Greater Yellowstone Coalition P.O. BOX 1874 ● BOZEMAN MT 59771 ● (406)586-1593 FAX (406) 586-0851 Ecosystem Threat from Mining Noranda Submits Plans to Mine Above Yellowstone Watersheds fter three years of extensive and damaging exploration, Crown Butte Mines and Noranda Minerals have submitted an Application for Operating Permit (AOP) to develop the New World Project at Cooke City, Montana. At stake is the protection of the pristine headwaters of three major tributaries of the Yellowstone River system, survival of a crucial component of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, preservation of the spectacular Clarks Fork-Sunlight Basin area, the sustainability of a visitor-oriented economy in a tiny but important gateway community, and the quality of the public's experience in Yellowstone National Park. The proposal is to mine gold, silver, and copper from Fisher and Henderson mountains, which lie a scant two miles from Yellowstone National Park, between the Cooke City-Silver Gate area and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to the north. This area, known as the New World Mining District, has been the scene of mining activity since the 1880s. Past mining has resulted in two small open pits, the McLaren and Como deposits, and several underground portals. Some of the ground is patented that is, privately owned and now controlled by Crown Butte Mining Company, with whom Noranda has a partnership agreement. This patenting process has occurred over the years under provisions of the Mining Law of 1872. Most of the disturbance now visible is the result of modern road building, surface mining, and subsurface exploration activities. Cumulatively, the impacts associated with the 110 years of activity have taken their toll on water, habitat, and visual quality. Raw scars from the pit sites and sterile streams running down orange colored channels reflect the legacy of uncontrolled exploitation of these once public lands. The development would further mine out the open pit areas on Fisher Mountain and expand the surface disturbance well beyond the current boundaries. Both pits would be characterized by a terraced "high wall" area and a system of haul roads developed for waste rock transport to a site at the head of Fisher Creek, the headwaters of the recently designated Wild and Scenic Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone. This sacrifice of resource and beauty The Proposal for a few thousand pounds of gold is startling to the casual observer. Yet the remains of the project area can still support grizzly bears and mountain sheep and a variety of other creatures. The county road loop, which climbs to nearly 10,000 feet over Daisy and Lulu passes, offers a unique opportunity for a primitive motorized excursion to the edge of the vast Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area. In the winter, the deep snowpack contributes to a mix of skiing and snowmobiling that is the focus of an active economy for the Cooke City area. The proposed mine, mill, tailings pond, and other features would finish off the area for good. The recreation amenities in this area would be usurped for the indeterminate life of the project, while the wildlife and environmental resources would be forever compromised. The underground portion of the proposal will consist of tunnels and cavities under Henderson Mountain, accessed from a point near the Fisher Creek mill site and on the northeastern flanks of Henderson Mountain. As the mining efforts reach close to the surface there is an increased probability of subsidence (collapsing of the ground surface) near the summit of Henderson Mountain. Recycled Paper Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Wilson. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, I am Kim Wilson, and I am here today on behalf of the Montana Environmental Information Center in Helena. I am an attorney in private practice in Helena, Montana, and I specialize in natural resource issues. I am the most recent past president of the Montana Environmental Information Center, which is a grassroots lobbying and environmental organization based in Helena with approximately 1,500 members. One of the greatest concerns of MEIC at this time is the boom in mining in Montana. That is why we have worked so hard at the State legislature and now at the national level to see some reform in the mining laws. For those reasons, we applaud you, Representative Rahall, for your efforts to do just that, to reform the mining law, and we heartily support H.R. 918. Mr. WILSON. I may say that I am somewhat surprised and pleased to hear the fact that there seems to be general agreement among both sides of the issue today that there is need for some reform. I find that very encouraging because the dialogue, if you will, that we have been hearing in Montana has not as of yet reached even that point, and I think that that is good to hear. I would like to spend my time today talking about one major reservation that we have with the bill as it is drafted, and I would urge the committee to look at ways to correct that, and that is the very issue that has been coming up time and again on this panel, and that is the power or the discretion in the land managers and what criteria might be used to allow to amend or to deny permis sion to mine. H.R. 918, as drafted, doesn't give the land manager the discretion to consider, to even consider denying a permit or an application if those lands have been considered under a land-use plan as outlined in section 201 and section 203. I believe in my concerns here, I somewhat share the concerns that were voiced by Mr. Leonard with the Forest Service, and that is, that the real place to be looking at the possible effects of mining is not at the programmatic level, not back when you are doing the planning and in the forest planning process, although it should be looked at there, but it also needs to be looked at on a site-specific basis. In discussing this I am going to use the forest planning process as an example, and I will be referring to that because that is where my experience has been in land-use planning. I spent 18 months several years ago working through and reaching an agreement between the timber industry and environmental groups in Montana settling the Deer Lodge National Forest appeal, and the agreement there is something that, again, was a way where the two sides were able to reach some middle ground. Through that work I became very familiar with the forest plans and the forest planning process. Our concerns about the way sections 203 and 201 are set up are threefold. First of all, if mining is only going to be considered, in other words, if the confirm or deny decision can only be made at the preliminary land-use planning process, then it is my view that certainly section 203 as it is drafted does not contain adequate criteria to make the decision on whether a certain area is or is not appropriate for mining. However, my real view is that mining should not only be considered in that early planning process anyway. Forest plans, and I presume the BLM equivalent, are very broad and general documents. They cannot examine either site-specific impacts or project-specific impacts; in other words, there is no way that the planner back in the regional office or in the supervisor's office has a crystal ball. I mean he may be able to tell what is on the ground, but he is certainly not going to have a crystal ball about what type of specific proposal might happen at a specific area. I think that the forest plan is too broad and general a venue to be relying on solely for those decisions. We believe that site-specific analysis at the time a project is proposed is where the ultimate decision on whether to confirm or deny mining in a certain area should be made, and it is my view that that site-specific analysis, which to a certain extent does go on today, is somewhat meaningless if the land managers do not have the ultimate power to deny a permit if it is not in conformance with other values. My third point is that ultimately section 201 and section 203 as drafted will result in a situation where mining continues to receive special treatment. As an example, forest plans currently have what are called prescriptions for timber management, and they have prescriptions for other things but I will use timber management as an example, an area where timber management, logging, is going to be emphasized, and there are specific criteria laid out in the forest plan outlining first of all that timber is going to be emphasized, but second of all, that there are other resources that will have to be considered. That is in the forest plan. But when you get down to the project level the land manager still has to decide if that specific project is in conformance with the rest of the forest plan. It is my view that mining should have to go through the same process, basically being examined in a general sense at the programmatic level and in a site-specific sense. If that does not occur, we think that mining will continue to be subject to less scrutiny than other resources, and we don't think that that is right. As a final note here, I would just like to say that, in response to some testimony I heard earlier, it is not my impression-it is my impression that the ACEC-the area of critical environmental concern that the BLM uses does not prohibit mining across the board. That it like a strong prescription draws all sorts of restrictions on mining but I do not believe that it prohibits mining entirely. One of the examples that I put in my written statement was the Sweetgrass Hills, which was under BLM jurisdiction. That was an area where mining and exploration was proposed, and it was in an ACEC area and the exploration went ahead despite that. I may be wrong on that, but I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee. In conclusion, we believe that section 201 as it is drafted, 201(b)(4), will continue to tie the land managers' hands once the determination has been made that an area is subject to mining. The bottom line, I think, and it is probably sounding cliched to you at this point, but I think land managers must have the discretion to |