.
By July of 2000, Kentucky had the largest free ranging wild
elk herd east of Montana. Today, State wildlife officials
estimate the herd size has grown to over 10,000 animals.
In 2011, more than 61,000 applicants applied for one of the
800 permits offered by the State for elk hunting. The
application process alone generated in excess of $700,000 for
the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.
More importantly, it is estimated that more than $23
million was generated in the local economy from elk hunting,
elk viewing, elk tours, hotel stays, and restaurant visits.
This one project alone has been a tremendous boost to the
economy of Southeast Kentucky.
In summary, we need to strive to alleviate the disconnect
between the many different interests that view these ALM sites.
Working to a like cause, where one in wildlife, as well as
people, benefit from a well thought out and well executed plan.
This is where we should strive to be.
We need every abandoned mine site and disturbed soil site
turned back to a wildlife restoration tool. As we approach
these new projects before us, we need every energy site a
showcase for innovative wildlife friendly restoration designs
that address the pertinent issues.
From sage grouse to deer, elk, small mammals, song birds,
pollinators, and other wildlife, all these species are reliant
to our doing what is best. This is more than a pipe dream. The
technology, and scientific resources, research data, and
enthusiastic groups, are in place to accomplish these goals and
create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Statement of Thomas M. Baker, Chairman of the Board,
Appalachian Wildlife Foundation
Over a century ago, a group of concerned individuals banded
together to save wildlife and a place known as Yellowstone. The story
that follows from the efforts of those visionaries of the Boone and
Crockett Club is cherished as one of our nation's greatest
accomplishments.
The history of the Hunter/Sportsman is a tale of over 100 years of
measured and thoughtful commitment to conservation. It is a commitment
that balances human needs with wildlife needs; a commitment that sees
deep value in preserving the hunting tradition, as well as in
conserving wild lands and wildlife; a commitment that grows out of a
powerful love of wildlife, but that is also shaped by a common-sense,
business-like approach to managing natural resources.
By the turn of the century, unrestricted killing of wildlife for
markets, pioneer settlement of the West, and Native American/government
conflict had taken their toll on most North American big game
populations, and on many species of bird and fish. At that time, a
national conscience that opposed the destruction of America's wildlife
and natural resources was in its infancy.
Over the next several decades, Theodore Roosevelt, along with
members such as Aldo Leopold and J.N. ``Ding'' Darling, championed the
passage of laws, the establishment of institutions, and the designation
of wild lands which today make up our nation's conservation system. Our
National Forest's, National Parks, and the National Wildlife Refuge
Systems exist today in large part because of the extensive efforts of
the Boone and Crockett Club and the sportsmen and women of America.
Abandoned mine lands can have serious negative impacts on wildlife
habitat, especially for fish and aquatic species. While we understand
the primary focus of AML efforts to clean up and restore sites that
pose threats to health and human safety, we would like to see a higher
priority given to AML sites that are having significant impacts on fish
and wildlife habitat (Priority 3 sites).
At a time when regulators are giving intense scrutiny to new mining
permits because of water quality impacts, very little AML funding is
available for Priority 3 sites. This is especially true in the
Appalachian Region where there was extensive surface mining prior to
the passage of SMCRA. While regulators are more diligent than ever on
new mine permits, these old ``pre-law'' mine sites have been polluting
water for at least 35 years. It will take years and probably hundreds
of millions of dollars to fix these sites in a manner that will improve
water quality, and restore habitat for fish and other aquatic species,
some of which are considered imperiled.
The Appalachian coal fields are experiencing some of the worst
unemployment rates in the United States, and have the greatest
concentration of pre-law coal mine sites. Making more funds available
for Priority 3 sites in the Appalachian Region would greatly benefit
the ecological integrity of the region as well as provide much needed
jobs in doing the cleanup.
With that said, here are a few points we would like the committee
to consider.
1. AML funds should be directed to where the greatest needs
are for the cleanup and restoration of habitat on pre-law coal
mines, and not be tied so heavily to where coal is mined
currently. Current coal production is not reflective of where
mining occurred before SMCRA was passed. The Appalachians have
enormous needs for AML funds, and a state like Tennessee cannot
get adequate AML funds because the current production of coal
in Tennessee is very low, yet Tennessee has enormous AML
problems.
2. We need adequate ``Good Samaritan'' protection from
liability for companies, non-profit groups, local and state
governments, and anybody else that might want to voluntarily
clean up and restore habitat to an AML site. The disincentives
for this must be removed.
3. We would like to see consideration given to dispersing a
portion of AML funds through grants in a program similar to
current Farm Bill programs like the Conservation Reserve
Program, Conservation Restoration and Enhancement Program,
Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program. Non-profit organizations, state agencies, private
landowners and other appropriate entities could qualify for
grants that would cost-share AML projects. Priority could be
given to projects that improved habitat for threatened and
endangered, or imperiled aquatic and upland species.
4. We would like to see consideration given to coupling
mitigation efforts and AML projects that improve aquatic
habitat and can help improve water sources used for municipal
drinking water. Some streams in need of reconstruction and
channel restoration efforts do not qualify for mitigation
efforts because of water quality impairments from pre-law mine
sites.
5. Provide more incentives for ``re-mining'' of AML coal mine
sites on private and public lands.
6. While there is a great need for funds to address pre-law
hard rock mines, a new source of funding needs to be created
specifically for these types of mines so that funds generated
from coal mining can be used for the original intent of
cleaning up abandoned coal mines.
Let me offer the following project as an example of the success
attainable when sportsman's groups cooperate with mining companies
In 1996 the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation pledged over $1.4 million
to the state of Kentucky's elk restoration project. On December 18,
1997, seven elk that had been captured in Western Kansas were released
at the Cyprus Amax Wildlife Management Area in Eastern Kentucky. This
was the first of a series of releases that continued thru the winter of
2002. The plan originally contemplated releasing 1,800 elk at a rate of
200 per year for 9 years across a 15 county restoration zone. The
translocations were discontinued in 2002, with just over 1,500 elk
having been released at 8 different sites, 500 in the final 12 months
of the releases. Since 1997, the Foundation has increased its funding
of the project to $2,000,000.
The elk have thrived in Kentucky. They are achieving a 90% breeding
success rate, and a 92% calf survival rate. The absence of predators,
relatively mild Kentucky winters and abundant food sources have not
only contributed to the remarkable population growth, but also account
for the fact that the Kentucky elk are on average 15% larger than elk
found in western states. By July 2000, Kentucky had the largest free
ranging, wild elk herd east of Montana.
Today, state wildlife officials estimate the herd size has grown to
over 10,000 animals. In 2011, more than sixty-one thousand applicants
(61,000) applied for one of the eight hundred (800) permits offered by
the state for elk hunting. The application process alone generated in
excess of $700,000.00 for the Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources. More importantly, it is estimated that more than Twenty-
three million dollars ($23,000,000.00) was generated in the local
economy from elk hunting, elk viewing, elk tours, hotel stays and
restaurant visits. This one project alone has been a tremendous boost
to the economy of south-east Kentucky.
In summary, we need to strive to alleviate the disconnect between
the many different interests that view these AML sites. Working to a
like cause, one wherein wildlife as well as people benefit from a well
thought out well executed project. This is where we should strive to
be. We need every abandoned mine and disturbed soil site turned back to
a wildlife restoration tool. As we approach these new projects before
us, we need every energy site a showcase for innovative wildlife
friendly restoration designs that address the pertinent issues. From
sage grouse to deer, elk, small mammals, song birds, pollinators, and
other wildlife, all these species are reliant to our doing what is
best. This is more than a pipe dream, the technology, scientific
resources, research data, and enthusiastic groups are in place to
accomplish these goals and create jobs in an economy that desperately
needs them.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. So, I can assume from what you said
when you first started that you have some stuffed animals at
home.
Mr. Baker. I do, sir, several hundred.
Mr. Lamborn. Now, would the things that are successful in
Kentucky also work in an arid or semi-arid Western State like
Nevada?
Mr. Baker. I would say that it happens every day right now.
Sportsmen's groups around the country are known for their
philanthropy, in terms of donating their time, their money, and
their efforts, and are the leaders I think in conservation in
providing those types of services for all types of habitat
projects, reclamation projects, going out and cleaning up the
land, and working on any site that would harbor wildlife or
fisheries.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. At this point, I would like to see
if the Ranking Member has any questions?
Mr. Holt. I have no questions now.
Mr. Lamborn. Or the Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, thanks
for your testimony. I am from Pennsylvania, and we have a lot
of abandoned mine sites, and in fact, if you are ever in
Pennsylvania, I would welcome you to the 5th District.
We have a wonderful elk visitors center that is located
strategically in the area of abandoned mine sites that have
been claimed. I am just curious. In your experiences, have you
identified any particular barriers as a third-party
organization working with government, and working with
landowners, run up against difficulties or barriers to making
this model work?
Because it seems to me that based on hearing your
testimony, and my observations, they are a very effective
model, and one of a number to be able to utilize these lands
reclaim them.
I know that our elk herd is not as large as Kentucky's. We
have about a thousand, but they are an economic engine, in
terms of the income from tourism and from hunting, that comes
into Pennsylvania.
So, are there any particular issues that you found that
make what has happened in Kentucky difficult, and barriers to
be overcome?
Mr. Baker. There are several things that come to mind.
Sometimes access. Many of these mines that you are speaking of
are on private land in many States, and so getting permission
to go in and work on these properties in a cooperative manner
with the landowner can sometimes be an issue.
Obviously money to fund these projects. These sportsmen
have all the energy in the world. They are happy to go out and
work on clearing up the habitat. There is no doubt in my mind
that sportsmen will do that.
If there was a way that some of these monies in the AML
funds could be directed to potentially other uses, other than
the few distinct uses that are allowed for now, I think there
could be a great combination of effort to help clean up these
sites.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for coming. You may be
excused and thank you for your testimony and answering
questions. I hope you catch your plane OK.
Mr. Baker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Now we will resume the regular order for
our list of witnesses, and we will start with Marcilynn Burke.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARCILYNN BURKE,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Ms. Burke. Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting the
Bureau of Land Management to testify today on our abandoned
mine lands program, or our AML program. This program is one of
the agency's most challenging due to the sheer number of AML
sites that are associated with safety and environmental
hazards, and the complexity of remediating them.
The BLM maintains an inventory of known abandoned mine
sites on public lands, and most of those are abandoned hardrock
mines. On BLM managed land, there are approximately 31,000
abandoned mine sites, with almost 66,000 features, such as open
shafts, contaminated tailings or wastes, and other physical and
environmental hazards.
The BLM is committed to continuing to address these
hazardous sites, and has taken a number of steps to build a
comprehensive AML program. Together with our partners, the BLM
is making progress to remediate these hazards left behind by
the Nation's mining legacy.
In contrast to past practices, today in order to conduct
hardrock mining on BLM lands, companies must post full
reclamation bonds for their mining operations. Thus, the BLM's
ALM program addresses abandoned mine lands that stem from
historical, rather than recent, mining development.
The agency's ALM program received approximately $16 million
in Fiscal Year 2011. the BLM prioritizes sites to receive
funding based upon its AML national level evaluation criteria.
These criteria are used to evaluate the relative risk posed by
environmental and physical hazards at each AML site.
The BLM leverages its financial resources by partnering
with local, State, and tribal governments, and other Federal
agencies, as well as industry and nonprofit organizations. Each
year, there are tragic and potentially avoidable losses of life
resulting from devastating falls in open shafts of abandoned
mines.
One such case occurred in Nevada in March of this year. On
his day off, a worker for a geothermal company was exploring
abandoned mine sites with his friends when he fell
approximately 180 feet to his death at the Rex Mine site.
The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the BLM had
previously secured some of the hazardous features on this
difficult to access and extremely remote mine site. After this
tragic accident, the BLM worked with several partners to
further address the hazards of the site.
The BLM worked with the Great Basin Institute, a nonprofit
organization, which conducted archeological surveys at the
site, as well as the Nevada Department of Wildlife, and the
Nevada Division of Minerals, to secure the remaining hazardous
features at the site.
The President's 2012 budget proposes legislation to address
the AML hazards on Federal, State, and tribal, and private
lands. The proposal addresses abandoned hardrock mines across
the country through a new AML fee on hardrock development.
Just as the coal industry is held responsible for abandoned
coal sites, the Administration proposes to hold the hardrock
mining industry responsible for abandoned hardrock mines.
In a 2008 report the Office of the Inspector General for
the Department of the Interior found that the BLM and the
National Park Service needed to better address hazards posed by
abandoned mines on their lands.
The BLM has taken a number of steps in the past few years
to build a comprehensive program that includes improving and
updating our inventory of known sites and features, revising
our strategic plan, implementing the Fix-A-Shaft Today or FAST
Program, which encourages volunteers to participate in
inventory and safety closure projects, and developing guidance
to our field office to encourage increased stakeholder
involvement and improved coordination with our partners.
This program is working, and we are confident that we will
advance the program in the future. Of the 31,000 abandoned mine
sites that are on BLM managed lands, about 25 percent have
either been remediated or have reclamation actions planned or
underway.
The BLM is operating a dynamic abandoned mine land program
in the face of many challenging realities on the ground. We are
making progress and are committed to making the program a
success with the help of our many partners. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement of Marcilynn Burke, Deputy Director,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Thank you for inviting the Bureau of Land Management to testify
today on ``Abandoned Mine Lands: Innovative Solutions for Restoring the
Environment, Improving Safety and Creating Jobs.''
Nationally, the BLM's Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program is one of
the agency's most challenging due to the sheer number of AML sites,
their associated safety and environmental hazards, and the complexity
of remediating them. The BLM maintains an inventory of known abandoned
mines on public lands, most of which are abandoned hardrock mines. On
BLM-managed lands, there are approximately 31,000 abandoned mine sites
with almost 66,000 features, such as entryways, contaminated tailings,
and other physical and environmental hazards. The BLM is committed to
continuing to address and remediate these hazardous sites, and has
taken a number of steps to build a comprehensive AML program. Together
with the collaborative efforts of the agency's AML partners, the BLM is
making progress to remediate these hazards left from the nation's
mining legacy.
Historical Background
The paradox presented by the abandoned mine challenge is playing
out across the West. For a century and a half after gold was discovered
in 1848, starting the famous California Gold Rush, miners scoured
hillsides and mountains, dug pits, and subsequently abandoned them with
little or no reclamation, creating the public safety issues we face
today. These years of mining have left thousands of dangerous shafts,
portals, and other hazards. In that time, the settlement of the West
took root and flourished, and today these growing populations that are
eager to enjoy the outdoors by hiking, hunting, and riding off-highway
vehicles are at risk from the remnants of our mining past.
Each year there are tragic and potentially preventable stories
about the loss of life, such as a devastating fall into an open shaft
of an abandoned mine. One such case occurred in Nevada in March. A
worker for a geothermal company was exploring abandoned mine sites with
friends on a day off when he fell approximately 180 feet to his death
at the Rex Mine site. The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the BLM had
previously secured some of the hazardous features of the Rex Mine, but
the site is difficult to access and is in an extremely remote location.
The BLM is updating its national AML inventory database
continuously as new sites are discovered and further inventories are
completed. While a majority of AML sites pose safety hazards such as
open mine shafts and pits, unstable rock, decaying support beams, and
even explosive and toxic chemicals, approximately 20 percent pose
environmental hazards to human health and drinking water. These hazards
include mercury contamination in discharge from placer gold mines and
mercury mines, and sediment from asbestos mines, arsenic and lead
contamination from mine tailings, and acidic mine drainage from large
sulfide mines. We have identified many sites with the highest potential
for harm to public health and safety and are continuing to work with
Federal, State, and Tribal partners to address them.
BLM's AML Program
In contrast to these past practices, hardrock mining today on BLM
lands requires companies to post full reclamation bonds for their
mining operations. Thus, the BLM's AML program remediates abandoned
mine lands from historical development. The AML program supports the
BLM's core programs by restoring degraded water quality, cleaning up
mine waste that has been contaminated by acid mine drainage and heavy
metals, such as zinc, lead, arsenic, and mercury, remediating other
environmental impacts on or affecting public lands, and mitigating
safety issues.
The BLM's environmental cleanup and remediation activities cover a
broad spectrum, and are guided by important laws such as: the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Through the application of
those laws, the agency addresses the impacts from the associated
hazards along with the proposed mitigation work necessary to remediate
a site.
The BLM's AML program received approximately $16 million in FY
2011. The BLM prioritizes which sites receive funding based upon AML
National Level Evaluation Criteria found in the BLM AML Program's
Strategic Plan, which weighs several different criteria for both
environmental and physical safety sites. In addition the BLM received
approximately $4 million in FY2011 from the Department of the Interior
Central Hazardous Materials Fund. When a responsible party is known,
the BLM also seeks cost recovery and in-kind services.
The BLM works to stretch these financial resources by partnering
with local and state governments, tribes, and other federal agencies,
as well as industry and nonprofit organizations. For instance, after
the Rex Mine accident mentioned earlier, the BLM worked with the Great
Basin Institute, which conducted archaeological surveys, as well as the
Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Nevada Division of Minerals, to
secure remaining features at the site. The BLM in Nevada has been a
leader in leveraging partnerships. Its roster of current active
partners includes educational and nonprofit groups such as Bat
Conservation International, Nevada Mining Association, University of
Nevada Reno, and the Desert Research Institute; a host of local
governments, including the Pyramid Lake Paiute and Walker River Paiute
Tribes, and numerous state and Federal agencies.
Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the BLM
received nearly $30 million and was able to undertake 77 mine
remediation projects. One of those projects was to close the War Eagle
Abandoned Mine on the Western Slope of Colorado. The project used
$30,000 in ARRA funding that provided the workers to close 21 unsafe
mine openings in an area popular for hiking, fishing, touring, and off-
road vehicle riding. The BLM completed the work on this three-county
project with partners from the state, including the Colorado Division
of Reclamation, Mining and Safety.
AML Legislative Proposal
The President's 2012 Budget proposes legislation to address AML
hazards on Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands. The proposal
addresses abandoned hardrock mines across the country through a new AML
fee on hardrock production. Just as the coal industry is held
responsible for abandoned coal sites, the Administration proposes to
hold the hardrock mining industry responsible for abandoned hardrock
mines. The proposal will levy an AML fee on all uranium and metallic
mines on both public and private lands that will be charged on the
volume of material displaced. The fee will be collected by the Office
of Surface Mining, while the receipts will be distributed by BLM. An
advisory council comprised of representatives of Federal agencies,
States, Tribes, and non-government organizations, will create objective
criteria to rank AML projects. Using this prioritized list of National
sites, BLM will be able to distribute funds to reclaim the Nation's
most dangerous and environmentally hazardous sites each year.
Moving Forward
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found in a 2008 report
that the BLM and NPS needed to better address hazards posed by
abandoned mines on their lands.
The BLM has taken a number of steps to build a comprehensive AML
program that include: improving the inventory of known ALM sites and
features, revising the BLM AML Strategic Plan; implementing the ``Fix a
Shaft Today'' program that encourages volunteers to participate in
inventory and safety closure projects; and developing guidance to
encourage increased stakeholder involvement and improved coordination
with AML partners at the Federal, state and local level. We realize the
importance of an effective AML program and the need to best prioritize
limited funding.
The program is working, and we will continue to make progress. Of
the 31,000 abandoned mine sites mentioned earlier, about 25 percent
have either been remediated or have reclamation actions planned or
underway. Most of the remaining 75 percent require further
investigation and remediation, posing a significant challenge as we
seek to protect public health and safety, as well as the environment.
Conclusion
The BLM is operating a dynamic abandoned mine land program in the
face of challenging realities on the ground. We are making progress and
are committed to making the program a success. Thank you and I am happy
to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony, and
your patience in being here, and now we will hear from Mr.
Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on the United States Forest Service's
abandoned mine lands program. Since the early 1990s, the Forest
Service has implemented programs to address the safety, human
health, and environmental hazards posed by tens of thousands of
abandoned mines throughout the National Forests and grasslands.
Key elements of these programs include mitigating abandoned
mine hazards, restoring land and water contaminated or
disturbed by abandoned mines, and enhancing fish and wildlife
habitat through reclamation of abandoned mines.
The impacts caused by abandoned mine lands across many
jurisdictional boundaries can affect Federal, State, and
private lands across the Nation. Despite the effort of Federal
and State Agencies, and other parties, abandoned mine lands
continue to pose both physical safety hazards to the public,
and threats to human health and the environment from hazardous
contaminants.
The movement to clean up abandoned mines on public lands
has gained momentum in recent years as the Forest Service and
numerous Tribal, Federal, State, and private partners have
begun to tackle mutual problems of health and safety with
heightened commitment.
Although complex challenges remain, substantial progress is
being made toward reclaiming abandoned hardrock mine sites, key
watersheds, and other sites across public and private
boundaries.
Various estimates exist for the number of abandoned mines
on National Forest system lands, but the exact number is
unknown. However, there may be 27,000 to 39,000 abandoned mines
of all types on National Forest system lands.
Data also indicates that 9,000 to 13,000 of the abandoned
hardrock mines have records of past mineral production, and
therefore are considered more likely to require environmental
cleanup or safety mitigation work. The scope of AML cleanup on
land managed by the Forest Service is large and can consume an
estimated $4 billion to $6 billion, or even more, considering
potential long term treatment needs to complete response
actions at these sites.
There are three categories of work that may be funded at
abandoned mine land sites. Cleanups at sites that are releasing
or threatening to release hazardous substances, such as heavy
metals from acid mine drainage.
This work is done under the Forest Service delegated CERCLA
authority. A second is cleanup of non-hazardous substance-
related surface disturbance, such as revegetation of disturbed
areas, reconstruction of stream channels and flood planes, and
the third is mitigation of physical safety hazards, such as
closure of adits and shafts, and removal of dangerous
structures.
Since 1998, we have mitigated more than 2,000 safety
hazards and cleaned up hazardous substances at more than 400
sites, with another 150 hazardous substance cleanups in
progress.
Environmental cleanups of abandoned mines vary in size,
from hundreds of thousands, to many millions of dollars. In
almost all cases the site investigation, the planning and
actual cleanup work is performed by private environmental
engineering and construction firms under contract to the Forest
Service.
States such as Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and
California, have the largest abandoned mine safety hazard
mitigation workload. We work closely with local communities
throughout the reclamation process by involving them in
decision making regarding cleanup, and providing a range of
training opportunities and involving local contractors in the
remediation work, thus creating local employment opportunities.
The Forest Service coordinated with States during the
inventory phase of the AML program by using data from State
inventories. Coordination with States on environmental cleanup
and safety projects is encouraged through the use of project
selection criteria, which rewards State and Federal
partnerships, and evidence of State priorities, such as work
within a State's priority watershed, or water quality limited
stream, or water body.
Formal partnerships, or agreements, exist with both State
and Federal Agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency,
where cleanup involves mixed ownership sites that include
private or State lands. That concludes my statement, and I will
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on the U.S. Forest Service's
abandoned mine lands (AML) program. Since the early 1990's, the Forest
Service has implemented programs to address the safety, human health
and environmental hazards posed by tens of thousands of abandoned mines
throughout the national forests and grasslands. Key elements of these
programs include mitigating abandoned mine hazards; restoring land and
water contaminated or disturbed by abandoned mines; and enhancing fish
and wildlife habitat through reclamation of abandoned mines. The
impacts caused by abandoned mine lands cross many jurisdictional
boundaries and affect federal, state and private lands across the
nation. Despite the effort of federal and state agencies and other
parties, abandoned mine lands continue to pose both physical safety
hazards to the public and threats to human health and the environment
from hazardous contaminants. In California alone, at least 15 adults
have died and 23 adults and children have been injured in abandoned
mines since 2001 \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State of California Department of Conservation, Abandoned Mine
Lands Unit (AMLU)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movement to clean up abandoned mines on public lands has gained
momentum in recent years as the Forest Service and numerous Tribal,
Federal, State, and private partners have begun to tackle mutual
problems of health and safety with heightened commitment. Although
complex challenges remain, substantial progress is being made toward
reclaiming abandoned hardrock mine sites in key watersheds and other
sites across public and private boundaries.
BACKGROUND
The authorization of mining for metals and mineral resources on
federally administered lands helped encourage industrial growth and
settlement of the West. Many of these mineral deposits were located in
remote areas far from population centers. Without the benefit of
today's environmental laws and regulations, when a mine was no longer
profitable, common practice was to abandon the site and, in some cases,
to vacate entire mining districts. As a result, today many abandoned
mines pose hazards to public safety, human health and the environment.
Currently the Forest Service proactively manages and mitigates the
impacts of mine operations, including abandoned mine operations,
through its Environmental Compliance and Protection/Abandoned Mine Land
Program (ECAP/AML), which consists of three major activities:
1. Cleanup and reclamation of National Forest System (NFS)
lands impacted by hazardous materials and/or mining activities;
2. mitigation of safety hazards associated with inactive/
abandoned mine lands; and
3. environmental compliance audits of Forest Service
operations, facilities, and permitted activities.
Approximately 75 to 85 percent of the total ECAP/AML budget is
expended on the cleanup and safety hazard mitigation at abandoned mine
sites.
Various estimates exist for the number of abandoned mines on NFS
lands but the exact number is unknown. All estimates are based at least
in part on abandoned mine data now part of the Mineral Resources Data
System (MRDS), which is managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Analyses of the data indicates there may be 27,000 to 39,000 abandoned
mines of all types on NFS lands, of which 18,000 to 26,000 of the total
are abandoned hard rock mines. The USGS data also indicates that 9,000
to 13,000 of the abandoned hard rock mines have records of past mineral
production, and therefore are considered more likely to require
environmental cleanup or safety mitigation work. These numbers are not
absolute because not all AML sites on NFS lands have been identified or
evaluated for releases of hazardous substances. Regardless of the exact
number, the scope AML cleanup on land managed by the Forest Service is
large and could consume an estimated $4 to $6 billion, or even more
considering potential long term treatment needs, to complete response
actions at these sites.
Since 1998, the Forest Service has mitigated more than 2,000 safety
hazards and cleaned up hazardous substances at more than 400 sites,
with another 150 hazardous substance cleanups in progress. Between 1998
and 2010, the Forest Service spent approximately $340 million on
abandoned mine environmental cleanup and safety mitigation. USDA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) enforcement program has led to over $640 million dollars of
work or funding provided by potentially responsible parties (PRP) at
abandoned mine sites.
As part of our efforts to promote community involvement, we work
closely with local communities throughout the reclamation process by
involving them in decision-making regarding cleanup and reuse options,
providing a range of training opportunities, and involving local
contractors in the remediation work thus creating local employment
opportunities.
Environmental cleanups of abandoned mines vary in size from
hundreds of thousands to many millions of dollars. In almost all cases,
the site investigation, planning and actual cleanup work is performed
by private environmental, engineering and construction firms under
contract with the Forest Service. Private contractors also perform much
of the abandoned mine safety closure work in states such as Colorado,
Arizona, New Mexico and California that have the largest abandoned mine
safety hazard mitigation workload.
AML PROJECT SELECTION AND FUNDING
There are three categories of work that may be funded at abandoned
mine land sites:
1. Cleanups at sites that are releasing or threatening to
release hazardous substances such as heavy metals from acid
mine drainage. This work is done under the Forest Service
delegated CERCLA authority. USDA and Forest Service policy
requires that, before appropriated funds are spent on the
remediation of a site, a ``potentially responsible party''
(PRP) search must be performed to identify whether a viable
responsible entity exists to fund the site clean-up in lieu of
using appropriated funds. As the Forest Service has moved
forward with its PRP searches, it has found that many of the
abandoned mine sites on the national forests are old, with the
majority of the mining activities occurring from the 1800s
through the early 1900s. Very few of these searches have
resulted in the identification of a viable responsible party.
2. Cleanups of non-hazardous substance-related surface
disturbance such as revegetation of disturbed areas,
reconstruction of stream channels and floodplains (Non-CERCLA
Cleanup).
3. Mitigation of physical safety hazards such as closure of
adits and shafts and removal of dangerous structures (Safety
Mitigation).
Descriptions of proposed CERCLA and non-CERCLA cleanup projects,
including abandoned mines along with the costs and benefits of each,
are submitted by the Forest Service Regional Offices two years prior to
the fiscal year that funding would be received. Because the number of
projects always exceeds the available budget, they are prioritized
based on potential benefits to human health and safety; environmental
factors such as water quality; and economic and social factors
including the potential for state or federal partnerships, public
interest and overall cost. The projects are then ranked and funded as
money becomes available through the budget process.
In FY 2011, we received approximately $16 million to fund CERCLA
cleanup of 75 contaminated sites. We anticipate contributions to this
effort from individual PRP's along with some State and local
contributions. In FY 2012, we have requested $15 million to fund the
mitigation of 50 sites.
Safety Mitigation Projects are prioritized at the regional level
and submitted to the National Office for funding. Criteria used for
prioritizing safety mitigation projects are based on the severity of
the hazard and accessibility to the public including:
A death, injury or close call has occurred at a site;
Complaints or concerns have been expressed by the
public or other units of government about a site;
Developed recreation sites or other concentrations of
people are located near a site;
Forest roads or trails lead to or are near a site;
and
The severity of other hazards at a site in
combination with the site's accessibility to the public.
For Safety Mitigation, in FY 2011, we received approximately $8.2
million to fund the mitigation of an estimated 680 abandoned mine
safety features like open shafts and adits. In FY 2012, we have
requested $7.3 million to fund the mitigation of an estimated 560
features.
COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIPS
The Forest Service coordinated with most states during the
inventory phase of the AML Program by using data from State AML
inventories. Coordination with states on environmental cleanup and
safety projects is encouraged through the use of project selection
criteria which rewards state/federal partnerships and evidence of state
priorities such as work within a state priority watershed or water
quality limited stream or water body. Formal partnerships or agreements
exist with both state and federal agencies, like the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), where cleanup involves mixed ownership sites
that include private or state lands. In some cases, as in Colorado,
abandoned mine safety mitigation projects are planned and constructed
jointly using long-standing partnership agreements.
EXAMPLES OF FOREST SERVICE AML PROJECTS
Large & Complex Mine and Mill Sites
These sites are typically tens to hundreds of acres in size. Mill
buildings, roads, mine openings, open pits, waste rock, chemical
reagents, tailings and spent ore are removed, stabilized and restored
at costs typically ranging from $100,000 to $10 million.
One large cleanup project that received $1.4 million dollars in
2006 was the Champion Mine located on the Umpqua National Forest, Lane
County Oregon. As a result of this project, a contract was awarded in
2006 to remove waste rock, diesel and heavy oil contamination, treat
acid mine drainage and cap hazardous mill tailings. These actions are
expected to reduce or eliminate contaminants in Champion Creek, which
is a tributary to Row River and Dorena Reservoir, which is a source of
drinking water for the City of Cottage Grove, Oregon.
Another project that received almost $3 million from 2008 through
2011 is the Standard Mine, an abandoned zinc, lead, gold, and silver
mine, located 10 miles west and directly upstream of the municipal
water intake for the Town of Crested Butte, Colorado. The site was
listed on the EPA's National Priority List in 2005 due to the imminent
threat to Crested Butte's water supply posed by the tailings and waste
water impoundment. Work by the Forest Service, together with the State
of Colorado and the EPA, is designed to eliminate the safety and
environmental hazards posed to the residents and visitors of Crested
Butte by the open adits and shafts, waste rock piles, toxic mill
tailings and acid mine drainage from this site.
Small Mine Cleanups and Safety Hazards
One of the safety mitigation projects funded in 2008 was closure of
5 vertical shafts and 7 open adits located on the Grand Mesa/
Uncomphagre/Gunnison National Forest in Ouray and San Miguel Counties,
Colorado. The mine sites are located south of Ouray, Colorado along the
route of State Highway 550 leading toward Red Mountain Pass, a portion
of the San Juan Scenic Skyway--``Million Dollar Highway''. The Forest
Service partnered with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology to
fund this mitigation project and the Colorado Division of Minerals and
Geology issued and administered the closure contract. The final closure
contract consisted of 23 shaft and adit closures, consisting of 12
closures located on Forest Service administered land and 11 closures
located on private land.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Multiple federal and state agencies and private entities are
implementing programs to address the human health and environmental
impacts from historic mining operations. While progress has been made
in addressing the hazards posed by abandoned mine lands, much more work
is needed. Impacts from abandoned mine lands affects federal, state and
private lands and cross federal and state jurisdictional boundaries.
Continued success of these efforts depends on ensuring that cleanup
costs are first borne by potentially responsible parties, where
possible, and on the partnering of State and Federal Agencies, public
interest groups, the mining industry and other interested third
parties.
Finally, preventing future AML sites is also a crucial goal of any
land management agency's AML program. Responsible mining practices,
environmentally protective mine closure planning, optimal permitting
requirements and financial assurances are all tools that land
management agencies are using to ensure mining companies operate under
a sustainable business model that follows a mine's life from startup to
clean closure.
CLOSING
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. We remain committed
to restoring abandoned mines as a key part of this mission. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your testimony. Next is Anu
Mittal, who is the Director of Natural Resources and
Environment for the Government Accountability Office.
STATEMENT OF ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Mittal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lamborn,
Ranking Member Holt, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on
abandoned mines.
Between 2005 and 2009, the Government Accountability Office
conducted a body of work related to hardrock mining that we
believe provides important context for the issues being
discussed at today's hearing.
Therefore, I would like to summarize the key findings of
this work, and my comments will focus on the lack of good
information on the number of abandoned hardrock mines, the
general lack of mining information collected on Federal lands,
the costs associated with cleaning up abandoned mines, and the
inadequacy of the financial assurances provided by mining
operators.
With regard to the lack of accurate information on the
number of abandoned hardrock mines, in 2008 and 2009, we
reported that Federal Agencies could not definitively determine
the numbers of such sites on their lands, and Federal agency
estimates that we reviewed were not reliable.
In addition, when we reviewed estimates prepared by others
on the total number of abandoned hardrock mines in 13 States,
where most of this mining activity occurs, we found that they,
too, did not provide an accurate assessment of the number of
abandoned mines on public and private lands because they used
differing definitions.
Therefore, in 2008, we developed a standard definition for
what constitutes an abandoned hardrock mining site, and based
on this definition, we determined that at that time there were
at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the 13 States.
These sites had at least 332,000 potentially unsafe
features, and at least 33,000 of them had degraded the
environment. In addition to the lack of information on
abandoned mines, there is a general lack of information
collected by Federal Agencies about mining operations on
Federal lands.
For example, in 2008, and again this year, we reported that
BLM and the Forest Service either did not routinely collect, or
did not consistently maintain, data on the amount of hardrock
minerals being produced on Federal land, or the amount of
hardrock minerals remaining.
According to the BLM and the Forest Service, they do not
have the authority to collect this type of information from
mining operators. Therefore, we concluded that comprehensive
information on hardrock mineral production on Federal land is
generally not available to the public.
Regarding the cost of cleanup of abandoned mine sites, we
reported in 2008 that over a 10 year period, four Federal
Agencies had spent at least $2.6 billion to reclaim abandoned
hardrock mine sites on Federal, State, private, and Indian
lands.
Of this amount, the EPA had spent the most, $2.2 billion,
which was largely spent on abandoned mines on non-Federal
lands. The remaining approximately $400 million was spent on
cleanup at sites on Federal and Tribal lands by BLM, the Forest
Service, and the Office of Surface Mining.21One of the factors
that contributes to the costs incurred by the Federal
Government to reclaim lands disturbed by mining is the lack of
adequate financial assurances. Adequate financial assurances
are important in the event that an operator abandons a mine and
does not conduct the required reclamation of the site.
However, our work has demonstrated that this has been a
longstanding problem at the BLM. For example, when we reviewed
BLM's financial assurances in 2005, and again in 2008, we found
that both times the financial assurances that BLM had in place
were tens of millions of dollars short of the amount needed to
cover estimated reclamation costs for hardrock mining
operations on its lands.
Similarly, our work at the EPA has shown that the Agency
has not taken full advantage of the statutory authorities that
Congress has provided to address the financial responsibilities
associated with hardrock mining operations on non-Federal land.
As a result, we concluded in 2006 that significant gaps
exist in the financial assurances that the EPA requires from
hardrock mining operators, and therefore this increases the
likelihood that taxpayers will have to assume financial
responsibility if these mines are abandoned.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that while we agree that
innovative approaches are needed to clean up abandoned mines,
our work also shows that Federal Agencies need to get a better
handle on the magnitude of this problem, and they need to take
appropriate steps to reduce the financial liabilities that
these operations can create for taxpayers.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Team, United States Government Accountability Office
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and Members of the
Subcommittee
We are pleased to be here today to participate in this hearing on
abandoned mines. As you know, the General Mining Act of 1872 encouraged
the development of the West by allowing individuals to stake claims and
obtain exclusive rights to the gold, silver, copper, and other valuable
hardrock mineral deposits on land belonging to the United States. Since
then, thousands of operators have extracted billions of dollars worth
of hardrock minerals from land managed by the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service--the two principal agencies responsible
for federal lands open for hardrock mining.\1\ BLM issued regulations
in 1981 requiring all operators of these mines to reclaim the land when
their operations cease, but some did not and abandoned these mines. As
a result, thousands of acres of federal land that were disturbed for
exploration, mining, and mineral processing now pose serious
environmental and physical safety hazards. Environmental hazards
include toxic or acidic water that contaminates soil and groundwater
and physical safety hazards include concealed shafts, unstable or
decayed mine structures, or explosives. Cleanup costs for these
abandoned mines vary by type and size of the operation. For example,
the cost of plugging holes is usually minimal, but reclamation costs
for large mining operations can be in the tens of millions of dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An operator is a person who conducts operations in connection
with exploration, mining, and processing hardrock minerals on federal
land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2005 through 2009, we issued several products on various
issues related to abandoned hardrock mines as well as current hardrock
mining operations on federal land that are relevant to the issue being
discussed at today's hearing.\2\ These products included information on
the number of abandoned hardrock mines, the availability of information
collected by the federal agencies on mining operations on federal land,
the amount of funding that federal agencies have spent to cleanup
abandoned mine sites, and the value of financial assurances that
federal agencies collect from operators to cover the cost of
reclamation in the event that an operator does not reclaim the land. My
testimony today will summarize the key findings of these products. More
information on our scope and methodology is available in each published
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on Types of State Royalties,
Number of Abandoned Mines, and Financial Assurances on BLM Land, GAO-
09-429T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2009); GAO, Hardrock Mining:
Information on State Royalties and Trends in Mineral Import and
Exports, GAO-08-849R (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2008); GAO, Hardrock
Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and Coverage of
Financial Assurances on BLM Land, GAO-08-574T (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
12, 2008); GAO, Environmental Liabilities: Hardrock Mining Cleanup
Obligations, GAO-06-884T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006); and GAO,
Hardrock Mining: BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to
Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs, GAO-05-377 (Washington, D.C.:
June 20, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work presented in these products was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Background
Historically, the mining of hardrock minerals, such as gold, lead,
copper, silver, and uranium, was an economic incentive for exploring
and settling the American West. However, when the ore was depleted,
miners often left behind a legacy of abandoned mines, structures,
safety hazards, and contaminated land and water. Even in more recent
times, after cleanup became mandatory, many parties responsible for
hardrock mining sites have been liquidated through bankruptcy or
otherwise dissolved. Under these circumstances, some hardrock mining
companies have left it to the taxpayer to pay for cleanup of the mining
sites.
Four federal agencies--the Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department
of the Interior's BLM and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM)--fund the cleanup and reclamation of some of these
abandoned hardrock mine sites. BLM's and the Forest Service's Abandoned
Mine Lands programs focus on the safety of their land by addressing
physical and environmental hazards. EPA's funding, under its Superfund
Program, among other things, focuses on the cleanup and long-term
health effects of air, ground, or water pollution caused by abandoned
hardrock mine sites, and is generally for mines on nonfederal land.
OSM, under amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, can provide grants to fund the cleanup and reclamation of
certain hardrock mining sites.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. No. 95-87, as amended by Pub L. No. 101-508, Title VI,
Sec. 6010(2), Nov. 5, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM and the Forest Service are responsible for managing more than
450 million acres of public land in their care, including land
disturbed and abandoned by past hardrock mining activities. BLM manages
about 258 million acres in 12 western states, and Alaska.\4\ The Forest
Service manages about 193 million acres across the nation. In 1997, BLM
and the Forest Service each launched a national Abandoned Mine Lands
Program to remedy the physical and environmental hazards at thousands
of abandoned hardrock mines on the federal land they manage. According
to a September 2007 report by these two agencies, they had inventoried
thousands of abandoned sites and, at many of them, had taken actions to
cleanup hazardous substances and mitigate safety hazards.\5\ BLM and
the Forest Service are also responsible for managing and overseeing
current hardrock operations on their land, including the mining
operators' reclamation of the land disturbed by hardrock mining.
Reclamation can vary by location, but it generally involves such
activities as regrading and reshaping the disturbed land to conform
with adjacent land forms and to minimize erosion, removing or
stabilizing buildings and other structures to reduce safety risks,
removing mining roads to prevent damage from future traffic, and
establishing self-sustaining vegetation. One of the agencies' key
responsibilities is to ensure that adequate financial assurances, based
on sound reclamation plans and cost estimates, are in place to
guarantee reclamation costs.\6\ If a mining operator fails to complete
required reclamation, BLM or the Forest Service can take steps to
obtain funds from the financial assurance provider to complete the
reclamation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming.
\5\ BLM and Forest Service, Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of
Progress Reclaiming Hardrock Mines (September 2007).
\6\ 43 C.F.R. part 3809 and 36 C.F.R. part 228, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM requires financial assurances for both notice-level hardrock
mining operations--those disturbing 5 acres of land or less--and plan-
level hardrock mining operations--those disturbing over 5 acres of land
and those in certain designated areas, such as the national wild and
scenic rivers system. For hardrock operations on Forest Service land,
agency regulations require reclamation of sites after operations cease.
According to a Forest Service official, if the proposed hardrock
operation is likely to cause a significant disturbance, the Forest
Service requires financial assurances. Both agencies allow several
types of financial assurances to guarantee estimated reclamation costs
for hardrock operations on their land. According to regulations and
agency officials, BLM and the Forest Service allow cash, letters of
credit, certificates of deposit or savings accounts, and negotiable
U.S. securities and bonds in a trust account. BLM also allows surety
bonds, state bond pools, trust funds, and property.
EPA administers the Superfund Program, which was established under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 to address the threats that contaminated waste sites,
including those on nonfederal land, pose to human health and the
environment.\7\ The act also requires that the parties statutorily
responsible for pollution bear the cost of cleaning up contaminated
sites, including abandoned hardrock mining operations. Some
contaminated hardrock mine sites have been listed on Superfund's
National Priorities List--EPA's list of seriously contaminated sites.
Typically, these sites are expensive to cleanup and the cleanup can
take many years. For example, in 2004, EPA's Office of Inspector
General determined there were 63 hardrock mining sites on the National
Priorities List that would cost up to $7.8 billion to cleanup, $2.4
billion of which was expected to be borne by taxpayers rather than the
parties responsible for the contamination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 USC Sec. Sec. 9601-9675.
\8\ EPA, Office of Inspector General, Nationwide Identification of
Hardrock Mining Sites, 2004-P-00005 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 31, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding financial assurances, EPA has statutory authority under
the Superfund program to require businesses handling hazardous
substances on nonfederal land to provide financial assurances and is
taking steps to do so.\9\ In 2006, we testified that without the
mandated financial assurances, significant gaps in EPA's environmental
financial assurance coverage exist, thereby increasing the risk that
taxpayers will eventually have to assume financial responsibility for
cleanup costs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9608(b); 74 Fed. Reg. 37213 (July 28, 2009).
\10\ GAO-06-884T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Program primarily focuses on cleaning up
abandoned coal mine sites. However, OSM, under amendments to the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, can provide grants
to fund the cleanup and reclamation of certain hardrock mining sites
either (1) after a state certifies that it has cleaned up its abandoned
coal mine sites and the Secretary of the Interior approves the
certification or (2) at the request of a state or Indian tribe to
address problems that could endanger life and property, constitute a
hazard to the public and safety, or degrade the environment, and the
Secretary of the Interior grants the request. In 2008, we reported that
OSM had provided more than $3 billion to cleanup dangerous abandoned
mine sites.\11\ Its Abandoned Mine Land Program had eliminated safety
and environmental hazards on 314,108 acres since 1977, including all
high-priority coal problems and noncoal problems in 27 states and on
the land of three Indian tribes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO-08-574T.
\12\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 2006 Report to the President and Congress
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate Information on the Number of Abandoned Hardrock Mine Sites Was
Not Available
In 2008 and 2009, we reported that BLM and the Forest Service have
had difficulty determining the number of abandoned hardrock mines on
their land and have no definitive estimates on the number of such
sites.\13\ Moreover, we reported that other estimates that had been
developed about the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites on federal,
state, and private land in the 12 western states and Alaska (where most
of the mining takes place) varied widely and did not provide an
accurate assessment of the number of abandoned mines in these states.
For example, federal agency estimates included abandoned nonhardrock
mines such as coal mines, and included a large number of sites on land
with ``undetermined'' ownership, which may not all be on federal land.
Similarly, we reviewed six studies conducted between 1998 and 2008 that
estimated the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites in the 12 western
states and Alaska, regardless of the type of land they were located
on.\14\ However, we found that the estimates in these studies varied
widely in part because there was no generally accepted definition for
what constitutes an abandoned hardrock mine site and because different
states define these sites differently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO-08-574T and GAO-09-429T.
\14\ The six studies are (1) Western Governors' Association and
National Mining Association, Cleaning up Abandoned Mines: A Western
Partnership (1998); (2) Interstate Mining Compact Commission, State
NonCoal AML Inventory (2001); (3) Interstate Mining Compact Commission,
NonCoal Minerals Survey and Report (expected issuance Spring 2008); (4)
Mineral Policy Center, Cleaning Up Western Watersheds (2003); (5)
Earthworks fact sheets on hardrock mining from Earthworks Web site last
visited on March 4, 2008 (www.earthworksaction.org/resources.cfm); and
(6) EPA, Reference Notebook (September 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, we developed a standard definition of an abandoned
hardrock mining site and used this definition to determine how many
such sites potentially existed on federal, state and private land in
the12 western states and Alaska. Based on our survey of these states,
we determined that there were at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mine
sites in these states, and at least 33,000 of these sites had degraded
the environment, by, for example, contaminating surface water and
groundwater or leaving arsenic-contaminated tailings piles. We also
determined that these 161,000 sites had at least 332,000 features that
may pose physical safety hazards, such as open shafts or unstable or
decayed mine structures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-08-574T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Agencies Collect Limited Information on Mining Operations on
Federal Land
In 2008, we reported that BLM, the Forest Service, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) either do not routinely collect or do not
consistently maintain data on the amount of hardrock minerals being
produced on federal land, the amount of hardrock minerals remaining,
and the total acreage of federal land withdrawn from hardrock mining
operations.\16\ According to officials with BLM and the Forest Service,
they do not have the authority to collect information from mine
operators on the amount of hardrock minerals produced on federal land,
or the amount remaining. In April 2011, we reported on this issue again
and found that this information is not being collected.\17\ In
contrast, USGS collects extensive data on hardrock mineral production
through its mineral industry surveys and reports these data in monthly,
quarterly, and annual reports, but mine operators' participation in
these surveys is voluntary, and USGS does not collect land ownership
data that would allow it to determine the amount of hardrock mineral
production on federal land. As a result, we found that it is not
possible to determine hardrock mineral production on federal land from
the USGS data. In addition, although USGS does publish the total amount
of hardrock mineral production by mineral type, it is prohibited by law
from reporting individual mine production and other company proprietary
data unless the mine operator authorizes release of that information.
In some cases, mine operators that respond to these surveys report
consolidated data that covers production from several mines. Therefore,
information on hardrock mineral production for every mine is not
available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ GAO-08-429R.
\17\ GAO, Federal Land Management: Availability and Potential
Reliability of Selected Data Elements at Five Agencies, GAO-11-377
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some hardrock mineral production data are available from state
sources and through financial reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. However, these data may not always provide the
level of detail necessary to determine the amount of mineral production
on federal land. BLM also does not centrally maintain data on the
amount of federal land withdrawn from hardrock mining operations. BLM
documents land withdrawn from hardrock mining operations on its master
title plats--detailed paper maps maintained at BLM's state offices.
These maps contain land survey information on federal land, including
ownership information, land use descriptions, and land status
descriptions. BLM's annual publication, Public Land Statistics, does
report the total number of acres withdrawn each year, but these data do
not account for instances in which multiple withdrawals may have
overlapping boundaries, which can result in double-counting the number
of acres withdrawn. Furthermore, the reason for withdrawing the land is
not always indicated, making it difficult to determine whether it was
withdrawn from mining or from other purposes.
Federal Agencies Have Spent Billions of Dollars to Cleanup Abandoned
Hardrock Mining Sites
In March 2008, we reported that over a 10 year period, four federal
agencies--BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and OSM--had spent at least a
total of $2.6 billion to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines on federal,
state, private, and Indian land. Of this amount, EPA had spent the
most--$2.2 billion.\18\ The amount each agency spent annually varied
considerably, and the median amount spent for abandoned hardrock mines
on public land by BLM and the Forest Service was about $5 million and
about $21 million, respectively. EPA spent substantially more--a median
of about $221 million annually--to cleanup abandoned mines that were
generally on nonfederal land. Further, OSM provided grants with an
annual median value of about $18 million to states and Indian tribes
through its program for hardrock mine cleanups.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO-08-574T.
\19\ In total, OSM has provided more than $3 billion under its
Abandoned Mine Land Program, which primarily focuses on cleaning up
abandoned coal mine sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Assurances Provided by Operators of Current Mines on BLM Land
May Be Inadequate to Cover Estimated Reclamation Costs
As we have reported, contributing to the costs incurred by the
federal government to reclaim land disturbed by mining operations are
inadequate financial assurances required by BLM for current hardrock
mining operations. Since 2005, we have reported several times that
operators of hardrock mines on BLM land have provided inadequate
financial assurances to cover estimated reclamation costs in the event
that they fail to perform the required reclamation. Specifically, in
June 2005 we reported that some current hardrock operations on BLM land
did not have financial assurances, and some had no or outdated
reclamation plans and/or cost estimates on which the financial
assurances were based.\20\ At that time we concluded that BLM did not
have an effective process and critical management information needed
for ensuring that adequate financial assurances are actually in place,
as required by federal regulations and BLM guidance. We made
recommendations to strengthen BLM's management of financial assurances
for hardrock operations on its land, which the agency generally
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO-05-377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, when we again looked at this issue in 2008, we found that
although BLM had taken actions to strengthen its processes, the
financial assurances that it had in place as of November 2007 were
still inadequate to cover estimated reclamation costs.\21\
Specifically, as of November 2007, hardrock mining operators had
provided financial assurances valued at approximately $982 million to
guarantee the reclamation costs for 1,463 hardrock mining operations on
BLM land in 11 western states, according to BLM's Bond Review Report.
BLM's report indicated that 52 of the 1,463 hardrock mining operations
had inadequate financial assurances--about $28 million less than needed
to fully cover estimated reclamation costs. However, our review of
BLM's assessment process found that BLM had inaccurately estimated the
shortfall, and that in fact the financial assurances for these 52
operations should be more accurately reported as about $61 million less
than needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO-08-574T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we found that BLM's approach for determining the
adequacy of financial assurances is not useful because it does not
clearly lay out the extent to which financial assurances are
inadequate. For example, in California, BLM reported that, statewide,
the financial assurances in place were $1.5 million greater than
required, suggesting reclamation costs are being more than fully
covered. However, according to our analysis of only those California
operations with inadequate financial assurances, the financial
assurances in place were nearly $440,000 less than needed to fully
cover reclamations costs for those operations. Having adequate
financial assurances to pay reclamation costs for BLM land disturbed by
hardrock operations is critical to ensuring that the land is reclaimed
if operators fail to complete reclamation as required. When operators
with inadequate financial assurances fail to reclaim BLM land disturbed
by their hardrock operations, BLM is left with public land that
requires tens of millions of dollars to reclaim and poses risks to the
environment and public health and safety.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while it is critical to develop
innovative approaches to cleanup abandoned mines, our work also
demonstrates the importance of federal agency's having accurate
information on the number of abandoned hardrock mines to know the
extent of the problem and adequate financial assurances to prevent
future abandoned hardrock mines requiring taxpayer money to cleanup.
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you might have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For
further information about this testimony, please contact Anu K. Mittal,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment team, (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected]. Key contributors to this testimony were Andrea Wamstad
Brown and Casey L. Brown.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to www.gao.gov and select ``E-mail Updates.''
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's Web
site, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
______
GAO HIGHLIGHTS
ABANDONED MINES
Information on the Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of Cleanup, and Value
of Financial Assurances
Why GAO Did This Study
The General Mining Act of 1872 helped foster the development of the
West by giving individuals exclusive rights to mine gold, silver,
copper, and other hardrock minerals on federal land. However, miners
often abandoned mines, leaving behind structures, safety hazards, and
contaminated land and water. Four federal agencies--the Department of
the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)--fund the cleanup of some of these hardrock mine sites.
From 2005 through 2009, GAO issued a number of reports and
testimonies on various issues related to abandoned and current hardrock
mining operations. This testimony summarizes some of the key findings
of these reports and testimonies focusing on the (1) number of
abandoned hardrock mines, (2) availability of information collected by
federal agencies on general mining activities, (3) amount of funding
spent by federal agencies on cleanup of abandoned mines, and (4) value
of financial assurances for mining operations on federal land managed
by BLM. In 2005, GAO recommended that BLM strengthen the management of
its financial assurances, which BLM generally implemented. BLM also
agreed to take steps to address additional concerns raised by GAO in
2008.
What GAO Found
GAO's past work has shown that there are no definitive estimates of
the number of abandoned hardrock mines on federal and other lands. For
example, in 2008 and 2009, GAO reported that BLM and the Forest Service
had difficulty determining the number of abandoned hardrock mines on
their lands and had no definitive estimates. Similarly, estimates of
the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites in the 12 western states
and Alaska (where most of the mining takes place) varied widely because
there was no generally accepted definition of what constitutes an
abandoned hardrock mine site. In 2008, GAO developed a standard
definition for abandoned hardrock mining sites and used this definition
to determine that there were at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mine
sites in the 12 western states and Alaska, and at least 33,000 of these
sites had degraded the environment, by contaminating surface water and
groundwater or leaving arsenic-contaminated tailings piles.
In 2008, GAO reported that BLM, the Forest Service, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) either do not routinely collect or do not
consistently maintain data on the amount of hardrock minerals being
produced on federal land, the amount of hardrock minerals remaining,
and the total acreage of federal land withdrawn from hardrock mining
operations. According to BLM and Forest Service officials, they do not
have the authority to collect information from mine operators on the
amount of hardrock minerals produced on federal land or the amount
remaining. In contrast, USGS collects extensive data on hardrock
mineral production through its mineral industry surveys and reports
these data in monthly, quarterly, and annual reports, but the agency
does not collect land ownership data that would allow it to determine
the amount of hardrock mineral production on federal land. As a result,
comprehensive information on hardrock mineral production is generally
not available to the public.
From 1997 to 2008, four federal agencies--BLM, the Forest Service,
EPA, and OSM--had spent at least a total of $2.6 billion to reclaim
abandoned hardrock mines on federal, state, private, and Indian lands.
Of this amount, EPA had spent the most--$2.2 billion. The amount each
agency spent annually varied considerably, and the median amount spent
for abandoned hardrock mines on public lands by BLM and the Forest
Service was about $5 million and about $21 million, respectively. EPA
spent substantially more--a median of about $221 million annually--to
clean up abandoned mines that were generally on nonfederal land. OSM
provided grants with an annual median value of about $18 million to
states and Indian tribes through its program for hardrock mine
cleanups.
One factor that contributes to costs for reclamation of federal
lands disturbed by mining operations is inadequate financial assurances
required by BLM. Since 2005, GAO has reported several times that
operators of hardrock mines on BLM lands have not provided financial
assurances sufficient to cover estimated reclamation costs in the event
that operators fail to perform the required reclamation. Most recently,
in 2008, GAO reported that the financial assurances that were provided
for 52 operations were about $61 million less than needed to fully
cover estimated reclamation costs, which could leave the taxpayer with
the bill for reclamation, if the operator fails to do so.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. Now we will hear from
Loretta Pineda, the Director of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety
of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
STATEMENT OF LORETTA PINEDA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RECLAMATION,
MINING, AND SAFETY, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION AND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAMS
Ms. Pineda. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
30 States and Tribes represented by the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission and the National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs, I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee today to present our views on the
challenges that we face in reclaiming abandoned mine lands
nationwide.
We are all aware of the legacy of inactive and abandoned
mines that continue to endanger our citizens, scar our
landscapes, and pollute our waters. Among the impacts that
States and Tribes find themselves addressing as part of our AML
reclamation programs are subsistence, open shafts and adits,
dangerous high walls, acid mine drainage, and surface and
groundwater contamination.
Putting actual numbers on the types and numbers of AML
sites is a challenge in and of itself, but suffice it to say
that several hundred thousand of these sites are scattered
throughout the United States. They occur on private, State, and
public lands, and do not respect geographic or political
boundaries. We present some of these numbers in our written
testimony.
The critical message for today's hearing is that while
notable and significant progress has been made by States and
Tribes to address inactive and abandoned mines, often in
conjunction with our Federal partners, much more needs to be
done.
And this can best be accomplished with three important
components. One, stable funding for State AML programs. Two,
legislative adjustments to fulfill the intent of Congress under
SMCRA, and three, Good Samaritan projections.
With regard to the importance of funding, we present in our
testimony information from nine States demonstrating how
enhanced funding could immediately be put to use to address
hardrock AML projects that are on the shelf and ready for bid.
Each of these projects would not only remediate high
priority AML sites, thereby safeguarding the public and
protecting the environment, but would generate the jobs
associated with this work.
In this regard, it should be noted that for every dollar
spent on local AML construction projects, an additional $2.70
cents is spent in the local economy. One of the most consistent
sources of funding for these States with coal mining within
their borders has been Title IV grants under the Surface Mine
Control and Reclamation Act.
Section 409 of SMCRA allows States and Tribes to use these
grants at high priority, non-coal AML sites. In this regard, we
support the provision of H.R. 785 that would clarify that
uncertified States are able to spend their unappropriated State
share balance on non-coal projects.
I would like to submit for the record a statement from our
organization supporting a similar provision contained in S.
897, a companion bill to H.R. 785. Other adjustments to SMCRA
that would further our work to reclaim AML sites include
expanding the use of State share balances for acid mine
drainage work, and ensuring that limited liability protections
under SMCRA are available to certified States and Tribes.
States and Tribes are also working on hardrock AML programs
through a variety of State and Federal funding sources,
including monies from EPA, the BLM, the Forest Service, the
National Park Service, and the United States Corps of
Engineers.
We continue to support the funding for these vital
programs, and believe that much valuable work continues to be
accomplished in partnership with States and Tribes. In
addition, a strong State lead is needed for implementation of
these programs.
Where acid rock and acid mine drainage remediation efforts
are involved, another concern looms large. Liability under the
Clean Water Act associated with these cleanup efforts.
Citizen groups, watershed associations, and others, who may
have a desire to fund the cleanup of impacted waters are often
dissuaded from doing so because of contaminated mine draining
discharges.
If re-effected, Good Samaritans would be liable under both
State and Federal law, therefore requiring them to be
responsible for permanently treating the discharge to a Clean
Water Act standard.
One example of an impaired watershed in Colorado is the
Animas River Basin, where the water quality is severely
impacted by legacy mining. So far, remediation efforts have
been completed on 28 of the 32 mine waste sites, and some
remediation has been done on 5 of the 34 draining adits.
Unfortunately, most of the mine related metal loading in
the basin emanates from the draining mines, as opposed to mine
waste. Consequently, the local watershed group's restoration
efforts have been limited by the lack of a Good Samaritan
provision to the Clean Water Act to reduce liability for third-
party cleanups.
Presently, there is no legislation to protect a Good
Samaritan from incurring long term liability when remediating
fluid from draining adits. We believe the best approach to
address the situation is through the enactment of legislation
that clarifies the application of the Clean Water Act
requirements to both coal and hardrock AML remediation efforts
for contaminated or polluted mine drainage is involved.
Our written statement contains several recommendations and
concerns that we believe should be considered in any Good
Samaritan legislative effort, and because pictures are worth a
thousand words, I would also like to share with the Committee a
video that the State of Colorado has put together to show what
kinds of remediation efforts would be underway if there was
Good Samaritan legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony,
and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pineda follows:]
Statement of Loretta Pineda, Director, Division of Reclamation, Mining
and Safety, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National Association of
Abandoned Mine Land Programs
Good afternoon. My name is Loretta Pineda and I serve as the
Director of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety within the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources. I am appearing today on
behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) and the
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP)
concerning the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on ``Abandoned Mine
Lands: Innovative Solutions for Restoring the Environment, Improving
Safety and Creating Jobs''. This is topic of great interest and
importance to the states and tribes represented by our two
organizations. Our statement focuses primarily on the reclamation of
abandoned hardrock mines in the West. However, I will also speak to
challenges we face with respect to the reclamation of abandoned coal
mines, as well as abandoned noncoal mines in other parts of the country
beyond the West. We appreciate the opportunity to appear today to share
our views and concerns.
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) and the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP) are multi-state
governmental organizations that together represent some 30 mineral-
producing states and Indian tribes, each of which implements programs
that regulate the environmental impacts of both coal and hardrock
mining. Many of these programs have delegations of authority from the
federal government to implement national environmental laws such as the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the Clean Water
Act, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Under these statutes, the states and
tribes exercise primary responsibility for the permitting and
inspection of the affected mining operations, for the enforcement of
applicable environmental performance standards, and for the protection
of public health and safety, including the safeguarding and cleanup of
abandoned mines.
The development of our Nation's mineral resources is a critical
component of our national well-being and security. Our manufacturing
activities, transportation systems and the comfort of our homes depend
on the products of mining. At the same time, it is essential that an
appropriate balance be struck between the need for minerals and the
protection of public health and safety and the environment. Over the
past 40 years, with the passage of sweeping national environmental
laws, the states and Indian tribes have taken the lead in fashioning
and then implementing effective programs for the regulation of mining
and its impacts, including the cleanup of inactive and abandoned mine
lands. As we face new challenges associated with homeland security,
climate change and alternative energy sources, the importance of
mineral development will only become more critical, as will the role of
state and tribal regulatory authorities.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued commitment to
craft a meaningful and effective program for reclaiming and restoring
the land and water adversely affected by past hardrock mining. Without
a national solution for this legacy issue, it is unlikely that
significant progress can be achieved. This is due primarily to the lack
of sufficient funding, and not a lack of will by the states, tribes and
others to do something about the matter. The states and tribes--often
together with our federal agency partners--have made notable progress
in addressing the issue. But our efforts need a substantial boost and
the potential for legislative solutions before the Subcommittee today
will go a long way toward accomplishing this goal.
Nationally, abandoned mine lands continue to have significant
adverse effects on the environment. Some of the types of environmental
impacts that occur at AML sites include subsidence, surface and
groundwater contamination, erosion, sedimentation, chemical release,
and acid mine drainage. Safety hazards associated with abandoned mines
account for deaths and/or injuries each year. Abandoned and inactive
mines, resulting from mining activities that occurred over the past 150
years prior to the implementation of present day controls, are
scattered throughout the United States. The sites are located on
private, state and public lands.
Over the years, several studies have been undertaken in an attempt
to quantify the hardrock AML cleanup effort. In 1991, IMCC and the
Western Governors' Association completed a multi-volume study of
inactive and abandoned mines that provided one of the first broad-based
scoping efforts of the national problem. Neither this study, nor any
subsequent nationwide study, provides a quality, completely reliable,
and fully accurate on-the-ground inventory of the hardrock AML problem.
Both the 1991 study and a recent IMCC compilation of data on hardrock
AML sites were based on available data and professional judgment. The
data is seldom comparable between states due to the wide variation of
available inventory criteria. Nevertheless, the data do demonstrate
that nationally, there are large numbers of significant safety and
environmental problems associated with inactive and abandoned hardrock
mines and that cumulative remediation costs are very large.
Across the country, the number of abandoned hardrock mines with
extremely hazardous mining-related features is estimated at several
hundred thousand. Many of the states and tribes report the extent of
their respective AML problems using a variety of measures including
mine sites, mine openings, mine features or structures, mine dumps,
subsidence prone areas, miles of unreclaimed highwall, miles of
polluted water, and acres of unreclaimed or disturbed land. Information
contained in IMCC's Noncoal Report and that we have provided to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) include the following gross
estimated number of abandoned mine sites: Alaska--1,300; Arizona--
80,000; California--47,000; Colorado--15,000; Montana--6,000; Nevada--
16,000; Utah--15,000--20,000; New York--1,800; Virginia--4,000
Washington--3,800; Wyoming--1,700. Nevada reports over 200,000 mine
openings; New Mexico reports 15,000 mine hazards or openings; Minnesota
reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned mine lands and South Carolina
reports over 6,000 acres. While the above figures attempt to capture a
universe of all abandoned mine sites by state, the actual number of
sites that pose significant health, safety or serious environmental
problems is likely lower.
What becomes obvious in any attempt to characterize the hardrock
AML problem is that it is pervasive and significant. And although
inventory efforts are helpful in attempting to put numbers on the
problem, in almost every case, the states and tribes are intimately
familiar with the highest priority problems within their borders and
know where limited reclamation dollars must immediately be spent to
protect public health and safety or protect the environment from
significant harm.
Estimating the costs of reclaiming hardrock abandoned mines is even
more difficult than characterizing the number of mines. Based on the
estimated number of AML sites, one can develop a very rough estimate
for the costs of safeguarding mine hazards and reclaiming small surface
disturbances. But the costs of remediating environmental problems such
as ground water and surface water contamination, acid rock drainage or
wind blown contaminants are extremely difficult to estimate. And many
of these problems will not be fully detected until after thorough
assessment and testing occurs at a minesite.
In an effort to quantify and forecast what states could spend
immediately as part of an expanded program that focuses on the cleanup
of abandoned hardrock AML sites over the next 18 to 24 months (assuming
the availability of new funding), IMCC and NAAMLP have gathered
information from nine states. A summary of that information is attached
to this statement. Few of these projects have been funded to date and
are examples of how enhanced funding under new legislation or
appropriations would immediately be put to use. In addition to the
forecasts provided by these states regarding economic and job
enhancements, it should be noted that, in general, for every dollar
spent by the states/tribes on local construction, this translates to
$2.70 that is spent in the local economy for things such as supplies
and materials, local equipment rentals and equipment operators, and
employee support.
Today, state and tribal agencies are working on hardrock abandoned
mine problems through a variety of state and federal funding sources.
Various federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the
U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have provided
some funding for hardrock mine remediation projects. These state/
federal partnerships have been instrumental in assisting the states and
tribes with their hardrock AML work. As states and tribes take on a
larger role in hardrock AML cleanups in the future, they will continue
to coordinate with their federal partners. Unfortunately, most of these
existing federal grants are project specific and do not provide
consistent funding.
For states and tribes with coal mining, the most consistent source
of AML funding has been the Title IV grants under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 409 of SMCRA allows states
and tribes to use these grants at high priority non-coal AML sites. The
funding is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to public safety
(e.g., closing mine openings) at hardrock sites. It is worth noting
that recent fatalities at abandoned hardrock mine sites have been in
states without SMCRA-funded AML programs. The small amount of money
that SMCRA states have been able to spend on physical safety hazards at
hardrock sites appears to be making a difference. More specific
information regarding the nature and extent of the hardrock AML
accomplishments of the states and tribes is available from IMCC and
NAAMLP.
As states and tribes work to address the remaining inventory of
abandoned hardrock mine sites, we are increasingly concerned about the
escalating costs of addressing those problems that continue to go
unreclaimed due to insufficient funding. Unaddressed sites worsen over
time, thus increasing reclamation costs. Inflation exacerbates these
costs. The longer the reclamation is postponed, the less reclamation
will be accomplished. In addition, the states and tribes are finding
new, higher priority problems each year, especially as many of our
urban areas encroach upon what were formerly rural abandoned mine
sites. New sites also continually appear due to the effects of time and
weather. Recent flooding events in the Western and Mid-Continent
sections of the country are a testament to this phenomenon. This
underscores the need for constant vigilance to protect our citizens and
the importance of potential legislation before the Subcommittee today.
With the foregoing as background, we will now address several
aspects of pending or proposed legislation that deserve mention. One of
the most critical needs is the establishment of a consistent and robust
funding source for addressing hardrock AML problems. While we do not
have a formal position on the various royalty and fee provisions that
have been suggested over the years, we do believe that some combination
of these funding mechanisms is critical to the success of a hardrock
AML program. Without certain, reliable funding from year to year, the
states and tribes cannot effectively plan for and execute meaningful
AML programs. We therefore strongly recommend a combination of
appropriate funding sources that will consistently support a long-term
AML program. This will result in substantial reclamation work over the
life of the program. We also support continued funding for the hardrock
AML programs already in place at the BLM, the Forest Service and the
National Park Service. The unique focus of these programs should not be
supplanted by new legislation. Much valuable work continues to be
accomplished pursuant to these programs, often in partnership with the
states and tribes.
Another key component of an effective hardrock AML program is
support for a strong state lead for the implementation of these
programs. Today, there are abandoned mine land programs in most states.
These include the 28 programs established by states and tribes under
SMCRA Title IV, along with states across the country that are not
eligible for Title IV funding, including Nevada, California, Arizona,
South Dakota, Idaho, New York, South Carolina and North Carolina. All
of these states and tribes are experienced with administering federal
grants and completing AML projects in a cost-effective manner on state,
private and federal lands.
The states and tribes must be provided an opportunity to assume
primary responsibility for implementing any hardrock AML program given
the unique differences among the states and tribes in terms of geology,
climate, terrain and other physical and environmental conditions. This
state/tribal-lead approach will assure the most critical AML problems
are addressed first, since the states and tribes are closer to the
problems and can best determine the priority of sites and the needed
remediation work. In addition, they also have assembled excellent
professional staffs with many years of experience (in some cases over
30 years) and an unsurpassed local contracting knowledge base. State
and tribes would require minimal staffing increases compared to
implementing a new federal program, thereby increasing on-the-ground
results per program dollar. In the West, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Alaska and Montana have used SMCRA Title IV funds to address a
number of significant AML problems, both coal and hardrock. In
addition, these AML programs have cooperative agreements with the
Forest Service, the National Park Service, BLM and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers that allow those agencies to fund AML projects on their
lands when money is available. It is simply more efficient for the
federal land managers to use the already established state AML programs
with their staff of experienced engineers, reclamation specialists and
project managers to design and conduct cost-effective AML projects on
federally-managed land within each state's boundaries.
Given the importance of the states being able to use SMCRA Title IV
funds for noncoal AML work, any new legislation should ensure that this
practice can continue or increase. In this regard, we support the
provision in H.R. 785 that would clarify that noncertified states and
tribes are able to spend their unappropriated state and tribal share
balances on noncoal AML reclamation. We believe this was the intent of
the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA. However, the Interior Department, through
OSM, has taken a different view in final rules implementing those
amendments and has blocked the states from using these moneys for this
worthwhile purpose. H.R. 785 would correct this unfortunate
interpretation by Interior. A recent statement submitted by IMCC and
NAAMLP for the record of a hearing on a similar bill before the U.S.
Senate (S. 897) is attached and we request that it be included for the
record of this hearing.
We support a lead role for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) regarding the overall administration of any
hardrock minerals reclamation fund that might be created in potential
or proposed legislation. We believe that OSM has the required expertise
to oversee and administer the Fund and the overall AML program based on
its 30 years of experience under SMCRA. We also support the necessary
funding for OSM to carry out its administrative duties under the law.
We also support the awarding of grants to states and tribes
pursuant to any hardrock AML reclamation fund that might be created by
legislation in order to be consistent with the state/tribal-lead
approach that we advocate. We recommend that these annual expenditures
from the Fund be off-budget (mandatory) and not subject to the annual
appropriations process. Given the known inventory of AML problems, we
believe this approach will guarantee that annual contributions to the
Fund are immediately distributed for work on-the-ground rather than
retained in a Fund that does little but generate interest. And with
regard to allocations from the Fund, we could support a formula that
takes into account both current and historic mineral production. We
believe that this arrangement represents a fair and equitable
disposition of any moneys paid into the Fund and will allow the states
and tribes to effectively manage their programs and accomplish
meaningful reclamation work. It may be helpful to clarify that any fund
allocations paid to the states based on existing production are defined
as a percentage of the total moneys paid into the fund for the current
year by the respective states of origin.
As for any allocations from the fund based on historic production,
consideration should be given in the formula as to how the specific
mineral commodity is measured (ounces v. pounds v. tons) and the
reference year from which historic production is calculated. For
instance, Nevada's and California's mineral contributions to the nation
predate both the 1872 Mining Law and the 1900 date from which historic
production has been previously calculated. For other states, such as
New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona and Colorado, the records of mine
production during the territorial period from 1850 to 1912 are very
sporadic and scattered. As a result, any historic production formula
must also take this reality into consideration, especially given the
unevenness in the completeness, availability, reliability and accuracy
of pre-1910 mining production records.
With respect to eligible land and water, we believe any legislative
solution should recognize that most hardrock AML problems are on non-
federal lands, even in the West. In most states, federal lands contain
less than a quarter of all hardrock AML sites. In part, this is due to
the patenting of mining claims in the nineteenth and early twentieth
century that allowed miners to claim and obtain ownership of lands they
mined. And when there are abandoned mine problems on federal lands,
they often spill over into adjacent non-federal lands or in-holdings.
To be effective, a hardrock AML program needs to be able to spend funds
on all classes of land. It should also be clarified that there is no
limitation on when lands and waters become eligible. In California, for
example, many of the legacy AML sites pre-date the 1872 Mining Law, so
limiting eligibility to only those problems that are post-1872 would be
problematic.
A critical component of any reclamation program is how to
prioritize sites and identify remediation options. Abandoned mine lands
range from sites with features that require no remediation because of
their minimal size or risk; to sites that require significant
earthwork, topsoil replacement and revegetation for erosion and
pollution control; to safeguarding shafts and adits that present public
safety hazards; to remediating sites with significant toxic leachate
causing contamination of ground and surface waters. In addition, some
hardrock mine sites have such a conglomeration of features, access
problems, drainage problems, etc., that estimated reclamation/
remediation costs exceed the entire annual AML budget of a state/tribe.
Regardless of which inventory or listing of sites is used, a large
portion of sites will require little if any reclamation. In other
cases, the per unit cost of reclamation is relatively small. These
sites will also rank low in priority because of the reduced threat to
public health or the environment. On the other end of the spectrum,
there will be a small number of sites that require a significant amount
of funding to remediate and that contain a chronic risk to public
health or the environment. Under current law, these are the sites that
are being or might be remediated under Superfund (the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)). The
AML priority sites should be those that constitute a physical threat to
public safety, and sites with significant contamination, but that will
likely never score high enough to be remediated under CERCLA. It should
also be noted that CERCLA remediation is not without potential
financial risk to the states. Generally speaking, where EPA authorizes
cleanup of an abandoned mine site out of its ``Fund Lead'', states are
required to pay 10 percent of the cleanup costs and to assume 100
percent of the operations and maintenance costs following cleanup. As a
result, any perpetual water treatment becomes the responsibility of the
state, including potential liability associated therewith. The Good
Samaritan relief that we address later in our testimony would help to
lessen the discharge cleanup standard, but still leaves the concern
associated with endless treatment costs.
Given the above considerations, each state or tribe should be
provided the discretion to determine which among the many sites in its
respective AML inventory deserve the most immediate attention, with
input from the federal land management agencies on whose land the sites
may be located. The states and tribes can also best decide the
appropriate remediation required under the circumstances given
available funding and resources and in consideration of landowner
desires.
Another aspect of any hardrock AML program is how to quantify the
problem. A consistent and purpose-driven inventory of AML problems is
critical to understanding the magnitude of the problems the states and
tribes face. Assessing the present and future impacts to the safety and
health of citizens and the impacts to the natural environment, while
recognizing the changing cost structure of a long-term program, are key
to a meaningful inventory of problems. However, lessons need to be
learned from the inventory of abandoned coal mines undertaken pursuant
to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which is estimated
to have cost more than $25 million and is still fraught with
controversy.
Based on the SMCRA experience, any hardrock AML inventory needs to:
have well thought out goals and instructions; maintain standardized
inventory procedures; keep inventory crews small to minimize
inconsistencies in reporting methods; minimize influence on the
inventory by those with vested interests in the results; require any
federal agency inventory work to be coordinated with the states;
utilize state-of-the-art GPS imagery; and be conducted with
consideration for seasonal snow and vegetation cover. In this regard,
we support an appropriate cap on the amount of money to be invested in
any inventory effort, so as not to divert money and energy from on-the-
ground reclamation work. In addition, those states whose AML programs
meet the above standards should be allowed to keep and rely upon their
existing inventories and associated databases, rather than being
required to create or adopt new ones.
A new complication for state and tribal AML work that also must be
addressed is the limited liability protection related to applicable
federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act where noncoal
AML work is undertaken with SMCRA Title IV funds. OSM's recent
rulemaking implementing the provisions of the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA
removed this protection and that action has had a significant chilling
effect on the ability of the states and tribes to undertake their
noncoal projects with SMCRA funds. Given OSM's reluctance to address
this administratively, the issue needs to be addressed with a
perfecting amendment to SMCRA.
Any proposed legislation to enhance hardrock AML cleanups should
also include special allocations from amounts paid into the fund for
grants to non-hardrock mining states with noncoal AML problems and for
grants to public entities and nonprofit organizations, such as
watershed groups. We believe that the incorporation of these provisions
into any legislation will likely generate additional support for the
bill. States other than the western hardrock AML states (such as South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, New York, and Tennessee)
have significant noncoal AML problems within their borders and there
are limited, if any, funds available to address these sites. Therefore,
to the extent that a small but reasonable amount of funding can be set
aside for work in these states, it will make a difference in their
efforts to remediate these sites. Based on our experience with
watershed cooperative agreements under SMCRA, we believe that a program
for nonprofit or public entities will provide a welcome shot-in-the-arm
for their efforts to address water contamination and acid rock drainage
issues in critical watersheds.
The subject of acid rock and acid mine drainage remediation efforts
brings up another aspect of AML cleanups that should be addressed in
legislation. This concerns liability under the Clean Water Act
associated with these cleanup efforts. Citizen, environmental and
watershed groups who may have a desire to fund the cleanup of impacted
waters are often dissuaded from doing so because the previously mined
and abandoned sites have contaminated mine drainage discharges which,
if reaffected, would subject these ``Good Samaritans'' to liability
under both state and federal law, thereby requiring them to be
responsible for permanently treating the discharge to Clean Water Act
standards. They could incur this liability even though they did not
create the discharge and even if their cleanup efforts improved the
overall quality of the discharge. This situation has been further
exacerbated by a recent decision by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals in West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159
(4th Cir. 2010). The court held that certain treatment systems for
treating water from abandoned coal mines qualify as point sources and
require NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act. While focused on bond
forfeiture sites under SMCRA, the reasoning of the decision may apply
equally well to the construction and operation of passive treatment
systems employed by watershed groups to address acid mine drainage at
abandoned coal mines. This situation must be rectified.
We believe that the best approach to address this situation is
through the enactment of legislation that clarifies the application of
Clean Water Act requirements to both coal and hardrock AML remediation
efforts where contaminated or polluted mine drainage is involved. We
have seen the results from this type of approach in states such as
Pennsylvania, which enacted its own Good Samaritan law to provide
protections and immunities to those groups and individuals who were not
legally liable but who voluntarily undertook the reclamation of
abandoned mine lands or abatement of mine drainage. However, even
Pennsylvania Good Samaritans are still exposed to potential liability
under federal law for their good deeds, which is having a debilitating
effect on watershed cleanup efforts. The recent Fourth Circuit decision
has further complicated this situation given its broad holding.
Over the course of the past fifteen years, several bills have been
introduced in the U.S. Congress to increase the cleanup of inactive and
abandoned mines. Each bill offered a unique approach for addressing
Good Samaritan voluntary remediation efforts to remove the current
disincentives in the Clean Water Act that inhibit these cleanups. From
the states' perspective, we have several recommendations and concerns
that we believe should be considered in any Good Samaritan legislative
effort, as follows:
There are myriad reasons why Good Samaritan
legislation is needed, but perhaps the most important is to
remove the potential for incurring liability under the Clean
Water Act and CERCLA. These liabilities deter motivated, well-
intentioned volunteers from undertaking projects to clean up or
improve abandoned sites, thereby prolonging the harm to the
environment and to the health and welfare of our citizens.
These impacts also have economic impacts that are felt
nationwide. In addition, the universe of abandoned mine lands
is so large and the existing governmental resources so limited
that without the assistance of Good Samaritan volunteers, it
will be impossible to clean up all of these lands.
In accordance with the principles of state primacy
contained in laws such as SMCRA and the Clean Water Act, we
believe it is essential that Good Samaritan programs be
administered by state regulatory authorities (or federal
agencies where a state chooses not to administer the law), as
the states best understand the complexities associated with
abandoned mine lands within their borders, including which
sites can be improved and how to accomplish the improvement.
States also tend to have a better working relationship and
understanding of potential Good Samaritans. Given the current
structure of laws like SMCRA and the Clean Water Act, we
believe that the states are in the best position to administer
Good Samaritan programs with appropriate oversight by federal
agencies such as EPA and OSM
There is merit to extending Good Samaritan protection
to abandoned coal, as well as hard rock, sites. The Western
Governors Association has taken the position that the proposed
definition of ``abandoned or inactive mined lands'' could be
drafted to include coal sites eligible for reclamation or
drainage treatment expenditures under SMCRA. We agree with this
assessment. Also, to the extent that Good Samaritan permits are
not required by states who are certified under Title IV of
SMCRA when performing hard rock AML remediation, this same
protection should be afforded to states performing coal AML
work. Furthermore, from a political support perspective,
extending Good Samaritan protections to abandoned coal mines
would likely enlist the support of more eastern and mid-
continent states for the legislation.
Some have suggested that provisions addressing
remining of abandoned mine sites should be included in the
legislation. Our position is that these two matters should not
be connected. They have somewhat different goals. As an
example, Pennsylvania allows those who are not legally liable
for the reclamation to engage in remining. Sites that have a
preexisting discharge can only be remined if the applicant
demonstrates, and the state finds, that the remining will
improve or eliminate the discharge. If the remining degrades
the preexisting discharge, the mine operator is responsible to
treat the resulting pollution. Remining of abandoned mine land
that does not contain preexisting mine drainage is allowed,
provided the operator reclaims the site to modern standards. To
the extent that additional incentives are considered as part of
Good Samaritan legislation, we suggest including technical
assistance and federal funding for these projects.
Good Samaritan legislation should also include
provisions that allow for the minerals contained in the waste
on the abandoned mine land to be recovered as part of the
reclamation. Allowing recovery of materials from the waste can
help offset or totally pay for the reclamation. However, the
mineral recovery must be secondary to the purpose of reclaiming
the site. Appropriate safeguards must be provided in the
legislation to ensure the purpose of the work is to reclaim the
site and not to conduct mining. New mining or remining should
not be a part of Good Samaritan legislation.
Good Samaritan protections should be extended to both
public and private lands. The pollution problem knows no such
boundaries and must be addressed wherever it occurs. The
environment and public health and safety all benefit by cleanup
of abandoned mine lands, whether public or private. We also
believe the protections should extend beyond federal lands so
as to allow nationwide application to all lands.
With respect to applicable environmental standards
for Good Samaritan projects, we believe it is absolutely
critical that the legislation include flexible standards, based
on a determination by the state or federal regulatory authority
that the Good Samaritan efforts will result in environmental
improvement. Some abandoned mine problems are so intractable
that it is not possible to achieve ``total cleanup'' even with
today's technologies. These types of cleanups could also be
cost prohibitive. We know that in many circumstances some
cleanup can result in significant environmental improvement.
Forswearing that improvement because total cleanup cannot be
achieved is poor public policy and shortsighted. We also know
that, in some circumstances, even where total cleanup is
technically possible, at some juncture the cleanup reaches a
point of diminishing returns and the money would be better
spent on cleaning up other sites. The bottom line here is that
some cleanup is usually better than none at all.
Finally, it has been Pennsylvania's experience under
its law that it is important that innocent landowners be
covered for the Good Samaritan project activities. Some
landowners will not cooperate if they are not protected.
Any new legislation should also provide the opportunity to clarify
what the term ``locatable mineral'' means under current law. Some
minerals are ``locatable'' under certain circumstances and ``leasable''
under others. For instance, uranium, which is currently locatable under
most cases, is leasable under the Atomic Energy Act program and may
become entirely leasable under future legislation. This creates
confusion as to whether all abandoned uranium sites are now, or will be
in the future, eligible for funding under the AML provisions of
proposed legislation. This is particularly important given the legacy
of AML sites from past uranium mining in New Mexico and other
southwestern states. We believe that it is important to clarify that,
until such time as it is determined otherwise, uranium continues to be
a locatable mineral and thus subject to the provisions of the Mining
Law.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. Should you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact
us.
Contact Information:
FOR IMCC: Greg Conrad [email protected] (703) 709-8654
FOR NAAMLP: Mike Garner [email protected] (301) 689-1460
Attachment
Examples of Hardrock Abandoned Mine Projects
Ready for Immediate Funding
South Dakota--South Dakota has one major mining
Superfund site currently in the remedial design and action
phase. The Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site is located in the
northern Black Hills, approximately four miles from the town of
Deadwood. Mining activities began at the site in 1876 and
continued intermittently for more than 100 years. The most
recent owner of the site, Brohm Mining Company, operated a
large-scale, open pit, heap-leach gold mining operation at the
site from 1986 until 1999. Brohm affected 265 acres consisting
of open pits, waste rock depositories, process facilities, and
a heap leach pad. This mining activity caused significant acid
rock drainage. In 1999 Brohm abandoned the site, which was then
taken over by the state of South Dakota. In 2000 the EPA listed
the mine as a Superfund Site. Work accomplished to date is the
construction of a lime-based water treatment plant for treating
acid water and the capping of a 65-acre acid generating waste
rock facility. EPA recently issued a Record of Decision for the
remediation of the rest of the site which includes three pits,
waste rock depositories, a heap leach pad and process
facilities. Remedial design is estimated to take one year with
the selected remedy emphasizing site-wide consolidation and
containment of mine waste. The estimated cost for the remaining
reclamation work is $72 million and it will take five to seven
years to complete depending on availability of funding. Plans
for water treatment will be finalized after site reclamation is
completed.
Montana--Montana currently has three construction-
ready abandoned mine projects where all environmental and
engineering studies have been completed and the projects lack
only construction funding. A total of $4.5 million must be in
place before these abandoned hard rock projects can be let for
bidding.
Colorado:
Overview
A statewide inventory of abandoned mines estimates that over 23,000
abandoned mine features (shafts, adits, stope openings) exist in
Colorado. Approximately 400 legacy mine sites are adversely impacting,
or have the potential to impact, over 600 miles of rivers and streams
in the state. Legacy mines were operated prior to 1977 and prior to any
permitting requirements. The current landowners of these mine sites did
not participate in the mining and have no responsibility for their
reclamation or remediation.
Hardrock Mine Safety Hazards
Colorado's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (AML) was established
in 1980 to address the hazards and environmental problems arising from
abandoned mines in Colorado. It was instituted under the provisions in
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, which
gives the states that have approved coal mining regulatory programs
under Title V of SMCRA the ability to assume exclusive responsibility
and authority to reclaim abandoned mine lands within their borders.
Mines abandoned prior to 1977 are eligible for the program. The program
was launched with a comprehensive inventory of hazards and
environmental problems associated with past mining activities, which
revealed an estimated 23,000 abandoned mined sites throughout the
state. Using this inventory, Colorado prepared a statewide reclamation
plan, which was approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
of Surface Mining (OSM) in June 1982. Since then, approximately 7,800
abandoned mine openings have been addressed through this program.
Abandoned Mine Drainage
Water quality issues due to legacy mines present some of the most
difficult challenges to restoring impaired water bodies in Colorado,
from both the technical and legal perspectives. Legacy mines are a
common pollution source in the mountains of Colorado. Many stream
segments on the state list of impaired segments are impacted by heavy
metals from inactive and legacy mines and natural background geologic
sources. Dissolved metals and acidity due to legacy mining and natural
loading sources make up 51% of the impaired waters in the State of
Colorado. Common mine-related metal pollutants include zinc, cadmium,
manganese, iron, copper and lead. Sediment related to past mining and
milling activities also contributes to the contamination of the state's
waters.
The amount of available funding to reclaim these sites and improve
water quality is far over-shadowed by the magnitude of the water
quality impact. For example, Colorado's allocation of the national non-
point source appropriation is approximately $1.9 million per year.
However, the estimate to remediate just one of the many impaired river
basins in Colorado is $30 million dollars. The cost to restore water
quality impacted by legacy mining issues statewide is estimated to cost
nearly $314 million.
Animas Basin Remediation Efforts
One example of an impaired watershed in Colorado is the Animas
River Basin. The water quality in the Animas Basin is severely impacted
by legacy mining and the basin was selected as one of two initial pilot
sites in the nation for a ten year remediation effort which extended
from the mid-1990's to a few years ago. Remediation efforts have been
driven by an extensive characterization process where some 200 mine
sites have been prioritized for feasibility of metal loading
reductions. This work was significantly supported by scientific studies
done through the Department of Interior's Abandoned Mined Land
Initiative.
The sites selected for remediation represented 90% of the mining-
related metal loading sources. So far, remediation has been completed
on 28 of the 32 mine waste sites and some remediation has been done on
5 of the 34 draining mines. Unfortunately, most of the mine-related
metal loading in the basin emanates from the draining mines as opposed
to the mine waste. Consequently, the local watershed group's
restoration efforts have been limited by the lack of a Good Samaritan
provision in the Clean Water Act to reduce liability for third-party
cleanups. In an effort to move forward, the watershed group developed a
pilot project Good Samaritan provision to apply to the Animas River
Basin and had it introduced twice in Congress. Neither of these efforts
was successful and presently there is no legislation to protect a
``Good Samaritan'' from incurring long term liability when remediating
effluent from draining mines.
Creating Jobs and the Reclamation & Restoration Economy
Each year the AML program addresses approximately 350 mine openings
and participates in about nine water quality improvement projects.
These construction activities create jobs and enhance the local
economic climate, and they also result in greater tax revenues for
state and local governments by increasing the revenues collected from
income and sales taxes. Construction jobs and the associated
expenditures are input to local economies and spread through a large
geographic area of rural Colorado, where any additional economic
benefit is highly valuable. Local economies in the historic and rural
mining areas benefit from the direct and indirect cumulative
expenditures as a result of contractor labor, and purchase of
materials, equipment, supplies, and in many cases meals and lodging.
The AML program overall has created approximately 300 new permanent
private-sector construction jobs, putting $23.6 million into local
economies, and generating $1.5 million in Colorado sales and income tax
revenues. (Note: used rounded RIMS II Multipliers for the industries
indicated in the state of Colorado)
The true beneficiaries of reclamation and restoration of abandoned
mined lands are the citizens of the local community. In addition to the
economic stimulus that the restoration activities bring to the
community, those who live and work in mining areas see the effects of
reclamation projects every day through increased tourism and improved
environmental conditions. Preservation of a community's historic mining
area enhances the local tourism economy by providing visitors and
tourists with safe ways to explore and enjoy Colorado's historic mining
areas. Also, historic mining areas provide opportunities for tourists,
and local residents, to experience the places and activities that
authentically represent the people of the past and present while, at
the same time, recognizing the value of the ample natural resources of
the mountain environment.
Following are photographs of inactive mine drainage sites in
Colorado that are seriously impacting water quality:
Utah--Utah has an estimated 15-20,000 abandoned mine
openings. Future safety hazard abatement projects (i.e. shaft
and adit closure) that would use SMCRA funds have been
identified and ranked. The 25 top-ranked hazardous abandoned
mine areas contain approximately 4500 hardrock mine openings.
Within 24 months Utah could conduct 7 projects in the most
dangerous areas (1270 mine openings). Safeguarding these
abandoned mine openings would require an estimated $6,350,000.
Assuming legal authority and funding are available, the
incremental environmental cleanup would increase the cost to
$19,050,000. In addition, due to SMCRA funding limitations,
many high priority environmental remediation problems exist at
previously completed hazard abatement projects.
New Mexico--the state has six projects with a total
estimated construction cost of $2.8 million that could be
undertaken within the 18--24 month time frame. These costs are
only for the construction contracts, and do not include any
costs for investigation, evaluation, design or oversight. The
projects all involve noncoal and are on federal lands. One
project involves a legacy uranium minesite on BML land where
project development and construction costs are expected to be
about $1.6 million.
Virginia--Based on current inventory data of over
4,000 abandoned hardrock mining sites in Virginia, over 30% or
1,200 of the sites pose severe safety hazards and approximately
400 or 10% pose severe environmental hazards. In the next 18
months, approximately five hundred thousand dollars of
reclamation could be initiated to remediate safety hazards on
federal and private lands in Virginia.. Several projects are
estimated to cost upwards of ten million dollars each to
reclaim. They would involve testing and engineering to
remediate as well as release from liability under the Clean
Water Act. All projects are bid competitively to the private
sector thereby providing employment and economic benefits to
the local economies.
Wyoming--In the next 18 months Wyoming can put $30
million worth of projects on the ground. The number of jobs
that would be involved is harder to estimate but based on
similar sized projects it would be around 75 people but less
than 100.
Arizona--the state has 94 high-risk mine sites with
58 sites which can be identified for closure in the next 36
months. This means that over 61% of the 94 mines sites pose
serious public safety and environmental threats to the public.
These areas typically have high use for backcountry touring and
off highway vehicle activities, and recreational mineral
collection by winter visitors, or are located near populated
areas. Many of the 94 mine sites has several openings with
depth's greater than 50 feet. The number of jobs created by and
through AML hardrock remediation is difficult to estimate
because, in general, the abandoned mines that need to be
addressed resulted from the efforts of small-time prospectors.
We would estimate the number of jobs created to be 50-100. This
number is subject to change once the momentum of closures
increases throughout the 36 month timeline. The estimated costs
are $940,000. Abandoned mines pose a serious threat to public
health and safety and to the environment. Public safety is a
growing concern as urban areas expand. Failure to timely and
properly act to close mines posing serious hazards may cause
liability problems for the state.
California--the state estimates that approximately
47,000 abandoned mines are distributed throughout California.
Of these, approximately 5,200 sites (11% of 47,000) present
environmental hazards, and more than 39,400 sites (84%) present
physical safety hazards. Some of the highest priority AML sites
(for example, Iron Mountain) are being addressed, but the
majority have not been evaluated to determine the required
cleanup actions to protect public health and safety and the
environment. In addition, there are numerous areas throughout
the Sierra, including tribal lands that are contaminated from
historic mercury use associated with gold mining. Hundreds of
millions of dollars will ultimately be necessary to remediate
all the AML sites within the State. As you know, California
does not currently receive federal AML funding as it is not a
SMCRA state.
In 2007, at the request of Senator Feinstein's office, California's
state and federal agencies working on AML issues created lists of
priority AML sites with environmental and physical hazards. The list is
being updated, but a current version is available from the state or
IMCC. This list provides a snapshot of the known environmental, human
health, and safety problems posed by abandoned mines in California. It
is important to note that many AML sites have not yet been inventoried
or assessed for hazards. The prioritization process used for each list
is briefly outlined in the document.
Of the sites on the list, many can be considered at/near a
``shovel-ready'' stage (i.e., projects already advanced that can be put
out to bid/work within 18 months). Listed alphabetically below are six
of the State's priorities identified by the Office of Mine Reclamation,
State Water Resources Control Board, and Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
Argonaut Mine, Amador County (private land/low-income
PRP): $2.0M
La Joya Quicksilver Mine, Napa County (private land/
low-income PRP): $2.0M
New London Mine, San Luis Obispo County (California
National Guard): $3.0M
Oro de Amador, mine tailings in Amador County (city
of Jackson): $5.0M
Plumas Eureka Mine, Plumas County (State Parks):
$3.0M
150-200 priority physical hazard features on federal
and state lands: $1.5M
TOTAL: $16.5 million
Other priority sites would likely be provided by federal agencies
such as the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and
National Park Service (an estimated 67% of California's AML sites lie
on federal land). We would like to stress that any hardrock AML funds
for California's priority AML sites should go directly to the State of
California or that the federal agencies receiving funds funnel them to
the State.
Please note, the above ``short list'' represents only a partial
list. We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to provide a
complete list that corresponds to our updated priorities. The above
short list also does not address the many abandoned mine sites that
would benefit from funding for assessment investigations prior to
cleanup Should such funds be available, California could use an
additional, initial $5,000,000 to conduct investigations at AML sites
that pose immediate threats to human health and the environment to
define cleanup construction projects. State and federal agencies would
work together to conduct the investigations and select the highest
priority cleanup actions. Sites and cleanup actions would be defined
within less than a year of initiation of the investigation work and
construction contracts could be awarded using contractors in place
several months thereafter (thus, within 18 months from the notification
of funding to award additional cleanup construction contracts).
______
Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director of the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission, on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
Re: Legislative Hearing on S. 897, To Amend the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977, Before the Public Lands and Forests
Subcommittee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, May 18,
2011
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I am submitting this
statement for the record on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC) and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs (NAAMLP) regarding a legislative hearing on S. 897, a bill to
amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to
use certain payments for noncoal reclamation projects and for the acid
mine drainage set-aside program. Both of the organizations I represent
strongly support this critical amendment to SMCRA.
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is an organization
of 24 states located throughout the country that together produce some
95% of the Nation's coal, as well as important hardrock and other
noncoal minerals. Each IMCC member state has active mining operations
as well as numerous abandoned mine lands within its borders and is
responsible for regulating those operations and addressing mining-
related environmental issues, including the reclamation of abandoned
mines. Over the years, IMCC has worked with the states and others to
identify the nature and scope of the abandoned mine land problem, along
with potential remediation options.
The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 30 states and
Indian tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related
hazards. These states and tribes are responsible for 99.5% of the
Nation's coal production. All of the states and tribes within the
NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation programs funded
and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to Title IV
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87).
Mr. Chairman, nationally, abandoned mine lands continue to have
significant adverse effects on the environment. Some of the types of
environmental impacts that occur at AML sites include subsidence,
surface and ground water contamination, erosion, sedimentation,
chemical release, and acid mine drainage. Safety hazards associated
with abandoned mines account for deaths and/or injuries each year.
Abandoned and inactive mines, resulting from mining activities that
occurred over the past 150 years, are scattered throughout the United
States. The sites are located on private, state and public lands.
Over the years, several studies have been undertaken in an attempt
to quantify the hardrock AML cleanup effort. In 1991, IMCC and the
Western Governors' Association completed a multi-volume study of
inactive and abandoned mines that provided one of the first broad-based
scoping efforts of the national problem. Neither this study, nor any
subsequent nationwide study, provides a completely reliable and fully
accurate on-the-ground inventory of the hardrock AML problem. Both the
1991 study and a recent IMCC compilation of data on hardrock AML sites
were based on available data and professional judgment. While the data
is seldom comparable between states due to the wide variation in
inventory criteria, they do demonstrate that there are large numbers of
significant safety and environmental problems associated with inactive
and abandoned hardrock mines and that remediation costs are very large.
Across the country, the number of abandoned hardrock mines with
extremely hazardous mining-related features has been estimated at
several hundred thousand. Many of the states and tribes report the
extent of their respective AML problem using a variety of descriptions
including mine sites, mine openings, mine features or structures, mine
dumps, subsidence prone areas, miles of unreclaimed highwall, miles of
polluted waterways, and acres of unreclaimed or disturbed land. Some of
the types of numbers that IMCC has seen reported in our Noncoal Mineral
Resources Survey and Report and in response to information we have
collected for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others
include the following gross estimated number of abandoned mine sites:
Alaska--1,300; Arizona--80,000; California--47,000; Colorado--7,300;
Montana--6,000; Nevada--16,000; Utah--17,000 to 20,000; New York--
1,800; Virginia--3,000 Washington--3,800; Wyoming--1,700. Nevada
reports over 200,000 mine openings; New Mexico reports 15,000 mine
hazards or openings; Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned
mine lands and South Carolina reports over 6,000 acres.
What becomes obvious in any attempt to characterize the hardrock
AML problem is that it is pervasive and significant. And although
inventory efforts are helpful in attempting to put numbers on the
problem, in almost every case, the states are intimately familiar with
the highest priority problems within their borders and also know where
limited reclamation dollars must immediately be spent to protect public
health and safety or protect the environment from significant harm.
Today, state agencies are working on hardrock abandoned mine
problems through a variety of limited state and federal funding
sources. Various federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and others have provided some funding for
hardrock mine remediation projects. These state/federal partnerships
have been instrumental in assisting the states with our hardrock AML
work and, as states take on a larger role for hardrock AML cleanups
into the future, we will continue to coordinate with our federal
partners. However, most of these existing federal grants are project-
specific and do not provide consistent funding. For states with coal
mining, the most consistent source of AML funding has been the Title IV
grants under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
Section 409 of SMCRA allows states to use these grants at high priority
non-coal AML sites. The funding is generally limited to safeguarding
hazards to public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at hardrock
sites.
In December 2006, Congress significantly amended the SMCRA AML
program to, among other things, distribute funds to states in an amount
equal to that previously allocated under SMCRA but never appropriated.
However, while Section 409 was not changed or amended in any way, the
Interior Department, through both a Soliticor's Opinion (M-37014) and
final rule (73 Fed. Reg. 67576), has now interpreted SMCRA to prohibit
this enhanced funding from being used for noncoal projects. This is a
significant blow to states such as New Mexico, Utah and Colorado that
have previously used SMCRA AML funds to address many of the more
serious hardrock AML problems within their borders. In fact, some of
the noncoal AML projects previously undertaken by these states have
been recognized by OSM for their excellence pursuant to the agency's
national AML awards program.
S. 897 would remedy the Interior Department's unfortunate
interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and as such we strongly support
the bill. That interpretation not only disregards the fact that section
409 was left unamended by Congress, it is also inconsistent with
assurances repeatedly given to the states and tribes by OSM during the
consideration of the legislation that noncoal work could continue to be
undertaken with these AML funds. The interpretation would also have the
unacceptable result of requiring states and tribes to devote funds to
lower priority coal sites while leaving dangerous noncoal sites
unaddressed. While OSM will argue that this may impact the amount of
funding available to uncertified states to address high priority coal
problems, Congress did not seem overly concerned with this result but
rather deferred to its original framework for allowing both high
priority coal and noncoal sites to be addressed.
In its final rule implementing the 2006 amendments to SMCRA (at 73
Fed. Reg. 67576, et seq.), OSM continued to abide by its argument that
``prior balance replacement'' funds (i.e the unappropriated state and
tribal share balances in the AML Trust Fund) are fundamentally distinct
from section 402(g) moneys distributed from the Fund. This, according
to OSM, is due to the fact that these prior balance replacement funds
are paid from the U.S. Treasury and have not been allocated under
section 402(g)(1). This is a distinction of convenience for the
Interior Department's interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and has no
basis in reason or law. The fact is, these funds were originally
allocated under section 402(g)(1), are due and owing pursuant to the
operation of section 402(g)(1), and did not change their ``color''
simply because they are paid from a different source. Without the
operation of section 402(g)(1) in the first place, there would be no
unappropriated (i.e. ``prior'') state and tribal share balances. The
primary reason that Congress appears to have provided a new source for
paying these balances is to preserve a balance in the AML Trust Fund to
1) generate continuing interest for the UMW Combined Benefit Trust Fund
and 2) to insure that there was a reserve of funding left after fee
collection terminates in 2021 to address any residual high priority
historic coal problems. There was never an intent to condition or
restrict the previously approved mechanisms and procedures that states
and tribes were using to apply these moneys to high priority coal and
noncoal problems. To change the rules based on such a justification is
inappropriate and inconsistent with law.
The urgency of advancing this legislation has been heightened, Mr.
Chairman, by statements in OSM's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
Therein, OSM is proposing to further restrict the ability of states to
expend AML funds on noncoal reclamation projects. This will apparently
occur as part of a legislative proposal that the Administration
supposedly intends to pursue in the 112th Congress. While the primary
focus of that proposal will be the elimination of future AML funding
for states and tribes that are certified under Title IV of SMCRA (which
we adamantly oppose), OSM is also proposing to establish a hardrock AML
reclamation fee in order to ``hold each industry [coal and noncoal]
responsible for the actions of its predecessors.'' We are uncertain
exactly what OSM has in mind with respect to this aspect of the
legislative proposal, but we suspect it has to do with clarifying the
very issue that is the subject of S. 897. And while there may be merit
for a hardrock AML reclamation fee, the potential for enacting this fee
in the near future is highly unlikely. In the meantime, we are losing
valuable time and resources by failing to authorize the use of
unappropriated state and tribal share balances to address what even OSM
has characterized as ``a legacy of abandoned mine sites that create
environmental hazards.'' It should be kept in mind, in this regard,
that the availability of these funds for noncoal reclamation work will
expire after FY 2014 when the last of the unappropriated state/tribal
share funds will have been distributed.
For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this
misinterpretation for noncoal AML work, it should also do so for the
acid mine drainage (AMD) set aside program. Section 402(g)(6) has,
since 1990, allowed a state or tribe to set aside a portion of its AML
grant in a special AMD abatement account to address this pervasive
problem. OSM's recent policy (and now regulatory) determination is
denying the states the option to set aside moneys from that portion of
its grant funding that comes from ``prior balance replacement funds''
each year to mitigate the effects of AMD on waters within their
borders. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout the country, but
especially in Appalachia. Given their long-term nature, these problems
are technologically challenging to address and, more importantly, are
very expensive. The states need the ability to set aside as much
funding as possible to deal with these problems over the long term.
Congress clearly understood the magnitude of this challenge given the
fact that it increased the amount of money that states could set aside
for this purpose from 10 to 30 percent in the 2006 Amendments. We
therefore strongly support the inclusion of language in S. 897 that
will correct the current policy interpretation by Interior and allow
the use of unappropriated state and tribal share balances (``prior
balance replacement funds'') for the AMD set aside, similar to the use
of these balances for noncoal work.
Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned
mine lands have been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been
closed, and safeguards for people, property and the environment have
been put in place. There are numerous success stories from around the
country where the states' AML programs have saved lives and
significantly improved the environment. Suffice it to say that the AML
Trust Fund, and the work of the states pursuant to the distribution of
monies from the Fund, have played an important role in achieving the
goals and objectives set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first
enacted--including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the
environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of
communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. Passage of S. 897
will further these congressional goals and objectives.
In support of our position on S. 897, we also request that you
include for the record the attached resolution (No. 07-8) adopted by
the Western Governors that urges the continued use of funds collected
or distributed under Title IV of SMCRA for the reclamation of high
priority, hard-rock abandoned mines. This resolution is in support of
the Western Governors' policy statements B.4 and B.5.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on S. 897. We
welcome the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative
process and see this bill become law.
______
Western Governors' Association
Policy Resolution 10-3
Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines in the West
A. BACKGROUND
1. Mining has a long history in the West. The western states
are rich in hardrock minerals like gold, silver and copper as
well as coal, much of it low sulfur.
Hardrock Mines
2. Historic hardrock mining in the West, unregulated until
recent years, has left a legacy of thousands of historic
abandoned mines, which pose a threat to human health and safety
and to the environment. These historic mines pre-date modern
federal and state environmental regulations which were enacted
in the 1970s. Often a responsible party for these mines is not
identifiable or not economically viable enough to be compelled
to clean up the site. Thousands of stream miles are impacted by
drainage and runoff from such mines, one of the largest sources
of adverse water quality impacts in several Western states.
3. Cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines is hampered by two
issues--lack of funding and concerns about liability. Both of
these issues are compounded by the land and mineral ownership
patterns in mining districts. It is not uncommon for there to
be dozens of parties with partial ownership or operational
histories associated with a given site.
4. Recognizing the potential for economic, environmental and
social benefits to downstream users of impaired streams,
Western states, municipalities, federal agencies, volunteer
citizen groups and private parties have come together across
the West to try to clean up some of these abandoned hardrock
sites. However, due to questions of liability, many of these
Good Samaritan efforts have been stymied.
5. Potential liability exists for Good Samaritans under Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program because a party can
inherit liability for any discharges from an abandoned mine
site remaining after their cleanup efforts, even though the
volunteering remediating party had no previous responsibility
or liability for the site, and has reduced the water quality
impacts from the site by completing a cleanup project.
6. Potential liability exists for Good Samaritans under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
7. Liability concerns also prevent mining companies from going
back into historic mining districts and remining old abandoned
mine sites or doing volunteer cleanup work. While this could
result in an improved environment, companies that are
interested are justifiably hesitant to incur liability for
cleaning up the entire abandoned mine site.
Coal Mines
8. Congress authorized creation of the Abandoned Mine Land
(AML) Program under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The program is funded by fees
from current coal production. The coal AML program provides
funding to states to restore lands mined for coal and abandoned
or left inadequately restored before August 3, 1977.
9. Section 409 of SMCRA also authorizes states to use AML
grant funds to address high priority non-coal mine hazards.
While the state AML programs are limited to using SMCRA funds
to only address public health and safety hazards at abandoned
non-coal mines, and not purely environmental threats, the state
programs have employed this provision to make a dent in the
public safety threats posed by abandoned mines.
10. In December 2006, Congress amended Title IV of SMCRA to
reauthorize the fee collection authority, to provide for the
distribution of the unappropriated stateshare balance of the
AML Trust Fund, to increase the minimum program funding to $3
million per year. Section 409 of SMCRA was not amended and no
limits were placed on non-coal projects.
11. However, the Office of Surface Mining (OSMRE) adopted
rules to severely limit certain states from using AML funds for
non-coal mine hazards. For Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, over
70 % of their funds are now off limits for non-coal projects.
These states are required to fund lower priority coal mine
reclamation projects while higher priority non-coal hazards
would remain unfunded. The Administration is also proposing to
deny AML funds to states which have ``certified'' completion of
coal AML projects, contrary to agreements codified in 2006.
12. The new interpretation of SMCRA by OSMRE conflicts with
the clear language of the law authorizing the use of coal AML
funds for high priority non-coal mine hazards. OSMRE's new
interpretation will leave the public exposed to significant
hazards to public health and safety at abandoned non-coal mines
being ignored while states are required to expend coal AML
funds at lower priority coal mine sites.
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT
Hardrock Mines
1. Western Governors believe Congress should amend the Clean
Water Act to protect volunteering remediating parties who
conduct authorized remediation from becoming legally
responsible under section 301(a) and section 402 of the CWA for
any continuing discharges from the abandoned mine site after
completion of a cleanup project, provided that the remediating
party--or ``Good Samaritan''--does not otherwise have liability
for that abandoned or inactive mine site. Legislative and
administrative remedies to address potential CERCLA liabilities
should also be considered.
2. The Governors encourage federal land management agencies,
such as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service, as well as support
agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to
coordinate their abandoned hardrock mine cleanup efforts with
state efforts to avoid redundancy and unnecessary duplication,
and to employ the expertise and knowledge of state AML
programs.
3. Western Governors urge Congress to designate a dedicated
source of funding for the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.
Coal Mines
4. Western Governors urge the Administration to uphold the
intent of Congress to allow states to exercise discretion on
the use of their AML grant funds to address high priority non-
coal abandoned mine hazards and to return funds due
``certified'' states under existing law.
5. Western Governors urge Congress to adopt legislation to
restore the flexibility under SMCRA for the states to use AML
funds at both coal and high priority noncoal abandoned mine
sites and to ensure appropriate liability protections remain in
place.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
1. WGA staff will advance the policy positions stated above in
appropriate venues as warranted and report to Governors and
Staff Council on progress and impediments.
2. WGA shall transmit this resolution to Congress, the
Secretary of the Interior, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and other appropriate parties as warranted.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. And if there are no
objection, both of the items that you referred to earlier, the
video and the document, will added to the record. Hearing none,
so ordered.
[NOTE: The video has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Mr. Lamborn. Next we have Laura Skaer.
STATEMENT OF LAURA SKAER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST MINING
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Skaer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Holt,
and Members of the Committee. I think it is important to
understand that hardrock AMLs are historic, the result of 140
years of mining prior to the enactment of modern environmental
laws, regulations, and the requirement to provide financial
assurance to guarantee reclamation.
Unlike the past, modern Federal and State environmental
laws, regulations, and financial assurance requirements work
together to ensure that today's mines will not become
tomorrow's AMLs.
Thus, the AML problem is finite, and historical, and is not
one that will grow in the future. This is evidenced by BLM's
June 21 response to Senator Lisa Murkowski's March 8th letter
stating that 659 plans of operation have been approved since
1990. None of those are on the CERCLA NPL list, and BLM
currently holds $1.7 billion in financial assurance.
Nevertheless, mining opponents use pictures of historic
unreclaimed abandoned mines to ferment public opposition to new
mine proposals, suggesting disingenuously that these historic
practices reflect modern practices.
This is the equivalent of showing the picture of a 1957
Chevrolet Bel-Air and stating that it does not have seat belts,
air bags, or pollution control, and therefore, GM should not be
allowed to produce new cars in 2011.
Although some progress has been made, the number one
impediment to voluntary mitigation and cleanup of hardrock AMLs
is the potential for immediate and cradle-to-grave liability
imposed by existing Federal and State environmental laws on
anyone who wants to be a Good Samaritan.
That impediment would be removed by comprehensive and
effective good Samaritan legislation, which the mining industry
strongly supports. Legislation that would allow mining
companies and others with no previous involvement at an AML
site to voluntarily improve safety and environmental conditions
and reclaim the site, either whole or in part, without the
threat of the potentially enormous liability under CERCLA, the
Clean Water Act, and other laws.
My written testimony outlines 10 essential elements of
effective Good Samaritan legislation. I would like to highlight
just a few. Mining companies that did not create environmental
problems at an AML site must qualify as Good Samaritans.
The mining industry has the desire, the technical
expertise, experience, and technology, to assess the safety and
environmental issues present at an AML site, and properly
secure, mitigate, and reclaim those sites. In fact, more
experience and expertise than all other potential Good
Samaritans combined.
Also, mining company Good Samaritans contribute private
sector capital, thereby reducing the need for public sector
resources. Two, a potential Good Samaritan must be able to
gather needed site characterization data without having to
conduct a PRP search, or go through a long and complicated
permitting process.
Three, Good Samaritan projects should be allowed as long as
they are likely to result in an improvement to the environment,
even if they will not result in complete cleanup of an AML
site, or the attainment of all applicable environmental
standards, such as stringent water quality standards.
We should not let the pursuit of the perfect be the enemy
of the good. Effective Good Samaritan legislation should
encourage entities with sufficient expertise and resources to
mill historic ways in order to recover, remove, or reduce the
metal content.
In many settings, this would result in the greatest degree
of environmental improvement. Knowing these ways to recover
some of the residual metals promotes conservation of resources,
and would generate some of the metals that we need for
strategic and economic purposes.
Also, milling historic mine wastes is a closure technique
that would achieve superior environmental results compared to
the usual AML remedy, especially if the EPA is involved, which
is to merely move the contaminants to a newly constructed waste
repository.
Relocating historic mine waste does not reduce or remove
the source of pollution. Our goal should be to remove and not
just move and cover. H.R. 3203 introduced by the Chairman in
the last Congress provides a good starting point for effective
Good Samaritan legislation.
It already incorporates many of the 10 concepts enumerated
in our written testimony, and could be improved by, one,
providing a mechanism for conducting site investigations
without incurring environmental liability, and without having
to go through a full permitting process.
Two, the PRP search should be significantly streamlined,
and completely eliminated when only private monies are funding
the cleanup. And three, restrictions on the ability of a mining
company or other Good Samaritan to reprocess historic mine
wastes in order to remove metals from these materials, should
be eliminated.
It is time for Congress to finally adopt the recommendation
from the National Research Council's 1999 report, and enact
effective Good Samaritan legislation, and create a framework
with regulatory incentives and liability protection, to
voluntarily remediate environmental problems caused by others
at AML sites.
We applaud the Chairman for holding this hearing, and look
forward to working with the Committee to produce Good Samaritan
legislation that will actually result in on-the-ground
cleanups. I will be happy to answer any questions that you
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Skaer follows:]
Statement of Laura Skaer, Executive Director,
Northwest Mining Association
Executive Summary
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and Members of the Committee,
the Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) appreciates this opportunity to
provide testimony on Abandoned Mined Lands: Innovative Solutions for
Restoring the Environment, Improving Safety and Creating Jobs.
The mining industry has long been front and center in trying to
deal responsibly with AMLs. Some of these efforts are documented in a
study researched and authored by two of our members, Debra W.
Struhsacker and Jeff W. Todd, and published in 1998 by the National
Mining Association entitled ``Reclaiming Inactive and Abandoned Mine
Lands--What Really is Happening.'' (A copy of this study is being
included in the record and is hereinafter cited as the ``NMA Study'').
This study presents compelling evidence that given the right
opportunity, the mining industry can play a significant role in
eliminating the safety hazards and improving the environment at
abandoned and inactive mines.
The industry also continues to strongly support the enactment of
comprehensive Good Samaritan legislation that would allow mining
companies with no previous involvement at an AML site to voluntarily
reclaim and improve safety and environmental conditions at that site,
in whole or in part, without the threat of potentially enormous
liability under CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal and
state environmental laws.
Industry wants to see abandoned mines cleaned up. After all, they
are incorrectly portrayed as being our dirty pictures, when they in
fact represent the results of historic practices, typically 50 to 150
years old, implemented by companies no longer in existence and/or
persons no longer alive, and are reflective of societal values at that
time (for example metals production at all costs for World War II).
Nevertheless, mining opponents use pictures of historic, unreclaimed
abandoned mines to foment public opposition to new mine proposals,
suggesting disingenuously that these historic practices reflect modern
practices. This is the equivalent of showing a picture of a 1957
Chevrolet Bel Air and stating that it does not have seat belts, air
bags, pollution control devices or meet CAFE requirements and therefore
GM should not be allowed to produce new cars in 2011.
Industry wants to see AMLs reclaimed and safety and environmental
conditions improved as much as anyone, but we need your help. The
mining industry has the desire, the experience, the technology, and the
expertise to mitigate and reclaim AMLs. In fact, the mining industry
has more experience and expertise than all other potential Good
Samaritans combined. Additionally, the mining industry can contribute
private-sector capital towards addressing the abandoned mine problems
thereby reducing the need for public-sector resources. Effective Good
Samaritan legislation makes sense and can be a win-win-win-win for the
environment, for federal, state and local governments, for jobs for the
Good Samaritan, for the community, and for society. We are here today
to ask Congress to do its part and enact Good Samaritan legislation
that will remove the legal liability hurdles and provide non-monetary
incentives for a variety of persons and entities to reclaim and improve
safety and environmental conditions at AMLs throughout the West.
We applaud the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward
to working with him to produce Good Samaritan legislation that will
actually result in on-the-ground Good Samaritan cleanups at Abandoned
Mine sites.
NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION: WHO WE ARE
NWMA is a 116 year old, 2,000 member, non-profit, non-partisan
trade association based in Spokane, Washington. NWMA members reside in
42 states and are actively involved in exploration, mining and
reclamation operations on public and private lands, especially in the
West. Our diverse membership includes every facet of the mining
industry including geology, exploration, mining, engineering, equipment
manufacturing, technical services, and sales of equipment and supplies.
NWMA's broad membership represents a true cross-section of the American
mining community from small miners and exploration geologists to both
junior and large mining companies. More than 90% of our members are
small businesses or work for small businesses. Most of our members are
individual citizens. Our members have extensive first-hand experience
with reclaiming active and inactive mine sites and remediating a
variety of environmental conditions and safety issues at these sites.
Our members also have extensive knowledge of Abandoned Mine Lands
(AMLs) in the U.S. In addition to the study mentioned above, Ms.
Struhsacker has testified before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on AML issues (March 12, 2008), and I have
testified before this subcommittee on AML and Good Samaritan issues on
two previous occasions (July 13, 2006 and October 3, 2007). Another
NWMA member, Julian C, Isham, testified at a subcommittee field hearing
on Abandoned Mines and Mercury in California (November 23, 2009).
Copies these testimonies are attached and incorporated into the record
for this hearing.
ABANDONED MINE LANDS ARE HISTORIC
It is important to understand when we talk about hardrock abandoned
mine lands we are talking about a problem which was created in the past
due to mining practices used at sites mined prior to the enactment of
modern environmental laws and regulations and the requirement for mine
operators to provide financial assurance to guarantee their sites will
be properly reclaimed. Table 1 lists the dates of development of many
of the major mining districts in the country compared to the dates of
enactment of many of the federal and state environmental laws and
regulations that govern hardrock mining activities. As is clearly seen
from this table, mining in the U.S. dates back to the 1820s, with
significant historic mine development throughout the remainder of the
19th century and into the early part of the 20th century. Many of the
AML sites that need attention were created in this timeframe.
It also is important to note that during World Wars I and II, the
federal government directed operations at many mines to produce the
metals and minerals necessary for the war efforts. The focus was on
maximizing production and winning the war--not on using mining methods
that were designed to protect the environment. The metals mined from
these sites greatly benefited U.S. society by contributing to the
country's victories in both wars. What we are left with today, however,
are the environmental impacts created by these unregulated mining
activities. Some of these war-efforts mines are now abandoned. Because
the American public benefited in the past from mining of these sites,
we now have a public responsibility to develop policies and funding
mechanisms to reclaim these sites.
Many modern mining practices began to be implemented in the mid-
1960s at about the same time that the country was developing an
environmental awareness and when Congress was starting to enact
environmental laws. Thus, as is readily apparent from Table 1, the U.S.
environmental statutory and regulatory framework is a recent
development compared to the history of mining in the U.S. Moreover, it
is important to recognize that many of the laws and regulations
governing hardrock mining are quite new--some are less than 25 years
old. For example, Nevada's state reclamation law went into effect in
1990, only 21 years ago. BLM's regulations for hardrock mining, the 43
CFR. Subpart 3809 program, went into effect in 1981 and were
substantially updated just ten years ago in 2001.
The body of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
shown in Table 1 has had a significant and positive impact on the way
mining is now conducted in the U.S., resulting in a substantial
reduction in environmental impacts and dramatic improvements in
reclamation. As a result of these laws and regulations, the domestic
hardrock mining industry of today is highly regulated and
environmentally and socially responsible. The creation of these laws
has caused the mining industry to completely revise how mines are
designed and operated, so that now, reclamation is a fundamental and
integrated part of mine planning and operation as today's mines are
designed, built and operated for closure. Also, because these laws and
regulations require exploration and mining companies to provide
financial assurance to guarantee reclamation at the end of the project,
mines today will not become future AML sites. In the event a company
goes bankrupt or defaults on its reclamation obligations, state and
federal regulatory agencies will have bond monies available to reclaim
the site. In a June 21, 2011 letter from Robert V. Abbey, Director of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Senator Lisa Murkowski, the BLM
told Senator Murkowski that 659 Plans of Operation have been approved
since 1990 and that none of those sites have been placed on the CERCLA
NPL list. Thus, the AML problem is a finite and historical problem and
not one that will grow in the future.
As shown in Table 1, the U.S. Forest Service adopted the 36 CFR.
Part 228A surface management regulations governing hardrock mining
operations on National Forest Lands in 1974. Six years later, in 1980,
BLM enacted the 43 CFR. Subpart 3809 surface management regulations,
which were substantially expanded and updated in 2000 and 2001. Both
BLM's 3809 regulations and the U.S. Forest Services' 228A regulations
require all exploration and mining activities above casual use provide
federal land managers with adequate financial assurance to ensure
reclamation after completing the exploration or mining project. Because
the underlying purpose of the financial assurance requirement is to
ensure reclamation of the site in the event an operator goes bankrupt
or fails to reclaim a site for some other reason, the amount of
required financial assurance is based on what it would cost BLM or the
U.S. Forest Service to reclaim the site using third-party contractors
to do the work. According to BLM's June 21 letter to Senator Murkowski,
the amount of financial assurance currently held by BLM is $1.7
billion.
In addition to mandating reclamation and establishing financial
assurance requirements, these comprehensive federal regulations also
require compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental
laws and regulations to protect the environment and to meet all
applicable air quality, water quality and other environmental
standards.
Additionally, all western public land states have enacted
comprehensive regulatory programs that govern hardrock mining
operations in their respective state. Like the federal financial
assurance requirements, these state regulatory programs require the
posting of adequate financial assurance or reclamation bonds in an
amount equal to the cost that would be incurred by the government if it
had to contract with a third party to remediate and reclaim the site.
In many states, federal and state regulators with jurisdiction over
mining work together to jointly manage the reclamation bonding
programs. For example, in Nevada, the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service and
the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection/Bureau of Mining
Regulation and Reclamation have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that establishes procedures for coordinating the
federal and state regulatory programs for mining. This MOU specifies
that the federal and state agencies will work together to review
reclamation cost estimates and to agree upon the required bond amount.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7405.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7405.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7405.003
.epsIn 1999, the National Academy of Sciences National Research
Council, in response to a request from Congress to assess the adequacy
of the regulatory framework for hardrock mining on federal lands, found
that '' [t]he overall structure of the federal and state laws and
regulations that provide mining-related environmental protection is
complicated, but generally effective.'' Thus, these state and federal
comprehensive regulatory programs together with financial assurance
requirements work together to ensure that modern mining is
environmentally responsible and that today's mines will be reclaimed.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF AML SITES DO NOT POSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS
It is important to understand that the vast majority of all
hardrock AML sites are not problematic. The 1998 WGA report mentioned
above estimated that more than 80% of AML sites create neither
environmental nor immediate safety hazards. Where problems do exist,
safety hazards are the primary problem although some AML sites have
both environmental and safety issues.
The Center of the American West released a study in 2005 entitled
``Cleaning Up of Abandoned Hardrock Mines in the West.'' The Center,
which is affiliated with the University of Colorado, states at page 31
of its report that ``only a small fraction of the 500,000 abandoned
mines [identified by the Mineral Policy Center] are causing significant
problems for water quality.''
A 2007 USFS/BLM report estimates that as many as 10% of the AML
sites on USFS- or BLM-managed land may include environmental hazards
and that the balance, or approximately 90%, are landscape disturbances
or safety hazards. The finding that landscape disturbance and safety
hazards comprise the bulk of the AML problem is consistent with other
reports.
Although much of the public debate about the AML problems typically
focuses on environmental issues, it is really safety hazards that
deserve our immediate attention. Nearly every year, the country
experiences one or more tragic accidents or fatalities at an AML site
where somebody has fallen into or become trapped in an unreclaimed
historic mine opening. AML safety hazards pose a far greater risk to
the public than AML environmental problems. Therefore, we should focus
first-priority AML funds on eliminating safety hazards at AML sites
located near population centers and frequently used recreation areas.
The 1998 NMA Study cited above includes a comprehensive discussion
of the types of safety hazards and environmental problems that exist at
AML sites. Table 2 summarizes this discussion and lists the safety
hazards and environmental problems that may occur at AML sites and the
techniques used to address these hazards and problems. As stated above,
landscape disturbances and safety hazards are the dominant problem at
most AML sites. However, some sites may have a combination of landscape
disturbance, safety hazards, and environmental problems.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7405.004
Although many of the above listed measures are expensive--
especially those used to improve safety and environmental problems--
they are technically straightforward, well understood, and are
generally quite effective in improving environmental conditions at AML
sites. The NMA Study identified a number of AML sites with safety
hazards and/or environmental problems that were substantially reduced
through the use of one or more of the measures listed in Table 2. It is
important to understand, however, that each AML site is different and
the nature of AML issues is site-specific. The measures shown in Table
2 to address landscape disturbance, safety hazards, and environmental
problems at an AML site must be custom-tailored to fit the site-
specific conditions of a particular site. A cookie-cutter, one-size-
fits all approach will not achieve optimal results and may even fail to
address the problem.
AML policy discussions have had a tendency to focus on the worst
and most complex AML sites. This mischaracterization of the global AML
problem has probably contributed to the lack of progress in developing
federal policies and programs to solve the AML problem. The legislative
dialogue about enacting Good Samaritan legislation has perhaps been
made more difficult by focusing on sites with very serious or complex
environmental and liability issues such as sites with acid drainage
from underground mine openings which typically require extensive and
costly remediation efforts. Not all AML sites that may be discharging
contaminated water can be remediated easily. Although this type of site
is serious and deserving of our immediate attention, it is not
representative of the safety and environmental concerns at most AML
sites. In other words, not every AML site will be a model for a Good
Samaritan project. Focusing solely on the most challenging AML sites is
likely to produce programs and policies with unwarranted complexity and
costs, resulting in little or no environmental improvement.
THE NEED FOR GOOD SAMARITAN LEGISLATION
Although, as discussed above, some progress has been made by
industry and existing State and federal AML programs in reducing safety
hazards and remediating and reclaiming hardrock AMLs, the number one
impediment to voluntary cleanup of hardrock abandoned mine lands is the
potential liability imposed by existing federal and state environmental
laws, in particular the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(commonly known as Superfund), the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
(RCRA), and the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Under these laws,
a mining company, state or federal agencies, communities, NGOs,
individuals or other entities that voluntarily improve safety and
environmental conditions at an abandoned mine site could potentially
incur both immediate and ``cradle-to-grave'' liability, even though
they did not cause or contribute to the environmental condition at the
abandoned mine land site and their actions improve the environment or
abate a safety hazard.
Furthermore, they could be required under the CWA to prevent
discharges to surface waters from the AML in perpetuity, or obtain a
permit and treat such discharges to meet strict effluent limitations
that do not result in exceedences of stringent water quality standards,
something that may not be possible; and in any event, may be so
expensive that no company, individual, or other entity would undertake
a voluntary cleanup.
Virtually everyone who has looked at the AML issue in the west has
recognized and documented the legal impediments to voluntary cleanup of
AMLs and has urged that those impediments be eliminated. These groups
include the Western Governors Association, the National Academy of
Sciences, and the Center for the American West.
The time has come for Congress to adopt the recommendation from the
National Academy of Sciences National Research Council's 1999 report to
Congress and enact effective Good Samaritan legislation that will
create a framework, with regulatory incentives and liability protection
for numerous entities, including mining companies, local, state and
federal agencies, communities, NGOs, and tribes to voluntarily improve
safety and environmental problems caused by others at abandoned
hardrock mine sites in the U.S.
The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. Sec. 21(a)),
specifically establishes the Congressional intent ``to foster and
encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound
and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal, and mineral reclamation
industries.'' Including provisions to authorize managing historic mine
wastes to minimize or eliminate pollution or the threat of pollution in
Good Samaritan legislation is consistent with and promotes this
Congressional intent.
ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE GOOD SAMARITAN LEGISLATION:
To be effective, Good Samaritan legislation must embody the
following key provisions:
1. Mining companies that did not create environmental problems
at an AML must qualify as Good Samaritans. No one knows more
about the proper management of mine wastes and reclaiming and
mitigating mine sites than the mining industry. The mining
industry has the desire, technical expertise, experience, and
technology to effectively and efficiently assess the safety and
environmental issues present at an AML site and to properly
secure, improve safety and environmental conditions, and
reclaim those sites. In some situations, this can be done in
conjunction with mining and reclamation activities at nearby
active mines which the company operates, resulting in an
efficient use of resources to improve the environment and
enhance public safety. Creating a Good Samaritan law that
removes the existing regulatory and liability barriers that
currently discourage private sector cleanups would be good
public policy because it would stimulate the use of private-
sector resources to address the public problems caused by
abandoned mines and create jobs.
For example, Teck Cominco American Incorporated (now Teck
American) purchased the Pend Oreille Mine in Pend Oreille
County, Washington in 1996 and brought it back into production
in 2004. It is located in a setting where a substantial amount
of historical mining took place before there were environmental
laws and regulations and modern mining practices. There are
many abandoned mine sites in the area of the Pend Oreille Mine.
In working with the local community, Teck determined that many
of the old mine openings presented a potential hazard to public
safety. Those that did not involve environmental issues were
voluntarily closed through the installation of bulkheads in
several of the openings.
Teck has been approached by state and federal agencies to
see if it could mill some of the historic waste rock piles, ore
piles and concentrate accumulations in the area. In each and
every case, the company chose not to undertake this cleanup
effort due to the strict nature of its Clean Water Act
authorization as interpreted by Washington State that prohibits
any tailings other than those generated from the Pend Oreille
Mine to be placed in its lined and approved tailings disposal
facility. Furthermore, the company is reluctant to undertake
cleanup efforts at any of these old sites for fear of being
deemed an operator and incurring cradle-to-grave liability for
the site under a variety of federal and state environmental
laws.
All mines run out of ore and towards the end of production
may look for additional sources of mineralized material to
mill. Having the ability to augment or extend the productive
life of the mine benefits the mining company, the community and
the Nation. It also benefits the environment through metal
source reduction as more metal will ultimately be recovered
from the AML sites and the resulting tailings are placed in a
regulated, engineered and permitted containment structure. This
promotes conservation of the resource and sustainable
development with a net improvement in the environment.
This is but one of many, many examples of sites throughout
North America where existing mines are located adjacent to
abandoned historical mines. Another example from the Northwest
is Meridian Gold Company's Beartrack Mine near Salmon, Idaho.
Deposits from historic mining were located on the mine
property. As a result, Napias Creek no longer supported salmon
habitat. Meridian used the equipment and personnel that were
on-site at Beartrack to remove the historic tailings and waste
rock piles from Napias Creek and fully mitigate the site and
restore the streambed to salmon habitat. The company won
several environmental awards for their work. The mine was able
to use the tailings and waste rock materials from historic
mining located on the mine property (emphasis added), at the
Beartrack Mine, increase the ultimate recovery of metals from
the mine and improve the environment. A scenario where everyone
wins.
I have emphasized located on the mine property to highlight
the important distinction between the Pend Oreille mine example
and the Beartrack example. The Napias Creek tailings and waste
rock piles were located on the mine property and covered by
Beartrack's operating permits. The lack of effective Good
Samaritan legislation has prevented, to date, the same win-win-
win result at Pend Oreille.
2. A Good Samaritan law must have sufficient flexibility to
allow site-specific solutions that take into account the fact
that many historic mine sites include both public and
``private'' land where the previous land owner(s) no longer
exist.
3. A potential Good Samaritan must be able to gather the
needed site characterization data to develop a technically
sound remediation proposal without having to conduct a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search or go through a
long, complicated and involved permitting process. A Good
Samaritan must be able to conduct a site survey without the
potential for becoming liable for the site solely by virtue of
gathering data.
4. Individual Good Samaritan projects should be subject to
review and authorization by the federal government or by an
individual state's abandoned mine land program (and/or the
environmental permitting authority for those states where EPA
has delegated Clean Water Act authority).
5. The permit process must be simple, straight-forward and
understandable. The environmental requirements for a Good
Samaritan project should be wrapped into a single permit. The
permit should be approved only if the project is technically
sound and promises overall improvement to the environment and/
or securing of safety hazards.
6. The Good Samaritan must have full legal protection under
the permit. That is, a Good Samaritan permit-holder must be
able to obtain a specific, concrete list of the federal, state
and local environmental laws that would be deemed satisfied by
completion of the work authorized under the permit. One of the
Good Samaritan bills introduced in the 109th Congress, S. 1848,
and H.R. 3203 introduced in the 111th Congress, contain a list
of federal environmental laws that is a good starting point.
7. Good Samaritan projects should be allowed as long as they
are likely to result in an improvement to the environment, even
if they will not result in the complete cleanup of all
contaminants at an abandoned mine land site or the attainment
of all otherwise applicable environmental standards, such as
stringent water quality standards. To quote an oft-repeated
phrase, ``don't let pursuit of the perfect be the enemy of the
good.'' A 75 percent improvement in water quality downstream
from an AML site is a far better result than no cleanup due to
a Good Samaritan's concerns that their cleanup activities may
not be able to achieve water quality standards that would be
applicable at a modern mine.
8. The permitting authority must be given discretion under any
Good Samaritan legislation to make site-specific adjustments to
environmental requirements, standards and liabilities arising
under state and federal environmental laws that could otherwise
be applicable and prevent Good Samaritans from undertaking
remedial actions. This is not a new concept. The Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate (ARAR) approach under CERCLA might be
a reasonable starting point.
The permitting authority also should have the discretion to
waive the PRP search requirement. A Good Samaritan willing to
spend private monies to improve safety and environmental
conditions and reclaim an AML site should not have to spend
time and resources conducting and certifying a PRP search. It
should not matter whether there might be a PRP. The goal should
be environmental improvement, not finding someone to blame.
9. Any Good Samaritan legislation, to be effective and result
in actual, on-the-ground cleanup, should encourage entities
with sufficient expertise and resources to manage and/or use
the mine wastes in order to recover, remove, or reduce the
metal content. In many settings, this would result in the
greatest degree of environmental improvement.
Using tailings, waste rock piles and other historic mining
materials at AML sites may be the most efficient means of
cleaning up a site. The most efficient and environmentally
benign scenario for managing historic mine wastes is using such
materials feedstock at an adjacent or nearby modern fully
regulated and bonded mineral processing facility. The new waste
that would be generated from historic materials at a modern
mineral milling facility would then be disposed of in a modern
engineered facility that complies with current environmental
standards and practices including performance monitoring and
financial assurance. Using historic mine waste as a feedstock
is a superior environmental remedy that achieves resource
recovery and source reduction. Given the desirability of
achieving the resource recovery and source reduction that can
result from using historic mine materials, Good Samaritan
legislation should encourage management of historic ores,
minerals, waste rock piles and other materials existing at an
AML site to create jobs, taxes, a return on investment and a
cleaner environment.
The benefits associated with reusing historic mine wastes
are twofold. First, treating these wastes to recover some of
the residual metals (which are usually the primary constituent
of concern) would be an efficient use of resources to generate
some of the metals the U.S. needs for strategic and economic
purposes. Secondly, reusing historic mine wastes would achieve
superior environmental results compared to the usual AML remedy
(especially if EPA is involved), which is to move the
contaminants to a newly constructed waste repository and cover
them. Relocating the metal-bearing historic mine wastes does
not reduce or remove the source of pollution. Furthermore,
merely relocating the wastes into a new repository site creates
the need for long-term maintenance and monitoring in order to
reduce at the risk of leakage or other failure. Removing such
metal from the environment and placing it into useful commerce
is far more environmentally and economically beneficial than
merely reburying such wastes in another place.
AMLs are generally located in highly mineralized areas. Not
only are these highly mineralized areas the location of
historic mining, they are likely to be the location for future
mines as prices and technology allow. Therefore, there is
significant potential for redevelopment of these sites or for
discovery of a new, nearby mineral deposit. The discovery of a
new deposit near an AML site or the redevelopment of an
historic mine site, would require the full mine permitting
process, (including an environmental analysis required by the
National Environmental Policy Act if the project affects public
land) and would be allowed only if the proposed new mine
complied with all current standards of environmental
protection. This new mine with its engineered, fully permitted
and bonded beneficiation and processing circuit and mine waste
disposal facilities would provide a new mine solution to old
mine waste, while creating hundreds of new high paying jobs and
generating federal, state, and local tax revenues.
Contrary to the assertions of mining opponents, the mining
industry has no desire to use Good Samaritan legislation to
avoid the mine permitting process or the application of current
environmental laws and regulations that apply to today's modern
mines. The Good Samaritan approval authority, through permit
conditions, can easily prevent the misuse of a Good Samaritan
permit.
10. Good Samaritan legislation should allow Good Samaritan
actions at AMLs to qualify as off-site mitigation under the CWA
for mining companies permitting new mines or expansion of
existing mines. This would provide an additional incentive for
a mining company to undertake a Good Samaritan cleanup while
meeting the permitting requirements at new or expanded mines.
SUPERFUND IS NOT THE ANSWER:
Some Members of Congress and anti-mining groups argue that instead
of focusing on Good Samaritan legislation, Congress should fund the
Superfund program and EPA, under the Superfund program, should address
all Abandoned Mine Lands. In our opinion, this is a wrong-headed
approach to mitigating and reclaiming historic abandoned mine lands.
Superfund does not have a very good track record at mine sites.
Superfund was not designed to address natural processes that result in
contaminated watersheds at AMLs. The historic mining communities of
Aspen and Leadville in Colorado, Butte, Montana, Triumph, Idaho and the
Bunker Hill site in northern Idaho's Silver Valley all have experienced
first hand the failures of Superfund and the costly results of
misguided policies and millions of dollars wasted on legal delays and
repetitive studies. Of the billions of dollars spent of Superfund
efforts, only 12% of those moneys have actually gone into cleaning up
the environment while the balance went to legal and consulting fees.
In each of the Superfund sites cited above, the cleanup costs have
exceeded reasonable estimates by a magnitude of three to five times.
Bunker Hill is a prime example of the waste that occurs when an EPA-led
Superfund effort is undertaken at mine sites. This can be demonstrated
by comparing Bunker Hill with another example from the Silver Valley in
northern Idaho.
Just outside the Bunker Hill Superfund site are many historic
mining sites on Nine Mile and Canyon Creeks. Two mining companies
working together with the State of Idaho were able to cleanup and
remove historic mine wastes, tailings and waste rock piles from Nine
Mile and Canyon Creeks, and restore fish habitat on the two creeks at
cleanup costs one-fourth to one-fifth the cleanup costs incurred by EPA
under Superfund on a per-cubic-yard of material removed basis.
I have visited these sites on five occasions and can personally
attest to the outstanding remediation and reclamation on Canyon and
Nine Mile Creeks, and that there has been substantial improvement in
water quality as a result of these efforts. And, the work is done,
unlike the work at Superfund sites which seems to never end.
Finally, at the risk of stating the obvious, the Superfund legal
procedures to identify Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), to
assign joint and several liability, and to recover costs are premised
on the concept that the site in question has owners who can be
identified and compelled to pay for the cleanup. None of these
provisions are appropriate for AML sites, which by definition, no
longer have an identifiable owner. Thus, the Superfund Program is not
an ideal or even applicable template for most AML sites.
There may be some sites for which Superfund is the appropriate
remedy, but let's not limit the tools we have in the toolbox.
Thoughtful and effective Good Samaritan legislation that encourages and
incentivizes Good Samaritans is an important tool to add to the
Abandoned Mine Land remediation and reclamation toolbox. Our goal
should be not just move the contaminants, but remove the contaminants
and place them into useful commerce.
PREVIOUS GOOD SAMARITAN PROPOSALS:
Our members are familiar with all Good Samaritan legislation that
has been drafted and introduced over the past fifteen years. While we
applaud any and all efforts to advance the Good Samaritan concept, our
analysis of most Good Samaritan legislation introduced in the past is
that it is not intended for use by the mining industry. This not only
disappoints our members, it would be a huge opportunity lost for the
Nation and for the environment if mining companies are not allowed to
utilize Good Samaritan legislation. As mentioned above, the mining
industry has the technical expertise, experience, and technology to
effectively and efficiently assess the safety and environmental issues
present at an AML site and to properly secure, reclaim and improve
safety and environmental conditions at those sites. Moreover, creating
a Good Samaritan law that recognizes the role that modern mining
companies and other private-sector entities could play in improving
environmental conditions at AML sites would reduce the amount of tax
payer resources that will be needed to solve the AML problem
With respect to previous Good Samaritan bills, we believe H.R. 3203
introduced by the Chairman in the last congress, and a similar bill, S.
1848 introduced by Senators Salazar and Allard in 2005 provide a good
starting point for effective Good Samaritan legislation. We also
believe these bills can and should be improved to ensure that they
foster on-the-ground Good Samaritan projects at AML sites. Both bills
already incorporate many of the ten concepts enumerated above, and
could be improved by: 1) providing a mechanism for conducting site
investigations without incurring environmental liability and without
having to go through the full permitting process; 2) the PRP search
should be significantly streamlined and eliminated when only private
monies are funding the cleanup; and 3) any restrictions on the ability
of a mining company or other Good Samaritan to mill historic mine
wastes in order to remove metals from these materials should be
eliminated.
The problems with other, prior Good Samaritan bills and the reason
why we believe they won't accomplish their stated intent can be summed
up as follows: 1) the liability relief provision is too restrictive; 2)
the PRP search requirements are too cumbersome and costly; 3) the
permitting process is too complex and rigid; 4) a full PRP search and
certification is required for privately funded cleanups; 5) the
definition of a Good Samaritan is too limiting--merely appearing in the
chain of title should not disqualify someone and federal land
management agencies must be allowed to conduct Good Samaritan cleanups
on the lands they manage; 6) the definition of eligible site does not
include sites that pose only physical or safety hazards; and 7) there
are too many restrictions on waste treatment. Significant on-the-ground
Good Samaritan activities at AMLs are not going to take place under
Good Samaritan legislation that contains these defects.
CONCLUSION:
Effective Good Samaritan legislation makes sense and can be a win-
win-win-win for the environment, for the Good Samaritan, for the
community, and for the Nation. We look forward to working with this
committee to produce Good Samaritan legislation that will actually
result in on-the-ground Good Samaritan cleanups at Abandoned Mine
sites.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. And thank you. Next is Lauren
Pagel.
STATEMENT OF LAUREN PAGEL, POLICY DIRECTOR, EARTHWORKS
Ms. Pagel. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member
Holt, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
speak with you today about abandoned hardrock mines. Earthworks
is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities
and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral and
energy development.
For over two decades, we have worked closely with a broad
coalition of local governments, Native Americans, citizen
groups, and other conservation organizations to improve the
policies that govern hardrock mining, including the issue of
abandoned mines.
In the early 1990s, Earthworks assessed the scope of the
abandoned mine land problem, and estimated that there are over
500,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the United States. To date,
there is still no comprehensive inventory of abandoned hardrock
mines, and limited funds exist to clean these sites up.
According to the EPA, the total cleanup costs are estimated
at $50 billion. A steady stream of funding for abandoned mine
reclamation, coupled with cautious action to address liability
issues under the Clean Water Act, are needed to begin the
complex task of cleaning up the massive amount of abandoned
mines that litter Western States.
Western communities face significant burdens associated
with these old mines. In addition to serious safety hazards
associated with abandoned mines, many sites have serious acid
mine drainage problems, which can persist for thousands of
years if left untreated.
Abandoned uranium mines pose an added threat of radiation
exposure. The EPA estimates that there are at least 4,000
abandoned uranium mines in 14 Western States. Uranium mining
produces radioactive waste materials, in addition to the heavy
metals found in most mine wastes.
Continued exposure to radioactive materials such as radium
and thorium has caused serious health problems for those living
around abandoned uranium mines. The largest obstacle to the
restoration of abandoned hardrock mines is a lack of a steady
source of funding for cleanup.
In States like Montana, where revenues from the State
Severance Tax and the Coal Abandoned Mine Land Fund are
available for use. There is a small stream of money to
remediate only a few sites a year.
In other States, there are a few sources of funds available
to correct this pervasive problem in old mining districts. As a
result, the number of abandoned mine lands that cause safety
and environmental hazards far outweigh the funding available to
reclaim them.
The antiquated 1972 Mining Law currently allows mining
companies to take hardrock minerals from public lands for free.
The coal mining industry is required by the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act to pay into an abandoned mine land
fund via a reclamation fee.
The hardrock mining industry pays no such fee. Long-term
funding for abandoned hardrock mine cleanup is similar to the
SMCRA program, and is essential to deal with the scope of the
problem that Western States face from abandoned mines.
Earthworks also recognizes the concern that has been
expressed about liability under existing environmental laws
that may occur when a State, Tribal, or local government, or
citizen group, attempts to restore water quality affected by
abandoned mines.
We support a narrow Clean Water Act exemption that would
allow these Good Samaritans to clean up abandoned mines without
incurring Clean Water Act liability, and we have supported
several legislative proposals to this effect in Congress in the
past.
We also support Good Samaritans' use of the administrative
order on consent process that has been created by the EPA to
deal with the potential liability issues under SuperFund.
For each million dollars spent on reclamation, 65 jobs are
created according to a State of Montana study. In addition to
job creation, restoration activity puts degraded lands into
productive use, and helps communities who currently must treat
their water supplies for heavy metals and other pollution.
The Obama Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposes
a one percent reclamation fee on all hardrock mining, similar
to the fee paid by the coal mining industry. Thirteen thousand
reclamation jobs per year would be created by this $200 million
a year fee.
Congressman Heinrich and Congressman Lujan have also
introduced legislation that would create jobs and facilitate
the cleanup of abandoned uranium mines. H.R. 1452, the Uranium
Resources Stewardship Act, moves uranium mining from the 1872
Mining Law into the more appropriate Mineral Leasing Act, which
would allow the Federal Government to charge a royalty on
uranium taken from public lands.
The money generated from this royalty would go toward the
much needed cleanup of uranium mill tailings and abandoned
uranium mines on Federal lands. Creating a steady stream of
funding for addressing the full problem of cleaning up of over
half-a-million abandoned hardrock mines via a royalty and a
reclamation fee can go hand-in-hand with a narrow Clean Water
Act liability waiver for Good Samaritans.
Tackling this large-scale problem requires a large-scale
solution, a solution that will both create jobs and restore
western waters. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
view of Earthworks on this important issue, and we look forward
to working further with the Committee around this important
issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pagel follows:]
Statement of Lauren Pagel, Policy Director, Earthworks
Thank you Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you today about abandoned
hardrock mines. Thank you for making time on the Subcommittee's
schedule to explore this important issue. Earthworks has been working
for over two decades to develop and promote initiatives to clean up old
mine sites and to address the pollution problems associated with them,
particularly in the West.
Earthworks is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting
communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral
and energy development. We work closely with a broad coalition of local
governments, Native Americans, citizen groups and other conservation
organizations to improve the policies governing hardrock mining and oil
and gas development.
In the early 1990's, Earthworks assessed the scope of the abandoned
mine problem and estimated that there are over 550,000 abandoned
hardrock mines in the U.S., mostly in the West. To date, there is still
no comprehensive inventory of abandoned hardrock mines, and funds to
clean up these sites remain limited. The cost to clean up these
abandoned sites will be staggering. According the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the total clean-up costs will be $50 billion.
Western communities face significant burdens associated with these
old mines. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, at least
40 percent of the stream reaches in the headwaters of western
watersheds are polluted from abandoned mines. Many of these abandoned
mine sites have significant acid mine drainage problems, which can
persist for thousands of years if left untreated. Downstream
communities pay the costs to clean up water polluted from abandoned
mines for household use. Polluted waters affect recreation,
agriculture, and impact property values. Fish and wildlife resources
are also negatively impacted.
Abandoned uranium mines pose the added threat of radiation exposure
to the list of concerns. Surface and underground uranium mining
produces waste material, which contain naturally occurring radioactive
materials in addition to the heavy metals found in most hardrock mine
waste. When these toxic materials become exposed to the environment
through mining activities, they can be mobilized in air and water.
Continued exposure to radioactive materials such as radium and thorium
cause serious health problems. The EPA estimates there are at least
4,000 abandoned uranium mines in 14 western states, with most situated
in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Wyoming.
The single largest obstacle to the restoration of abandoned
hardrock mines is the lack of funding. In states like Montana--where
revenues exist from a state severance tax and the state is authorized
to restore abandoned mines with revenues from the coal abandoned mine
land fund--there is a small stream of revenue (on average about $3.5
million) available to remediate only a few small sites a year, but it
is not enough to address the serious problems posed by the 6,000
inventoried abandoned mines across the state, and the estimated 3,700
miles of rivers and streams polluted by harmful metals, primarily from
abandoned mines. In other states, such as California and New Mexico,
there are few sources of funds available to correct this pervasive
problem in old mining districts. As a result, the number of abandoned
mine lands that cause safety or environmental hazards far outweigh the
funding available to restore them.
The antiquated 1872 Mining Law currently allows mining companies to
take hardrock minerals from public lands for free, with no royalty paid
to the taxpayer. Unlike the coal mining industry, which is required by
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) to pay into an
Abandoned Mine Land Fund via a reclamation fee, the hardrock mining
industry pays no such fee. A steady-stream of long-term funding for
hardrock abandoned mine lands clean up, similar to the SMCRA program,
is essential to dealing with the scope of the problems western states
face from abandoned mines.
In addition to a lack of funding for abandoned hardrock mine clean
up, Earthworks also recognizes the concern that has been expressed
about the liability under existing environmental laws that may occur
when a state, tribal, or local government or citizens groups attempt to
restore water quality affected by abandoned mines. We support a narrow
exemption to the federal Clean Water Act that would allow ``Good
Samaritans'' to clean up abandoned mines without incurring Clean Water
Act liability.
Any ``Good Samaritan'' legislation should contain an objective
standard for determining if a permit is issued and the goal of any
water restoration effort should be to achieve applicable Clean Water
Act standards. However, we recognize that economic and technological
constraints exist, and in some cases water quality may be improved but
the overall standard may not be achieved.
Earthworks has supported several legislative proposals that have
been introduced in previous Congresses in an attempt to resolve this
question about liability under the Clean Water Act. There is a narrow
point of apparent agreement among some of the conservation
organizations involved with abandoned mine clean up, the western
States, and some industry representatives that a waiver of Clean Water
Act liability is warranted to correct the damage that is occurring from
the polluted mine sites. Earthworks does not support waiving other
environmental laws for the purposes of fostering ``Good Samaritan''
clean ups of abandoned mine sites. There is not a liability problem
with most other environmental laws, so waiving them in order to
eliminate liability for abandoned mines clean up would be
inappropriate. Where liability does exist under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as
CERCLA and commonly known as Superfund, there are existing mechanisms
available through the Environmental Protection Agency to facilitate
clean up, such as Administrative Orders on Consent.
According to a State of Montana study of abandoned mines, each
million dollars spent will create 65 jobs. Many of these jobs are good,
high paying jobs that rural communities need in these tough economic
times. In addition to job creation, restoration activity would also
take degraded lands and put them into productive use. This will benefit
local communities and the private landowners who have abandoned mines
on their property, and help communities who currently must treat their
water supplies for heavy metals and other pollution from abandoned
mines.
As part of its FY2012 budget, the Obama administration has proposed
a 1% reclamation fee on all hardrock mining, similar to the fee paid by
coal mines. This fee would generate $200 million per year to fund
abandoned mine restoration, creating an estimated 13,000 jobs per year
for those in the mining industry. In addition to a reclamation fee, the
administration proposed a modest royalty to be paid to the owners of
minerals taken from public lands--the taxpayer.
Congressman Heinrich, a member of this subcommittee, has also
introduced legislation that would create jobs and begin the arduous
task of cleaning up the nearly 4,000 abandoned uranium mine sites, of
which a disproportionate number are located on Indian lands. For
example, from 1944 to 1986, nearly four million tons of uranium ore
were extracted from Navajo Nation mines and over 500 abandoned uranium
mines still scar the Navajo Nation. H.R. 1452, the Uranium Resources
Stewardship Act, would impose a 12.5 percent royalty on the uranium
mining industry, and move it out of the 1872 Mining Law and into the
more modern Mineral Leasing Act. The money generated from the royalty
charged on uranium mining on public lands would go toward the much-
needed clean up of uranium mill tailings and abandoned uranium mines on
federal lands.
Creating a steady-steam of funding for addressing the full problem
of cleaning up of over 550,000 abandoned mines via a royalty and a
reclamation fee should go hand in hand with a narrow Clean Water Act
liability waiver for ``Good Samaritan'' clean up of abandoned mines.
Without a consistent funding source, state, local and tribal
governments and citizen groups will be able to move only a small number
of projects forward. Tackling this large-scale problem requires a
large-scale solution--a solution that will create jobs and restore
western waters.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of Earthworks on
this important topic. We appreciate the Committee's consideration of
abandoned hardrock mines and the real problems they pose to air, water
and public safety in western states. We look forward to working further
with the Committee on this issue.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony, and
thank you all for being here and for your testimony, and I will
recognize myself for five minutes for the first questions.
Ms. Burke, I would like to ask you a question. Do you
believe that BLM's financial assurances for hardrock mining are
sufficient to address reclamation? In other words, how much do
you have in the way of bonds, and do you believe that this is
adequate?
Ms. Burke. Yes, we do believe that we have adequate bonding
at this stage. We currently have $1.7 billion in reclamation
bonds, and that does not actually include Alaska, where part of
that money has obligated them to the State's pooling system.
And since the GAO report, I believe, in 2006, and in 2009,
we issued new policy guidance to our State offices, which
require them to certify each year that the bonding amounts are
in fact adequate.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Laura Skaer, do you know of any
examples where the United States Federal Government was found
to be a PRP, and if you could explain that concept just a
little bit more.
Ms. Skaer. Yes. There are a series of court cases from
California where refineries who were charged with making
aviation fuel during World War II were essentially told don't
worry about the refining of waste. The goal is to do as much
aviation fuel for the war effort as possible.
After CERCLA was passed, the Federal Government then sought
to hold the oil companies that owned the refineries responsible
for the contamination from the waste, and they petitioned the
Court to bring the Federal Government into the case, and the
Court actually held that the Federal Government was the primary
responsible party or PRP, and relieved the owners of the
refineries of their liability.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. I have a question for
Ms. Pineda. You mentioned in your testimony that a large
portion of sites will require little if any reclamation, and
that in other cases the per unit cost of reclamation is
relatively small, and that such sites also rank low in priority
because of the reduced threat to public health or the
environment.
Can you give additional details on this, and including the
percentage of sites that require this lesser amount of
reclamation, or how you can to this conclusion?
Ms. Pineda. Well, there are some sites that are only safety
hazards if there is an open shaft or adits, and the costs to
reclaim that could be small, between $5,000 and $10,000. While
you have other sites that require or that have a larger safety
hazard, or that have mine waste associated with them, or a
draining adit, where costs could be in the hundreds to millions
of dollars, depending on the type of reclamation that you would
be performing there.
And currently in Colorado, we have 23,000 abandoned mines,
and I would say about 80 percent of those are probably in that
category of mostly just kind of safety hazards. But we also
have like 600 miles of stream that are degraded by acid mine
drainage, and those types of projects where you are dealing
with remediation of mine wastes, or acid mine drainage, the
costs could be from $100 million to $300 million, depending on
the type of remediation and cleanup that is needed.
Mr. Lamborn. And what was the methodology used in Colorado?
When you said in Colorado it was 80 percent, was it more only
the safety hazard?
Ms. Pineda. Yes, the safety hazards, and basing that on the
fact that a lot of the hazards are--you know, many of the
hazards are around tourist areas, and areas that are highly
visited, and we have a lot of sites that are more remote, and
perhaps don't have as high a visitation.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. At this point, I would like to
recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. I would like to pick up on that line
of questioning if I may, Ms. Pineda. I have certainly seen just
abandoned adits, or shafts here and there, or just bulldozed
depressions.
And so I am trying to get a sense of this scale of the
problem. You say that 80 percent of them would fall in the
safety category. In other words, safety from falling, or human
injury, and that way?
Ms. Pineda. Exactly.
Mr. Holt. As opposed to environmental or public health
damage to the water supplies and that sort of thing. Is the
damage to the water supply for that category, is it caused by
bringing things to the surface, or is it caused by milling, or
is it caused by refining?
Can you give me some sort of general characterization of
what it is? I know that it could be any of those things, but
the----
Ms. Pineda. Right, it could be any of those things when you
have a mine waste or mill waste pile, and it is exposed to air,
and then also to water if there is precipitation, and it rains,
and all of that stuff could drain into other drainages. So, you
have a high risk there, or you could have an adit that is
draining water.
Mr. Holt. But can you give me percentages? You said that 80
percent of this was just safety hazards.
Ms. Pineda. Right.
Mr. Holt. And of this 20 percent, do you have any idea of
what kind of breakdown it is, because I would imagine that the
costs of remediation would vary greatly, depending on what that
is.
Ms. Pineda. Right. Of the 20 percent----
Mr. Holt. If it is just a runoff siltation, that is
different.
Ms. Pineda. Right. The high cost would be associated with
the treatment of the acid mine draining from a draining adit,
an adit that is constantly draining, and right now because we
don't have a Good Samaritan protection, people don't want to
really touch that type of a project.
Where you have mine waste or mill waste that you could
somehow cap, or cover, or revegetate, that would alleviate that
acid problem, or acid mine drainage problem. Where you have an
adit, or an opening that is perpetually draining, those are
much more difficult to remediate.
Plus the fact that with the Clean Water Act standards, if
you are required to continually meet those standards, third-
parties may not want to take on that long term responsibility
of treating that acid mine drainage.
Mr. Holt. Has the BLM or the Forest Service done a survey
comparable to what Colorado describes here? You know, of the
kind of remediation that will be necessary?
Mr. Holtrop. The Forest Service has some information like
that, and we are working on developing a more intensive
inventory of all of the activities that need to be
accomplished.
I don't know that I am able to give that precise of a
percentage on information about the circumstances on the
National Forest system lands, but we are working to try to have
that type of detailed information.
I do think that also one of the factors that comes into it
is sometimes the cost of responding to a safety hazard might be
considerably less than the cost of doing that.
Mr. Holt. And that is why I asked, to get some sense of the
scale. Ms. Burke, any comment on that?
Ms. Burke. Yes, we have similar estimates that of the known
sites on BLM managed land that about 20 percent of them pose
these environmental hazards. Without actually evaluating each
site, however, we don't have an estimate of how much it would
take, or what actually would be required in order to remediate
them.
But many of our concerns are those with respect to the
watershed and impacts to surface and groundwater.
Mr. Holt. OK. Well, I would like to ask more questions when
the time allows. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. Yes, and I am hoping that we could have a
second round of questions, especially since there are just
three of us here at the dais. That would be a maximum of 15
more minutes--if that is acceptable to everybody.
I would like to recognize now the Member from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Well, first of all, thanks to the Chairman
and Ranking Member for this hearing. This is an issue that has
always been important in Pennsylvania's 5th Congressional
District.
My predecessor, Congressman John Peterson, this was an
issue that he took leadership on, in terms of abandoned mine
lands, and remediation, and leading on that issue. Deputy Chief
Holtrop, and Deputy Director Burke--well, Deputy Director
Burke, within your testimony, you had talked about the 31,000
BLM abandoned mines on BLM land, and that 25 percent of them
had been remediated, and so showing progress.
For both BLM and the Forest Service, what is your
projections for annual investigations and remediation annually,
in terms of the number of those remaining 75 percent BLM, and I
don't know if there are separate ones from a Forest Service
perspective.
I am assuming that the BLM takes into account, because BLM
has jurisdiction over subsurface, that some of those of the
31,000 BLM mines that you are talking about are on Forest
Service grounds or not?
Mr. Holtrop. The number of abandoned mine land sites in the
National Forest System is just that, and the number of
abandoned mine lands, I believe, on the Bureau of Land
Management is on that land mass, is what I believe that we are
talking about.
Mr. Thompson. Great. So, projections for annually, and let
us say within the coming year, this calendar year for
investigations and remediation on the number of sites or
projects?
Mr. Holtrop. The Forest Service spends in the range of
appropriate funds around 12, to 15, or $16 million a year. The
number of sites that we are able to treat with that amount of
money, it varies tremendously, because as my testimony
indicated, on some of the sites, it costs a couple of hundred-
thousand dollars to treat, and some of them, it is tens of
millions of dollars.
Mr. Thompson. Is there an average, just a ball park
average, in terms of----
Mr. Holtrop. In terms of the number of sites that we are
making progress on?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Holtrop. I would say that since 1998, the way maybe to
arrive at that is that since 1998 we have treated 2,000 sites
for safety, and several hundred for some of the CERCLA cleanup.
Ms. Burke. And similarly it is difficult to estimate on a
year to year basis how many sites we actually would be able to
remediate. However, in 2010, we remediated about 1200 sites for
the physical safety hazards, and with respect to water quality
issues, we were able to treat approximately 1500 acres.
Mr. Thompson. How prevalent is the--I guess what I
described as a public-private partnership, where the Good
Samaritan that we made reference to, is that relatively
prevalent today, in terms of the cleanup efforts, or is that a
lot of potential for development there? What is your evaluation
of that public-private partnership?
Ms. Burke. Generally, our partnerships involve non-
governmental agencies. The work that would be done there is for
the physical safety hazards, as opposed to the environmental
hazards precisely because of the liability issues that other
panel members have discussed today.
There is great potential to involve partners under the
right circumstances in the public's interest to remediate all
types of sites.
Mr. Holtrop. I think that I would like to answer that
question in a couple of ways. One is that any time we are able
to make progress in using partner organizations to make that
progress, it is significant, and it is very meaningful work,
and we have some very significant work that is being done
through partnerships.
The second way that I would like to answer it is that when
you hear the magnitude of the issue that we are talking about,
any tools that can be made available to help us make progress
is something that I think could make a significant difference
in the long run.
Mr. Thompson. Ms. Skaer, in the seconds that I have left
here, you mentioned that the President's Fiscal Year 2012
budget requested a one percent reclamation fee on hardrock
mining, similar to coal mine fees. Any thoughts on how this
might impact mining overall?
Ms. Skaer. The fee as proposed in the budget was a fee on
the amount of material moved, which would be, one, very
difficult to calculate with hardrock because most of it is
overburdened or unmineralized rock.
That fee would work like a gross royalty, which as we know,
mineral prices are cyclical, and when mineral prices drop again
in the future, any type of a gross fee or a gross royalty will
work to cause the mine to close prematurely, or go into care
and maintenance, and would result in lots of high paying jobs
being lost.
In 1995, the industry supported legislation that was passed
by both Houses of Congress, but vetoed by President Clinton,
and that legislation included a five percent net proceeds
royalty on hardrock mines, with that money going into an
abandoned mine land fund, which would then be distributed
directly to State AML programs, and to the BLM and the Forest
Service.
And 15 or 16 years later, there would have been a
significant amount of money in that fund if it had not been
vetoed.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Well, let us have our second round
of questions. Thank you for your patience, and for helping us
understand this better. I would like to ask all of you the
following question.
Good Samaritan legislation, what are the pros and the cons
on that? Some people might be wondering what would motivate a
private enterprise to even do this in the first place if they
don't have to.
Some might wonder, what if they only do a partial job, or
an unsatisfactory job, and what happens then. Or others of you
might say if it is done right, it really can be a good thing,
and here is how to do it right. Whoever would like to go first.
Why don't we go--Ms. Skaer, why don't we start with you, but I
would like anyone who wants to, to respond.
Ms. Skaer. As we have said in our testimony, we strongly
support Good Samaritan. There is an example in our testimony of
one of our members that was approached by a local community to
deal with some safety issues with adits and shafts, and also
there was some water pollution from these historic adits.
And while the company was able to restore the safety
hazards, the lack of a Good Samaritan protection prevented them
from addressing the water pollution issues from historic
mining. These were sites that the company had nothing to do
with.
The motivation here is--as I mentioned--one, these historic
sites are used to foment opposition to current mining
proposals. So, the industry sees that it is in its own best
interests to deal with these sites.
The other part of it is that this is a much different
mining industry than we had 40, 50, 60 years ago, or 120 years
ago when these sites were created. It is an industry that has
an environmental ethic and a social responsibility ethic.
So, part of the motivation here is to work with the local
communities, and be a good neighbor, and be a good partner with
the community, and to improve the environment.
They have the facilities, and generally most of these sites
are located near existing mines, and so the facilities are
there to where the actual source, the contaminants, can be
removed from the environment, reprocessed, and beneficial use
made of those metals.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Anyone else?
Ms. Pineda. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to mention
a couple of things. One is this type of approach, which has
been very successful in the State of Pennsylvania, which has
its own Good Samaritan legislation.
So, it has provided some immunities and some protections to
local groups. We want to try and partner, and pattern our
legislation after the successes that that State has seen in
alleviating the acid mine drainage there.
And when you talk about motivation, one of the partners
that we have engaged is Trout Unlimited, and they have great
motivation in keeping Colorado streams clean, and in terms for
the tourism, and aquatic life.
So, right now, they have a project up in Leadville that
they have been working on, and they have been able to get
funding, and given the magnitude that you have heard today of
this AML problem, we need everybody involved in trying to deal
with the problems, and with the funding, and with the issues.
So groups like Trout Unlimited, and we heard from the
Appalachian Wildlife Group also. You will see the motivation in
just groups and local communities that want to see improvement
to their streams, and improvement to their communities.
And so I would say that is very much on the pro side of why
groups want to get involved in the Good Samaritan legislation.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Anyone else?
Ms. Pagel. Yes, I would like to think of Earthworks as a
pretty practical conservation organization, and for an issue
like water quality being degraded from abandoned hardrock
mines, we don't want the pursuit of perfect to be the enemy of
the good, in the sense that we know that it would be very
difficult with some of these mines, especially the adits that
have been draining for potentially 100-plus years to achieve
the Clean Water Act standards.
But we want to make sure that the most important part of
this is that water quality has improved, even if it necessarily
doesn't meet those standards, and I think that that is a goal
in improving water quality, and that can really sort of help us
to shape what a Good Samaritan proposal would look like.
But what we worry about is that we just want to make sure
that mining is not done under the guise of reclamation, and we
want to make sure that if you are mining, that you get a mining
permit, and then if you are doing reclamation, you get a Good
Samaritan permit, and really make that distinction there so
that we don't get ourselves into more trouble with problems.
And then the issue of a reclamation fee, and a real studies
team of funding, and it is still out there, even if we address
this Good Samaritan issue.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, and Mr. Holtrop.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, when you
look at the magnitude of the problem, I think it is appropriate
for us to look at all the tools, and find ways to utilize all
of the resources that we can make available to us.
But, at the same time, we also want to make sure that there
aren't unintended consequences of the cleanup work as well, and
that we have the opportunities to provide the due diligence
necessary to make sure that the correct oversight is provided,
and to make sure that the cleanup is actually going to improve
the situation in the long run.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Holt. Did everyone have a chance? I would yield to the
Chairman time if there are others who wanted to comment. Ms.
Burke?
Ms. Burke. Yes. I concur with the Forest Service that we
are always looking for opportunities to partner with other
government agencies and private entities to accelerate the
cleanup and remediation of these abandoned mine sites.
One such program that we began a few years ago is the Fix-
A-Shaft-Today Program, or FAST, and we have had great success.
However, that success is limited because current mining
claimants who made be inclined otherwise to partner with us are
concerned understandably about potential liability.
So, again we would welcome additional tools in our tool box
as well in order to remediate these physical and environmental
hazards.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Ms. Pagel, would the Trout Unlimited
or other groups like--I am sorry, I guess it was maybe Ms.
Pineda who said that. Would groups like the Trout Unlimited, or
the others working in Leadville, be more likely to--I mean,
they are already doing it.
Do they need a Good Samaritan law, and would they be more
likely to do more projects if they had one?
Ms. Pineda. Well, yes. Right now Trout Unlimited has done
some work up in Leadville, but they had to stop short. They had
to put in kind of a passive bioreactor mine drainage treatment
system, and they have not turned it on yet.
Mr. Holt. Do they feel precluded from doing so?
Ms. Pineda. Yes.
Mr. Holt. They do?
Ms. Pineda. Yes.
Mr. Holt. OK. Ms. Skaer, you had asked that for the Good
Samaritan law that we remove the legal liability hurdles. Well,
I guess the question is, does that mean the Clean Water Act, or
CERCLA, or RCRA, or TOSCA, or all of those, or which parts of
all of those, and who gets to decide which parts. It is a
tricky question, I think, that you raised.
Ms. Skaer. Well, I mentioned in my testimony Clean Water,
CERCLA, the Federal Toxic Control Act, RCRA.
Mr. Holt. So, complete exemption from all liability under
those?
Ms. Skaer. Well, I think it would be--the exemption that a
Good Samaritan would need would be so that they don't have that
immediate or cradle-to-grave liability just for touching the
site.
But if their work made the pollution worse, or degraded the
site, then they should be responsible for that. But if they----
Mr. Holt. Well, that is exactly the point. If they are
involved in a site, then CERCLA applies, and if we exempt them
from it, we couldn't say, well, you are exempted from it, but
unless there is a problem five years from now. That would put
them in an even more difficult position it seems to me.
Ms. Skaer. Well, I think that you could do your baseline
research so that you know what the water quality is going in,
and sometimes it may not be improved, but if the water quality
is not made worse by their activities, I think that you do have
a measuring stick where you can determine whether or not CERCLA
liability would be imposed.
But someone who was not previously involved at the site,
and had nothing to do with creating the initial problem, and if
they come in and make some improvement, we believe--and whether
they are a mining company, or a private company, or an NGO, a
conservation organization, State or local government, that they
should be able to be protected from that.
Mr. Holt. And you are saying that the legal liability
exemption should be the same for any kind of organization,
whether it is a non-profit, a for-profit, or whatever?
Ms. Skaer. Yes.
Mr. Holt. All right. Now I understand. Let me turn to a
point that I would like to clarify between Ms. Mittal and Ms.
Burke. Is it an unresolved difference of opinion about whether
there are adequate financial assurances, and adequate bonding,
or is this something that the GAO has gone over with the BLM?
Help me understand what seems to be a conflict here.
Ms. Mittal. What my testimony was providing was examples of
the types of issues that we have identified when we have gone
and looked at BLM's financial assurances. During the course of
our audit, the BLM officials told us that they would take steps
to address our findings, and I was very, very encouraged from
hearing from Ms. Burke that they have since done that.
But what I was trying to do was to provide examples of
every time that we have looked at the adequacy of financial
assurances, we found that there has been a shortfall in the
amount of financial assurances that BLM has.
But throughout the course of the program, the Agency has
been very responsive to our recommendations, and to our
findings, and has made the program stronger.
Mr. Holt. So, Ms. Burke, when you say the financial
assurances are adequate, that is on the basis of the
improvements that you have made since the GAO report?
Ms. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Holt. OK. I understand better now. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Representative Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the BLM and the
Forest Service, can you just briefly give us kind of a status
check of the abandoned mine land or hazard inventory. I have
heard that made reference to within the testimony, and where
are we in terms of having an exhaustive inventory of what is
out there?
Ms. Burke. We are continuing to inventory sites every day,
but we know that there are many sites that we have not
inventoried, and we have chosen to focus our efforts on higher
risk sites, and those that are closer to population centers,
and recreation areas, where we expect there to be the public
having access to those areas.
But many of our sites are remote, and very difficult to
reach. They may be overgrown, and so difficult to detect, but
we know that the number does not include all of our--well, the
number 31,000 is the number that we have actually inventoried,
but we know that there are other sites.
Mr. Thompson. So, there is a systematic process where we
are looking for them, right?
Ms. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. And trying to document them?
Ms. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Great.
Mr. Holtrop. A very similar answer from the Forest Service.
The numbers that I was using in my testimony provide a range of
what we expect to find out there. Much of that is based on the
work that has been done by the USGS, and we just utilize some
of that information.
Some of the type of information that we have in our
inventory is that of those sites that the USGS inventory has
helped us identify, some number of those, in the 9,000 to
13,000 range, actually produced minerals, which more likely
creates a situation where there might be health and safety
issues, or the need for remediation work that needs to be done.
So, that forms that inventory. The additional work that we
are trying to do is to enhance our inventory procedure in the
actual database that we have so that we are able to store the
type of information that we need to be able to make more
effective decisions in the long run.
Mr. Thompson. All right. And in the State of Pennsylvania,
most recently I visited what was a site that was tremendously
scarred from coal mining, and we are probably talking 1880,
deep mine, and then went to surface mining.
Of course it has acid run-off, and really killed things in
the stream, but through the use of remining, and today it is an
active mine site actually, and interesting enough, the stream
that runs through the site is pristine.
The trout there are amazing. There was documentation done
of that State Forest area that would show 80 percent of the
game within a half-a-mile of the reclaimed site, because of how
it was reclaimed. Is remining--how often is that utilized in
accomplishing those kinds of objectives on BLM or Forest lands?
Mr. Holtrop. I think that I probably need to get some
technical advice to answer that. I don't know that off the top
of my head. I do think that is one of those--again, if it is an
abandoned mine land site, and there is either Clean Water Act
or CERCLA liabilities associated with it, that is one of the
issues that would cause it to not be something that gets done
very often.
Mr. Thompson. So, preexisting liabilities to be exposed to.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. OK.
Ms. Burke. We have some mining claimants that do go back in
and remine the site, but we don't have numbers on that. But the
numbers would not be very significant.
Mr. Thompson. Well, the other innovations that I find in my
area--because we do have a lot of coal from mine waste that has
been sitting, and there are frankly some very regionalized and
localized coal fire plants that have been scooping this stuff
up and cleaning it up, and using it, and mixing it in ways with
new technology for clean energy. I am going to yield the rest
of my time to the Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. I would like a
clarification because I am not sure that we are all clear on
this, and I want to make sure that I am as well. CERCLA to me
in one way is very draconian, because it has joint and several
liability.
You can have one percent exposure, but if everyone else is
bankrupt, or can't be found, or doesn't have the money, you pay
100 percent of the costs. Is that a clear understanding of how
CERCLA works?
Ms. Skaer. That is my understanding. What our members who
practice CERCLA law on a daily basis----
Mr. Lamborn. So, a deep pocket corporate--in other words, a
viable corporation, if it even touches an abandoned site, and
it turns out that everyone else heads for the hills, or has
long since been bankrupt, they could end up paying hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Ms. Skaer. We actually have seen this in Butte, Montana,
where ARCO in 1977 purchased the Anaconda Company. CERCLA was
enacted, and they found out by virtue of their purchase of
Anaconda that they had acquired all of these liabilities.
And one of the--you know, the EPA and others held up Butte
and the reclamation there as a success story under CERCLA, but
the real success story there is that they happen to be lucky
enough to have a very deep pocket oil company who had the
revenue to pay for all the reclamation that has taken place.
So that entire cleanup there, while it has been done under
CERCLA authorities, has been done with a private entity paying
the costs, and it has not fallen on the taxpayer.
Mr. Lamborn. And, you see, that is something that on the
State level--well, States go round and around on that all the
time in tort law, and who has liability. Do they have more
liability than their proportion of responsibility is what it
boils down to.
And CERCLA to me is draconian in that you can have
minuscule exposure, but have 100 percent of the liability, and
so it discourages anyone from even thinking about being a Good
Samaritan.
Ms. Skaer. There are some interpretations that if you even
appear in the chain of title that you have acquired that
liability.
Mr. Lamborn. And are there any of these other Federal laws
that we have referred to that is structured the same way, or is
it mostly CERCLA?
Ms. Skaer. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I could ask some of
the lawyer members of our organization and get back to you if
you would like.
Mr. Lamborn. I would appreciate that.
Ms. Skaer. I will do that.
Mr. Lamborn. Consider that a question that we have
submitted to you.
Ms. Skaer. OK.
Mr. Lamborn. And Members of the Committee may have
additional questions for the record, and we would ask that you
respond to those in writing. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. May I ask a 13 or 30 second question of Ms.
Mittal. Would the GAO entertain a request to do a follow-up of
the financial assurances since it should be a fairly quick
follow-up to see whether the changes that have been made are
following your recommendations.
Ms. Mittal. We would be happy to work with you.
Mr. Holt. It would be useful to have that update.
Ms. Mittal. Sure.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Ms. Skaer. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
Mr. Lamborn. Yes.
Ms. Skaer. We circulated my testimony to our membership,
and I received late an email from one of our members who
indicated that his company has created a business model based
on remediating and recleaning tailings at abandoned mine sites.
And with your permission, I would like to submit a copy of
that email to the record, because it could provide valuable
information as we pursue how to take care of these AMLs. I was
not aware that we actually had a company whose business model
was focused on this.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Without objection, that will be put into
the record.
Ms. Skaer. Thank you.
[The email follows:]
From: Dion Tulk [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thank-you
Dear Ms. Skaer,
After viewing your testimony for the upcoming oversight hearing
``Abandoned Mined Lands: Innovative Solutions for Restoring the
Environment, Improving Safety and Creating Jobs'', I felt it prudent to
send you a quick note to say thank-you for your support.
Your testimony really hits home with us.
Solauro Industries is a private company with a business model
focussed on reclamation and remediation of abandoned mine lands in
Nevada. Our primary focus is on the reprocessing and remediation of
tailings and mine waste on both private and public lands, as well as
mitigating other hazards on abandoned mine lands such as open shafts
etc. We have developed a solid business model which finances
reclamation and remediation costs through the economic recovery of
metals in tailings and mine waste dumps. We also have a very strong
focus on creating economic development opportunities in rural
communicates throughout Nevada.
I don't need to tell you the struggles we face daily with the
bureaucracy we must deal with, when at the end of the day all we are
simply trying to do is be a ``Good Samaritan''.
I applaud you for your actions.
Regards,
Dion Tulk
Solauro Industries Inc. Tel: 888-920-MINE (6463) x100
Fax: 888-921-MINE (6463)
Email: [email protected]
Shining a new light on the mining industry
www.solauro.com
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you all for being here, and if there are
other questions that are submitted to you, I would ask that you
respond to these in writing. If there is no further business,
and hearing none, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]