0 NGRESSIONAL ‘ESEARCH -1 O 0 r. \ 047 03860 SURFACE HIRING: FEDERAL REGULATION ISSUE BRIEF NUHBER IB740714 AUTH OR : Thompson, Duane Environment.anG Natural Resources Policy Division Agnew, Allen F. Environment.and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MA JOB ISSUE S YSTEM DATE OBIGINATED Q§_4p__1_41g_ DATE upnurun 9__t_:_ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0'4 16 cns— 1 In7u07a UPDATE-04/15/80 l§§§3-2§2lfll-L9_ It is estimated that during 1975, 54.7% (350.2 out of 6&0 million tons) of coal produced in the U.S. was mined by the controversial surface-mining method, resulting in disturbance to more thn 1000 acres of land each week. While there are numerous environmental and social costs associated with unregulated surface-mining, this method is a less expensive, safer, and quicker way of obtaining large tonnages of coal. The energy crisis has provoked a need for easy access to energy sources, and coal accounts for nearly 90% of domestic fossil fuel reserves. As a result, certain power-generating facilities with cleaner but domestically scarce gas and fuel oils have been asked recently to convert or revert to coal-fired operations. The overriding policy issue is how the Government can regulate surface mining in environmentally acceptable ways. EéQ§§B9Q§Q.AED_2QLl§X-AEAL.§l§ Stated in simple terms, surface sining removes the overburden consisting of topsoil, rock, and other strata that.lie above mineral or fuel deposits. After extraction of the coal or other desired material, the overburden may be replaced. In practice, however, the process is considerably more coplex. In area strip mining --usually practiced on flat terrain - a trench is made through the overburden to expose a portion of the deposit, which is then removed. As each succeeding parallel cut is made, the overburden is deposited in the cut just previously excavated. In contour strip mining, asst commonly practiced in rolling or mountainous countryside, the overburden i\ removed by making a series of shelves along hillsides. The vertical wall left in the hillsides resulting from this type of excavation can be as great as 100 feet. At times, operators have cast the overburden over the edge of the shelf creating landslide hazards. This is one reason why contour surface mining in mountainous areas has been severely criticized by environmentalists, many of whom advocate banning this method on slopes greater than 20 degrees. Strip mining first started before Horld War I, but it did not become a significant technology for mining coal until after World War II. By the early 19605, more than 30% of this country's coal was produced by surface mining. Although 50% of the country's coal is now obtained by isurface mining, it has been estimated that only 5% of the estimated 3 trillion tons of coal resources in the United States is close enough to the surface to lend itself to stripping procedures. Compared to underground methods, surface mining offers distinct advantages. It provides safer vorking conditions, usually results in a more complete recovery of the deposit (90% recovery in area stripping vs. 55% recovery in underground mines), and is generally cheaper in terms of cost-per-unit of producion. The Bureau of Mines estimates 1975 f.o.b. nine values for coal as follows: Eastern surface=$18/short ton Eastern underground=$20/short ton Midwestern surface=$11/short ton hidnestern underground=’12-13/short ton cns- 2 IE7!-£0714 UPDATE-O ts/15/so Environmental costs of stripping, however, are high. It has been estimated that surface mining destroys outdoor recreation resources worth $35 million a year. Water supplies are polluted through acid drainage, farm lands are adversely affected, and natural beauty is degraded. Environmentalists feel that much of this strip mining is unnecessary. A new underground mining technology called longwall mining, developed in, Heste Europe, pernits 80-95% recovery of coal, a rate equal to that of area surface mining . During the debate surface mining proponents conceded that stripping produces environmental damage in the short term; but, they argued that it can be limited and repaired.through reclamation. Estimates for the cost of thorough reclamation range from.just a few cents to several dollars per ton of coal, depending upon the degree of reclamation and the total tonnage of resource removed from aagiven area (reclamation costs per ton are extremely sensitive and.inverse1y proportional towthe thickness of the coal vein). Reclamation is more feasible and less costly for area mines in rolling or flat land than for contour mines in mountainous or hilly terrain. This could presage a shift in strip sine operations from the eastern Appalachian coal fields to the central and western fields. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that the feasibility of adequate reclamation in the semiarid western lands has not yet been demonstrated satisfactorily. In the United States, meaningful reclamation is being done for most currently mined lands, following the pattern of success reported in Great Britain and West Germany. In a recent report to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, however, the Council on Environmental Quality icalculated that of the four million acres of land that have been disturbed by surface mining to date, more than half of them lie unreclaimed. Since much of this land was disturbed prior to the promulgation of any State surface mining regulations, theconpanies involved are no longer liable for i .reclamation. At issue in the surface mine debate is who should regulate the mining and reclamation process. Until recently, surface mining was relatively unregulated, although reclanation laws were on the books in most States by the early 1960s. Environmental lobbies feel that State laws are largely unenforced, ambiguous, hampered by lack of funds and personnel, and, in general, too limited in coverage to provide a comprehensive remedy for the problem. Advocates of stripping, in ccntrast, feel that Federal rules would undermine State and local authorities that propose rational growth and land development. ” another issue arises from the fact that 40% of the coal deposits are on lands where the Government owns the mineral rights. (Moreover, these lands contain 85% of the supply of environmentally desirable, low-sulfur coal.) Coal and utility companies began buying up leases on coal rights in the Northern Great Plains in the mid-1960s. Thus, re-examination of Federal leasing policies for coal is crucial. There has been strong public and congressional support for Federal legislation to control strip mining. Congress experienced extended delays in trying to pass a strip mining bill. Control bills were introduced as early as 19140, and have been introduced in every Congress since 1960. In 1972, the House passed a bill, but the Senate did not.act. In December 1974, a surfa mining bill, S. 425, was finally agreed upon by both houses, but was pockec vetoed by President Ford at the end of the 93d Congress. The President contended that the legislation would hinder coal production and be cns- 3 IB7£l074 UPDATE-0'4/15/8:0 inflationary. Since the fuel shortages have prompted a reappraisal of surface mining legislation, the Ford Administration was concerned that any restrictions on surfaceanining will impede increased coal production. The issue, then, is one of balancing energy needs and environmental costs. Action on the surface mining issue in the 9Qth Cbngress included the introduction of several new bills, some of which were virtually identical to» the joint conference hill, 5. 425, of the 93d Congress. Bills 5. 7 and H.R. 25 were the reintroduction of S. #25 (93d Congress). 5. 652 and its companion hill H.B. 3119 were the Adninistration's proposals. In a statement issued by the Administration, 27 changes in the joint conference hill (5. 425; 93d Congress) were suggested; 8 offthem were classified as critical. Among these 8 changes were decreases in the per-ton tax on. mined coal to ‘establish an abandoned lands reclamation fund, changes in the stream siltation standards, and definition of certain ambiguous terms in the joint conference bill and its successors, S. 7 and H.B. 25. % Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. Morton offered a statement on S. 7 and H.R. 25 to the House Interior Committee on Feb. 18, 1975 in which he estimated coal production losses to be from Q8 to 1&1 million tons during the first full year of implementation of either’ strip mining bill. The same statement was presented.to the Senate Interior Committee on Feb. 20, 1975 for Hr. Horton by Assistant Secretary Jack Carlson. E Markup sessions for S. 7 and H.R. 25 were held during the week of Feb. 2Q; 1975. A joint conference net to consider the bills on Apr. 16, 13, 23, and finished their work Apr. 29. The joint.conference bill then went before the House and Senate for final approval. A ; Major provisions in the surface mining regulation proposal included thei t flowing: (1).allovance of surface mining in alluvial valley floors, where such activities will not jeopardize irrigated agricultural activities; (2) prohibition of surface mining in National Forests; (3) imposition of a tax in the amount of 35 cents/ton on surface-mined coal and 10 cents/ton on deep-mined coal, for the establishment of an abandoned mine reclamation fund; (H) exemption of anthracite coal mines from the provisions of the bill; and (5) elimination of special unemployment compensation for persons dislocated from their jobs by the administration and enforcement of the bill's provisions. 4 On day 20, 1975, President Ford vetoed B;R. 25, the Surface dining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975, citing unacceptable levels of lost coal production and unenployment as two of the primary reasons for returning the neasure to Congress. Sponsors of the hill asked Administration officials to appear on June 3, 1975, before a Joint Committee consisting of members of the House Subcommittee on Mines and Hining and the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources. The Administration was asked to verify these projected unemployxent and production loss figures. Members of the Senate Subcommitte on Natural Resources were invited to participate in the proceedings. -7 On June 11, 1975, H.R. 25 received override consideration in» the House." The major issue in the consideration was the accuracy of the Administration's assessnent of the potential impact of the legislation on coal production and industry employment, which had been offered in testinony pefore the House I ‘erior Committee, June 3, 1975, by Secretary of Interior‘ Morton. and FEA Administrators Zarb. Although Administration officials were unable to substantiate their impact estimates to the satisfaction of many members, the Committee was unable to produce figures to refute those of the CRS- Q IB74074 UPDATE-O4/15/80 Administration. The floor debate concluded with neither the proponents nor opponents of the bill being able to prove their own impact estimates or disprove those of the opposition. The final vote narrowly failed to post a two—third's majority to override the President's veto. The vote was 278 to 143, with 1 voting "present," and 12 not voting. On Feb. 2a, 1976, the House Interior Committee voted 28 to 11 to report H.R. 9725, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, to the full House. The bill was virtually identical to H.R. 25, its predecessor of the 9uth Congress, 1st session, which was vetoed by President Ford. Technical changes by the Committee were made to correct typographical errors in the bill and the language of Section 510 (b) (5), uhich restricted mining in alluvial valley floors west of the one hundredth meridian west longitude, was altered to exclude nines producing coal in commercial quantities one year prior to the date of enactment from the provisions of the Section. Further consideration of H.R. 9725 was tabled by the House Rules Cbmmittee on Mar. 23, preventing the bil1.from being considered by the full House. The action was seen as a major victory for the Ford Administration and the coal industry, which have fought congressional efforts to institute Federal standards to govern the~reclamation of lands disturbed by the surface mining of coal. §eI.;21_:e-;e9isla.ti S. 1uo3 (Hr. Jackson, by request) As introduced: Legislation to amend the following section of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, P.L. 95-87. Section 50201) extends the maximum period during which the State: Federal regulatory authority shall process and grant or deny a surface mining permit from forty--two to forty-nine months; 503(a) extends the period for submission of State programs to the Federal agency from 18 to 31 months; 50n(a) extends the period for the promulgation and implementation of a Federal program for a State from 34 to 41 months following the date of enactment of the Act. Strikes the following sentence from the Act: "If State compliance with clause (1) of this subsection requires an act of the State legislature, the Secretary nay extend the period of subnission of a State program up to an additional six months.“ In action on the bill, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee made the following changes including the controversial "Rockefeller" amendment: F The 42-month period contained in section 502(d) of the Act was extended from the originally proposed #9 months to 54 months; The 34-month period contained in section 504(a) of the Act was extended from the originally proposed 41 months to 46 months. EB.-2§1.s:e.£21;er':-a29—.n;i!m.~2n£§; I CBS“ 5 IB7fl07fl UPDATE-04/15/30 Strike the following language from sections 503(a)(7) and 701(25): SO3(a)(7) strike the phrase “regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to"; 701(25) strike the phrase "and regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this act." The "Rockefeller" amendments would allow the State to assume enforcement of ‘surface mining reclamation by promulgating regulations that are consistent with the provisions of the Act without those regulations being consistent with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 1 In the Committee, additional language was added to S. 1fl03 which allowed for the implementation of a Federal lands program coincident with the ginplementation of a State program pursuant to section 503 or a Federal program pursuant to section 504 of the Surface Mining Act. Hinor changes were also made in the Title of the Act to accommodate the proposed changes of the "Rockefeller" amendments to sections 503(a)(7) and 701(25). All of the amendments made in Committee remained unchanged in Senate floor action on the bill with theifollowing exception: Section 502 of the Surface Hining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 was amended by adding the following language: "(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each State shall, to the greatest extent possible, have principal responsibility for the inspection of mines during the period of time prior to the submittal of State plans for approval. Such responsibility shall remain with each State until such tine as the Secretary shall furnish personnel assistance to the States i carrying out this responsibility upon request of the State regulatory agency." " i As amended, 5. 1403 passed the Senate Sept. 11, 1979, and was referred to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs- §en§e.le9i§..1ati°n - 96th Congress H.R. 11728: A bill to amend the Surhce dining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. H.R. H728 is identical to S. 1fl03 (as introduced) and provides for extensions of the deadlines for the submission of State programs and approval of those programs, but does not provide for any changes in the Act that would release the States from promulgating regulations consistent with those promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 1 Lat§§§.&EElQB As of Oct. 10, 1979s the House Interior Committee had scheduled no action on either of the bills. By request, the General Accounting Ofifice examined several internal memos or the Office of Surface Mining written.during the period that S. 1403 was being considered by the:Senate. nany of these memos were printed in the Congressional Record of Bar. 27, 1980, pages 53104 to 53115. The information ans. 6 IB7uo7u UPDATE-O4/15/80 in the memos suggests numerous inproprieties by the Office of Surface Mining including direct lobbying of Congress in order to defeat S. 1uo3, using appropriated funds to muster support among several environmental organizations against passage of the bill, and trying to influence congressional support against the legislation by selectively allocating O¢1 State contract funds. The Department of Justice, at the request of Congress, has supplied the Federal Bureau of Investigation with copies of the memos so that the Bureau might look into the possibility of criminal.nisconduct. L§§l§Lé2lQE P.L. 95-87 (3.3. 2) Regulates surface coal mining operations through a permit program administered by the Secretary of the Interior. Requires applicants to meet minimum environmental protection performance standards. Allows States to establish surface mining control programs at least as stringent as minimum Federal standards. Includes provisions to fund mineral resources research programs and to provide for reclamation of abandoned mine sites. H.R. 2 was reported, with amendment, by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on Apr. 22, 1977. Passed the House, amended, on Apr. 29, 1977, by a vote of 241-64. Passed the Senate, amended, in lieu of S. 7, on May 20, 1977, by a vote:of 57-8. Signed into law (P.L- 95-87) on Aug. 3, 1977. As it was introduced, H.R. 2 was very similar to H.R. 13950, the last bill to receive any action in the Quth Congress. Amendments were made by t‘* House Interior Committee to five of the seven titles in the bill. The mor, substantive changes were made to Title 5, including the following: 1. Section 503(a). Non-Federal land. _ This subsection was amended to make it clear that a State normally has jurisdiction over surface mining on nonéFederal lands under the Act unless the State enters into an agreement with the Secretary to exercise jurisdiction over Federal.coal pursuant to sections 521 and 523. This section remained essentially the same in the final version of the bill. (This language is also consistent with tenative arrangements which have been made between the states of Wyoming and Colorado and the Department of the Interior.) ‘ 2. Section 510(b) (3). Hydrologic impacts. Under ‘£1.12. 2, prior to approval of a pernit application‘, the regulatory authority is to make an assessment of the cumulative hydrologic impact.of all mining in the area of concern. The committee amendment clarifies the test to be applied to this review. The words "significant irreparable offsite" danage have been deleted in favor of language that specifies that the mine is to be designed to prevent damage to the hydro1ogic:balance outside the pernit area. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. case 7 IB7uo7u UPDATE-04/15/80 3. Section 510(b) (5) . Alluvial valley floor modification. £1.13. 2 and the committee amendment contain a prohibition on mining of alluvial valley floors-~areas of agricultural significance in the Western United States--in certain circumstances. In addition to adding clarifying language in subsection (A). the committee amendment incorporates the test that operations off alluvial valley floors but affect ‘water systems that supply such valley floors should “not materially damage" the supply systems. The pharse “not adversely affect" was deleted in order to avoid a possible interpretation that any operation off an alluvial valley floor may have some adverse effect on the water system that supplies an alluvial valley floor. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. it. section 510(2)) (6). Surface owner consent over privately owned coal. The committee amendment includes a new condition for permit approval designed to assure that coal rights which have been served from the surface estates will not be surface mined unless the parties to the severance, or the surface owner or his assignee, contemplated that the coal would be extracted by surface mining methods. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. (This provision of the bill is designed to abrogate the rights of companies with coal rights under the broadform deeds now in existence in some of the Applachian states.) 5. A new subsection 515(b)(7) was adopted which specifies certain standards concerning soil preservation and reconstruction by horizons. These standards apply only to the highly productive prime agricultural lands which have been and are being used for agricultural production. The standards are designed to assure full reclamation of the natural productivity of these lands. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. 6. The committee amendment to subsection 515 (c) removed the variance procedure for mountaintop mining operations, reduced the economic, land development and other tests required as justification for such an operation and broadened the applicable post-mining land use to include all types of agriculture. The subsection specifies that a permit is required, and this is the same permit required under sections 507 and 508 and the same hearing and other procedures apply. 7. The committee amendment deletes the discretionary capability of nine operators on steep slopes to place the spoil from a the first short or initial block cut on the downslope ixmediately below the bench. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. The f al language further requires that the placement of excess spoil be designed by a registered engineer in ccnformance with professional standards. cns- 8 IB7uo 7a UPDATE-O 4/15/80 8. Section 520(d) . Attorney's fees related to citizen suits. The committee amendment authorizes the award of attorney 's and expert witness fees to any party to the litigation. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. The provision also requires that in cases where a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction is sought, the court may require the filing of a bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This requirement could act to discourage the filing of frivolous suits. : 9. Section 522 (a) (6). The designation of "grandfather". E Both H.R. 2 and the committee amendment require implementation. of a system for designated areas unsuitable for surface coal mining. 13.12. 2 "grandfather" existing operations and those for which there were substantial legal and financial commitments prior to September 1, 197LI. The applicability of the grandfather to operations where there has been a substantial legal and financial commitment is updated to January 11, 1977, in the committee amendment. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. As finally passed, H.B. 2 exempts operations for which a substantial legal or financial conmittnent were made prior to January A‘... 1977. v 10. Section 522(e)- {dining in national forests The committee amendment includes an exception to H.R. 2's prohibition of coal strip mining in national forests. Under the committee amendment, surface coal mining operations may be permitted on national forests lands without significant forest cover west of the 100th meridian if the Secretary determines there are not other specified values incompatible with surface mining and the Secretary of Agriculture determines that surface mining is in compliance with certain specified laws. Surface operations and impacts incident to an underground coal mine are permitted. Surface mining is prohibited within the boundaries of the Custer National Forest. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. 11. Section 701(2). "Approximate original contour". The definition of "approximate original contour" is modified in the committee amendment to establish clearly that the concept includes the terrace shaping of the spoil and leaving access roads. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same. The following is a list of the more significant floor amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, H.R. 2. 1. ADOPTED: The Secretary of the Interior is required to return 50% of the Federal reclamation fee on lined coal to the State where the coal was mined; whereas the bill originally gave him discretionary authority to do so. 2. ADOPTED: Reclamation funds can be used to prevent acid water damage and Indian reservations are eligible to use CBS“ 9 IE7’-1074 UPDATE-O ll/15/80 reclamation funds in the same manner as States. « 3. ADOPTED: The authority of the Secretary of the Interior to designate lands as unsuitable for non-coal mining is limited to lands within the National Forests rather than all public lands. 4. ADOPTED: Informal conferences are permitted, instead of mandatory public hearings, on objections to mining permits. 5. REJECTED: A 5-year moratorium on strip mining on prime agricultural.lands was to be imposed and a study conducted of farmland reclamation techniques. 6. ADOPTED: dining is permitted in alluvial valley only for mines actually in commercial.production in the year preceding a enactment of the hill. 7. ADOPTED: Public hearings are required within 10 days after an operator receives a cessation notice. 5. 7 (netcalf et al.) Regulates surface coal mining operations through a permit program administered by the Secretary of the Interior. Requires applicants to meet . minimum environmental protection performance standards. Allows States to establish surface mining control programs at least as stringent as minimum Federal standards. Establishes an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to reclaim lands formerly used in mining operations. Introduced Jan. 10, 1977; referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On May 20, 1977, the measure was indefinitely postponed in the Senate and H.R. 2 was passed in lieu. The following is a summary analysis of the Senate version of the Surface L ling Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (S. 7). Changes made by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to the bill, as it was introduced in the Senate, included the following: 1. As introduced, 5. 7 contained a very controversial provision labeled the "Mansfield amendment," which imposed the following requirement on the regulatory authority: In instances where the ownership of the surface of western lands was privately owned and the coal subjacent to the lan was federally owned, the bill would have prohibited the leasing of the federally owned coal, even in instances where theesurface owner would have granted his ‘permission. This provision was changed in committee markup to allow the operator to mine Federal coal under private surface if the written permission of the surface owner is first obtained. The amendment also required the secretary of the Interior to avoid, wherever possible, leasing lands for coal development if the owners of the surface expressed a preference against the leasing of any such lands for surface coal mining. The language in the final version of the bill is essentially the same as that in the reported version. Section 714 of the bill.requires the written permission of the surface owner 9; the deposit of the appraised.value of the surface owner's interest in the United States district court by the lessee and the final execution of the settlement of the rights of the two parties. ; 2. Section 402 of the bill, as introduced, contained the provisions for the initial regulatory procedures. This section outlined the timetables for ( xpliance with the provisions of the legislation. yAs introduced, the bill contained no exemptions for mine operators regardless of the size of their operations. In an amendment to the bill, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources included a variance for small and intermediate sized cns-10 IB7ll0 ‘Ia UPDATE-0!}/1'5/8:0 operators which, in effect, stated that these operators, if they were not producing in excess of 200,000 tons of coal annually, would not have to comply with the provisions of the bill until 30 months from the date of enactment. This amendment was altered in floor action in the following manner: Instead of allowing the mine operators 30 months to comply with the requirements of the legislation, it only allows them 2% months and 1 : exemption itself would be extended only to operators producing 100,000 tons or less of coal annually. 3. As introduced, 5. 7 contained stringent provisions regarding the restoration of the approximate original.contour of the land. In instances in which a company was engaged in mountaintop removal, this section of the bill did allow the mine operator to vary from the standard requirements cf the legislation to the extent that the mined area could be graded to a gently rolling topography with inward drainage except at specified points, and the land could be used for“ either' agricultural purposes or* for industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility uses. Any such action, however, did require the issuance of a variance by the regulatory authority. In the reported bill, the mineeoperator is not required to obtain a variance in order to reclaim the mined area with this post-mining land use in mind. Unlike the original bill, the reported version does not require that in order to qualify for such a variance, the permit area must have been included in a land use plan prior to the actual mining. The language merely states that‘ the reclaimed area must.be "capable" of supporting post-mining agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility uses...." A 4. The original language of S. 7 established a reclamation fund for abandoned lands which would have been generated by levying a tax on coal produced on Federal lands.‘ The amount of the tax was originally 35 cents/ton of Federal coal produced by surface mining methods and 15 cents/ton " Federal coal produced by underground methods. This requirement was change. by the Committee in the:following manner: the funds for the establishment of the abandoned mines reclamation fund are to be established by a tax of 35 cents/ton for all coal produced by underground mining methods, or 10% o the value of the coal at the mine as determined by the Secretary, whichever is less. No reclamation fee is assessed on lignite production. The language in the final version of the bill is the same as that in the report. 5- In an anendment to Section #16 (Surface Effects of Underground Mining), the Committee added a provision which called upon the Secretary of the Interior, when promulgating the rules and regulations directed toward the msurface effects of underground mining, to consider the distinct differences between surface coal mining and underground coal mining. Language was also added which stated that.any rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Act should not be in conflict with or supersedezany provision of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and the Secretary would be further required to obtain the written concurrence of the head of the department which administers the nine Safety Act prior to issuing any regulations. The committee amendment was retained in the final version of the legislation. 6. is introduced, 5. 7 contained language that mining operations west of the 100th meridian would not be permitted if any such mining would have “substantial adverse effect on alluvial valley floors underlain by unconsolidated stream laid deposits where farming can be practiced in the form of irrigated, flood irrigated, or naturally suhirrigated hay meadows other crop lands (excluding undeveloped range lands), where such valley floors are significant to the practice of farming or ranching operations, including potential farming or ranching operations if such operations are cns- 11 I87 no 7n unna 1-2.0 3/ 15/80 significant and economically feasible.". Although this language was retained in the committee report, further language was added that provides an exemption to this provision for mining operations which had produced coal in commercial quantities in the year preceding the enactment of the Act 9; those mining operations for which a substantial legal or financial committnent ‘had I. ,»n made prior to Jan. 1, 1977. This language was essentially unchanged by subsequent floor action by the full Senate. 7. Three of the timetables for com?liance which were established in the original version of the bill were lengthened by the Committee during markup. As reported, the bill requires, under Section #02, that all State-regulated surface coal mining operations comply with the provisions of the environmental protection performance standards within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Act. As introduced, the bill required compliance upon the date of its enactment. Under Section 403, each State wishing to assume the exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of surface mining operations is given 18 months to demonstrate, through the submission of a State program, that it has the capability of carrying out the provisions of this Act. Under section 404, the Secretary shall have approved or disapproved a State program within 6 months following the date that the program was submitted to him. If the secretary disapproves a State program, in whole or in part, the State shall have 60 days to resubmit a revised program to the Secretary. The Secretary shall implement a Federal program for a State no later than _E_’o_Q~ ;m_c_>n_t_h_§ after the date of enactment if the State fails to submit its own program within 1_8____m_Q1_1_3:_h__s.after the date of enactment or fails to resubmit an acceptable program within §_9__§&_1y§_ following the disapproval of its initial program. The Secretary may extend the period for the submission of a State program up to __s_i§___m__g;_1_t_h_§. (Sections H03 and 1:01;, remained essentially the same as the introduced version.) 9 8. As 3. 7 was introduced, the approval of- the State programs, promulgation of Federal programs, or the implementation of the Federal lands programs pursuant to the provisions of the Act y_9_g]_;§__1_;§_y_e_ constituted a major action within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was changed by the Committee in markup, therefore any such action pursuant to the legislation c;Qe_a§_g_gg___¢;_qg§1:__':;._3_:_1_1,§§ a major action under the aforementioned section of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The language contained in the committee report was retained in the final version of the bill. 9. In the original Senate bill, the following amounts would have been granted to the states for the purpose a asisting such States in developing, administering, and enforcing State programs under the Act: The first year -- 80% of the total costs incurred: the second year -— 60% of the» total costs incurred; the third and fourth years —- ts0% of the total costs incurred. (No assistance after the fourth year.) This provision was changed by the Committee during markup in the following manner: The percentages of the costs assumed by the Federal Government during the first and second years retains the same. In the third year an} each year thereafter, the- Federal Government assumes 50% of the cost of the aforementioned actions by the States. The language contained in the Committee report on S- 7 was retained in the final version of the bill. . On Thursday, June 30, the Senate and House conferees completed action on i H.R. 2. Among their actions, the confaees: Adopted House language on Title VI — Designation of Lands Unsuitable for CBS-12 1374074 UPDATE-04/15/80 Noncoal mining -- after deleting language relative to national forests. Adopted House language limiting research institutes to coal research. Adopted a reclamation fee on lignite of 2% of the value of the coal at the nine or 10 cents per ton, whichever is less. Agreed that inspections during the interim program be performed without advance notice but that the Secretary has discretionary authority to have them made. Adopted House language to assure that grandfather permit renewals for operations in existence-on alluvial valley floors are for the life of the operations. Agreed to delete language requiring that notice of inspection be given xto State and county governnents.. Agreed to require inspections at least once every 6 months during the interim program. ~ Agreed to language requiring States to comply with "rules and regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.“ 1 Adopted language that requires the regulatory authority to issue a permit for mining on prime farmland after making a finding in writing that the applicant has the technological capability to restore the mined area within a reasonable time to “equivalent or higher levels of yield as non-mined prime farmland soils in the reconstruction standards“ in the Act. Adopted House language on surface oner protection -4 federal-coal/privateésurface situations. Adopted House language relative to a study of Indian lands, with a proviso that the jurisdictional status of such lands will not change during the study. ' Adopted language relative to private-coal/private-surface situation that if the land conveyance "does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface mining methods, the surface/subsurface legal relationships shalli be determined in accordance with state law." also agreed to language stating that the regulatory authority is not expected to adjudicate property rights disputes. . Adopted essentially the Senate definition of prime farmlands. Adopted House language on special bituminous coal mines. Adopted essentially the Senate language on alluvial valley floors, including the iallop amendment on land exchanges. Also adopted a proviso on land exchanges where fee coal is involved. Adopted the Senate grandfather clause for prime farmlands. Also adopted language making prime farmland provision effective upon enactment. Adopted language requiring highwalls to be covered, but permitting spoil to be placed en the bench under the same conditions as are provided in the mountaintop provision. cns-13 IB7uo 7:: uPnu:m—ou/15/810 Adopted language in Section 711 —- Experimental Practices - to allow private, commercial, industrial, and residential post-mining land uses to be experimented with in highwall areas. Adopted House language to permit mining within 500 feet of active or abandoned underground nines if approved by the regulatoy authority and MESA. Adopted Senate language permitting the regulatory authority to permit retention of natural barriers as part of the reclamation performance standards. 9 Adopted Jan. 1, 1977, as effective date of legislation. Agreed to language requiring daily door-to-door notice of blasting. Agreed to strike language that would have permitted the Secretary to ideduct a penalty from an operator's performance bond. Adopted Senate language in subsection 521(a)(n) relative to shutdown orders. » Adopted language making the Secretary's actions relative to approval of a State progra: of proaulgation of rules and regulations subject to judicial review in the District Courts. Adopted language to allow the Secretary to award attorney's fees in cases he decides. I Agreed to delete language making the provision on designation of areasy u..suitable for surface coal mining applicable to‘ national forests in Alaska. Adopted Senate language regarding Secretary ‘s authority to enforce State programs. Agreed to language to assure that workers‘ compensation laws are not affected by the Act. Adopted Senate language to allow a sliding scale for cost-sharing with the states. . Agreed that lands controlled by the Tennessee Valley Authority would be considered federal lands for the purposes of the bill. B.R. 4018 (Evans of Delaware) Sections 138 and 139 amend Title VIII of the Surface Mining Act and increase the number of coal research laboratories from 10 to 13, with attendant increases in authorized funds. Introduced Feb. 24, 1977. Reported from the Committee on Ways and means. (H.Rept. 95-H29) on June 16, 1977. Heasure passed House, amended, on July 13, 1977. Measure passed Senate,u amended, on Oct. 6, 1977. House agreed to Senate amendment, with amendment, on October 13, and conferences were scheduled in both Houses. 5. 2572 (rota et al.) Increases assistance to small mine operators from $150 million to $2u5 million over the next 15 years. Introduced Mar. 6, 1978; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. CRS’14 1 IB7H07u UPDATErOQ/15/30 3.5. Congress. House. Coinittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Hines and Mining. Regulation of strip mining. Hearings, 926 Congress, 1st session, on H.B. 60 and related bills. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 890 p. Hearings held Sept. 20...Nov. 30, 1971. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Regulation of surface mining operations. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session, on S. #25 [and] S. 923. Mar. 13-16, 1973. Parts 1 and 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 1410 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on.flinerals, materials and Fuels. Coal surface mining ané reclamation. Hearing, 93d Congress, 1st session. Apr. 30, 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 85 p. -—----- Surface mining. Hearings, 92d Congress, 1st session, on S. 77, S. 630, s. 993, S. 1160, S. 1240, S. 1u93, S. 2055, and S. 2777; pending surfaceemining legislation. Parts 1 and 2. Washington, 0.5.. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 882 p. -—_--- surface nining. Hearings, pursuant to 5. Res. 45; a national fuels and energy policy study, 92d Congress, 1st session on S. 2777 and S. 3000. Feb. 24, 1972. Part 3. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. p. 833-1173. “Serial no. 92-13" §§2QE$§ié§2-§Q§EB§§§lQ§éL-2QQ§§§E1§ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Coal surface mining and reclamation. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Harch 1973. 1H3 p. At head of title: 93d Congress, 1st session. Committee print. “Serial no. 93-8(92-43)" ----- Factors affecting the use of coal in present and future energy markets. Washington, 9.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. #3 p. At head of title: 93d Congress, 1st session. Committee print. - “Serial no. 93—9(92—uu)n The issues related to surface mining. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., December 1971. 255 p. ‘ At head of title: 92d Congress, 1st session. Committee print. T / “Serial no. 92-10" ---- Legislative proposals concerning surface nining of coal. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., Sept. 1, 1971. 25 p. cns-15 1B7uo7u UPDATE-on/15/so At head of title: 92d Congress, 1st session. Committee print. Surface Mining Reclamation of 1972; report to accompany S. 425. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 94 p. (93d Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 93-I402) 8.3. Council on Environmental Quality. Coal surface mining and reclamation: an environmental and economic assessnent of alternatives. Prepared at the request of Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 45; a national fuels and energy policy study. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 1&3 p. At head of title: 93d Congress, 1st session. Committee print. "serial no. 93-8 (92-43)" 9$E§E-§QE§§§§§lQEéL-é§..QE N/A §§§.EQLQ§X_QE-.l§§l§ 03/06/78 --. S. 2672 was introduced, which would increase assistance to small nine operators from $150 million to $245 million over the next 15 years. 03/00/78 - Deadlines for compliance with the provisions of the Act will become effective in May 1978. The Office of Surface Hining has been unable to establish its inspection and regulatory programs due to lack of funding <:aused by a delay in enacting a supplemental appropriations bill which also contained the funding for the B-1 bomber. 12/13/'17 -—- The Office of Surface mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) issued its final interim regulations pursuant to the Surface Mining Law, P.I.. 95-87. Since then, the National Coal 2 Association, along with coal mine operators have filed approximately 11 suits against the 0821 alleging that the regulations go beyond the intent of the Law and have generated undue hardships, especially for small mine operators. 08/03/77 -- H.R. 2 signed into law: (|?.L-. 95-87) . O7/21/T7 -- House conference report on H.B. 2 (H.Rept. 95-1493) was approved by a vote of 325-68. 07/20/77 -— Senate conference report on H.R. 2 (S.Rept. 95-337) was approved by a vote of 85-8. 06/30/77 - Senate and House conferees completed action on H.R. 2 (see legislation section for details of 05/20/77 05/10/77 05/05/77 05/02/77 04/29/77 on/25,177 0'-I/20/77 on/19/77 cns-15 Invuovu UPDATE-on/15/so changes made in the bill). The Senate passed 5. 7 (57-8) . The Senate also passed H.R. 2, after striking all provisions after the enacting clause and inserting the language of S. 7. S. 7 reported to the Senate from the Committee on Energy and Natural resources (S.Rept. 95-128) . £1.13. 2 discharged in the Senate by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The measure was held at the desk. Surface mining bill S. and Natural Resources. 7 reported by Committee on Energy Surface lining bill H.R. 2 was approved by the House (241-611). H.R. 2 was reported by the House Rules Conmittee with an open rule allowing me hour of general debate. flarkup of S. 7 by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with further markup tenatively scheduled for Monday, May 2, 1977. H.R. 2 was reported fro: full House Interior Committee, including the following changes: 1. The definition of "approximate original contour" is modified in the Committee amendment to establish clearly that the concept includes the terrace shaping of the spoil and leaving access roads. - Variances have been included in the bill to allow mining in National forests under certain conditions. A new subsection was added to the environmental protection performance standards, which requires the reconstruction of or suitable substitutes for the various horizons of soil in prime and unique agricultural lands. The regulatory authority will be allowed to use its discretion when determining whether citizen complaints are worthy of holding a public hearing. a Regarding alluvial valley floors, the Committee added language that would prohibit mining in alluvial valley floor areas of agricultural significance. Furthermore, the Committee included language authorizing the regulatory authority to restrict mining outside alluvial valley floors but that could adversely affect the water supply to any such valley floor. The Committee amendment also contains an expanded "grandfather clause" exeupting certain operations in alluvial valley floors if the operations were already in effect and producing coal during the year preceding the enactnent of the Act or if large financial commitments had already been made for the establishment of such a mining operation. nodifications have been aade to Section 711 to allow the Secretary of the Interior to permit experimental 03/24/77 - CHS--17 IB7t&O‘7l4 UPDATE-O4/15/80 practices in land reclamation providing that the Secretary examines and approves each proposed plan individually. House Interior Committee printed a revised version of H.3. 2 -—- a committee print. 03/01/77 - 03/03/77 --- Hearings held on S.7. O2/22/77 - O2/25/77 -- Hearings held on H.R. 2. 02/08/77 - 02/07/77 - The House held its first day of hearings on its bill, H.R. 2. Secretary Andrus was also present at these proceedings and offered testimony very similar to that offered to the Senate on the previous day. Also present H at the hearings was the Honorable, Hilton Shapp, Governor of Pa. The Governor emphasized the fact that Pa. presently has a law almost identical to the Federal proposal and that the implementation of their law has not caused any coal production losses. Information, along with a slide presentation, was also provided by Mr. William Guckert, a state official in charge of coal mine reclamation. Hr. Guckert suggested that it is entirely possible for operators to restore eccnonically the approximate original contour and eliminate any highwall remnants. .The Senate held its first day of hearings on the hill, 5. ‘I’. The primary witness at the proceedings vwasthe Honorable Cecil Andrus, the newly appointed Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary emphasized that the new Adninistration wants to cooperate in every way possible with the Congress in establishing a strong, comprehensive, and workable surface mining bill. The Secretary suggested some changes in the legislation including the elimination of the "Mansfield amendment“ and changes in the language of the provisions dealing with the alluvial valley floors in the western coal mining states. ‘ 01/10/T7 - 01/12/T7 —-— The House Interior Committee held briefings on 09/15/75 -4 as/31/75 -- 03/2 3/76 -- the question of Federal regulation of surface mining. Leaders of the coal mining industry attended. Participants included Mr. Ian Baccregor, an official of the National Coal Association and Chairman of the Board of AHAX Corporation and Mr. Edwin Phelps, President of Peabody Coal Company, the Nation ‘s largest producer. Also present were representatives of various environmental groups and organizations representing residents of coal mining districts affected by mining. H.B. 13950 was denied a rule by the House Rules Committee by a vote of 9-6. H.R. 13950 was reported by the House Interior Committee. Further consideration of £1.12. 9725 was tabled by the House Rules Committee. 02/2 ll/76 12/011/75 05/10/75 05/20/75 on/15/75 O11/09/75. 12/31/7n 12/16/7n 12/13/7n 12/09/7H 08/O7/711 o7/25/7a 05/14/7H 11/12/73 10/09/73 09/10/73 CBS-18 IB7!-I074 UPDATE-014/15/80 The House Connitteeon Interior and Insular Affairs reported 13.3. 9725, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, to the full House. The House Connittee on Interior and Insular Affairs voted 20-111 to put H.R. 9725, the new Surface Mining Control and Reclaaation Act on its Calendar. Action on the bill, however, will not take place until the next session I of Congress, probably in January 1976. Motion to override veto failed of passage in the House, 278--1lI3. President Ford vetoed £1.12. 25, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975. Joint Conference considered the surface mining bills, H.R. 25 and S. 7. A caravan of truckers, representing coal mining interests, A drove to Washington, D.C. from many of the Eastern coal mine 1 areas to protest the strip mining bills 5. 7 and 11.12. 25. Upvards of 60 coal trucks circled the White House and Capital with air horns blowing and carrying protest signs and banners. Surface Mining bill, 5. I425, was pocket vetoed. Senate agreed to S. 425 Joint Conference Report No. 93-1522. L ’ . A House agreed to 5. £125 Conference Report No. 93-1522. In the House, the Joint Conference Report failed under suspension of the rules. Conference Committee began meeting on 11.12. 11500 and S. 425. The House passed 11.11. 11500 by a vote of 298 to 81, culminating six days of floor debate that began on July 17. In the process, the house voted down H.R. 12989 by 156 to 255, and H.R. 15000 by 69-336. Full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs completed 19 days of public markup on 11.3. 11500, which began on Feb. 20, 197a; the Committee reported it favorably, 26 to 15. ~ Joint Interior Subcommittees on Mines the Environment reported a clean bill full Committee having held 29 days of Aug. 2, 1973 on a new bill (Draft No. and Mining and on (H.R. 11500) to the public markup after 3) The Senate passed 5. £125 by a vote of S2 to 8. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs completed 10 days of public markup on S. 425. --.I.1?l.Q§?.@~.L.B.§=.!:.E.§2!§«l3-§9!li.§.E5 CRS’19 IB7flO7Q UPDATE-O4/15/80 09/O0/73 -- The Senate Interior Committee unanimously reported 5. 630, but the 92d Congress adjourned before the Senate took any action on it. 06/03/73 -- The Senate Committee held three days of hearings on coal policy issues, which included the potential impact of Federal Surface mining legislation on coal development. 05/15/73 ----Joint Subcommittee completed six days of hearings, which had begun on Apr. 9, 1973. 9 05/00/73 - ‘Joint Interior Subcommittees inspected Western coal surface mining sites. This continued the April 1973 inspection of coal surface mines and reclaimed areas in the Eastern States. 0l:/30/'73 -— The Senate Interior Committee held hearing on report of Council on Environmental Quality, entitled "Coal Surface Hining and Reclamation--An Environmental and Economic Assessment of Alternatives." 03/16/73 -- The Senate Interior Committee held four days of hearings on ‘S. H25, S. 923, S. 1163, S. 1185, S. 1612, and S. 9116, beginning on liar. 13. 10/00/72 ‘-' The House passed H.R. 6482 by 265 to '75, but the 92d Congress adjourned before the Senate took any action on its bill. u-s .9 Department of the Interior. Surface [mining and our environnent. Washington. 1967. 12L: p. 11.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Mined land reclatation requirements: Issues, actions and arguments [by] George Siehl. [Washington] Apr. 18, 1968 (rev. Apr. 211, 1972). 52 p. . u hultilith 72-101EP [Available from CBS Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division] ----- Strip mining, selected references [by] George Siehl. [Washington] Jan. 1979. 21 p. hultilith 711-1639 [Available fro: CR5 Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division}