Committee Publication No. 95-25
|
|
Legislative History Committee Publication No. 95-25 |
| |
MEMORANDUM OF THE CHAIRMAN
2 To Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
2 For almost 6 years Congress has labored diligently to enact legislation
designed to bring order out of the chaotic and emotion-laden issue of the
surface mining of coal. Manifestly, there is need for establishing uniform
national environmental protection performance standards for the coal industry.
The time is long overdue when under State law operators may be permitted to
cast overburden downslope, leave ugly highwalls behind, pollute streams with
acid drainage, ruin valuable farmlands, or in other ways add to the
environmental degradation of areas on or near the operation. Equally important
is the setting up of a strict management system for federally-owned coal
deposits. Taken together, this is a task only Congress can accomplish.
2 Although twice frustrated in its attempt to enact balanced and equitable
legislation when President Ford repeatedly vetoed the surface mining reclamation
bill, and although confronted with unverified claims of the Ford administration
as to coal production losses, rise in unemployment, and increase in utility
rates which would allegedly be the consequences of the legislation, if passed,
Congress is preparing once again to send a bill to the White House.
2 Fortunately, much of the previous atmosphere of intense conflict has
vanished with President Carter's assurance that he supports a strong surface
mine bill. Nevertheless, ther remains a contention that the coalproducing
States have brought the stringency of their reclamation laws and the level of
their enforcement into line with requirements of the proposed Federal bill, thus
obviating the necessity for a national surface mining reclamation law.
2 The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, formerly the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee, has carried the burden of preparing surface mining
reclamation legislation, under the dedicated and able leadership of the chairman
of the Public Lands and Resources Subcommittee, Senator Lee Metcalf.
2 In order to examine the validity of this claim, Senator Metcalf in
November 1976 circulated a questionnaire to all the relevant State regulatory
agencies requesting data as to the adequacy of their reclamation laws and
regulations and the effectiveness of their enforcement, based upon standards set
forth in the bill which was then before Congress, H.R. 13950.
2 The States' response, while slow in coming, is very informative. I
believe committee members will find this compilation, as prepared by the
Congressional Research Service, helpful during their consideration of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
2 HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
{3} THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington,
D.C., April 25, 1977.
3 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, The Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
3 DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: In response to your request, we are submitting a
study of the scope and effectiveness of State surface mining laws.
3 The report includes an analysis of information provided by the States in
response to a survey conducted by the committee, along with a comparison of
State laws with proposed Federal legislation and an analysis of recent policy
reports on State surfacing mining laws.
3 The study was prepared by Duane A. Thompson and David M. Lindahl, Analysts
in our Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. The selected
bibliography was prepared by the Library Services Division.
3 We hope this study adequately serves your committee's needs as well as
those of other committees and Members of Congress interested in the legislation
related to the regulation of surface coal mining.
3 Sincerely, GILBERT GUDE, Director.
INTRODUCTION
{4} The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recently
surveyed State regulations of mining. To do so, the appropriate departments of
the State governments were sent questionnaires that sought information
concerning the abandoned lands reclamation programs of the States, the adequacy
of their mine inspections, the effectiveness of citizen complaints about alleged
violations of the mining laws, the extent to which States enforce their mining
laws, and the sufficiency of such measures as bonding that States use to promote
reclamation of mined lands. The following report reviews and presents the
information obtained by the survey. Moreover, the following report attempts to
provide additional information such as a legislative history of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act, current legislation that would provide
Federal law to govern surface mining, and background information. Taken as a
whole, this report is designed to assist the Committee in determining whether or
not Federal legislation to regulate surface mining is necessary and, if it is,
what that legislation might contain. Finally, under the policies established by
Congress, CRS cannot and does not take any position in favor of or against H.R.
13950, H.R. 2 (which has replaced it), or any other bill now being considered by
Congress that would affect mining in the United States.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT
3 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act has received major
attenion from the last three Congresses. During the 93rd Congress, First
Session, extensive hearings were held in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate. Using the information offered by representatives of the coal mining
industry, environmental groups, and various Federal, state, and local government
agencies, the Congress drafted compromise legislation in the form of S. 425.
This piece of legislation was pocket vetoed by the President at the close o the
93d Congress.
3 On February 6, 1975, the President transmitted to Congress, a letter which
proposed 27 suggested changes in the legislation, 8 of which were considered
critical by the administration. The objections offered by the administration
and the reaction of the Congress to the suggestions included the following:
3 [Selected from "Conference Report - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1975"]
3 CRITICAL CHANGES
3 1. Citizen suits. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 would allow
citizen suits against any person for a 'violation of the provisions of this
Act'. * * * Citizen suits are retained in the Administration bill, but are
modified * * * to provide for suits against (1) the regulatory agency to enforce
the act, and (2) mine operators where violations of regulations or permits are
alleged."
3 Conference Report - Section 520: Modifies language to meet Administration
objection.
3 2. Stream siltation. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 would
prohibit increased stream siltation - a requirement which would be extremely
difficult or impossible to meet and thus could preclude mining activities. In
the Administration's bill, this prohibition is modified to require the maximum
practicable limitation on siltation.
3 Conference Report - Section 515(b)(11)(B): Clarifies language so as to
avoid interpretation feared by Administration.
3 3. Hydrologic disturbances. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425
would establish absolute requirements to preserve the hydrologic integrity of
alluvial valley floors - and prevent offsite hydrologic disturbances. * * * In
the Administration's bill, this provision is modified to require that any such
disturbances be prevented to the maximum extent practicable so that there will
be a balance between environmental protection and the need for coal production."
3 Conference Report - Section 515(b)(10)(F): Modifies language to avoid
"absolute requirements" objected to by Administration.
3 4. Ambiguous terms. Administration Recommendation : "In the case of S.
425, there is great potential for court interpretations of ambiguous provisions
which could lead to unnecessary or unanticipated adverse production impact. The
Administration's bill provides explicit authority for the Secretary to define
ambiguous terms so as to clarify the regulatory process and minimize delays due
to litigation."
{4} Conference Report : Does not adopt Administration recommendation.
4 5. Abandoned land reclamation fund. Administration Recommendation : "S.
425 would establish a tax of 25~ per ton for underground mined coal and 35~ per
ton for surface mined coal to create a fund for reclaiming previously mined
lands that have been abandoned without being reclaimed, and for other
purposes: * * * The Administration bill would set the tax at 10~ per ton for all
coal * * * which would be ample."
4 "Under S. 425 funds accrued from the tax on coal could be used by the
Federal government (1) for financing construction of roads, utilities, and
public buildings on reclaimed mined lands, and (2) for distribution to States to
finance roads, utilities and public buildings in any area where coal mining
activity is expanding. * * * The Administration bill does not provide authority
for funding facilities."
4 Conference Report - Section 401(d): Reduces reclamation fee on underground
mined coal to 15~ per ton. Does not restrict the scope of the program.
4 6. Impoundments. Administration Recommendation: "S 425 could prohibit or
unduly restrict the use of most new or existing impoundments, even though
constructed to adequate safety standards. In the Administration's bill, the
provisions on location of impoundments have been modified to permit their use
where safety standards are met.
4 Conference Report - Section 515(b)(13): Provides that Corps of Engineers
will set location standards for impoundments, and thus eliminates language
objected to by Administration.
4 7. National forests. Administration Recommendation: "S. 425 would
prohibit mining in the national forests - a prohibition which is inconsistent
with multiple use principles and which could unnecessarily lock up 7 billion
tons of coal reserves. * * * In the Administration bill, this provision is
modified to permit the Agriculture Secretary to waive the restriction in
specific areas when multiple resource analysis indicates that such mining would
be in the public interest."
4 Conference Report - Section 522(e)(2): Does not adopt Administration
recommendations.
4 8. Special unemployment provisions. Administration Recommendation :
"The unemployment provision of S. 425(1) would cause unfair discrimination among
classes of unemployed persons, (2) would be difficult to administer, and (3)
would set unacceptable precedents including unlimited benefit terms, and weak
labor force attachment requirements. This provision of S. 425 is inconsistent
with Public Law 93-567 and Public Law 93-572 which were signed into law on
December 31, 1974, and which significantly broaden and lengthen general
unemployment assistance. The Administration's bill does not include a special
unemployment provision."
4 Conference Report : Adopts Administration recommendation.
4 "OTHER IMPORTANT CHANGES"
4 1. Antidegradation. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 contains a
provision which, if literally interpreted by the courts, could lead to a
non-degradation standard similar to that experienced with the Clean Air Act. *
* * Changes are included in the Administration bill to overcome this problem.'
4 Conference Report - Section 102(a): Adopts Administration recommendation
4 2. Reclamation fund. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 would
authorize the use of funds to assist private landowners in reclaiming their
lands mined in past years. Such a program would result in windfall gains to the
private landowners who would maintain title to their lands while having them
reclaimed at Federal expense. The Administration bill deletes this provision."
4 Conference Report - Section 404: Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
4 3. Interim program timing. Administration Recommendation: "Under S. 425,
mining operations could be forced to close down simply because the regulatory
authority had not completed action on a mining permit, through no fault of the
operator. The Administration bill modifies the timing requirements of the
interim program to minimize unnecessary delays and production losses."
4 Conference Report - Sections 504 and 506: Includes provisions designed to
eliminate possibility of shutdown.
4 4. Federal Preemption Administration Recommendation: "The Federal interim
program role provided in S. 425 could (1) lead to unnecessary Federal
preemption, displacement or duplication of State regulatory activities, and (2)
discourage States from assuming an active permanent regulatory role.* * * In the
Administration bill, this requirement is revised to limit the Federal
enforcement role during the interim program to situations where a violation
creates an imminent danger to publc health and safety or significant
environmental harm."
5 Conference Report - Section 502: Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 5. Surface owner consent. Administration Recommendation : "The
requirement in S. 425 for surface owner's consent would substantially modify
existing law by transferring to the surface owner coal rights that presently
reside with the Federal government. S. 425 would give the surface owner the
right to "veto" the mining of Federally owned coal or possibly enable him to
realize a substantial windfall. In addition, S. 425 leaves unclear the rights
of prospectors under existing law. The Administration is opposed to any
provision which could (1) result in a lock up of coal reserves through surface
owner veto or (2) lead to windfalls. In the Administration's bill surface owner
and prospector rights would continue as provided in existing law."
5 Conference Report - Section 714: Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 6. Federal lands. Administration Recommendation: "S 425 would set an
undersirable precedent by providing for State control over mining of Federally
owned coal on Federal lands. In the Administrations bill, Federal Regulations
governing such activities would not be preempted by State regulations.'
5 Conference Report - Section 523: Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 7. Research centers. Administration Recommendations "S. 425 would
provide additional funding authorization for mining research centers through a
formula grant program for existing schools of mining. This provision
establishes an unnecessary new spending program, duplicates existing authorities
for conduct of research, and could fragment existing research efforts already
supported by the Federal government. The provision is deleted in the
Administration bill."
5 Conference Report - Title III: Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 8. Prohibition on mining in alluvial valley floors. Administration
Recommention : "S. 425 would extend the prohibition on surface mining involving
alluvial valley floors to areas that have the potential for farming or ranching.
This is an unnecessary prohibition which could close some existing mines and
which would lock up significant coal reserves. In the Administration's bill
reclamation of such areas would be required, making the prohibition
unnecessary."
5 Conference Report - Section 510(b)(5): Modifies this provision to make it
more precise.
5 9. Potential moratorium on issuing mining permits. Administration
Recommendation : "S. 425 provides for (1) a ban on the mining of lands under
study for designation as unsuitable for coal mining, and (2) and automatic ban
whenever such a study is requested by anyone. The Administration's bill
modifies these provisions to insure expeditious consideration of proposals for
designating lands unsuitable for surface coal mining and to insure that the
requirement for review of Federal lands will not trigger such a ban."
5 Conference Report - Section 522: Modifies this provision to require
expeditious administrative action on designations so as to avoid any moratorium.
5 10. Hydrologic data. Administration Recommendation : "Under S. 425, an
applicant would have to provide hydrologic data even where the data are already
available - a potentially serious and unnecessary workload for small miners.
The Administration's bill authorizes the regulatory authority to waive the
requirement, in whole or in part, when the data are already available."
5 Conference Report - Section 507(b)(11): Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 11. Variances Administration Recommendations : "S. 425 would not give the
regulatory authority adequate flexibility to grant variances from the lengthy
and detailed performance specifications. The Administration bill would allow
limited variances - with strict environmental safeguards - to achieve specific
post-mining land uses and to accommodate equipment shortages during the interim
program."
5 Conference Report - Section 515(c): Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
5 12. Permit fee. Administration Recommendation : "The requirement in S.
425 for payment of the mining fee before operations begin could impose a large
'front end' cost which could unnecessarily prevent some mine opening or force
some operators out of business. In the Administration's bill, the regulatory
authority would have the authority to extend the fee over several years."
{6} Conference Report - Section 507(a): Adopts Administration
recommendation.
6 13. Preferential contracting. Administration Recommendation : "S. 425
would require that special preference be given to reclamation contracts to
operators who lose their jobs because of the bill. Such hiring should be based
solely on an operators reclamation capability. The provision does not appear in
the Administration's bill."
6 Conference Report - Adopts Administration Recommendations.
6 14. Any class of buyer. Administration Recommendations : "S. 425 would
require that lessees of Federal coal not refuse to sell coal to any class of
buyer.This could interfere unnecessarily with both planned and existing coal
mining operations, particularly in integrated facilities. This provision is not
included in the Administration's bill."
6 Conference Report - Section 523(e): Modiies language to accommodate
Administration concern.
6 15. Contract authority, Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 would
provide contract authority rather than authorizing appropriations for Federal
costs in administering the legislation. This is unnecessary and inconsistent
with the thrust of the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act.
In the Administration's bill, such costs would be financed through
appropriations."
6 Conference Report - Section 712(a): Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
6 16. Indian lands, Administration Recommendation : "S. 425 could be
construed to require the Secretary of the Interior to regulate coal mining on
non-Federal Indian lands. In the Administration bill, the definition of Indian
lands is modified to eliminate this possibility."
6 Conference Report - Section 701(9): Adopts Administration recommendation.
6 17. Interest charge. Administration Recommendations : "S. 425 would not
provide a reasonable level of interest charged on unpaid penalties. The
Administration's bill provides for an interest charge based on Treasury rates so
as to assure a sufficient incentive for prompt payment of penalties."
6 Conference Report - Section 518(a): Adopts Administration recommendation.
6 18. Prohibition on mining within 500 feet of an active mine . "This
prohibition in S. 425 would unnecessarily restrict recovery of substantial coal
resources even when mining of the areas would be the best possible use of the
areas involved. Under the Administration's bill, mining would be allowed in
such areas as long as it can be done safety."
6 Conference Report - Section 515(b)(12): Does not adopt Administration
recommendation.
6 19. Haul roads. Recommendation : "Requirements of S. 425 could preclude
some mine operators from moving their coal to market by preventing the
connection of haul roads to public roads. The Administration's bill would
modify this provision."
6 Conference Report - Section 522(e)(4): Adopts Administration
recommendation.
6 Source: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975, Conference
Report to Accompany H.R. 25, 94th Congress, 1st Session, Report No. 94-101, May
2, 1975.
6 At the beginning of the 94th Congress, the House and Senate took the
Administration's suggested changes under advisement and incorporated many of
them into its Joint Conference bill, H.R. 25. Despite the efforts of the
Congress to compromise on this matter (Congress accepted six of the eight
critical changes and ten of the seventeen important changes suggested by the
Administration), the President vetoed H.R. 25 on May 20, 1975. The veto was
very nearly overridden in the House on June 10, 1975, but failed by a margin of
three votes.
6 In his veto message, President Ford indicated that he could not sign the
bill for the following reasons:
6 1. As many as 36,000 people would lose jobs when unemployment already is
too high.
{7} 2. Consumers would pay higher costs - particularly for electric bills -
when consumer costs are already too high.
7 3. The Nation would be more dependent on foreign oil - when we are
already overly dependent and dangerously vulnerable.
7 4. Coal production would be unnecessarily reduced - when this vital
domestic energy resource is needed more than ever.
7 The President said that the Department of the Interior and the Federal
Energy Agency had estimated that:
7 . . . if this bill were to become law, a production loss of 40 to 162
million tons would result in 1977. This would mean that six to twenty-four
percent of expected 1977 coal production would be lost. Actually, production
losses resulting from H.R. 25 could run considerably higher because of
ambiguities in the bill and uncertainties over many of its provisions.
7 Later in his veto message, the President admitted that the legislation he
had sent to Congress would have resulted in coal production losses that would
have been tolerable if Congress had enacted the "comprehensive energy package"
that he had proposed. To many, this latter statement was an indication that the
surface mining bill was not judged on its own merits by the President, but
instead was rejected because it was an element of a much larger energy policy
which was less desirable to the Administration.
7 In a news conference on May 19, 1975, the day before the President vetoed
the bill, FEA Administrator Frank Zarb, in responding to a question of whether
or not the lack of a total energy policy by Congress was the reason that the
President would veto the surface mining bill answered:
7 If a national energy program was in place, and if we were already underway
in reducing our consumption levels of oil, and if we were already underway in
putting those measures into place to get additional production between now and
1980, then perhaps this bill might have been examined differently.
7 In order to give the administration an opportunity to substantiate its
production loss estimates, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Envirnment and the
Subcommittee on Mines and Mining of the House Interior Committee (along with
members of the Senate Interior Committee who had been invited to participate in
the proceedings) in joint action held justification hearings on June 3, 1975.
The administration was represented by Mr. Frank Zarb (Administrator, Federal
Energy Administration), Mr. John Hill (Deputy Administrator, Federal Energy
Administration), Mr. Eric Zausner (Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Energy
Administration), Dr. Thomas Falkie (Director, United States Bureau of Mines),
Mr. Raymond Peck (Office of General Counsel, Department of Commerce), and Mr.
Rogers C. B. Morton (Secretary of Commerce).
7 Other individuals representing the Bureau of Mines, the Federal Energy
Administration, and the Department of the Interior were also present at the
proceedings.
7 At the proceedings, the Administration representatives repeated their
assertions that the bill offered by Congress would result in lost coal
production and associated employment within the industry. To justify their
estimates, the witnesses used figures from a paper published by Dr. William
Miernyk, Professor of Economics and Director of the Regional Research Institute
at West Virginia University, n1 in conjunction with coal production loss
estimates prepared by the Bureau of Mines staff. This line of reasoning was
refuted during the hearings, however, when one of the Committee members informed
the witnesses that the study prepared by Dr. Miernyk did not predict any impact
on employment within the industry but did illustrate the interrelationship of
the coal industry to other sectors of the economy in Appalachia.Later, the
author informed the Subcommittees and the press that the information in his
study had been misused by the Administration. Furthermore, Senate members
participating in the hearings pointed out that the testimony being offered was
inconsistent with earlier statements made by Administration officials.
7 n1 William H. Miernyk, Environmental Management and Regional Economic
Development, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
W.Va., Nov. 6. 1971.
{8} Senator Lee Metcalf emphasized that in February of 1975, Interior
Secretary Rogers Morton has assured the House Interior Committee that the
implementation of the legislation would actually increase the number of jobs
within the industry since the amount of production that would be lost from the
surface mines would have to be replaced by production from underground mining
which is more labor intensive. n2 A crucial element to the proceedings, however,
was a list which was to be supplied by the Administration to the Committees that
would have identified some of the actual mines that would have been shut down by
the implementation of the surface mining bill. This list was never supplied.
Supporters of the bill felt that the inability of the Administration to provide
this list and the actual methodology used to calculate the aggregate production
loss figures and associated unemployment damaged the credibility of the case
against regulation of surface mining at the Federal level. This was not enough,
however, to provide sufficient impetus to override the Presidential veto,
although the House vote was only three votes short of the total needed for an
override.
8 n2 Allen F. Agnew. The U.S. Bureau of Mines, prepared by the Senior
Specialist Division of the Congressional Research Service for the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, September 1976, p. 152.
8 Later in the 94th Congress, two bills, amended to meet the objections of
the Administration, were introduced. The first, H.R. 9725, as introduced, was
virtually identical to the vetoed H.R. 25.
8 Technical changes which would have delayed the implementation of the
provisions were made in order to account for the passage of the time from the
consideration of H.R. 25 and the implementation of H.R. 9725.
8 The Committee did, however, add language to allow mining in alluvial
valley floors by operators who had produced coal in commercial quantities during
the year preceding the enactment of the Act or who had obtained specific
authority to mine in alluvial valley floors from the appropriate State agency.
8 H.R. 9725 was reported to the House Rules Committee on March 12, 1976.
The bill failed, however, to receive a rule in the Committee. Although a
petition was circulated to take the bill directly to the floor of the House, the
petition failed to receive the required number of signatures and died in the
Rules Committee.
{9} In a final effort in the 94th Congress to pass legislation, H.R. 13950
was introduced.This bill was also virtually identical to earlier legislation,
but it underwent some changes in the House Interior Committee before being
reported. In order to make the legislation more acceptable to the
Administration, changes were made in the bill to phase in its provisions more
gradually in order to give the small and intermediatesized operators time to
comply with its provisions. Under H.R. 13950, the implementation of the bill
would have been phased in over a period of three years. According to the
Subcommittee report on the bill:
9 H.R. 13950 retains the basic framework and concepts of the previous bills.
The time periods for compliance have been extended, however, and this
modification should mitigate the administrative burdens attendant to a new
regulatory scheme. As the bill is now drafted, after enactment of the
legislation coal surface mines would begin to become subject to a system of
reclamation standards and administrative procedures that are phased in over a
period of 26 to (possibly) 38 months. In many cases, the standards and
procedures will be compatible with current state laws. Where they are not,
states are given over 2 years to amend their laws to conform with the minimum
national standards required by the new law.
9 In spite of the Committee's efforts to report a bill acceptable to the
Administration, Mr. Kent Frizzell, Acting Secretary of the Interior, indicated
in the following letter, dated June 22, 1976, to the Honorable James Haley,
Chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, that the
Administration was still opposed to the legislation which it considered to be
essentially unchanged from H.R. 25.
9 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., June 22, 1976.
9 Hon. JAMES A. HALEY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
9 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Committee has before it H.R. 13950, the "Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1976," which is based largely on previous
legislation considered by the Congress. Its antecedents include H.R. 25, which
was vetoed by the President on May 20, 1976, and a similar bill, H.R. 9725,
which was subsequently reported by your Committee but denied a rule for action
by the House.
9 We have carefully reviewed H.R. 13950 and conclude that it is unacceptable
for essentially the same reasons as the earlier measures.
9 Unemployment in this country remains at unacceptably high levels, but H.R.
13950 could foreclose substantial employment in the coal industry and the
communities dependent on it. H.R. 13950 would add significantly to the costs of
mining coal and, to the extent that it would cause a decline in coal production,
it would require use of scarce higher priced fuel alternatives to meet projected
energy demands of the Nation. The need for foreign petroleum would increase in
the face of a situation which today finds this Nation more dependent on foreign
sources than when the President vetoed H.R. 25 over a year ago. We simply
cannot afford unbalanced, inflexible legislation which would stifle our efforts
to double coal production by 1985.
9 I recognize that H.R. 13950 incorporates changes intended to ameliorate
some of the unduly burdensome or inflexible provisions of earlier legislation.
Some relief would be provided for small mine operators, who would have suffered
heavily both with respect to unemployment and production losses under H.R. 25
and H.R. 9725. Unfortunately this bill is only marginally better than earlier
legislation in this regard. Although certain procedures have been made more
flexible, major difficulties remain in the permitting, enforcement and bonding
requirements. The timing of the development and implementation of the Federal
and State programs set forth, and the relationship between them, remain
unrealistic.
{10} In addition to the direct hinderance imposed on coal production, H.R.
13950 would still lead to long regulatory delays, litigation and uncertainty
detrimental to the achievement of either our energy or environmental objectives.
Other objectionable features of the previous legislation remain untouched by the
latest bill.
10 In short, I believe that H.R. 13950 does not cure the major defects in
legislation vetoed by the President and that the major elements of the analysis
underlying his veto would remain valid with regard to H.R. 13950.
10 Since the President's veto I have implemented a new coal policy which
includes comprehensive new surface coal mining regulations for Federal lands.
These were developed after considerable discussion to accommodate both our
energy and environmental goals.
10 On non-Federal lands, we note a continued trend of strengthening State
regulation. The Administration remains firmly convinced that imposition of a
major new all-embracing Federal surface mining program could have a devastating
effect on coal production, particularly in the light of our steadily
deteriorating energy situation.
10 I therefore strongly urge that your Committee not report H.R. 13950.
10 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
obligation to the presentation of this report, and that enactment of H.R. 13950
would not be in accord with the program of the President.
10 Sincerely yours,
10 KENT FRIZZELL, Acting Secretary of the Interior.rior.
CURRENT LEGISLATION
{11} Early in the first session of the 95th Congress, two bills
establishing Federal regulation of surface coal mining were introduced. The
House version, H.R. 2, is virtually identical to the previously described H.R.
13950 of the 94th Congress. The Senate version, S. 7, does contain some
differences. Included in these differences are those relating to the
establishment and funding of state mining and mineral resource and research
institutes, the levying of a tax on coal for the establishment of an abandoned
mines reclamation fund, and the protection of surface owners rights in instances
where the surface is under private control and the minerals are owned by the
Federal government.
11 Title III of H.R. 2 provides for the establishment of mining and mineral
resource and reserach institutes. The title would establish a comprehensive
framework for the designation of eligible colleges and universities and would
authorize funds for the conduct of research pursuant to the provisions of that
title. Title III also would require the dissemination of the findings resulting
from research by the designated mineral resource institutes. Senate bill S. 7
does not contain similar provisions.
11 With regards to the establishment of an abandoned mines reclamation fund,
H.R. 2 would require that a tax on coal, in the amount of 35~/ton for surface
mined coal and 15~/ton for underground mined coal, be levied in order to
establish the fund. The tax would be levied on all coal regardless of its
ownership, either private, state, or Federal. Senate bill S. 7 while
establishing the same reclamation fund, would apply the tax only to that coal
which is produced from Federal lands.
11 The House version, H.R. 2, is virtually identical to the previously
described H.R. 13950 of the 94th Congress. The Senate version, S. 7, does
contain some differences. Included in these differences are those relating to
the establishment and funding of state mining and mineral resource and research
institutes, the levying of a tax on coal for the establishment of an abandoned
mines reclamation fund, and the protection of surface owners rights in instances
where the surface is under private control and the minerals are owned by the
Federal government.
11 The most controversial of the differences in the two bills is that
dealing with mining on lands where the coal is Federally owned but the surface
is privately owned. In H.R. 25 the House and the Senate, determined in joint
conference that the best way to protect the rights of farmers and ranchers in
the West who choose not to have coal mined from under their lands would be to
make it mandatory for the mine operators to obtain their written permission
prior to mine development.At the same time, in order to prevent surface owners
from receiving windfall profits from the mine operators for permission to mine
coal, Congress would establish a system for the evaluation of the surface
owner's rights. Under this system, the appraisal would be made by three
individuals, the first appointed by the land owner, the second appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior, and the third appointed by the first two appointees.
This type of arrangement would assure both the surface owner and the mine
operator of a fair price for the surface interests attached to the land. This
arrangement is retained in the current House version of the surface mining bill.
In the Senate version, however, neither the mine operator nor the surface owner
are consulted in the decision to mine or not to mine the coal because regardless
of the wishes of the surface owner, the development of the coal is prohibited in
all cases where the ownership of the coal resources and the surface is
different.
{12} Other technical differences exist between the two bills, however, a
detailed comparison is beyond the scope of this study.
BACKGROUND AND RECENT DEBATE
{13} Over the course of the debate on the issue of Federal Regulation of
coal surface mining, the emphasis shifted at least twice. In the initial debate
during the 93d and 94th Congress, opponents of the legislation insisted that to
impose further regulations on the industry would force many operators
(especially the small ones) out of business, would raise the price of coal
produced by the operators capable of remaining in business, would increase the
cost of electricity produced by coal-fired generating plants, and would increase
America's reliance upon imported energy resources. This carried with it the
prospects of increased U.S. trade deficits and compromised United States foreign
policy with respect to oil-producing Nations. This argument was bolstered by
the actions of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC),
in October of 1973, imposing an oil embargo against the United States which
lasted until March, 1974.During the embargo, through the initiatives of the
larger Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) the price of oil to
the U.S. quadrupled. In the wake of the embargo and the oil price increases,
the price of steam coal in the United States doubled and, in some cases,
tripled.
13 Following these developments, spokesmen for the coal mining industry
asserted that any new regulation of the industry, especially any as "stringent"
as that proposed for surface mining, could only serve to damage America's goal
of energy independence by 1985.
13 Since that time, the debate over the proposed regulation of surface
mining first shifted from the production losses that could occur if the
legislation were enacted to whether or not the production loss estimates made by
the former Administration were valid and were made in good faith. The second
shift in emphasis occurred after the close of the 94th Congress. At that time,
some mining companies conceded that the implementation of the legislation would
not have resulted in the large production losses that had been initially
forecast. In an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 28,
1976, n1 shortly after Congress upheld the Presidential veto of the strip mining
bill, H.R. 25, several coal company representatives were quoted as saying that
they could have lived with the surface mining bill. Mr. John Witt, Land
Commissioner for the State of Kentucky said that, in conjunction with his
State's own strip mining law, "I can't see where the federal bill would have
curtailed our mining and reclamation in any severe way."
13 n1 "New Outlook for Coal: Not So Sensational - And Not So Troubled," The
Wall Street Journal, July 28, 1976, pp. 1 and 23.
13 A survey was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, and the Federal Energy Administration in order to determine the
actual reclamation cost that would be incurred by mine operators under the
provisions of the surface mining bill. n2 Aside from the extreme difficulty that
the agencies had in collecting accurate information for the survey, the
conclusion was, at that time, the Administration did not know what the real
costs of the legislation would be. The results of the survey were also widely
thought to be damaging to the credibility of the Administration's assessment of
the bill's impact of surface mine operators.
13 n2 Coal Week, May 31, 1976, p. 4.
{14} The current industry contention is that the coal-mining states are
already sufficiently regulating surface mining at the state level, thereby
obviating the need for Federal controls. A large majority of the industry and
trade association witnesses at both the coal briefings held by the House
Interior and Committee on January 10 and 12, 1977 and the hearings conducted by
both the House and Senate Interior Committees during February and March
testified that the states are already doing an adequate job of regulating strip
mining. According to the industry, imposing an additional level of regulation
on top of the existing one would subject the industry to hardships at a time
when increased production is more crucial than ever.
14 The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the State
enforcement agencies. To accomplish this, the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources conducted a survey of the various state agencies responsible
for policing surface coal-mining activities within their jurisdictions.
14 The first State to establish regulations for the surface mining of coal
was West Virginia in 1939. By 1975, that number had increased to 38 States.
Most of these State programs are very recent with 32 having been implemented
between 1970 and 1975. n3 Some of the state programs for the regulation of the
industry and the reclamation of mined lands are relatively effective while
others are little more than token efforts. Similarly, enforcement of the
existing laws in some of the states is very strict, while in others it may be
non-existent.
14 n3 A Guide to State Programs for the Reclamation of Surface Mined Areas,
United States Geological Survey Circular 731, Resource and Land Investigations
Program (RALI), by Edgar A. Imhoff, et al., 1976.
14 In order to determine the similarities and differences in the surface
mining laws of the various states, the Resources and Land Investigations program
of the United States Geological Survey, under the direction of Mr. Edgar Imhoff
prepared a comparison, as shown in Table 1, of the State surface-mined area
reclamation programs as of December, 1975.
{15} [See Table in Original]
{16} [See Table in Original]
{17} [See Table in Original]
{18} [See Table in Original]
{19} [See Table in Original]
{20} According to the Imhoff study, early State reclamation laws addressed
only coal mining. Rules were promulgated requiring revegetation and, in some
cases, reduction of spoil-pile slopes as a means of converting strip mined
land to a land-cover type that would be of economic value and would reduce
erosion. Near the close of the 1960's, however, many states expanded the
coverage of their laws to include minerals other than coal, such as sand and
gravel, clay, stone, etc.
20 The primary problem alleged with individual states regulating mining for
coal or other minerals has been that a uniform set of regulations has been
generally lacking. This type of arrangement allows the states to regulate
mining activities according to the unique conditions which may exist in the
individual states. In the case of coal, however, when one state passes
stringent rules for the control of the mining industry and enforces these rules
while a neighboring state does not, it creates a condition of unfair competition
for mine operators in the first state who have higher costs but must compete for
the same customers with operators in the second state.
20 Reclaiming mined land is expensive and the proponents of mining
legislation have not denied this. Such additional costs are usually added to
the price of coal along with other costs such as labor and amortization of the
physical plant and equipment. If mine operators are not required by the State
to reclaim mined land, they can pass this saving on to their consumers in the
form of lower prices, thereby undercutting mine operators in other states who
must reclaim land at additional costs. Therefore, the non-existence of a
uniform set of requirements for mine operators simultaneously favors some and
impairs the ability of others to compete in the open market for coal customers.
This view was expressed in a statement before the Senate Subcommittee on
Minerals, Materials, and Fuels of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
on March 2, 1977, by Mr. Robert A. Bohm, Associate Professor of Finance at the
University of Tennessee who testified that a surface mining reclamation law is
needed now "to provide coal mining states minimum standards of reclamation upon
which to compete in the coal market."
20 Many State officials have expressed apprehension about the Federal
government regulating an activity within their boundaries, which they claim
could be better regulated by State and local officials. Much of this anxiety,
however, is apparently based on a misunderstanding of the Federal bills. As
they are written, both the House and Senate surface mining bills merely
establish a framework within which the individual States may conduct their own
reclamation and enforcement programs. Only in instances where a State is
unwilling to establish an acceptable program for reclamation would the Federal
government become actively involved in the regulation of coal surface mining
within that State.
20 Much of the debate has centered on the adequacy of some of the individual
state enforcement programs. Because of a concern regarding the capability of
some states to properly enforce existing surface mining laws, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest conducted a survey in 1975 to determine whether
or not the States being surveyed (Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania)
were capable of and committed to a program of sound regulation. n4 The States
included in the survey are major producers of coal through surface mining. At
the time of the survey, the production figures for the three states for surface
mining were as follows:
{21}
*4*1974 SURFACE
MINED PRODUCTION
FOR THE 3 STATES
SURVEYED
*4*[In thousand
tons]
Percent of U. S.
Total State surface Percent of State total surface
mining production total production mining production
Kentucky 73,700 53.7 22.6
Pennsylvania 38,213 47.5 11.7
West Virginia 20,243 19.8 6.2
21 n4 Enforcement of Strip Mining Laws, by the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, 1975. (CSPI).
21 According to the CSPI report, over the last few years, in Kentucky there
has been a sharp increase in the number of permits issued to operators for the
development of surface coal mines in Kentucky. In 1974, the State issued a
total of over 1400 permits, up from 677 the preceding year. Unfortunately, at
the time of the survey, the office responsible for the reviewing of the mining
permits had only three staff members, two of whom were responsible for permit
review in the eastern part of the State and the third was responsible for the
western half.
21 As of August, 1975, notwithstanding the doubling of the permit
applications over the preceding year, the staff responsible for reviewing these
permits had not been increased. Assuming that there are 220 days in the
standard working year, this would mean that each of the three staff members
would be responsible for processing at least two permit applications each day of
the year. CSPI concluded that:
21 . . . Kentucky's system of permit review is conducted in a deficient and
hurried fashion by an untrained and understaffed section of DNREP (Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection). Inspectors - also involved in
the permit review procedure - are overworked and incompetent. Citizens, who
could serve as a check upon the state's review system are prevented from
participating by lack of notice.
21 Also, according to the following salary schedule of the State inspectors
which was included in the CSPI report, the field inspection staff earns a
relatively low wage, especially when compared with the wages of the miners:
Amount per month Amount per year
Inspectors $583 $6,996
Senior inspectors 710 8,620
Chief inspectors 802 9,624
Supervisor 951 11,312
Reclamation supervisor 1,048 12,576
21 The report also observed that the extremely low salaries of the
inspectors, especially the field inspectors, made them prime targets for favors
from mine operators less than anxious to comply with the State's surface mining
laws.
{22} In West Virginia, the authors concluded that the staff of the
regulatory agency had, in some instances, become too closely allied with the
operators they were responsible for regulating and that the problem was not one
of having an adequate staff, but rather, one of inefficient application of the
staff that was available.
22 Because one of the provisions of the existing surface mining law was in
litigation at the time the report was written, the authors also reported that
the regulatory agency was being too lenient because it expected the court to
rule in favor of the operators. Finally, the lack of adequate records,
particularly on the frequency of inspections at each mine, was cited as a
weakness of the State's regulatory system.
22 CSPI gave the state of Pennsylvania relatively high marks in the field of
reclamation enforcement, primarily in the bituminous coal fields. In the
anthracite areas in the eastern part of the State, however, the authors
indicated that there was a general lack of inspections. Crucial to this lack of
inspections was the feeling that many of the field inspectors had been
intimidated by either mine operators or workers whenever they approached the
mines to conduct their inspections. CSPI did indicate that Pennsylvania's law
did contain elements which served as motivations to reclaim the land. Among
these were the fines that could be assessed against operators in noncompliance,
the bonding requirements of the State law, and the authority of the field
inspectors to issue cease and desist orders on-site. According to the report,
the State has the option of imposing a fine of $5 ,000 and/or imprisoning the
operator or relieving the operator of his total profits during the course of his
violations. The threat of losing total profits from the operation probably acts
as more of a deterrent against violating the law than does the $5 ,000 fine,
especially for the larger operators who could well afford to pay the fine. With
respect to the bonding provisions, the State requires that a bond be posted
which would be sufficient for the State to reclaim the land in the event that
the operator chooses to forfeit the bond. Finally, as an incentive for
operators to keep their mines in compliance with existing regulations, the State
has empowered the field inspectors to issue cease-and-desist orders at the mine
sites.According to CSPI, this type of action is considered by many to be a
doubled-edged sword which cuts off the company's profits immediately by halting
the operation and forces remedial action before operations may be resumed.
22 CSPI did indicate, however, that the salaries of some of the inspectors,
which on the average are lower than the industry workers, have made them the
target for occasional favors from some operators. The report stated that there
is one case on record in which an inspector was convicted of accepting bribes
for not enforcing the law. The authors concluded that, of the three States
which were surveyed, Pennsylvania appeared to have the most diligent enforcement
operations. No statement by the coal mining industry refuting the findings of
the CSPI report could be found.
22 Because of the conflicting claims by proponents and opponents of Federal
legislation to regulate surface mining and because of the charges and
countercharges in various reports, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources recently sought information directly from the States involved. In
order to determine the effectiveness of existing State laws, the staff of the
Committee and the Congressional Research Service developed an extensive
questionnaire which was sent to 39 states that have surface mining laws for coal
or other minerals. The questionnaire is reprinted in its entirety on the
following pages, along with the CRS analysis of the responses by the states and
a matrix summary of that information.
SUMMARY
{25} The effectiveness of State regulation of surface mining, as
indicated in responses to a questionnaire sent by the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, varies greatly from State to State. The results from the
survey suggest that most requirements of the State laws are far less stringent
than the proposed Federal regulations in H.R. 13950 would be. The survey also
indicates that the relative weakness of these laws is further compounded in many
cases by extremely lenient or even non-existent enforcement of the laws that do
exist.
25 The usefulness of the Committee's survey is limited by the quality of the
responses, which differed widely. Some States provided prompt and complete
answers as requested. A large number of states, however, including some that
produce significant amounts of coal, made only token responses to the
Committee's effort to obtain an accurate determination of the existing extent of
state control of this problem. The coal mining industry has claimed that State
laws are sufficient to prevent future mining abuses; environmentalists and
others dispute this claim. An accurate understanding of the degree to which the
States actually regulate surface mining, therefore, appears essential to the
resolution of the issue of whether or not Federal controls are needed.
25 Some States expressed interest in formulating a workable surface mining
control and reclamation policy for the Federal Government and were grateful
for the opportunity to provide input to the legislative process. Much of the
information which was forwarded by the states was too complex to fit into the
matrix and had to be footnoted for further explanation.
25 Some of the information requiring more detailed analysis was included in
the text of the report.
25 As shown in the matrix, virtually all of the states which have surface
mining laws require that mine operators first obtain permits before engaging in
active mining. This concept appears compatible with the requirements of the
Federal bill, H.R. 13950, with which, the various states were asked, by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee through its survey, to compare
their respective laws. Even though the permit requirements are similar in most
instances, procedures for permits in H.R. 13950 are for the most part much more
detailed than those of the States, the Ohio law being an exception. Ohio mining
law is very similar to the Federal proposal and requires detailed information
from prospective mine operators.
25 ABANDONED LANDS RECLAMATION PROGRAMS
25 Few of the states in the survey have implemented any programs of
reclaiming land which was mined prior to the passage of the State mining laws.
Exceptions to this include Kentucky and Virginia which have either directly
appropriated money for such reclamation or have procured money from other
government agencies such as the TVA. Some of the other states have also
initiated programs to reclaim abandoned lands by using the proceeds from fines
for noncompliance or from permit application fees. Of the States that reported
such programs, Kentucky had the largest expenditures with approximately $1 .5
million designated for reclamation of abandoned lands. A large percentage of
the coal-producing states which admitted having problems with abandoned lands
also indicated that the largest percentage of these lands either had been or
were being left to be reclaimed naturally.
{26} MINE INSPECTORS
26 Mine inspection problems reported by the various states consisted of:
26 Inadequate number of mine inspectors for the number of mining operations
under permit in the state.
26 Inadequate professional training for surface mine inspectors.
26 Distance of the mine inspectors to the mines being inspected.
26 The inspection capabilities vary considerably from State to State. Some
of the key coal-mining states such as Kentucky have ratios of one inspector for
75 coal mines. Others, which are not major coal producers, such as Kansas, have
only one inspector for the entire state. In this instance, one individual is
responsible for the regulation of the total of 97 surface mining operations in
the State. In Georgia, the ratio is one inspector to 85 mines, and in Idaho one
to 362. Pennsylvania, one of the most important coal-producing States, replied
that it had an inspector-to-mine ratio of between one to 50 and one to 100.
Ratios such as these usually require inspectors to devote much less time to the
inspection of each mine at the cost of the thoroughness of the inspection. For
example, in the case of West Virginia, the law requires inspectors to inspect
each mine at least once every two weeks.
26 With the ratio of mine inspectors to mines in West Virginia being about
one to 17.5, that law on the face of it could be hard to administer. An
inspector has a difficult time inspecting one mine a day. Given a five-day work
week, an inspector in two weeks would have to exert a rigorous effort to
thoroughly review 10 mines; 17.5 mines would be that much more difficult. Such
high ratios may be the result of inadequate fuding for mine inspection in the
various states; if true, the ratios could be alleviated by the implementation of
Federal strip mine controls with their associated appropriations for mine
inspection. In any case, if the demands for coal production projected by the
FEA materialize between now and 1985, it is open to question whether the present
mine inspection personnel can assume the additional workload that will be
generated by the almost certain increase in the number of surface mines that
will be opened.
26 Many State inspection officers have not had adequate training to detect
reclamation problems. A large number of these officials are not graduates of
mining engineering programs and, according to the States, lack training in other
disciplines such as agronomy, forestry, hydrology, and geology, which are vital
to adequate reclamation efforts. It should be noted, however, that many of the
enforcement officers that lack the technical training or have degrees in liberal
arts are older and have been with the enforcement agencies for many years and
thus have much experience. The States, however, do appear to be hiring young
field inspectors with more substantial backgrounds in environmental sciences and
actual mining experience.
{27} The location of mine inspectors near the mines which they are to
inspect was also perceived as a problem. Such close proximity could result in
the intimidation of mine inspectors and their families by uncooperative
operators; in some cases, substandard wages of the mine inspectors could make
them susceptible to favors from the mining industry.
27 CITIZENS COMPLAINTS
27 Many State mining laws do not have adequate mechanisms for the filing,
consideration, and disposition of citizen complaints related to coal surface
mining. This is evidenced by the disproportionately small number of operations
that were either halted or modified as a result of citizen complaints. With the
exception of Kentucky and West Virginia, very few of the major coal-mining
states conducted hearings arising from such complaints. Although many of the
opponents of the Federal bills have complained that the review and hearings
procedures in the bills would be an unnecessary hindrance, the State survey
reveals that some improvements in the present State systems could be made. Of
all of the States participating in the survey, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana,
and Kentucky were the only ones which indicated that a mining operation had
either halted or been modified as a result of a citizen complaint.
27 ENFORCEMENT
27 The survey also indicates that even when violations have been discovered
in a State, fines assessed against the operators were small in size and in
number. Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, and Virginia were among the few States which
have actually assessed fines against mine operators for non-compliance with the
law. One of the largest coal producers, West Virginia, indicated in the survey
that no fines or prison sentences had yet been imposed.
27 BONDING
27 The survey indicates that the most serious shortcoming of the state
surface-mining laws seems to be that of not requiring an adequate amount of
performance bond to insure reclamation in the event of forfeiture by the
operator. Indiana, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas reported that the
average amount of performance bond required of the mine operators would not
cover reclamation costs in the event that the State has to perform that
reclamation itself or award a contract to have the job done. In the case of
Indiana, the State agency responded that it had not reclaimed lands under
forfeited bond because the costs exceeded the amount of the bond required of the
operator. Indiana indicated that the average amount of bond forfeited per acre
under permit wwas $2 68.05. When the State accepted estimates for the
reclamation of the land, however, it learned that the reclamation cost could
range between $2000 and $4000 per acre, leaving a shortfall between $1700 and $3
700 per acre in the amount of performance bond. Not all of the coal-producing
States have seen this discrepancy develop. Illinois and Ohio are two states
that require apparently adequate amounts of performance bonds, in the $3
000/acre range; some of the other states require the performance bond to be
sufficient to reclaim the land, whatever the cost, by the state or by a third
party in the event of forfeiture by the operator. This is the same concept
proposed by H.R. 13950. In instances where the mining operation is carried on
over a long period of time and where contemporaneous reclamation is not
required, it may be desirable to require a bond in an amount sufficient to
reclaim the affected areas at the end of the projected period for mining. The
bond could cover any increases in costs between the time the permit is granted
and the actual reclamation is started.
{28} Regardless of the mechanisms used to require reclamation, a feature of
the performance bond which would give it more authority is that an amount be set
which is sufficient to motivate the operators to completely reclaim the affected
areas. The action of forfeiting performance bond in all cases, therefore,
should be a less attractive alternative than incurring the cost of adequate
reclamation.
STATE SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
{29} The purpose of this inquiry is to gather information concerning
State laws and regulations governing surface effects of coal mining, together
with information regarding enforcement of those laws, as compared with the
requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1976 (H.R.
13950 - 94th Congress). Enclosed for purposes of comparison is a copy of
Sections 515 and 516 of this bill.
29 Please supply the following:
29 1. A copy of the current State laws relating to coal surface mining and
reclamation, surface reclamation of underground coal mines, and coal waste
disposal and impoundments.
29 2. A copy of the current rules and regulations implementing these laws.
29 3. An analysis of the State laws, indicating which specific provisions
(if any) are identical with or substantially similar to the environmental
protection performance standards contained in Sections 515 and 516 of H.R.
13950.
29 4. An analysis indicating which of the standards in Sections 515 and 516
(if any) could not be complied with, because of peculiar geologic, hydrologic
or other physical conditions in your state and why compliance is impossible.
29 5. A list of areas designated by the State as being unsuitable for coal
surface mining, if any, and an enumeration of laws under which such areas have
been designated.
29 6. An explanation of how, if at all, State law specifically deals with
alluvial valley floors.
29 7. An analysis of the reclamation of lands which were abandoned and
unreclaimed prior to enactment of State reclamation laws, including a showing of
reclamation achieved during the 10-year period 1966 to 1975, and the amount and
percent of acreage still to be reclaimed.
29 8. Levels of State appropriations for abandoned mined lands reclamation,
covering the 10-year period 1966 to 1975, and actual reclamation expenditures
during the same period.
29 9. A description of the State program, if any, for monitoring the
long-term effectiveness of reclamation required by alw, with reference to (a)
individual surface mines and their vicinity, and (b) groups of surface mines and
their affected watersheds.
29 10. Information, based on calendar year 1975, for the following:
29 COAL DATA
29 (a) Tons of coal produced by (i) surface mine operations, and (ii)
underground mines.
29 (b) Number of surface mine operations producing (i) over 250,000 tons of
coal, and (ii) under 250,000 tons of coal.
29 (c) Percent of coal lands within your State which are not affected by
State reclamation laws (i.e., Federal or Indian lands).
{30} RECLAMATION FIELD INSPECTIONS
30 (a) Number of trained, full-time reclamation filed inspectors.
30 (b) Ratio of trained, full-time reclamation filed inspectors to surface
mine operations under permit or license.
30 (c) Method of hiring reclamation field inspectors - (i) civil service
merit system, (ii) patronage system, or (iii) if other, please specify.
30 (d) Average number of years of college-level education and type of
professional training of reclamation field inspectors.
30 (e) Salary schedule and numerical distribution of reclamation field
inspectors on the salary scale, and median income for your State.
30 (f) Ratio of trained, full-time field inspectors to technical
specialists, if any, who are available for back-up purposes.
30 (g) Frequency of announced on-site inspection of surface mine operations.
30 (h) Frequency of unannounced on-site inspection of surface mine
operators.
30 (i) Type of follow-up of field inspection reports.
30 (j) Number of operations ceased without formal actions, such as
suspension or revocation of license or permit.
30 CITIZEN ACTION
30 (a) Number of citizen complaints against surface mine operations which
were registered with the State regulatory agency.
30 (b) List of public hearings which were held regarding citizen complaints
against surface mine operations, indicating any remedial actions taken.
30 (c) Number of citizen suits brought against (i) a surface mine operator,
(ii) the State regulatory agency.
30 PERMITS AND LICENSES
30 (a) Analysis of suspensions and revocations of permits or licenses issued
under relevant laws, giving reasons for suspensions and revocations.
30 (b) Number of applications for permit or license shich were i) approved
without modification, ii) approved with modification, or iii) rejected.
30 (c) Number of applications for permit or license which were modified or
rejected upon receipt of a citizen complaint, without holding a public hearing
on the complaint.
30 (d) Number of applications for permit or license which were modified or
rejected upon receipt of a citizen complaint, after holding a public hearing on
the complaint.
30 (e) Method of hiring person primarily responsible for decisions on permit
issuance and enforcement.
{31} PERFORMANCE BONDS
31 (a) Average amount of performance bond required per acre under permit or
license.
31 (b) Analysis of bonds forfeited, indicating reasons for forfeiture.
31 (c) Average amount of bond forfeited per acre under permit.
31 (d) Number of acres of land reclaimed under forfeited bond.
31 (e) Method of awarding contracts for reclaiming land under forfeited
bond.
31 (f) Cost per acre of reclamation under forfeited bond.
31 VIOLATIONS
31 (a) Total fines collected for civil violations.
31 (b) Total fines collected for criminal violations.
31 (c) Average amount of all fines collected per acre under permit.
31 (d) Total fines imposed but not collected, giving reasons for
non-collection.
31 (e) Prison sentences imposed for criminal violations, if any.
31 Please forward your response to Mr. D. Michael Harvey, Senate Interior
Committee, 3106 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
{33} ALASKA
33 Officials of the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals
and Energy Management for the State of Alaska expressed concern that the
environmental protection performance standards established in the Federal
surface mining legislation would not be ". . . flexible enough to fit the varied
geological, topographical and environmental situations existing in known
potential coal mining areas in Alaska." The Department claimed that the proposed
law could increase the price of electric power, especially in the interior
portions of the State. Furthermore, surface mining legislation is not
considered critical in Alaska since there is currently only one operation
located on a State lease which is required to be reclaimed contemporaneously.
In drafting the Federal legislation, the Congress recognized and appreciated the
unique conditions that could be encountered by mining coal and reclaiming land
in Alaska and accordingly, included the following provisions which take this
into consideration.
33 H.R. 13950
33 ALASKAN SURFACE COAL MINE STUDY
33 SEC. 708. (a) The Secretary is directed to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering for an in-depth study of
surface coal mining conditions in the State of Alaska in order to determine
which, if any, of the provisions of this Act should be modified with respect to
surface coal mining operations in Alaska.
33 (b) The Secretary shall report on the findings of the study to the
President and Congress no later than two years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
33 (c) The Secretary shall include in his report a draft of legislation to
implement any changes recommended to this Act.
33 (d) Until one year after the Secretary has made this report to the
President and Congress, or three years after the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever comes first, the Secretary is authorized to suspend the applicability
of any provision of this Act, or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, to any
surface coal mining operation in Alaska from which coal has been mined during
the year preceding enactment of this Act if he determines that it is necessary
to insure the continued operation of such surface coal mining operation. The
Secretary may exercise his suspension authority only after he has (1) published
a notice in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circulation in
the area of Alaska in which the affected surface coal mining operation is
located, and (2) held a public hearing on the proposed suspension in Alaska.
33 (e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of this
section $250,000.
33 The Department of Natural Resources also expressed concern that the
provisions of the Federal proposal may not apply to the vast expanses of Indian
lands that would be awarded in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement action or to
the large amounts of Federal lands within the State. Provisions within the
legislation, however, require the Secretary of the Interior to implement a
surface mining reclamation program for Federal lands which is just as stringent
as that for private lands. Furthermore, Section 710 of the bill directs the
Secretary to study the problems associated with the regulation of surface mining
on Indian lands and to require that, on or after 135 days from the enactment of
the Act, surface coal mining on Indian lands comply with selected provisions in
Section 515 establishing the environmental protection performance standards.
{34} (d) On and after thirty months from the enactment of this Act, all
surface coal mining operations on Indian lands shall comply with requirements at
least as stringent as those imposed by sections 507, 508, 509, 510, 515, 516,
517, and 519 of this Act and the Secretary shall incorporate the requirements of
such provisions in all existing and new leases issued for coal on Indian lands.
34 Since there has not been any large-scale development of coal in Alaska,
the Department of Natural Resources has not found any need to designate lands
within the State as unsuitable for mining. The agency reported that no figures
were available concerning the amount of land that had been mined and not
reclaimed during the ten-year period from 1966 to 1965, although it did indicate
that some contouring and revegetation had been done by operators in the Healy
and Matanuska areas.
34 In order to indicate the provisions of Section 515 of the Federal bill
which would cause compliance problems for surface mine operators, the Department
of Natural Resources prepared the analysis as appears on the following pages.
{35} H.R. 13950
35 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
35 SEC. 515. (a) Any permit issued under any approved State or Federal
program pursuant to this Act to conduct surface coal mining operations shall
require that such surface coal mining operations will meet all applicable
performance standards of this Act, and such other requirements as the regulatory
authority shall promulgate.
35 (b) General performance standards shall be applicable to all surface coal
mining and reclamation operations and shall require the operation as a minimum
to -
35 (1) conduct surface coal mining operations so as to maximize the
utilization and conservation of the solid fuel resource being recovered so that
reaffecting the land in the future through surface coal mining can be minimized;
35 (2) restore the land affected to a condition at least fully capable of
supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or
higher or better uses of which there is a reasonable likelihood, so long as
such use or uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public health
or safety or pose any actual or probable threat of water diminution or
pollution, and the permit applicants' declared proposed land use following
reclamation is not deemed to be impractical or unreasonable, inconsistent with
applicable land use policies and plans, involves unreasonable delay in
implementation, or is violative of Federal, State, or local law;
35 (3) with respect to all surface coal mining operations backfill, compact
(where advisable to insure stability or to prevent leaching of toxic materials),
and grade in order to restore the approximate original contour of the land with
all highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions eliminated (unless small depressions
are needed in order to retain moisture to assist revegetation or as otherwise
authorized pursuant to this Act); Provided, however, That in surface coal mining
which is carried out at the same location over a substantial period of time
where the operation transects the coal deposit, and the thickness of the coal
deposits relative to the volume of the overburden is large and where the
operator demonstrates that the overburden and other spoil and waste materials at
a particular point in the permit area or otherwise available from the entire
permit area is insufficient, giving due consideration to volumetric expansion,
to restore the approximate original contour, the operator, at a minimum, shall
backfill, grade, and compact (where advisable) using all available overburden
and other spoil and waste materials to attain the lowest practicable grade but
not more than the angle of repose, to provide adequate drainage and to cover all
acid-forming and other toxic materials, in order to achieve an ecologically
sound land use compatible with the surrounding region: And provided further,
That in surface coal mining where the volume of overburden is large relative to
the thickness of the coal deposit and where the operator demonstrates that due
to volumetric expansion the amount of overburden and other spoil and waste
materials removed in the course of the mining operation is more than sufficient
to restore the approximate original contour, the operator shall after restoring
the approximate contour, backfill, grade, and compact (where advisable) the
excess overburden and other spoil and waste materials to attain the lowest grade
but not more than the angle of repose, and to cover all acid-forming and other
toxic materials, in order to achieve an ecologically sound land use compatible
with the surrounding region and that such overburden or spoil shall be shaped
and graded in such a way as to prevent slides, erosion, and water pollution and
is revegetated in accordance with the requirements of this Act;
{36} (4) stabilize and protect all surface areas including spoil piles
affected by the surface coal mining and reclamation operation to effectively
control erosion and attendant air and water pollution; even though they have not
been backfilled. There are often
{37} (5) remove the topsoil from the land in a separate layer, replace it on
the backfill area, or, if not utilized immediately, segregate it in a separate
pile from other spoil and, when the topsoil is not replaced on a backfill area
within a time short enough to avoid deterioration of the topsoil, maintain a
successful cover by quick growing plant or other means thereafter so that the
topsoil is preserved from wind and water erosion, remains free of any
contamination by other acid or toxic material, and is in a usable condition for
sustaining vegetation when restored during reclamation, except if topsoil is of
insufficient quantity or of poor quality for sustaining vegetation, or if other
strata can be shown to be more suitable for vegetation requirements, then the
operator shall remove, segregate, and preserve in a like manner such other
strata which is best able to support vegetation;
37 (6) restore the topsoil or the best available subsoil which has been
segregated and preserved;
37 (7) protect offsite areas from slides or damage occurring during the
surface coal mining and reclamation operations, and not deposit spoil material
or locate any part of the operations or waste accumulations outside the permit
area;
37 (8) create, if authorized in the approved mining and reclamation plan and
permit, permanent impoundments of water on mining sites as part of reclamation
activities only when it is adequately demonstrated that -
37 (A) the size of the impoundment is adequate for its intended purposes;
37 (B) the impoundment dam construction will be so designed as to achieve
necessary stability with an adequate margin of safety compatible with that of
structures constructed under Public Law 83-566 (16 U.S.C. 1006);
37 (C) the quality of impounded water will be suitable on a permanent basis
for its intended use and that discharges from the impoundment will not degrade
the water quality in the receiving stream;
37 (D) the level of water will be reasonably stable;
37 (E) final grading will provide adequate safety and access for proposed
water users; and
{38} (F) such water impoundments will not result in the diminution of the
quality or quantity of water utilized by adjacent or surrounding landowners for
agricultural, industrial, recreational, or domestic uses;
38 (9) plug all auger holes to a minimum of six feet in depth with an
impervious and noncombustible material (such as clay) to prevent the flow of
water in or out of such holes.
38 (10) minimize the disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance at
the minesite and in asssociated offsite areas and to the quality and quantity of
water in surface and ground water systems both during and after surface coal
mining operations and during reclamation by -
38 (A) avoiding acid or other toxic mine drainage by such measures as, but
not limited to -
38 (i) preventing or removing water from contact with toxic producing
deposits;
38 (ii) treating drainage to reduce toxic content which adversely affects
downstream water upon being released to water courses;
38 (iii) casing, sealing, or otherwise managing boreholes, shafts, and wells
and keep acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground and surface waters;
38 (B) conducting surface coal mining operations so as to prevent, to the
extent possible using the best technology currently available, additional
contributions of suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit
area above natural levels under seasonal flow conditions as measured prior to
any mining, and avoiding channel deeping or enlargement in operations requiring
the discharge of water from mines;
38 (C) removing temporary or large siltation structures from drainways after
disturbed areas are revegetated and stabilized;
38 (D) restoring recharge capacity of the mined area to approximate
premining conditions;
38 (E) replacing the water supply of an owner of interest in real property
who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural,
industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source where
such supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption
proximately resulting from mining.
{39} (F) preserving throughout the mining and reclamation process the
essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors in the arid and
semiarid areas of the country; and
39 (G) such other actions as the regulatory authority may prescribe;
39 (11) with respect to surface disposal of mine wastes, tailings, coal
processing wastes, and other wastes in areas other than the mine working or
excavations, stabilize all waste piles in designated areas through construction
in compacted layers including the use of incombustible and impervious materials,
if necessary, and assure the final contour of the waste pile will be compatible
with natural surroundings and that the site can and will be stabilized and
revegetated according to the provisions of this Act;
39 (12) refrain from surface coal mining within five hundred feet from
active and abandoned underground mines in order to prevent breakthroughs and to
protect health or safety of miners: Provided, That the regulatory authority
shall permit an operator to mine closer to an abandoned underground mine:
Provided, That this does not create hazards to the health and safety of miners;
or shall permit an operator to mine near, through, or partially through an
abandoned underground mine working where such mining through will achieve
improved resource recovery, abatement of water pollution or elimination of
public hazards and such mining shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Act;
39 (13) design, locate, construct, operate, maintain, enlarge, modify, and
remove, or abandon, in accordance with the standards and criteria developed
pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, all existing and new coal mine waste
piles consisting of mine wastes, tailings, coal processing wastes, or other
liquid and solid wastes and used either temporarily or permanently as dams or
embankments;
{40} (14) insure that all debris, acid forming materials, toxic materials,
or materials constituting a fire hazard are treated or disposed of in a manner
designed to prevent contamination of ground or surface waters or sustained
combustion;
40 (15) insure that explosives are used only in accordance with existing
State and Federal law and the regulations promulgated by the regulatory
authority, which shall include provisions to -
40 (A) provide adequate advance written notice by publication and/or posting
of the planned blasting schedule to local governments and to residents who might
be affected by the use of such explosives and maintain for a period of at least
two years a log of the magnitudes and times of blasts; and
40 (B) limit the type of explosives and detonating equipment, the size, the
timing and frequency of blasts based upon the physical conditions of the site so
as to prevent (i) injury to persons, (ii) damage to public and private property
outside the permit area, (iii) adverse impacts on any underground mine, and (iv)
change in the course, channel, or availability of ground or surface water
outside the permit area;
40 (16) insure that all reclamation efforts proceed in an environmentally
sound manner and as contemporaneously as practicable with the surface coal
mining operations;
40 (17) insure that the construction, maintenance, and postmining conditions
of access roads into and across the site of operations will control or prevent
erosion and siltation, pollution of water, damage to fish or wildlife or their
habitat, or public or private property: Provided, That the regulatory authority
may permit the retention after mining of certain access roads where consistent
with State and local land use plans and programs and where necessary may permit
a limited exception to the restoration of approximate original contour for that
purpose;
40 (18) refrain from the construction of roads or other access ways up a
stream bed or drainage channel or in such proximity to each channel so as to
seriously alter the normal flow of water;
{41} (19) establish on the regraded areas, and all other lands affected, a
diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover native to the area of land to
be affected and capable of selfregeneration and plant succession at least equal
in extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the area; except, that
introduced species may be used in the revegetation process where desirable and
necessary to achieve the approved postmining land use plan;
41 (20) assume the responsibility for successful revegetation, as required
by paragraph (19) above, for a period of five full years after the last year of
augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other work in order to assure
compliance with paragraph (19) above, except in those areas or regions of the
country where the annual average precipitation is twenty-six inches or less,
then the operator's assumption of responsibility and liability will extend for a
period of ten full years after the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing,
irrigation, or other work: Provided, That when the regulatory authority approves
a longterm intensive agricultural postmining land use, the applicable five- or
ten-year period of responsibility for revegetation shall commence at the date of
initial planning for such long-term intensive agricultural postmining land use:
Provided further, That when the regulatory authority issues a written finding
approving a long-term, intensive, agricultural postmining land use as part of
the mining and reclamation plan, the authority may grant exception to the
provisions of paragraph (19) above; and
41 (21) meet such other criteria as are necensary to achieve reclamation in
accordance with the purposes of this Act, taking into consideration the
physical, climatological, and other characteristics of the site, and to insure
the maximum practicable recovery of the mineral resources.
41 (c)(1) Each State program may and each Federal program shall include
procedures pursuant to which the regulatory authority may permit variances for
the purposes set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
{42} (2) Where an applicant meets the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4)
of this subsection a variance from the requirement to restore to approximate
original contour set forth in subsection 515(b)(3) or 515(d) of this section may
be granted for the surface mining of coal where the mining operation will remove
an entire coal seam or seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain,
ridge, or bill (except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(A) hereof) by removing
all of the overburden and creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour
with no highwalls remaining, and capable of supporting postmining uses in accord
with the requirements of this subsection.
42 (3) In cases where an industrial, commercial (including commercial
agricultural), residential or public facility (including recreational
facilities) development is proposed for the postmining use of the affected land,
the regulatory authority may grant a variance for a surface mining operation of
the nature described in subsection (c)(2) where -
42 (A) after consultation with the appropriate land use planning agencies,
if any, the proposed development is deemed to constitute an equal or better
economic or public use of the land, as compared with the premining uses;
42 (B) the equal or better economic or public use can be obtained only if
one or more exceptions to the requirements of section 515(b)(3) are granted;
42 (C) the applicant presents specific plans for the proposed postmining
land use and appropriate assurances that such use will be -
42 (i) compatible with adjacent land uses;
42 (ii) obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market;
42 (iii) assured of investment in necessary public facilities;
42 (iv) supported by commitments from public agencies where appropriate;
42 (v) practicable with respect to private financial capability for
completion of the proposed development;
{43} (vi) planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so
as to integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the postmining land
use; and
43 (vii) designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional
standards established to assure the stability, drainage, and configuration
necessary for the intended use of the site;
43 (D) the proposed use would be consistent with adjacent land uses, and
existing State and local land use plans and programs;
43 (E) the regulatory authority provides the governing body of the unit of
general-purpose government in which the land is located and any State or Federal
agency which the regulatory agency, in its discretion, determines to have an
interest in the proposed use, an opportunity of not more than sixty days to
review and comment on the proposed use;
43 (F) a public hearing is held in the locality of the proposed surface coal
mining operation prior to the grant of any permit including a variance; and
43 (G) all other requirements of this Act will be met.
43 (4) In granting any variance pursuant to this subsection the regulatory
authority shall require that -
43 (A) the toe of the lowest coal seam and the overburden associated with it
are retained in place as a barrier to slides and erosion;
43 (B) the reclaimed area is stable;
43 (C) the resulting plateau or rolling contour drains inward from the
outslopes except at specified points;
43 (D) no damage will be done to natural watercourses;
43 (E) all other requirements of this Act will be met.
43 (5) The regulatory authority shall promulgate specific regulations to
govern the granting of variance in accord with the provisions of this
subsection, and may impose such additional requirements as he deems to be
necessary.
{44} (6) All exceptions granted under the provisions of this subsection
shall be reviewed not more than three years from the date of issuance of the
permit, unless the applicant is proceding in accordance with the terms of the
approved schedule and reclamation plan.
44 (d) The following performance standards shall be applicable to
steep-slope surface coal mining and shall be in those general performance
standards required by this section: Provided, however, That the provisions of
the subsection (d) shall not apply to those situations in which an operator is
mining on flat or gently rolling terrain, on which an occasional steep slope is
encountered through which the mining operation is to proceed, leaving a plain or
predominantly flat area:
44 (1) Insure that when performing surface coal mining on steep slopes, no
debris, abandoned or disabled equipment, spoil material, or waste mineral matter
be placed on the downslope below the bench or mining cut, except that where
necessary soil or spoil material from the initial block or short linear cut of
earth necessary to obtain initial access to the coal seam in a new surface coal
mining operation can be placed on a limited and specified area of the downslope
below the initial cut if the permittee demonstrates that such soil or spoil
material will not slide and that the other requirements of this subsection can
still be met: Provided, That spoil material in excess of that required for the
reconstruction of the approximate original contour under the provisions of
paragraph 515(b)(3) or 515(d)(2) or excess spoil from a surface coal mining
operation granted a variance under subsection 515(c) may be permanently stored
at such offsite spoil storage areas as the regulatory authority shall designate
and for the purposes of this Act such areas shall be deemed in all respects to
be part of the lands affected by surface coal mining operations. Such offsite
spoil storage areas shall be designed by a registered engineer in conformance
with professional standards established to assure the stability, drainage, and
configuration necessary for the intended use of the site.
{45} (2) Complete backfilling with spoil material shall be required to cover
completely the high wall and return the site to the approximate original
contour, which material will maintain stability following mining and
reclamation.
45 (3) The operator may not disturb land above the top of the highwall
unless the regulatory authority finds that such disturbance will facilitate
compliance with the environmental protection standards of this section: P
Provided, however, That the land disturbed above the highwall shall be limited
to that amount necessary to facilitate said compliance.
45 (4) For the purposes of this section, the term "steep slope" is any slope
above twenty degrees or such lesser slope as may be defined by the regulatory
authority after consideration of soil, climate, and other characteristics of a
region or State.
45 (e) The Secretary, with the written concurrence of the Chief of
Engineers, shall establish within one hundred and thirty-five days from the date
of enactment, standards and criteria regulating the design, location
construction, operation, maintenance, enlargement, modification, removal, and
abandonment of new and existing coal mine waste piles referred to in section
515(b)(13) and section 516(b)(5). Such standards and criteria shall conform to
the standards and criteria used by the Chief of Engineers to insure that flood
control structures are safe and effectively perform their intended function. In
addition to engineering and other technical specifications the standards and
criteria developed pursuant to this subsection must include provisions for
review and approval of plans and specifications prior to construction
enlargement, modifications, removal, or abandonment; performance of periodic
inspections during construction; issuance of certificates of approval upon
completion of construction; performance of periodic safety inspections; and
issuance of notices for required remedial or maintenance work.
{35} Analysis by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
35 515 b(2) - For the reasons pointed out in discussions on other sections,
it will sometimes be impossible in Alaska to restore the land to its original
use or to meet the standards of a "higher or better" use. "Higher or better
use" is subject to too many interpretations to be a useful standard. As long as
it is restored to a use compatible with surrounding use and consistent with land
use plans and meets the other criteria in this section it should be adequate.
35 515 b(3) - There are several conditions in Alaska which will often make
it impossible or impractical to restore to the approximate original contour of
the land. Most of the potential coal deposits in Alaska are in steep terrain
areas. Even areas of gentle or low relief are cut by numerous drainages which
are actively eroding the valley floor and walls so that there are natural
cutbanks or scarps with no vegetation.
35 The present and foreseeable other future use for most of these lands is
for wildlands, primarily fish and game habitat. Thus from a practical
viewpoint as long as the lands are restored to equivalent habitat they have met
the criteria for "equal use" natural cuts and scarps in the area that will have
much more physical and visual impact than will high walls and other surface mine
features.
{36} A much more significant difference in Alaska is that overburden will
often be permanently frozen. When this material thaws it becomes very fluid
making it difficult or impossible in some cases to maintain cutbanks and spoil
piles so that normal backfilling can proceed with mining. Compaction of these
materials is impossible. A normal open cut mining and backfilling operation
with this material would impose almost insurmountable safety hazards. The only
feasible way to backfill the excavation with the spoil material would be to
impound it outside the mining area and return it after mining operations have
ceased and the material has dewatered. This not only would be economically
prohibitive but would cause more damage in some cases than well planned spoil
piles properly rehabilitated.
36 Another important difference is that Alaska coals are low in sulphur and
there have been no acid forming or other toxic material problems.
36 Also, in Alaska, because of climatic and market conditions, most
stripping is done during the summer months thereby requiring larger areas to be
opened and larger spoil areas outside the mining area.
36 The exception of allowing lowering the grade only where materials are not
"otherwise available" (page 88 line 7) is not applicable in Alaska. The
material will usually be available but if it is frozen or otherwise unstable,
disturbing or removing the material will create as many problems as it solves.
36 515 b(4) - Because of the numerous exceptions or variances that will have
to be granted in Alaska, this standard would be all that is needed as a basis
for state regulation if it was enlarged to include restoring the land to a
useful purpose consistent with land use plans for the area. The rest of the
sections under b(2) through b(6) are not needed.
37 515 b(5) - In Alaska, topsoil in most of the potential mining areas is
thin or nonexistent and is generally very low in nutrients. Often a much more
efficient job can be done by adding proper nutrients to common spoil material.
The problems of segregation and storage of any strata are complicated by
permafrost and unstable soils and will often make an alternate program for
re-establishing vegetation more environmentally desirable.
37 515 b(8) - Many of the requirements of this section are already
adequately covered under a multitude of other state and federal water laws in
Alaska. Subsection (E) should be changed because access will sometimes not be
desirable in wildland areas.
{38} (D) needs to be qualified because it may be impossible in some
situations to approximate premining conditions and it might not be critical in
water surplus areas such as is common in Alaska. For instance, what would be
the point in a high rainfall area close to the coast.
{39} 515b(11) - As previously pointed out it will be impossible to compact
some spoil materials.
39 515b(12) - Covered under mine safety laws.
39 515b(13) - If the intent of this section is to require operators to
comply on old completed working then we do not believe it is feasible.
{40} 515b(15) - This section is covered by both federal safety laws (MESA)
and state laws. Overlapping jurisdictions should be eliminated where possible.
{41} 515 b(20) - In many areas of Alaska revegetation will become
established very fast and other areas will be extremely slow. We suggest the
time limitation be removed and other standards be established which relate to
actual re-establishment of vegetation.
{42} 515 c(3) - This section should be enlarged to include wildlands to be
used primarily for fish and game habitat. The standard in "A" should be
adequate for a variance in any case and we see no need for the first paragraph
in (13).
42 515 c(3)(B) - We believe the language in this section could be used to
defeat a "better economic or public use". There appears no need to be concerned
with compliance with 515 b(3) if the proposed use is an "equal or better" use
and otherwise complies with c(3) even though compliance with 515 b(3) is
possible.
43 515 c(4)(A) - This section needs to be clarified or eliminated. As we
understand it, it would only be applicable to very limited situations.
43 515c(4)(C) - We believe to attempt to accomplish this in some cases could
frustrate the best land use plan for the area and see no need to be concerned as
long as the area is stabilized, is not causing pollution and is otherwise in
compliance.
{45} 515 d(2) - This provision is not consistent with the variance
provisions and would prevent surface mining in steep terrain/steep seam areas in
Alaska such as in common in the major accessible fields; Beluga, Matanuska and
Healy.We believe that alternate reclamation plans can be provided in these areas
that will return the land to an equal or better use without complete backfilling
to the original contour.
45 515 d(3) - Needs to be enlarged to allow disturbance of the land above
the top of the highwall for safety purposes. This could be critical in natural
snow slide or land slide areas in the mining area.
{46} ARIZONA
46 The cover letter from the State Land Department indicated that "Arizona
does not have statutes pertaining to surface coal mining and reclamation, and
therefore, the questionnaire does not apply."
46 ARKANSAS
46 The Arkansas State Geologist indicated in his cover letter that the
current State laws would be compatible with Sections 515 and 516 of the Federal
proposal. The Arkansas law covers all open-cut mining in the State with the
exception of sand and gravel operations. He did indicate, however, that these
exceptions to the law could be changed in the near future. The State law does
not have provisions addressing the surface effects of underground mining. With
these exceptions, the State felt that the State law would generally conform with
the proposed Federal law. The letter also indicated that the mining of lignite
may occur in the future. Such mining would involve the disruption of both
surface and subsurface water supplies. The current laws, however, would apply
to lignite as well as the other types of coal.
46 CALIFORNIA
46 According to the engineering consultant for the State, Sections 515 and
516 of the Federal proposal do not apply to the State since there is no
significant coal mining in California. The State agency provided only a token
response to the survey and was very reluctant to provide information on the
regulation of surface mining activities within the State. This may be due,
however, to the fact that mining within the State is regulated at the county or
local level.
46 CONNECTICUT
46 The Director of the Natural Resources Center indicated in his cover
letter that the State "has no coal mining, no State laws or enforcement
programs, and no State strip mine laws or regulations."
46 DELAWARE
46 The Acting Director of the Division of Environmental Control for the
State replied that, because the State does not have any coal, "its surface is
not impacted by coal mining operations and, therefore, the State does not have
any laws or regulations on this subject."
{47} FLORIDA
47 The Department of Natural Resources for the State of Florida indicated
that, since the State did not produce any coal, it was unnecessary to respond to
the Committee's survey.
47 GEORGIA
47 The Program Manager for the State indicated in a personal cover letter
(which did not represent the views of the State) that no distinction should be
made between coal and other minerals with regard to the regulation of the
industry and the reclamation of mined lands. He also recommended that Congress
reconsider the legislation now being drafted. It was suggested that a task
force be assembled from the various State reclamationists in order to draft
legislation that would be more sensitive to the unique conditions encountered by
mine operators in different geographic locations throughout the United States.
His final observation was that all of the legislation which has been proposed to
date has been "too verbose and complicated, as well as impractical."
47 Georgia law does not regulate the use of explosives and does not require
the mine operator to restore the water supply of surface owners that may be
affected by coal surface mining. Furthermore, the Georgia law has no provisions
which require the plugging or sealing of auger holes, but the respondent stated
that if auger mining did occur, the mine operator would be required to seal any
such holes. If such an action is required by the appropriate departments within
the State, it is not clear how the operators would be harmed if the requirement
were to be written into the law.
47 The State requires that a "permanent" vegetative cover be established
before the operator is released from his liability. The State Department of
Natural Resources indicated that placing a specific time requirement of 5 or 10
years during which the operator is liable for the vegetative cover would be too
stringent on the operator and unnecessary. The use of the word "permanent" in
the State requirement, however, could be interpreted by the courts as involving
a much longer term of liability than would the placing a specific time limit on
the liability. The State's requirement could involve the defining of the term
"permanent". The Department of Natural Resources stated in its letter that the
State law extended the privilege of permit renewal as long as the operator
carried out the provisions of the approved Mined Land Use Plan. The Department
said that the "three-year review" provision of the Federal proposal would be
unnecessary. The Federal proposal, however, does not require a review of the
operations every three years. The permit does lapse if mining has not commenced
within three years of the date of the permit issuance, but the actual permit
does carry with it the right of successive renewal if the requirements of the
Act are met. The language of the bill places the burden of proof of compliance
upon regulatory authority instead of the operator. The Georgia law has no
provisions for the regulation of the surface effects of underground mining.
{48} According to the response from the Department, the State has not
designated any areas as being unsuitable for coal mining.
48 The Department indicated that it has not yet suspended or revoked any
surface mining permits, although in one instance, it did temporarily interrupt
the operations because the operator failed to follow an approved mining plan.
48 In answering question (f) which asked for the ratio of full-time field
inspectors to trained technical staff who are available for backup information,
the State responded that it had no technical staff for that purpose. Later in
the reply however, in response to a question about the number of permit
applications that have been approved without modification, the Department stated
that whenever an operator's plan did not conform to the requirements of the
State, the technical staff assisted the operator in modifying the mining plan
accordingly. The size and function of this staff is not clear.
48 HAWAII
48 According to the Chairman of the Board of the Department of Land and
Natural Resources for Hawaii, the State enacted a law some years ago in
anticipation of mining of low-grade bauxite in the State. There has not,
however, been any surface mining in the State to date, and according to the
Department, none is anticipated in the foreseeable future.
48 The regulations which are currently in force contain provisions for the
control of surface mining for practically all types of minerals, including coal,
although the State has no coal reserves. Furthermore, the regulations require
that all types of surface mining conducted within the State be done with a
permit issued by the Board of Land and Natural Resources. The law also
prohibits the discharging of any "poisonous or noxious" matter into any streams
or shore water in a manner that would constitute a public nuisance.
48 The application-for-permit fee required by the State is based on the
number of acres involved in the mining operation, with the minimum fee being
$100 (for less than 10 acres) and the maximum fee being $5 00 (for 500 acres).
The law also requires the operator to post bond to insure the execution of the
performance stated in the application permit. The actual requirements for the
release of the bond are established on an individual basis. With regards to
reclamation, the Hawaiian law requires the stripping, storage, and replacement
of the topsoil in the permit area, and requires the operator to strike off the
ridges and peaks and fill in deep depressions created by the mining operations
and grade the surface in a manner suitable for planting, all actions to be
performed as soon as practicable.
{49} The laws requires that the operator perform the following tasks:
49 Dispose of all debris, rubble, and tailings in such manner as to enhance
the contour of the pit or to provide erosion and drainage control in adjacent
areas.
49 Provide such drains, ditches, and outlets as may be necessary to prevent
the accumulation of water in the pit and to remove water from the pit in such a
way as to minimize erosion of the pit and the surrounding land.
49 Utilize the overburden removed from the surface of the pit in such manner
as best to recondition or reclaim the mined area, or the area where the tailings
have been disposed, if in an area other than the pit.
49 Provide a reasonable means of access to the pit.
49 Revegetate or rehabilitate the pit, which shall include, inter alia,
provisions for:
49 (A) Replacing the topsoil, if required;
49 (B) Liming, if mining produces deleterious changes in soil acidity from
the original soil condition of the area, or if needed for the establishment of
satisfactory fertility under subparagraph (C) hereafter;
49 (C) Applying fertilizer to reestablish satisfactory fertility and crop
production in soils of areas cultivated to agricultural crops prior to the
inception of mining, and, in areas used for grazing or forest prior to the
inception of mining, fertilizer to provide a grass forage cover suitable for an
annual carrying capacity of not less than one head of cattle for each three
acres;
49 (D) Planting in all instances a cover crop of good pasture grass to
stabilize the exposed surface and to minimize erosion, unless immediate crop
production shall be affected, or unless relieved therefrom by the board in
writing. In pits intended for restoration to forest, rehabilitation shall
include a quick cover crop followed by forest plantings, respecting which the
board shall advise on types, availability, and spacing of species to be planted;
49 (E) Achieving, where possible, as a minimum goal of restoration,
comparable fertility and use of land to that existing prior to strip mining.
MATRIX
*11*[N/
A - Not
applica
ble (
accordi
ng to
the
State);
N/R -
Not
reporte
d; N/K
- No
records
kept;
Footnot
e
numbers
are in
parenth
eses]
Arkans Califo Connec Delawa Florid Georgi
Alaska Arizona as rnia ticut re a a Hawaii Idaho
Mining
in
alluvia No laws
l which N/A
valleys apply. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n10 n(11).
Law
require
s
reclama
tion of
abandon
ed
lands None N/A n(5) No.
State
appropr
iations
for
abandon
ed mine
reclama No
tion figures
from readily
1966 to availab
1975. le. None None None None.
Actual
reclama
tion
expendi
tures
durin
the
same
period. do None None None None.
1975
COAL
DATA
Product
ion:
Undergr
ound None N/R n(3) None.
Surface 710,000 126,00
total ST N/R n(3) 0 ST 0.
Number
of
tons:
250,000
tons 1 N/R n(3) 0
250,000
tons 1 N/R n(3) 7
Percent
age of
coal
lands
within
the
State
which
are not
affecte
d by
the
State
laws. 0 N/R N/R 0 0.
Reclama
tion
Field
Inspect
ors:
Number
of
trained
full-
time
inspect
ors N/A 1 None 6 1.
Full-
time
inspect
ors to
surface
mines
under 1 to 1 to 1 to
permit. N/A 15 N/A 85 362.
Method
of
hiring
field Civil
inspect servic
ors Merit N/A Merit e.
Average
years
of
college
and 7 yrs
type of colleg
profess e+2
ional yrs
trainin strain
g. N/A 4 N/A 5 ing
$
13,326
Salary to $ $
schedul 19,302 14,220
e N/A N/R N/A . .
Numeric
al
distrib
ution N/A N/R N/R.
Median $
distrib 17,544
ution N/A N/A n7 NR.
Ratio
of
full-
time
inspect
ors to
technic
al 1 to
people. N/A N/A N/A 1.
Frequen
cy
onsite
inspect
ions:
Announc Quarte Annual
ed N/A None N/A rly ly.
Minimu
m 8
Unannou 4 to 6 yearly
nced weeks N/A . None.
Type of
followu
p field Writte Writte
inspect n n
ion report report
reports N/A n(1) N/A s. .
Number
of
actions
ceased
without Approx
formal imatel
action. N/A n(1) N/A y 12. None.
CITIZEN
ACTION
Number
of
citizen
complai
nts
against
operato
rs
which
were
registe
red 5
with relate
the d to 1
State operat
agency. N/A 2 N/K ion. None.
Number
of
public
hearing
s held
regardi
ng
citizen
complai
nts and
action
taken. N/A None N/K None Do.
Number
of
citizen
s suits
brought
against
operato
rs and
the
State
agency. N/A N/A 1 N/K do N/A Do.
PERMITS
AND
LICENSE
S
Number
approve
d
without 50
modific percen
ation 1 t n(4) Few 60.
Number
approve
d with
modific Majori
ation N/A do n(4) ty 15.
Number
rejecte
d N/A None n(4) None 0.
Number
of
applica
tions
for
permit
of
license
which
were
modifie
d or
rejecte
d upon
receipt
of a
citizen
complai
nt ("H"
denotes
that a
hearing
was
held). N/A do n(4) do None.
Method
of
hiring
the
person
respons
ible
for
decisio
ns on
permit
issuanc
e and Civils
enforce ervice
ment. N/A Merit Merit .
PERFORM
ANCE
BONDS
Average
amount
of
perform
ance
bond $900/
require acre/
d per coal
acre $450/
under $10,000 acre
permit bond for
or require other
license d thus $500/ minera $500/
. far. total acre N/K ls. acre.
Reasons Failur
for e to
bond comple
forfeit None te None
ure if forfei reclam forfei
any N/A ted. N/K ation. ted.
Average
amount
of bond
forfeit
ed per
acre
under $
permit. N/A do N/K 468.42 N/A.
Acreage
reclaim
ed
under
forfeit
ed bond N/A N/A N/K None None.
Method
of
awardin
g
reclama
tion
contrac
ts
under
forfeit
ed Biddin
bond. N/A n(2) g N/a.
Reclama
tion
costs
per
acre
under $
forfeit 468.42
ed bond N/A N/K N/K n(8) Do.
VIOLATI
ONS
Total
fines
collect
ed for
-
(A)
civil
violati
ons N/A None N/K None None.
(B)
crimina
l None
violati for
ons N/A do N/K coal Do.
Average
amount
of
fines
collect
ed/acre N/A do N/K None Do.
Total
fines
imposed
but not
collect
ed
prison
section
. N/A do N/K do Do.
Prison
sentenc
es
imposed N/A do N/K n(9) Do.
Massac
Illinoi Kentuc husett Michig Minnse Missis
s Indiana lowa Kansas ky Maine s an ota sippi
Requir
Mining es
in specia
alluvia l
l permit See
valleys N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A text N/A N/A.
Law
require
s
reclama
tion of
abandon
ed Separat Separat
lands e law e law N/A
State
appropr
iations
for
abandon
ed mine
reclama $
tion 30,000
from in $
1966 to 1968 1,500,
1975. N/R n12 N/R n23 N/K 000
Actual
reclama
tion
expendi
tures
during
the $
same 600,00
period. N/R N/R do N/K 0
1975
COAL
DATA
Product
ion:
Undergr 31,880, 158,33 69,788
ound 083 145,942 6 N/R ,129
162,02
1 1st
27,650, 24,944, half 77,332
Surface 393 143 1975 N/R ,720
147,12
Total 0,849
Number
of
mines:
250,000
tons 19 15 0 N/R 314
250,000
tons 17 95 7 N/R 2,479
Percent
age of
coal
lands
within
the
state
which
are not
affecte
d by
the
state
laws. 0 0 0 N/R n(27)
Reclama
tion
field
inspect
ors:
Number
of
trained
full-
time
inspect
ors 9 3 1 1 72
Full-
time
inspect
ors to
surface
mines
under 1 to 36 1 to 1 to
permit. 1 to 17 n15 1 to 7 97 75
Method
of
hiring
field By Civil
inspect Civil directo servic
ors service r Merit N/R e
Average
years
of
college
and
type of
profess
ional 4
trainin 5 years 4 years years
g. n13 n16 n24 0 2 n28
$
$12,000 $13,260 11,700
Salary min, $ min, $ min, $ $4,800
schedul 15,336 16,926 15,806 max
e max. max. max. n26 n(29)
Numeric
al
distrib
ution N/R n(17)