![](media/image1.png){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="1.2395833333333333in"}

**Hardrock Mining: Issues Relating To Abandoned Mine Lands and Uranium
Mining**

Energy and Natural Resources Committee

United States Senate

Statement of the Northwest Mining Association

Debra Struhsacker

March 12, 2008

**Introduction**

My name is Debra Struhsacker. I am an Environmental Permitting and
Government Relations Consultant from Reno, Nevada. I am testifying today
on behalf of the Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) as policy expert on
abandoned mines and as a member of the Association's Board of Trustees.
NWMA would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today to
describe the progress being made in reclaiming abandoned hardrock mines
and to offer our suggestions for policies that will accelerate the pace
of this progress.

NWMA is a 113 year old non-profit mining industry trade association
headquartered in Spokane, Washington. Our 1,800 members reside in 35
states and 6 Canadian provinces and are actively involved in
exploration, mining and reclamation operations on BLM- and
USFS-administered public lands in every western state. Our broad-based
membership includes many small miners and exploration geologists, as
well as junior and large mining companies and suppliers of equipment and
services to the domestic and global mining industry. . More than 90
percent of our members are small businesses or work for small
businesses. Many of our members have extensive knowledge of the scope of
the hardrock abandoned mine lands (AML) problem and first-hand
experience in remediating AML environmental impacts and abating AML
safety hazards.

NWMA asked me to testify because I have extensive experience with AML
policy issues. This experience includes working with the Western
Governors' Association and the National Mining Association on the
Abandoned Mine Land Initiative and co-authoring the 1998 National Mining
Association document "*Reclaiming Inactive and Abandoned Mine Lands --
What Really is Happening.*" NWMA is submitting that document as part of
this hearing record. During the course of my career -- working first as
an exploration geologist and now as a mine permitting and regulatory
expert -- I have worked on numerous exploration and mining projects on
public lands throughout the West and have seen first-hand the effects of
historic mining and abandoned mines.

All stakeholders in the dialogue about mining and its impact on the
environment agree that cleaning up historic Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs)
to eliminate safety hazards and to minimize environmental impacts is an
important public policy goal. The NWMA, along with the rest of the
hardrock mining industry, has long supported the development of policies
to encourage AML cleanup. NWMA presented testimony to the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in 2006 and 2007; we are
placing copies of these testimonies in the record for this Senate
hearing. As we have stressed in previous testimony and as we will
emphasize today, the key to expediting cleanup of AMLs is to provide
more funding and to enact Good Samaritan liability relief for voluntary
AML cleanup efforts.

**120 Years of Mining Precede the Enactment of Environmental Laws**

Table 1 juxtaposes a partial history of mining in the western U.S. on
the left side of the table against the evolution of the environmental
laws and regulations that affect mining on the right side of the table.
(All of the tables are included behind the text.) As you can see in the
yellow top part of Table 1, mining in the western U.S. started almost
170 years ago in about 1840. The enactment of federal and state
environmental laws, shown in green, did not start until the 1960s --
roughly 120 years later. As is readily apparent from Table 1, there were
no environmental regulations applicable to hardrock mines before the
1960s. It is this unregulated era of mining that created the abandoned
mines that are the subject of this hearing.

The pre-regulation mining districts shown in the yellow part of Table 1
like the California Mother Lode Gold Rush, the Comstock Lode in Nevada,
Central City, Colorado, Butte, Montana, the Black Hills of South Dakota,
Socorro, NM, the Klondike in Alaska tell the story of the development of
the West . These and countless other mining districts helped build
America. Although we cherish the history and heritage they represent, we
are now left to deal with a difficult legacy of the safety hazards and
environmental problems this history has left behind.

The wastes produced by mining and ore processing ‑ waste rock, mill
tailings, and smelter slags ‑ were usually deposited adjacent to the
operating facilities or directly down‑gradient in the nearest valley or
low spot, much as domestic wastes of the time were sent to the nearest
moving water body. Gravity was considered the great equalizer ‑ the best
friend of miners and other industrial waste generators of the time. Once
the commercial ore was exhausted or market prices fell below the cost of
extraction and processing, operators commonly abandoned sites with
little, if any, thought to reclamation or reuse of the land.

While this lack of environmental protection and reclamation measures
seems unacceptable when viewed through the prism of our modern-day
commitment to protect the environment, it is important to understand
that mines of this bygone era were no different than other industries of
the time. Environmental protection simply was not on anyone's radar
screen and no one considered the long-term consequences of these mining
practices.

These mines provided the metals needed to build this country and to help
win two world wars. In fact, the federal government operated a number of
sites that are now some of the more challenging AML sites. The focus was
on maximizing production and winning the wars -- not on using mining
methods designed to protect the environment. 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.

Please note that the 1872 Mining Law is not shown on Table 1. The reason
for this is simple -- the Mining Law is not an environmental law.
Rather, the Mining Law governs land tenure. It gives U.S. citizens the
right to enter upon public lands to explore for hardrock minerals, and
to use and occupy public lands for mineral development and mining
purposes.

Although mining critics are fond of saying that the Mining Law needs to
be amended because it does not include any environmental provisions,
this is a red herring. Today, the environmental laws shown in Table 1
produce highly regulated and environmentally responsible mines that use
modern environmental protection technologies to safeguard the
environment.

The environmental protection and bonding requirements for modern mines
guarantee that today's mines will not become tomorrow's AMLs for two
reasons. First, modern mines are designed, built, operated, and closed
using state-of-the-art environmental safeguards that minimize the
potential for environmental problems to develop after mining is
completed. Second, federal and state regulators have adequate
reclamation bond monies in the event a mine operator goes bankrupt or
fails to perform the necessary reclamation. The amount of required
financial assurance is based on what it would cost BLM, U.S. Forest
Service, or a state agency to reclaim the site using third-party
contractors to do the work. By law, the sufficiency of these reclamation
bonds is reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis to make sure they keep
pace with inflation and on-the-ground conditions.

BLM Director Henri Bisson's statement at the January 2008 hearing that
BLM has roughly \$1 billion in reclamation bond monies for hardrock
mineral projects is compelling evidence of a robust bonding program for
modern mining operations. Similarly, federal and state agencies in
Nevada recently announced that they jointly hold \$1.031 billion in
reclamation bonds to guarantee reclamation of Nevada mines. Nevada's
reclamation bond coffers have grown rapidly since 1990 when Nevada State
law NRS 519A became effective and required all mining operations and
exploration projects that disturb more than five acres to provide a
reclamation bond. Nationwide, this combination of reclamation bonds and
environmental laws and regulations ensures that the AML problem is a
finite and historical problem and not one that will grow in the future.

**Modern Bankrupt Mines Should Not be Confused with Historic AMLs**

There is no question that the reclamation bonds at some mines permitted
and developed in the 1970s and 1980s were insufficient to reclaim these
sites, resulting in a public liability. However, if permit applications
for these mines were submitted today and evaluated and bonded under
current federal and state environmental and bonding requirements, we are
confident that a different outcome would result because today's
requirements are much different than they were 20 to 30 years ago.

As Table 1 shows, mining regulatory programs were in their infancy in
the 1970s and 1980s. The Forest Services' 36 C.F.R. Subpart 228A
hardrock mining regulations became effective in 1974. BLM's surface
management regulations governing hardrock mining (43 C.F.R. Subpart
3809) went into effect in 1981. In 2001, BLM updated the 3809
regulations (see Table 1) and added detailed requirements at 43 C.F.R.
3809.420(11) governing mine waste testing and management and new bonding
requirements at 43 C.F.R.3809.500. Among other things, the updated 3809
rules require detailed waste characterization studies to identify
materials that have the potential to generate acid or to leach metals,
and specific mine waste management mandates that require operators to
"...handle, place, or treat potentially acid-forming, toxic, or other
deleterious materials in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of acid
formation and toxic and other deleterious leachate generation." Had
these requirements been in place many of the water quality problems that
have developed at some 1970s- and 1980s-vintage mines would not have
occurred because BLM and the Forest Service would have required
dramatically different mine waste testing and management programs than
were the norm 20 or 30 years ago.

Secondly, as discussed above, there has been a significant expansion in
bonding requirements compared to the early years of state and federal
mining regulatory programs. Examples of some of the new bonding
requirements include the following:

-   Bonds are now based on detailed reclamation cost calculations that
    use third-party contractor costs based on Davis-Bacon wage rates;

-   Bonds now include up to a 40 percent surcharge for agency costs to
    manage the reclamation effort;

-   Bonds for some mines now include long-term financial assurance if
    site-specific conditions suggest that long-term maintenance or
    monitoring may be needed;

-   Bonds now include costs to manage the process fluid inventory (i.e.,
    fluids in ponds and tailings impoundments) that must be dealt with
    before a site can be closed and reclaimed; and

-   Bond amounts are reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted as
    necessary to reflect inflation and site conditions.

Additionally, the experience gained in reclaiming bankrupt sites has led
to some recent refinements in how bonds are calculated and the scope of
reclamation bonds. The U.S. Forest Service updated its bonding
requirements in 2004. The BLM revised its bonding requirements in 2001.
In Nevada, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection worked with
BLM, the Forest Service, and the Nevada mining industry to update
Nevada's bonding requirements in response to lessons learned using bond
monies to reclaim several bankrupt sites. Other states, such as Colorado
and Montana have done likewise. NWMA recently developed a white paper
that documents the evolution and refinement of Nevada's bonding
requirements that we are submitting as part of the record for this
hearing. This white paper demonstrates that existing federal and state
laws and regulations already give regulators the necessary tools to
protect the environment, to ensure proper reclamation, and to deal
effectively with problems, gaps, or unforeseen situations should they
develop in the future.

**How Do We Accelerate the Progress of Current AML Reclamation
Efforts?**

Although the scope of the AML problem is large, state and federal
agencies -- in cooperation with communities, mining companies, and other
private-sector interests -- are making steady progress in reclaiming
AMLs. Thus, as we consider the best ways to tackle the AML problem, it
is important to start from the perspective that *the glass is not
empty.* Progress is being made. The focus of the AML legislative
dialogue should be to create policies that accelerate the pace of AML
reclamation so that more sites can be reclaimed sooner rather than
later.

Last year, BLM and the Forest Service released a report entitled
*Abandoned Mined Lands -- A Decade of Progress* that showcases a number
of successful AML reclamation efforts. In the time available to prepare
this testimony, NWMA compiled the preliminary list of state-led AML
reclamation projects shown in Table 2 to augment the information
presented in the BLM/Forest Service report. Although far from a complete
inventory, this snapshot suggests several interesting trends.

It is readily apparent from our research that some western states have
undertaken a number of successful AML reclamation efforts. States with
active mining typically have the largest and most productive AML
reclamation programs. The correlation is simple -- states like Nevada
use mining fees to fund some of the AML reclamation program. Conversely,
states with little or no mining have very poorly funded programs and in
some cases no program at all. South Dakota is an interesting example.
Back in the 1990s, South Dakota had a very progressive and effective AML
advisory program. However, now that there is virtually no hardrock
mining in the state, this program no longer exists despite the fact that
the State has identified at least 900 AML sites that need to be
reclaimed.

The Nevada Division of Minerals' AML program is representative of an
effective, well-funded state AML program. This program receives funding
from a \$1.50 fee on county mining claim filings and a one-time fee of
\$20 per acre of new permitted mining disturbance. The program is
supplemented by small grants from BLM's abandoned mines program and the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites
(RAMS) program[^1]. In 2006, Nevada's AML program secured 540 hazards
with approximately \$350,000 in funding. The bulk of the work includes
fencing or closing mine openings on federal public land. Since the
inception of the program in 1987, the Nevada Division of Minerals has
secured over 9,000 dangerous abandoned mine openings.

Table 2 also demonstrates that collaborative partnerships involving
state and federal agencies, communities, mining companies, other
private-sector interests, and conservation groups have a proven track
record of achieving spectacular on-the-ground success in remediating
environmental problems and abating safety hazards at AML sites
throughout the West. This suggests that future AML policies should
recognize that private-public sector partnerships which capitalize upon
the talent, financial resources, and expertise in both sectors will
result in the most cost effective AML program.

**What Do AML Inventories Tell Us About the Scope of the AML Problem?**

As discussed in the BLM/Forest Service report, there are a number of AML
inventories, each with different estimates of the number of AML sites.
Some of the divergence is due to different methodologies in how sites
are catalogued. Some AML inventory efforts have considered a "site" to
be any single opening, mining or exploration disturbance or mining
related feature. Other state AML programs and the mining industry define
"site" to include multiple features that can be addressed with
coordinated and consolidated reclamation and remediation measures.
Consequently, there is no complete count, but we know for certain that
there are many AML sites that require our attention.

While the desire to have a complete inventory of hardrock AML sites in
the western US was perhaps an appropriate focus ten or fifteen years
ago, we believe that enough is now known about the scope of the problem.
The current AML cleanup progress clearly demonstrates that a complete
inventory is not necessary because on-the-ground AML cleanup can occur
concurrently with ongoing AML inventory efforts. Therefore, a complete
AML inventory is not a first or even a critical step. The inventory can
be built at the same time that AML cleanup efforts are underway.

We have a good idea where most of the high-priority environmental sites
are (although we may not understand the complexities of each site.) But
in some settings, there probably are unmapped safety hazards that are
obscured by vegetation or are in remote locations.

Although the AML inventory numbers vary, there is good consensus about
the broad characteristics of the AML problem. As shown in Table 3, most
AML sites create unsightly landscapes and public safety hazards, with
roughly 10 percent causing environmental problems. Some sites may have a
combination of landscape disturbance, safety hazards, and environmental
problems

Table 3 also lists some typical challenges at AML landscape, safety, and
environmental sites. The problems shown at safety hazard sites pose the
most imminent threat to people. According to the BLM/Forest Service
report, approximately 25 people per year die in accidents involving
unsecured historic mine shafts, tunnels, buildings, etc. AML
environmental problems typically arise from the interaction of streams
and precipitation with old mine wastes. The resulting water quality
impairment is especially harmful to fish and other aquatic species. Dust
due to wind erosion of tailings piles can also create significant
problems at some sites -- especially sites in arid environments.

AML policy discussions often focus on the worst and most complex
environmental problems at AML sites, which are a subset of the total AML
problem. 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. Although remediating AMLs with
environmental problems is important, in many settings, safety hazards
deserve our immediate attention. Therefore, we should focus
first-priority AML funds on eliminating safety hazards at abandoned mine
sites located near population centers and frequently used recreation
areas.

As shown in Table 3, there are a number of AML safety hazard abatement
and cleanup and restoration techniques using modern engineering designs
and environmental protection methods that can reduce and even eliminate
safety hazards and environmental problems at AML sites. These techniques
have a proven track record of successfully reclaiming many AML sites.

Although many of the response measures shown in Table 3 are expensive --
especially those used to remediate environmental problems -- they are
technically straightforward, well understood, and are generally quite
effective in improving environmental conditions at AML sites. It is
important to understand, however, that each AML site is different. The
response measures shown in Table 3 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. At many of the AML reclamation examples
shown in Table 2, federal and state agencies, working in concert with
community and private-sector partners, have successfully customized and
fine-tuned these techniques to achieve optimal reclamation results at
specific AML sites.

**Federal Funding is Needed to Accelerate AML Cleanups**

NWMA and other industry interests have long supported creating a federal
hardrock AML fund using revenue generated from a net royalty on new
claims to support, augment and expand existing AML programs. In order to
build the fund more rapidly, the fund should solicit donations from
persons, corporations, associations, and foundations. Congress may also
wish to infuse the fund with some initial seed money in recognition that
America benefited greatly from the metals produced from historic mines
which justifies contributing some taxpayer monies to the fund.

NWMA recommends that the states that generate royalty revenues should be
the first in line to receive at least a portion of the federal AML
funds. We also believe that states should to take the lead in
administering the AML program. As our research shows, many states
already have effective AML programs. We see no need to re-invent the
wheel by creating a new federal AML bureaucracy. This would be an
inefficient use of the monies collected and would reduce the amount of
money available for on-the-ground remediation and reclamation. Because
each hardrock AML site has unique geology, geography, terrain and
climate; a uniform, one-size-fits-all program will not achieve optimal
results. The state AML programs are in the best position to prioritize
where federal AML funds should be spent within the state and to perform
hardrock AML hazard abatement, remediation and reclamation, in
cooperation with federal land management agencies, industry,
communities, conservation groups, and NGOs.

We also caution against creating a fund distribution formula or method
that invites competition between states for AML funds. This occurred
during the initial years of the SMCRA AML program and led to inaccurate,
inconsistent, and even aggrandized AML inventories with inflated
reclamation costs according to a 1988 GAO study.

**Good Samaritan Legislation is Critical to Facilitating Voluntary AML
Reclamation**

Although more funding is a key component of solving the AML problem,
funding alone is not the best way to accelerate the pace of AML
reclamation activities. Enacting Good Samaritan liability relief is also
essential. Concerns about liability exposure stemming from the Clean
Water Act (CWA), CERCLA, and other laws are significantly chilling Good
Samaritan AML clean ups.

Under these laws, a mining company, state or federal agency, NGOs,
individuals or other entities that begin to voluntarily remediate an
abandoned mine site could potentially incur "cradle-to-grave" liability
under the CWA, CERCLA, and other environmental laws, even though they
did not cause or contribute to the AML environmental problem.
Furthermore, the CWA may require entities that undertake voluntary AML
projects to prevent discharges to surface waters from the AML in
perpetuity, unless those discharges meet strict effluent limitations and
comply with stringent water quality standards, which may not be
possible; and in any event, may be so expensive that no state, 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. Policymakers and independent researchers including the National
Research Council, the Western Governors' Association, and the Center for
the American West have urged Congress to eliminate these impediments.
For example, the National Academy of Science 1999 report to Congress
entitled "*Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands*" makes the following
specific Good Samaritan recommendation:

> "Existing environmental laws and regulations should be modified to
> allow and promote the cleanup of abandoned mine sites in or adjacent
> to new mine areas without causing mine operators to incur additional
> environmental liabilities....
>
> To promote voluntary cleanup programs at abandoned sites, Congress
> needs to approve changes to the Clean Water Act and the CERCLA
> legislation to minimize company liabilities." (NRC report, pages 104
> and 106.)

The state agencies listed in Table 2 emphasized the importance of Good
Samaritan liability relief in enabling them to expand the scope of their
AML reclamation programs. In the absence of such relief, most of the
state agencies said they are avoiding sites with mine drainage due to
concerns about CWA liability exposure.

Several Good Samaritan bills have been introduced in the past, but only
the bill that Senators Salazar and Allard introduced in 2006 (S. 1848),
passed out of committee. We strongly support the Salazar/Allard approach
to Good Samaritan legislation which would accomplish many of the key
Good Samaritan objectives shown in Table 4.

The combined effect of a federal AML reclamation fund and Good Samaritan
liability relief is the best way to accelerate the pace of AML
reclamation. It is also the best way to get the most bang for the buck
because financial and in-kind contributions from the private sector,
communities, foundations, and other sources will reduce the amount of
funding that needs to come from royalty payments. Finally, Good
Samaritan liability relief will facilitate public -- private sector
partnerships which we know to be the best solution to the AML problem.
As Congress deliberates changing the Mining Law to include an AML
funding mechanism, we urge you to address the equally important issue of
providing Good Samaritan liability relief for voluntary AML cleanups.

**Conclusion**

The NWMA very much appreciates this opportunity to testify today to put
AMLs into the proper historical perspective, to explain why AMLs are a
finite problem and how today's environmental regulations and bonding
requirements prevent the creation of new AMLs, to describe some of the
excellent progress that is being made in reclaiming AMLs, and to present
our recommendations for moving forward. We believe the AML problem is
manageable and solvable because we know where AML sites are located, we
understand the problems they are creating, and we have the engineering,
environmental protection, and reclamation techniques needed to solve
these problems. But our AML tool kit is missing two essential tools --
adequate funding and Good Samaritan liability relief for voluntary AML
cleanup projects.

So we conclude by asking for your help. Please add a federal AML fund
and Good Samaritan liability relief to the AML tool kit. These two
policies offer the best opportunity to accelerate the progress that is
being made in abating AML safety hazards and remediating AML
environmental problems. The NWMA stands ready to work with you and to
help in any way we can to achieve what we all agree is an important goal
-- expediting AML reclamation.

I thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue and
will be happy to answer any questions.

+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| **T  |                              |                                |
| ABLE |                              |                                |
| 1**  |                              |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
| *    |                              |                                |
| *Par |                              |                                |
| tial |                              |                                |
| Ch   |                              |                                |
| rono |                              |                                |
| logy |                              |                                |
| of   |                              |                                |
| U.S. |                              |                                |
| Mi   |                              |                                |
| ning |                              |                                |
| vers |                              |                                |
| us** |                              |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
| **E  |                              |                                |
| nact |                              |                                |
| ment |                              |                                |
| D    |                              |                                |
| ates |                              |                                |
| for  |                              |                                |
| E    |                              |                                |
| nvir |                              |                                |
| onme |                              |                                |
| ntal |                              |                                |
| Laws |                              |                                |
| and  |                              |                                |
| Reg  |                              |                                |
| ulat |                              |                                |
| ions |                              |                                |
| A    |                              |                                |
| ffec |                              |                                |
| ting |                              |                                |
| Hard |                              |                                |
| rock |                              |                                |
| Mini |                              |                                |
| ng** |                              |                                |
+======+==============================+================================+
| ##   | **Commencement of**          | **Enactment Dates for State &  |
| # De |                              | Federal Environmental Laws and |
| cade | **Selected Western Mining    | Regulations**                  |
|      | Activities**                 |                                |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 1    | CA: Mother Lode--gold        |                                |
| 840s |                              |                                |
|      | WY: Atlantic City -- gold    |                                |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 850s | CO: Cherry Creek, Clear      |                                |
|      | Creek, -- gold               |                                |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 860s | NV: Comstock Lode - silver & |                                |
|      | gold                         |                                |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 870s | WA: Okanogan District --     |                                |
|      | gold                         |                                |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 880s | CO: Front Range -- gold &    |                                |
|      | silver                       |                                |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 890s | ID: Boise Basin -- gold      |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
| 1    | SD: Black Hills - gold       |                                |
| 900s |                              |                                |
|      | CO: Leadville, San Juan      |                                |
| 1    | Mountains -- silver, gold &  |                                |
| 910s | base metals                  |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
| 1    | AZ: - Superior, Morenci -    |                                |
| 930s | copper                       |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
| 1    | NM: Silver City -- silver    |                                |
| 940s |                              |                                |
|      | UT: Park City -- gold,       |                                |
| 1    | silver, lead                 |                                |
| 950s |                              |                                |
|      | CO: Aspen -- silver, lead,   |                                |
|      | zinc                         |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | MT: Butte -- copper          |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | ID: Coeur d'Alene District   |                                |
|      | -- silver                    |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | NM: Socorro-- silver, copper |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | CO: Cripple Creek -- gold    |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | WA: Republic District --     |                                |
|      | gold                         |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | AK: Klondike, Nome - gold    |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | WY: Kirwin -- copper, silver |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | UT: Bingham Canyon -- copper |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | NV: Round Mtn., Tonopah,     |                                |
|      | Goldfields, Ely: -- gold,    |                                |
|      | silver copper                |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | CO: Climax - molybdenum      |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | CO, UT - AZ vanadium, radium |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | NM: Pecos -- silver, zinc,   |                                |
|      | lead                         |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | ID: Stibnite -- antimony,    |                                |
|      | tungsten                     |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | CO, UT, AZ, NM: CO Plateau - |                                |
|      | uranium                      |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | NM: Grants -- uranium        |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | WY Sandstones - uranium      |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | NV: Yerington -- copper      |                                |
|      |                              |                                |
|      | OR: Riddle - nickel          |                                |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 1    | NV: Carlin -- gold           | •National Historic             |
| 960s |                              | Preservation Act               |
|      | CO: Henderson - molybdenum   |                                |
| 1    |                              | •Air Quality Act               |
| 970s | NV: Round Mountain -- gold   |                                |
|      |                              | •National Environmental Policy |
| 1    | NV: Jerritt Canyon, Sleeper, | Act                            |
| 970s | Gold Quarry, Goldstrike,     |                                |
|      | Chimney Creek -- gold        | •Occupational Safety and       |
| (co  |                              | Health Act                     |
| nt.) | ID: Thompson Creek --        |                                |
|      | molybdenum                   | •Clean Air Act                 |
| 1    |                              |                                |
| 980s | CA: McLaughlin - gold        | •CA Environmental Quality Act  |
|      |                              |                                |
| 1    | MT: Stillwater --            | •MT Metal Mine Reclamation Act |
| 990s | platinum/palladium           |                                |
|      |                              | •MT Environmental Policy Act   |
| 2    | AK: Ft. Knox -- gold         |                                |
| 000s |                              | •Federal Water Pollution       |
|      | NV: Pipeline, Lone Tree -    | Control Act/Clean Water Act    |
|      | gold                         |                                |
|      |                              | •Endangered Species Act        |
|      | NV: Marigold expansion, NV   |                                |
|      | -- gold                      | •U.S. Forest Service 36 CFR    |
|      |                              | 228A regs                      |
|      | NV: Phoenix Project -- gold  |                                |
|      |                              | •CA Surface Mined Land         |
|      | NM: Copper Mtn. South        | Reclamation Act                |
|      | expansion -- copper          |                                |
|      |                              | •Federal Land Policy and       |
|      | AZ: Carlota, Safford --      | Management Act                 |
|      | copper                       |                                |
|      |                              | •Resource Conservation and     |
|      |                              | Recovery Act •Clean Water Act  |
|      |                              | Amendments                     |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •CO Mined Land Reclamation Act |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Mine Safety and Health Act    |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Surface Mining Control and    |
|      |                              | Reclamation Act •WI Metallic   |
|      |                              | Mining Reclamation Act         |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •ID Surface Mining Act         |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Archaeological Resources      |
|      |                              | Protection Act                 |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Comprehensive Environmental   |
|      |                              | Response, •Compensation, and   |
|      |                              | Liability Act/Superfund        |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •BLM 43 CFR 3809 Regulations   |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •SD Mined Land Reclamation Act |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Hazardous and Solid Waste     |
|      |                              | Amendments                     |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Superfund Amendments          |
|      |                              | Reauthorization Act            |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •UT Mined Land Reclamation Act |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •NV Water Pollution Control    |
|      |                              | Law                            |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •NV Mined Land Reclamation Act |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •Clean Air Act Amendments      |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •NM Mining Act                 |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •BLM updates 43 C.F.R. 3809    |
|      |                              | regulations to include         |
|      |                              | mandatory bonding requirements |
|      |                              | for all surface-disturbing     |
|      |                              | activities                     |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •USFS updates bonding          |
|      |                              | requirements                   |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •NV expands and updates        |
|      |                              | bonding requirements           |
|      |                              |                                |
|      |                              | •MT updates bonding            |
|      |                              | requirements                   |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+

![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.985416666666667in"
height="5.613888888888889in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="8.985416666666667in"
height="0.3576388888888889in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="8.98611111111111in"
height="0.35555555555555557in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="9.0in" height="0.3548611111111111in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="9.0in" height="4.750694444444444in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="9.0in" height="0.3548611111111111in"}

**Glossary of Terms Used in Table 2**

***Abandoned*** - A site with no private owner of record typically on
land managed (and often owned) by a federal, state, or local government
agency. These sites also have been referred to as "orphaned".

***Adit*** -- Horizontal opening from the surface to an underground
mine. Also known as a tunnel.

***AML Improvement Project -*** A collective and inclusive term meaning
any combination of abatement, reclamation, or remediation measures that
address one or more safety or environmental problems at an AML site.

***Backfilling*** -- Process of placing fill material (including mine
waste) into a mine opening.

***Bulkhead (Bulkhead seals)*** -- Plugs in horizontal mine openings
(adits or internal tunnels) used to obstruct entrance and to curtail or
divert water flows. May be made of various materials and may have
man-gates or doors included.

***Covered Repository/Repository*** -- Site, usually lined, in which
mine waste is consolidated. Usually covered with topsoil or a
combination of impermeable covers and topsoil. Domestic waste sites are
examples of covered repositories.

***Diversion Ditches*** -- Constructed ditches placed around mine waste
and repositories to divert clean water around the sites.

***Erosion BMPs*** -- "Best Management Practices" using various
techniques to minimize and control wind and water erosion of soils and
waste at reclaimed mine and mill sites.

***Grade*** -- Construction process that reduces high-angle slopes and
produces engineered angles to reclaimed sites prior to topsoil placement
and revegetation.

***Grates*** -- Covers over mine openings to prevent human access but
allow air-flow and ingress and egress of various wildlife species such
as bats and owls. May be called "bat grates" or "owl grates", and may be
made of various materials.

***Inactive*** - A site on patented/private land that, in contrast to an
abandoned site, has an owner or owners of record. However, inactive mine
owners are not typically the entity involved in the past mining
activities that created the safety hazards or environmental problems.
Moreover, some owners of inactive mines do not have the financial
resources necessary to correct the safety and environmental problems.

***In Situ*** - The process of regrading, covering, capping, or other
measures to stabilize previously mined materials in place.

***Neutralize*** -- The process of adding amendments such as lime,
limestone, or other alkaline agent to reduce acidity in acid-generating
mine wastes.

***Open Stope*** -- A portion of an underground ore area that is mined
out, or removed, to the surface producing an opening at the surface that
is neither a shaft nor an adit. Open stopes are particularly dangerous.

***Panels*** -- Pre-constructed or constructed on-site, panels are slabs
used to cover shafts or open stopes. They may be constructed of
concrete, wood, polyurethane foam, or other materials.

***Portal*** -- The surface mouth of a tunnel or an adit allowing
horizontal access to an underground mine.

***PUF*** -- "Polyurethane Foam". An inexpensive, expanding foam
material widely utilized to close shafts and adits. Once the PUF plug
hardens or "sets", it usually is covered with backfill and/or topsoil
material.

***Reclamation*** - The process of returning a site to a beneficial
post-mining land use.

***Remediation*** - The process of improving environmental conditions
and reducing environmental risks. The terms "remediation" and "cleanup"
are used synonymously.

***Removal Actions*** - The process of removing and relocating
previously mined materials to a mine waste disposal facility.

***Revegetation*** -- The process of seeding a reclaimed area. This
definition includes the application of fertilizers and mulches as each
site may, or may not, require.

***Riparian Restoration*** -- The process of returning the banks of a
water-body (streams, rivers, ponds, lakes) to its previous undisturbed
configurations.

***Settling Ponds*** -- Engineered and constructed small ponds used in
some reclamation projects to hold waters for treatment or until
suspended sediments drop out, allowing clean water to exit the ponds.

***Steel Netting*** -- Constructed steel cable nets used to close larger
diameter shafts and open stopes while allowing ingress and egress of
wildlife species.

***Site*** - A specific "project". A project can be a district, area,
property, or ownership block and can have multiple "features" such as
adits, shafts, tailings facilities, and smelters, singly or
collectively. However, a project also can entail, for example, closure
of a single feature. The important point is that a "one-size-fits-all"
definition for an AML site is not appropriate.

***Shaft*** -- Vertical entrance to an underground mine or ventilation
or safety access to an underground mine.

***Stream Diversion*** -- Engineered process of re-routing a stream,
creek, or flowing water body away from or around contact with mining
wastes.

***Stream Restoration*** -- The process of returning a stream, creek, or
flowing water body to its pre-disturbance configurations.

***Wetland Restoration*** -- The process of re-establishing a wetland
where it once existed or returning a wetland system to its
pre-disturbance configurations.

+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| **Table 3**             |                                |           |
|                         |                                |           |
| **The Scope and Nature  |                                |           |
| of the AML Problem**    |                                |           |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| **Types of AML          | **Examples of Typical Response | **Ap      |
| Problems**              | Measures**                     | proximate |
|                         |                                | P         |
|                         |                                | ercentage |
|                         |                                | of AML    |
|                         |                                | S         |
|                         |                                | ites^1^** |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Landscape            | -   Regrading and recontouring | 70%       |
| Dist                    |     disturbed areas to blend   |           |
| urbances]{.underline}** |     in with the surrounding    |           |
|                         |     topography                 |           |
| -   Surface Disturbance |                                |           |
|     that detracts from  | -   Revegetating regraded      |           |
|     the aesthetic or    |     areas with native species  |           |
|     natural appearance  |                                |           |
|     of the site         | -   Removing and properly      |           |
|                         |     disposing of discarded     |           |
| -   Discarded           |     materials                  |           |
|     equipment,          |                                |           |
|     abandoned buildings | -   Dismantling and disposal   |           |
|     in disrepair        |     of buildings               |           |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Safety               | -   Partial or complete        | 20%       |
| Hazards]{.underline}**  |     backfilling of mine        |           |
|                         |     openings                   |           |
| -   Unrestricted and    |                                |           |
|     hazardous openings  | -   Installation of gates,     |           |
|     (shafts, adits,     |     grates, and doors to       |           |
|     portals, stopes)    |     impede access into mine    |           |
|                         |     openings,                  |           |
| -   subsidence features |                                |           |
|     and exploration     | -   Fencing around mine        |           |
|     excavations         |     openings and hazardous     |           |
|                         |     highwalls and open pits    |           |
| -   Dangerous highwalls |                                |           |
|     and open pits       | -   Signage to warn the public |           |
|                         |     to avoid dangerous mine    |           |
| -   Unsafe structures   |     openings and highwalls     |           |
|     and dilapidated     |                                |           |
|     buildings           | -   Removal of unsafe          |           |
|                         |     buildings.                 |           |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Environmental        | -   Removing mine wastes and   | 10%       |
| Problems]{.underline}** |     contaminated soils and     |           |
|                         |     placing in an authorized   |           |
| -   Erodible waste rock |     engineered structure       |           |
|     dumps, tailings     |                                |           |
|     deposits, and       | -   Stabilizing the wastes     |           |
|     smelter wastes      |     in-situ with engineered    |           |
|                         |     covers to prevent wind     |           |
| -   Acid rock drainage  |     erosion and to minimize    |           |
|     form mine openings, |     infiltration of            |           |
|     waste rock dumps,   |     precipitation              |           |
|     and tailings        |                                |           |
|     deposits            | -   Treating (reprocessing)    |           |
|                         |     mine wastes to remove      |           |
| -   Blowing dust from   |     contaminants               |           |
|     tailings piles      |                                |           |
|                         | -   Treating contaminated mine |           |
| -   Contaminated soils  |     drainage with active and   |           |
|                         |     passive water treatment    |           |
| -   Chemical            |     technologies               |           |
|     contamination from  |                                |           |
|     processing reagents | -   Rerouting drainages to     |           |
|                         |     avoid contact with mine    |           |
|                         |     wastes                     |           |
|                         |                                |           |
|                         | -   Installing plugs in        |           |
|                         |     portals with drainage      |           |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+

^1^ Modified after: *Burden of Guilt*, 1993, Mineral Policy Center,
*Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines in the West*, 2005, Center for the
American West/ University of Colorado, *Abandoned Mined Lands -- A
Decade of Progress*, 2007, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of
Land Management and U.S. Forest Service

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Table 4**                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Key Components of Good Samaritan Legislation**                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Provide both Clean Water Act and CERCLA liability protection.     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Create Good Samaritan permits that provide unambiguous and        |
|     complete legal liability protection against specified federal,    |
|     state, and local environmental laws for AML cleanup activities    |
|     that are performed according to the work plan authorized in the   |
|     permit.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Stimulate greater private-sector involvement in direct cleanup    |
|     efforts and in making financial and in-kind contributions towards |
|     agency-led cleanup projects.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Allow Good Samaritans to maximize the amount of money spent on    |
|     the ground by streamlining the permitting process and eliminating |
|     the requirement to conduct a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)  |
|     search at sites that will be reclaimed using private funding. It  |
|     should not matter whether there might be a PRP. The goal should   |
|     be environmental improvement, not finding someone to blame.       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Allow entities -- including mining companies -- that have no      |
|     previous connection to a site and that did not create             |
|     environmental problems at an AML to qualify as Good Samaritans.   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Eliminate liability exposure associated with performing the site  |
|     work necessary to determine the scope of the AML environmental    |
|     problems and to develop appropriate remediation plans.            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Make federal land management agencies and State AML Programs the  |
|     lead agency(s) in reviewing and approving Good Samaritan permit   |
|     applications, with assistance from State environmental permitting |
|     authorities for those states where EPA has delegated Clean Water  |
|     Act authority.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Encourage meaningful public input and collaboration in the        |
|     permitting process and discourage the misuse of the public        |
|     involvement process as a vehicle for delaying project cleanups.   |
|                                                                       |
| -   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.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Allow incremental cleanups using technically sound remediation    |
|     measures that will 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.                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Give the permitting authority(ies) discretion to make             |
|     site-specific adjustments to environmental requirements and       |
|     standards under state and federal environmental laws that could   |
|     otherwise thwart Good Samaritan remedial actions.                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Recognize that reprocessing is a viable site environmental        |
|     remediation technique that removes metal contaminants from        |
|     historic mine wastes and produces a more chemically stable and    |
|     benign waste product that can then be stored in a properly        |
|     engineered facility.                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**References Cited**

General Accounting Office, 1988, *Surface Mining Information on the
Updated Abandoned Mine Land Inventory*: GAO/RCED-88-196BR.

National Research Council, 1999, *Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands*,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, 2007, *A Decade
of Progress Reclaiming Hardrock Mines* LANDS:

**A DECADE OF PROGRESS**

**RECLAIMING HARDROCK MINES**

**Publication date:** September 2007

**Forest Service Publication Number:** FS-891

**BLM Publication Number:** BLM-WO-GI-07-013-3720

**Bureau of Land Management:** http://www.blm.gov/aml

**Forest Service:** http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/aml-index.htm

**Documents Submitted for the Hearing Record**

National Mining Association, 1998, *Abandoned Mine Land Initiative:
Reclaiming Inactive and Abandoned Hardrock Mine Lands in the West; \--
What Really is Happening*, Struhsacker, D.W., and Todd, J.W.

Northwest Mining Association, 2006, *Testimony Before the Committee on
Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Hearing on
Opportunities for Good Samaritan Cleanup of Hardrock Abandoned Mine
Lands*, July 13, 2006

Northwest Mining Association, 2007, T*estimony Before the Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Legislative Hearing on HR 2262 -- Royalties and Abandoned Mine
Reclamation*, October 2, 2007

Northwest Mining Association, 2008, *The Evolution of Federal and Nevada
State Reclamation Bonding Requirements for Hardrock Exploration and
Mining Projects:* A Case History Documenting How Federal and State
Regulators Used Existing Regulatory Authorities to Respond to
Shortcomings in the Reclamation Bonding Program, Parshley, J.V., and
Struhsacker, D.W.

[^1]: The RAMS program was created in the 1999 WRDA and has partnering
    agreements in place with several federal and state agencies, tribes
    and non-profits, including the BLM, USFS, NPS, EPA, Navajo Nation,
    Nevada Division of Minerals, Montana DEQ, Colorado Division of
    Minerals & Geology and the South Yuba River Citizens League. Through
    this process 64 planning, database, technical studies and design
    projects have been initiated with 23 different partners in 11
    western states. This program was the primary source of additional
    funding needed to reclaim a number of the Nevada bankrupt mines with
    inadequate bonds in the early part of this decade.