U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45–477 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

HARDROCK MINING ISSUES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 1997, ELKO, NEVADA

Serial No. 105–53

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, CHAIRMAN

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JOHN L. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

KEN CALVERT, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

——— ———

BILL CONDIT, Professional Staff

SHARLA BICKLEY, Professional Staff

DEBORAH LANZONE, Legislative Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 22, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 1

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................................................................................................................ 4

Statements of witnesses:

Blackwell, Jack, Deputy Regional Forester, Intermountain Region, U.S.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 49

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Carpenter, John, Assemblyman, Nevada Legislature ................................... 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 260

Drozdoff, Leo, Bureau Chief, Mining Regulation & Reclamation, Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ......................................................................... 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 264

Espell, Ron A., Environmental Superintendent, Barrick Goldstrike Mines,

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 7

Franzoia, Michael J., Mayor, City of Elko ...................................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71

Gadt, Larry O., Director, Minerals and Geology Management, U.S. Forest

Service ............................................................................................................ 52

Gustin, Gene, Public Land Use Advisory Council to the Elko County

Commission ................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62

Hackworth, Royce, Chairman, Elko County Commission ............................. 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

Jones, Martin R., Senior Manager, NV Environmental Compliance,

Newmont Gold Co. ........................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Lesperance, Anthony L., Elko County Commissioner ................................... 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 217

Miles, Zane, Deputy District Attorney, Eureka County ................................ 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 65

Myers, Tom, Consultant to Great Basin Mine Watch ................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 185

Presley, Edward L., National Director, County Alliance to Restore the

Economy & Environment (CAREE) ............................................................. 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 203

Reid, Hon. Harry, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada ........... 5

Rivers-Council, Jean, Associate State Director, Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ................... 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Upton, Bill W., Manager, Environmental Affairs, Placer Dome U.S., Inc. .. 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Additional material supplied:

Blaylock, Gregory A., Joseph, Oregon, prepared statement of ..................... 278

Women’s Mining Coalition, Elko, Nevada, prepared statement of ............... 280

Nevada Gold Cyanide Mill Tailings Regulation ............................................. 139

Newmont Gold Company, Comments of ......................................................... 85
(1)

HARDROCK MINING ISSUES

MONDAY, september 22, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND MINERAL RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Elko, Nevada.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m. at the

Stockman Hotel, 340 Commercial Street, Elko, Nevada; Hon. Barbara Cubin (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mrs. CUBIN. I am not used to holding this. I could get carried

away here. So if we break out in song, you will know why, and we

have the right setting for it as well.

I would like to call the Subcommittee on Minerals and Energy

hearing to order. I want to thank all of you for being here today

and it is an honor for me to be here.

We are a Subcommittee of the Committee on Resources, from the

Congress, and thank you for your hospitality and thank all of you

for attending. Let me begin today’s hearing by thanking Congressman Jim Gibbons. He is a valued member of this Subcommittee

and we are happy to have him as our host here today in Elko, Nevada, in the heart of gold mining country. My brother is a gold

miner down at Misquite mine, so I sort of have a sensitive spot for

gold mining.

Although I came from a small town, Casper, Wyoming, it is seldom that we can take time out from our busy schedule in Congress

to be able to hold these field hearings, especially in remote areas

like Elko, but it is an honor for us to do that and, of course, this

is where the folks that are most affected by the government decisions regarding the use of the public lands live, so it is good for

us to be able to come back and hear from the very people that are

affected by the decisions that we make, just how those decisions

turn out in real life when you have to practice what we bring forward.

Unfortunately, as is the case with many field hearings, we do

have a schedule to meet, and we have a 1:55 flight, so we have to

adjourn promptly at 1 o’clock. I think we will have time, but I

would like to ask everyone to keep their comments to the 5-minute

period. We have lights here, and if you could do that, that would

be greatly appreciated.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mrs. CUBIN. This Subcommittee has held two field hearings in

Congress already on the subject that we will be talking about

today, and concerning the Secretary of Interior’s decision to pub-
2

lish, on February 28 of this year, a final rulemaking bonding of

hardrock mining operations on public lands, administered by the

Bureau of Land Management. After having to resort to a subpoena,

issued by Chairman Young of the full Resources Committee, we finally have all of the documents that we requested in our inquiry

from the Secretary, and what we want to know, as of course do

you, why the Secretary has allowed this rulemaking to become

final after such a long lapse without new public input.

He did this despite requests from me, from Congressman Gibbons, from your Governor and the senior Senator for your State

and others to re-propose the rule for new comments. A lawsuit filed

by the Northwest Mining Association against the Secretary, alleging abuse of discretion and failure to follow proper rulemaking procedures is in progress in the U.S. District Court, where a ruling on

cross-motions for summary judgment is possible by the end of this

month. But whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, I believe the Secretary’s actions are a strong indicator that we in Congress, as well

as in the regulated industry and indeed the public at large, must

remain vigilant and insist upon strict adherence to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well,

which mandates analysis of impacts of rulemaking upon small

businesses.

I view the role of Congress to protect the system, while I don’t

always agree with the decisions that are made by those decisionmakers in the executive branch, and, therefore, I can’t always—or

really can’t intervene on those decisions once they have followed

the correct procedure. But my job, and I think the job of the Congress, and this oversight hearing, is to make sure that we protect

the procedure, that we protect the policy because if we don’t do

that, there are several things that can be guaranteed.

No. 1, when the procedure is violated, even if you are on the winning side this time, the procedure will be violated again and you

may be on the losing side the next time. Another thing that can

be guaranteed, especially in areas where the environment is being

debated, that degradation of the environment will occur at some

point when the process is abused and violation of private property

rights will occur. Therefore, it is my sworn duty to protect the policy and make sure that the agencies abide by those two laws.

Another thing happening in Congress, this time in the Senate,

which also bodes poorly for full participation by the States in the

full 3809 regulations rewrite, which Secretary Babbitt announced

last winter, last week the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998

for the Interior Department was debated. In the version from the

Committee was language to require the establishment of a committee of Western Governors’ representatives to report to Congress

on the proper roles of States in mining, permitting and reclamation

matters.

The report would ensure the Governors a place at the 3809 table,

so to speak, but incredibly, the administration threatened to veto

if such a provision were to remain. It is astounding to me that the

agency should think that the Governors of the States affected

should not have a place at the table. The senior Senator from Arkansas led the charge and there was no choice for Western Senators, they said, except to bargain away that requirement in return
3

for not allowing the BLM to publish the proposed 3809 rule until

after December 31, 1998, and the truth is, the House of Representatives, in which Mr. Gibbons and I serve, would very likely have

balked at a conference committee report, which included the Governor’s report requirement as another attempt by the quote, ‘‘subsidized public land miners to stall off necessary reform,’’ but not because we haven’t tried to set our colleagues from the East straight

or from the East on this and other Western issues, but because the

folks who want to see the industry leave the U.S. altogether are

winning the public relations wars, so the mail to the Eastern representatives and Midwestern Members of Congress is routinely

against efforts to restore the multiple use concepts and multiple

use for public lands.

A trip in August, in which the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, all total about 14 Members of Congress, came back and were educated on Western issues, and the

folks from the East and from the industrial Midwest were amazed

at what they saw when they compared what they actually saw to

what they thought was happening out here on the public lands.

As you in the mining industry well know, increasingly, it is a

Superfund or the Clean Water or the Clean Air Act tail wagging

the 1872 mining law dog. In other words, so what if irresponsible

efforts to reform the 1872 mining law is staved off for another Congress, if air, water or other environmental thresholds are adopted

in statute or regulation, which effectively deny permit issuance.

Unfortunately, the Federal laws which the EPA administers and

delegates to the States, which demonstrate willingness and ability

to implement them, by the way, are not generally within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. A notable exception is the

Endangered Species Act. Nevertheless, the genesis of the 3809 regulations is clearly the Federal land policy management—excuse

me—FLPMA, I just will quit stuttering. We all know what FLPMA

is, but FLPMA does reside in the jurisdiction of our Committee and

therefore we can have this hearing.

The Secretary of the Interior does, indeed, have a mandate to

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands. We all

agree with that. I don’t believe there is a single person in this audience who would deliberately degrade the environment. The 104th

Congress voted to establish a 5 percent net proceeds royalty, require payment of fair market value for the services stated within

a claim to be patented and establish a trust fund for reclamation

of land abandoned by miners, prior to the modern reclamation requirements.

This was called sham reform by the administration, and others.

Apparently the sham reform was not enough of a good faith showing by the Congress to warrant further dialog. Instead, in a move

that a Washington Post reporter even labeled as stealth mining

law reform, Secretary Babbitt has shifted the debate to a forum in

which he has the most broad control, but I do pledge to use this

chairmanship to see to it that meaningful public input is brought

out, that it is received properly and dealt with properly, before the

3809 mining rules or the Forest Service parallel rules at 36 CFR

228 R, revised. So I do thank you for your attendance today and
4

I am going to call on your representative, Jim Gibbons, for an

opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, and on behalf of all of Nevada, I want to welcome Representative Cubin to Elko, Nevada. As

Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resource Committee, this is

an important opportunity for all of Nevada to have a chance to understand just exactly what it is that Congress can do, and should

do when it comes to protecting this industry, so I would like to welcome you to Elko, Nevada, and I would like to express my sincere

gratitude to you for holding this hearing on the precious—in fact,

in the precious metal capital of the world, here in Elko, the silver

State, and I applaud your efforts to preserve and protect a vital interest to Nevada and to this country. And I know you, as a chemist, and I as a former geologist, have a deep appreciation and understanding of all of our Nation’s mining and mineral industries

and it is the reason why we feel this is such an important part of

our job as representatives in Congress.

By way of introduction, let me say that Nevada, the Nation’s

leader in gold production, has 30 operating gold-producing companies here and they employ more than 14,000 people. These people

mined an estimated $2.9 billion worth of metals in 1995 in Nevada

alone. Nevada alone provides an annual direct contribution to the

Federal Government of more than $113 million.

As the second largest employer in the State, mining provides $1.5 billion in personal, business, State, and local government revenues. That is $1.5 billion. Now, these numbers make it easy to realize why mining is such an important part of Nevada and why any

change in the laws or regulations governing mining or mining operations must be closely monitored to ensure that the mineral industry is not crippled or endangered by personal agendas of special interest groups or individuals whose only goal is to eliminate all mining activity on public land.

In a memo from Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to the

Assistant Secretary of Lands and Minerals, dated January 6, 1997,

Mr. Babbitt stated clearly, quote, ‘‘It is plainly no longer in the

public interest to wait for Congress to enact legislation that corrects the remaining shortcomings of the 3809 regulations. To that

end, I direct you to restart this role-making process by preparing

and publishing proposed regulations,’’ end quote.

Well, to Mr. Babbitt, I would say that Article I, Section 1 of the

Constitution states that all legislative powers herein granted shall

be vested in a Congress. Democracy and our Constitution require

that the people be bound only by those policies enacted by our

elected lawmakers, not appointed bureaucrats. Since the New Deal,

however, Congress has routinely lost the power to make laws and

it has lost that power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

This must stop and the legislative powers must be returned back

to Congress allowing decisionmakers to be held accountable to their

constituency.

If we want to find recent administrative actions doing great

harm to our political process and to the people of Nevada, we do
5

not have to look very far. Clearly, evidence of this loss of power and

administrative lawmaking were recently felt by this great State

when the Secretary published new rules on BLM hardrock bonding

requirements.

I submit to this Committee that the public was not allowed to

voice their opposition or their concerns about the substance of the

final version of the rule. Five-and-one-half years before the administration’s final enactment of the rule, the intention of the Department of Interior was to create legislative policy. I believe their actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act and were a disservice to the people of America.

Does anyone in the Department of Interior remember the preamble to our Constitution which states, ‘‘of the people, by the people and for the people.’’ The purpose of this hearing, of course, will

be to explore the Department of Interior’s effort to revise the

hardrock mining surface management regulations, 43 CFR 3809, or

simply put, the 3809 regulations.

It is my intention today with your support to hear from the people of Nevada, the citizens of this country, the industry, the State

and then the Federal Government on why we need to change 3809

regulations. And if indeed we do, then how best to go about changing and implementing the new regulations. It is my intention as a

Member of Congress not to be caught off guard when the Department of Interior makes their changes.

I encourage public comments on this regulation so that I can use

every power available to me to ensure that the adage, quote, ‘‘for

the people,’’ end quote, is held true in its spirit.

Madam Chairman, I look forward to this hearing today and I

would like to thank you and everyone for taking time out of their

busy schedules to participate in our government process. Thank

you and I would yield back any balance of time that I have.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Now that the light is on,

I could even read his statement. I have just reached the age when

I have learned that I can’t see very close anymore so forgive me

for my bit of stuttered speech.

Now we will begin with the testimony on the first panel and first

I will call on Ron Espell—oh, excuse me, no. We are honored today

to have a representative from Senator Reid’s office with us for a

brief statement, and so I will ask Karen Denio if she will please

give the Senator’s testimony for us.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, A SENATOR IN THE

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Ms. DENIO. Thank you very much. My name is Karen Denio. I

am rural coordinator for U.S. Senator Harry Reid, senior Senator

from the State of Nevada. Senator Reid has asked that I read his

statement into the record and his personal statement is as follows:

Last Thursday, with the assistance of other Western Senators, I

fought off a major challenge to Nevada miners as the interior appropriations bill came to the floor by fending off attempts by perennial foe Dale Bumpers to attach legislative riders to the bill calling

for a net royalty and severance tax on mining operations.

Additionally, we successfully negotiated a 1-year moratorium on

any new 3809 regulations. My amendment will require the Sec-
6

retary of the Interior to wait until at least November 15, 1998, to

publish proposed regulations on the 3809 hardrock mining regulations. After that, we can use the Reid-Nickles Regulatory Reform

Act to stop anything particularly offensive or dangerous for Nevada

miners.

This past February, Secretary Babbitt stated in an interview on

National Public Radio that he was going to rewrite the current

mining laws. His most recent attempt at revising 3809 regulations

is another back-door approach to mining law reform. This effort illustrates the Secretary’s frustration with not getting mining law

reform done his way.

The administration just does not understand the process that

Congress has undertaken to reform the 1872 mining law. Reasonable mining law reform must come through cooperation with Congress and Western States, not through covert actions by Federal

bureaucrats. I fear a negative impact on mining operations on public lands. The Secretary’s prescription for mining law reform is a

one-size-fits-all approach. He wants to direct uniform Federal

standards for a goal placer operation in Alaska, surface copper

mines in Arizona and underground gold mines in Nevada. As any

miner knows, this will not work.

In many ways this proposal is a direct attack on the economy of

Western States, since the vast majority of Federal lands are located

in the West. As you know, Nevada has 87 percent of its land under

Federal control.

According to the Interior Department, the mining law revision

process has been on hold since 1993 because Congress has failed

to act on the matter. I resent the implication that Congress has not

considered mining law reform. Maybe it was not to the liking of

those who would like to destroy the industry. I have written several bills since I have been in the Senate, including a 1994 measure that passed both the House and Senate. Additionally, the 104th

Congress passed legislation amending the mining law, however, it

was vetoed as part of a larger action.

When mining law reform takes place, Congress should do it with

the cooperation of the Western State governments. The issue of

mining reform has been one of the most hotly debated subjects in

Congress for the past 7 years. Congress has considered many controversial amendments, and after debate, close votes have occurred.

The Secretary continues to push his agenda on this Congress and

I am proud of the role I played in ensuring that no amendments,

bills, or bureaucratic shenanigans that would have been disastrous

to hardrock mining succeeded.

What is of most concern to me is the Secretary’s efforts to bypass

the Congress on this most important matter. In the past, the Secretary has called for collaborative resource management, yet he

leaves the Western Governors out of the process. It is the Western

State economies that are most affected by the Department’s actions. The Department of the Interior wants to create new and onerous regulatory requirements that may conflict with rules already

in place in States where mining occurs.

Since the BLM first wrote the 3809 regulations back in 1980,

States have made vast improvements to their laws governing mining, reclamation, and environmental remediation on Federal land.
7

Nevada’s laws serve as a model for the rest of the world. I fail to

understand why we need another set of burdensome regulations

from the Federal Government when our State laws already protect

our resources and promote our economy. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Karen, and will you please send our regards and our thanks to the Senator for his testimony?

Ms. DENIO. I will.

Mrs. CUBIN. Now we are back on track. So the first witness we

will call on today is Ron Espell, Environmental Superintendent for

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.

Mr. ESPELL. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mrs. CUBIN. I would like to call your attention to the traffic signal down here.

Mr. ESPELL. I will have to do this without a mike.

Mrs. CUBIN. We will get you a mike. Is that working?

We will start your 5 minutes over. You will know when your time

is up because the red light will be flashing in your eyes.

STATEMENT OF RON A. ESPELL, ENVIRONMENTAL

SUPERINTENDENT, BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC.

Mr. ESPELL. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear

at this hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral

Resources today to discuss the regulatory framework that governs

hardrock mining on Federal lands. My name is Ron Espell. I am

currently the Environmental Superintendent for Barrick Goldstrike

Mines, which is the owner and operator of the Goldstrike Mine on

the Carlin Trend in Eureka County, Nevada. I have worked at

Goldstrike since 1994.

My responsibilities include assuring that Goldstrike has the

proper environmental permits, including approvals from the Federal Bureau of Land Management and the State of Nevada. Before

coming to Goldstrike, I worked for other mining companies, consultants to the mining industry and Nevada’s Bureau of Mining

Regulation and Reclamation, so I have many years of experience

with mine regulation and permitting.

Mining activities on Federal lands at the Goldstrike Mine are

regulated by BLM, through a plan of operations that was initially

approved in 1987. Mining on public and private lands is subject to

a mining permit from the State of Nevada that was initially issued

in 1991, after Nevada adopted new mining regulations in 1989.

Our BLM plan of operations has been amended several times and

our Nevada mining permit will be renewed this year.

At Goldstrike, we have a significant amount of experience with

the existing process for permitting mining operations. I want to

focus my testimony on several key points about the current regulations and explain why, from my perspective, changes are not necessary.

One, cooperation between Federal and State regulators is essential. An essential element of any effective system for mine regulation is cooperation and respect between BLM and State mining regulators. Because a mine that operates on public lands must be permitted by both agencies, the possibility exists for conflicting or inconsistent requirements. We have been fortunate that both the

State of Nevada and the local BLM district recognize the impor-
8

tance of cooperation. It has been our experience that the Nevada

State agencies work closely with BLM and the mine operator, to

assure that requirements are consistent and to avoid duplicative

requirements, including inspections.

BLM’s existing 3809 regulations encourage Federal/State cooperation through cooperative agreements and by provisions which

explicitly incorporate State reclamation and environmental standards into BLM’s process for reviewing and approving plans of operations. Most importantly, by requiring compliance with State

standards, the present 3809 regulations provide an evolving standard which automatically incorporates changes in State laws and

regulations.

Two, BLM should not develop independent performance standards. The second point that I would like to make is related to my

first concern about Federal/State cooperation in permitting. BLM

should not develop separate environmental or reclamation performance standards. As I understand it, Secretary Babbitt has asked

the BLM task force that is looking at 3809 regulations to consider

whether BLM should develop additional environmental or reclamation performance standards.

We believe that BLM should not develop additional performance

standards for two reasons. First, reclamation standards must be

tailored to the site where mining occurs and the type of mining

that is proposed. Reclamation on the Carlin Trend will require different methods and different standards from reclamation in the Arizona desert or the Montana mountains. Reclamation at an open

pit copper mine is different from reclamation at an underground

gold mine. A one-size-fits-all standard imposed from BLM in Washington simply cannot accommodate the many different environments where mining will occur. Instead, BLM should look to the

reclamation standards developed by State and local governments

who are much more familiar with local conditions and land uses.

Second, separate performance standards developed by BLM will

likely lead to inconsistent requirements. Every mining operation is

subject to a long list of permitting requirements to prevent pollution of air and water and protect the environment. For example,

water quality standards are developed by States under the authority of the Federal Clean Water Act and implemented through permits. There is no reason for BLM to second guess existing water

quality standards or permits. This is particularly important in the

area of ground water, where Congress firmly stated its intent to

leave groundwater protection to the States. Rather than create new

requirements, BLM should simply incorporate State water quality

standards or permit requirements into its approval of a plan of operations. Similarly, every Western State has a modern mining reclamation law.

BLM should not attempt to duplicate those requirements. I do

not believe that the Interior Department can demonstrate that any

changes are needed to BLM’s current 3809 regulations. I hope that

these oversight hearings will add to the record and encourage the

Department to avoid major changes. Thank you very much for the

opportunity to give this testimony.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. Our next witness will be Bill

Upton of Placer Dome U.S. Inc.
9

STATEMENT OF BILL W. UPTON, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL

AFFAIRS, PLACER DOME U.S., INC.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, Congressman Gibbons, my name is

Bill Upton. I am the Manager of Environmental Affairs for Placer

Dome U.S. Incorporated. In this capacity I have direct and oversight permitting responsibilities for PDUS. Placer Dome U.S. Inc.

operates three large gold mines in the United States, two in Nevada and one in Montana, and conducts extensive mineral exploration throughout the West, including Alaska.

Our United States operations employ a total of 955 people. We

employ people in Nevada, Montana, Alaska and Kentucky. Placer

Dome U.S. has a long history of permitting and operating on public

land in Nevada and Montana. Our most recent permitting experience is the expansion of our existing mining operations. In Nevada,

Cortez Gold Mines began operations in 1969 and is located primarily on public land administered by the BLM and Bald Mountain Mine began operations in 1981 and is primarily located on private land but also operates on some BLM administered land.

All of our operations are permitted under the requirements of 43

CFR 3809 and have undergone extensive environmental reviews

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Permitting

under 3809 and NEPA has been ongoing at Cortez Gold Mines

since 1990. The BLM completed their first Environmental Impact

Statement for Cortez in 1993. Subsequent discoveries led to the

permitting of our Crescent Pit and preparation of another EIS for

our pipeline pit and number 2 mill expansion. The BLM is currently completing an Environmental Impact Statement for the

most recent Cortez Plan of Operations.

The BLM completed an EIS for the expansion of Bald Mountain

Mine in 1995 and most recently permitted Bald Mountain’s LJ

Ridge expansion. At Golden Sunlight in Montana initial mine development was permitted in 1981 under the Montana Mining and

Mineral Policy Act. In 1995 the mine submitted an application to

expand operations and the Montana Department of Environmental

Quality, as the lead agency, and the BLM as cooperating agency

are completing an EIS for the expansion. The remainder of my testimony will center on the BLM’s review of possible changes to 3809

regulations. PDUS had the opportunity to tour several members of

the BLM task force conducting this review at our pipeline project

in April and at Golden Sunlight in early September. The task force

saw firsthand how many of the issues they are concerned with in

3809 are being managed effectively under the current regulations

in strong State and Federal regulatory programs in these States.

At Cortez, they saw the notice level exploration drilling operations and the controls incorporated in these operations to prevent

unnecessary and undue degradation. They walked over areas

where similar activities had been conducted the season before and

which had already been reclaimed and which were nearly indistinguishable from the adjacent undistributed land. They saw the comparatively low density and intensity of disturbance typical of this

activity. We explained to them how important Notice Level exploration is to our long-term planning and survival, how it provides

the opportunity to gain timely access to prospective areas to further assess their mineral potential before investing the enormous
10

amount of time and money required to permit plan level disturbance.

At Golden Sunlight, the task force observed the importance of incorporating site-specific conditions into the reclamation plan and

how this had been accomplished through the existing State and

Federal permitting program in Montana. They also saw the distinct

differences in site conditions between Golden Sunlight and Cortez.

Unlike many other industries, mining can only occur where the resource is located.

The contrast in site conditions between Golden Sunlight and Cortez and the resulting differences in their reclamation plans are a

good example of why one-size-fits-all performance standards would

be inappropriate for hardrock mining given the wide variety of site

conditions within which it can occur.

Pit backfilling, including the enormous expense in dollars and resources to accomplish it, the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with it, and the loss in potential mineable resources it would result in were discussed at both operations with

the task force. The task force learned first hand how this issue was

included in the alternative analysis during the permitting of both

operations and therefore is already receiving detailed evaluation as

part of an existing State and Federal permitting requirements.

Most importantly the task force saw how permitting and regulation of hardrock mining is being effectively coordinated with State

government both in Nevada and Montana. They saw how the permitting role of these States on issues concerning air quality and

water quality and quantity is being coordinated with BLM and effectively carried out in a manner protective of public lands.

In summary, PDUS believes the regulations are working to protect public lands. The current 3809 complemented by strong State

regulatory programs have provided for and will continue to provide

for the adequate protection of public lands. We have not seen any

evidence to show additional regulations is warranted. The examples I’ve provided from our operations in Nevada and Montana are

testimony to the fact that current regulations are comprehensive

and when properly implemented in coordination with State programs adequately protect the public, as well as private lands.

Thank you and I will do my best to answer any questions.

[The statement of Mr. Upton may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. Can you folks in the back

hear the testimony? Hold it, if you will, please, Mr. Jones, hold the

microphone closer to your mouth.

Mr. JONES. How is that? Is that better? OK. That is better.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. Do you want to use the stand there, or

hold it, it doesn’t matter, whatever you are most comfortable with.

Mr. JONES. I will hold it, that is fine.

Mrs. CUBIN. Our next witness is Martin Jones, Senior Manager

of Nevada Environmental Compliance with Newmont Gold Company.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. JONES, SENIOR MANAGER, NV

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, NEWMONT GOLD CO.

Mr. JONES. Good morning, Madam Chair, Congressman Gibbons,

my name is Martin Jones, Senior Manager of Nevada Environ-
11

mental Compliance for Newmont Gold Company. I am responsible

for overseeing compliance for Newmont’s Nevada operations with

all Federal, State and local environmental laws, including laws relating to exploration, operation and closure. Newmont is the largest

gold producer in North America.

Since 1965, Newmont has engaged in mining and processing on

the Carlin Trend in north central Nevada. Today, Newmont Gold’s

domestic operations remain centered in northern Nevada. In the

last 15 years, the U.S. gold mining industry has emerged as an

internationally competitive industry and has accomplished this

without the need for government loans, subsidies, bailouts or tax

breaks. In fact, gold mining companies in most cases themselves

have paid for the community and other infrastructure needs necessary to support their operations during a time when environmental regulations have been ever increasing, and it has done this

while paying its employees wages that are higher than any other

segment of American workers.

Over two-thirds of our nation’s gold production takes place in Nevada. Gold mining generates over 51,000 jobs in Nevada, and precious metal producers paid over $141 million in Nevada State and

local taxes in 1995. Newmont and other mining companies work

hard to ensure that their operations on public and private lands

are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner and in accord with all applicable State and Federal regulatory programs.

These programs are numerous and are scrutinized by many agencies, including the Nevada Divisions of Environmental Protection,

Water Resources, and Wildlife, the U.S. EPA, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management.

We recognize and accept our obligation to properly close and reclaim mining sites after their useful life. In the late 1980’s,

Newmont worked closely with the Nevada Mining Association, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the Sierra Club to

develop a State reclamation program that would ensure reclamation of public and private lands.

Today, we will focus on the BLM regulations applicable to

hardrock mining on public lands, known as the 3809 regulations,

the basic substance of which has been in place since 1980 and has

proven more than adequate to protect public lands. Despite the

rhetoric of mining industry critics, we have not seen evidence indicating that these regulations have led to significant problems or

that regulatory changes are necessary. This is especially true for

States like Nevada, that have comprehensive environmental mining and reclamation and regulatory programs.

In 1992, BLM conducted a comprehensive review of the 3809 regulations and concluded that the centerpiece of the program, a rule

that prohibits unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands,

was fully adequate. As the Committee is no doubt aware, Secretary

of the Interior Babbitt last spring appointed a task force to review

the 3809 regulations and proposed revisions, including revisions

that would impose prescriptive and inflexible nationwide standards.

In connection with the task force efforts, Newmont submitted extensive comments. I ask that these comments be made a part of the
12

record for this proceeding and will very briefly summarize them for

you. Under the existing 3809 program, persons wishing to engage

in mining on public land must submit a plan of operation for approval by BLM. Before approving the plan, BLM undertakes a comprehensive assessment of all potential environmental impacts and

if any are found, the plan of operation is modified as appropriate.

In addition, operations in Nevada must comply with standards

imposed by the State: Mining, reclamation and wildlife protection

regulatory programs. These programs ensure that the design and

operation of each facility is appropriate for the physical, geological

and hydro geological condition at each site. Tailoring operation and

reclamation plans to site-specific conditions is essential.

Hardrock mining involves many different minerals in mining and

processing techniques and occur in a widely varying environmental

setting. Unlike other industries, operators of mines cannot locate

their mining sites in settings where compliance with national design standards might be feasible. Mining can only take place where

the minerals are located. For these reasons, a host of authorities,

including the National Academy of Science, EPA, the Western Governors Association, have recognized that site-specific flexibility is

an absolute necessity for regulations affecting hardrock mining.

In conclusion, Newmont believes the 3809 program has worked

well to protect public health and the environment and public lands,

a conclusion shared by the Western Governors Association. Despite

their assertions to the contrary, environmental groups have failed

to identify any but a small number of isolated instances where

modern mining operations on public lands subject to modern environmental programs have led to significant environmental problems that could have been avoided by more prescriptive national

standards.

Instead, critics of industry focus on environmental problems existing at historic sites, while mining occurred long before the advent of 3809 regulations. In Newmont’s view, the current regulatory scheme should not be altered unless BLM can show that significant real world problems exist that cannot be addressed under

the existing program. Certainly no such showing has been or in our

view could be made with respect to public lands located in Nevada.

Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Jones may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Jones, and now if you don’t mind,

we would like to just ask each one of you a few questions and we

will start with Representative Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me ask for all

of you, maybe, a brief comment on industry standards in terms of

reclamation, environmental practices, et cetera. Do you feel that

the industry standards today with regard to those issues, whether

it is environmental protection, reclamation, habitat protection,

have been met and are constantly being reviewed within the industry itself to step forward at the proper time to advance both the

industry and the environment within your operations?

Mr. UPTON. Yes, I believe they do. I know through our trade associations, the Nevada Mining Association in particular, we share

a great deal in terms of our own individual standards within companies and between companies, and share that work that we are
13

doing collectively, and I think, yes, the standard, the industry

standard, is at a level that challenges or at least represents well

the regulatory standards.

Mr. ESPELL. Just to respond to that a little bit differently, I am

also, aside from my duties at Barrick, I am the Reclamation Subcommittee Chairman for the Nevada Mining Association. We have

both, through the NMA and through the individual companies,

under the current regulatory framework, there is enough flexibility

that we have a very cooperative agreement and a working relationship between the Federal regulators that the BLM—and the State

agencies, where we work together to identify reclamation needs

and objectives, and in a very cooperative spirit come up with advancing techniques to be able to meet those needs and under the

current system, those sorts of things are possible and are being

done.

Mr. JONES. To give you the short answer, yes. Newmont endorses

the Nevada standard. We apply that standard worldwide. It doesn’t

matter if we are in Peru or Uzbekistan or Indonesia. We find the

Nevada standard for our industry provides a balance between economic factors and protection of the environment.

With respect to 3809, the definition of undue and unnecessary

degradation allows for changes without having to rewrite it, I think

this is the keystone of 3809, and so allows for an evolution of techniques and technical problems, resolution of technical problems. As

we get better at reclamation and get better at operating, then those

standards become commonplace in the industry and the 3809 is

then updated by applying the unnecessary and undue degradation

rule.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Now, if the industry itself has certain

standards that are met, and perhaps, as you have indicated, they

are uniform throughout most companies that operate mining operations here in Nevada to meet those permit requirements. Let me

ask you just a two-part question. One, if they do have, and they

do meet, and this is not something like re-inventing the wheel, as

we have done on these standards, why does it take so long for a

mine to get permitted here in Nevada and how can we, as a State,

and you as an industry, work with the BLM to actually expedite

that process, because, after all, we also want to hear solutions, not

just complaints. We want to hope that through this process, you

can help us communicate with the bureaucracy in its reevaluation

of 3809 to make better, but better for everybody, not just for one

group or one special interest. So my question would be, if you

didn’t understand it, I would repeat it, but I hope you understood

it.

Mr. JONES. I think I do. I would like to think that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than other mining companies, but I am

sure I would get disagreement here. Permitting takes long, and

that is probably some of our frustration with the process. It does

take long lead times to permit. We found at Newmont that working

with the BLM district to let them know our upcoming schedules,

what we have on the agenda, so that they can clear their schedules

to work on the documents, and then we hold meetings when we finish, to discuss what went right, what went wrong, where can we

streamline the process to make it more efficient.
14

I don’t think, including the BLM review of notice level activities,

that is now being required, has helped because we have now taken

people who are overworked and don’t have enough resources, and

we have burdened them with more work. I think that we should

consider giving BLM more resources to help us with the permitting

process.

Mr. ESPELL. To add to that a little bit differently, some of the

things we have seen that add to the overall timing of the permitting process is any time there is a duplication in the Federal permitting process, duplication of things which are already permitted

and evaluated under the current State programs, we have been

working very closely with the Nevada State office of the BLM to

identify the sources of duplication and develop MOUs between the

State and the BLM in order to be able to try to avoid those duplications. The changes that are proposed in the 3809 regulations actually go countercurrent to that philosophy and incite more duplication as opposed to trying to encourage a lack of duplication of the

programs.

Mr. UPTON. Well, yes, sir, our permitting process has been

lengthy, and for many reasons, understandably so. I think our biggest concern is the 3809 rules being contemplated would only increase that. The bonding regulations that were adopted have again

added to staff time at the agencies to where they are now required

to spend much more time reviewing notice level activities and the

bonding requirements now in place for those and so it is just a

plethora of additional review and requirements and time on the

part of the staff that in turn builds time for us on the other hand,

too, to get them the information they need, so it is both, yes, we

have had lengthy processes, but we see what is being talked about

as only aggravating that and exasperating an already overload situation with agencies.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. I just have a couple questions. Mr. Upton, I will start with you. You mentioned in your testimony that one size-fits-all site requirements won’t work for

hardrock mining. And there will be testimony later on today from

people who think that the Federal Government shouldn’t own any

lands, but since they do right now, what I want to ask you is what

should the Federal role actually be?

I think that most of the people that I know, that I work with,

think that the States can do, will do, and do a good job of protecting the environment. In Wyoming I know environmental standards are higher, many times, than Federal standards, and their

own State legislature has imposed that level. So what should the

Federal role be, and what should the State role be and what should

the role of the industry be?

Mr. UPTON. Well, we support a strong oversight role by the Federal agencies, but we think that the site-specific conditions that

occur within a State, and the complexity to those clearly lie with

the State agencies, and even the local government agencies to have

a strong role in determining the permit requirements and the compliance requirements for those operations, and that, yes, the Federal Government has a role in providing oversight and consistency

between States, but on the same hand, it is important to have

those site-specific conditions recognized in the permitting process
15

and compliance aspects of an operation, so that we are dealing with

the proper aspects out there in that sense.

Mrs. CUBIN. So you said, and I don’t want to be putting words

in your mouth, I want your opinion. You said that they should coordinate and see that there is consistency among the States, and

did you say set standards?

Mr. UPTON. No, I said the States should be in the standard setting role.

Mrs. CUBIN. In a couple words again, what should the Federal

role be?

Mr. UPTON. Oversight in the context of looking at the standards

between States, and applying and assuring some reasonable level

of consistency between States.

Mrs. CUBIN. So is it your opinion, and maybe you don’t know, because I don’t, I have to vote on all the States issues, but is it your

opinion that the State standards are adequate to protect the environment in land, water and air?

Mr. UPTON. In the States we operate in, yes.

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr. Espell, you mentioned in your testimony that you have had

pretty decent experiences in dealing with public land managers

who you work with and so a lot of times I think when I am saying

things that are critical of the Federal agencies, I don’t make it

clear that generally I am speaking of the Washington bureaucracy

and how their decisions negatively impact people on the land.

My experience has been uniformly, when I am dealing with local

land managers, that generally they do a good job, they care about

the land, they are our neighbors and they are our friends and family, and I think you referred to that somewhat. I mentioned also

in my opening statement the leadership trip to the West and how

the things we had learned there, there were three things that we

wanted, three messages we wanted them to go home with. That

was the States can, will, and do a good job of regulating and enforcing environmental statutes; that resources can be developed on the

public lands as well as the private, of course, and still allow us to

be good stewards of the land and that multiple use is good land

management policy.

Could you just go into a little bit more for me, what sort of problems you have had with—maybe just give a couple examples, of

Federal dictates that aren’t good for the economy, good for the resource, good for anything, where there may have been a little bit

of disagreement at the local level.

Mr. ESPELL. Sure. I think Nevada is probably the best example,

although my experience has been completely in Nevada. From what

I have seen of other programs, Nevada has an excellent working

relationship between the State agencies and the BLM, and other

Federal agencies, which, you know, reside here, the State offices of

those agencies. That working relationship and that cooperation actually extends all the way to the initial development of the State

programs, which were based on consistency between the State programs and the Federal programs.

In Nevada, for example, a reclamation permit application for the

State and the BLM’s plan of operations is the same application. It

is a one-stop shopping kind of an idea. That cooperative agreement,
16

which reduces the permitting time and the burden on the companies, is effectively destroyed by changes in the Federal regulations,

which then drive inconsistencies between the Federal programs

and the State programs, so, therefore, what I see is where the

model should be what we have developed here in Nevada, for a cooperative agreement between the Federal and State programs,

where the differences in requirements are transparent to the operator, the program is developed in accordance between State and

Federal programs. Anything that is done on the Federal level,

seems to be trying to do just the opposite to separate and provide

inconsistencies between the programs.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. Mr. Jones, does your company go beyond

what is required in the permits on reclamation and repairing

maybe old damage? I think Mr. Upton’s company has just recently

gotten an award for that and I guess what I am trying to find out

is do other companies do that as well, do they invest money, really

beyond what is required of them, to try to be good neighbors or do

they not?

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. We also received an award in 1995, the

Governors Award for reclamation excellence for riparian habitat

upgrading. We worked with local ranchers and our TS ranch to improve the habitat. Last year, we were involved in a cooperative effort to reseed fire-burned, fire-damaged acres, and the benefit is to

wildlife and to the ranchers, and to us as a landowner, in that it

made the land more valuable. We in mining recognize that we have

impacts on the Earth, and that is the nature of our business, and

we accept responsibility for this. And in order to compensate for

those impacts, it is necessary to do certain things, and we take that

on and we do those things.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, thank you. I gave a pitch for Barrick and I

didn’t know you had won an award. Congratulations, I am glad you

have, but I guess I can’t leave Placer out—excuse me, I can’t leave

out Barrick, right.

Mr. ESPELL. Yes, we have several different programs going on in

the State. The one we are currently involved in is a restoration

project at the Marys River, slightly east and north of Elko, in improving riparian habitat, actually reestablishing the cutthroat trout

habitat in the upper regions of the area of the drainage, which actually, the head water is up in the Jarbidge mountains. Previously,

there has been culverts and different things that have been put in

the river that we are working with with the BLM and Trout Unlimited to actually engineer stream restoration.

Mrs. CUBIN. I didn’t know there were cutthroat trout out there.

I thought Wyoming was one of the last places, beautiful places on

Earth that had cutthroat trout.

Well, Bill, since I goofed up on you twice, would you like to tell

us about your award?

Mr. UPTON. The award that Placer received was for reclamation

in our Alligator Ridge mine where we stepped out, and because of

the long history of mineral exploration at that site by a number of

different operators, and the need to bring up current reclamation

in that area for a lot of the past exploration areas, that many of

them were even pre-3809 areas.
17

Our Bald Mountain operation went ahead and reclaimed a number of areas that were not necessarily our responsibility, but

brought them up to date and that was in essence the foundation

for the award. They did an excellent job with reclamation with it,

but primarily the stepping out and recognizing there was a need

there. I think our best successes have been where we began working with local agencies, Federal and State, one on one, even outside

the permitting process where we can collaborate on whether it is

wildlife habitat enhancement or reclamation. That has been our

real big success story, where it is not something that is written in

the permit, it is something that, on the grounds, needs to be done.

It is the right thing to do and that is where our real successes have

been for our company, and I think the industry in Nevada.

Mrs. CUBIN. This might not be a fair question and if you don’t

have an opinion, that is fine. But since hardrock mines don’t pay

royalties yet, I understand, and that might be why you don’t have

an opinion on this, but the resource advisory councils that were established in land use and planning and so on, recommended,

among other things, eco credits. Do you have an opinion on how eco

credits would work in your own industry?

Mr. UPTON. Well, I think the best example we have would be in

wetland litigation where we deal with no doubt loss issues and

mitigation. I think there is an example of some sort for eco credits

where we do, if we are going to effect wetlands and water in the

U.S., we can mitigate those impacts by going out into adjacent

areas and enhancing wetlands or creating new wetlands and we do

get credit there, so I am sure there will be opportunities to work

with a system like that. I am not real familiar with how it would

be applied in hardrock industry, but I am sure the experiences we

have had on working with offsite wild habitat work and so forth

would work well in those situations.

Mrs. CUBIN. And the bottom line would be to improve the environment, so do you think that there is a potential for that, through

the use of the eco credit system.

Mr. UPTON. There seems to be, yes. I think we are well versed

at working with ecosystem management and looking at the whole

picture, so I would think, yes, hardrock mining could work with

something like that.

Mrs. CUBIN. And I have exceeded my questioning time but I

would appreciate a brief response from the other two.

Mr. ESPELL. I guess to followup on what Bill said, the only current system that we work under that is similar to that is under the

Corps of Engineers 404 permit for wetlands mitigation. I think

most of the mining companies right now are already doing something like that, without any sort of benefit of some sort of eco-credits or something, that the companies on their own are performing

that right now without a push.

Mr. JONES. First, let me correct a fact? We don’t currently pay

royalties to the U.S. Government, but we pay royalties. We pay

royalties to private landowners, where we have operations and we

pay a net proceeds tax to the State of Nevada.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. I know you are aware of that and I wanted to set the

record straight.
18

I am not very well versed in coal and coal regulation and so on

and I am not able to comment knowledgeably on ecosystem credits.

I think there is room to talk about them and I think probably we

are doing a lot of the things now, but I can’t give you an intelligent

answer whether I support that or not. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your testimony, and the answers to the questions and now you should go

back and make some more net proceeds for Nevada. I would like

to call the next panel forward, Dr. Tom Myers, Gene Gustin and

Edward Presley.

I will remind the witnesses that you are allowed 5 minutes for

your testimony. The traffic light will be right there in front of you.

You can’t miss it, and I will try to hold my questioning to 5 minutes next time, too. We will begin the testimony with Dr. Tom

Myers, Consultant to Great Basin Mine Watch.

STATEMENT OF TOM MYERS, CONSULTANT TO GREAT BASIN

MINE WATCH

Mr. MYERS. Madam Chairman, Congressman Gibbons, on behalf

of the Sierra Club and Great Basin Mine Watch, thank you for this

opportunity to testify this morning. My expertise and research on

this issue primarily concerns water quantity and the impacts of

mining on groundwater hydrology and the surface expression of

groundwater, primarily springs, streams, rivers, streams and riparian areas.

My invitation to speak specified this and asked me to address

water resources and the regulations regarding water resources. For

my research, I have used public information obtained from the Nevada State Engineers Office, the U.S. Geological Survey, Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as data published in environmental impact statements.

I will focus my oral discussion on the hydrologic impacts and

needed mitigation. My written testimony includes many specific examples and specifies many changes in 3809 regulations that we believe would help. I have also attached copies of a couple of articles

and abstracts I have recently published to my written testimony.

Pit dewater imposed four primary hydrologic impacts: First,

groundwater levels lower in the vicinity of the mine, which impacts

spring and surface water, by changing the flow gradient in the vicinity of the mine. For example, there has been a spring about 7

miles from the Lone Tree Mine, which went dry, presumably due

to dewatering. Second, the open pit and drawdown cone around the

pit are a deficit to be made up after mining and dewatering ceases.

The pit was originally all rock and pore spaces filled with water

would have made up only about 1 percent of the pit and up to 20

percent of the pit that was in alluvium. After mining ceases, pit

lakes will form with water that must come from somewhere. In this

regard, the two most impactful mines on local groundwater deficits

are the Twin Creeks Mine, northeast of Winnemucca and the Lone

Tree Mine, between Battle Mountain and Winnemucca. Twin

Creeks will create a 460,000-acre-foot pit lake, which will be the

second largest man-made lake in Nevada, if we include Lake Mead.
19

The Lone Tree Mine deficit of almost 1.1 million acre feet sits

just 2 miles from the Humboldt River. Third, quality of water in

the pit lakes depends on the source of water refilling them. BLM

predicts this water quality using complicated geochemistry models.

However, the models depend on the quality of the hydrologic data,

including predictions of the inflow to the pit.

I presented a paper 2 weeks ago at American Chemical Society

which shows the very reasonable assumptions of the geology into

the pit led to estimates of inflow at the pipeline deposit pit for the

refill to vary from 8 to over 100 years. Fourth, pit lakes will evaporate water in perpetuity. This represents a permanent loss of water

from the flow in local basins.

The pipeline pit at full development after the several piecemeal

expansions are complete will evaporate well over 10 percent of the

total recharge. Cumulative impacts of mining are rarely considered

although NEPA requires such consideration. For example, the

Humboldt River watershed contains 18 mines that are either currently or soon to go below the water table and require dewatering.

Total deficits from these mines represent 62 percent of the water

stored in the surface aquifer of the Humboldt River.

Total deficits in the Humboldt River Basin equal more than 25

years of the entire river flow at the city of Winnemucca. Fortunately, I do not own water rights or property I want to develop

downstream on the Humboldt River. It cannot be overemphasized

that these impacts are unprecedented in the history of mining anywhere in the world.

While mining companies return large profits from underregulated mining, society is allowing a massive uncontrolled experiment

on the environment of northern Nevada. It is not too late to do anything about it, but we are reaching that point. The rest of this testimony includes discussion about what the BLM could currently be

doing and needed changes in the regulatory framework. Many of

the impacts discussed above could be avoided or mitigated by reclamation of the pits, including complete or partial backfilling or

through adequate bonding to either remedy or compensate individuals adversely impacted in the future.

Section 3809 provides BLM’s regulations to govern hardrock mining permitting. Currently, BLM is attempting to modify or reform

these regulations. First, I emphasize that the BLM, under current

regualtions, has the authority to adequately regulate and mitigate

these impacts. They are reluctant to assert the authority so regulatory reform will help them in this process, as I will elaborate

below or actually in my written testimony. BLM is required to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation.

Unfortunately, we focus on surface-to-surface, while ignoring the

long distance impacts of drawdown and water contamination, impacts which may not occur until after mining ceases are even more

difficult for the agency to consider. However, the impacts of drawdown caused by dewatering and pit refill clearly impact surface

water and land.

For example, drawdown has already caused sink holes to form in

Maggie Creek. It has caused springs to dry. When stream flow was

substantially reduced, the riparian vegetation may dry, which is

also a surface impact. This type of impact clearly reduces the abil-
20

ity of land, far from the site, to support multiple use, including

grazing and recreation. I see I am out of time and I have a couple

pages to go, but I am going to jump to the end to finish up then.

The Sierra Club and Great Basin Mine Watch strongly support

needed changes in Section 3809 regulations. We also support enactment of the Rahall bill, which is H.R. 253, which I believe is currently in front of this Subcommittee. Many of our concerns will be

remedied. Many of the suggested regulatory changes would be codified. It specifically refers to the protection of water resources. It establishes a fund to clean up degradation to surface and importantly

water resources caused by previous mining.

The gold mining industry has expanded from a million ounces in

1980 to 13 million ounces today. This is a remarkable expansion

and has led to rapid growth in rural Nevada and other States. It

is a very important part of the economy of Nevada and should remain so. But future citizens of northern Nevada, ranchers, farmers,

Native Americans and cities should not be paying the debts created

by present day mining. We request baseline standards to protect

the environment of northern Nevada and the Western United

States. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[The statement of Mr. Myers may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Dr. Myers, and I regret that we don’t

have time for your entire testimony to be given verbally, but it will

be in the record.

And the next witness we will call on now is Gene Gustin, Public

Land Use Advisory Council to the Elko County Commission.

STATEMENT OF GENE GUSTIN, PUBLIC LAND USE ADVISORY

COUNCIL TO THE ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION

Mr. GUSTIN. Well, Madam Chairman and Congressman Gibbons,

welcome to Elko. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to conduct

this oversight hearing on this most vital issue to this area. More

importantly, that you are reaching out for constituent input is very

encouraging, and I am also encouraged by your opening remarks

on this subject. Having been involved in the mining industry in the

Western United States for some 27 years, in several different capacities ranging from tramp miner, to superintendent of mining of

two large operations, to mining claim holder, to owner of an independent contracting business serving mining. I have been afforded

many different perspectives on the evolution of the regulatory regime and the political and populist perceptions of the value of mining in a modern day life to this country. But how these perceptions

and attitudes interface with reality and legality is the subject at

hand today.

I believe the current efforts to rewrite, through administrative

fiat, mining rules and regulations that have taken over 130 years

to evolve and be refined is at best the height of bureaucratic arrogance and at worst, a crude misdirected illegal power play that

simply cannot be tolerated by Congress, the States, the courts or

the people of this country.

Why are we bringing forth words here today to our duly elected

representatives asking them to rein in the activities of a government employee to run wild? An appointee, within whose purported

purview it is to write the regulations, implement the rules, review
21

and adjudicate the systems concerning basic individual rights

which violate the separation of powers doctrine. This Western

United States subject of this medieval realm who thought he owned

the possessory title in mining, grazing, water or agriculture rights

and the rights to make improvements on such is then dragged

through a kangaroo gathering called the Court of Administrative

Appeals where the legislative, executive and judicial branches have

been rolled into one easy instrument of rule without recourse.

And what is the alleged mechanism justifying this complete bypass of our system of checks and balances and separation of powers, the purported proprietary interest of the Federal Government

in 87 percent of the State of Nevada. Where did we go wrong? A

series of Supreme Court decisions, most recently, the decision of

Printz vs. United States, on June 27, 1997, where Justice Scalia instructed us, ‘‘The separation of two sovereign spheres is one of the

Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinated branches of the Federal

Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power

and in one branch the healthy balance of power between States

and Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse

from either front.’’

They even commented in that decision on what a novel phenomenon this was, as they hadn’t started seeing this type of overregulation until the 1970’s. Finally, and I quote, we held in New

York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a

Federal regulatory program. Today, we hold that Congress cannot

circumvent that prohibition by constricting the States officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to investigate particular problems nor command

the States officers or those of their political subdivisions to administer and enforce a Federal regulatory program.

It matters not whether policymaking is involved and no case-bycase weighing of the burdens of benefits is necessary. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

Now, I know the Honorable Members here today are familiar

with and understand the intent of the court’s instruction, so I ask

you today, are Members of Congress ready to tackle this issue politically and legally or will the burden fall to the directly affected

parties yet again? Mining is America’s financial backbone. The

mining laws are the last great vestige of acquiring proprietary interests by common law principle, mixing sweat with soil to earn equity. Mining has made America strong without subsidy.

I have witnessed 70 percent of the mining claims be regulated

and taxed out of the business in the last several years. I have experienced a 40 percent reduction in my personal business this year

because of an illegal bonding rule implementation. Mining has been

under an escalating P.R. Assault for the past several years. We try

to respond with reason and logic and compliance and what does it

get us, more assault and more restrictions.

The current attempt to rewrite through 3809, through the administrator, I believe, is a misdirected effort and I think that the

Congress ought to challenge, legally, in the Supreme Court, to as-
22

sure that its role in the legislative process is properly assured. And

I see my time is out, but, again, I thank you for the opportunity

to present my views on this. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Gustin may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Gustin. Our next witness will be

Edward Presley, National Director of County Alliance to restore the

economy and environment.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. PRESLEY, NATIONAL DIRECTOR,

COUNTY ALLIANCE TO RESTORE THE ECONOMY & ENVIRONMENT (CAREE)

Mr. PRESLEY. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I

would like to also welcome you to Elko, and I thank you for the

opportunity to give testimony here today before your Committee. I

am just going to make reference, Madam Chair, to my written

statement and request unanimous consent it be submitted for the

record then.

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection.

Mr. PRESLEY. I will give a little different view than what you

have heard from the industry. Obviously, I am one of those working in research and working on legal defense teams and plaintiff

teams, suing the Federal Government, being sued by the Federal

Government. I am that one that brings that unorthodox position

that the Federal Government does not own the land out here. And

we have that position and that question before the Supreme Court

of the United States now in a petition for writ of cert for the October term in a case called United States vs. Gardner.

What I want to provoke you into realizing here today is that we

can talk all about what has gone on with Mr. Babbitt violating the

Administrative Procedures Act. We see that the mining companies

up here who have billions of dollars invested out here are held at

bay and under extortive measures by the Federal agencies and the

local managers, and, Madam Chair, I would respectfully take some

issue with you on your statement that the local land managers for

the Federal Government are doing a good job and it is the bureaucrats back in Washington. I somewhat find out there is a bit of a

roll reversal that occurs there, simply because I was the plaintiff

in a case called Barton v. Babbitt where we had to bring a civil

rights lawsuit because of our activist measures that we took out

here in the public lands issues that the United States Attorney’s

Office was the nest for the Federal agencies and the local people

going in there trying to get criminal indictments on us to commit

a chill factor on our activism out here, and we successfully brought

that, which then shifted from a criminal investigation against us

and then brought about the United States vs. Nye County lawsuit,

that was nationally known out here.

Now, I don’t want to brand all Federal agents out here and all

Federal employees, but I do want to tell you that I would have not

known about that had a Federal agent not supplied me with the

minutes of the meetings that occurred inside the United States Attorneys Office when they were trying to indict us, and Mr. Gustin

was one of these plaintiffs here, too. What we have and what I

have given with the visual up here is that you see a map of Nevada. Now Federal agencies will color the Western United States
23

in various different colors out here to commit an optical illusion out

here, but that is the truth, that 87 percent of black up there puts

us under a quasi type of military occupation out here, and I will

tell you why it makes such a bold statement.

As long as the Federal agencies are in charge of that much of the

State, there is no common law, there is no State law that is applicable, because they operate under only admiralty and equity jurisdiction. A lot of people do not understand this, that the Federal

agencies have no authority to protect rights out there on the public

lands. Only you at Congress, and I would direct your attention to

the very last page of what I submitted for the record. The courts

have told us this, and on page 19 of our brief to the Supreme

Court, listen to what the Court said back in 1850, and it is still

good law today, under Downes and Midwell. The Constitution deals

with the States, their people and their representatives.

The sole object of the territorial clause was to transfer to the new

government the Northwest territory and to give the power to apply

that territory to the objects and dictates by the States. The Constitution—now listen to this very clearly. The Constitution does not

extend to the territories of its own force. We are not under any constitutional protections and that is the problem that is out here, and

if you don’t quit claim the land over to the States, and if you do

keep control of it, you have to remove all rulemaking from the Federal agencies. You cannot have any police power that is vested in

these Federal agencies. It must be invested in the State.

You must also statutorily remove all types of litigation that go

on in public land matters and remove that from the Federal judiciary and the administrative law judiciary that has been set up. You

have it under your power under Article 1, that is the only way we

will be able to keep our rights intact out here and I thank you very

much for your time and attention.

[The statement of Mr. Presley may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you for your time. And we will start the

questioning with Representative Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and first, let me address a brief question to Mr. Presley, who has just recently finished

his testimony, and I would ask a very brief analysis of how you

came about the conclusion that the Federal Government does not

own the land here in Nevada, if you could do that very briefly for

us.

Mr. PRESLEY. Thank you, Congressman, good question. It was in

1993, I had a client that had a problem with the Bureau of Land

Management on grazing, and, also, there was some mining problems in Clark County, dealing with the desert tortoise issue down

there, of which there was a full force and final decision that came

out, full force and effect decision that came out to remove grazing

from the desert tortoise habitat.

Now, they are under the Endangered Species Act, and the first

thing I noticed, since we had come through the Nevada legislature

in dealing with AB–77, the so-called sage brush rebellion 2, was

that it didn’t appear that the Federal Government owned any property out here, I will say, except Nellis Air Force Base and that is

within Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. So my forte is in the Freedom of Information Act and I performed a Freedom of Information
24

Act request to the Department of Interior, BLM, and their Solicitor

took charge of my request and came back and said they had no documents responsive to my request when I asked them for the deed

to this land.

But since then, what has happened out here is that they have

claimed ownership under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848

when we had the conquest against Mexico. They are claiming that

as their jurisdiction here today, which clearly makes that black encampment there of Nevada a territory and enclave of Mr. Babbitt,

and there is no State there. The only place that there is State,

members of the Committee, the only place that is the State of Nevada are those white spots up there and they are noncontiguous

and we are beholding to these Federal agencies to get from point

A to point B, so we are not a complete State.

And Madam Chairman, you have the same thing in Wyoming,

Mr. Hansen would have it over in Utah, and in Alaska, Mr. Young

certainly deals with that. That is what brought the question about

they didn’t have it and I tried to zero all of my research and for

the arguments and for the Nye County case and now the Gardner

case, I zeroed it in that they do not own the land because they

couldn’t produce title and that is the question we have before the

Supreme Court of the United States, which I am here to say, unequivocally has never been before the Supreme Court of the United

States in the 200 plus years of its existence. Thank you.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Dr. Myers. I presume your Ph.D. is in

science of some sort.

Mr. MYERS. My Ph.D. is in hydrology.

Mr. GIBBONS. Hydrology. How would you abate or stop the water

table drawdown due to an open pit mine? How would you stop that,

in a surrounding area?

Mr. MYERS. During mining, the water table has to drawdown.

Mr. GIBBONS. We understand that, how would you stop that.

Mr. MYERS. Through recharge in the local basin. Part of what I

had to leave out was testimony that, in fact, there are a few mines

that are recharging the local basin. It is not working as well as it

is supposed to. There are other mines that should be recharging

better. We have argued, in environmental documents, certain

mines should be recharging. We will argue it is only done where

it is a very inexpensive thing to do.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me move on, and understanding that issue, you

talked about some mines that are not recharging and suppose, for

example, let’s take the Lone Tree Mine, which takes its water,

cleans it, puts it into the Humboldt River and sends it down to Rye

Patch Reservoir for farmers and ranchers to use. Is there a problem with the water quality in that water they are putting in the

Humboldt?

Mr. MYERS. I don’t recall constituent problems, I mean, specifics.

I know there were temperature problems, the temperature in the

Humboldt River increases rather substantially from just above

their discharge point to just below and that is because the water

is geothermally heated that they are dewatering.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask another quick question. If water rights,

in probably 16 of the 17 Western States are State prerogative, I
25

mean a State jurisdictional area, why should the Federal Government step in and deal with water, water rights?

Mr. MYERS. Well, for one, the 3809 regulations specifically state

the BLM is required to enforce State law and we would argue that

if the State is not adequately doing it, then the BLM is required

to do that.

Mr. GIBBONS. And you have a complaint with Nevada’s environmental treatment of its water within a State then?

Mr. MYERS. We do.

Mr. GIBBONS. Then it would be better, I presume, under your testimony to go tell the State of Nevada to change its water quality

laws.

Mr. MYERS. But since we are focusing on 3809 today, it specifically states, in several different locations in those regulations that

the BLM is required—excuse me, is required to enforce State regulations. It doesn’t say where the State fails to do so, but it says the

BLM is responsible for seeing to it that that is enforced, and that

would be a BLM oversight. I mean, previous speakers have talked

about the BLM having a responsibility for oversight.

Mr. GIBBONS. You also mentioned that due to the drawdown on

some of these areas, the water table has lowered, and some people

should be compensated for that. Who is not now compensated for

the drawdown of the water table that should be compensated for?

Mr. GIBBONS. We would suggest that most of the impacts will

occur, actually, after mining has ceased, after the pits have refilled,

when you draw the water table down a thousand feet, 1,300 feet

at a couple of places, that that drawdown cone continues to expand

after mining ceases. The pit refills, I mean, for example, you mentioned Lone Tree, there is 1.1 million acre feet of deficit being created around that mine. The Twin Creeks Mine has 660,000 acre

feet of deficit. That water is going to come from somewhere and we

don’t know—I am not going to say it is all coming from the Humboldt River.

What I am saying is we don’t know where it is coming from and

for those reasons we would suggest adequate mitigation, bonding

and escrow account would be set-aside so 30 years from now the

people who are affected could be compensated or the situation

could be remedied.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Gustin, let me turn to you now briefly in the

time I have remaining. What suggestions would you have as to how

to better resolve the conflicts that you stated in your testimony, in

terms of regulatory authority, State powers, Federal powers, what

would you suggest?

Mr. GUSTIN. Well, to me, the only way this is going to be resolved

successfully is that the people who live in the areas that are affected have a lot more authority to say how things are done. I realize that in general, that might create a little fear in the hearts of

mining industries, but I am pretty sure that when the State assumes a much larger role, that you will see consistency from

States.

The State of Nevada has been a leader in mining regulation, and

it works well. We have the most experience with that, and as has

been previously testified, I believe that the experience that is
26

gained in places like Nevada can be transferred anywhere else and

a lot of States look to Nevada for leadership on this issue.

Mr. GIBBONS. You mentioned also in your testimony that your

business has been specifically impaired or harmed by current regulation changes, and maybe you could help this Committee a little

by explaining how the new bonding requirements or the changes in

3809 have specifically impacted your business and as you see it,

how has it specifically impacted mining operations on public land

in the State of Nevada.

Mr. GUSTIN. In early March, while I have been in business for

roughly 18, 19 years in the exploratory end of things, in early

March, it looked like another routine year as near we could tell. We

were getting our level of inquiries as to drilling on projects on public lands.

Once it was announced that there were proposed changes on a

30-day comment period on the bonding, for almost 6 months, nobody knew what to do, nobody could get drilling permits. I am sure

that our businesses suffered 50 percent as well as many other people I am aware of in the industry. Many times, the regulatory

agencies failed to consider not only the direct but the indirect impacts, I mean, all the way down to the mom-and-pop grocery stores

and gas stations and everybody in the State of Nevada had become

very dependent upon the expenditure of exploration dollars in this

State, which are currently off, probably 70 percent, from where

they were 3 to 4 years ago.

I don’t know how 1997 is going to shape up, but I am sure it is

going to be a significant decrease, even the major mining companies had difficulties going outside their operations plan area to

even get a small permit for any level of disturbance, so myself, we

have seen our business off 40 percent, cutting salaries and having

to lay people off and that kind of thing. I don’t see any resolve until

the States have more of an ability to affect this process and it is

not controlled out of Washington, DC, or at least if it is controlled

out of Washington, DC, it is through our duly elected representatives here today, and, you know, we have about compromised ourself out of existence here, trying to get through this, and I don’t follow the industry closely per se, but, you know, when you have large

capital investments, and you have to project over long periods of

time, these kinds of attack through the regulatory process, like on

bonding, it is just devastating, just devastating, and we can’t tolerate much more of that kind of activity.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I think I will start with Dr. Myers. I am

not trained in hydrology, as Representative Gibbons said earlier. I

am a chemist, so I do know, or at least have an opinion on, I guess,

as every other scientist would have to say, on what is good science

and what is not good science, and that is one of the key areas of

conflict over a lot of environmental things. People who don’t know

much about science and scientific models don’t know how to judge

whether they are getting good science or not, and I find today I am

sort of placed in that position because I don’t know much about hydrology. So I guess I just should ask, does the State—I am sure the

State engineer has seen your opinion and testimony today. And

does he give credence to your analysis or are you at odds.
27

Mr. MYERS. Well, I hesitate to speak for the State engineer. He

acknowledges that there could be impacts in the Humboldt River

Basin, but he has not—he, of course, does not—well, basically,

about 15 years ago, the State of Nevada made a decision that it

was going to support the mining industry and I believe we are reluctant to really strongly enforce it.

I mean, there is a policy of the State engineer to not allow

groundwater withdrawals to exceed the recharge in a basin, unless

it is on a temporary basis, and that is what we are doing, you

know, some of these withdrawals exceed the recharge, but only

temporarily. We, of course, have a concern then. I mean, our mine

is projected to last to the year 2036. That begins to stretch the definition of temporary, I think.

Mrs. CUBIN. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, just as I

didn’t before, but you seem to be saying to me that if the State engineer won’t enforce Nevada’s ground water laws, then the BLM

ought to step in and do that; is that right.

Mr. MYERS. I believe they have the authority—well, the State engineer is required to interpret the laws, and to enforce them as he

sees fit, and he is doing so, we would argue about that interpretation, I think is the best way I should characterize that.

Mrs. CUBIN. OK, then, question. Do you think the BLM ought to

come in then and enforce or interpret Nevada’s environmental

laws?

Mr. MYERS. I think they have a requirement to, at least with regard to, for example, the Clean Water Act, them and the EPA together. They need to protect the public lands of Nevada. Their job

is to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. If contaminated

water or drawn-down springs is causing unnecessary and undue

degradation, and we would argue that it does, then I believe the

BLM has the authority and needs to do more about that, and the

problem is that some of these impacts may be 7 miles offsite. How

do we argue the current regulations specify or imply surface disturbance and it implies, due to the mine, right at the mine, but a

dry spring, 5 miles away, is also an impact on the surface.

Mrs. CUBIN. But Nevada does, in fact, have primacy on the Clean

Water Act, and the Federal Government granted that primacy, so

for me, it is hard to get the balance there. I mean, I just—well, go

ahead.

Mr. MYERS. The EPA also would have oversight on that primacy,

though, I believe, and I will give one specific example. On the

Jerritt Canyon Mine, we got from the Division of Environmental

Protection, about an inch of water quality reports. All throughout

them, there are specifics where water quality standards were not

met. There has been nothing done about these particular——

Mrs. CUBIN. Who is that from?

Mr. MYERS. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.

That is why we will argue that the BLM does need to look, you

know, they have an authority there that they really should help encourage better enforcement.

Mrs. CUBIN. But Jerritt Canyon is Forest Services isn’t it.

Mr. MYERS. I’m sorry, Jerritt Canyon is Forest Service, that is

correct. But the point deals with, you are asking about the State

enforcing the Clean Water Act. That is the instance I have on top
28

of my mind at the moment. There are others. There are instances,

I believe at pipeline and others that we have collected the data, we

look at it, and we are just building a large pile of that evidence

right now.

Mrs. CUBIN. And surely you can sympathize with those of us who

aren’t experts in hydrology trying to figure out who to believe.

Mr. MYERS. Yes, and I would like to emphasize, what we emphasize with regard to water quantity and hydrology, I am not the

water quality expert here. I tend to focus on water quantity. We

try to emphasize the uncertainty of the problem. We think we are

permitting with a great deal of uncertainty and one of the only

ways to get around an uncertainty is through bonding and through

mitigation.

Mrs. CUBIN. And I don’t know of anyone that questions whether

or not bonding is necessary. I think everyone believes it is. I guess

it is how we go about deciding what that bonding should be that

is in question—no, not what the bonding should be, how the bonding should be derived and whether or not there ought to be public

input and apparently the BLM thinks there should not, and I certainly think there should but that will be decided in court.

You mentioned our colleague on the Subcommittee, Mr. Rahall of

West Virginia and the mining law reform bill that he introduced

in this Congress again, which has been referred to this Subcommittee. What you didn’t mention, so I will, and it is not your

obligation to mention it, is the fact the last Congress did pass several reforms to the 1872 Act and that the 1872 Act has been

amended many times throughout the years, and I mentioned in my

opening statement that the bill, H.R. 2491, among other things, established a trust fund for abandoned mine land reclamation, which

we were careful to put in the hands of the State, by the way.

What that bill did not do, and what the Rahall–Bumpers bill

wants to do, is to create incredible disincentives for investment in

public lands, because that bill requires so-called suitability reviews.

And I would say that no prudent miner or prospector would invest

the huge sums of money that are necessary to develop a new mine

if they are really subject to anyone claiming the faintest harm to

things like impairment of view shed aesthetics, any kind of lawsuit

that could come forward.

I think what the Rahall–Bumpers bill would essentially eliminate is any new mining period, and while I certainly agree and respect that you have every right to hold your opinion about that bill,

I hope that—well, no, I don’t hope that, but I certainly have my

right to that bill and the authority whether or not to bring that bill

in and mark it up. I think we offered some good amendments to

that 1872 bill. And to Mr. Gustin and Mr. Presley, both of you presented very thought-provoking testimony, and, frankly, Mr. Presley, I really, really hope you win, but that is in the Supreme Court

right now, and so I don’t think I or anyone on the Committee really

can take any sort of a professional stand on that.

As a duly elected Member of Congress, I am mindful of the property clause, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which does, indeed, state

that Congress shall have the authority to make all the meaningful

rules and regulations concerning disposal of public property and

the territories, but, unfortunately, previous Congresses have al-
29

lowed the executive branch to encroach on what truly ought to be

our jurisdiction, and we are trying, we are working every day, to

try to get that authority back because I believe constitutionally it

was granted to the Congress and not to the executive branch.

Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. PRESLEY. Yes, Madam Chair. You raise the Achilles heel

point to this whole problem we have out here with 3809 atrocities

that occur. The property clause has been misapplied inside the

States, inside our State and inside your State. However—and I

fully appreciate the fact that through the political process, that

Congress has to nibble back at this, when you have got, you know,

Representatives in Congress like Mr. Rahall, who are coming from

clearly the opposite end of the envelope. But you may want to have

your legislative counsel back there really delve into the Administrative Procedures Act and what it actually applies to.

You see, there is a misconception out here that it applies to the

Code of Federal Regulations and gives autonomy to the Federal

agencies and promulgating rules to implement the statutes of Congress and that simply is not the case. As a researcher, when I go

in, I don’t only look at the Code of Federal Regulations, of which

3809 came from, I will look at their handbooks and their manuals

and the Administrative Procedures Act mainly applies to those

handbooks and manuals and that Congress still has the regulatory

power over these agencies.

And here is my specific suggestion to you, and an introduction

of legislation, that when you have something involving the public

lands out here, until the ownership issue is addressed, or you are

able to muster enough to get a quit claim deed to the State of Nevada and the rest of them, what you do do is you put something

in the legislation that says, ‘‘and we really mean this.’’

In other words, if there are water rights out there on the public

lands and the Federal agencies are going to manage, you must say

that you cannot make those attacks on those decries and those adjudications that have happened at State Court, specifically, rights

acquired under common law of the State shall be supreme in the

implementation and management of Federal land managers under

the public lands. That would go a long way with us. I have been

in the administrative courts. I have brought an Administrative Procedures Act case. The Federal judiciary of administrative courts

just simply say you don’t have any rights out there.

So you see there is no remedy at law for us when we are in the

adjudicating process and that costs the client hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just one little thing like that in legislation that

says the common law of the State that has brought about the recognition of those rights on public lands, grazing and whatever,

mining, especially, would go a long way in curing everything.

Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. And thank all of you for your testimony.

We will be calling the next panel forward at this time. Royce

Hackworth, Dr. Anthony Lesperance, Zane Miles, Michael, because

I am not even going to try your last name. You can tell me how

you, how to say it when you get here, and John Carpenter, please

come forward.
30

Thank you. We will begin this panel with Royce Hackworth, of

the Elko County Commission.

STATEMENT OF ROYCE HACKWORTH, CHAIRMAN, ELKO

COUNTY COMMISSION

Mr. HACKWORTH. Madam Chairman Cubin and Congresswoman

Gibbons, I am Royce Hackworth, Chairman of the Elko County

Commission and owner of Hackworth Drilling, Inc. I want to welcome you to Elko, and I appreciate the Subcommittee coming to the

people and the area where the revision of 3809 regulations will effect. It shows the mining industry and the residents of Elko County

and the United States the willingness and the concern we have had

with getting the facts, and whether the BLM needs to rewrite the

3809 regulations.

Elko County is 10.9 million acres in size and yet only 28 percent

of it is under private ownership. The other approximately 72 percent of the county is public lands under Federal Management. On

public lands in Elko County, the mining industry does explore for

and find many valuable mineral deposits, such as gold, silver, copper, barite bentonite and gypsum, just to name a few.

The mining industry creates many good paying jobs in exploration and development of these resources. On average, industry

pays in excess of $38,000 a year plus benefits in the jobs it creates.

Jobs that are created employ people with Ph.D.s, all the way down

to those who did not complete high school. The mining industry

creates good-paying jobs for men and women alike. These high-paying jobs are at the level where their employees do not depend upon

State and Federal subsidized housing, food programs, health care

programs, to live the American dream.

In fact, the industry and their employees pay taxes to support

those who depend upon State and Federal programs just to live.

And with the current change in legislation coming about, we see

a shift moving back to the States and from the States back to the

county to help pay for these programs. My concern is the change

in attitude toward the mining industry by the Federal agencies, by

the implementation of undue and excessive regulation.

What troubles me is the method and the reasoning the BLM has

used in deciding to change the 3809 regulations. I do not believe,

nor will I accept the Secretary of the Interior having the power to

circumvent the NEPA process and Congress in changing 3809 regulations. The BLM does not clearly define a purpose and need along

with a definitive and specific proposed action for public scoping as

NEPA regulations require that EIS briefly specify the underlying

purpose and needs to which the agency is responding in proposing

the alternatives, including the proposed actions.

When the Secretary makes a statement, it is plainly no longer

in the public interest to wait for Congress to enact legislation. I

fear for the future of our country. For the framers of our Constitution or you as duly elected Members of Congress should or would

believe that any Federal agency could obtain or try to circumvent

the powers given to Congress. 3809 regulations are not an impending emergency or a national security, so why should the Secretary

be permitted not to follow the normal NEPA process or circumvent

congressional wisdom.
31

The Federal public land agencies cannot, nor should not be given

unlimited ability to create regulations without congressional oversight. Let me give you a couple of examples of regulations run

amuck by the Federal land agencies in our county. Here in Elko

County, U.S. Forest Service employees of the Humboldt Toiyabe

National Forest are protected by agency regulations that prohibit

them from being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, a classic

example of a Federal employee being immune from the laws that

every citizen of the United States has to abide by.

Where logic doesn’t work when it comes to Federal land managers, just following the regulations they are in charge of, we have

Jarbidge Community Cemetery. Elko County is trying to obtain a

1-acre addition to expand the current cemetery. The U.S. Forest

Service comes back to the county with a 20-year lease for the 1-

acre parcel.

The county is in a dilemma. We do not know whether to rename

the cemetery the Jarbidge Community Time Share Cemetery or the

Jarbidge Lazarus Cemetery. With the current boldness of the Federal land agencies in creating new regulations, I feel they believe

they have been granted a higher power of authority. However, I do

not believe they will be able to raise the dead every 20 years to

renew their cemetery lease. This year the BLM enacted new bonding requirements for claim holders on public lands, without following the NEPA process correctly. This is just putting more nails

in the coffin for the mining industry in the United States.

We have already seen a 70 percent reduction to claim holders

when the hundred dollar holding fee per claim was enacted. By not

encouraging people and companies to look for mineral discovery

here at home, we are driving the mining industry outside our country of good paying jobs. I am here today as a county commissioner

asking you to please stop the BLM from enacting undue regulations on the mining industry. Current regulations are being handled by the States and current Federal law. Please use whatever

power you have to curtail the Secretary of the Interior for not following the true NEPA process in creating regulations.

Also, I am asking you to invoke newly enacted bonding regulations and have the bonding regulations go through the true NEPA

process that defines the purpose and needs in a way the law intended it to be enacted. In the State of Nevada, we have a comprehensive, regulatory environment to protect the citizens and the

lands in our State and I thank you for the opportunity to make this

testimony.

[The statement of Mr. Hackworth may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Hackworth.

Next, we will call on Dr. Anthony Lesperance. You tell me how

to say your name.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY L. LESPERANCE, ELKO COUNTY

COMMISSIONER

Mr. LESPERANCE. You did pretty good. I can’t even spell it yet.

Madam Chairman and Congressman Gibbons, I request unanimous

consent that my statement and the attached exhibits, which are
32

two lawsuits, be made part of the record. I consider these lawsuits

very, very important.

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection.

Mr. LESPERANCE. Thank you. Today, you are hearing much about

the 3809 regulations and impact that the actions of this nature

have upon the economy. Our business, Great Basin Agriculture,

has been a major player in mine and exploration reclamation. Consequently, we are in a unique position to engage the impacts of regulation, such as 3809.

Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient for me to say those

impacts are very significant. Perhaps it might be more important—

more appropriate to analyze why regulations like 3809 occur to

begin with and what actions of this nature might really represent.

Every single department of the Federal Government is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies must either grow or stagnate.

How do bureaucrats make a bureaucracy grow? Very simple.

They either increase the mass their agency regulates or increase

the complexity with which it regulates. Either action, if successful,

increases job security, promotion, and all the benefits associated

with bureaucratic growth. That is how regulations like 3809 come

into being. The 3809 is only the tip of the iceberg.

Growth of bureaucracy is difficult enough for those of us who

produce weather to contend with, but when the bureaucracy becomes unethical, it presents a set of problems that at best are almost impossible to deal with and at worse, could well lead to total

anarchy. It seems to be a given that bureaucracies must grow. Only

you in Congress can control that with fiscal restraint, a fact which

despite all the rhetoric, Congress has failed to do, but what about

the ethics of the bureaucracy.

Let’s examine the ethics of agencies we here in Nevada most frequently deal with, the land management agencies. I will briefly

mention a few events central to ongoing litigations. The cutting of

fences or opening of gates so that legitimate reasons can be found

to trespass livestock permittees; the mechanical covering of springs

with dirt to disallow further use of water from those springs for irrigation; the movement or hiding of historical survey markers to

confuse issues on location; the hiding or destruction of the historical documents absolutely necessary for settling of disputes; the

physical changing of monitoring data to make livestock grazing

look damaging; the hiring of so-called experts to present distorted

historical and factual data to support agency position.

The elimination of years of outstanding research, because it no

longer supports philosophy and, yes, even the threat of death if one

dares to oppose the government action including the taking of personal property, and 3809 is simple. Just compound the bureaucratic red tape until complying becomes physically and financially

impossible. Agencies that control the public domain want full control and that includes water.

I am aware of no less than six litigations between private individuals, political bodies, water districts and others and the United

States, concerning water rights here in Nevada. The United States

Forest Service leads a parade, close behind is the Department of

Interior, including BLM and the BIA. Control of water in the West

is control of all that occurs in the landscape, including mining.
33

I will call your attention to two of these litigations. I am providing you copies of both the suits, the first involving the Truckee–

Carson Irrigation District, requests repayment of 1,057,000 acre

feet of water, including interest, for water allegedly stolen from

Pyramid Indian Reservation between 1973 and 1988.

I will not go into the details of the ramifications, but loss of this

suit would bring upon the water users of the district, as well as the

towns of Fallon and Fernley, but it is sufficient to say the results

of losing that suit will be catastrophic. Worth more concern, however, is the case known as the Walker River suit.

The United States is laying claim to all water of the Walker

River watershed from the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in

California, to and around Walker Lake in Nevada. Their claim includes all surface water, as well as under groundwater within the

entire basin. Theoretically, if won, the water would be transferred

to the Walker River Indian Reservation for beneficial use. However, what seems to go unnoticed is much of the land being claimed

by the government for the reservation, includes mountains totally

capable of being irrigated.

Further, the reservation does not want the water, although again

that doesn’t seem to be very important in the eyes of the government. The distasteful part of the Walker River case is the fact

every water user for the reservation will lose their water. That includes 1,200 active claims, resolving certainly what must be the

single largest takings case in the history of this country.

Finally, I would call your attention that you must never forget

that all wealth, by its very definition, ultimately comes from the

land of the associated waters. When you regulate the ability to create wealth out of existence, it will be but a few short years before

our national economy is in shambles. Add to that the ever-increasing takings of private property rights and anarchy will surely follow. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Lesperance may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. I21The next witness will be

Zane Miles, Deputy District Attorney for Eureka County.

STATEMENT OF ZANE MILES, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

EUREKA COUNTY

Mr. MILES. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congressman Gibbons. I convey the regrets of Pete Chiny, our County Commissioner

Chairman, that he can’t be here today. Pete is back in Washington

to testify today before another committee on another interior matter, and you have me as a substitute.

Mrs. CUBIN. We are glad to have you.

Mr. MILES. I again would ask that our written remarks be incorporated in the record and we will excerpt them very briefly today.

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection.

Mr. MILES. You know, perhaps the most disturbing current trend

in the Department of Interior is apparently, it is believed, that the

bureaucracy in Washington, DC knows what is best. The bureaucrats regularly ignore local government, just as they regularly ignore the Congress of the United States. It is appalling to me that

Secretary Babbitt can declare that since Congress has chosen not
34

to act on some of his pet projects, that he will impose his beliefs

anyhow by adoption of bureaucratic rules and regulations.

I would suggest to you that Secretary Babbitt take the same oath

you did and that I did and protect and defend the Constitution of

the United States, and what he is doing is such an egregious violation of the concept of separation of powers that I find it appalling

that Congress has not found some way to draw rein upon such a

headstrong approach.

On a State and local level, the State of Nevada and Nevada’s

mining counties have an excellent record of common sense of environmental and other controls of the mining industry. Our enforcement is thorough, thoughtful, unbiased, complete, effective, and accomplished with due regard for the benefits resulting from mineral

development.

If Congress, in its wisdom, is to decree that environmental rules

are to be applied to small sites, like the new 5-acre rule, the Nevada Division of Minerals and NDEP, Department of Environmental Protection, and the local district attorneys will enforce

those laws. We have done so in the past, and in other contexts.

Ironically, when I got into Elko yesterday, I picked up Saturday’s

edition of the Elko Free Press, and on the front page is a rather

lengthy story, headlined, ‘‘State Fines Newmont $23,500.’’

Newmont mining is a very environmentally responsible organization.

Our county is the largest coal-mining county in the world, and

we work closely with Newmont, Barrick, Homestake, Placer Dome,

the others, and Newmont does a good job, but they can have problems just like anyone else; mistakes can occur. And when the mistake did occur in this case, the State stepped in and took administrative action. Had the administrative action not been sufficient,

the State would have come to the local District Attorney’s Office

and asked us to take criminal action, which we would have been

authorized to do. That hasn’t been necessary at this point, it has

occurred in others.

I will give you another example. In Lander County, the county

to the West of us, a few years ago, there was a very small migratory bird kill where some birds got through netting and managed

to get into a cyanide-laden pool. As I recall, the fine in that, for

the death of two migratory birds, two ducks, was $50,000, $25,000

a bird, and that matter was handled by the State Department of

Wildlife and the local District Attorney there in Lander. There is

no need that we can see to bring in Federal regulations and Federal agents to enforce what the State of Nevada is already doing

and doing very well. If there are two things I can leave with you

today as thoughts, it would be these.

First, I feel that Congress must take its lawmaking powers more

seriously, take back the rules, and sharply limit the power of

unelected bureaucrats to make rules and regulations with the force

of law, and, second, where Federal laws, rules and regulations are

needed, Congress should mandate that its laws be enforced in the

State and local governments if the States and local governments

are willing to do so. Direct Federal enforcement is unnecessary unless States and counties refuse to act. That has certainly not been
35

the case in Nevada. Again, thank you very much for coming to gold

country to hear what we have to say.

[The statement of Mr. Miles may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Miles, and we are glad

to have you here, even though your boss had to be some place else.

We might have even picked you, you don’t know.

Next, I will ask Mayor Michael Franzoia.

Mr. FRANZOIA. That is exactly right, good pronouncing.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. FRANZOIA, MAYOR, CITY OF ELKO

Mr. FRANZOIA. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman

Gibbons for allowing me to have the opportunity to address you

today. I personally welcome you to the great city of Elko. You are

here today to listen to testimony regarding the mining industry. As

a citizen of this city for the past 17 years, I would like to share

with you the impact we have experienced for mining. All of this I

have witnessed firsthand.

Elko continues to be a growing, thriving community. In 1980, our

population was less than 10,000 people. We now have a population

that approximates 19,000 and we are projected to reach a population of nearly 31,000 in the next 15 years. Initially, this growth

represented impact challenges to our high quality of life, but to

these challenges, the community began receiving many things we

otherwise may have waited for and perhaps would never have realized.

Growth has been good for Elko and the mining industry has

played an important role in our success. Let me give you a few examples. To bring new families into the area, the mining industry

invested in permit quality housing developments. This moved Elko

away from being a boom town in a traditional sense, a traditional

boom town is one that grows temporarily, then upon industry

downturn, literally moves out. Permanent investment into Elko by

the mining industry ensures long-term community sustainability.

Another one, investment by the mining industry into our recreational facilities enables us to offer activities to citizens and visitors of all ages. Donations in cash and services to recreational

projects include equipment, parks, sports fields and a ski facility.

Access to cultural activities and events have improved for all of us.

Our museum is in the middle of a major expansion, the Western

Folk Life Center, which is a major attraction for citizens and visitors alike, and the Great Basin College now has a theater where

we can enjoy a variety of entertaining performances. All of these

are benefactors of the generosity of the mining industry.

Education has been enhanced in Elko. What was once known as

Northern Nevada Community College is now Great Basin College.

This fine institution offers education and training in a wide variety

of fields, including mining technology, and we are all watching for

this institution to become a 4-year college in the near future.

The mining industry and its employees have been great supporters of our college, as well as our public school system. A new

junior high is now in use in the Spring Creek area thanks to the

mining industry’s major contribution to the project. We are glad

this indus-
36

try has impacted our community. It has been a positive impact on

our quality of life.

Any legislation regulations that harm mining is certainly not in

the best interest of this community and any impact should be considered on the impact that it has with our community. I would like

to thank you for providing me the time to share this excitement I

feel about the city of Elko and our growth and the things we have

to celebrate in our community, much as a result of our mining industry neighbors. Thank you again.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mayor.

Our next witness will be Assemblyman John Carpenter, but before he testifies, I would like to let everyone know that Senator D.

Rhoads was invited to this hearing to testify as well, but he did

have a prior commitment and he is submitting his testimony for

the record. I understand he is on a cattle call and coming from Wyoming, I know how important that is. Assemblyman Carpenter.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CARPENTER, ASSEMBLYMAN, NEVADA

LEGISLATURE

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman Jim Gibbons, my fellow assemblyman a few years back. I

would like to put a little different spin on the situation of mine

dewatering Dr. Myers told you about. I think that our big problem

with mine dewatering is going to come when the mines want to

quit dewatering. At that time, there are going to be many agricultural interests that have come to depend upon the mine dewatering

and they are not going to like to see those pumps shut off.

The great wetlands that have been created by mine dewatering,

people are not going to want to see them dry up, but I do think

one thing will happen and that is Nevada is going to have some

of the best fishing holes in the world.

In regard to the Nevada legislature’s concern about the hardrock

mining regulations, their changes, after joint hearings, the legislature adopted Assembly Joint Resolution Number 7, which expresses outrage over the procedures followed by the United States

Bureau of Land Management in adopting the new rules. The resolution outlines procedural issues and urges the Secretary of the Interior to suspend or withdraw the rules.

In the packet that has been handed to you is an actual copy of

the resolution. It goes on to state many of the problems that have

been expressed here today. I think that you can read the resolution

and see for yourself that the legislature of the State of Nevada was

very concerned about this kind of rulemaking. I would like to remind you that the Nevada legislature that passed this resolution

comes from the most urban State in the Nation. You would not

think that with our open spaces that we would be the most urban

State in the Nation, but with the majority of the population in Las

Vegas and Reno, that is the situation. So I think it goes to show

that the urban people are concerned about rural Nevada, and so

that when people from Washington, the bureaucrats, start taking

pot shots at us, everybody gets up in arms.

As you are aware, the rule was not withdrawn and it took effect

on March 31, 1997. Not having been successful in getting the rule

modified, the legislature recognized the need to assist miners in
37

complying with its requirements. The Senate bill 440 was enacted.

The measure expands Nevada’s existing program through which

mining operations and exploration projects can obtain performance

bonds to ensure reclamation of their mine sites.

Under existing law, operations that disturb 5 acres of land or

more in a calendar year are eligible to request a bond through the

State bond pool. Senate bill 440 expands the eligibility to include

operations that disturb less than 5 acres per year as required by

the Federal regulations, as well as projects of any size that must

post a reclamation bond pursuant to county requirements.

I believe that the new bonding regulations are just a continuation of Secretary Babbitt’s war on the West. In regard to mining,

without small miners on the ground doing prospecting, much of our

large mines would not exist. I think that if Secretary Babbitt feels

that if we could shut off this exploration as Chairman Hackworth

said, we will drive another nail in the coffin of the miners. These

regulations are having a very adverse effect on our livestock industry here. Utilization standards on riparian areas are driving our

ranchers off the land, there is no question about it.

Mrs. CUBIN. Feel free to give your entire testimony if you want

to.

Mr. CARPENTER. It is too long, I don’t want to do that. I would

just like to say, though, that Congress must exercise veto power

over agency regulations. It seems no one can control the bureaucracies, even cutting the budgets does not seem to help. And so the

agencies are forced to comply with laws. No citizen is safe from the

tentacles of unnecessary regulation.

In Nevada, we now have—the legislature has the authority to

veto any agency regulations. As Jim will remember, the legislature

passed a statute to give us that authority. The Governor did not

like that and he filed suit, and the Supreme Court ruled that the

legislature did not have oversight of agency regulations so that was

the last time we had a constitutional resolution that gave the legislature veto power over the regulations that the bureaucracy was

trying to propose. So I think that it is necessary that the Federal

Government, the Congress, also gets that authority back. Thank

you very much for being here and listening to us.

[The statement of Mr. Carpenter may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much for being here. Questions, Mr.

Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Perhaps one. John

Carpenter, very early on, since he and I shared a great deal of our

life together in a State legislature, especially on national resources.

Do you feel that by the resolution that the State of Nevada has,

AJR Number 7 here, that there was a concern by the State legislature that new bonding regulations were not needed; that the laws

and provisions of the State with regard to the protection of the environment, the water quality, air quality, et cetera, were adequately covered by existing laws, regulations, and was that the reason why you decided to pass this resolution, in light of the changes

of the proposed changes in 3809?

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Jim. I don’t think there is any question but that the regulations that Nevada has in place are ade-
38

quate. They are a model for, as we heard here today, for the industry, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. And

we really didn’t see any reason to have these changes.

For instance, one of those changes is that you have to have an

outside consultant come in and look at your reclamation projects.

That doesn’t make any sense at all. That is just like saying that

the people that you—people you choose for your staff, that they

ought to have somebody looking over their shoulder all the time.

It is absurd to do those kinds of things and Nevada is a leader. I

think that, Jim, you were in the legislature with myself when we

promulgated the statutes, and they are very thorough. They provide for more than adequate protection for the environment, and I

believe that the legislature felt that, you know, we are doing our

job and we just don’t need all that direction from Secretary Babbitt.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Zane, in your job as the Assistant District Attorney, do you feel that your office, as well as the State of

Nevada, are adequately enforcing the laws with regard to environmental issues and reclamation as permitted through State requirements.

Mr. MILES. We enforce the law so that we agree with them or

not, and often we don’t. Eureka County is in the fortunate situation, since we do have the largest gold production county in the

world, we have the resources for local government to do its job, and

we are certainly capable of doing whatever enforcement is necessary. I have no qualms at all about—and neither does my boss,

about filing a criminal action, if, in fact, the circumstances would

justify it.

On the other hand, we have what is called prosecutorial discretion, and in its best sense, that means that we can look at a situation and determine whether the offense is accidental, deliberate or

whatever, and that happens throughout the State. This Newmont

fine, administrative fine, is a perfect example. The fine was reduced slightly because Newmont cooperated and bent over backward to cooperate with the State Department of environmental protection, and consequently, the NDEP never came to us for any sort

of a criminal prosecution, and none is needed. If one were needed,

yes, we would do it, we certainly would.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Mike, let me turn to some of the comments

that you made with regard to infrastructure, development, and

support for the mining industry toward the city of Elko and its

needs, assuming that we understand that Elko has been, for a long

time, the sort of bedroom community for many of the mine workers

who work in Eureka County or outside of the area.

Do you feel that with your position as Mayor, that you will experience a less or degraded interest by the mining companies in helping with infrastructure needs in future development if 3809 regulations impose new and more burdensome costs upon the mining

companies?

Mr. FRANZOIA. Oh, yes, I would definitely say that would be a

detriment to the city. Right now we get a lot of support on recreational facilities. Like I said, anything involving new, but if there

is a downturn on the requirements, obviously it is going to be a

cost factor for the mines, with less funding sources available for
39

those improvements to the city and, yes, I think we would suffer

greatly in a lot of areas, not only in city infrastructures, but support that the mines have with other organizations in the community, such as soccer, little league and those kinds of functions,

which we have a great situation here where we have a lot of volunteers that are out there and the same token would be—on a nonfinancial basis, would be the support of the employees in those

same activities as volunteering goes.

A lot of these things that happen in our community make it the

way it is, and we support, even with the Western Folk Life, putting

that on, our results of the activities and people getting involved,

donating their time, aside from donating money from the mines, so

we have a lot of mining employees that participate in these things

and it is crucial, and any downgrade to the situation we have,

being that we are the community for the mines and we are impacted greatly more than any other city on the corridor, at least in

the county, it is a detriment to us, no question about it.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask a followup question. Do you notice the

deterioration in the quality of life, whether it is air quality, particulate matter in the air or something because of the current operations of mines in and around the Elko community?

Mr. FRANZOIA. Not at all. The only thing I see that is a detriment

is increased traffic, but we work on that. As long as the community

grows either 4 percent a year or 2 percent a year, eventually you

are going to deal with additional traffic problems, but actually I

have a tendency to pride myself when I travel out of town to tell

everybody how good Elko is and how blue the skies are and we

may have 3 or 4 days a year with fog, and it usually breaks up by

10 in the morning. Otherwise, the only particulate matter we see

coming through is when the winds blow up and we get dust all the

way from Lovelock that is airborne for hundreds and hundreds of

miles, so otherwise we don’t see at all an impact from air quality

or standards of life in the city.

Mr. GIBBONS. Wasn’t, 1994, Elko named one of the most desirable communities to live in in the United States?

Mr. FRANZOIA. Nineteen ninety four, Elko was considered one of

the best small towns in America, the quality of life being a major

focus and also the economic values of the community and cultural

activities we have in the community, all played a part in that recognition.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me turn my attention over to Royce

Hackworth, who talked earlier about mining industry and 3809

regulations. Do you feel, in your position as a county commissioner,

that the citizens of Nevada, in general, will see a marked improvement in the quality of their life, on a county-wide basis with a

major overhaul of the 3809 regulations pertaining to mining.

Mr. HACKWORTH. I don’t see where you would see a major improvement, but what we see is currently the rules and the regulations that are out there that the mining district has to follow seem

adequate. There may be some areas they want to look at, but at

the same time, a major overhaul of it, I don’t see it as a benefit

to the assistance of Elko. What I see is, and we are seen in the industry as mining companies today that have properties all on pri-
40

vate land taking 28 months just to get a permit through, to go

through all the permitting agencies they have to.

You add the tier of the Federal Government on top of it, and it

extends that period of time. Some of the permitting goes in conjunction, but the issue of it is the major overhaul that comes in.

It delays the potential of that mine opening, and they will look at

the economic impacts it has for the regulation to become so severe.

It will change the economics of that mine working.

But the other thing that really changes a lot and I don’t think

a lot of people recognize this is if those regulations become very severe or unduly in their implementation, what it does is it affects

the future of anybody living in Elko County. We have big mines

today that could show production going on until the year 2030, but

at the same time, who is looking for the next mine off of their main

site that they have right today. The grass roots exploration is a

thing that even in my own business, and Mr. Gustin stated, were

indicator species for the industry. And I am going to tell you, it is

off, this year we are at 50 percent of where we were approximately

7 years ago. And this is where I get really concerned.

It is not—the Barrick and Newmont have good land positions,

are finding things on their own property, but who is looking for the

next one, and everybody says, oh, you will never find a Barrick,

Newmont. I think Placer Dome is an example of what they have

done on that trend and that is real close to their own block right

at this point in time, but somebody looking outside of those trend

areas, those are the things we are seeing happen, those are the

areas I have a concern with is because nobody is looking, as they

did 10 years ago, for the next one.

Mr. GIBBONS. So you see with the new changes, there will be a

dramatic downturn in the exploration of new mines, based on the

burden of proposed changes to the 3809 regulations, so that exploration will not be out there to the degree where we will find major

bodies that will be both economically advantageous to not only the

State of Nevada and the people of Elko, but the United States as

well.

Mr. HACKWORTH. It reduces that potential dramatically is what

it does.

Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Lesperance, you talked in some detail about

some of the occurrences that took place, that you have great concern with over the actions of some of the Federal agents. Have you

any personal knowledge of any of these activities, like the destruction or covering of springs, the destruction or covering of survey

monuments, et cetera, that you brought up.

Mr. LESPERANCE. Yes, I am somewhat knowledgeable about surface water rights. I am somewhat knowledgeable about the history

of Nevada, having worked with land issues for over 40 years now.

Consequently, I am frequently used as an expert witness in land

issues. In particular, during the last, you know, about the last 5

years, I have been intimately involved in two major takings cases

in central Nevada against the Forest Service and a case here in

Elko County in which the county was involved in the Forest Service, in a lawsuit, and still is. And most of what I referred to come

directly out of those litigations.
41

All three are still in process, although one is closely being settled

out of court, with basically the cave-in by the Forest Service, so

one, I think, we are going to do pretty good in. But all of those

things I mentioned come directly from the various litigations. They

were also the reason, I feel, it was absolutely necessary that this

county enact a grand jury and they did call for that grand jury in

1994 to look more thoroughly into these matters of some of the

problems between private industry, even county government, State

agencies, and the Federal Government, and that is why I called for

that. As you will recall, we had a successful petition, and somewhat

over a year ago, we did enact a grand jury.

Mr. GIBBONS. Some of your information came directly from employees in the Federal Government who were witness to this themselves?

Mr. LESPERANCE. No, we don’t get too much information from the

Federal Government. They refuse to participate in the grand jury

proceedings. Obviously, they do participate in the lawsuits. Most of

my knowledge has come from investigative efforts that have resulted in uncovering of the various facts and are part of the litigation at this point in time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps, Doctor, I should also ask you what your

Ph.D. is in.

Mr. LESPERANCE. Various sciences, biochemistry, nutrition and

ecology.

Mr. GIBBONS. Now, let me ask the final question here and I will

turn it back over to the Chairman. Have you been financially impacted by 3809 regulations since their inception?

Mr. LESPERANCE. From a practical standpoint, no, it has had

very little impact upon us because we are basically out of the reclamation business at this point in time. Our firm was, I am quite

sure, would have been considered in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s,

to be basically the reclamation leader. From the practical standpoint, we were involved in reclamation projects throughout the

West, final reclamation, primarily writing of reclamation plans and

actual final reclamation, which includes the seating process, so

forth and so on.

Because of my involvement in these lawsuits and as well as my

involvement in the grand jury, there has been significant pressures

brought to bear on our firm and at this point in time we are essentially out of the reclamation business. From a practical standpoint,

therefore, 3809 has not got much impact on me because our businesses are nonexistent. I am quite sure it would have if we were

still at the level of reclamation as we were 5 years ago. It would

have a significant impact.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I don’t know exactly who to ask this

question of so I think I will start with you, Assemblyman Carpenter. You have identified one of the biggest problems that we

have at the Federal level and you indicated you also have at the

State level and that is that due to separation of powers, we don’t

have the ability to do very much about regulations that are passed

by the executive branch. And I have been trying to figure out a way

that we could do this and I have had several ideas and I would like

your opinion on this one. What would you think about every Fed-
42

eral law that was passed, and the regulations that accompany it,

being sunsetted after 10, 15, 20 years. I don’t know the amount of

time, but if we—well, I am not going to try to sell you on it. You

just give me your impression on it. Would you think that would be

workable?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like

to think it would be workable. I would think, though, that the—

if you could sunset them every few years, why couldn’t you review

them and if they were not following the intent of Congress, then

amend that original law to take care of the situation that you saw

that had placed too much of a burden.

It would seem to me that, you know, there are a few things that

make sense, even coming out of Congress and the State legislature.

Most people don’t want to believe that, but sometimes they do, that

we probably wouldn’t want to get rid of, but I sure think you ought

to be able to review them, and if the agencies are going counter to

the thoughts of Congress, then you should be able to change that

statute.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I would suggest that sunsetting them would

have that exact effect, because if the law no longer applied, then

it would be sunsetted. If it did, but needed changes, those adjustments could be made, and if it didn’t, then you would just reenact

the same thing, but that would not put us always on the defensive.

At that point, we would have a chance to have our—you know,

to be at the table and to update even those laws. I know that that

is sort of a radical-sounding idea, but I think, really, when it comes

right down to it, that will work better than trying to figure out how

we can have oversight or how we can really have much affect on

regulatory reform.

As you probably know, the Congress passed a law that said that

within 60 days after a rule was made final, that they could overturn it with a two-thirds vote in each House. Well, essentially, especially with the Congress that is as politically divided as we are

today. That is essentially like having no oversight at all. So that

is a problem and that brings me back to Mr. Miles.

Mr. Miles, certainly I couldn’t agree with you more. You talked

about the separation of powers. And I am going to make a statement which probably comes as a big surprise because I have been

doing more talking than you have, and then I would like you to

comment on this.

I agree with you that the Congress has given up its responsibility

to the executive branch, and I also agree with you that it is appalling that Congress hasn’t been able to reign in this administration,

but I would suggest that this is a lawless administration, and that

very separation of powers that you were talking about, Mr. Babbitt,

having said, since the Congress won’t pass the mining law, I will,

and he has done that on many things. It is that very separation

of powers that if we uphold our constitutionally sworn obligation,

we can’t tread on that either.

Really, the only vehicle the Congress has is asking for a special

prosecutor from the Attorney General. In this case, we have a lawless administration, who is using the Justice Department to protect

them from public scrutiny, to protect them and refusing to, in certain circumstances that are not in the purview of this Committee,
43

but refusing to even appoint a special prosecutor. What do you recommend we do?

Mr. MILES. I think the problem, Madam Chairman, goes to the

very basis of legislation enacted by the Congress. I spend about

half of my life struggling through the Code of Federal Regulations,

and when I do that, each time I read a bureaucratic rule of regulation, I go back and I try to look at the law from which that regulation is supposed to have been adopted, and the authority that is

cited by the bureaucrats and in many, many cases, I can’t find in

the law.

What happens is that Congress naturally, because that is how

the system is supposed to work, enacts legislation in broad strokes,

and in order to get through the political process in Congress, the

strokes are made even broader as the various sides make their

input, and pretty soon you end up with a statute which is so broad

that it can be interpreted to mean almost anything that a bureaucrat wants it to mean and that is exactly what is happening to us.

And I think the only way that we are ever going to rein this in

and get back to the division of powers that the Founders envisioned

is for Congress to be more specific in its legislation, and perhaps

even to the point of Congress, when it enacts a law, adding a

clause to the effect that this law shall not be interpreted as, and

listing the things that you might fear that the bureaucrats might

do that you definitely want to say that they shouldn’t do.

Mrs. CUBIN. I think that is good advice. And, also, I want to support your statement about your research, having looked into how

they get rules and regulations, based on the statutes and you wonder where they ever came from. On the law enforcement regulations that the BLM proposed and subsequently withdrew, our investigations indicated that not only did they base it on really obscure things in the statute, but then they based some of those authorities on regulations that they themselves had passed.

In the case of the bonding requirements, this Subcommittee

asked for documents as to how that—they said that they had taken

public input and we wanted to know every detail about how they

actually arrived at that final rule, so we asked for documents, and

they refused to provide them. The Chairman finally had to subpoena them, but in their refusal, basically, they said that they

would give us the documents they wanted us to see so that they

would have oversight of what documents we would see to have

oversight of them. Isn’t that them having oversight of themselves?

Mr. MILES. That is pretty circular reasoning, isn’t it?

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I have to move on. Mr. Lesperance, you sound

like my husband. Sometimes people think he is a little bit radical,

but I am going to tell you what. I think that you are exactly right

where it is.

While I don’t condone, and I doubt that you do, people taking the

law into their own hands, as is happening around the Western

States with the militias and so on, when we look at Waco and Ruby

Ridge, we have to see how desperate people are and how far the

Government has pushed on them to get them to be that desperate.

What kind of a government has such desperation when people only

want the rights that they have been guaranteed? What reception
44

do you get around when you talk about the things that you discussed here today and submitted in your written testimony?

Mr. LESPERANCE. Madam Chairman, I would like to call your attention to my statement and the attached lawsuits. There are two

attached lawsuits. The first is the Truckee–Carson lawsuit and the

second, which is about one-third of the way through the total document, is called United States District Court for the District of Nevada, United States of America, and Walker River Paiute Tribe

versus Walker River Irrigation District, and if you will look on

page 2 of that document, and for the next eight pages, you will see

a list of names. I hope you see that.

Mrs. CUBIN. I noticed that last night.

Mr. LESPERANCE. There are 1,200 plus names in there and the

list is not complete. I happen to have spent a number of years in

the area and I know many of the people in both California and Nevada, and I have talked with some of these people very recently.

These are honest people. These are people that have been born on

these ranches, third, fourth, fifth and even sixth-generation people,

and they are not going to leave real easy. But when you take the

water away from those people, if they lose this suit, which is inconceivable to me, but if you do take the water away from those people, I cannot predict what they will do.

I know them, I know how they live, I know how they got to

where they are at today, and they are not going to go down real

easy. But it is interesting, I will throw another little wrinkle in

here so you have a better understanding of how devious the bureaucracy is. I do not believe that the Justice Department and/or

the Department of Interior really believes they can win this lawsuit, this fight, with the effort they are putting into it.

Coincidentally, last week, the Bureau of Land Management

started a program in the Eureka Walker River offering to buy

everybody’s water rights. Now, that is after they have been subjected to this lawsuit, have already had to come up with their legal

counsel, which is costing millions of dollars, and now the BLM is

saying, well, you know, we will buy your water rights. That is a

corrupt government, that is a corrupt bureaucracy and that is what

has to be straightened out if this country is going to survive.

Mrs. CUBIN. It has been reported that Bruce Babbitt has stated,

and I don’t recall the convention, but that all of the water within

the borders of the United States of America should belong to the

Government of the United States of America.

Mr. LESPERANCE. He has made that statement. We here in Nevada still operate under the State and perhaps we are mistaken,

feeling we still own the water.

Mrs. CUBIN. We do.

Mr. LESPERANCE. I am quite sure constitutionally, that is correct.

But the other factor that you really need to understand is even

though the Department of Interior may initiate a lawsuit, what

happens next, the Department of Justice steps in. I have had the

privilege of looking at eight Federal lawyers at one time. How possibly can anybody in this State survive an onslaught of that nature? We don’t have the money. Nobody has that kind of money.

The Department of Justice has as much money as they want.
45

Mrs. CUBIN. And as much time as you can pay them while you

are paying your own attorney at the same time.

Mr. LESPERANCE. That is correct. It becomes very, very frustrating.

Mrs. CUBIN. Back to Assemblyman Carpenter. You talked about

the constitutional resolution that was passed, I think you said it

was passed by the legislature. What is the procedure on that? In

Wyoming it has to be passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate

and then in the next general election it has to be put on the ballot.

What is the procedure in Nevada and where is that resolution?

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The procedure in

Nevada is it passes the legislature twice. It does not have to be

two-thirds majority, just a simple majority passes the legislature

twice and then it is put on the ballot, and the people vote on it.

And as far as this constitutional amendment that I was talking

about that gives the legislature the oversight or veto power over

agency rulemaking, it did pass the people, was passed by the people in the last general election, and so now the State legislature

does have that oversight power.

Mrs. CUBIN. And more States should do exactly what Nevada has

done, I think. After the resolution you passed about the bonding

regulations, did you hear from the Secretary or did you hear from

any representatives of the Department of Interior?

Mr. CARPENTER. The only thing we heard was they were not

going to change it, and they confided in our committee chairman

that they were not going to change these regulations, and so that

was the extent of their response, that, you know, so what, try to

change them when you really don’t have the authority to do it.

Mrs. CUBIN. In your face.

Mr. CARPENTER. That is right. And I think, though, that what

these hearings bring out, in my mind, is that a number of years

ago, we didn’t think that the government was our enemy. We

thought that the government was going to do right for us, that they

were going to protect our properties and our right to make a living;

that they really weren’t our enemies. But we have seen, through

the last number of years that there are other people out there that

want to take our way of life away from us, for what reason, I don’t

know. But I think that we are finally, hopefully getting the message to the politicians who have it in their power to change these

things, and I think with yourself and Congressman Gibbons and

other people that we are finally making some headway and we are

going to see, I hope in the next 15 years, a big rollback of what

has happened in the last number of years.

Mrs. CUBIN. I can tell you firsthand that I have seen that in the

Congress, and I know that it is hard, when the only news from

Washington you get is the Eastern liberal media. A lot of times

people out here in the country don’t even know what we are talking

about and the debates we are having and there are more than just

Representative Gibbons and I that care about this and care about

it very, very deeply and it is all of our obligation. We can’t stop and

we can’t shut up. We have to keep talking about it and bringing

this out into the light of day so that everyone can see it because

I am going to tell you, people in the East do not believe it. They

don’t believe it when we tell them these things happen. We have
46

to prove it to them over and over. But that is why we are here and

that is what we need to do.

You were right when you said, I think you were the one that said

that even cutting the money at the Federal level doesn’t work, and

that is right. It doesn’t work because we did that. We did that in

the 104th Congress and you know what happened, we can’t—well,

we appropriated money to the BLM, Park Service, Forest Service,

on and on and on, and where we said that they should spend

money, they didn’t. They spent it where they wanted to spend it.

They moved it to programs that we didn’t want to fund. Again, we

are back to this lawless administration, when you have an administration that doesn’t care about the law, and I am convinced the

Clinton Administration, through and through, doesn’t care about

the law. Then they just spend the money where they want and you

know what they did, they took money away from the services.

I am not certain about this, but like in permitting, and in areas

that directly hurt our constituency, they even targeted at us, but

nonetheless, we have to keep up the good fight. I had one last

thing.

Mayor, this isn’t a question, but I wanted to congratulate you on

the activities that are going on in Elko. It was an all-American city

or one of the best small towns to live in.

Mr. FRANZOIA. It was the best small town in America. It was

based on a population criteria, so we have outgrown that now. I

think it was under 17,000 or 15,000, population.

Mrs. CUBIN. Wyoming and Nevada have an awful lot in common.

We have a city, Lander, Wyoming, that has been awarded one of

the most livable cities in the country as well, and Assemblyman

Carpenter said, which shocked me, Nevada is the most urban State

in the Union. Wyoming is the most rural. We don’t have one single

metropolitan area in Wyoming, I am proud to say.

Back to the mayor, your cowboy poetry week is my favorite thing.

I was not able to come for that, but Baxter Black is one of my favorite guys and if you all had time I could recite some cowboy poetry for you, but we have to check out of the hotel, so congratulations on what you do. Thank you for your testimony.

We are going to take a 10-minute break. We need to check out

of our rooms and get packed up so we can leave so you can all go

have a cup of coffee or whatever and we will reconvene in, let’s

make it 15 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CUBIN. The Subcommittee will please come to order. I would

like to ask that the fourth and final panel come forward. Mr. Leo

Drozdoff, Jack Blackwell and Jean Rivers-Council. Mr. Drozdoff—

is that it?

Mr. DROZDOFF. Perfect.

Mrs. CUBIN. I am getting better—is a Bureau Chief of Mining,

Regulation and Reclamation for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. And we will ask him to lead off with the testimony.
47

STATEMENT OF LEO DROZDOFF, BUREAU CHIEF, MINING

REGULATION & RECLAMATION, NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. DROZDOFF. OK. Thank you very much. We have provided

written testimony and what I would like to do in the interest of

time, and to also be able to talk about some things that may have

been raised in previous testimony, is just briefly summarize the

written remarks, and go on from there.

One point I did want to make at the outset is the State of Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection, is a fully delegated

State; that is, we have delegation agreements from the EPA on

clean water, clean air, across the board. And others, we do a very

good job. We have a very good relationship with EPA in administering those programs. We also administer programs pursuant to

State law, as Representative Gibbons is aware and as Assemblyman Carpenter is aware.

We have very comprehensive State laws in the areas of groundwater protection, and in reclamation, that are not—do not replicate

any Federal activity, but are purely State laws, and those laws

then were used by agencies to craft what we consider to be very

well-thought-out regulations, and the comment has been made a

couple times today that Nevada is the leader in groundwater protection and reclamation and we are proud of that, as being part of

that.

I also wanted to talk a little bit about our existing relationship

with some of the Federal land management agencies that I am sitting here with today. Because of all of the negative activities that

perhaps have gone on recently with the Bureau of Land Management, that sort of casts a dark light on what has been and still is

what I consider to be a good relationship with the Federal land

management agencies in the State of Nevada, both the State office

and the district offices in Nevada, as well as the U.S. Forest Service.

We have lots of things that we work on, it is not a perfect system. You have heard some of the testimony today that there are

areas that need to be improved, and we continue to work on that,

but the fact is, the programs are in place, the communication is in

place to get that done. We have good memorandums of agreement

with both the BLM and with the Forest Service. We continually

work to improve in those areas. We have worked on various initiatives with the BLM and the Forest Service in many areas, including a revegetation issue that, again, is timely.

We don’t always agree, but we do communicate and I think the

final product, when it is put together, is a good product. We work

well with environmental groups and with industry, and just to

show the States level of interest in that regard, we, we, being the

State, actually will fund a BLM employee to act as a liaison. This

is money that is paid to the State, which we then contract with the

BLM, so that we can further improve communications in the areas

of long-range issues as well as day-to-day activities as they come

up, and, again, that is a concept that has been embraced by environmental groups and by industry.
48

And while all those are good things, I did want to quickly touch

on two areas we do have some concerns with. You have heard lots

of new testimony on the bonding rule and you would agree with a

fair amount of that. We think the manner in which the bonding

rule was passed was inappropriate and we believe some of the provisions contained therein were not well-conceived. Now, it must be

said that the State of Nevada supports bonding on all public lands,

but what we don’t agree with is some of the areas, such as thirdparty engineering reviews and this water quality criteria.

Again, Nevada is a fully delegated State and has its own State

programs for groundwater protection and we don’t believe that is

an appropriate area and we don’t believe it was a well-conceived

rule. And last, I wanted to touch on the overall 3809 regulation review. We have taken that matter very seriously. You have touched

on that.

Our Governor has written a letter to the BLM, being quite candid on Nevada’s concerns about that 3809 process. That is included

in my testimony, and I think it speaks well to the issues that the

NDEP and the Department of Minerals, as well as the administrative branch of government in Nevada believes. Now with that, I

guess my time is up and I will close. I did want to touch on some

things that were raised in testimony. If you would like me to wait,

I can do that or I can briefly touch on some of them.

Mrs. CUBIN. Go ahead.

Mr. DROZDOFF. There was a great deal of talk, some talk, I suppose, on water quantity, and now we are the water quality folks

at NDEP. The State engineer and the Division of Water Resources

are the water quantity folks. I did have the opportunity to briefly

speak with the State engineer, who was not able to attend, but did

want me to mention a couple issues.

He wanted me to note in the Humboldt River Basin, 90 percent

of the water discharged is either put back into the ground, beneficially used in the basin or substituted for other uses in the basins.

One such notable example would be in the case of Lone Tree Mine;

a pipeline was built to supply water to a power company and that

enabled water, then, not to be pumped to supply the power company. He also wanted me to offer to provide his testimony, if you

felt it was appropriate. He can do that, or if there were specific

questions we can relate to him, I would be glad to do that for him.

I wanted to touch briefly, there was some mention about Jerritt

Canyon and a Clean Water Act issue and I must say that I am not

aware of a Clean Water Act issue at Jerritt Canyon. I will say this.

We do periodically routinely meet with all members that—all members of the community. We also meet with various environmental

groups routinely, and that issue has—a lot of issues have been

raised, but that issue in terms of a Clean Water Act violation have

not been raised yet. That is something that we will look into.

We do have some groundwater issues out at Jerritt Canyon that

again we are managing. We have a remediation activity, and that

is, again, what we consider to be a groundwater issue, and we are

dealing with it. And I would like to just stress this point about Nevada’s regulations. The good State regulations, coupled with good

enforcement of Federal regulations has really, in our opinion, resulted in some of the tightest Clean Water Act regulations that
49

exist. We incorporate all Federal water quality standards, where

appropriate, and we incorporate State standards for specific

streams when they are necessary, and our permits are reflective of

that, our permits—our operating permits that we issue can contain

these same limitations, so I think they are very tight, but we would

like to believe they are well-run, well-administered and we take

pride in that. So with that, I will close.

[The statement of Mr. Drozdoff may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. Next, I will call on Jack

Blackwell, the Deputy Regional Forester, Intermountain Region,

U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Blackwell.

STATEMENT OF JACK BLACKWELL, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER, INTERMOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. BLACKWELL. Madam Chairman, Congressman Gibbons, my

name is Jack Blackwell. I am Deputy Regional Forester for the

Intermountain Region of the Forest Service. I am accompanied by

Larry Gadt, the Forest Service National Director of Minerals. A

summary of our statement is as follows.

For over 125 years, the mining industry has explored and developed locatable minerals underlying Federal lands, under provisions

of the 1872 mining law. That mining law, and legislation since

1872, make public land available for mineral development. Under

Forest Service regulations, operators are required to reclaim land

to prevent or control damage to the environment so that existing

problems with abandoned mines are not compounded. Before operations commenced, the Forest Service, in conjunction with operators, must establish and document in the plan of operations the

reclamation standards for each site-specific activity.

When we receive a mining proposal, it is analyzed to determine

if a plan of operations is necessary. If one is necessary, the plan

is reviewed to determine if it contains the required information and

what level of environmental analysis is needed. Within 30 days of

receipt of a plan of operations, the district ranger informs the operator of the status of the plan. Once the plan is completed and a

bond has been submitted for reclamation, the plan is approved. The

Forest Service strives to process mining operation applications

quickly, to accommodate the company schedule. For example, here

in Elko County, the Jerritt Canyon mine expansion and the Dash

project were permitted in less than 16 months.

Field units with the heaviest hardrock mining workloads have

also been encouraging a regulatory review and update for a number of other issues. We are examining possible modification of the

surface use regulations and have included this effort in the fiscal

1997 plan of work and that will be extended into fiscal 1998. The

Forest Service is examining changes to address shortcomings in the

areas of occupancy, notices of intent, plans of operation, reclamation, and bonding. This effort is being coordinated with the BLM,

review of its surface management regulations. The joint agency

goal is to have regulations as consistent as possible.

In managing the surface resource effects of operations, much

work remains to remediate the effects of historical operations

which have been abandoned. The Forest Service is working with
50

other agencies to identify and correct these problems. That completes the summary of our statement and we would be glad to answer any questions.

[The statement of Mr. Blackwell may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. Next, we will call on Jean

Rivers–Council, Associate State Director of the Nevada State Office

of the Bureau of Land Management.

STATEMENT OF JEAN RIVERS-COUNCIL, ASSOCIATE STATE DIRECTOR, NEVADA STATE OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Gibbons, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss

the status of permitting hardrock mining operations on the public

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM regulates these operations pursuant to the general mining laws of the

United States and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

I provided the Subcommittee with copies of my full statement.

In the interest of time, I will deliver a summary statement. It is

important to note that minerals production is only one of many resource issues for the BLM in Nevada. About 67 percent of the total

land in Nevada is managed by the BLM. In addition, BLM Nevada

has recorded over 756,000 mining claims, of which 135,000 are still

active. More than half of all new claims filed annually are recorded

in Nevada. About 67 percent of gold production in the Nation is

from Nevada. That amounts to over 7 million ounces per year.

To meet the needs of industry, BLM and other regulatory agencies have worked intensively to reduce the time required to process

notices and plans of operations. In the 1980’s, BLM recognized the

pace of processing these plans was unacceptable. We addressed our

process and improved it. In the last 2 years, the BLM has developed more consistent and predictable technical guidelines. Even

with the more complex plans of operation today, we have decreased

review time. The basic Federal regulations under which we operate

are found in 43 CFR 3800. One provision of these regulations relates to smaller exploration and mining operations on public lands.

These are operations with cumulative surface disturbance of 5

acres or less. These operators are required to notify the BLM at

least 15 calendar days prior to commencing operations. Operators

that exceed 5 acres on BLM public land must have a plan of operation analyzed and approved by the BLM.

When the BLM processes exploration and mine plans and notices

of operations, it must follow all of the numerous Federal laws. In

recent years, Nevada production has escalated from about a half

million ounces of gold per year in 1981 to over 7 million ounces in

1997. New production activity has shifted away from mining and

shallow pits. The ores produced today are more expensive and challenging to process than those mined in the past. In many of the

valleys of Nevada, the ore lies below the water table. To keep today’s mines dry, water must be pumped at rates exceeding 30 to

50 gallons per minute.

This agency works hard to be a good neighbor. One way we do

that is to work with the State and the Mineral Exploration and

Mine Permitting Program. The BLM has reached major agree-
51

ments with the State of Nevada, including two with the Nevada

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The first involved development of a program with the Department’s Division

of Environmental Protection for review of exploration and mining

plans, reclamation bonding, inspections and reclamation requirements. Today, there is a joint review process in Nevada.

Under the second agreement, the BLM and the Nevada Division

of Wildlife are cooperating in developing wildlife protection requirements, especially for tailings ponds and other mine ponds which

contain chemicals used in mining operations. The BLM also works

closely with the Nevada Division of Minerals regarding remediation

of abandoned mine hazards.

Mining has occurred in Nevada for more than 140 years. During

that time, many prospectors and miners abandoned sites without

cleaning them up. The State is helping us with this problem. Last

year more than 100 hazardous mine sites were identified and secured by the State. The Division of Minerals works with the mineral industry and the counties to make lands managed by the BLM

safe once more.

The BLM does and will continue to, practice and use the best

science to address any new emerging issues. This can be achieved

only through cooperation with the State and with industry. The

mutual goal is to provide more consistency and better predictability

in the process. BLM’s hardrock mining surface regulations date

back to 1981.

Recent updates have included use and occupancy rules and acid

mine drainage policy and hardrock mining regulations. Secretary

Babbitt in January of this year directed the BLM to form a 3809

task force which would address shortcomings in the current surface

regulations, incorporate BLM policies which were developed to supplement existing regulations and meet BLM’s strategic plan of incorporating standards.

The task force has embarked on a scheduled 2-year effort to update the 3809 regulations. Issues to be addressed include eliminating or modifying the 5-acre threshold for notices, revising the

definition of unnecessary and undue degradation, expanding environmental and reclamation requirements and clarifying casual use.

Scoping meetings were held this spring throughout the country. We

have made public our summaries of the comments at the scoping

meetings.

I will conclude here. I believe I mentioned earlier I have submitted my full written statement for the record and I am prepared

to answer any questions that you might have. I will try not to exceed my 5 minutes since I have a red light.

[The statement of Ms. Rivers–Council may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Now, the

Committee would like to welcome Larry Gadt. I had no idea that

you would be here. I am delighted that you are. I don’t want to put

you on the spot, but you have heard bashing, including from me,

not at you, but at the system and how it works with Washington

making a one-size-fits-all policy. If you would like to just say anything to the Committee for the record, I would certainly love to

have you do that.
52

STATEMENT OF LARRY O. GADT, DIRECTOR, MINERALS AND

GEOLOGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Mr. GADT. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. And bashing is way too strong.

Mr. GADT. That’s all right. I guess that I view the—not as much

bashing, I guess, I didn’t feel this morning. I heard a lot of good

comments and I really appreciate that. In my visits to the field, I

ask very simple questions of folks, be they local industry or our

own employees of how are we doing and how are we working together and how are we getting our job done. With few exceptions,

and there are very few, I hear nothing but glowing comments about

our ability to work together with the industry to do the environmental job we are responsible for and at the same time facilitate

removal of these resources.

To be perfectly honest with you, if I knew what the size was, if

I had all that wisdom, I would not have a clue to know how to go

about doing that and I don’t know if I am answering your question,

but I don’t know what the right size is. In our case, we got input

from our field to ask what different sizes they feel they need and

we are still working with that, so I am not smart enough or wise

enough in my professional background to determine that and that

is the best I can do on answering that one.

Mrs. CUBIN. We are certainly glad that you came and it always

helps to have people get outside the beltway and hear what happens out here.

Mr. GADT. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Representative Gibbons, would you like to begin

questioning?

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. I would be happy to. Let me start with

Mr. Blackwell, if I may. You mentioned in your testimony, Mr.

Blackwell, that there is a historical trend over the years, up to

1981 regulations that are now in effect, that many abandoned

mines have gone unreclaimed, or pose a serious health or safety

hazard to the public. Who bears the responsibility today for the reclamation of those mined areas and those mines, as you foresee

that?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, I am not an expert in the area and I will

give a brief answer and perhaps Larry can elaborate, but determination of responsible parties on these abandoned mines is tricky

and time-consuming and onerous business, and using the process,

as I understand it, we have come up with who we believe are the

responsible parties, and we use Superfund authorities and funding

to try to fix these up. As you well know, it is an enormous problem

all over the West, the abandoned mines and different environmental problems with them.

Mr. GIBBONS. When there is no direct responsibility to a previous

mine occupant or previous mine operator, has the Superfund been

able and adequate to address the issues that face you when you go

to reclaim or improve these areas? Have the Superfund requirements permitted you to do that, or do we need, in Congress, to

enact legislation that would allow the Superfund to more easily address these issues?

Mr. GADT. I will try to answer some of that. On the national

forestland, we have not completed inventory yet but we have—at
53

present, we anticipate around 38,000 abandoned mine sites. A

small percent of them would actually qualify for any funding from

CERCLA, RCRA any other source of Federal funds. Also, a very

small percent of them—actually, if we could identify the potential

responsible parties, a very small percent of those actually fall in

the category. So we have a very large percent of other areas that

we need to have funding available and we are pursuing funding

available to correct those.

Our 1998 budget that you all just enacted or are acting on includes funding to do some of that. I would like to add, though, the

industry has been very cooperative with us in helping us to clean

up these sites. Sometimes in existing operations, but, also, going

into watersheds where we are trying to improve the overall quality

of the drainage.

The Western Governors Association, we have a cooperative arrangement with them, so with the Western Governors, the companies, the source of the funds federally and so forth, we have and

are pursuing an effort to correct some of these problems.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you suggest, since you said the Superfund

authority only applied to a very small percentage of these operations because of the current language in the law, that we should

address the Superfund authority language to broaden its coverage

so that that money, that vast sum of money that sits in that fund

can be applied to these situations, would you recommend that?

Mr. GADT. You know, Congressman, I am not an authority on

Superfund wording and language, and I would rather not comment

on that right now and maybe do some staff work and get back to

you if that would be all right.

Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to hear personally from you on that

issue.

Mr. GADT. I will do that. Thank you.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Rivers–Council, thank you, and I know you

and I have chatted in the past and had an excellent working relationship and I know we will continue to do so. Let me say that,

first of all, in addressing your comments about the need to revise

the 3809 regulations, do you have a view that there is a concern

within the agency about the increase in delays of permitting due

to the changes that are going to be promoted in the changes to the

3809 regulations?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Congressman, I am not certain that I

could fully respond to whether the changes in the regulations will

necessarily delay the permitting process. When I reflect back on

the 1981 implementation of the surface mining regulations, we did

make a commitment way back then to do a review. We have found,

over the last dozen plus years, that the mining itself has become

a little bit more complex. We are going deeper into the Earth, the

mines are becoming bigger, but our partnerships are increasing. I

can attest that over the last couple of years, the time our process

to complete environmental impact statements takes, as an example, has certainly gone down.

Mr. GIBBONS. So you don’t see any changes in the delays that

would be required for these mining companies in terms of their

permitting from any proposed changes that would be out there.
54

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I don’t see that delays would necessarily

occur.

Mr. GIBBONS. You mentioned shortcomings in the current 3809

regulations. Could you explain what you mean by shortcomings?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. An example of the shortcomings of the

3809 regulations, raised both within BLM and enternally by our

customers, is the 5-acre threshold for requiring a plan of operation

rather than a notice.

Mr. GIBBONS. So what you are saying to us is in these proposed

rule changes, you expect to see an increase in the acreage for noticed operations, from 5 acres, say, to 20 or 25, something, you

know, some increase.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. There is certainly some consideration

being given to eliminate that rule altogether. It would certainly cut

out the need for miners to notice the Bureau of Land Management

when they are going to disturb five acres or less.

Mr. GIBBONS. We were just chatting about the fact if you eliminated that, then everybody would be under the planned operations

then and certainly be required to have a bonding requirement

under the planned operation, if that is your intent.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. That is a potential, certainly. But I believe, until we have been able to review all of the comments that

came out of the scoping sessions, and we had over 1,800 comments,

I don’t believe we are prepared to say summarily that that is going

to be the case.

Mr. GIBBONS. With the new 3809 regulations that you have got

with regard to bonding, there is a requirement in there for the review process of the reclamation to include water, water quality

standards being met. Now, let me ask this question. You would

agree that that is in there?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I would agree that there are references,

very definitely.

Mr. GIBBONS. And the standards have to be met and determined

before the bond can be released.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Well, we are not trying to implement the

standards. That comes under the purview of the State.

Mr. GIBBONS. I am not asking you to regulate the standard, just

a determination has to be made that the standards are met before

the bonding can be released; is that not true?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Congressman, I would hesitate to give you

a specific answer on that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Your opinion.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I don’t have an opinion until the scoping

comments have been fully analyzed.

Mr. GIBBONS. This is on the current bonding requirements, not

future. This is current bonding requirements that the BLM has already made a final ruling and put into implementation in March

1997, requiring water standards, water quality to be met before the

bonding can be released. My question would be, if Dr. Myers’ concerns about 30 years down the road problems will arise, at what

point can a bonding permittee expect to see his bond released if he

has paid into this sum his bond, satisfied and released, at what

point do you expect a bondholder, a permittee, excuse me, to expect

this to impact his operation?
55

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. If I understand your question, you were

asking at what point could the permittee expect to have their bond

returned after the mine has closed.

Mr. GIBBONS. That is correct.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Or the operation itself has. The anticipation would certainly be that upon full satisfaction among all the

partners, the miner, the State, the Federal Government, BLM obviously included, that once that occurs, we would be able to return

that bond money. Now, that can easily translate into a year to 2

to 3 years and currently it is up to about 3 years after the operation closes down.

Mr. GIBBONS. If an outside agency challenged the release of the

bond, for example, the Sierra Club or something to the BLM and

forced a complaint to be heard, saying 30 years down the road this

could cause some irreparable damage, that we should not release

that bond, would your agency then hold the bond until the 30-year

period?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I believe I would certainly have to go back

and rely on my advisors in the office, my technical experts, on the

exact definitions of how we would review that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you go do that for us and give us some feedback?

————

The BLM bonding regulations provide that 60 percent of a bond can be released

if reclamation requirements are met for backfilling, regrading and stabilization of

leach pads, heaps and tailings. The remaining 40 percent of a bond cannot be released until the disturbed area has been revegetated to establish a diverse, effective

and permanent cover and until any effluent discharged from the area has met applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards for not less than 1 full year,

without violations and without the necessity for additional treatment.

In Nevada, BLM is currently coordinating with the State of Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection and with stakeholders to develop guidance to the industry

regarding release criteria of the remaining 40 percent of the bond. Although the discussions are not complete, it appears that based on current experience, release of

the bond will occur within reasonable timeframes, in full coordination with the State

regulatory agencies.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Absolutely. I would be happy to respond to

that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Drozdoff,

I hope I pronounced your name correctly and I apologize. Would

the State of Nevada be able to achieve, in your opinion, its goals,

environmental goals, with the industry, and the mining industry in

particular, even if the 3809 regulations were not in effect?

In other words, if the State of Nevada in its environmental protection requirements, today, had the force and effect that they do,

would they be able to achieve the same environmental goals without 3809 in existence?

Mr. DROZDOFF. I would probably say, no. Just because when the

regulation—for example, with our reclamation regulations, I think

the State legislature takes very seriously the notion of not duplicating activities, and if there was an activity that had already been

prescribed in Federal regulations——

Mr. GIBBONS. Can you name one for us?

Mr. DROZDOFF. Well, one would be perhaps the 5-acre issue on

public lands, because of the staffing needs and because, again, the

reason for nonduplicating of efforts, the State legislature did not
56

want to have DEP do the same thing that the BLM was doing,

so——

Mr. GIBBONS. On a noticed operation.

Mr. DROZDOFF. Exactly, right, so that would be an area.

Mr. GIBBONS. But noticed operations don’t have the same impact

nor the same usage or detriment as a planned operation would

have.

Mr. DROZDOFF. Clearly, absolutely.

Mr. GIBBONS. Under a planned operation, let’s assume the BLM

removes the 5-acre requirement which would include you to have

the responsibility for every operation. According to the BLM, that

may be what they want to do is eliminate the 5-acre distinction,

putting everybody in a planned operation. Would you say, in your

opinion, that the State of Nevada has adequate laws to cover environmental protection and reclamation for any operation?

Mr. DROZDOFF. I suppose we feel very comfortable with our regulations that they exist and I am not an expert in 3809, so I am at

a little bit of a disadvantage there because I don’t know some of

the nuances that may exist. Certainly, from our standpoint, the

regulations that we have, both cross-medium, whether it is air,

water, RCRA, we take pride in, we enforce, and we do a good job

in regulating those activities.

Mr. GIBBONS. I would agree with you as well, so, thank you,

Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I think I will start with Mr. Blackwell.

Will the Forest Service begin proposing new mining regulations

after the BLM finishes with their process?

Mr. GADT. We are in the process now and we actually started

with last November, soliciting input from our field units on what

they felt were the needs, if any, regarding 228(a) regulations. Ours

have been in place since 1974 and so we have received some input

from our field units and we are in the process of looking at that

now to determine what, if any, changes need to be made in order

to address the field concerns. Did that answer your question?

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes, it did. One little caveat here then. I certainly

hope, and I know the Forest Service would never do this, but the

BLM did, in taking 51⁄2-year old input off the shelf and then implementing that as a proposed rule, so I certainly hope the public will

be taken into consideration before the rules are put out.

Mr. GADT. Our input today has been post January 1997. Actually, I think March and April, with I think recent validations as recently as like in August, I believe.

Mrs. CUBIN. Is that in-house input.

Mr. GADT. Yes, it is all in-house input at this point.

Mrs. CUBIN. But you will go out and do the appropriate public—

the 60-day comment on the rules and so on.

Mr. GADT. Yes, right.

Mrs. CUBIN. I want to make sure you do plan to take public

input before hand.

Mr. GADT. Yes.

Mrs. CUBIN. Great. That is all I need to know. I would like to—

let me make sure. I have all these notes, I want to make sure I

don’t have anymore questions of Mr. Blackwell. I don’t see any
57

right here. Mr. Drozdoff, would you agree with the statement that

there is no problem implementing the new bonding rule?

Mr. DROZDOFF. No, I would not agree with that statement. They

have clearly impacted operations and issues in Nevada, the Division of Minerals needed to—or felt it was very appropriate to actually get a new State law in place to expand the scope of some of

its statutes to better accommodate issues that stem from the 3809

bonding rule.

Again, we have committed to work with the State office on some

of the activities, or some of the needs now that stem from 3809, but

they have clearly created more work for at least two State agencies, and so, no.

Mrs. CUBIN. I am not going to ask Ms. Rivers–Council that question because on June 19, 1997, Solicitor John Leshy testified to the

Committee, quote, ‘‘The BLM tells me there is no problem implementing the new bonding rule,’’ and I don’t want to get you crosswise with anyone, but I just sort of sensed at the time maybe that

was an overstatement.

In earlier testimony, Mr. Drozdoff, someone suggested, and I

apologize, I can’t remember who it was, that the State could enforce the Federal law in environment. Would you agree with that?

Mr. DROZDOFF. Only insofar as that Federal law has been delegated to the State.

Mrs. CUBIN. Assuming it were.

Mr. DROZDOFF. If we have a delegated program, for example,

under the Clean Water Act and the MPDS program and there was

a violation of a water quality standard from either a permitted or

an unpermitted facility, the State would clearly have the ability, if

it felt necessary, to take enforcement action on that.

Mrs. CUBIN. And you feel confident the State could recognize

your inspection, and then could have the wherewithal under enforcement to maintain the high quality of the environment.

Mr. DROZDOFF. I do. You know, I think that the State, as I stated

earlier, the State does take pride and it goes beyond DEP at this

point. I think the State, whether it is the State legislatures or

other State agencies, I think the State does take pride in what it

does in the State and feels comfortable in its approach.

Mrs. CUBIN. Just very—you don’t have to be specific about this,

but, generally, are the Nevada State environmental laws as stringent as Federal laws?

Mr. DROZDOFF. I would say that they are at least as stringent.

As I said, when it comes to federally delegated laws, we implement

specific requirements of those laws and regulations into our programs, cross-media, and as we alluded to earlier, there are other

areas that are not even covered under Federal law, such as groundwater protection and some of the specifics of our reclamation statutes, State statutes, that are also included, so I think that the

State enforces, in the programs that it has delegation, the State enforces those Federal laws appropriately and, further, it enforces its

State laws and regulations appropriately.

Mrs. CUBIN. You mentioned in your testimony the fact that a

special levy on miners pays for a liaison person between the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and the BLM to en-
58

sure that the Federal and State permitting is smooth. Would you

elaborate on how that works and how it is working as well?

Mr. DROZDOFF. Sure I would. It is a relatively new program. It

has been in place for about a year, and the liaison position serves

many functions. It serves on large scale issues, such as reviewing

our memorandum of understanding with the BLM and the Forest

Service on ways to improve that, but as Ms. Rivers–Council said,

there are other issues that continually have come up that require

more immediate attention and they are specific on the ground

issues.

At a specific mind-set, that may require that the two agencies

communicate effectively and quickly, and all three of those areas,

the liaison position has helped. Its genesis was—the position was

a 1-year position that was in place. The BLM, the NDEP, environmental groups and industry, it seemed like it was doing a good—

it was providing a good service. Certainly, I would think from the

industry’s perspective, they were able to talk to both agencies at

one time, which was an improvement. And so I would say it has

been a good success, and the point I guess I would make about that

in relation to the entire 3809 process is if it is determined that

3809 needs to be reviewed, the area where some information would

be—it would be interesting to hear whether having this sort of

flexible approach, having the resources to fund liaison positions

and having ability to put forth meaningful memorandums of understanding, I think, would go very far in everybody’s role of protecting the environment, but at the same point, give everybody the

tools to do it in a way that makes the most sense.

Mrs. CUBIN. One last thing. We certainly would welcome written

testimony from the State engineer.

Mr. DROZDOFF. OK.

Mrs. CUBIN. I guess I can go ahead and cover this—well, never

mind. Now, I would like to move to Ms. Rivers–Council, and first

of all, congratulate you and you, Mr. Blackwell, on testimony from

Mr. Drozdoff that said how you worked together, and that is absolutely the most important thing and it really is the only bit of good

news I have really received coming out into the districts and into

the States and I really do appreciate that and just encourage you

to keep up that level of cooperation in working with the local people, the companies and the State governments.

You mentioned the USGS’ efforts to study the hydrology in the

Humboldt Basin. How does this effect differ from Dr. Myers’ work,

the Great Basin Mine Watch?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I really can’t respond to how Dr. Myers’

work differs or has similarities to what the USGS is doing in concert with other partners, universities, industry. I really cannot

speak to that at all, Congresswoman.

Mrs. CUBIN. That is fine. Let me ask you this question, then.

What do you think of the concept that if the Nevada State engineer

does not interpret Nevada environmental laws, water laws appropriately, that the BLM should step in and enforce those laws.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I am not sure I understand if you are asking me for an opinion or if something has been stated in that regard.
59

Mrs. CUBIN. And this certainly, I want to be fair to Dr. Myers,

so if he hears something here he disagrees with, I encourage you

to send in your written response afterwards, but after his testimony, I asked him if my understanding was correct, that he would

suggest that if the Nevada State engineer was not interpreting Nevada water law or environmental law correctly, or appropriately,

that the BLM should step in and do that, and you heard his answer.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I do remember the question now that I

have heard you ask it again. I guess I have not even considered

that the State water engineer could not interpret appropriately. We

do work so closely together, the BLM and the State, and our relationships are intact in such a way that if there are concerns or disagreements, we are able to at least sit down and try to talk

through what those issues are. It would be very difficult for me to

even envision that we would have to necessarily step in over the

water engineer.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. Congress did the 2-acre exemption

under Smacker in the late 1980’s because there was evidence

that—when I say ‘‘did in,’’ I mean they eliminated it. There was

evidence that they were stringing—that some coal miners in Appalachian, not Wyoming, were stringing some of those 1.9-acre sections and so they took that back.

Do you have any fear that if the 5-acre exemption was eliminated, I mean, I have fear that what Representative Gibbons

talked about might happen. Do you have any opinion on what impact that stringing together could have with the 1.9-acre operations?

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I would hesitate to try to compare the mining laws with coal mining because, No. 1, I know very, very little

about coal mining and probably just a fraction more on mining activities. I believe that Secretary Babbitt’s intent is to fully scope

out the impacts of either eliminating the 5-acre threshold or maintaining it.

Mrs. CUBIN. So that wouldn’t fit at all, then. Everyone would just

be in operation.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. I think there are a couple of possibilities.

It could remain that it is a notice issue or it could become a full

plan kind of an issue, or it could be considered along with basic

surface use, and that is one of the elements of the scoping that is

being reviewed, which gets into casual use, and that is basic surface disturbance.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I don’t have any more questions. Just

a statement that I am delighted to see a woman in your position

because, frankly, sorry guys, we need a lot more women.

Ms. RIVERS–COUNCIL. Thank you. I agree with you 100 percent.

Mrs. CUBIN. This will conclude the official part of the—not the

official, but the testimonial part of the hearing. I want to say one

thing. I know that there are people here and people who wish they

could be here who wanted to be able to testify in front of the Committee, and Jim wanted to make this statement.

Mr. GIBBONS. I had it all written out.

Mrs. CUBIN. This is his statement. He is the guy here, he can do

it.
60

Mr. GIBBONS. I just wanted to offer, Madam Chairman, because

of the limited time here today and the number of witnesses who

wanted to testify who had information that they thought would be

pertinent to these hearings, that we offer them an opportunity to

submit in writing, and I would be happy to act as the receiver of

that information to ensure that it got to the Committee and into

the public record, any comments that they wanted to make, that

they feel should be a part of the public record here today. So I

would ask unanimous consent from the Committee that we have an

opportunity to submit written testimony from those who were not

provided an opportunity today, within a timeframe and I would

limit that to about a 3-week period.

Mrs. CUBIN. Actually, we don’t even probably need unanimous

consent. That is the policy of this Subcommittee, although the 3-

week period that you request is longer than is typical. Usually we

have a 10-day period before we close a record, but I am certainly

happy to grant a 3-week period where anyone can send written testimony or comments on testimony that you may have heard and

you can send that either to Representative Gibbons or directly to

the Committee, which is generally the way that works, so thank

you all.

And the clerk, who is the real boss of this place, says be sure to

include that those comments should say for the public record when

they are submitted. So thank you all very much for your attendance here today and your concern about what is going on in the

State and the country and it has been my pleasure to be here in

Nevada with you and I do certainly hope to return.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
61

STATEMENT OF BILL W. UPTON, PLACER DOME U.S. INC.

My name is Bill Upton. I am the Manager of Environmental Affairs for Placer

Dome U.S. Inc. (PDUS). In this capacity, I have direct and oversight permitting responsibilities for PDUS. Placer Dome U.S. Inc. operates three large gold mines in

the United States (two in Nevada and one in Montana) and conducts extensive mineral exploration throughout the west including Alaska. Our United States operations employ a total of 955 people. We employ people in Nevada, Montana, Alaska

and Kentucky.

Placer Dome U.S. Inc. has a long history of permitting and operating on public

land in Nevada and Montana. Our most recent permitting experience is the expansion of our existing mining operations. In Nevada, Cortez Gold Mines began operations in 1969 and is located primarily on public land administered by the BLM and

Bald Mountain Mine began operations in 1981 and is located exclusively on BLM

administered lands. Our Golden Sunlight Mine in Montana began operations in

1981 and is primarily located on private land but also operates on some BLM administered land.

All of our operations are permitted under the requirements of 43 CFR 3809 and

have undergone extensive environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Permitting under 3809 and NEPA has been ongoing at

Cortez Gold Mines since 1990. The BLM completed their first Environmental Impact

Statement for Cortez in 1993. Subsequent discoveries led to the permitting of our

Crescent Pit and preparation of another EIS for our Pipeline Pit and No. 2 Mill Expansion. The BLM is currently completing an Environmental Impact Statement for

the most recent Cortez Plan of Operations, ‘‘The 1996 Amendment to the Pipeline

Plan of Operations, for the South Pipeline Project,’’ which was submitted in September 1996.

In 1993 PDUS acquired the Alligator Ridge Mine, which was originally permitted

under 3809 in 1981 by another operator, and merged it with our nearby Bald Mountain Mine operations which began commercial scale heap leaching operations in

1985. The BLM completed an EIS for the expansion of Bald Mountain Mine in 1995

and most recently permitted Bald Mountain’s LJ Ridge expansion. In 1993 Bald

Mountain mine received the Nevada Governors Award for outstanding reclamation

and just this year PDUS received the BLM National ‘‘Health of the Land Award’’

for our reclamation efforts conducted at the Alligator Ridge Mine.

At Golden Sunlight in Montana initial mine development was permitted in 1981

under the Montana Mining and Mineral Policy Act and the Montana Environmental

Policy Act. In 1995 the mine submitted an application to expand operations and the

Montana Department of Environmental Quality as the lead agency and the BLM

as a cooperating agency are completing an EIS for the expansion.

Nevada and Montana have primacy for permit programs required by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery, Clean Water, and the Clean Air Acts. In addition both

states have regulations requiring the reclamation of lands disturbed by mining.

Each PDUS mining operation has obtained and must comply with the requirements

of these various state and Federal permits as well.

PDUS supports reasonable surface management and permitting regulations for

our operations on both public and private lands. Based on our experience with permitting mining activities on public lands in two different states, we believe the current Federal permitting requirements adequately protect public lands and that any

further Federal permitting requirements or regulation would be of little benefit and

would only duplicate existing State programs and complicate the excellent State and

Federal permitting and regulatory programs in these states.

The remainder of my testimony will center on the BLM’s review of possible

changes to their surface management regulations for mineral operations under 43

CFR 3809. PDUS had the opportunity to tour several members of the BLM Task

Force conducting this review at our Pipeline Project in April and at Golden Sunlight

in early September. The Task Force saw first hand how many of the issues they

are concerned with in 3809 are being managed effectively on the ground under their

current regulations and the strong State and Federal regulatory programs in both

states.

For example at Cortez they saw Notice Level exploration drilling operations and

the controls incorporated in these operations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. They walked over areas where similar activities had been conducted the

season before and which had already been reclaimed and which were nearly indistinguishable from the adjacent undisturbed land. They saw the comparatively low

density and intensity of disturbance typical of this activity. We explained to them

how important Notice Level exploration is to our long term planning and survival,

how it provides the opportunity to gain timely access to prospective areas to further
62

assess their mineral potential before investing the enormous amount of time and

money required to permit Plan Level disturbance (greater than 5 acres) under 3809.

At Golden Sunlight the details of their steep slope reclamation plan including a

sophisticated soil cover, revegetation emphasizing the establishment of native plant

species and comprehensive reclamation monitoring program were observed. The

Task Force observed the importance of incorporating site specific conditions such as

topography, soils and precipitation into the reclamation plan and how this had been

accomplished through the existing State and Federal permitting program in Montana. They also saw the distinct differences in site conditions between Golden Sunlight and Cortez. Unlike many other industries mining can only occur where the resource is located. The contrast in site conditions between Golden Sunlight and Cortez and the resulting differences in their reclamation plans are a good example of

why ‘‘one size fits all’’ performance standards would be inappropriate for hard rock

mining given the wide variety of site conditions within which it can occur.

Pit backfilling including the enormous expense in dollars and resources to accomplish it, the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with it and the loss

in potential mineable resources it would result in were discussed at both operations

with the Task Force. The Task Force learned first hand how this issue was included

in the alternative analysis during the permitting of both operations and therefore

is already receiving detailed evaluation as part of existing State and Federal permitting requirements.

Most importantly the Task Force saw how permitting and regulation of hard rock

mining is being effectively coordinated with State Government in both Nevada and

Montana. They saw how the permitting role of these States on issues concerning

air quality and water quality and quantity is being coordinated with the BLM and

effectively carried out in a manner protective of public lands.

We took the opportunity while the Task Force was touring our mines to emphasize that while they were considering revisions to their 3809 regulations there were

many other new or pending state and Federal regulatory proposals which individually and collectively would have significant affect on our operations and our industry in general. The most important of these new and pending rulemakings include

the following: EPA’s addition of hard rock mining to the list of industries covered

by the Toxic Release Inventory requirements, new particulate standards for regulating dust, proposed regional haze regulations, efforts to possibly narrow or eliminate the Bevill Amendment, and proposed Hard Rock Mining Framework, and the

new BLM bonding requirements. We urged the Task Force to consider these recent

or pending regulatory changes as part of their review.

In summary PDUS believes, as we showed and explained to the BLM 3809 Task

Force, the existing 3809 regulations are working to protect public lands. As new and

expanded mining methods and operations begin the current 3809 regulations complemented by strong state regulatory programs have provided for and will continue

to provide for the adequate protection of public lands. Contrary to those who oppose

mining or would support additional regulatory controls on our operations, we have

not seen any evidence that additional regulation is warranted. The examples I’ve

provided from our operations in Nevada and Montana are testimony to the fact that

current regulations are comprehensive and when properly implemented in coordination with state programs adequately protect public, as well as, private lands.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and will do

my best to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF EVERETT E. GUSTIN

Madam Chairman, Honorable Members:

Welcome to Elko. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to conduct this oversight

hearing on this most vital issue. More importantly, that you are reaching out for

constituent input is very encouraging.

Having been involved in the mining industry in the Western United States for

some twenty-seven years in several different capacities ranging from tramp miner

to superintendent of mining at two large operations, to mine claim holder, to owner

of an independent contracting business serving mining, I’ve been afforded many different perspectives on the evolution of the regulatory regime and political and populist perceptions of the value of mining in modern day life in this country.

But how these perceptions and attitudes interface with reality and legality is the

subject at hand today. The current effort to rewrite through administrative fiat mining rules and regulations that have taken over one hundred and thirty years to

evolve and be refined is at best, the height of bureaucratic arrogance and at worst,
63

a crude, misdirected and illegal power play that simply cannot be tolerated by Congress, the states, the courts or the people of this country.

Stepping away from generalities and moving into specifics, I offer the following

for your consideration:

Why are we bringing forth words here today to our duly elected representatives

asking them to rein in the activities of a government employee run wild? An appointee within whose purported purview it is, to write the regulations, implement

the rules, and review and adjudicate decisions concerning basic individual rights

violate the separation of powers doctrine. The western United States ‘‘subject’’ of

this medieval realm, who thought he owned the possessory title in mining, grazing,

water or agricultural rights, and the rights to make improvements on such, is

dragged through a kangaroo gathering called the court of administrative appeals,

where the legislative, executive and judicial branches have been rolled into one easy

instrument of rule without recourse.

And what is the alleged mechanism justifying this complete bypass of our system

of checks and balances and the separation of powers?: The proprietary interest of

the Federal Government in 87 percent of the State of Nevada. The very Federal

Government of whose mandates include fairness and equality between the States

and of the Bill of Rights for our individual citizens. Where did we go wrong? How

many people in the State of Nevada and the other western States are chained to

the arbitrary rule of appointed and, anointed by some, administrative henchmen

such as the Secretary of the Interior? A position now apparently on a historically

increasing momentum with the inclination to assign itself police powers, ignore Federal law attempting to regulate itself, i.e. the Administrative Procedures Act, and

strip American Citizens of their Bill of Rights when engaging in activity out on the

land that is purported to ‘‘belong to all of us.’’

Justice Scalia writing for the majority in the June 27, 1997, Supreme Court case

Printz vs U.S., instructed us: ‘‘The separation of the two sovereign spheres is one

of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and

independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of

power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’’

To quote further: ‘‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered

by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a

double security arises to the rights of the people . . .’’ and ‘‘Federal commandeering

of State governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court’s first experience

with it did not occur until the 1970’s when the E.P.A. promulgated regulations requiring states to prescribe auto emission testing . . . and on this issue, the Courts

of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues.

The District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both Constitutional

and statutory grounds. After the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review statutory and constitutional validity of the regulation; the Government declined to defend

them and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained. . . .’’

And in conclusion, he wrote . . .

‘‘We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce

a Federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that

prohibition by conscripting that State’s officers directly. The Federal Government

may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor

command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer

or enforce a Federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such

commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual

sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

is reversed.’’

I’m certain that the Honorable Members here today are familiar with and understand the intent of the court’s instruction. So, I ask you today, are Members of Congress ready to tackle this issue politically and legally or will the burden fall to the

directly affected parties yet again?

Mining is America’s financial backbone. The Mining Law is the last great vestige

of acquiring proprietary interest by common law principle, mixing sweat with soil

to earn equity. Mining has made America strong without subsidy.

I’ve witnessed 70 percent of the mining claims be regulated and taxed out of business in the last several years. I’ve experienced a 40 percent reduction in my personal business this year because of an illegal bonding rule implementation. Mining
64

has been under an escalating P.R. assault for the past several years. We try to respond with reason and logic and compliance and what does it get us? More assault,

more restrictions. I’ve personally traveled to countless meetings, raised funds for

lawsuits on behalf of mining, been personally harassed for becoming politically active and openly advocating for mining. Many others have made these and other sacrifices, but we are losing the war. I encourage you to legislate, leverage funding and

even litigate to bring this insanity to an abrupt halt. There is nothing to be gained

by allowing the 3809 rewrite to advance as proposed, and everything to be lost.

You have either heard or will hear from others today that the mining industry

in Nevada does an excellent job under the current statutory framework. No notable

shortcomings are evident. I assure you that an industry already suffering under falling commodity prices, over-regulation, severely shaken stock market confidence and

severely restricted access to prime exploration land will have no alternative but to

look elsewhere. They will continue to take their money, expertise and many jobs

with them.

I understand the difficulties you face in Congress from a political and ‘‘numbers

game’’ standpoint. Perhaps a challenge to this action on constitutional grounds

would be more productive for us all. The Supreme Court seems to agree.

The states are and can continue to be capable of enforcing regulations to ensure

environmentally responsible mining activity. Please pave the way to allow that to

happen.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

STATEMENT OF ROYCE L. HACKWORTH, CHAIRMAN, ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION

Madam Chairman and Subcommittee Members on Energy and Mineral Resources,

I am Royce L. Hackworth, Chairman of the Elko County Commission and owner of

Hackworth Drilling Inc.

I want to welcome you to Elko the county seat of Elko County. I appreciate this

Subcommittee coming to the people and area where the revision of the 3809 regulations will effect. It shows the mining industry, the residents of Elko County and the

United States the willingness and concern you have in getting the facts on whether

the BLM needs to rewrite the 3809 regulations.

Elko County is 10,900,000 acres in size, yet only 28 percent of it is under private

ownership. The other approximately 72 percent of the county is Public Lands under

Federal Management. On the public lands in Elko County the mining industry does

explore for and find many valuable mineral deposits, such as gold, silver, copper,

barite bentonite and gypsum just to name a few. The mining industry creates many

good paying jobs in the exploration of and development of these resources. On average the industry pays in excess of $38,000 per year plus benefits in the jobs it creates. The jobs that are created employ people with PhD’s all the way down to those

who did not complete high school. The mining industry creates good paying jobs for

men and women alike. These high paying jobs do not make their employees depend

on state and Federal subsidized housing, food programs, health care programs to

live the American Dream. In fact the industry and their employees pay taxes for

those who depend upon state and Federal programs just to live.

My concern is the change in attitude toward the mining industry by the Federal

agencies by the implementation on undue or excessive regulations. What troubles

me is the method and reasoning the BLM has used in deciding ehange the 3809

regulations. I do not believe nor will I accept the Secretary of the Interior haviing

the power to circumvent the NEPA process and Congress in changing the 3809 regulations. The BLM does not clearly define a purpose and need along with a definitive

and specific proposed action for public scoping as NEPA regulations require that

every EIS ‘‘briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is

responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed actions.’’ 40 CFR

1502.13. When the secretary makes a statement (in his letter of January 6, 1997)

that ‘‘It is plainly no longer in the public interest to wait for Congress to enact legislation . . .’’ I fear for the future of our country. Nor the framers of our Constitution

or you as duly elected Members of Congress would or should believe that any Federal agency could obtain or try to circumvent the powers given to Congress. The

3809 regulations are not an impending emergency to our national security. So why

should the Secretary be permitted not to follow the normal NEPA process or circumvent Congressional wisdom.

The Federal public land agencies cannot nor should not be given unlimited ability

to create regulations without Congressional oversight. Let me give you a couple of

examples of regulations run amuck by the Federal Land agencies in our county.
65

1. Here in Elko County, U.S. Forest Service employees of the Humboldt–Toiyabe

National Forest, are protected by agency regulations that prohibit them from being

subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. A classic example of a employee being

immune from the laws that every citizen of the United States has to abide by.

2. Where logic does not work when it comes to Federal land managers just following the regulations they are in charge of—Jarbidge Community Cemetery. Elko

County in trying to obtain a one-acre addition to expand the current cemetery. The

USFS comes back to the county with a 20 year lease for the one acre parcel. The

county is in a dilemma. We do not know whether to rename the cemetery the

Jarbidge Community Time Share Cemetery or the Jarbidge–Lazarus Cemetery.

With the current boldness of the Federal Land Agencies in creating new regulations,

I feel they believe, they have been granted a higher power of authority. However,

I do not believe they will be able to raise the dead every 20 years to renew their

cemetery lease.

3. This year the BLM enacted new bonding requirements for claim holders on the

public lands without following the NEPA process correctly. This is just putting more

nails in coffin for mining activity in the United States. We have already seen a 70

percent reduction in claim holders when the $100 holding fee per claim was enacted.

By not encouraging people and companies to look for mineral discovery here at

home we are driving the mining industry outside of our country with good paying

jobs.

I am here today as a County Commissioner asking you to please stop the BLM

from enacting undue regulations on the mining industry. The current regulations

are being handled by the states and current Federal law. Please use what ever

power you have to curtail the Secretary of the Interior for not following the true

NEPA process in creating regulations. Also, I am asking you to revoke the newly

enacted BLM bonding regulation and have the bonding regulations go through a

true NEPA process that defines the purpose and needs in the way the law intended

it to be enacted. In the State of Nevada we have a comprehensive regulatory environment to protect the citizens and the lands in our state.

I thank you for the opportunity to make this testimony.

STATEMENT OF ZANE STANLEY MILES, CHIEF DEPUTY, EUREKA COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY

Chairman Cubin and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Zane Stanley Miles. I am a member of the Nevada State Bar, currently serving as deputy district attorney of Eureka County, the leading county in

the United States for the production of gold. I am here representing the district attorney’s office and Eureka County. My office and Eureka County government are

grateful to the Committee for its decision to come to Gold Country, U.S.A., to hear

our comments on proposed revisions to hardrock mining regulations.

My qualifications to give testimony before you today are based upon my extensive

experience in and observing local government in Nevada, California, Colorado and

Washington State. During the past 20 years I have served as a district attorney or

deputy district attorney in three Nevada mining and ranching counties and as public defender for Elko County where we meet today. Previously, I was the editor of

daily newspapers in four different states, including two dailies in Nevada, and

served for some years as state editor and business editor of the old Nevada State

Journal in Reno. I don’t consider myself an academic expert, but I do know from

practical experience how local government works and should work. And I do know

a lot about rural Nevada and its economy.

There are many other persons scheduled to testify today who are far better qualified than I am to discuss technical mining matters. Therefore, our testimony will

be concerned primarily with the LEGAL effects of the regulations proposed by the

Department of the Interior.

It is our belief that there are no legal benefits—and that there are substantial

legal detriments—to be found in the proposed regulations. When subjected to a cost/

benefit analysis, the proposals fall short of providing any rationale for their adoption. The reasons for our belief are set forth below.

I—THE MINING LAWS OF 1866 AND 1873 HAVE WORKED FOR 125 YEARS.

TODAY, THE LAWS HAVE BEEN GUTTED BY INTERIOR’S BUREAUCRACY.

Congress in 1866 and 1873 enacted legislation intended to further and encourage

development and use of the mineral resources of the Western territories. Those Acts

and other laws effectively severed mineral rights from the basic fee estate, and authorized the public to appropriate and develop the minerals. Some authorization
66

(patenting) was expressly spelled out in the statutes; the laws also generally recognized the Western laws and custom of prior appropriation to beneficial use

(unpatented claims).

Subject to bonanza and borrasca, boom and bust, mining prospered in the West

for a century. The majesty, the greatness of the Congressional scheme was that the

Western mineral lodes were available to anyone willing to tramp the hills and look

for color. The resources were not solely for big business, they benefited the little guy

as well.

For years and years the small miner and prospector could protect his interest in

an unpatented claim by doing a small amount of ‘‘assessment work’’ each year. Thus

he could hold onto a prospect until he could raise cash for development, or sell the

claim to a larger mining company which had the financial resources to turn a claim

into a property with a positive economic yield. In some cases it requires expenditure

of millions, even billions, of dollars to convert a hole in the ground into a cash cow.

A few years ago the bureaucrats in the Department of the Interior decided that

‘‘assessment work’’ was environmentally unsound. Instead, Interior decreed that an

annual cash fee must be paid for every unpatented claim. The result of that ill-advised decision was to drive the small, cash-starved miners and prospectors off their

claims. They may have been able to finance the required assessment work each

year, or do it themselves, but most of them could not come up with $200 or $100

per year per claim. They were forced to forfeit claims, instead of waiting out economic conditions for the proper time to develop.

Ironically, almost all of the forfeited claims in Nevada have been taken up by the

big mining companies, the very companies that Secretary of Interior Babbitt claims

are reaping unwarranted profits. I don’t agree with the Secretary’s analysis, and

Eureka County is pleased as punch to be the host county for giant operations such

as Barrick, Newmont and Homestake. We admire their ability to marshal the billions of dollars in resources necessary to develop disseminated gold prospects.

But it is a pity that the big operators no longer depend on the small miner and

prospector to find mineral resources. And most of the blame for that is chargeable

directly to Secretary Babbitt.

Let me tell you a brief, illustrative story about former clients of mine. They’re

dead now, and I won’t give you any names, although a lot of the people in this room

will recognize the facts. The story actually is pretty well known in our area.

He was a small miner and prospector all his life. He and his wife struggled, sometimes in abject poverty. Things never came together for them, but they did stake

some promising claims. They did the annual assessment work, often themselves

with pick and shovel, to maintain possession. As time passed, she was incapacitated

with advanced diabetes; he became deaf and his physical strength deteriorated.

Finally, they were able to sell some 75 claims to one of the big mining companies

in a deal that would have paid them millions over an eight-year span. Life had

passed them by, however. They were able to buy a new car before he collapsed and

died from a massive heart attack; she died not long after.

I wish my clients had been able to enjoy more of the fruits of their labors, but

at least they received some benefit. Remember, they were able to keep their claims

because they could satisfy the assessment requirements with manual labor. Just a

few years later, and they would have lost those 75 claims because they would not

have had the money to pay the annual fees imposed by Secretary Babbitt. The big

mining company which paid several million dollars for those claims could have simply top-filed and waited until my clients forfeited, picking up the claims for next

to nothing. Naturally, in light of management’s responsibility to the shareholders,

it would have done so rather than paying my clients several million dollars.

Perhaps Secretary Babbitt isn’t evil; maybe he is only an example of the doctrine

of unintended consequences. But his policy of requiring annual fees instead of assessment work has deprived hundreds of small prospectors in Nevada, thousands

throughout the West, of the benefit of their labors, of the prospect of riches. And

that was done by bureaucratic fiat, not after considered, measured debate in Congress.

The Mining Laws of 1866 and 1872 worked, and worked well, until the Department of the Interior came under the control of a group of well-intentioned but illinformed Secretary and bureaucrats who have imposed adverse regulations without

approval of Congress. It is up to the Congress of the United States to take back lawmaking power from the bureaucrats, and revest that precious authority in the elected representatives of the people.

There is a place, more than that, there is a need, in development of the mineral

resources of the West for both the small prospector and the mega-corporation. Congress should insure that there is room for both.
67

II—STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARE CAPABLE OF ENFORCING MINING REGULATIONS; THERE IS NO NEED FOR EXTENSIVE FEDERAL ACTION.

Perhaps the most disturbing current trend in the Department of Interior is the

apparent belief that only the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, knows what is best.

The bureaucrats regularly ignore local government, just as they regularly ignore the

Congress of the United States. It is appalling that Secretary Babbitt can declare

that, since Congress has chosen not to act on some of his pet projects, that he’ll impose his beliefs anyhow by adoption of bureaucratic rules and regulations.

On a state and local level, the State of Nevada and Nevada’s mining counties

have an excellent record of commonsense enforcement of environmental and other

controls on the mining industry. Our enforcement is thoughtful, unbiased, complete,

effective, and accomplished with due regard for the benefits resulting from mineral

development.

From our viewpoint, certain things aren’t really worth worrying about. A good example is Secretary Babbitt’s new regulation which requires bonding for reclamation

of areas of disturbance of only five acres.

Nevada’s land area is 110,000 square miles, 640 acres per square mile. Perhaps

a tenth of that area has mineral potential. Far less than a tenth of that tenth (1

percent of our total area) ever will be subject to surface disturbance. Five-acre mine

sites just don’t amount to much in the greater scheme of things. Imposing bonding

requirements on five-acre sites simply serves to impoverish the small, cash-starved

miner and prospector who is struggling to develop a prospect.

However, if Congress in its wisdom were to decree that all environmental rules

be applied to such small sites, the Nevada Division of Minerals and the local District Attorneys would enforce the laws. We’ve done so in the past in other contexts.

I know of important mines in Nevada which have been prosecuted by the local District Attorney for violation of the Migratory Bird Act or the Endangered Species Act.

Some of us may not think much of some of those laws, but as long as they are on

the books, we’ll do our job.

Generally, in Nevada, our Legislature has seen fit to authorize state agencies to

contract with the Federal Government to enforce such laws. It’s part of our frontier

heritage. If it has to be done, we’d rather do it ourselves. We still insist that the

phrase, ‘‘I’m from the Federal Government and I’m here to help you’’! is an

oxymoron. So, our Nevada Division of Environmental Protection enforces Federal

environmental law; our Division of Mines enforces Federal mining laws; our Department of Wildlife enforces Federal migratory bird laws and endangered species laws.

And in all of those cases, the office of the local District Attorney is charged with

the duty of prosecution after the state offices have completed their investigation of

alleged irregularities. Only in very limited circumstances does our Nevada Attorney

General have the authority to intervene in such matters.

In Nevada, we believe that laws should be enforced by the political entity closest

to the people, county government through its district attorneys. We believe that

local enforcement is much more acceptable to the public than enforcement emanating from some bureaucrat’s office in Washington. The imposition of regulations

AND the imposition of enforcement from above is antithetical to the American experience. We don’t need national police forces. Unfortunately, in the past 30 years

power-hungry Federal bureaucrats have moved in that direction.

Our local District Attorneys prosecute even unpopular laws without fear of favor.

An example:

In one of Nevada’s mining counties a few years ago a couple of migratory birds

managed to get inside the netting which a mine had erected to keep birds and animals out of a cyanide-laden pond. The mining company had gone to considerable expense to comply with the applicable Federal laws. The exploring birds died, of

course. The Nevada Division of Wildlife investigated, and submitted the facts to the

District Attorney. The District Attorney, although the decision certainly was unpopular with mining interests, prosecuted and obtained a very substantial fine in

settlement. I believe it was $50,000, or $25,000 per bird. The exact amount isn’t important. What is important is that the state and local authorities handled the matter, expeditiously and efficiently, without any need for recourse to the Federal

courts.

If I can make any points to you today, it would be these two:

(1) Congress must take its law-making powers more seriously, and sharply limit

the power of unelected bureaucrats to make rules and regulations with the force of

law, and

(2) Where Federal laws, rules and regulations are needed, Congress should mandate that its laws be enforced by the states and local governments if the states and
68

local governments are willing so to do. Direct Federal enforcement is unnecessary

unless states and counties refuse to act. That has not been the case in Nevada.

Respectfully submitted by the EUREKA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, William E. Schaeffer, District Attorney

STATEMENT OF JACK BLACKWELL, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER, INTERMOUNTAIN

REGION, USDA, FOREST SERVICE

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Forest Service’s hard rock mining

program.

For over 125 years, the mining industry has explored and developed locatable

minerals underlying Federal lands, under provisions of the 1872 Mining Law. The

Mining Law of 1872, and legislation since 1872, make public lands available for

mineral development, allow private enterprise to develop and maintain an economically sound and stable domestic mining industry, and provide for the orderly development of domestic mineral resources.

Under Forest Service regulations, operators are required to reclaim lands to prevent or control damage to the environment so that existing problems with abandoned mines are not compounded.

Reclamation must be accomplished to protect other affected resources and minimize on-site and off-site damage, and to protect public safety. Before operations

commence, the Forest Service in conjunction with operators, must establish and document in the plan of operations the reclamation standards for each site-specific activity.

Currently, under USDA regulations, minerals are considered in the overall context of planning for all resources. We have made progress in the last few years in

administering our regulations for locatable minerals, including more thorough documentation and disclosure of effects of mineral activities under the National Environmental Policy Act. We strive to continually improve planning and administrative activities under statutory authority.

Hard Rock Mining Permitting Process

The Forest Service administers 5,000 to 6,000 plans of operation each year for

hard rock mineral projects. The Intermountain Region, of which the Humboldt–

Toiyabe National Forests are a part, has the heaviest minerals workload within the

Forest Service. The Region administers about 2000 hard rock plans of operation per

year.

When we receive a mining proposal, it is analyzed to determine if a plan of operations is necessary. If necessary, the plan is reviewed to determine if it contains the

required information, what level of environmental analysis is needed, and if additional time is required to review the plan of operations. Within thirty days of receipt

of a plan of operations, the district ranger informs the operator of the status of the

plan.

Once all necessary information is provided, the environmental analysis is undertaken to analyze and disclose potential environment effects, and alternatives to the

proposal. The plan of operations may be revised to include any additional items

identified in the decision which were not in the original plan of operations. Once

the plan is complete and a bond has been submitted for reclamation, the plan is

approved.

Generally, projects are processed expeditiously in cooperation with the mining

companies. The Forest Service discusses the proposal with the company to determine how the proposal can best meet the intent of the regulations. The Forest Service works with other Federal, state and local agencies to help coordinate the permitting process and avoid duplication. Memorandums of Understanding exist for program-wide coordination and are also developed for project-specific needs to facilitate

this cooperation.

When project applications are received, the Intermountain Region strives to process mining operation applications quickly to accommodate the company’s schedule,

within the constraints of existing laws and regulations. For example, here in Elko

County, the Jerritt Canyon Mine Expansion and DASH Project, both major undertakings, were permitted in less than 16 months. In contrast, a 1996 study commissioned by the Gold Institute found that the average time to permit a gold mine in

the United States was in the range of 4 to 5 years.

One shortcoming of the Forest Service’s permitting process for mining operations

is our inability to meet consistently the timeframes specified in minerals regulations. The Forest Service is working hard to have these time frames work concur-
69

rently with other mandatory time frames, rather than sequentially. The Council on

Environmental Quality is also working to remedy the problem of inconsistent time

frames through its NEPA effectiveness study.

Field units with the heaviest hard rock mining workloads have also been encouraging a regulatory review and update for a number of other issues. Accordingly, we

are examining possible modification of the surface-use regulations and have included this effort in the fiscal year 1997 plan of work, which will extend into fiscal

year 1998.

These regulations were first issued in 1974, and no substantive modifications

have occurred since. They have provided the Forest Service and the mining community with the means of meeting their mutual environmental responsibilities to protect the surface resources of National Forest System lands. They are intended to

provide that protection without unreasonably inhibiting or restricting the activities

of prospectors and miners.

Current Status of Regulatory Review

The Forest Service is examining changes to address shortcomings in the areas of

occupancy, notices of intent, plans of operations, reclamation, and bonding. This effort is being coordinated with the Bureau of Land Management’s review of its surface management regulations. The joint agency goal is to have regulations as consistent as possible.

As we stated earlier, managing the surface resource effects of operations, much

work remains to remediate the effects of historical operations which have been

abandoned. The Forest Service, in cooperation with state and other agencies, is

working to identify and correct these problems.

This concludes my prepared testimony and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF JEAN RIVERS-COUNCIL, ASSOCIATE STATE DIRECTOR, NEVADA STATE

OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to

appear here today to discuss the status of permitting hardrock mining operations

on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada.

The BLM regulates these operations pursuant to the general mining laws of the

United States and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

The State of Nevada is often called the Silver State. It became a state shortly

after the discovery of the rich silver deposits of the Comstock Lode on the east side

of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Now, more than a century later, gold production

in northern Nevada has eclipsed the silver production of the famous Comstock.

It is important to note that proper management of minerals production is only one

of many resource issues for the BLM in Nevada. About 67 percent of the total land

in Nevada is managed by the BLM. In addition, BLM Nevada has recorded over

756,000 mining claims of which 135,000 are still active (involving more than two

million acres). More than half of all new claims filed annually with the BLM are

recorded in Nevada.

Today I would like to focus on one aspect of the BLM’s Nevada programs—the

BLM’s work with the mining industry. Nevada is the largest producer of gold and

silver in the United States. About 67 percent of gold production in the Nation is

from Nevada. That amounts to over seven million ounces per year. It can be said

that the modern gold rush started in Nevada. Public lands have played a significant

role in mineral development in Nevada. They continue to do so.

Processing Trends

To meet the needs of industry during this rush, the BLM and other regulatory

agencies have worked intensively to reduce the time required to process notices and

plans of operations. In the late 1980’s, the time required to review and approve

plans of operations and environmental impact statements was measured in years.

The BLM recognized the pace of processing those plans was unacceptable. We addressed our process and improved it. In the last 2 years the BLM has developed

more consistent and predictable technical guidelines. In several areas the agency

has taken management steps to improve the quality and timeliness of review. Even

with more complex plans of operation today, we have decreased review time. Some

reviews of major plans of operations and environmental impact statements in Nevada take only twelve to fifteen months.

In coordination with agencies of the State of Nevada, the BLM is now processing

13 major new mining projects, mine expansions, and environmental impact state-
70

ments. There are about 2,300 active existing notices of operations and 335 open

plans of operations on the public lands managed by the BLM in Nevada.

Regulatory Framework

The basic Federal regulations under which we operate are found in 43 CFR Part

3800. One provision of these regulations relates to smaller exploration and mining

operations on public lands. These are operations which cause a cumulative surface

disturbance of five acres or less. These operators are required to notify the BLM at

least 15 calendar days before commencing operations.

The regulations are different for exploration and mining projects on public lands

managed by the BLM that exceed five acres of disturbance. These operators must

have a plan of operation analyzed and approved by the BLM. As a Federal agency,

the BLM has a regulatory responsibility to assure that all Federal laws and regulations are met. The agency must properly analyze the information and impacts concerning any proposed operation. It has a responsibility to disclose information on

mining operations to the public, as the ultimate owners of the land.

When the BLM processes exploration and mine plans and notices of operations,

it must follow numerous Federal laws. These include the National Environmental

Policy Act; National Historic Preservation Act; Endangered Species Act; Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act;

and the various statutes which make up the General Mining Law.

Changes affecting Processing Time

As I noted earlier, development of mineral resources in Nevada has grown rapidly

in recent years. Nevada production has escalated from about a half million ounces

of gold per year in 1981 to over seven million ounces in 1997. A large percentage

of that production occurred on America’s public lands. New production activity has

shifted away from mining in shallow pits with simple leach grade oxide ores. Today’s production comes from huge, deep open pits. Some of it also comes from underground mining. Some mines are producing gold from more than 1,200 feet below the

surface. Furthermore, the ores produced today possess a far more complex chemistry

and more expensive and challenging to process than those mined in the past.

In many of the valleys of Nevada, the ore lies below the water table. In the 1980’s,

these mines dewatered at an initial rate of 7,000 to 8,000 gallons per minute. To

keep today’s mines dry, water must be pumped at rates exceeding 30,000 to 50,000

gallons per minute.

To provide scientific data to support future Federal and State permitting and environmental activities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working as the lead

agency with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on a

water resource study of the cumulative impacts of mining in the Humboldt River

Basin. Major funding has been provided by Barrick Goldstrike and Santa Fe Pacific

Gold Companies (now a part of Newmont Mining Corporation).

Major mining corporations have also come forward as working participants in the

permitting process. They have voluntarily and willingly funded third party contracts

to prepare National Environmental Policy Act documentation. Their willingness to

work with the system, and to pay a fair share of the cost, has been crucial in reducing the length of the permitting process.

Good neighbors, cooperation

As I mentioned at the outset, the BLM has responsibility for a major part of the

land in Nevada. This agency works hard to be a good neighbor. One way we do that

is to work with the State in the mineral exploration and mine permitting program.

The BLM has reached some major agreements with the State of Nevada, including

two with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

The first involved development of a program with the Department’s Division of

Environmental Protection for review of exploration and mining plans, reclamation

bonding, inspections and reclamation requirements. Today there is a joint review

process in Nevada.Under a memorandum of understanding with the State Division

of Environmental Protection, we jointly hold over $375 million in reclamation bonds

and sureties for exploration and mining operations on public lands.

• As part of this agreement, the State of Nevada, through fees paid by industry

and allocated by legislation, has created a BLM-State mine permitting liaison

position. This person works to resolve mutual concerns regarding permitting.

Mining applicants benefit from the efficiency of this joint operation.

Under a second agreement, the BLM and the Nevada Division of Wildlife are cooperating in developing wildlife protection requirements, especially for tailings

ponds and other mine ponds which contain chemicals used in mining operations.
71

The BLM also works closely with the Nevada Division of Minerals regarding remediation of abandoned mine hazards. Mining has occurred in Nevada for more

than 140 years. During that time many prospectors and miners abandoned sites

without cleaning them up. The State is helping us with this problem. Last year

more than a hundred hazardous mine sites were identified and secured by the state.

The Division of Minerals works with the mineral industry and the counties to make

lands managed by the BLM safe once more.

The BLM has and will continue to practice and use the best science to address

any new emerging issues. This can be achieved only through cooperation with the

State and with industry. I have already mentioned the joint USGS–Nevada study

of the Humboldt River Basin. The mutual goal is to provide more consistency and

better predictability in the process. The results include some points in which we can

all take pride. Let me list some of the products of this collaboration between the

State, industry and Federal agencies.

• Comprehensive mine revegetation guidelines and standards.

• Consistent water data analysis guidelines for mine plans and environmental

documentation.

• Guidelines for ecological risk assessment.

• Statewide guidance on how to address cumulative impacts in environmental

impact statements.

Challenges

The BLM’s hardrock mining surface regulations date back to 1981. Recent updates have included use and occupancy rules, an acid mine drainage policy, and

hardrock bonding regulations. Secretary Babbitt in January of this year directed the

BLM to form a 3809 task force which would address shortcomings in the current

surface regulations, incorporate BLM policies which were developed to supplement

the existing regulations, and meet BLM’s strategic plan of incorporating ‘‘standards.’’ The task force has embarked on a scheduled two year effort to update the

3809 regulations. Issues to be addressed include eliminating or modifying the 5-acre

threshold for notices, revising the definition of unnecessary or undue degradation,

expanding environmental and reclamation requirements, and clarifying casual use.

Scoping meetings were held this spring throughout the country. We will be releasing

to the public summaries of the comments at the scoping meetings.

During your stay here in Elko I am sure you have observed that this is a vital,

growing city with a strong economy. The employees of the BLM in Nevada are

aware of the important role we play in maintaining this healthy, growing economy.

During the past decade technological advances in the mining industry have allowed

the region’s gold mines to create this expansion. The BLM has kept up with those

advances. We have reduced the time required to permit development of these mines

on public land. At the same time, we have learned how to address complex, comprehensive plans for mines that are on a scale not imagined twenty years ago.

This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may

have.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FRANZOIA, MAYOR,

Congresswoman Cubin and Congressman Gibbons

I would like to thank you for providing me the opportunity to address you and

personally welcome you to our great City.

You are here today to listen to testimony regarding the mining industry. As a citizen of this City for the past 17 years, I would like to share with you the impact

we have experienced from mining. All of this I’ve witnessed first hand.

Elko continues to be a growing, thriving community. In 1980, our population was

less than 10,000. We now have a population that approximates 19,000 and are projected to reach a population of nearly 31,000 in the next 15 years. Initially, this

growth presented impact challenges to our high quality of life. But through these

challenges, the community began receiving many things that we otherwise may

have waited for, or perhaps, would never have realized.

Growth has been good for Elko, and the mining industry has played a role in our

success. Let me give you a few examples:

•To bring new families in to the area, the mining industry invested in permanent, quality housing developments. This moved Elko away from being a ‘‘boom’’

town in the traditional sense. The traditional ‘‘boom’’ town is one that grows

temporarily, then upon industry down turn, literally moves out. The permanent

investment into Elko by the mining industry insures long-term community sustainability.
72

• Investment by the mining industry into our recreational facilities enables us

to offer activities to citizens and visitors of all ages. Donations in cash and services to recreational projects include equipment, parks, sports fields, and a ski

facility.

• Access to cultural activities and events have improved for all of us. Our museum is in the middle of a major expansion, the Western Folklife Center is a

major attraction for citizens and visitor alike, and the Great Basin College now

has a theater where we can enjoy a variety of entertaining performances. All

of these are benefactors of the generosity of the mining industry.

• Education has been enhanced in Elko. What was once known as the Northern

Nevada Community College is now Great Basin College. This fine institution offers education and training in a wide variety of fields, including mining technology. And we are all watching for this institution to become a 4 year college

in the near future. The mining industry and its employee’s have been great supporters of our college as well as our public school system. A new junior high

is now in use in the Spring Creek area thanks to the mining industry’s major

contribution to the project.

We are glad this industry has impacted our community—it has been a positive

impact on our quality of life. Legislation and regulation that harm mining is certainly not in the best interest of this community.

Thank you for providing the time to me to share the excitement I feel about this

City and the wonderful things we have to celebrate—much of it a result of our mining industry neighbors.
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289