say no if the benefits of mining are outweighed by the possible impacts from it.

Having those reservations in mind, I would strongly urge this committee to continue working towards mining reform. I think you have made a wonderful start. And, on behalf of the Montana Environmental Information Center I would certainly volunteer our services and resources to continue working with the committee to reach an amicable solution to this.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson, with attachment, follows:]

Testimony of DAVID (KIM) WILSON

on Behalf of the Montana Environmental Information Center

in Helena, Montana

Before the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Representative Nick J. Rahall, II, D-West Virginia, Chairman

Chairman Rahall, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Kim Wilson and I am appearing today on behalf of the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) in support of H.R. 918. I am an attorney in private practice in Helena, Montana, and my practice emphasizes natural resource issues. I have represented citizens groups concerned about mining or proposed mining in several places in Montana. In 1989, I was appointed by Montana's Governor Stan Stephens to represent MEIC on his Mine Permit Improvement Advisory Council. The purpose of the Council was to find ways to streamline the state mine permitting process and improve environmental protection. Surprisingly, this diverse council of environmentalists, mining company officials, small miners and government officials reached a consensus on many controversial issues, and our recommendations were, by and large, made into law by the 1991 Montana Legislature.

MEIC is a statewide grassroots environmental organization based in Helena. I am immediate past president of its Board of Directors. MEIC, which was formed in 1973, is the only statewide environmental organization devoted to a wide variety of environmental issues, and we lobby the state legislature and state agencies for improved environmental laws, regulations and implementation.

Mining has not always been a major issue for MEIC, but it has become our top priority in recent years due to the rapid boom in hard rock mining and associated impacts -- statewide. In Montana, the terrible legacy of the last 125 years of mining cannot be avoided. From abandoned adits along the Continental Divide, discharging toxic heavy metals contaminated water into the legendary Blackfoot River, to the

pits of Butte and the 125 mile mining-caused superfund site running downstream from Butte, to the northeastern corner of Yellowstone National Park, Montanans are never far from reminders of mining's past abuses. Because hardrock mining is currently booming in Montana, MEIC wants to make sure that those abuses of the past are not repeated. We cannot break that cycle until the mining law is completely overhauled.

We applaud Representative Rahall's H.R. 918 as a critical and necessary change in the "current" mining law. The bill's elimination of patenting and the increased cost of holding a claim on public land would go a long way toward righting the wrongs of the past. Granting the Forest Service equal authority to regulate all aspects of mining on Forest Service land will correct the confusion and conflicts which exist in permitting on Forest lands. And the reclamation and "citizen suit" provisions will help to ensure both that the laws are followed and that the damage from mining is minimized.

However, because we have seen the legacy of the past abuses in Montana, and because we see the likelihood for further abuses in the current mining boom, we do not believe H.R. 918 goes far enough. I will focus on one particular shortcoming which I believe needs to be remedied before real change will occur. Land managers must have the authority to consider mining on equal terms with other multiple uses. That authority must include the authority to "say no" to a mining proposal. H.R. 918 does not contain that authority, and for that reason falls far short of the needed reform.

Section 201 (b)(4) of H.R. 918 only allows a land manager to deny a proposed plan of operations if mining has not yet been considered under a land use plan. Once a land management agency has considered, in its land use plan the factors listed in Section 203 of the bill, then a land manager may not deny a permit.

MEIC objects to this provision, and urges the Subcommittee to amend the bill to give land managers the authority to "say no". I say this for the following reasons. First, land use plans (and I will use forest plans as an example because I am familiar with them), are broad and general documents. There is no way an amendment to a forest plan for a 2 million acre forest, most of which would be "subject to the location of mining claims" (Section 203(a) of the bill) would be able to analyze all reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences (Section 203(d) of the bill) of an unidentified future mine at a specific site. The best type of analysis of environmental consequences is one

that is site and project specific. One which takes into account the specifics of the proposal i.e whether it involves cyanide and the specifics of the site i.e. proximity to ground and surface water is the only analysis which will achieve the goals of the bill.

Second, while land use plans currently identify areas where certain other resource use will be emphasized, the plans still require site specific analysis of specific proposals within that area. For instance, forest plans contain timber prescriptions areas where timber harvesting is emphasized. If, however, a timber harvest in that area is proposed which would clearcut a riparian zone, destroying water quality, the land manager has the power to deny permission for the project. Similar restrictions apply to grazing, oil and gas, recreation, and all other uses of the forest. By not allowing the land managers to make decisions on the merits of a mining plan on a case by case basis, H.R. 918 perpetuates the special treatment currently accorded to mining. There is simply no legitimate reason mining, and its use of public land, should be treated any differently than other

resources.

Third, there are places and circumstances where mining should not be allowed. If an underfunded mining company submits a woefully inadequate plan to mine in an environmentally sensitive area, why in the world should the land manager have his/her hands tied by only being able to approve or modify the plan? Why shouldn't they have authority to deny the application? I have enclosed an editorial from the Missoulian, Western Montana's leading daily newspaper, supporting change in the law. It quite eloquently addresses my last two points.

Thus, under H.R. 918 as drafted, the mining industry would continue to have a virtual free hand to develop in areas considered for mining under a land use plan. While this situation may be acceptable with a responsible mining company -- and many in Montana take a real responsibility for their actions it can be catastrophic when you have

an irresponsible miner or company.

Land managers are well aware of the current limitations on their authority. Recently, I represented a group of citizens in Chester, Montana concerned about proposed gold exploration in the Sweetgrass Hills in north-central Montana. The Sweetgrass Hills are a small, forested range which juts up 3000 feet from the surrounding plains. They have not been "withdrawn" from mining under the current law. They are the only landmark on the horizon for many, many miles, and in

this dry region, they are an important source of water for surrounding communities. They were described by one Native American speaker at a public hearing as an "oasis in the desert." Not surprisingly, Native Americans from both sides of the U.S./Canadian border consider the Hills sacred.

In 1989, a mining company proposed an exploration project in the Hills, and a public hearing was put on by the BLM in Chester. During the course of the meeting, several citizens raised questions about what would happen if the exploration was successful and the company wanted to mine. What would happen if the company wanted to strip mine? The BLM official claimed that while some controls could be placed on the method of and access to the mine, they would be powerless to stop it. Even if a company wanted to remove the top of East Butte? Yes, even if they wanted to remove the top of East Butte.

Fortunately for the folks in Chester, that season's exploration proved unsuccessful. There is no doubt, though that the same or another company will be back, wanting to mine these sacred hills. Those people's fears are not groundless, either. One hundred miles east of Chester, Pegasus Gold has removed a mountain and replaced it with a large open pit in its Zortman-Landusky complex in the Little Rocky Mountains. There, one billion gallons of cyanide contaminated water will remain in perpetuity in decommissioned heaps.

The folks in Chester can also turn their eyes 200 miles southward to reinforce their concerns. There, the Golden Sunlight Mine is "mining" - i.e. removing -- another mountain in the Deerlodge National Forest. The cyanide heap leaches there have already leaked causing numerous cattle fatalities and destroying domestic water supplies. Despite this, the company now wants to expand. Many questions have been raised by the state and federal agencies in their own environmental assessments. Yet despite these known and anticipated problems, the Golden Sunlight will be allowed to continue eating up Bull Mountain and spitting it out in huge unsightly and dangerous tailings piles. And the same would be the case under H.R. 918, assuming the land use plan considered the area suitable for mineral development. Yet, how can a general land use plan - completed in advance of a specific project - anticipate all possible environmental consequences of a project? It can't.

Thirty miles south of the Golden Sunlight, a small mining company has proposed opening a mine, also in the Deerlodge Forest, at an alpine site at an elevation close to 10,000 feet in the Tobacco Root