The Mining of the West

The Rest of the Story You are probably familiar with Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story," which is heard on countless radio stations across America. One thing I've always noticed is that the truth rises to the surface and your perceptions change after you hear "the rest of the story." Never was there a greater need to have someone tell "the rest of the story" than after reading Robert McClure and Andrew Schneider's self-styled expose entitled "The Mining of the West," which ran in the Seattle Post Intelligencer the week of June 11.

By failing to tell "the rest of the story," McClure and Schneider attempted to paint a very different picture of the modern U.S. mining industry than what several independent studies and the National Academy of Sciences have found: that stringent regulations, modern environmental protection technology, and corporate commitment have combined to produce, on the whole, an environmentally responsible mining industry. Yes, there have been a few problem mines in recent years, but even Boeing's airplanes crash on occasion, and they are the best in the world. The point being, the modern mining industry has a pretty good track record, especially if a person takes an honest look at the big picture.

At this point some readers may be thinking, "Of course, Laura's going to criticize the series and praise the industry, she's paid to be an advocate for the mining community." This is a fair comment. Fortunately, there is a reliable and unbiased source of information the public and policymakers can turn to in assessing whether new regulations for mining are necessary. In October 1999, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC) published a 249-page report entitled "Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands" in response to a congressional directive to conduct a study with the following objectives: (1) Identify the federal and state statutes and regulations applicable to environmental protection of federal lands in connection with hardrock mining activities; (2) consider the adequacy of statutes and regulations to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the federal lands; and (3) make recommendations for the coordination of federal and state regulations to ensure environmental protection, increase efficiency, avoid duplication and delay, and identify the most cost-effective manner for implementation.

In order to conduct this study, the NRC appointed 13 individuals with a broad range of expertise and viewpoints relevant to mining on federal land, including environmental science, environmental laws and regulations, geoscience, resource management, biology, mining, and engineering to the Committee on Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands. In addition to being technically diverse, the Committee included two members who have worked in the past with an anti-mining group, the Mineral Policy Center, which was mentioned extensively in the McClure-Schneider series.

Prior to publication, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) selected ten individuals to review the Committee's study. They were chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise and included environmental regulators, mining experts, environmental attorneys and university scientists. These reviewers followed procedures approved by the NAS's report review committee with the purpose of making this report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets NAS standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The NRC report presented the following consensus findings and recommendations based on scientific research, comprehensive information, public meetings, field investigations, careful substantiation, and peer review:

1. The overall structure of the federal and state laws and regulations that provide mining-related environmental protection is complicated, but generally effective (Study, page 5);
2. "Improvements in the implementation of existing regulations present the greatest opportunity for improving environmental protection and the efficiency of the regulatory process." (Study, page 6);
3. "Although improvements in implementation present the greatest opportunities for improving environmental protection and the efficiency of the regulatory process, the Committee also has identified specific issues or gaps in the existing regulations." (Study, pages 7-8). The seven regulatory gaps identified included strengthening financial assurance requirements.

 

Since the day the report was issued, the mining industry has been on record supporting revisions to the regulations that address and fill the identified regulatory gaps. The issue of financial assurance was resolved on June 15, 2001 when the BLM announced its intention to retain the expanded financial assurance provisions of the new 3809 surface management regulations. The mining industry is in full agreement with this decision, because it will help prevent problems.

I find it interesting that the NRC Committee looked at the same mines, the same information, and the same history that was available to the P-I. The NRC received testimony from state regulators, the public, the mining industry, environmental groups, Native Americans, and anti-mining activists. Representatives of the Mineral Policy Center, who were quoted throughout the McClure-Schneider series, testified at each public hearing and presented numerous reports to the NRC Committee, the same reports that are cited in the McClure-Schneider articles.

Yet, this independent body of 13 scientists with no axe to grind or agenda to promote came to dramatically different conclusions than McClure, Schneider, and the P-I. The conclusions and recommendations of the 1999 NRC report reflect that the current system of stringent state and federal regulations, modern environmental protection technology, and an environmental ethic within the mining industry are resulting in environmentally responsible mines. This is now the rule. Unfortunately, the series focused on the few exceptions, blurred the line between past and present, and did not contain critical information needed by readers to draw accurate conclusions.

Which brings me to my next point; those P-I readers who have followed the Mining Law debate over the years probably appreciate how little in the way of new information or arguments, either way, came out of the 18 article series printed over four days. But all readers should be concerned that the P-I's journalistic standards have eroded to the point that "hard-hitting" is now defined as inflammatory and sensationalistic reporting.

With the exception of a few relatively recent mining industry quotes, the content of the entire series could have been downloaded from any anti-mining organization's website. The series was devoid of any serious attempt to be fair and balanced. But competition can cause any company, even a newspaper, to compromise its core values in an attempt to influence national policy, as the series was obviously designed as a lead-in to the editorial diatribe against mining that appeared in the Post Intelligencer on Sunday, June 17. It was classic "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."

While it is impossible in an Op Ed piece to deal with every distortion, mischaracterization, and omission that appeared in this four-day series, the following two examples are illustrative. On Monday, June 11, McClure and Schneider write of signs near Spokane warning of the presence of elevated levels of lead and arsenic in the soils along the Spokane River and state, "Toxic goop is spilling into Washington fully 50 miles downstream from the Silver Valley, where North Idaho miners dug silver, lead and other metals from the earth for more than a century." Toxic goop? Though this term does not appear in any of the water quality studies we have read, it is probably a reference to the mineralized sand that was indeed discharged by mines years ago.

While it is hotly debated about how much of this sand may have made it to Washington, the P-I failed to report that Department of Ecology sampling and testing reveal the following: That the water in the Spokane River is well within federal drinking water standards for trace metals and that there is no evidence of an adverse impact to human health from water in the Spokane River or from mineralized sands. In fact, the water quality normally meets the standards set to protect the most sensitive aquatic life.

Also, the warning signs are intended solely to protect those few children under six years of age who live in homes with lead-based paint, visit the beaches of the Spokane River every day for six months out of the year, and eat at least a tablespoon of dirt on every visit. The P-I articles further failed to disclose that a possible source of the arsenic is lead-arsenate pesticide used in the apple orchards near the Spokane River for decades, and not mining activities in North Idaho.

Later in the same article, the authors state, "While much of the damage done by mining in the West happened decades ago, environmental problems continue." One of the examples cited, the Golden Sunlight Mine near Whitehall, Montana, was alleged to have contaminated wells of two nearby ranchers. Let's look at the facts the reporters omitted: (1) the incident happened in 1983; (2) the "contamination" never exceeded Montana drinking water standards and was discovered by Placer Dome in a monitoring well specifically designed for the purpose of early detection; (3) the very low levels of cyanide never presented a risk to human health, and (4) was addressed in such a timely and professional manner that no regulatory action was needed to be brought against Golden Sunlight, because no regulatory action was required. Rather than an example of an environmental problem at a modern mine, the incident demonstrated how an effective environmental program can detect potential impacts at an early stage, and how unanticipated events can be prepared for and mitigated.

Although space does not permit, there is a "the rest of the story" to each of the examples cited.

The series dealt at length on several examples of environmental damage that occurred decades ago, before the advent of environmental regulations and modern environmental protection technology. Again, the Silver Valley of northern Idaho was used as an example. An aspect not discussed was that much of the activity today's mining companies are being crucified over occurred as part of an all-out effort under the direction, supervision and control of the United States government to win two world wars, especially World War II.

As the Nation geared itself for total war, the War Production Board took control of the U.S. mining industry and demanded unprecedented levels of production. Minerals previously imported now had to be supplied domestically. Mining was so important to the U.S. war effort that miners were furloughed and Selective Service halted the induction of miners. Properties were ordered to operate 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. The U.S. government was involved in daily decision-making and the companies had little choice in the matter.

Ironically, at that time, miners were hailed as some of the true, but unsung heroes of that victory. The American people then and today benefited from the successful prosecution of the war effort. Failure was unthinkable, and the cost of freedom was dear. Many of the costs of a successful war effort were immediate and apparent. Others were delayed and hidden. One such delayed cost is the price to clean up the pollution associated with the round-the-clock mining effort that took place from 1941 to 1945. While the mining industry supports payment of a royalty to the federal government to be used for abandoned mine cleanup, there are cases, like those involving wartime mining, where it is fair that the American taxpayer contribute to the cost of reclamation.

There were other notable omissions as well. The authors referred to decades old studies without telling P-I readers that state and federal financial assurance requirements have been updated and tightened, and that state regulatory programs, including Washington's, were amended to close gaps or fix weaknesses in the mid-1990's. Nor did they provide any examples of the numerous modern mines that have won state and federal awards for their environmental protection performance and reclamation activities. And, some of these awards were made by nationally recognized environmental groups.

Last, but not least, what of Mining Law reform efforts? The authors and the editorial board left the impression that the mining industry is opposed to reform and has not been working constructively to achieve changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The industry has been at the table advocating workable Mining Law reform for more than a decade. In their timeline of mining reform efforts, the authors mention the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act covering coal mines, but fail to mention a National Academy of Science study that concluded that the coal mining act was inappropriate for hardrock mining.

Furthermore, they omit the most important and almost successful reform effort that took place in 1995, where industry worked with Congress and other stakeholders in a bipartisan effort to produce a Mining Law reform package that provided a 5% royalty to the federal government, a requirement that mining companies pay fair market value for the land, created an abandoned mine land reclamation fund, and made permanent the claim maintenance fee to cover agency overhead costs. Unfortunately, these very substantive reforms were vetoed by President Clinton at the urging of Department of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt because they did not advance the real agenda of eliminating mining on the public lands.

In reality, the industry is more than ready, willing and able to work constructively towards Mining Law reform. The real stumbling block is hard-core mining opponents who insist on provisions that would put the industry out of business. We hope the public will consider "the rest of the story" as the mining debate continues to unfold. We would also urge our state's federal elected officials to avoid the rhetoric, and provide the leadership needed in Washington, D.C. to develop fair, equitable, and environmentally sound solutions to the issues that surround the Mining Law.

Laura Skaer
Executive Director
Northwest Mining Association Spokane, WA