U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37-013 PDF 2007

THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 

OF 1977: A 30TH ANNIVERSARY 

REVIEW

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Serial No. 110-36

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Kevin McCarthy, California

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 .......................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee .................................................................................................. 5 

Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 3 

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 1

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bandy, Earl, Chief, Applicant Violator System Office, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Conrad, Gregory E., Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact 

Commission, Herndon,Virginia .................................................................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Additional information submitted for the record .................................... 34

Corra, John, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming ..................................................................................... 85

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 87

Fry, Eric, Director of Regulatory Services, Peabody Coal Company, 

St. Louis, Missouri, on behalf of the Illinois Coal Association ................. 202

Husted, John F., President, Deputy Chief, Division of Mineral Resources 

Management, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio . 68

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 70

Loomis, Marion, Executive Director, Wyoming Mining Association, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming ..................................................................................... 207

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 210

Lovett, Joe, Executive Director, Appalachian Center for the Economy 

and the Environment, Lewisburg, West Virginia ...................................... 127

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 128

Morris, Walton D., Jr., Attorney-at-Law, Charlottesville, Virginia ............. 115

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 116

Response to questions and attachments submitted for the record ........ 121

Owens, Glenda H., Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 9

Pfister, Ellen, Shepherd, Montana, on behalf of the Northern Plains 

Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils ... 141

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 143

Quinn, Harold P., Jr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Legal 

& Regulatory Affairs, The National Mining Association, Washington, 

D.C. ................................................................................................................ 158

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 161

Raney, William B., President, West Virginia Coal Association, Charleston, 

West Virginia ................................................................................................ 167

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 168

Additional information submitted for the record .................................... 172

Roberts, Cecil E., President, United Mine Workers of America, Fairfax, 

Virginia .......................................................................................................... 101

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Timmermeyer, Stephanie R., Cabinet Secretary, West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, West Virginia ..... 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 65

Wright, Brian, Coal Policy Director, Hoosier Environmental Council, 

Indianapolis, Indiana .................................................................................... 132

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 135

Additional materials supplied: 

Bird, Cathie, Chair, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, on behalf of the 

members of SOCM Stripmine Issues Committee, Letter submitted for 

the record ....................................................................................................... 218

Blumenshine, Joyce, Peoria, Illinois, Letter submitted for the record ......... 222

Bonds, Julia, Rock Creek, West Virginia, Letter submitted for the record . 225

Braverman, Beverly, Executive Director, Mountain Watershed 

Association, Letter submitted for the record .............................................. 229

Haltom, Vernon, Co-Director, Coal River Mountain Watch, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 285

Johnson, Robert L., PE, Collinsville, Illinois, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 288

Loucks, Clarence, Hillsboro, Illinois, Letter and attachments submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 292

Wall Street Journal article entitled, ‘‘Coal’s Doubters Block New Wave 

of Power Plants’’ submitted for the record by Congressman Pearce ........ 6

Webb, David, Naoma, West Virginia, Letter submitted for the record ........ 303

Yarbrough, Ronald E., Ph.D., PG, Professor Emeritus, Earth Sciences, 

Southern Illinois University, Comments submitted for the record .......... 305

Yingling, Mark R., Vice President of Environmental Services and 

Conservancy, Representing Peabody Energy and the Illinois Coal 

Association, Statement submitted for the record ....................................... 204

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE SURFACE 

MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 

OF 1977: A 30TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEW’’ 

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick Rahall, II, 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rahall, Holt, Grijalva, Bordallo, 

Sarbanes, Kind, Inslee, Baca, Shuler, Duncan, Pearce, Shuster, 

Heller, Sali, and Lamborn. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST 

VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The full Committee on Natural Resources will 

come to order. 

Before the Chair proceeds this morning, I know we are celebrating an anniversary, but there is one other celebration I would 

like to note, and it has to do with age, as well. And that is the 

birthday of one individual sitting to my immediate left, who has 

been with me for, well, he doesn’t like me to say ages any more, 

not only how long he has been with me nor his actual age, because 

he wants all the certain individuals in the crowd to know that he 

is single once again, so I won’t mention any ages. 

But I do want to wish my Chief of Staff on the Committee, and 

long-time confidante, and a man for whom I deeply appreciate his 

loyalty and dedication and work on behalf of the people of West 

Virginia, and serving me for over 27 years, Jim Zoia. Happy Birthday, Jim. 

[Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t want to ruin his day by singing. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. The Committee is meeting today to conduct 

an oversight hearing on the implementation of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as we approach the 30th anniversary of its enactment on August 3. 

I have had a long relationship with this law, having served on 

this committee and on the Conference Committee on H.R. 2 as a 

2

freshman Member of this body back in 1977, for the legislation that 

was enacted as SMCRA. Today, 30 years later, of those Members 

of the House of Representatives who signed that conference report, 

I am the only one still in office. Senator Pete Domenici remains as 

the only Senator who signed the conference report still in office. 

I recall very well standing on that hot day in the Rose Garden 

of the White House with coal field activists, representatives of the 

coal industry, and elected officials, when President Jimmy Carter 

signed H.R. 2 into law. After years of struggle, highlighted by the 

disaster that took place in 1972 at Buffalo Creek in Logan County, 

West Virginia, and two Presidential vetoes, the Nation finally had 

a surface mining control and reclamation law. 

As with most laws, this law was a compromise. President Carter 

pointed out and expressed some misgivings in his remarks on that 

hot August day. But at the same time, Chairman Mo Udall noted, 

and I quote, ‘‘And by getting this bill passed today, we are showing 

this nation loves its land and respects it, and is going to protect 

the land, while at the same time we increase the production of 

coal.’’

On a personal note, I am indeed honored to hold this hearing 

today as Chairman of the Committee that Mo Udall once chaired, 

as I look up and gaze at his portrait, in a room named after him, 

and with his son, Mark Udall, as a member of this committee. 

Just as it was a struggle to get SMCRA enacted into law, it has 

been a 30-year struggle to implement and properly enforce it. The 

rapid progress made during the very early years by the first Director of the Office of Surface Mining Enforcement, Walter Hines, and 

his staff, was squashed with the advent of the Reagan Administration under the banner of regulatory relief. I am not so certain the 

agency ever fully recovered. 

While I salute the many hardworking employees at the Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, on too many 

occasions the agency has been a rudderless ship lacking strong 

leadership. This morning, for instance, its director will not present 

testimony before this committee, because the agency lacks one. My 

sense is that the agency is once again adrift, floating in a sea of 

coal-field citizen unrest and industry desire to have regulatory 

stability. 

It was the intention of SMCRA to dovetail the needs of the 

environment and the need for coal production. Today, regrettably, 

I believe that goal remains elusive. 

While there are successes, primarily in the area of reclaiming 

abandoned coal mines, much remains wanting. The rise of mountaintop-removal coal mining during the late 1990s was directly related to the enactment of stronger Federal Clean Air Act legislation, which placed an even greater premium on low-sulfur coal reserves, such as in my district in southern West Virginia, eastern 

Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia. 

SMCRA explicitly allows this type of mining to take place by giving it an exemption from the overall requirement that mine lands 

be returned to their approximate original contour, provided—and I 

stress provided—that post-mining land use be implemented that 

gives rise to developments which help the people and sustain the 

3

coalfield economy, be it industrial, commercial, residential, or agricultural. 

And I recall very well that spring of 1977, my first year in this 

body, when at my invitation then-Chairman Mo Udall visited mine 

sites in southern West Virginia. And he agreed that with flatland 

at such a premium, that we should not totally abolish the practice 

of mountaintop mining; but that we should have an exemption, an 

exemption that would allow for better post-mining uses of that 

land. 

The question today is whether this is truly taking place; whether 

it is the rule, or whether it is the exception. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the enforcement of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act has and continues to be 

an issue in virtually all areas, including blasting and control of 

acid-mine drainage; the disposal of coal combustion waste into 

mines; the conflicts in the western states between surface coal 

mining and other land uses; and certainly, there are water quality 

issues. 

I am well aware of the concerns and criticisms of those coalfield 

residents whose homes and way of life are being disrupted by surface coal mining operations. And I am equally aware of the pressing need for the production of coal, for the jobs, for the contribution 

to the coalfield economies. And I am also aware of the need for 

regulatory stability, so that all interested parties know what is 

expected. 

Earlier I noted that SMCRA’s goal of dovetailing the interests of 

the environment and coal production remains elusive, but it must 

not remain so. We can do better. Those of us here gathered today 

in this room and those watching this proceeding on the Internet, 

working together can make that goal a reality. 

Today this committee will hear from a well-represented list of 

people who have a stake in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. I have endeavored to have each panel—representatives from the states, citizen groups, and the industry—reflect the 

geographical areas of mining in this country. As well, I am particularly honored and pleased that coal labor is represented with us 

today, in the presence of its International President of the United 

Mine Workers Union, Cecil Roberts. 

This will be a lengthy hearing, and the subject matter is deserving of it. I would remind the witnesses as I conclude to limit their 

oral presentations to five minutes so that we have ample time for 

further discussion and interaction during the questioning period. 

With that, I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Pearce of New 

Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE PEARCE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Chairman. I know that the Surface 

Mining Act has been very important in West Virginia; it has also 

been very important in New Mexico. Coal has been mined in New 

Mexico since the time of Spanish settlement. 

In the 1860s the Army and railroads further developed the resource. However, significant development of New Mexico’s coalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
4

fields did not occur until after the enactment of the Surface Mining 

Act passed in 1977. 

Coal resources underlie 12 percent of New Mexico. Most of these 

resources lie under Indian tribal lands in northern New Mexico. In 

2004, 1,697 people were employed at seven coal mines, with an annual production value of more than $650 million. That coal is used 

to generate electricity for fellow New Mexicans and our neighbors 

in Arizona. 

Nationally, coal provides 52 percent of our electricity, energy, 

and specifically energy produced from coal is the fuel that drives 

this nation’s economic engine, currently the most robust in the 

world. This electricity is used to heat and cool our homes, run our 

computers, cook our dinners, communicate with one another, keep 

abreast of local and world events, and provide a healthy living 

environment. 

Nevertheless, fear of human-caused climate change has led many 

to call for radical reductions in coal consumption and other fossil 

fuels until we can successfully sequester the CO2 that is released 

by burning these resources. 

In May the Energy and Parks Subcommittees held a joint oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘The Future of Fossil Fuels, Geological and 

Terrestrial Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide.’’ At that hearing witnesses testified that the technology to sequester CO2 was not ready 

for commercial use, and would not be ready for years into the future, even with sequestration study programs such as the one in 

the Chairman’s H.R. 2337. 

We also heard testimony that sequestering the CO2 would add as 

much as 25 percent to the cost of energy produced from coal-fired 

power plants, if not more. In today’s Wall Street Journal there is 

an article which points out the increase in cost. A hearing judge 

of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission concluded it would 

cost $472 million in 2011 dollars to make the power plant that is 

proposed capable of capturing about 30 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions, and it would cost another $635 million to build a 

pipeline to move the greenhouse gas to the nearest deep geologic 

storage in Alberta, Canada. 

Thus, $1.1 billion in additional costs for that power plant, adding 

$50 per megawatt hour, making that energy twice as costly as 

energy from other plants. 

We see in that same article that 150 new coal generating plants 

were contemplated as late as May of this year, but now plans for 

many of those are being pulled off of the shelves because of the increased cost, and because of the discussions that we are having 

here. 

I fear for the future of coal, based on the discussions that we are 

having in Washington today. I fear that if we act on climate-change 

legislation before the sequestration technology has become economic, well-meaning but misguided individuals will force our 

nation to dramatically reduce its coal consumption. This will force 

mines to close, cost jobs, cause rural mining communities to face 

high unemployment, major tax and royalty revenue loss, and force 

electricity prices to skyrocket for Americans and American 

businesses. 

5

These policies, the Surface Mining Act, and climate change legislation, caps and trade on carbon or carbon taxes are directly linked. 

To look at them in a separate vacuum would be misleading. 

For example, if we reduce our use of coal and do not use this 

abundant natural resource, where and who will pay the abandoned 

mine land fee that is used to clean up the many abandoned coal 

mines that had operated prior to the enactment of a SMCRA in 

1977? 

In New Mexico, more than $8 million has been spent from 

monies collected from coal operations to clean up and secure highpriority abandoned mine land reclamation projects, since the program was approved in 1981. 

I thank the witnesses for their time and testimony, and look forward to hearing from you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 

hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. Before I recognize, do 

other members wish to make statements? 

Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

TENNESSEE 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for calling this hearing. This is a very important topic, 

and I am sure that a lot of good things have come out of this law. 

But I am glad that you are holding this hearing, because I am not 

going to be able to stay for very much longer because of so many 

other things on my schedule. 

But I did want to come here to express my concerns about what 

I believe was an unintended consequence, maybe unintended, at 

least on the part of some people. And that is, I was told a few years 

ago that in 1978 there were 157 small coal companies in east Tennessee, and now there are none. And the coal production in east 

Tennessee, or in the whole State of Tennessee, is a fourth of what 

it was, and has been at that level for many years. 

And maybe not all of those companies should have been in existence, but I also know that what happened, we opened up an Office 

of Surface Mining in Knoxville at that time. And it is much easier 

for a Federal bureaucrat to deal with one large company instead 

of 100 little ones. But I think it is kind of sad that so many small 

businesses went out of business because of the activities of that office, and really regulatory overkill, based on the people I think taking, some regulators taking this law further than what I am sure 

some of the authors intended. 

And just to show you, a few years ago I saw a sad sight that I 

never thought I would see. I came back from lunch at a restaurant 

in Knoxville, and I saw 125 miners demonstrating in front of the 

Office of Surface Mining there in Knoxville with signs saying 

please let us work, please let us mine. And I thought, you know, 

that is a sad sight to see Americans who want to work, but their 

government is not allowing them to do so. And what was the saddest part was that some of the Federal regulators there at that 

time were looking out of their windows in this old hotel which had 

been converted into an office building, laughing at these poor, 

6

unemployed miners. And so a lot of people lost their small businesses, and a lot of people lost employment in my area. 

And so I hope that as we look at these laws in the future, that 

we will keep the poor and the lower income and the working people 

in mind. Because you have to have balance and common sense in 

these things. If you go too far in one direction, you destroy jobs and 

you drive up prices. And it helps the big giants in these industries, 

but it sure hurts the little guy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Before recognizing the 

panel, I do want to note the presence in the room of another individual that was behind President Jimmy Carter, besides myself, 30 

years ago on that hot August day in 1977. And that is Louise 

Dunlap, who is standing in the back of the room here, and who was 

noted by President Jimmy Carter in his comments when he signed 

the law, I might add, when he said, and I quote, ‘‘I think all of you 

know that Louise Dunlap has in the last six years organized and 

worked and been persistent in the face of diversity and disappointment.’’ Welcome, Louise. 

Let us proceed with the panel. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I am sorry. The gentleman from New 

Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. I would make a unanimous consent request to 

enter into the text of today’s hearing the Wall Street Journal article that I referred to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The Wall Street Journal article follows:]

Coal’s Doubters Block New Wave of Power Plants

By REBECCA SMITH

July 25, 2007

From coast to coast, plans for a new generation of coal-fired power plants are falling by the wayside as states conclude that conventional coal plants are too dirty to 

build and the cost of cleaner plants is too high. 

If significant numbers of new coal plants don’t get built in the U.S. in coming 

years, it will put pressure on officials to clear the path for other power sources, including nuclear power, or trim the nation’s electricity demand, which is expected to 

grow 1.8% this year. In a time of rising energy costs, officials also worry about the 

long-term consequences of their decisions, including higher prices or the potential 

for shortages.

LUMPS FOR COAL 

• Dwindling Fleet: A new generation of power plants is stalling due to concerns 

over their fuel: coal. 

• Cheap and Dirty: Coal is plentiful in the U.S. but is a major source of emissions 

that contribute to global warming. 

• The Long Term: Blocked plants could prompt power officials to try to quell consumption or advance other sources. 


37013.020
7

As recently as May, U.S. power companies had announced intentions to build as 

many as 150 new generating plants fueled by coal, which currently supplies about 

half the nation’s electricity. One reason for the surge of interest in coal was concern 

over the higher price of natural gas, which has driven up electricity prices in many 

places. Coal appeared capable of softening the impact since the U.S. has deep coal 

reserves and prices are low. 

But as plans for this fleet of new coal-powered plants move forward, an increasing 

number are being canceled or development slowed. Coal plants have come under fire 

because coal is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot-button political issue. An early sign of the changing momentum was contained in the $32 billion privateequity deal earlier this year to buy TXU Corp. To gain support for the deal, the buyers decided to trim eight of 11 coal plants TXU had proposed in Texas. Recent reversals in Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and other states have shown coal’s future 

prospects are dimming. Nearly two dozen coal projects have been canceled since 

early 2006, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, 

a division of the Department of Energy. 

It’s hard to say how many proposed plants will never be built. Some projects suffer public deaths when permits are denied. Many more simply wither away, lost in 

the multiyear process of obtaining permits, fending off court challenges and garnering financing. 

In the wake of the fading coal proposals, and others that are expected to follow, 

Citigroup downgraded the stocks of coal-mining companies last week, noting that 

‘‘prophesies of a new wave of coal-fired generation have vaporized.’’ On Monday, 

Steve Leer, chief executive of Arch Coal Inc., said some of the power plants he had 

expected to be built ‘‘may get stalled due to the uncertainty over climate concerns.’’

For now, coal companies haven’t taken steps to ratchet back production or big 

projects because of coal-plant delays. They believe that in a time of global energy 

concerns, U.S. coal supplies will be seen as too important to dismiss. The U.S. has 

the world’s largest coal reserves and is sometimes called ‘‘the Saudi Arabia of coal’’ 

by energy-industry observers. 

‘‘It would be quite foolish and quite unthinkable not to have coal play an important role,’’ says investor Wilbur Ross, who has increased his coal holdings and is 

nonexecutive chairman of International Coal Group Inc. He predicts cleaner-coal 

technology will improve enough to become viable. 

Roadblocks for coal put greater attention on other sources. The U.S. power industry is exploring building more nuclear power plants. But those plans are several 

years away, and nuclear power currently provides only about a fifth of U.S. needs. 

Other sources, like wind, don’t provide around-the-clock energy, while solar is relatively expensive and isn’t yet capable of producing large amounts of electricity. 

That puts the focus on natural gas. ‘‘Gas is the bridge fuel’’ that will step in if 

coal stumbles, says Marc Spitzer, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, regulator of the nation’s wholesale gas and electricity markets. 

Currently, clean-burning gas provides roughly a fifth of the nation’s power needs. 

But the nation’s gas production has been flat, and other industries are increasingly 

using it as a fuel or raw material. Mr. Spitzer says that the nation needs more facilities to accept liquefied natural gas, which is gas cooled into a liquid that can be 

imported from overseas. 

The rapid shift away from coal shows how quickly and powerfully environmental 

concerns, and the costs associated with eradicating them, have changed matters for 

the power industry. One place where sentiment has swung sharply against coal is 

Florida. Climate change is getting more attention there because the mean elevation 

is only 100 feet above sea level, so melting ice caps would eat away at both its Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. 

In mid-July, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist convened a climate-change summit to explore ways the state could improve its environmental profile. In June, he signed into 

law a bill that authorizes the Florida Public Service Commission to give priority to 

renewable energy and conservation programs before approving construction of conventional coal-fired power plants. 

The law was bolstered by a recent report from the nonprofit American Council for 

an Energy Efficient Economy that found Florida could reduce its need for electricity 

from conventional sources, like gas and coal, by 29% within 15 years if it implemented aggressive energy efficiency measures. 

On the eve of the governor’s summit, backers of a major power-plant proposal said 

they would suspend development activities for an 800-megawatt coal-fired plant proposed by four city-owned utilities including the one serving the state capital, Tallahassee. (One megawatt can power 500 to 1,000 homes.) The backers cited environmental issues. 

8

That decision followed the rejection by the utility commission of a proposal by 

Florida Power & Light Co., a unit of FPL Group Inc., to build a 1,960-megawatt 

coal plant in Glades County, Fla. The commission found that the plant was cost effective in fewer than half the scenarios examined. One reason for its poor showing 

is uncertainty about the future cost to curb carbon dioxide pollution. Coal plants 

emit more than twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced as natural-gas-fired plants, but there’s no cheap, easy way to capture and dispose of the 

greenhouse gas. 

Even proposals to build so-called ‘‘clean coal’’ plants have been met with skepticism. This new technology, which primarily involves converting coal into a combustible gas for electricity generation, has been touted as a solution to coal’s globalwarming problems. 

A hearing judge at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is urging commissioners to reject a plan for Northern States Power Co., a unit of Xcel Energy Inc., 

Minneapolis, to buy about 8% of its electricity from a coal-gasification power plant 

that was proposed by Excelsior Energy Inc., Minnetonka, Minn. The judge concluded 

the 600-megawatt Excelsior plant wouldn’t be a good deal for consumers. 

The judge concluded it would cost an extra $472.3 million, in 2011 dollars, to 

make the power plant capable of capturing about 30% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and another $635.4 million to build a pipeline to move the greenhouse gas 

to the nearest deep geologic storage in Alberta, Canada. Thus, $1.1 billion in pollution controls had the potential to inflate the cost of power coming from the plant 

by $50 a megawatt hour, making electricity from Excelsior twice as costly as power 

from many older coal-fired plants that simply vent their carbon dioxide. The recommendation will be considered by the commission on Aug. 2. 

In the West, Washington has followed California in prohibiting utilities from entering into arrangements to obtain electricity from plants that aren’t as clean as 

modern gas-burning plants. The intent is to discourage construction of conventional 

coal-fired plants anywhere in the region. 

In January, Oregon utility regulators blocked PacifiCorp., a unit of Berkshire 

Hathaway Inc., from a plan to charge Oregon consumers for part of the cost of building new coal plants outside the state, saying Oregonians didn’t need the power. 

Even in states where coal projects are going forward, they are happening more 

often with a nod to environmental concerns. Xcel Energy, through its Public Service 

of Colorado unit, has agreed to obtain 775 megawatts worth of wind power to supplement the power that will come from a 750 megawatt coal plant it is building near 

Pueblo, Colo. It also has agreed to install more pollution controls at existing units, 

and to cut energy demand by more than 300 megawatts in coming years. 

‘‘It will change their portfolio in a fundamental way,’’ says Vickie Patton, senior 

attorney for environmental group Environmental Defense in Colorado. 

Rising construction costs are another reason that the future looks murky for big 

coal burners. Duke Energy Inc. created a stir eight months ago when it announced 

that the expected cost of a new twin-unit power plant in North Carolina had 

ballooned to about $3 billion, up 50% from about 18 months earlier. That run up 

in cost and other factors compelled the North Carolina Utilities Commission to nix 

one of the two proposed units. 

The coal industry is looking for ways to make its product more palatable. Earlier 

this week, Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips said they are exploring the possibility of constructing a coal-gasification plant at a mine in Illinois, Indiana or Kentucky that would convert coal into 50 billion to 70 billion cubic feet of pipeline-quality synthetic gas a year. It said it would have its analysis completed in early 2008. 

It would be cost competitive at $5 to $6 per million British thermal units, which 

is less than today’s prices.

—Kris Maher contributed to this article.

Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com1

The CHAIRMAN. Our first panel is composed of Glenda H. Owens, 

the Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, the U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., 

and Earl Bandy, the Chief, Applicant Violator System Office, Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department 

of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

We welcome you both to the panel. Glenda, would you like to 

proceed first? 

9

Ms. OWENS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And as I said earlier, we have your prepared testimonies. They will be made part of the record as if actually read, 

and you are encouraged to summarize. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GLENDA H. OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Ms. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman and members of the Committee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today, along with Mr. Earl 

Bandy, on behalf of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 

or SMCRA. 

I have been Deputy Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement since 2001. Before that, I was an assistant solicitor for surface mining in the Solicitor’s Office at the Department of the Interior, where I worked on various legal issues associated with the Surface Mining Program. 

Over the 30 years since SMCRA was enacted, OSM has confronted many challenges in implementing the Act. Mr. Bandy is 

here today to share his experience in effectively addressing issues 

that threaten OSM’s ability to ensure the reclamation which 

SMCRA envisioned: coal company bankruptcies. 

Mr. Bandy has been integrally involved in these and other 

issues. He has worked at OSM for 28 years. He has been an inspector, an investigator, manager, head of the Applicant Violator System Office, and he is soon to be Director of OSM’s Knoxville, Tennessee field office. I would like to ask Mr. Bandy to share some of 

his experiences in implementing SMCRA. 

STATEMENT OF EARL BANDY, CHIEF, APPLICANT VIOLATOR 

SYSTEM OFFICE, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BANDY. Thank you, Ms. Owens. Mr. Chairman and members 

of the Committee, I am honored to be here today to discuss 

SMCRA, a law that I have spent nearly 30 years enforcing. 

I was born and raised in a coal camp in Harlan County, Kentucky. My father and my grandfather were coal miners. 

Today’s industry is not the same as it was 30 years ago. As Mr. 

Duncan pointed out, most of the mom-and-pop operations are gone. 

Nearly 80 percent of the industry is publicly owned. 

Although ownership of the industry has changed, the goal remains the same: to make a profit. Our goal as regulators also remains the same as it was in 1977: to achieve reclamation. 

I want to share a few examples of how OSM and our state partners have adapted enforcement strategies in just the last four 

years to achieve reclamation in this changing economic environment. 

10

Lodestar Energy held 75 permits in three states. The owners 

worked on Wall Street. When the company failed to produce a profit, they filed bankruptcy. Some of the coal operations were sold, 

and they planned to abandon 20 remaining unreclaimed sites. To 

further complicate matters, the surety company that guaranteed 

the bonds was in receivership. 

Rather than give up, the state and Federal regulators combined 

efforts. Federal enforcement actions were issued, and we persuaded 

the owners that achieving total reclamation was the best solution. 

In the end, over $12 million was distributed among the three states 

to complete reclamation. 

Horizon Natural Resources was the largest coal bankruptcy case 

in U.S. history. The regulators were faced with how to reclaim 300 

abandoned sites in five states, at an estimated cost of $350 million. 

Although the surety bonds were viable, they were not sufficient to 

achieve reclamation on a permit-specific basis. Working together, 

the regulators developed a strategy to keep the assets with the liabilities, to utilize alternative enforcement, and to insist that no 

permit be left behind. 

The result was a settlement agreement that created a reclamation-only company with sufficient assets to cover reclamation costs. 

I am happy to report the job is nearly three-quarters done. Reclamation liability decreases daily. 

The final example is a case where the abandoned mines and permits were in Virginia, but the assets to reclaim the sites were in 

Texas. OSM again used enforcement to assist the state, and persuaded the owners to fund the reclamation. The savings to the Virginia bond pool was $1.5 million. 

In all three cases I have described, regulators used the tools 

available in SMCRA to bring about reclamation. Although these 

were mainly state issues, OSM used its national presence to help 

the states reach beyond their borders to achieve reclamation. 

I am proud of what we have accomplished in 30 years. I am not 

here to say SMCRA is without flaws, or our decisions were always 

correct. But I do believe SMCRA was good for the country, and one 

of the best things Congress has done for the environment. 

I know what life was like before SMCRA. I have lived the 

changes. They are good. SMCRA was the right thing to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bandy follows:]

Statement of Earl Bandy, Chief, Applicant Violator System Office, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Introduced by 

Glenda Owens, Deputy Director, OSM, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a great honor to appear before you today as a witness for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 

1977. 

August 2007 will mark the 30th Anniversary of SMCRA, and September 2007 will 

mark my own 28th anniversary working for OSM. I have served OSM as an inspector, investigator, and manager and, in a few weeks, I will begin a new position as 

Director of OSM’s Knoxville Field Office with responsibility for the Tennessee Federal Program and with oversight responsibility for Virginia. In my various positions, 

I have inspected mine sites in at least a dozen states and visited coal mines in nearly every state in this nation with active operations. 

11

For nearly three decades, I have seen how SMCRA works on the ground, and the 

evolution of its implementation. I have had the opportunity to personally witness 

many of OSM’s greatest successes as well as some of its failures. 

Like many of my colleagues in OSM, I grew up with coal. My late father and 

grandfather were coal miners in Harlan County, Kentucky. I was born in the company hospital and lived in a company-owned house. As a child, I learned that our 

existence revolved around coal. Not only did coal heat our house, it also put the groceries on the table, clothes on my back, and toys in my stocking. I also remember 

learning that the coal company made the rules and that was the final word. 

I spent my childhood hunting, fishing, gardening, climbing trees and climbing 

mountains. My great appreciation for nature led me to study earth sciences and, 

specifically, reclamation in college. My first job was as an inspector for the State 

of Kentucky. 

The Need for SMCRA 

During the mid 1970s, most counties in the Appalachian coal fields were dotted 

with hundreds of small surface mines. Small operators were often heavily in debt 

and light on experience. One unanticipated event could easily lead to a total business failure. In contrast, large operators supported local economies by providing 

large numbers of jobs, related infrastructure, and a local revenue stream. 

From both the small and large operations I saw streams choked with sediment, 

and spoil and rocks dumped on the downslope in steep terrain. I witnessed the results of unpredictable blasting events and saw the exposed highwalls and abandoned entries that were left behind. These failures to reclaim the land resulted from 

many failures in the system that existed then—under-capitalized operators and 

highly variable regulatory standards and inconsistent enforcement from one state 

to the next. This created an economic advantage for operations in states with low 

reclamation standards or lax enforcement. In short, the reclamation principles now 

embodied by Congress under SMCRA were not used in a consistent way by state 

regulators or by the industry prior to its passage. 

It was these conditions that were to be addressed by SMCRA, which was enacted 

by Congress in 1977. Mr. Chairman, you were there, and you don’t need to be reminded that SMCRA was hotly debated, vetoed twice and remained controversial for 

years. There were those who thought that enacting SMCRA was the end of the 

world. A great many disparaging things were said then about SMCRA and about 

OSM. Given this tense environment, it is amazing to me that the authors of the 

SMCRA had the foresight to see so far into the future and give us such a coherent 

framework in a very complex document. I can say that now, having witnessed three 

decades of SMCRA’s development. 

Implementation of SMCRA 

SMCRA leveled the playing field in a number of ways. It standardizes coal mining 

and reclamation regulations from State to State. It assures that coal mining operations in one State do not have an economic advantage over operations in another 

State. It requires the companies to take responsibility for the impacts of their operations. Perhaps most importantly, it requires that citizens have a voice in the permitting process, enforcement of regulations, and rulemaking. 

During the early years of SMCRA’s implementation, I believe the OSM inspector 

was the most unpopular person in the coal fields. The State agencies just could not 

imagine someone telling them how to permit or inspect operations within their 

boundaries. The coal operators disliked OSM even more and often attempted to play 

us and the states against each other. Finally, there were the citizens. They were 

upset because they thought we should put an end to all surface coal mining operations. 

Despite the resistance to change, OSM inspectors marched on. If someone threatened us, we figured they were just having a bad day; if our tires were flattened, 

we simply changed the tire; if we were refused entry at the mine, we returned with 

the U.S. Marshall. We did not go away, and slowly, we began to see a change. 

In those early years, OSM experienced one of its first course corrections. Initially, 

each violation carried a mandatory civil penalty that increased daily if operators did 

not comply. Very soon, using our enforcement authority, OSM had issued thousands 

of violations and assessed millions of dollars in unpaid federal civil penalties. However, OSM was doing little to compel compliance beyond requiring cessation of operations, and basically nothing was done to collect outstanding penalties from the 

under-capitalized small operations that found it easier to quit than to comply, particularly when facing penalties that were increasing each day. Further, some of 

those same individuals that abandoned sites created new companies and came right 

12

back in business under a new name. Citizens groups sued OSM because of the huge 

backlog of unpaid fines that had developed. 

In 1980, OSM revised its rules to place a cap on penalties for unabated violations 

and required the use of one or more alternative tools to achieve compliance. Soon 

after, my job changed from being an inspector to being an investigator for a task 

force created specifically to deploy one of those alternative tools from the tool bag 

Congress gave us in Section 521(c) of SMCRA. This provision authorizes OSM to 

compel individuals who own or control coal mines to correct violations attributable 

to a corporate permittee. 

Members of the task force worked closely with the Solicitors Office to determine 

if owners or controllers had sufficient corporate or personal assets for us to compel 

them to reclaim the land. That Task Force and resulting case law established the 

principle that the ability to control a coal mine creates the duty to comply with environmental aspects of SMCRA. I investigated a number of these cases and when it 

was all said and done the result was thousands of acres of land reclaimed and collection of many outstanding penalties. This concept, known as alternative enforcement, has continued to gain momentum in getting land reclaimed and, more importantly, serves as a powerful deterrent for companies who consider abandoning a site 

without conducting proper reclamation. 

Another problem in the early days was the two-acre exemption, a loophole in the 

law by which large mining companies avoided regulation by working through contractor companies to mine along a string of operations, which individually could 

qualify for the two-acre exemption. Congress eventually closed the two-acre exemption loophole, but that did not eliminate all abuses that were associated with coal 

mining through contract operators. 

I investigated many instances in which well-heeled coal operators who used contractors (who had to deliver the coal they mined to them) were claiming they had 

no responsibility for complying with SMCRA at these contract operations. OSM and 

the States had to start paying attention to the ability of larger coal companies to 

control those contractors and hold the controlling companies responsible under appropriate circumstances. In response to a 1985 Court case settlement involving civil 

penalty collections, OSM developed the Applicant/Violator System (AVS) to track 

control of mining operations and hold controlling companies and individuals responsible for mining within the regulations, paying fees, and reclaiming the land. 

Since 1990, I have served as investigator, team leader and manager of the AVS 

Office. The AVS implements another tool Congress supplied in Section 510(c) of the 

Act. Under this provision of SMCRA permittees know that if they control a site with 

outstanding violations or unpaid penalties or fees, they cannot obtain additional permits until the outstanding issues are resolved. In my opinion, this has been 

SMCRA’s most effective tool in changing the behavior of coal companies. 

AVS has been very effective in making sure those companies and individuals interested in remaining in the coal mining business take care of past problems they 

can be linked to. The AVS has given us a means of resolving unabated state and 

federal environmental violations and civil penalty assessments without resorting to 

court action to compel reclamation. Since the AVS was created we have resolved 

hundreds of cases attributable to past operations of the major producers. One of 

those accounted for reclamation of nearly 500 contract mining operations in three 

states. The reclamation alone was valued at over five million dollars. The AVS has 

produced thousands of settlement agreements resulting in considerable reclamation 

and millions of dollars of payment in fees and penalties for both OSM and the State 

Regulatory Authorities. 

In the 1990s, the hostile relationship between States and OSM began to fade. This 

began with the effort by Director Robert Uram to refocus OSM’s oversight role on 

results and to involve the states more directly in the evaluation process. Rather 

than spend days pointing out each others shortcomings, the States and OSM began 

working as partners to find resolutions to problems. That relationship, the true ‘‘cooperative federalism’’ envisioned in SMCRA, has continued to build to this day. 

More recently, the State Regulatory Authorities and OSM have added a new 

meaning to cooperative federalism. Beginning in 2002, we saw several entities file 

bankruptcy in an attempt to evade reclamation obligations. These were multi-state 

operations where the mines and liabilities are located in one state and the assets 

and ultimate controllers are located in another. One case involving 425 SMCRA permits located across five states was the largest coal bankruptcy case in history. By 

utilizing duel enforcement and combining legal resources, the States and OSM together sent a clear message that it was unacceptable to socialize reclamation liabilities. The result was reclamation activities and assurances valued at nearly 400 million dollars. 

13

The Continuing Legacy of SMCRA 

I cannot imagine what our nation’s land and water resources would be today if 

it were not for SMCRA. Congress’ enactment of such a forward-thinking law was 

an awakening and recognition of the potentially dangerous and harmful cumulative 

effects of coal mining on the land and water. After years of resistance, coal companies acknowledge that reclaiming the land benefits them as well as the communities 

in which they operate. I believe that these companies now approach reclamation 

thoughtfully, with a businesslike attitude and an awareness of environmental impacts that did not exist before SMCRA. This is the true success of SMCRA. 

About 29.5 billion tons of coal have been mined while SMCRA has been in place. 

Most of that, about 90 percent, was used to generate electrical power. During this 

same time, the coal mining industry has successfully reclaimed more than 2 million 

acres (2,238,560) of mined lands. The reclamation accomplishments at many of 

these mines are truly impressive, exceeding all State and Federal regulations. Millions of trees have been planted for both commercial forestry and wildlife habitat, 

trees that recreate or extend the hardwood or pine forests native to the area. Wetlands, often part of mine drainage control, also have been reclaimed and restored. 

Mines that have been reclaimed for farmland show high levels of productivity. In 

re-mining operations, similar results occur with the added benefit of cleaning up 

abandoned surface, as well as underground mines. 

In addition to ensuring that active mines operate in an environmentally-sustainable manner, the other daunting task assigned to OSM under SMCRA was to restore mined lands that were abandoned before the law was passed. Today, almost 

240,000 acres of high-priority mine lands abandoned before 1977 have been reclaimed. The Abandoned Mine Land Program has eliminated safety and environmental hazards on a total of 314,108 acres. As with the active mining operations, 

the reclamation accomplishments are extensive and can now be done to a standard 

barely imaginable when the law passed. Useful buildings have been saved from collapse, sheer highwalls turned to rolling grassland, streams where fish could not live 

now support thriving wildlife populations. Forests are beginning to grow. 

The credit for these accomplishments belongs largely to the people working in the 

regulatory and reclamation programs for the coal States and Indian Tribes. There 

are about 2,400 people in this country responsible for implementing the Surface 

Mining Act. Only a little over 500 of them work for OSM. That’s the way Congress 

envisioned things working when it gave us SMCRA. We try to set the standards and 

solve the problems at the federal level, but it’s the States and Tribes and their citizens who know their own issues best. 

The first 30 years of SMCRA have shown that we can balance the nation’s need 

for domestic coal energy with protection for the environment. Mining should be a 

temporary use of the land and when mining is done, the land should be put back 

the way it was or put to some good use. 

The Next 30 Years of SMCRA 

Over the next 30 years, I expect that vibrant debate will continue over provisions 

of the law or how it’s implemented. Many citizens are opposed to mining techniques 

like longwall mining or mountaintop mining. Some oppose the use of coal ash in reclaiming abandoned mines. Ongoing litigation continues between OSM and the 

mining industry over issues like ownership and control. 

As someone who has lived through and participated in many of the debates in 

SMCRA’s history, I have confidence that eventually these questions will be settled, 

and the discussion will move on to new issues. When we experience failures, as in 

the examples I have cited today, we should do our best to turn them into successes. 

SMCRA will be better for it, as will the coalfields, communities, and the States. 

My generation—SMCRA’s first generation—is getting to be retirement age. In the 

next five or six years we’re going to be replaced by a new generation. These new 

folks coming up bring with them new ideas and new technological tools my generation could not have dreamed possible. For example, technology continues to provide 

us with new ways to measure and mitigate environmental impacts. One of the challenges we face now is how to combine what my generation has learned with what 

the next generation can discover and use it to benefit Americans living and working 

in the coalfields. 

Conclusion 

I appreciate this opportunity to provide my personal insight into 30 years of the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. I am not here today to say SMCRA 

is without flaws or has always been perfectly implemented. But I do believe that 

SMCRA has been good for the country. It may well be one of the best things Congress has done for the environment. 

14

So, as a boy who grew up in the old coalfields, who has devoted his career to 

OSM, and who has seen dramatic changes for the better because of what Congress 

did back in 1977, I am here to say thanks. It was the right thing to do. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that you or members 

of the Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both for being with us this morning. 

And Mr. Bandy, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. BANDY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the manner in which you gave it. It 

was from the heart, and so much so that I have to question whether OMB actually heard it. Or whether they cleared it or not would 

be a better question. Do you happen to know? 

Mr. BANDY. Mr. Chairman, I know it was submitted to OMB. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Deputy Director Owens, what is the status of 

your implementing the National Research Council’s recommendations on the use of coal power plant waste in mine reclamation? 

Ms. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, OSM published an advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking in March of 2007. The comment period of 

that notice closed in June. We are currently reviewing comments, 

and our plan is to get a proposed rule out by the end of the year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is this going the way of your agency’s reaction 

to the National Academy’s Coal Waste Empowerment Study? The 

number of National Academy assigned studies? The Office of Surface Mining is ignoring or starting to stack up, it appears, like 

building blocks. 

Ms. OWENS. We have no intention of ignoring it, sir. In fact, as 

I said, our every intention is to have the rule published by the end 

of the year. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. You spoke of the cooperative Federalism 

with respect to a relationship between the agency and the states. 

My fear is that this may have evolved into cooperative cronyism. 

Enforcing SMCRA is not about winning a popularity contest. 

For instance, does deferring to a state’s 10-day notice response 

constitute independent oversight that the Act envisioned? 

Ms. OWENS. Sir, I think that the Act requires, because of the way 

that the Act is constructed, and that is what the state’s taking primacy and having primary regulatory responsibility, and OSM functioning in an oversight capacity, it is our responsibility to allow the 

states to take the corrective action that is necessary, which is why 

the Act provides for the 10-day notice process. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that does not preclude Federal enforcement. 

Is that correct? Would you agree with that statement? 

Ms. OWENS. Certainly not, sir, it does not. In the event where the 

determination is made that the state has not taken appropriate action, OSM will take necessary action. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Deputy Director Owens, in 1998 I publicly 

expressed concern with a report that the majority of mountaintop 

removal mines in West Virginia were given permits without AOC 

variances. A great deal of litigation and policy changes have taken 

place since that time. However, my concern remains. And I touched 

upon this in my opening remarks. And that is, to what extent are 

mining operations that are viewed as mountaintop removal technically not categorized as such? 

15

They may use a combination of point removal, area mining, and 

contour cuts. And for all intents and purposes have the character 

of a mountaintop removal operation, but have not received an AOC 

variance, and have not submitted a post-mining land use plan that 

includes those higher uses that would benefit the economies of coalfield communities, the better post-mining uses to which I referred. 

I would expect your agency has looked into this matter as part 

of its oversight. Would you care to comment? 

Ms. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, that is, in fact, correct. OSM is very 

much aware of the issues associated with mountaintop mining. As 

you mentioned, there has been litigation on the issue since 1998. 

We have engaged in rulemaking, and in fact currently we are 

working cooperatively with state and Federal regulators in the development of guidance on certain issues related to mountaintop 

mining, such as AOC, the variances, the post-mining land uses, 

and return of mined land to useful and productive hardwood forestry. 

We have also engaged in a national rulemaking on two of the 

issues associated with mountaintop mining: extreme buffer zone 

and excess spoiled fuel rule. We have a proposal that is in final review, and it should be published in the near future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would only respond that it has been a little over 10 years I think since we last had our oversight hearing, 

where I asked a similar question and got a similar answer. 

Ms. OWENS. Well, I wasn’t here 10 years ago. But I can tell you 

that I was in the Solicitor’s Office at that time, and I was involved 

in the litigation on mountaintop mining. I know that it has been 

a struggle getting through these issues because of the controversies 

and the confusion that the regulation has wrought, which is why 

OSM now feels that a national rulemaking on these issues is appropriate. 

The CHAIRMAN. But does OSM have a definition of AOC, approximate original contour? 

Ms. OWENS. We do not have a definition at this point. We are, 

in fact, working on a definition, looking into whether the definition 

at this time is appropriate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thirty years, and we are still looking for a definition of AOC. 

Ms. OWENS. I am sorry. Yes, sir. I thought that was a statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. And your response is yes. OK. Let me ask one 

more question. 

Turning to the recently enacted amendments to the Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Program, is it the agency’s view that as a result 

of those amendments, the states cannot use their AML grants for 

non-coal mine reclamation. 

Ms. OWENS. That is an issue that we are currently working with 

our solicitors on, to make sure that we follow the law as written. 

So we are, a decision has not been made, but we are working with 

our solicitors on that issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Continuing on this issue, and I have already 

taken issue with Brent Wahlquist on this when he was Acting Director, the Office of Surface Mining has taken the position that the 

minimum program states will not receive the full $3 million minimum program amount until Fiscal Year 2010. This is a great inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16

justice; it is not how I read the law. And I would appreciate if you 

would elaborate on how this position is being taken. 

Ms. OWENS. Again, Mr. Chairman, that issue, we understand the 

position of the Chair. We are looking at and working with our solicitors to make sure that we follow the written law. 

The CHAIRMAN. That you follow, I am sorry, the written law? 

Ms. OWENS. Written law. The law as it is written. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you talking about the amendments that we 

enacted end of last session? 

Ms. OWENS. Yes, I am, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you perhaps not read them yet? 

Ms. OWENS. I have read them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps we have a disagreement of the intent of 

that legislation, then. 

My time is up. I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Owens, what is the 

legal foundation for the regulations under the SMCRA of surface 

mining on non-Federal lands? What is the legal foundation? 

Ms. OWENS. I am sorry, sir, could you—I am not understanding 

your question. 

Mr. PEARCE. The legal foundation for the national regulations for 

those non-public, non-Federal lands. 

Ms. OWENS. Non-public, non-Federal lands? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, the mining——

Ms. OWENS. The legal foundation for all of our regulations are 

the Surface Mining Act. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. But the underlying foundation of those regulations, I understand it comes from the Act. I am asking about the 

legal foundations. 

Ms. OWENS. The Act does provide the legal foundation, unless I 

am missing something, sir. I apologize. 

Mr. PEARCE. Have any of the foundations been challenged in 

court? 

Ms. OWENS. Of regulation? 

Mr. PEARCE. The legal foundations for the regulation. In other 

words, has a court looked at the legal foundation for the regulatory 

basis of SMCRA? 

Ms. OWENS. Mr. Congressman, as I am sure you are aware, most 

of, or I should say a large percentage of regulations that are promulgated and that have been promulgated under SMCRA over the 

years and currently are challenged in court. 

Mr. PEARCE. And generally what is the finding of the court? Supporting the regulatory basis, or are they not? 

Ms. OWENS. We have had instances, because of the breadth of 

the challenges to the regulations, we have prevailed in some cases 

and not in others. And when we have not, we have taken action 

accordingly with the courts’ decisions. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you think that Congress can effectively preempt 

states’ regulation of oil and gas production on non-Federal lands? 

Do you think that we can do that here in Congress? 

Ms. OWENS. Well, Congress has the power to write the laws. I 

would assume that if you write them in that way, you could. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Do you know, Mr. Bandy, you had mentioned 

that you kind of confirmed the statements made by Mr. Duncan, 

17

that we have evolved from the mom-and-pop operations to 80 percent publicly traded. Is that healthy for the industry? Has that 

been a good change? 

Mr. BANDY. Well, the industry has changed a lot in 30 years. The 

amount of work that goes into obtaining a permit is very expensive. 

There is a lot of engineering and design work that goes into that, 

and a lot of equipment cost. It is expensive. 

It is being approached more as a business approach. And I see 

maturity in the industry, and likewise in the state programs. 

Mr. PEARCE. As a regulator looking at it, is it a healthier industry now? Is it safer, cleaner, everything that regulators look at? 

Mr. BANDY. Yes, sir. We have looked at numbers, and one of the 

things I currently do is the applicant violator system, which looks 

at violations, companies with violations. And we see a decreasing 

number of non-forfeitures and a decreasing number of cessation orders when you compare back to previous years. 

The industry as a whole has consolidated, and you see quite a 

bit of consolidation of the industry today. 

Mr. PEARCE. I wonder how many people were employed in the 

coal mining industry. 

Mr. BANDY. I think it is about 250,000, but I am not positive of 

that, nationwide. 

Mr. PEARCE. And an average coal miner might make what? 

Mr. BANDY. I would say $100 a day. 

Mr. PEARCE. A thousand dollars a week then, more or less. 

Mr. BANDY. I guess so. 

Mr. PEARCE. So it is pretty good, high-paying jobs, compared to 

New Mexico scale. And the contribution to the GDP? Ms. Owens, 

would you know that? 

Ms. OWENS. No, sir, I am sorry, I don’t. 

Mr. PEARCE. I think it is about $100 billion. A lot of those are 

union jobs. I think what we do here has a great effect on the economy, the cost of our energy, and on the jobs in the coal industry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is about to elapse. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jim, let us see. Let me recognize in order in 

which you came in. Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. A few months ago I talked to a lady from Marsh 

Fork Hollow. And she told me about the destruction of her community by mountaintop mining. And as someone who is not personally 

familiar with it, it was really distressing. She told about her son 

going out; the first time it really got bad is in the creek behind 

their house, a place that they had played for generations, becoming 

just, the water just looked threatening. Not a place where a kid 

could play any more. 

Then they started talking about the dust. Then they talked about 

the dam, that she couldn’t sleep at night because they all had to 

sleep in one room. They were worried it was going to collapse. And 

they eventually had to leave. And this whole community basically, 

not on the land that was owned by the mine, but adjacent to it. 

And they all left. 

And listening to her, it was apparent to me that Federal policy 

had failed to protect Americans from some of the devastation 

caused by this particular kind of mining. 

18

I am not as familiar with the specifics as the Chairman and the 

other members of the Committee. I am concerned when I hear that 

there has apparently been a violation of a failure by the Federal 

government to protect against the destruction of streams by this, 

by issuing permits, if you will, at the same time that we are destroying these stream beds. 

It seems to me like there needs to be some significant review of 

the performance of the Executive Branch, and/or a change in the 

law, given the destruction that at least I have been told is occurring. Could you both comment on that? 

Ms. OWENS. Mr. Congressman, as I mentioned earlier, OSM is 

painfully aware of the issues associated with mountaintop mining. 

And in an effort to address many of those issues, we have been and 

continue to work cooperatively with the state and Federal regulators. 

One of the things that we are currently doing is working with 

the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

come up with ways to ensure that we issue better permits; that 

there is coordination between those agencies—in particular, the 

Corps of Engineers—that have responsibility to ensure that the 

Clean Water Act requirements are met. 

In the stream buffer zone regulation that we are proposing, one 

of the issues we are addressing is to clarify the conditions under 

which mining activities can occur in or near streams. So we are 

looking at those issues and attempting to address them. 

Mr. INSLEE. What is the status of this? At one time there was 

litigation, I think last year, where the Administration was allowing 

mining that they were aware were filling in stream beds, and actually physically destroying the stream bed. And my understanding 

is that the Administration allowed that to occur. There was litigation, and my understanding is the court issued an injunction or 

stopped the Administration somehow from doing that. What is the 

status of that? 

Ms. OWENS. Well, I think you are referring to a District Court 

decision, which the District Court Judge did not allow the decision; 

said that there could be no placement of spoil in perennial streams. 

However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that. 

Notwithstanding that fact, we recognize that there are issues, 

and we have begun to address them in the proposed rulemaking. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, maybe you can tell me. Do you think it should 

be the law that mountaintop mining could result in destroying 

these streams? Do you think that should be the law? 

Ms. OWENS. No, I don’t. 

Mr. INSLEE. And under the current law, are they allowed to do 

so? 

Ms. OWENS. The law does not allow for destroying of the streams. 

In fact, one of the issues associated with the stream buffer zone 

rule is some of the confusion we realized through the course of the 

litigation over this is that there was confusion over the interpretation of the rule, which is why we have——

Mr. INSLEE. Do we need a statutory change to clarify that? I 

mean, if you are telling me that you think they shouldn’t be destroyed, but the Fourth Circuit Court allowed the mining to go 

through, which dumped spoils in a stream bed and literally deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19

stroyed it, does that suggest we need a statutory change? Or is the 

Executive just not applying the statute correctly? 

Ms. OWENS. I think our regulations have attempted to apply the 

law correctly. We have, however, as I said, as a result of litigation 

and the different results that came out of that litigation, our regulation now attempts to add some clarity to the confusion that exists. 

Mr. INSLEE. And have those then issued? Is there a proposed regulation out? 

Ms. OWENS. No. The proposed regulation is in final review, and 

we expect that it will be issued soon. In the near future. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we hope to see it. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Shuler? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You forgot me over here. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. 

I am sorry, Bill. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am equally concerned about what has happened in mining and to the environment. But I have seen in my district communities destroyed, not 

necessarily because of what has happened to the environment, but 

because of what has happened to coal mining, and the burden and 

the regulatory burden that the government has placed on it now. 

I certainly think that we have to have laws in place to protect 

the environment, but we also have to make sure that we protect 

this industry so that it can create the jobs that are so necessary 

to get the coal out of the ground, to be able to use it for power in 

this country. 

As I have said, I have seen a number of communities that have 

been destroyed and are trying to rebuild themselves, trying to open 

up mines that were at one time very productive mines, closed down 

for various reasons. But the process they have to go through is very 

burdensome. It takes a long period of time, it is very expensive. 

And I hope that we can streamline some of this, so that we can 

open some of these mines that, as I have said, had been mined in 

the past in western Pennsylvania, and are important to this nation, 

important to my district, important to regular people. 

I think somebody mentioned about the kind of money a miner 

makes today. One of the, I guess it is a good problem we have, is 

we can’t get enough miners in western Pennsylvania to mine the 

coal. So I am very concerned about the regulatory burden that we 

place on these companies. 

One question I wonder if you might be able to comment on, on 

lands that have been reclaimed. What is the record on their productivity once they have been reclaimed, that you have found? 

Ms. OWENS. I couldn’t answer across the board, but I can say 

that one of the initiatives that OSM is engaged in now is ARRIs, 

our Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. And that is an 

effort to return mined lands to productive hardwood forests. And 

20

of course, that has all the benefits of the reforestation creating natural habitat for wildlife and carbon sequestration possibilities. 

The goal of the Surface Mining Act and the regulatory program 

is to ensure that post-mining land uses return the land to at least 

as good, if not better, uses than prior to mining. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And do you have any statistics, any records on if 

that has been the case? 

Ms. OWENS. I can get statistics. I don’t have any with me. 

Mr. SHUSTER. But it has been my, in traveling throughout my 

district—of course, mining is important, but also hardwoods. Pennsylvania has some of the greatest hardwood forests in the world. 

And when I have been talking to folks that timber, they say the 

productivity in cases has exceeded what it was before mining went 

there. But again, I would like to see some statistics on your department, if you keep that and track those kinds of things. I think it 

would be very important to us as we craft legislation, as we go 

through this Act. 

The other question that I have is concerning the fees that are 

collected from the operators. They are done on a voluntary basis. 

What is your feeling? Do you feel as though they are being collected? Are we getting 100 percent, or close to 100 percent, of what 

we think should be collected, to be able to do these recommendations? 

Ms. OWENS. Fees assessed against coal produced? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes. 

Ms. OWENS. Well, that is not voluntary. That is required under 

the Act. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I know that. But the reporting, I guess, is voluntary, is that correct? 

Ms. OWENS. I am sorry? 

Mr. SHUSTER. The reporting on the production, is that voluntary, 

or is there an auditing process in place? 

Ms. OWENS. That is required, as well. And I believe we have 99 

percent compliance with that requirement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. The other thing that I wanted you to comment 

on was that in recent years they have increased the flexibility of 

how those monies can be used. A portion of it, or it seems to be 

an increasing portion of it is going into water systems, which of 

course is important. But I am concerned that the money is not 

being spent on reclaiming the land, and then down the road somewhere we need to figure out how to get money in to improve those 

water systems. 

What do your numbers show as far as that? Are we seeing a significant increase in those monies being used for water treatment 

facilities instead of the reclamation? 

Ms. OWENS. I am sorry, I don’t have the statistics on that. I do 

know that the monies, the fees that are collected on the coal produced go into the Abandoned Mine Land Fund, and the projects 

that that fund finances are those that come from our Abandoned 

Mine Land Inventory System. And those are high-priority projects 

that the Act established and requires us to require states with 

abandoned mine land programs to clean up. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, at some point, you probably have statistics 

on that, also. Again, my question was because of the flexibility we 

21

put in the law, more of that money is going into cleaning the water 

systems instead of the reclamation projects. Sometimes that goes 

hand in hand, but I wonder if you could give me some statistics on 

that and see where that money is flowing. 

Ms. OWENS. To the extent that we can get those, I will. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Sali. 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Owens first, and then 

Mr. Bandy. And just a short answer. 

Do you feel like your office has been able to do a good job of regulating coal mining and reclaiming land, and protecting the environment through the Surface Mining Act? 

Ms. OWENS. I think that we have, what we have done is done a 

good job. We are in the process of—and Mr. Chairman alluded to 

this earlier—establishing a regulatory framework that allows for 

the states and tribes to regulate under the surface mining programs. 

Ninety-seven percent of the coal that is produced in this nation 

is permitted and regulated under the state regulatory programs. 

And it is in our interest to make sure that those states succeed. 

And the way——

Mr. SALI. Do you believe they are succeeding in taking care of 

the environmental concerns and whatnot with regulating coal 

mining in this country today? 

Ms. OWENS. I think they are improving. As you know, this has 

been a 30-year effort. We have had some successes, we have had 

some challenges. We have had some failures. But we have not 

ceased to work on the improvement of our effort, and to continue 

to work cooperatively with the states. 

What we have found is that our increased cooperative effort with 

the states is yielding better results than when we were in a 

confrontational mode with them. So it can——

Mr. SALI. Mr. Bandy, do you feel like your office has been able 

to do a good job of regulating coal mining in this country and protecting the environment, all those goals that are set out in the Surface Mining Act? 

Mr. BANDY. Yes, sir, I do. I don’t think we have been perfect, but 

I would hate to see what it would have been like without us 30 

years ago, in 30 years. I see a lot of maturity and a lot of dedicated 

people. 

The problem with, or the issue with being a regulator is you kind 

of straddle the fence. And nobody is ever really happy with your 

decision, neither the industry or the citizens. But you try to find 

that balance, as laid out in the purposes of the Act, to balance our 

country’s energy needs with their environmental concerns. 

Mr. SALI. And along those lines, I guess the point I am trying 

to get to is this. I know you have new regulations that have been 

promulgated and will guide the future, I guess is probably the best 

way to say that. 

Is there any authority that you lack in your office, under the 

Surface Mining Act, that you need to be able to go out and protect 

the environment in ways that it is not being protected today? And 

I recognize, Mr. Bandy, that you use judgment; sometimes you 

don’t use the full extent of your authority. But is there a place 

22

where you run up against a lack of authority from your office to 

be able to regulate for the environment? To be able to punish people who offend? To be able to come up with regulations that will 

take care of any issues that have come up? And I say that, tempering, knowing that the courts get involved and sometimes interpret things differently. 

But do you lack authority to deal with the issues that are supposed to be taken care of under the Surface Mining Act? 

Mr. BANDY. No, sir. One of the things that inspectors and regulators have dealt with for years, how to deal with bankruptcies. 

And pretty much, we figured, and when they file bankruptcy, it is 

all over; everybody loses. 

But the cases I have pointed out in my oral testimony is it is an 

example of how we tweak and reused what SMCRA gave us 30 

years ago in today’s economy, in today’s environment, to get favorable results. 

Mr. SALI. Ms. Owens, would you respond to that question? Is 

there any place where you lack authority to act that you would 

need Congress to engage? 

Ms. OWENS. Nothing that comes to mind immediately, Mr. Congressman. As Mr. Bandy said, we have been able to, through the 

years, adapt to the needs of the Surface Mining Program. The challenge that we have, as he also stated, is striking that balance. And 

I think that we have done a pretty good job of attempting to do 

that. 

Mr. SALI. You would agree that striking that balance generally 

means that you would exercise less authority than you have under 

the Act? 

Ms. OWENS. No, not at all. It just means that we exercise the authority that is given us, recognizing the need; the need for coal by 

the nation. But then also to make sure that it is done in an environmentally sound manner. And I think SMCRA gives us the tools 

to do that. And I think we are doing a pretty good job of utilizing 

those tools to that result. 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. No questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Before we let you go, let me just go back one 

more time to the definition of AOC. You are saying 30 years now, 

we still don’t have a definition of approximate original contour. I 

would seriously, seriously ask you, how do you expect anybody to 

comply with the law if 30 years later you still don’t have a definition of what one of the basic tenets of that law, return to AOC, approximate original contour? 

Ms. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I think you are aware that there is 

a statutory definition of approximate original contour, and that is 

the definition that we follow. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have in front of me the original SMCRA Act, 

1977. My copy. My notes I wrote on it 30 years ago. I wish I still 

had a picture of what I looked like at that time to put in here, as 

well. 

[Laughter.] 

23

The CHAIRMAN. But here are my notes. ‘‘Strong bill.’’ And ‘‘requiring return to approximate original contour.’’ My eyesight is not 

as good as it was 30 years ago, either. Well, my handwriting has 

gotten worse, that is for sure. 

The bottom line is I wrote on here, ‘‘approximate original contour 

and better post-mining uses of the land.’’ This bill was supposed to 

address the problems of small operators and permits, the states’ 

rights if the states meet Federal guidelines. This is a note I must 

have written for a press interview or something. But anyway, approximate original contour. And we still don’t have a definition. 

Ms. OWENS. Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we didn’t have 

the benefit of your handwritten notes. We only have the statutory 

definition, which we have attempted to follow over the years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would hope we could get something more 

definite than a statutory definition, so that we know what is legal 

and how to comply, the operators know how to comply with the 

law. I think the agency must have a definition. 

Ms. OWENS. Well, we are, in fact, now working with the state 

and Federal regulators to provide guidance. We are working to develop guidance on AOC and the variances and post-mining land 

uses. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you both for your testimony today. 

Ms. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BANDY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Our next panel is composed of 

Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact 

Commission, Herndon, Virginia; Stephanie R. Timmermeyer, the 

Cabinet Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, from Charleston, West Virginia; John F. Husted, Deputy Chief, Division of Mineral Resource Management, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio; Mr. John Corra, the 

Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

The Chair would like to welcome the panel for being with us this 

morning, some of whom have traveled long distances. And again, 

I commend you for your work. Stephanie, it is good to see you 

again, and thank you for what you do in our home state of West 

Virginia. I hope the baby is doing well. 

We have your prepared testimony; it will be made part of the 

record as if actually read. And I understand, Mr. Conrad, you will 

be the lead-off witness. 

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Conrad, if you would give me a moment here 

while we set up. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY E. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION, HERNDON, 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. CONRAD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this 

morning, and to introduce the perspective from the states concerning the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, as we reflect on 30 years of its implementation. 

24

I will present a general overview of state regulation under 

SMCRA, and then my colleagues from West Virginia and Wyoming 

will share a more regional perspective, followed by a viewpoint 

from those who operate abandoned mine land programs for the 

states and tribes. 

As one of the original framers of SMCRA, Mr. Chairman, you are 

very familiar with the state lead concept that underpins the implementation of the Act. In designing a regulatory model that would 

be both effective and efficient, Congress decided that the states 

should be authorized to regulate surface mining and reclamation 

operations within their borders. 

Due to the diversity of terrain, climate, and other conditions related to mining operations, it simply made sense to rely upon the 

states to implement programs based on national standards. The 

other part of the equation was financial. It was anticipated, and indeed has proven true, that the states would be able to operate their 

programs at significantly lower cost than the Federal government. 

We are happy to report today, Mr. Chairman, that the regulatory 

regime established by SMCRA is a success, and is working notably 

well. The purposes of the Act are being accomplished, and the overall goal of establishing a nationwide program to protect society and 

the environment from the adverse effects of past and present coal 

mining operations has been achieved. 

Drainage and runoff controls are in place to ensure that downstream waters are not filled with sediment or otherwise polluted. 

Blasting operations are controlled to prevent damage to nearby 

property. Final grading and reshaping of mine lands are undertaken to ensure that they are stable and approximate their original 

contour. Topsoil is preserved and then replaced to accomplish high 

levels of productivity, and mine lands are reclaimed to a variety of 

beneficial uses, and then returned to local landowners in equal or 

better condition than before mining. And all of these statutory requirements are being accomplished while maintaining a viable coal 

mining industry that is essential for meeting our nation’s energy 

needs. 

Examples of some of the excellent reclamation that is occurring 

under the Act, along with some of the various post-mining land 

uses, can be seen in our two exhibits, which highlight area state 

and national reclamation award winners. I would request permission to submit these two exhibits for the record. Thank you. 

As we look to the future, Mr. Chairman, the states faced several 

challenges, perhaps the most crucial being adequate funding for 

state regulatory programs. Pursuant to Section 705 of SMCRA, 

OSM is authorized to make annual grants to the states of up to 50 

percent of the total costs incurred for the purposes of administering 

and enforcing their programs. This percentage has increased for 

states regulating on Federal lands. 

As you know, these grants are essential to the full and effective 

operation of state regulatory programs. For the past several fiscal 

years, the amounts for state Title V grants has been flatlined, as 

you will note in this graph. What this does not show is that these 

grants have been stagnant for over 12 years. 

Looking at the graph once again, another disturbing trend is evidenced, and that is that the gap between the state’s requests and 

25

what states are receiving in annual grants is widening. In the end, 

this increasing gap is compounding the problem caused by inflation, and uncontrollable costs is undermining our efforts to realize 

needed program improvements and enhancements, and jeopardizes 

our efforts to minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on 

people and the environment. 

Should the Federal government be faced with operating these 

programs, the impact on their budget will be significant. So for all 

of these reasons, we have urged Congress to increase funding for 

state Title V grants in OSM’s 2008 budget to $67 million. We are 

encouraged that both the House and the Senate are moving in this 

direction. 

Let me turn briefly to some of the key successes and future challenges facing the states. Over the past 20 years, state programs 

have improved to the point that implementation is highly successful. The overall programmatic emphasis under SMCRA has shifted 

from structural and administrative issues to specific technical 

issues that are encountered as reclamation technology and science 

are advanced. 

This is where OSM serves a valuable support mechanism for the 

states, particularly through their TIPS program and the agency’s 

technical training program, both of which undergird the states’ efforts to operate efficient and effective programs. 

On another front, the states have worked cooperatively with 

OSM and others to address acid-mine drainage issues through the 

Acid Drainage Technology Initiative. The states have made significant strides in advancing reforestation efforts on reclaimed lands 

through the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. And 

through a partnership among the states’ OSM and EPA we have 

achieved momentum in the remaining area, where thousands of 

acres of abandoned mine lands have been restored as part of active 

mining operations. 

Among the future technical and regulatory challenges facing the 

states are those related to adequate financial assurance for longterm impacts beyond normal reclamation, prime farmland productivity, and underground mine mapping. In each of these instances, 

and in others, such as subsidence control, blasting, and hydrologic 

protection, the states are actively engaged in seeking technical solutions, as well as regulatory program enhancements, that will 

fully and adequately address the concerns associated with these 

issues. 

Much progress has been made over the past 30 years to accomplish the purpose and objectives of SMCRA. At this point in the 

Act’s implementation, we believe that it is most relevant for OSM 

to focus its energies and resources on assisting and supporting the 

states through adequate funding for state grants, sound technical 

assistance, and opportunities for the states to actively participate 

in the agency’s training program. The overall result will be excellence in state program implementation and enhancement of the 

Federal/state partnership, and better on-the-ground performance 

by the regulated industry. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]

26

Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director,

Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Greg 

Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. The Compact is comprised of 24 states throughout the country that together produce some 90% of our Nation’s coal, as well as important non-fuel minerals. The Compact’s purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of land, 

water and other resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the member states that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the usefulness of natural resources and to assist 

in achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable 

mining industry. Participation in the Compact is gained through the enactment of 

legislation by the member states authorizing their entry into the Compact and their 

respective Governors serve as Commissioners. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing on ‘‘A 30th Anniversary Review of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977’’. I will present a general overview of 

the states’ experience with SMCRA’s implementation and will then turn to my colleagues from West Virginia and Wyoming to provide insights into the operation of 

state programs in two important coal mining regions of the country. Finally, John 

Husted of Ohio, who serves as President of the National Association of Abandoned 

Mine Land Programs, will share the state and tribal perspective on the AML program under SMCRA. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is one of several laws passed 

in the environmental decade of the 1970s that provided for a unique blend of federal 

and state authority for implementation of its provisions. As one of the original framers of this landmark law, Mr. Chairman, you know that one of its key 

underpinnings was that the primary governmental responsibility for developing, authorizing, issuing and enforcing regulations for surface mining and reclamation operations subject to the Act should rest with the states, due to the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical and other physical conditions related to mining operations. We are here to report on our role and experience as primary regulatory 

authorities under SMCRA. 

By almost all accounts, the implementation of SMCRA by the states has been a 

resounding success. The anticipated purposes of the Act have been or are being accomplished and the overall goal of establishing a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of past and present surface coal 

mining operations has been achieved. Drainage and runoff controls are in place to 

ensure that downstream waters are not filled with sediment or otherwise polluted 

by mining activity. Blasting operations are controlled to prevent damage to nearby 

buildings and other property. Final grading and reshaping of mined lands are undertaken to ensure that they are stable and approximate their original contour. Topsoil is preserved and then replaced on mined lands to accomplish high levels of productivity. Mined lands are reclaimed to a variety of beneficial uses within a few 

years after the completion of mining. Once reclaimed lands are fully bond released, 

they are returned to local landowners in equal or better condition than before 

mining began. All of these statutory requirements are being accomplished while 

maintaining a viable coal mining industry that is essential for meeting our Nation’s 

energy needs. Examples of some of the excellent reclamation that is occurring under 

the Act can be seen in our two exhibits, which highlight various state, IMCC and 

OSM reclamation award winners. 

As we reflect back on the past 30 years since the enactment of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), much has changed and yet some things remain the same. In the early years, we were focused on the development of a comprehensive federal regulatory program that would serve as the baseline for 

SMCRA’s implementation. Many of these initial rules faced legal challenges as 

being arbitrary, capricious or inconsistent with law and took many years to resolve. 

A few, like the definition of valid existing rights and the procedural rules concerning 

ownership and control that underpin the Applicant/Violator System, are still unsettled. However, the majority of the federal rules are in place and working effectively. 

This is not to say that we are out of the woods with respect to significant future 

rulemakings. Two examples of rules currently before the Office of Surface Mining, 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) are stream buffer zones and mine placement 

of coal combustion by-products, both of which the agency will soon be proposing. 

However, in general, the regulatory program is more stable and certain than it was 

even 10 years ago, which benefits both coal operators and citizens. 

One of the key components of SMCRA when first enacted was its reliance on a 

unique and challenging arrangement of state and federal authority to accomplish its 

27

intended purposes and objectives. Pursuant to the state primacy approach embodied 

in SMCRA, the states serve as the front-line authorities for implementation of the 

public protection and environmental conservation provisions of the Act, with a supporting oversight role accorded to OSM. It has taken a good portion of the past thirty years to sort out the components of these often competing roles, but the result 

has been a balance of authority that generally works. 

During the past ten or so years, the working relationship between the states and 

OSM has been particularly productive and non-contentious. We have moved beyond 

the second-guessing of state decisions that predominated the early years of state 

program implementation and instead are engaged in more cooperative initiatives 

where OSM strives to support the states through technical advice and training and 

where the states and OSM work together to solve difficult policy and legal questions. OSM’s oversight program is more focused on results, looking at on-the-ground 

reclamation success and off-site impacts, which better reflect the true measure of 

whether the purposes of SMCRA are being met. In fact, over the years, both OSM’s 

oversight program, as well as several state performance-based regulatory programs, 

have received national recognition for their effectiveness and efficiency. 

This is not to say that there are not several challenges ahead of us as we look 

to the future. Perhaps the most crucial at this juncture is adequate funding for state 

regulatory programs. Pursuant to section 705 of SMCRA, OSM is authorized to 

make annual grants to the states of up to 50 percent of the total costs incurred by 

the states for the purposes of administering and enforcing their programs. This percentage is increased for those states that regulate on federal lands. As you know, 

Mr. Chairman, these grants are essential to the full and effective operation of state 

regulatory programs. For the past several fiscal years, the amount for state Title 

V grants has been flat-lined. (See figure 1) What this graph does not show is that 

these grants have been stagnant for over 12 years. The appropriation for state Title 

V grants in FY 1995 was $50.5 million. Essentially, we have attempted to operate 

effective, high performance programs with a meager $6 million increase spread over 

12 years. By most standards, this is remarkable, and clearly a bargain for the federal government. Over this same period of time, coal production has risen substantially and OSM’s own budget for federal program costs has increased by over $25 

million. Given the fact that it is the states that operate the programs that address 

the environmental impacts of coal mining operations, a similar increase would have 

been expected. But instead, state regulatory grants have remained flat-lined.

For Fiscal Year 2008, in an attempt to reverse this trend, OSM has proposed a 

modest increase for state Title V grants. However, it may be too little too late, especially for some states such as Virginia and Utah. In Virginia, for instance, coal production and operating costs have increased, while federal funding for state-based 

coal regulatory programs has consistently decreased. The rise in costs associated 

with wages, employee benefits, and transportation fuels have risen approximately 

15% over the past four years. Due to the loss of federal funds, Virginia is unable 

to fill many staff postings, including that of the critical field inspector. Without a 

full staff of reclamation inspectors, Virginia may not meet federal inspection guidelines. Virginia is also unable to fill technical support staff positions. This will limit 

the assistance the Commonwealth can offer to coal companies and significantly 

delay the review and approval process for surface mining permits. Virginia’s situaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

37013.001
28

tion is symptomatic of what other states are facing—or will soon face—if the debilitating trend for Title V grant funding is not reversed. 

It must be kept in mind that state coal regulatory program permitting and inspection workloads are in large part related to coal mine production. In general, as coal 

production increases, the need for additional permitting and operational inspections 

also increases. State programs must be adequately funded and staffed to insure that 

permitting and inspection duties are both thorough and timely as states experience 

the reality of accelerating coal mine production and expansion activities. As program 

funding shortfalls continue, states risk the possibility of delayed production and negative impacts to the environment. The situation in Colorado exemplifies this reality. 

From 2002 to 2006, Colorado production increased approximately 10%. Permit revision activity increased nearly 50% during the same period. This reality has stressed 

existing program resources and caused the delay or elimination of lower priority 

program functions. 

Just as with the federal government, state regulatory programs are personnel intensive, with salaries and benefits constituting upwards of 80 percent of total program costs. And, just like the federal government, state personnel costs are increasing. (See figure 2) States must have sufficient staff to complete permitting, inspection and enforcement actions needed to protect citizens of the coalfields. When funding falls below program needs, states may struggle to keep active sites free of offsite 

impacts, reclaim mined areas, and prevent injuries.

Looking again at figure 1, another disturbing trend is evident. The gap between 

the states’ requests, which are based on anticipated expenditures, and what states 

are receiving in annual grants, is widening. The numbers in this chart are taken 

from OSM budget justification documents, OSM’s website, and estimates provided 

to OSM from the states. Please note that these numbers have not been adjusted for 

inflation—which means the situation is actually more bleak. There is no disagreement about the need demonstrated by the states. In fact, in OSM’s own budget justification document, OSM states that: ‘‘the states have the unique capabilities and 

knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing a 50 percent match 

of Federal funds to primacy States in the form of grants results is the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal government. If a state were to relinquish primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees 

to implement the program. The cost to the Federal government would be significantly higher.’’ (Page 71 of OSM’s Budget Justification) 

The enormity of this funding challenge will become increasingly clear as the federal government is faced with the dilemma of either securing the necessary funding 

for state programs or implementing those programs (or portions thereof) themselves—at significantly higher costs. In Virginia alone, for instance, the cost of OSM 

running the program would likely amount to $8-10 million based on what it currently costs OSM to run the comparable federal program in Tennessee. For perspective, in Fiscal Year 2007, Virginia has been offered $3.175 million in federal funding 

to operate its program (although actual needs amount to $3.6 million—an overall 

shortfall of nearly $1 million when the state match is factored in). If this analysis 

was expanded to all of the 24 state programs, the overall savings to the federal government would be dramatic. In addition, as anticipated by SMCRA’s framers, the 


37013.002
29

states are closer to the action, are able to account for local conditions and circumstances and can be more responsive. 

In the end, the increasing gap between the states’ anticipated expenditures and 

actual Federal funding is compounding the problem caused by inflation and uncontrollable costs, undermines our efforts to realize needed program improvements and 

enhancements, and jeopardizes our efforts to minimize the impact of coal extraction 

operations on people and the environment. For all these reasons, we have urged 

Congress to increase funding for state Title V regulatory grants in OSM’s FY 2008 

budget to $67 million, as fully documented in the states’ estimates for actual program operating costs. A resolution adopted by IMCC at its recent annual meeting 

addressing this matter is attached to our testimony (Attachment No. 1). At this 

point, the House has approved an additional $2 million over the Administration’s 

request of $60.2 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a 

$6 million increase over that request. This is very encouraging and we trust that 

in the end, Congress will approve the full $66.2 million for state Title V grants. 

It must be kept in mind that where there is inadequate funding to support state 

programs, some states will be faced with turning all or portions of their programs 

back to OSM (as in the case of Virginia) or, in other cases, will face potential lawsuits for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective manner (as has occurred 

in Kentucky and West Virginia in the past). Of course, where a state does, in fact, 

turn all or part of its Title V program back to OSM (or if OSM forces this issue 

based on an OSM determination of ineffective state program implementation), the 

state would be ineligible for Title IV funds to reclaim abandoned mine lands. This 

would be the height of irony given the recent reauthorization and revitalization of 

the AML program. 

Speaking of the Title IV AML program, the states were greatly encouraged by the 

passage of the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA, which culminated over 12 years of 

work by the states and others to reauthorize this vital program. The AML program 

has been one of the hallmarks of SMCRA and has accomplished much over the 

years, as you will hear from Mr. Husted. With the infusion of new life and funding, 

the program holds out great promise for the future. The states have been working 

closely with OSM to design rules that will appropriately implement the provisions 

of the 2006 amendments and allow the states to put money into projects that meet 

the purposes and objectives of the new law. Among the key issues we have addressed in our discussions with OSM are the following: • Use of the grant mechanism to distribute payments from the U.S. Treasury • Funding for minimum program states • Use of unappropriated state share balances for noncoal reclamation and the 

acid mine drainage set aside • The effective date of certain payments under the new law • Adjustments to the current grants process 

We look forward to pursuing these issues in greater detail with OSM over the coming months. Should the Committee desire a copy of our more detailed comments on 

the draft proposed rules, please let us know. 

With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, recent Congressional action to reauthorize Title IV of SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which state reclamation grants are funded. Beginning 

with FY 2008, state Title IV grants are to be funded primarily by permanent appropriations. The only programs that continue to be funded through discretionary appropriations are high-priority federal reclamation programs, state and federal emergency programs, and OSM operations. As a result, the states will receive mandatory 

funding in FY 2008 of $288.4 million for AML reclamation work. OSM also proposes 

to continue its support of the Watershed Cooperative Agreement program in the 

amount of $1.6 million, a program we strongly endorse. 

Assuming that permanent appropriations for state AML grants do, in fact, become 

a reality (and we trust they will), there are three remaining discretionary funding 

priorities for the states: minimum program funding; federal emergency programs; 

and Clean Streams funding. With respect to minimum program states, under the 

new funding formula provided by OSM, all of the states and tribes will receive immediate funding increases except for minimum program states. Under OSM’s interpretation of the 2006 Amendments, those programs remain stagnant for the next 

two fiscal years at $1.5 million, a level of funding that greatly inhibits the ability 

of these states to accomplish much in the way of substantive AML work. Many of 

these states have pending high priority AML projects ‘‘on the shelf’’ that cost several 

million dollars. The challenge for these states is putting together enough moneys 

to address these larger projects given minimum funding. It is both unfair and inappropriate for these states to have to wait another two years to receive any funding 

increases when they are the states most in need of AML moneys. We have therefore 

30

urged Congress to fund these states at the statutorily authorized level of $3 million 

in FY 2008 so as to level the playing field and allow these states to get on with 

the critical AML projects that await funding. 

We have also urged Congress to approve continued funding for emergency programs in those states that have not assumed these programs. Funding the OSM 

emergency program should be a top priority for OSM’s discretionary spending. This 

funding has allowed OSM to address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each year in states without state-administered emergency programs. 

Without this funding, it will be up to the states to address the emergencies that 

occur. In states that have federally-operated emergency programs, the state AML 

programs are not structured or staffed to move quickly to address these dangers and 

safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives and property are threatened by these 

unforeseen and often debilitating events. Finally, we have urged Congress to approve continued funding for the Clean Streams Initiative. OSM has chosen to eliminate funding for this worthwhile program in FY 2008. We believe this is a mistake. 

Significant environmental restoration of impacted streams and rivers has been accomplished pursuant to this program, to say nothing of the goodwill that the program has engendered among local communities and watershed groups. For the 

small investment of money that is appropriated for this program each year (approximately $3 million), the return is huge. 

Future challenges for the AML program include the perpetual operation and 

maintenance costs associated with acid mine drainage treatment; assuring that 

maximum flexibility is provided to the states to determine their respective AML 

project priorities; and enhancing opportunities for economic development (including 

recreation and tourism) in depressed areas of the coalfields. 

As mentioned earlier, one of OSM’s primary missions under the Surface Mining 

Act is evaluating the states’ administration of their programs, otherwise known as 

oversight. This process has undergone a significant metamorphosis, the result of 

which has been a more credible and useful program for informing Congress and others about the status of state program administration. The first attempt at designing 

a meaningful oversight program in the mid-1980’s was merely an exercise in data 

gathering or output measurement. We were concerned then with numbers of inspections, numbers of permit reviews and numbers of enforcement actions. OSM also 

tended to look behind state permitting decisions to determine whether OSM would 

have handled them the same way the states did. This type of ‘‘second guessing’’ generated significant conflict and even resentment between the states and OSM. In addition, the numbers that were collected into oversight reports told us little or nothing about whether the objectives of SMCRA were being met (i.e. what was happening on the ground? how effectively were state programs actually protecting the 

environment? how well was the public being protected and how effectively were citizens being served? how well were we working together as state and federal governments in implementing the purposes of SMCRA?). 

Following an effort by OSM and the states in the late 1980’s to fashion a more 

effective state program evaluation process based on a goal-oriented or results-oriented oversight policy and another review of the process in the mid-1990’s, a performance measurement approach was adopted, based in large part on the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The new outcome 

indicators now focus on the following: the percentage of coal mining sites free of offsite impacts; the percentage of mined acreage that is reclaimed (i.e. that meets the 

bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation); and the number 

of federal, private and tribal land and surface water acres reclaimed or mitigated 

from the effects of natural resource degradation from past coal mining, including 

stream restoration, water quality improvement, and correction of conditions threatening public health or safety. These new measurements are intended to provide 

Congress and others with a better picture of how well SMCRA is working and how 

well the states are doing in protecting the public and the environment pursuant to 

their federally approved programs. Much of this can also be told in pictures of reclaimed mined areas like those shown in our exhibits, many of which reflect winners 

of IMCC’s and OSM’s national reclamation awards. Effective program implementation by the states and compliance by the coal industry are resulting in the reclamation and restoration of both active and abandoned sites that meet the objectives of 

SMCRA and benefit both people and the environment. 

Over the past twenty years, state regulatory programs have improved to the point 

that implementation is highly successful. Due to this success, the overall programmatic emphasis under SMCRA has shifted from structural and administrative 

issues to specific technical issues that are encountered as reclamation technology 

and science are advanced. These issues tend to manifest themselves as environmental challenges unique to particular regions or states, many of which must be reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31

solved during the permitting process. They may also arise as a result of state inspections at mining sites. In any event, due to constraints on existing state resources, states may be unable to undertake the type of technical analyses that attend these issues. This is where OSM serves a valuable support mechanism for the 

states (as anticipated by Section 705 of SMCRA) by providing technical assistance. 

In addition to meaningful and properly focused assistance, the states also look to 

OSM’s Technical Innovation and Professional Services (TIPS) program. This has 

been one of OSM’s most valuable and effective initiatives and serves as the cornerstone of the states’ computer capability, particularly now that many states are utilizing electronic permitting. We trust that OSM and Congress will continue their 

support for TIPS and for the hardware and software upgrades that are required to 

assure the system’s integrity and usefulness. TIPS training is also critical. 

One of the key successes of SMCRA over the years has been its training program. 

Through a combination of both state and federal agency instructors, OSM’s National 

Technical Training Program (NTTP) assures that newly hired state and federal employees, especially inspectors and permit writers, receive adequate and credible 

training both on basic elements of program implementation and on cutting-edge 

technical and policy subjects. The NTTP has also allowed more seasoned employees 

to fine tune their skills and update their knowledge on important topics. OSM’s 

training program is especially important for smaller states that do not otherwise 

have access to such resources. In addition to NTTP classes, IMCC (working in cooperation with NTTP) has developed and facilitated a series of benchmarking workshops for both state and federal agency personnel that has allowed them to improve 

and enhance their respective regulatory programs and skills in such areas as blasting, subsidence, bonding, underground mine mapping, and permitting related to hydrologic balance. OSM has also sponsored several interactive forums on a variety 

of subjects of mutual interest to the states and we urge the agency to continue this 

practice, again with state input. All of these training components will become increasingly more critical as OSM and the states face a retiring workforce and the 

attendant succession planning that follows. 

There have been other notable successes in SMCRA’s implementation, in both the 

regulatory and policy areas. The states have worked cooperatively with OSM and 

others to address acid mine drainage issues through the Acid Drainage Technology 

Initiative, which focuses on prediction, prevention, avoidance, remediation and 

treatment. Again working cooperatively with OSM, the states have made significant 

strides in advancing reforestation efforts on reclaimed lands, particularly through 

the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. Through a partnership among 

the states, OSM and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we have also seen 

major strides in the remining arena, where thousands of acres of abandoned mine 

lands have been restored as part of active mining operations, thereby saving valuable AML Trust Fund dollars and returning the land to productive use. We have 

also been working with EPA and OSM to revisit the current effluent limitation for 

manganese so as to reduce or prevent the adverse effects and potential hazards arising from some of the treatment technologies related to control of manganese. 

In its 1990 monograph on ‘‘Environmental Regulation of Coal Mining: SMCRA’s 

Second Decade’’, the Environmental Policy Institute identified and commented on 

several challenges facing the states and OSM, as follows: 

The issues facing regulators today are more difficult than they were in 

1977. Many of the easier and more blatant problems have been addressed 

[such as the two acre exemption]....The regulatory issues today include the 

prevention of hydrologic damage, the control of subsidence and subsidence 

damage, the establishment of adequate reclamation bond amounts, the use 

of permit-based enforcement, and the improvement of federal oversight. 

Also of concern is the massive shortfall in the federal fund meant to reclaim 

areas abandoned prior to 1977 without reclamation. [Page3] 

Throughout SMCRA’s third decade, many of these issues have been addressed and 

resolved. Congress has addressed the shortfall of moneys in the AML Trust Fund 

with the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA and OSM and the states are well on their 

way to implementing those adjustments and putting more money on the ground to 

restore AML sites. Federal oversight (and the attendant state/federal relationship 

under SMCRA) has advanced by significant degrees and is no longer the flashpoint 

that it once was. Through advances in electronic permitting and the use of tools 

available through OSM’s TIPS program, state permitting actions are timely, comprehensive and accurate, thereby insuring more effective compliance with the law. 

That being said, given the nature and scope of today’s mining and reclamation 

operations and attendant environmental impacts, we continue to face challenges as 

regulatory authorities under SMCRA. A few examples follow: 

32

• Bonding—one of the larger challenges concerning the bonding provisions of 

SMCRA is with regard to post closure issues. While SMCRA originally envisioned the bond as a guarantee of performance during mining, it did not anticipate the challenges associated with postmining concerns such as long-term 

treatment associated with acid mine drainage or long-term impacts from subsidence. For instance, OSM’s current rules on bonding require that the bond 

amount be adjusted for potential subsidence damage repairs. However, nothing 

is said about how the bond release procedure will apply in these situations. The 

result is that surety companies are reluctant to write bonds for reclamation because of the long term nature and unknown extent of the liability. The states 

have been working with OSM to address this matter through the use of other 

financial assurance mechanisms, such as trust funds. There are also issues associated with bond release in general. Given that the procedures attending release are so cumbersome and expensive, coal operators simply choose not to 

apply for them. This further impacts the availability of bond capacity in the 

market and results in unnecessary expenses for states related to continued inspection and enforcement on these essentially completed reclamation sites. • Prime farmland—the requirements related to proof of productivity (five year 

minimum) prior to termination of jurisdiction and before the land can be returned to the owner are cumbersome. The mid-continent states are currently 

undertaking research through a major Midwestern agronomy/soil science university to determine proper testing techniques to ensure soil capabilities are 

present, in the hope that an alternative method for demonstrating productivity 

can be attained, thus returning land much sooner back to the owner of record. • AVS—over the past twenty years, the states have worked diligently with OSM 

to develop the Applicant/Violator System (AVS), which assists us in implementing section 510(c) of SMCRA, particularly the issuance of permits. Early 

in the development of AVS, the states focused on designing a system that would 

allow them to identify and block violators and other scofflaws without bogging 

down the database with useless or unproductive information. While we have 

made progress in this regard, we continue to examine ways to improve and enhance overall system effectiveness. For example, a critical aspect of AVS is the 

rules that define ownership and control; permit and application information requirements; and the transfer, assignment or sale of permit rights. These rules 

have been under a constant state of flux since their original promulgation in 

1988 and a recent OSM rulemaking attempts to bring closure to several key 

issues that remain unresolved or problematic. • Underground mine mapping—another continuing challenge that we face concerns accurate and readily available underground mine maps, which are essential for protecting the public, the environment and infrastructure from the 

threats posed by unknown underground mines. Events such as the Quecreek incident in Pennsylvania and the Martin County Coal Company impoundment 

failure in Kentucky were high profile demonstrations of the kinds of incidents 

that can occur when mine maps are inaccurate or unavailable. IMCC has sponsored a series of national and regional benchmarking workshops that have focused on the collection, handling, scanning, georeferencing and validation of 

mine maps. While the expertise and technology is available to tackle this issue 

and accomplish these tasks, our biggest challenge is the lack of funding for personnel, hardware, software upgrades and database development to move the initiative forward. 

In each of these instances, and in others such as subsidence control, blasting and 

hydrologic protection, the states are actively engaged in seeking technical solutions, 

as well as regulatory program enhancements, that will fully and adequately address 

concerns associated with these issues. As an example, over the past several years, 

IMCC has sponsored benchmarking workshops on subsidence impacts, blasting, financial assurance, electronic permitting and hydrologic balance, all of which have 

provided state and federal regulators with an opportunity to examine these issues 

in detail with an eye toward regulatory program improvements. IMCC is currently 

preparing for its next workshop on surface and ground water database development 

and use as part of the permitting process. The overall goal is to continually assess 

and enhance our performance as regulatory authorities in an effort to achieve ever 

higher levels of program effectiveness. 

Much progress has been made over the past 30 years to accomplish the purposes 

and objectives of SMCRA. From our perspective, the basic organization of OSM is 

working well. At this point of SMCRA’s implementation, neither the states nor OSM 

are dealing with the same types of issues or problems that attended the early years 

of program formation and administration. We have moved away from questions of 

adequate state program components and state implementation techniques to more 

33

substantive issues associated with technical, on-the-ground problems or with thorny 

legal and policy questions associated with interpretation of our programs. We therefore believe that it is most relevant for OSM to focus its energies and resources on 

assisting and supporting the states through adequate funding for state grants, 

sound technical and legal assistance, and opportunities for the states to actively participate in the agency’s excellent training program. The overall result will be less 

federal intrusion in the states’ administration of their programs, a concomitant enhancement of the federal/state partnership, and better on-the-ground performance 

by the regulated industry. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony today and welcome the 

opportunity to work with your Committee, Mr. Chairman, to insure the effective implementation of SMCRA in the 21st century. 

ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Resolution

interstate mining compact commission 

BE IT KNOWN THAT: 

WHEREAS, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) provides 

for the assumption of authority by state governments to regulate surface coal 

mining and reclamation operations within their borders following approval by the 

federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of state programs; and 

WHEREAS, section 705 of SMCRA requires the federal government to provide annual grants up to 50 percent for costs incurred by the states for the purpose of administering and enforcing their approved regulatory programs; and 

WHEREAS, over the past 25 years the states have been led to believe, based on 

actual practice and OSM policy, that the federal government would base annual 

grants on the states’ estimated costs for implementing their regulatory programs, 

pursuant to the principles of primacy and partnership embedded in SMCRA; and 

WHEREAS, in recent years federal funding for state regulatory grants has stagnated, resulting in a $10 million gap between the states’ estimated program costs 

and actual grant funding; and 

WHEREAS, this debilitating funding trend is severely impacting the states’ ability to run efficient and effective regulatory programs that meet the purposes and 

objectives of SMCRA, with some states having to overmatch federal grants dollars 

and other states being forced to seriously consider turning all or portions of their 

programs back to the federal government; and 

WHEREAS, the costs for the federal government to operate regulatory programs 

in primacy states will, by OSM’s own admission, be significantly higher than what 

the states currently spend; and 

WHEREAS, there is strong, widespread support for increases in state regulatory 

grants from both the regulated industry and citizen groups so as to preserve the 

quality and integrity of state programs; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 

That the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) strongly urges Congress, 

the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of the Interior and OSM to 

shore up and support state regulatory programs through full funding of state grants 

so that states can effectively meet the objectives and mandates of SMCRA; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 

That IMCC specifically requests that funding for state regulatory grants in OSM’s 

proposed FY 2008 budget be increased by $7 million for a total of $67 million. 

Issued this 2nd day of May, 2007

ATTEST:

lllllllll

Executive Director 

34

July 31, 2007

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Room 1324 LHOB 

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

DurIng the course of an oversight hearing on the 30th Anniversary of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) on July 25, several allegations were 

leveled at the States of Virginia, Indiana and Illinois concerning implementation of 

various aspects of their regulatory programs. You specifically requested that I follow 

up on a situation in Virginia where a citizen had filed a complaint against A and 

G Coal Company for mining without a permit. There were also allegations concerning groundwater protection standards and adequate public participation in the 

states of Indiana and Illinois. I contacted each of these states and they have provided the following information regarding the allegations raised during the hearing. 

Virginia—in his testimony, Mr. Walt Morris alleged that ‘‘the state regulatory authority in Virginia continues to refuse to investigate citizen allegations that a coal 

operator is conducting mining operations without a permit—on the incredible theory 

that the state has no obligation to inspect because it has not issued a permit for 

the mine.’’ Mr. Morris went on to allege that ‘‘OSM’s Virginia field office continues 

to ignore a citizen request for inspection and enforcement in the same matter, even 


37013.003
35

though the time for responding under OSM’s regulations has long since expired.’’ 

Since the hearing on July 25, Mr. Morris has sent a formal apology to OSM’s Virginia field office indicating that, indeed, a timely response by OSM to the citizen 

request for inspection and enforcement had been made. What he fails to mention 

is that OSM also found that Virginia’s response to a Federal Ten Day Notice regarding the matter was appropriate and that Virginia has ‘‘shown good cause for not 

taking enforcement actions in this case.’’ As indicated in the attached documents, 

it is very clear that all of the activity at the alleged mining site was related to logging operations, oil and gas well development activity and two completed and fully 

reclaimed coal exploration sites. Because of his lack of first hand knowledge concerning the situation at the site, Mr. Morris misled the Committee concerning activity at the site, the citizen complaint, and Virginia’s and OSM’s handling of the complaint. Mr. Morris also impugned the integrity of the Virginia program and its handling of this matter. The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy 

makes extraordinary efforts to work with and assist its citizens and has received 

national recognition for those efforts. Unfounded allegations such as those leveled 

by Mr. Morris do little to support the excellent work being done by the states under 

SMCRA. We believe that he not only owes OSM an apology, but the Commonwealth 

of Virginia as well. 

Indiana—in his testimony, Mr. Brian Wright made several inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the Indiana regulatory program, particularly with respect to protection of groundwater resources and mine placement of coal combustion 

wastes. An explanation from the state of Indiana addressing these matters is attached to this letter. 

Illinois—in his statement, Mr. Wright also mischaracterized or made false accusations regarding several aspects of the Illinois program, including groundwater protection standards, longwall mining and subsidence protection requirements, lands 

unsuitable petitions and citizen participation. An explanation from the state of Illinois addressing each of these matters is attached. 

Pennsylvania—Mr. Wright also mentioned that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is preparing a report on coal combustion waste. To clarify, no such report is 

in the works. What Pennsylvania is developing are updated and expanded policy 

guidelines regarding mine placement of coal combustion waste in light of the NRC 

report. Once prepared, these guidelines will be available for public review and comment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address and clarify these inaccuracies, misrepresentations and allegations. Many of them are very serious and we trust that the 

record will reflect the corrections and explanations offered by the states. Should you 

have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. And once again, our sincere appreciation for holding the oversight hearing 

and for the opportunity to participate.

Sincerely,

Gregory E. Conrad 

Executive Director

Attachments 

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation (DOR) is 

the regulatory authority for coal mining in the State of Indiana. We take issue with 

the manner in which our program was mischaracterized in the testimony of the 

Hoosier Environmental Council on July 25, 2007 before the House Natural Resources Committee concerning the implementation of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977. The testimony contained inaccuracies concerning 

Indiana’s coal regulatory program and its alleged lack of adequate protection for 

groundwater resources and the public, along with other misconceptions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these matters. 

Staff of the DoR include hydrogeologists with decades of experience in coal mine 

regulation. Not only do regulations contain numerous and extensive hydrology related requirements but, as will be discussed below, the State of Indiana has a 

groundwater standards rule which has been implemented within Indiana’s surface 

coal mining regulations. Contrary to some testimony, the DoR’s regulatory framework and implementation of the surface coal mining regulations does provide adequate protection and safeguards to citizenry and the environment living in and near 

the coalfields of Indiana. 

As discussed in the Hoosier Environmental Council testimony, regulations require 

that coal mines minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit 

36

and adjacent areas, prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the 

permit area, to assure the protection or replacement of water rights, and to support 

approved post mining land uses, 30 CFR 816.41. It was stated these regulations 

have been applied inadequately to protect the water of coalfield residents. In actuality, the groundwater standards regulations within Indiana’s surface coal mining 

regulations were developed and implemented on the precise premise that requires 

the state to follow the federal law and regulations as it pertains to minimizing impacts within the permit area and preventing material damage outside the permit 

area. Coal mining operations must implement groundwater protection measures including proper handling, treatment, and disposal of any coal refuse and any acid 

and/or toxic forming earthen materials. Further, specific protective measures are 

employed such as proper sealing of boreholes, auger holes, etc....,as well as special 

handling provisions to prevent formation of acid mine drainage (measures to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas) 

and to ensure that mineralization of the water which recharges within the spoil 

mass does not migrate off-site and adversely impact residential wells or groundwater resources (prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area). 

Indiana’s groundwater standards were developed by the Water Pollution Control 

Board of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management as a part of a public process including a workgroup made up of academia, industries, the public, environmental groups, and state regulatory personnel. An outcome of that regulation 

was a requirement that other state regulatory authorities would develop regulations 

within their frameworks to implement the groundwater standards. That is exactly 

what the DoR did with the groundwater standards promulgated for ensuring protection at coal mine sites. The surface coal mining regulations were developed with 

input from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management who endorsed 

the final regulations (see report at end). It should be noted that the groundwater 

standards are state regulations above and beyond the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Federal SMCRA regulations do not contain specific groundwater standards. Rather, the states develop and implement groundwater 

standards by choice. Indiana chose to provide protections, beyond that required 

within federal SMCRA, to groundwater resources and groundwater users by not 

only ensuring compliance with federal SMCRA but also to provide additional protections through state groundwater standards regulation. An Informational Bulletin, 

adopted in May 2003, explaining the rationale behind this regulation follows the 

narrative at the end of this document. Both of these were approved at a public 

meeting by the DoR’s ultimate state authority, the Natural Resources Commission. 

The public testimony at this meeting is included following the policy document. 

Another inaccuracy to the testimony is the claim that Indiana does not characterize pre-mine hydrologic conditions. Each application for a mining permit contains 

groundwater quantity and quality information gathered over many months in order 

to characterize any seasonal variation. Moreover, aquifer testing (contrary to the 

claims in the written testimony) is conducted to determine hydraulic characteristics 

such as permeability and rate of flow. Groundwater availability in the coal region 

of Indiana is typically very low with exception of those areas along major river systems. The rock overlying the coal is simply not conducive to large amounts of water 

movement and thus the pits during mining are most often quite dry. For this reason, the citizens using water wells typically drill them to depths ranging up to 300 

feet and normally much deeper than the lowest coal seam to be mined by surface 

mining techniques. The reason citizens construct wells in this fashion is due to the 

lack of a reliable, shallow groundwater source, thus they take advantage of a deep 

well with adequate storage capacity. Monitoring well installations for the purpose 

of monitoring aquifer characteristics (both quantity and quality) are developed in a 

similar fashion. Should wells in an area be developed in a single geologic unit then 

monitoring wells are installed in a single unit. But, typically monitoring wells are 

constructed over the entire bedrock interval due to the fact that is the manner most 

citizen wells are installed. 

Indiana’s surface mining regulations require the replacement of the water supply 

in the unlikely event of interruption or adverse effects to a user of groundwater. Replacement can occur by many methods including hook ups to a municipal water supply, drilling a new well, or any other method acceptable that will provide an equivalent water delivery system. The permittee of the mining operation must also provide 

payment of operational and maintenance costs in excess of customary and reasonable delivery costs for premining water supplies. 

Hoosier Environmental Council testimony also indicates that Indiana rules eliminate any incentive to minimize impacts to groundwater quality. Indiana’s statute 

and regulations provide numerous hydrology related operational and performance 

37

standards that must be adhered to or face enforcement action and potential permit 

revocation and exclusion from future mining nationally which is certainly incentive 

to comply. 

One area of agreement with the Hoosier Environmental Council testimony is in 

regard to the statement that ‘‘It would be unrealistic to assume ground water in 

mined areas will remain in pristine condition’’. As was mentioned by an industry 

representative in the oral testimony, the mineralization of groundwater is an unavoidable result of any surface mining due to the breaking of rock and the additional surface area available for groundwater to contact. These constituents were 

present in the rock prior to mining. It would be unrealistic to place a qualitative, 

numeric standard within the spoil or refuse areas and regulate a coal mine operator 

with unreasonable or potentially unattainable expectations. A mine operator can 

comply fully with all aspects of law and regulation and mineralization of groundwater will still occur. To what extent is dependent on conditions beyond the control 

of the mine operator. For that reason, the rule writers of SMCRA thirty years ago 

set forth regulations calling for minimization within the mined area and prevention 

of material damage beyond. We believe these provisions were put in place by a 

group of very wise individuals with great understanding of groundwater issues related to coal mining. Indiana’s regulations, both for coal mining and groundwater 

standards concerning coal mines, are based on this exact premise and do provide 

adequate protection to the citizens and the environment of the coal region of 

Indiana. 

Another issue Indiana wishes to clarify is that of the volume of coal combustion 

wastes permitted for disposal as described by the Hoosier Environmental Council 

testimony. It was stated that 125 million tons of coal combustion waste has been 

approved for disposal in Indiana mines. This figure has been frequently misrepresented. In reality, numerous coal combustion waste disposal applications contain a 

request to dispose of the same waste from the same generator. Sometimes a part 

of the bidding for a coal contract with a major utility contains a provision to return 

a quantity of coal combustion waste to the mine site. Numerous applications contained a request to dispose the same material. This has been explained many times 

to the Hoosier Environmental Council and others, but the Hoosier Environmental 

Council continues to misrepresent the actual amount of material that could be disposed or has been disposed. The State of Indiana generates 5 to 7 million tons of 

coal combustion waste annually. Disposal at coal mines has been permissible since 

1988. In that 19 years period the State of Indiana has produced well over 100 million tons while less than 9 million tons has actually been disposed at Indiana coal 

mines.

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

Information Bulletin #38 (First Amendment)

SUBJECT: Implementation of the Indiana Ground Water Quality Standards 

at Coal Mines Regulated under IC 14-34

I. HISTORY 

A technical amendment is made to this information bulletin adding the Indiana 

Register publication citation for LSA Document #02-104(F) to facilitate historical research of amendments to 312 IAC 25. This document supersedes Information Bulletin #38 published at 27 IR 1665. 

II. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this nonrule policy is to provide guidance and added explanation 

of rules adopted by the Natural Resources Commission for implementation by the 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation. These rules were given 

final adoption by the Commission on May 20, 2003, as amendments to 312 IAC 25 

and are more particularly described as Legislative Services Document #02-104(F) 

(26 IR 3860). They help implement the Indiana ground water standards established 

through the rules adopted by the Water Pollution Control Board that became effective March 6, 2002. 

As required by IC 13-18-17-5, an agency with jurisdiction over an activity must 

adopt rules to apply the ground water quality standards adopted by the Water Pollution Control Board. As described in 327 IAC 2-11-2(b), when adopting rules an 

agency shall ‘‘...ensure that facilities, practices, and activities are designed and managed to eliminate or minimize, to the extent feasible, potential adverse impacts to 

the existing ground water quality by applying preventative action levels, design 

standards, a monitoring framework, or other regulatory methods.’’ The amendments 

to 312 IAC 25 were developed in this context. 

38

The amendments to 312 IAC 25 assist in the implementation of IC 14-34 (the 

Indiana Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or ‘‘Indiana SMCRA’’) governing surface coal mining and reclamation activities. The rules contain criteria for 

ground water classification, monitoring, and compliance that apply at sites regulated under Indiana SMCRA. This information bulletin has been developed to provide information concerning procedures and issues regarding the implementation of 

the rule amendments. 

The following sections include a discussion of the background for the rulemaking, 

a section that describes the mines and associated activities that are subject to the 

rules, ground water classification, standards to be met, the establishment of a 

ground water management zone (or ‘‘GMZ’’), the location at which the standards 

must be met, requirements for additional monitoring wells to serve as early detection wells, and the plans or actions that must occur if a standard is exceeded. 

III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

The rules and their interpretations were developed within the context of existing 

state and federal mandates concerning coal mining. The existing program requires 

compliance with state water quality standards (IC 14-34-10-2(13), 312 IAC 25-6-

12(c), and 312 IAC 25-6-76(c)). Coal mine operations are required to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance on the mine site and associated off 

site areas (IC 14-34-10-2(13)). Further, surface and underground coal mining activities must be planned, conducted, and designed to minimize changes to the prevailing hydrologic balance in the permit area and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, in order to prevent 

long term adverse changes in that balance that could result from those activities 

(312 IAC 25-6-12(a) and 312 IAC 25-6-76(a)). It is clear that this language recognizes the possibility of impacts beyond the permitted area. It is also clear that any 

such impacts, should they occur, must be minimized and must not materially damage the hydrologic balance outside the permit boundaries. 

Indiana SMCRA and rules developed under Indiana SMCRA recognize the potential for impacts to occur beyond the permit area or to uncontrolled properties within 

the permit area. Existing standards already require replacement of any water supply when used for any legitimate purpose is diminished, contaminated, or interrupted by mining activities. The rules do not grant anyone a right to cause impacts 

to adjacent or uncontrolled properties. Rather, Indiana SMCRA and rules developed 

under Indiana SMCRA recognize that a permittee may follow its approved plan, 

comply with all legal mandates, conduct operations in accordance with best management practices, and yet still have an impact on ground water off-site. Wide-scale offsite impacts in Indiana are very uncommon and, consequently, the rule amendments 

are not being developed to correct a problem. The rule amendments require that a 

specific standard be met at a specific distance or location. 

Although impacts to water wells off the permitted area do occasionally occur, existing standards at 312 IAC 25-4-33, 312 IAC 25-4-78, 312 IAC 25-6-25, and 312 

IAC 25-6-88 adequately address these problems. When an impact does occur, an alternate source of water is provided by the permittee. Moreover, the rule amendments in LSA Document #02-104(F) (26 IR 3860) do not impart a permittee with 

any additional rights to intentionally or unintentionally cause impacts to adjacent 

areas and uncontrolled properties. The rights of property owners to take action 

against a permittee as a result of an impact to their property, beyond requirements 

imposed by these rule amendments, remain unaffected. 

Indiana Register Date: Jul 26,2007 2:24:30PM EDT DIN: 20061011-IR312060445NRA Page 1

IV. APPLICABILITY 

The rule amendments apply to coal extraction areas where surface and underground coal mining and reclamation permits are issued under Indiana SMCRA. For 

the purposes of the rule amendments, coal extraction areas include augering, coal 

processing, coal processing waste disposal, spoil deposition, or underground development waste deposition that occurs after the effective date of the amendments or on 

which a disposal activity subject to IC 13-19-3-3 has occurred and the area is not 

fully released from the performance bond required by IC 14-34-6. 

V. GROUND WATER CLASSIFICATION 

Ground water must be classified according to 327 IAC 2-11-4 to determine the appropriate narrative and numeric criteria and level of protection that applies to the 

ground water. The classification of the ground water at the boundary of the GMZ 

is drinking water class unless it has been classified as limited class ground water 

or impaired class drinking water by 327 IAC 2-11. It should be noted, the limited 

class ground water classified according to 327 IAC 2-11-4(d) must meet the requireVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
39

ments found at 327 IAC 2-11-7(b), which include only the constituent concentrations 

attributable to coal mining, not those associated with the disposal of coal combustion waste. See 327 IAC 2-11-5 through 327 IAC 2-11-8 for further information on 

the criteria for all ground water, drinking water class ground water, limited class 

ground water, and impaired drinking water class ground water. 

Should a permittee wish to propose a reclassification of ground water, the IDEM 

Ground Water Section should be contacted to discuss the IDEM procedures, specific 

information requirements, and the criteria for limited class ground water and impaired drinking water class ground water. 

VI. STANDARDS 

Surface and underground coal mining and reclamation operations must be 

planned and conducted to prevent violations of the ground water quality standards 

found in 327 IAC 2-11. Mining and reclamation operations are to be performed to 

minimize the effects of mining and reclamation on the hydrologic balance in the permit area and adjacent areas and to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. Once the ground water has been classified, the monitoring framework has been established, and a plan has been included in the permit 

application to indicate the location the standards will be met, a demonstration including the measures that will be taken to ensure the protection of the hydrologic 

balance is to be made. 

The standards found in 327 IAC 2-11 are point specific. The rules require that 

a specific standard be met at a specific distance or location. An exceedance at one 

point, even if that point is outside the permitted area, may not constitute material 

damage to the hydrologic balance, a concept that by definition at 312 IAC 25-1-67 

involves a hydrologic system existing in an area. Both the rules and this information bulletin have been developed in this context. 

VII. GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE (the ‘‘GMZ’’) 

The point of compliance in 327 IAC 2-11 is the boundary of the ground water 

management zone (‘‘GMZ’’). The standards established by 327 IAC 2-11 must be met 

at and beyond the GMZ as established in 312 IAC 25-6-12.5(d) and 312 IAC 25-6-

76.5(d). The boundary of the GMZ will be established during initial permit review 

and may be modified in response to changes in operations plans or alterations of 

permit boundaries throughout the life of the mine. Ground water monitoring plans 

included in the permit application will provide the manner in which water quality 

at the GMZ boundary will be measured. The location of the boundary of the GMZ 

will be based on the location of drinking water wells or a distance from mining related activities identified in subdivision (1) of 312 IAC 25-6-12.5(d) or 312 IAC 25-

6-76.5(d) of the rules. In general, the GMZ boundary will be established three hundred (300) feet from the edge of: 

(1) coal extraction areas; 

(2) coal mine processing waste disposal sites if not within coal extraction areas; 

(3) areas where coal is extracted by auger mining methods; 

(4) locations at which coal is crushed, washed, screened, stored, and loaded at or 

near the mine site unless the locations are within the coal extraction areas; 

or 

(5) spoil deposition areas. 

An exception to this condition will occur when the permit boundary or the extent 

of property controlled by the permittee is located at a distance less than three hundred (300) feet from areas requiring a GMZ. While the standards will apply at the 

boundary of the GMZ, ground water monitoring wells will be required at locations 

within the control of the mining company that are within the GMZ (i.e., less than 

300 feet from the mining activities that define the GMZ). To minimize confusion, 

DOR will refer to those wells established within the GMZ as ‘‘interception wells.’’ 

Likewise, in the event a drinking water well is located within three hundred (300) 

feet of areas requiring a GMZ, and there is a likelihood of impact, a monitoring well 

(interception well) may be required between the drinking water well or wells and 

the activities that define the GMZ. 

Indiana Register Date: Jul 26, 2007 2:24:30PM EDT DIN: 20061011-IR312060445NRA Page 2

For underground mines, the GMZ boundary will normally be established at a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the edge of the area containing the surface 

effects of the mining operation. These include: 

(1) coal mine processing waste disposal sites; 

(2) locations at which coal is crushed, washed, screened, stored, and loaded at or 

near the mine site; or 

(3) underground development waste and spoil deposition areas. 

40

As with the surface mines, a monitoring well will be required within the GMZ 

when the GMZ boundary falls on uncontrolled properties. When coal refuse is disposed in the underground works, the GMZ boundary will be modified to incorporate 

any area in which this activity occurred. 

Posted: 10/11/2006 by Legislative Services Agency 

An html version of this document. 

Indiana Register Date: Jul 26,2007 2:24:30PM EDT DIN: 20061011-IR312060445NRA Page 3

Consideration of Recommendation of Hearing Officer to the Natural Resources Commission with Report of Public Hearing and Written Public 

Comments, Responses by the Division of Reclamation, and Presentation for 

Final Adoption of SMCRA Water Quality Amendments (312 IAC 25) to Implement 327 IAC 2; Administrative Cause Number 02-160L (LSA #02-104(F))

Stephen Lucas, Hearing Officer, introduced this item. He explained that this was 

a proposition for an important set of rule proposals. ‘‘I think they are all important, 

but this one is perhaps more noteworthy than some and drew more attention than 

some.’’ Lucas stated that, as Hearing Officer, he did not make certain recommendations, but the ‘‘parties did a particularly good of expressing their perspectives and 

providing important information on the rule proposal. I do want to publicly thank 

those who participated in the very helpful way in which they worked with me as 

the hearing officer. This is the kind of issue that could be very difficult and unpleasant, because feelings are sometimes are very strong. But in this instance the staff, 

the public, and the regulated community were extremely helpful in delineating this 

report.’’ Lucas then deferred to Marvin Ellis of the Division of Reclamation. 

Marvin Ellis, Hydro-geologist in the Technical Services Section of the Division of 

Reclamation, addressed the Commission. Ellis explained that the rules would 

amend 312 IAC 25, the Indiana Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Ellis 

stated that the rule amendments implement the ground water quality standards established by IDEM’s Water Pollution Control Board and include classification criteria for ground water, numeric standards and narrative criteria that must be met, 

and ground water management zones. 

Ellis explained that the Indiana coal mining and land reclamation programs already include extensive groundwater protection measures, and said that they are 

being updated to incorporate these added provisions. He said the amendments do 

not replace existing program criteria, but further define and strengthen the coal and 

land restoration programs for the citizens of the State of Indiana. Ellis said that 

the proposed rule is based upon the IDEM rule which became effective March 6, 

2002. He explained that the rule applies the IDEM groundwater classification 

scheme and numeric standards. The rule also establishes a management zone with 

specific compliance points from a mining activity based upon default criteria within 

the IDEM rule. Ellis reported that Division of Reclamation staff met with staff of 

IDEM’s Office of Water Quality Drinking Water Branch on several occasions to ensure they were applying the rule consistent with the intent of the statute. ‘‘We wish 

to express our appreciation to the staff of IDEM who have provided us valuable 

input while drafting this rule.’’ Ellis said that the Division of Reclamation also met 

with the Hoosier Environmental Council and coal industry regarding the rule and 

extended appreciation for their input and ‘‘well thought out written comments 

throughout the public comment period.’’

Ellis explained that in response to written comments provided by members of the 

public, the Hoosier Environmental Council, the Indiana Coal Council, and other organizations, the rule amendments have been revised to reflect many of the suggestions. He said that the Department responses to all comments were included in the 

report provided by the Hearings Officer. 

Ellis noted that in addition to the proposed rule, the Division of Reclamation also 

developed a nonrule policy for the implementation of the ground water quality 

standards at mines. He said that the purpose of the nonrule policy was to provide 

support guidance and added explanation of the proposed rule. He informed that the 

nonrule policy document contains a discussion of the ground water management 

zone and how its location is determined. The policy document also addresses the installation of monitoring wells, termed interception wells, that will be located between the mining activities and drinking water wells or property boundaries, for the 

purposes of early detection and added level of protection. In order to assist in understanding the rule and the policy Ellis provided a visual aid that depicted an example for the establishment of the groundwater management zone and the locations 

at which monitoring would occur. 

Ellis thanked the Commission for their consideration of the proposed rule, package and non-rule policy document. 

41

Ray McCormick said, ‘‘In the example you give here, we have one contiguous block 

of land that is represented by the permitted area. However, in my area, the tunnels 

and the mine areas extend out for five miles in different directions, and it’s a matrix 

of people that are leased at that particular coal company. There are some that are 

leased at different coal companies, and some that are not leased. McCormick referenced the example map and asked whether the permitted area and each one of 

the farmsteads would be monitored or well identified out to the 300-foot zone from 

each of the 40-acre tracts or 100-acre tracts that occur underground from the center 

of the mine. 

Ellis said, ‘‘When you get out in the areas that are leased and they are mining 

deep underground, we refer to that often times as shadow acres.—He explained that 

in the permitting process the applicant has to identify all the groundwater users 

that are within the surface effect area and within the shadow area, whether it’s a 

1,000-acre shadow area or multi-thousand acre shadow area. Ellis explained that 

the process can identify owners, their uses and a sampling occurs as part of the establishment for base-line purposes prior to issuance within the permit area. 

McCormick continued, ‘‘So you’re saying that this example is for activities above 

surface and during low ground water, but for areas outside of the surface activity, 

these standards do not really apply?’’

Ellis said the standard would apply at the drinking water wells, but the management zone is going to be drawn based on the proposed activities. ‘‘Focus is on surface effects area. That is where the management zone will initially be drawn.’’ However, ‘‘depending on the nature activity if there are some waste returned to the underground works, then that would influence its location.’’ He said sampling occurs 

throughout the entire permit process for baseline purposes, prior to permit issuance 

and also later when the active mining operations are occurring. Ehret interjected 

that the Department treats surface and underground mines differently, because of 

the ‘‘nature of problems are somewhat different. Historically, if we have problems 

in proximity to underground mine work, which I think Ray is talking about, it usually has to do with a potential loss of water quantity as opposed to water quality. 

We don’t have those happen a lot, but the Surface Mining Act outside the requirements of this particular amendment has a protection for restoration of the loss of 

water due to mining.’’ He explained that if a person lost a domestic well or an agricultural well, the coal operator would be responsible for the replacement of that 

source of water. 

Martha Clark, Chief of the Watershed Branch, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, submitted written comments to the Commission. Clark said 

she was the previous Chief of the Groundwater Section and was ‘‘intimately involved for many years’’ in the development of the Groundwater Quality Standards 

rule, which the DNR, Division of Reclamation is trying to pull into their rule to 

meet the requirement of those standards. 

Clark stated, ‘‘We believe at IDEM that these amendments, coupled with existing 

regulatory controls, meet the goals of groundwater quality standards rule and demonstrate as required in Section 2 of the groundwater quality standards rules that 

DNR will ensure that facilities practices and activities are designed and managed 

to eliminate and minimize potential adverse impacts to the existing groundwater 

quality.’’ She said IDEM wanted to ‘‘emphasize’’ the importance that DNR staff implement the revised regulations to ensure that the goals of the groundwater quality 

standards. ‘‘We support the final adoption of the rule by the Commission.’’

Nat Noland, President of the Indiana Coal Council addressed the Commission. He 

said, ‘‘I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on this rule of proposal 

before you. Noland stated that he represented the Indiana Coal Council, which is 

a trade association that represents approximately 90% of the Indiana’s coal operators throughout southwest Indiana. He said, ‘‘As we debate this rule today, I think 

it’s important that we all remember that this rule is not a requirement of any federal law, and particularly the Federal Surface Mine and Control Reclamation act. 

Noland explained that the rule proposal was a result of a separate and independent 

state statute that was passed in 1988 to ensure groundwater quality protections 

throughout Indiana. He noted that IDEM promulgated the groundwater rule as indicated and ‘‘your job today is to implement that rule today as part of the surface 

mine program. Staff has proposed a rule that does just that. It implements IDEM’s 

rule; that is all that is required. Any concerns that have been raised by others about 

the standards or the place where the standards should apply are more appropriately 

addressed to IDEM, who proposed and adopted the original groundwater rule.’’ 

Noland said, that although coal mining is ‘‘one of the heaviest regulated industries 

in Indiana, we do support this rule today.’’ He stated that the nonrule policy does 

a ‘‘good job’’ of explaining to the ICC and the regulated community, and to others 

how this rule will be implemented.’’

42

Noland stated that coal mining has been conducted in Indiana for over 100 years. 

‘‘Throughout that time, and particularly since the passage of the federal law in 

1977, there had been virtually no significant effects on groundwater quality outside 

what will be the groundwater management zone after this rule is adopted today.’’ 

He supported and ‘‘confirmed’’ his statement by citing an informal study that IDEM 

completed at the Peabody Linnville Mine years ago. 

He said that third parties, as well as the coal industry participated in the development of the IDEM rule and the rule proposal before the Commission. Noland said 

that IDEM’s Task Force and their Rule Workgroup had discussed coal mine issues 

‘‘specifically and exhaustively several times.’’ ‘‘While the IDEM rule does not address nondrinking water wells that some in the public were concerned with, the 

changes made today proposed by staff will offer protection for nondrinking water 

wells and drinking wells.’’ Noland noted that third parties had raised concerns 

about the location of the groundwater management zone. ‘‘IDEM directed other implementing agencies, such as DNR, to establish groundwater management zones for 

their regulatory program as this rule reflects.’’ Noland said the proposed nonrule 

policy does a ‘‘good job’’ explaining how the groundwater management zone will be 

created and how monitoring will occur throughout the mining activities. Noland said 

that the Indiana public already has protection for drinking water wells that no 

other state or federal government has provided. He said the coal industry proposed 

legislation a few years ago before the Indiana General Assembly to expand a post1977 reclamation fund to be used to provide monies to replace drinking water wells 

that may be affected by past mining practices. ‘‘Monies in the fund come solely from 

civil penalties paid by coal operators.’’ He said the proposed rule, with the Indiana 

surface mining laws and statutes and the fund provide ‘‘more than adequate protection to property owners.’’

Noland said that third parties also commented that certain groundwater standards should apply within the mined area. ‘‘That notion was completely contrary to 

IDEM’s rule, and no further changes should be made in a proposed rule. He noted 

that Reclamation staff indicated in their response to comments, ‘‘mineralization of 

groundwater within a mined area will occur, but the extent of that mineralization 

cannot be predicted. Groundwater in a mined area will not be used for drinking 

water and does not need monitoring by these rules. The purpose for the Groundwater Management Zone is to ensure that the effects will not occur outside the 

boundaries of the groundwater management zone.’’ Noland said the proposed rules 

‘‘are not required by Indiana Surface Mining law or the federal law as previously 

indicated. In fact, groundwater standards are not a part of regulatory program in 

many coal-mining states; however, we will support the rule today. Coal mine operators can implement the rule and we urge you to go forward with the document that 

has been presented by the staff.’’

Rae Schnapp represented the Hoosier Environmental Council. Schnapp thanked 

the DNR for amending the rule to change the groundwater management zone so 

that it does not extend beyond the property boundaries. ‘‘That is a very important 

aspect of the rule. Schnapp expressed that the groundwater management zone is essentially a ‘‘sacrifice zone where no standards apply, and that zone is 300 feet deep.’’ 

She stated that HEC did not ‘‘believe’’ the proposed rule was ‘‘not consistent’’ with 

federal SMCRA rules. Schnapp explained that federal SMCRA requires operators to 

focus first on prevention. The SMCRA approach is to view mining as a temporary 

activity, a temporary land use, and full capability of land use is to be restored.’’ She 

stated that groundwater contamination is ‘‘likely to be permanent.’’

Schnapp stated that the proposed rule ‘‘only protects existing wells and allows the 

ambient groundwater to be contaminated.’’ She added that the proposed rules also 

allow for wells used for livestock or irrigation to be contaminated ‘‘up to a point.’’ 

Schnapp said that HEC does ‘‘appreciate’’ the change in the rule that puts the interceptor wells between the mining activity and an existing drinking water well, but 

‘‘we feel that really is not enough.’’ She said that HEC had submitted comments and 

suggestions about language that would define minimizing pollution that have not 

been incorporated into the rule. ‘‘We urge you to seriously consider that, because 

we think that the rule needs to have more focus on prevention. 

Director Goss commented, ‘‘I think we all, at least the people who have been on 

this committee, know the importance of this. We’ve anxiously awaited IDEM’s 

guidelines.’’ He stated the DNR may be the first state agency to propose these detailed regulations, and may be ‘‘even ahead of up IDEM’s other divisions in adopting 

this.’’ Goss thanked the Division of Reclamation for the amount of effort put into 

the rule proposal, and also thanked the private industry, Indiana Coal Council, and 

the Hoosier Environmental Council and other citizen groups. ‘‘We have had literally 

dozens and dozens of conversations this year, and it’s all been positive and friendly 

43

on how to improve this and make it work. I think this has been a very good process.’’

Jerry Miller moved to approve for final adoption of SMCRA Water Quality 

Amendments in 312 IAC 25 to implementing 327 IAC 2. Damian Schmelz seconded 

the motion. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. 

Jerry Miller moved to adopt the Nonrule Policy Document (Information Bulletin 

#38) implementing the Indiana groundwater standards at coalmines regulated 

under IC 14-34. 

Damian Schmelz seconded the motion. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried.

The Wright testimony, on page 4, misrepresents groundwater protection standards in Illinois and the regulatory provisions provided under SMCRA. The testimony reveals the author has a lack of understanding of the mining process and how 

the local geology influences groundwater after the commencement mining operations. Mr. Wright requests that SMCRA establish numeric standards to determine 

when contamination occurs. While we agree with Mr. Wright’s statement that it 

would be unrealistic to assume groundwater in mined areas will remain pristine, 

the establishment of nationwide, numeric groundwater standards would be unrealistic considering the varying geologic conditions of each region of the nation. 

Illinois has statewide groundwater protection standards for offsite impacts as provided by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s groundwater rules at 35 IAC 

620. Mining related constituent standards are set at the existing concentrations in 

the groundwater within the permit boundary at the time of reclamation. Constituents outside the permit boundary must comply with the applicable class standard 

for the groundwater. These rules were implemented to protect the groundwater supply surrounding a mining operation and provide a numeric standard for determining 

when contamination does occur. The use of regional groundwater protection standards is a much more practical approach than trying to establish national standards 

for groundwater. 

Mr. Wright has obviously been misinformed concerning the ‘‘high levels of arsenic’’ 

mentioned on page 6. The wells with ‘‘high levels of arsenic’’ are not in the same 

aquifer as that being addressed at the mine site. And, the so-called ‘‘high levels’’ 

of arsenic are within state standards. Mr. Wright fails to acknowledge that the company is addressing its environmental responsibility in a professional manner while 

under the jurisdiction of the state regulatory agencies using existing regulations. 

On page 6 of his testimony, Mr. Wright states that ‘‘Illinois DNR ignored the request for a Public Hearing about the high hazard dams that contain waste. In 2003, 

the DNR granted a public hearing on the reclamation plan, but refused to answer 

any of the public’s questions on the plan.’’

The request of a public hearing concerning high hazards dams is a provision of a law not related to SMCRA and not enforced by the division of 

DNR that is the regulatory authority for Illinois’ Permanent Program. The 

public hearing held in 2003 was held according to the regulations. The purpose of such hearings is to receive public comments, but once the hearing 

record closed agency officials were available to answer questions. All comments received at the hearing were addressed in the permit decision document issued concerning this application. In addition, the Illinois DNR in 

2006 held a lengthy public informational forum to discuss questions from 

the public. Among the issues raised were design, maintenance and use of 

the ‘‘high hazard dam’’ as refuse retention structures at the reclaimed mine 

site in question. 

Mr. Wright goes on to state on page 6 that ‘‘In 2003, the reclamation plan was 

approved despite the fact that the mining company did not tell where the monitoring wells on the site were located. Illinois DNR itself admitted in its own evaluation that this made it impossible to determine whether any possible contamination 

was migrating off site....The reclamation plan has been under appeal for over 4 

years. The appeal is now at the federal level.’’

These statements are untrue. The application for the permit revision in 

question contained the location of the monitoring wells, and the admission 

referred to is a total fabrication.

The permit revision referred to was issued on March 3, 2004. Local citizens 

requested administrative review of the decision to issue the revision. The 

final administrative ruling on the decision to issue the revision was handed 

down on May 25, 2005—approximately two years after the review was requested—not four years. The ruling was in DNR’s favor.

This permit revision approval is not the subject of a federal appeal. The federal appeal deals with a notice sent to DNR by OSM alleging violations of 

performance standards. DNR’s response to OSM concerning these allegaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
44

tions was deemed appropriate and no federal enforcement action was taken. 

A local citizen is now appealing OSM’s decision to not take enforcement action, not DNR’s decision to issue the revision. 

In referring to a pipeline to the Kaskaskia River, on page 6 Mr. Wright’s testimony alleges that DNR sent legal arguments to the OSM for review, ‘‘who found 

that the mine arguments were not valid. In December 2006, Illinois DNR nevertheless changed their position in favor of the mine.’’

DNR forwarded the legal rationale of the mine operator to OSM requesting 

their solicitor’s opinion. The solicitor did not find the arguments invalid as 

Mr. Wright claims. The DNR’s decision to approve the pipeline is the subject of administrative review requested by the citizen. A recent ruling by 

the administrative hearing officer presiding over this review found the citizen’s ‘‘pleadings grossly mis-characterize both the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources and the federal Office of Surface Mining analysis’’. 

On page 7 of his testimony Mr. Wright makes several statements concerning Illinois’ regulation of longwall mining. All of these statements are misrepresentations 

of the facts. Mr. Wright obviously accepted verbatim the positions of an antilongwall mining group in Montgomery County without bothering to confirm whether 

the information provided was factual. 

‘‘Illinois DNR has claimed that it has no authority over longwall mines even 

though SMCRA regulates the surface impacts of underground mining.’’

This statement is blatantly false. In Illinois, longwall mining has been performed in 11 different mining operations located within 6 counties. To date, 

over 240 modern longwall panels have been extracted in Illinois. Since 

1983, Illinois regulations have required the mitigation of all subsidence impacts, resulting from all types of underground mining, to both land and 

structures. There are currently two longwall mines operating in Illinois. 

Land and structures impacted by subsidence from these mines are routinely 

repaired and landowners are paid for crop losses incurred until repairs are 

completed. 

‘‘The Illinois DNR has repeatedly refused to address citizen concerns about possible damage to their homes and farms on the grounds that SMCRA does not give 

them authority to regulate underground mines.’’

This statement is false. DNR personnel have met numerous times with citizens as part of Farm Bureau sponsored meetings to discuss the issue of underground mining and subsidence repair. 

‘‘Illinois DNR has denied the [lands unsuitable petition] repeatedly on the grounds 

it cannot accept such petitions for underground mines, but this would appear to directly contradict their own regulations, which declare ‘An area shall be designated 

as unsuitable for all or certain types of mining operations.’’’

The regulations state at 30 CFR 762.11, and the Illinois counterpart 62 Ill. 

Adm. Code 1762.11, that lands unsuitable petitions may be submitted for 

surface coal mine operations. The definition of surface coal mine operations 

states that ‘‘Such activities include excavation for the purpose of obtaining 

coal, including such common methods as contour, strip, auger, mountaintop 

removal, box cut, open pit, and area mining, the uses of explosives and 

blasting; in situ distillation or retorting; leaching or other chemical or physical processing; and the cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or preparation of coal.’’

This regulatory definition of ‘‘surface coal mining operations’’ describes activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal 

mine or surface operations. Such surface mining extraction activities have 

been interpreted to include excavation for the purpose of obtaining coal including such common methods as contour, strip, auger, mountaintop removal, box cut, open pit, and area mining....and all areas on which such activities occur or where such activities disturb the natural land surface. 

These surface coal mining activities are distinguished from underground 

coal mining activities. Underground coal mining activities include the 

standard mining methods known as room and pillar excavation, high extraction retreat mining, and longwall mining.

The petition referred to sought a lands unsuitable for mining designation 

based upon longwall mining operations. Longwall mining is not a surface 

coal mining extraction method; it is an extraction method used for underground coal mining operations. Longwall mining extraction is not conducted 

on the surface of the land, and as such, it is not a surface coal mining operation. DNR determined that it is not authorized to review lands unsuitable 

for mining petitions that do not relate to surface coal mining operations. 

45

‘‘The Illinois DNR seems to be completely unwilling to take any sort of regulatory 

action in regards to longwall mining. This situation leaves citizens with no recourse 

for protecting their homes and their property from possible damage from longwall 

mines.’’

As indicated above this accusation is simply not true. Illinois has over 24 

years of experience in regulating longwall mining and the affects to both 

land and structures resulting from subsidence caused by longwall mining. 

All underground mine operators are required to repair subsidence damage 

resulting from underground mining, whether it be conventional room and 

pillar mining or longwall mining. 


37013.068
46


37013.069
47


37013.070
48


37013.071
49


37013.072 37013.073
50


37013.074
51


37013.075
52


37013.076
53


37013.077
54


37013.078
55


37013.079
56


37013.080
57


37013.081
58


37013.082 37013.083
59


37013.084 37013.085
60


37013.086 37013.087
61


37013.088 37013.089
62


37013.090
63

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE R. TIMMERMEYER, SECRETARY, 

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of West 

Virginia to commemorate this, the 30th anniversary of SMCRA. 

To say that this legislation is important to the Mountain State 

would be an understatement. Fortunately, as mining practices have 

evolved, so has SMCRA. To illustrate that point, in my travels here 

I have brought two permits. This permit was issued in 1977. This 


37013.091 37013.092
64

permit was signed this week. Both allow for surface mining on 

similar acreage. 

This permit basically just outlines the boundaries of the mining 

area and the number of acres to be mined. This one is clearly far 

more comprehensive. It includes a surface water runoff analysis, a 

community impact statement, baseline water quality data, a stability analysis, a sediment control plan, among many other additions. Clearly, SMCRA and our correlating state regulations have 

come a long way since 1977. 

Our agency continues to work every day to find new ways to reduce mining’s impact on the environment and keep folks in business. Both mining and environmental protection are big business 

in our state. 

West Virginia has had a long-time relationship with the coal industry. In 1939, long before SMCRA was contemplated, West Virginia was the first state in the Nation to enact environmental laws 

to regulate coal mining. As the coal boom continued and as companies walked away from sites, leaving a legacy of environmental 

damage, an energetic freshman Congressman from West Virginia 

helped craft and build support for landmark legislation that would 

require responsible mining and reclamation across the country. 

SMCRA created Federal oversight for mining activities, and empowered the states to protect human health and the environment. 

I am humbled by the great strength of character and great leadership that you showed, Mr. Chairman, to take such a bold step as 

the member of a coal state’s delegation. Your actions helped propel 

West Virginia into the forefront as a leader in environmental protection issues. 

Through SMCRA and a solid state mining regulatory program, 

coal operators are far more responsible in mining activities. 

Planned reclamation has become a given in coal mining today. Industry has progressed from claiming that SMCRA and any changes 

to it would put them out of business, to vying for reclamation 

awards and showcasing successful reclamation sites. 

Too often that wasn’t the case in years past. West Virginia is still 

riddled with pre-law mine sites that continue to pollute our 

streams and pose safety hazards to residents. Thanks to SMCRA, 

West Virginia has a means to tackle that problem. 

I won’t spend a lot of time on this issue, because I know others 

will address it later, but I could talk all day about how important 

the recent AML fund reauthorization is to West Virginia. I will just 

quickly note that West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin has announced that $58 million of the nearly $1 billion that West Virginia 

will receive will go to create valuable water infrastructure to the 

old mining communities that need it the most. 

The industry, government, and citizens have become more sophisticated since 1977. Decisions on mining matters are far more 

deliberative and comprehensive. Now more than ever, permit decisions are inclusive of the public. The DEP prides itself in its progressive approach to public participation. Individuals can subscribe 

to an online email notification system. Citizens are in our DEP offices every day reviewing permit files to make informed comments 

on draft permits. Public hearings are commonplace. And the agency 

makes itself available for question-and-answer sessions and citizen 

65

inspections. Without the groundwork of SMCRA, this may not have 

been possible. 

Post-mining land uses are a very important component of 

SMCRA. Due in part to the steep topography of West Virginia, 

many new commercial developments are on previously mined and 

reclaimed land, particularly in the southern coal fields. Shopping 

malls, schools, wood product plants, golf courses, and athletic complexes have sprung up on old mine sites. 

One of the most significant projects in the state is the King Coal 

Highway, which will enable residents of once-isolated communities 

to travel farther in shorter timeframes. The highway will spur economic development along the route, providing the critical travel infrastructure that West Virginia needs. It is by no means the D.C. 

Beltway, but it sure is a far cry from the twisting, winding, narrow 

roads that we West Virginians are used to. 

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin realizes the importance of 

post-mining land use requirements and the development opportunities that they present. An Executive Order is being drafted that 

sets in motion a framework for future industrial, commercial, and 

agricultural projects that will tap into the experience of the state’s 

economic development and science leaders. 

Coal won’t be here forever, so West Virginia is looking to diversify its economic development and growth options, so that it can 

keep its residents employed and living in the Mountain State. 

I hope that SMCRA will continue to evolve and mature, in order 

to take into consideration the states’ infrastructure needs, environmental protection needs, and development needs on mine lands 

that might otherwise lie dormant. Instead of a legacy of problems, 

today’s legacy is this: Thanks to SMCRA, mining companies are 

held to a high standard. They have recognized that there is an inherent wealth in a community’s heritage and well-being. 

Mining is also a part of our state’s social fabric, and it provides 

an integral part of West Virginia’s well-being in culture, as well as 

the nation’s economy. With forward-thinking legislators like Congressman Rahall and our Governor, Joe Manchin, West Virginia 

will continue to lead in mining and reclamation regulation, while 

seeking out new ways to provide energy and fuel the nation’s 

economy. 

Thank you for providing this opportunity to speak. It is truly an 

honor to be able to provide West Virginia’s perspective on this 

issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Timmermeyer follows:]

Statement of Stephanie R. Timmermeyer, Cabinet Secretary,

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of West Virginia to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977. The measure has been hugely important to the Mountain State as coal mining 

practices have evolved over the past 30 years. Natural resource extraction and regulation has quite a history in West Virginia. 

In 1939, West Virginia was the first state in the nation to enact environmental 

laws to regulate coal mining. The legislation required that companies obtain a permit, post a bond and reclaim the land. The environmental protection movement for 

mineral extraction was born. 

Over the next few decades, coal mining became more prevalent, and the boom of 

the northern underground coal mines prompted companies to explore the southern 

66

coalfields and burrow underground for the resource that would propel the United 

States into the forefront of industrial production and electricity supply. 

An incredible amount of wealth was leaving West Virginia. Mining companies not 

only took the valuable coal out of the state, but also destroyed the heritage and fabric of communities. They often left nothing behind but unsafe sites, open mine portals and dead streams. Despite early legislation, little was being done to stem the 

tide of destruction from mining. During World War II, the demand for energy 

peaked, and millions of tons of coal were mined quickly. Before long, more than 

102,000 acres were disturbed with no reclamation. 

That prompted West Virginia legislators to again take action to strengthen the 

surface mining law. In 1959, lawmakers required vegetation on disturbed areas, 

though the law was fairly weak, and it did little to fix the reclamation problem. 

A new surface mining law was enacted in 1967 that gave what we now call the 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection the responsibility for all 

phases of mining. The 1967 act was considered to be one of the toughest surface 

mining laws in the U.S. The act required prospecting permits, surface mining permit fees, bonds for disturbed acres, basic preplanning responsibilities, and monthly 

inspections. All of these requirements were precursors to our modern-day rules and 

regulations governing mining operations, and, I might say, a foreshadowing of what 

was to come in 1977. 

In that decade to come, West Virginia was in the limelight for a couple of reasons. 

In 1972, a coal dam burst on Buffalo Creek, killing 125 people and wreaking havoc 

on families and communities in the wake of the rushing water. That incident put 

a renewed focus on the mining industry through the creation of dam safety laws. 

Momentum continued to build, and an energetic freshman congressman from 

West Virginia helped craft and build support for landmark legislation that would 

require responsible mining and reclamation across the country. The birth of 

SMCRA, thanks to Congressman Rahall and his colleagues, has leveled the playing 

field for mining companies through federal oversight and it empowered states to 

protect human health and the environment. It took incredible leadership for Congressman Rahall to take such a bold step as part of a major coal state’s delegation, 

and it thrust West Virginia into the forefront again as a leader in environmental 

protection issues. 

No law has had a bigger impact on mining in West Virginia than SMCRA. Above 

all, SMCRA greatly reduced mining’s impacts through minimum requirements and 

an emphasis on reclamation. No longer could coal companies take the valuable coal 

and leave behind a legacy of acid mine drainage and dangerous land formations. Although there are still impacts from mining, the practice is now carefully planned 

and permitted with extensive scientific, regulatory and public input. 

To illustrate that point, I have brought, on my travels here, two permits. This permit was issued in 1977. This permit was signed yesterday. Both allow for surface 

mining on similar acreage. This permit basically outlines the boundaries of the 

mining area and the number of acres to be mined. This one is far more comprehensive. It includes a surface water runoff analysis, a community impact statement, 

baseline water quality data, a stability analysis, and a sediment control plan, and 

many other additions. 

Clearly, SMCRA and our correlating state regulations have come a long way since 

1977. Our agency works every day to find new ways to reduce mining’s impact on 

the environment and keep folks in business. Both mining and environmental protection are big business in our state. 

The DEP combines the administration of the SMCRA and Clean Water Act 401 

and 402 programs to regulate active mining. The integrated program for coal mining 

in West Virginia processed permitting transactions and inspection/enforcement activities at over 1,900 permitted sites that together produced 159 million tons of coal 

in 2006. That resource generated over 90% of the state’s electricity consumption and 

helped fuel a state economy that supplies products and services essential to the welfare of the nation. 

Through SMCRA and a solid state mining regulatory program, coal operators are 

far more responsible in mining activities. Planned land reclamation has become a 

given in coal mining today. Industry has progressed from claiming that SMCRA and 

any changes to it would put it out of business to vying for reclamation awards and 

showcasing successful reclamation sites. 

Too often that wasn’t the case in years past. West Virginia is still riddled with 

pre-law mine sites that continue to pollute our streams and pose safety hazards to 

residents. Thanks to SMCRA, West Virginia has a means to tackle the problem. The 

Abandoned Mine Land Fund created by SMCRA uses industry dollars to fund mine 

cleanup projects from old rogue operations. 

67

In West Virginia, the Abandoned Mine Land program has eliminated and reclaimed tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine sites by abating hazards and 

restoring land and water to beneficial uses. Many miles of streams, such as the 

Blackwater and Middle Fork rivers have been restored to viable fisheries. Public 

water systems have been installed where past mining destroyed potable water supplies. The recent reauthorization of the program, thanks in part to the leadership 

of West Virginia’s congressional delegation, will provide the opportunity to accelerate the program. Earlier this year, Governor Manchin announced that $58 million 

of the nearly $1 billion West Virginia will receive will go to creating valuable water 

infrastructure to the old mining communities that need it most. 

The West Virginia AML program has received in excess of $617 million over the 

past 30 years to achieve the mission of the program. In the past 30 years, DEP 

eliminated 49 miles of highwalls, sealed 2,688 portals, abated 439 acres of residential and urban subsidence areas, and eliminated 739 impoundments, all of which 

posed significant public health and safety hazards. Through the AML program, 

there are over 12,215 West Virginia families, churches, schools, and businesses that 

have clean, safe, and reliable drinking water. Since 1988, more than 779 emergency 

projects have been completed, in some cases saving the lives of people at risk of an 

impending impoundment failure or landslide. Despite all of our work, there is much 

more to do. West Virginia has documented over $1.8 billion in reclamation needs 

in the Office of Surface Mining’s inventory. 

The West Virginia Special Reclamation Fund to reclaim coal mined lands abandoned after 1977 is another example of how SMCRA has led the regulated community to take responsibility for environmental legacy costs. The fund, in part, is based 

on the early landmark West Virginia statute that required funds be paid by the operator to address land reclamation and water pollution. The program is funded by 

forfeited bonds, civil penalties and a reclamation tax on mined coal. Since its inception, DEP’s Office of Special Reclamation has reclaimed 1,592 bond forfeited coalmining permits totaling 26,691 acres at a cost of over $101 million. In addition, DEP 

has constructed and maintains 105 water treatment sites at a capital cost of $17 

million, and an additional $26 million in operating and maintenance costs. 

The permitting process under SMCRA has afforded opportunities to avoid and 

minimize potential problems, thus providing some direction for mining operations. 

For example, improvements in the prediction and prevention for modeling acid mine 

drainage has contributed to the fact that since 1999, only 3.2% of permits have developed acid mine drainage. This represents a continual downward trend since the 

passage of SMCRA. 

The realization of ownership and control requirements through SMCRA and the 

corresponding state programs and maintenance of nationwide databases like the Applicant Violator System imposed accountability and made possible the removal and 

blocking of irresponsible operators. A challenge is maintaining the level of accountability requirements in light of the changes in ownership structures of coal companies, especially the multitude of ownership forms (e.g. investment groups, limited 

liability corporations) and bankruptcy law protections used by some coal operators. 

SMCRA has been effective in preventing and remediating offsite impacts that can 

occur with coal mining. In West Virginia, water replacement is now the rule rather 

than the exception. Also, a blasting program insisted upon in SMCRA provides 

neighbors of mining operations with protections in advance of blasting and avenues 

for redress in the event of damages. 

The industry, government and citizens have become more sophisticated since 

1977. Decisions on mining matters are far more deliberative and comprehensive. 

Now, more than ever before, permit decisions are inclusive of public comment and 

participation. The DEP prides itself in its progressive approach to public participation. Individuals can subscribe to an online e-mail notification system to see public 

notices for any county in the state. Citizens are in our DEP offices every day reviewing permit files and arming themselves with information to make informed comments on draft permits or to provide testimony in mining permit appeals. Public 

hearings are commonplace, and the agency attempts to make itself available for 

question and answer sessions and citizen inspections. Without the groundwork of 

SMCRA, this may not have been possible. 

The permitting process, in fact, has become a planning tool for companies and 

communities. The SMCRA requirement to reclaim mined lands and return them to 

uses equal or better than those which existed before mining has become an important economic development component for West Virginia. 

In 2006, approximately 75% of all surface mine applications approved in West Virginia set forth forestland as the post mining land use. This equates to approximately 8,000 acres. Over the past three years, 6 million seedlings were planted on 

68

mined lands. This sets the stage for a future viable forestry industry in the years 

to come. 

Due in part to the steep topography of West Virginia, many new commercial developments are on previously mined and reclaimed land. Particularly in the southern coalfields, shopping malls, schools, wood products plants, golf courses, and athletic complexes have sprung up on old mine sites. One of the biggest up and coming 

projects in the state is the King Coal Highway, constructed as a post mining land 

use. The highway will enable residents of once isolated communities to travel farther in shorter time frames. The highway will spur commercial development along 

the route, providing the critical travel infrastructure West Virginia needs. It is by 

no means the Washington, D.C. beltway, but it sure is a far cry from the twisting, 

winding, narrow roads West Virginians are used to. 

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin realizes the importance of post mining land 

use requirements and the development opportunities they present. An executive 

order is being drafted that sets in motion a framework for future industrial, commercial and agricultural projects that will tap into the know-how the state’s economic development and science leaders. Coal won’t be here forever, so West Virginia 

is looking to diversify its economic development and growth options so that it can 

keep its residents employed and living in the Mountain State. I hope that SMCRA 

will continue to evolve in order to take into consideration states’ infrastructure, environmental protection, and development needs on mined lands that might otherwise lie dormant. 

It has taken decades of science, expertise and diplomacy to get where we are 

today in mining and regulating coal. The changes have been drastic and have led 

to a dramatic improvement from the old days of digging coal and leaving behind a 

legacy of problems. 

Instead of a legacy of problems, today’s legacy is this—thanks to SMCRA, mining 

companies are held to a high standard. They have recognized that there is an inherent wealth in a community’s heritage and well being. Mining is also a part of the 

state’s social fabric, and it provides an integral part of the nation’s economy and 

West Virginia’s well being and culture. With forward-thinking legislators like Congressman Rahall and our Governor, Joe Manchin, West Virginia will continue to 

lead in mining and reclamation regulation while seeking out new ways to provide 

energy and fuel the nation’s economy. 

Thank you for providing this opportunity to speak. It is truly an honor to be able 

to provide West Virginia’s perspective on such important legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Husted. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HUSTED, DEPUTY CHIEF, DIVISION OF 

MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OHIO DEPARTMENT 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Mr. HUSTED. Greetings, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am the Deputy Chief of the Ohio Division of Mineral Resource Management, and also the President of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. And I have been working with Title IV and Title V programs since 1979. 

I am submitting the testimony on the behalf of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. The Association is an 

organization consisting of 30 states and Indian tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mining-related hazards, which is overseen by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

I would like to present the member states’ and tribes’ views and 

sentiments related to the implementation of Title IV AML reclamation program under SMCRA. 

Since the enactment of SMCRA, the AML program has reclaimed 

thousands of dangerous sites left by abandoned coal mines, resulting in increased safety for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, 

three billion priority-one and two problems still threaten the 

public’s safety and remain unreclaimed. 

69

The Association is extremely pleased over the passage of the 

2006 amendments to SMCRA. The 15-year extension, coupled with 

the increased off-budget funding, will provide the states and tribes 

with the ability to be able to carry out the remaining AML reclamation work. 

Included in your testimony is a copy of the AML booklet called 

Safeguarding, Reclaiming, and Restoring, which highlights the various AML projects across the United States that have protected the 

public’s health and safety. It is important to remember that the 

AML program is, first and foremost, designed to protect the public’s 

health and safety. The majority of the state and tribal AML 

projects specifically correct AML features that threaten someone’s 

personal safety or welfare. 

While state and tribal AML programs do complete significant 

projects that benefit the environment, the primary focus has been 

on eliminating health and safety hazards first. The OSM inventory 

of completed work reflects this task. 

The following quotes and excerpts are from the Association members that I believe are representative of many of the members’ 

views, and are intended to address the effectiveness of Title IV of 

SMCRA. 

Number one, comments from Montana’s AML program. From the 

Montana perspective, the AML program has been a huge success. 

Montana’s program is a success from the aspect of protecting 

human health and safety, and protecting the environment. From 

the program management perspective, Montana’s AML program is 

a success because of the manner in which the AML program is 

managed by OSM. Montana’s experience with OSM’s oversight in 

the AML program is one of collaborative assistance that focuses on 

accomplishments, the goals of the AML. 

In addition, OSM sponsors training through the National Technical Training Program in subjects such as subsidence control, 

mine fire abatement, mine hydrology, and project management. 

Comments from North Dakota’s AML program. Overall, I believe 

the AML program has been very successful in identifying abandoned mine sites and eliminating safety hazards associated with 

many of them. As you know, much more AML work remains to be 

done, and in most states, reauthorization of the program will allow 

most of the remaining work to be completed over the next 15 years. 

However, for the minimum program states, one of the failures 

has been the lack of full funding for minimum program states over 

the past 15 years. 

In closing, as President of the Association, I would like to commend OSM for their efforts to work with the states and tribes in 

the rulemaking process for the implementation of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA. 

Several issues still have not been resolved; thus, the states and 

tribes have serious concerns about how effectively the 2006 amendments will be implemented. 

Number one. Funding for minimum program states. The minimum programs should receive $3 million per fiscal year, commencing in 2008, and not wait until Fiscal Year 2010. 

Number two. Distribution of payments from the U.S. Treasury. 

The states and tribes would like the option of receiving the payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
70

ments using the current grant system, or payments directly by the 

Treasurer, similar to mineral royalties paid to states under the 

Mineral Leasing Act. 

Number three. Use of unappropriated state’s share balances. The 

states and tribes assert that these monies should also be available 

for non-coal reclamation, and for the 30 percent AMD set-aside. 

These issues are very important, and we request the Committee 

to urge OSM to address these problems, as we believe they will lay 

the foundation for successful implementation for the AML program 

for the next 15 years. 

The Association would like to submit for the record a copy of a 

May 2007 letter to OSM which provides significant detail and rationale behind our concerns over these listed topics and other important issues. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and your 

strong support for the AML program. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Husted follows:]

Statement of John F. Husted, President, National Association of Abandoned 

Mine Land Programs, and Deputy Chief, Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management, Columbus, Ohio 

Greetings Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is John F. 

Husted and I am the Deputy Chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Mineral Resources Management and also the President of the National 

Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP). I started my career in 

1979 with the State of Ohio and have worked exclusively in Title IV and Title V 

programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. I have 

represented the Ohio Department of Natural Resources as a member of the 

NAAMLP since 1993 and have been proudly serving as President of the Association 

since September 2006. 

I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the NAAMLP. The NAAMLP is a taxexempt organization consisting of 30 states and Indian tribes with a history of coal 

mining and coal mine related hazards. These states and tribes are responsible for 

99.5 percent of the Nation’s coal production. All of the states and tribes within the 

NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation programs funded 

and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 

pursuant to Title IV of SMCRA, P.L. 95-87. 

The Association appreciates the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing on ‘‘The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: A 30th Anniversary Review’’. I would like to present the member states’ and tribes’ views and sentiments related to implementation of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program (Title IV) under SMCRA. 

Since the enactment of the SMCRA by Congress in 1977, the AML program has 

reclaimed thousands of dangerous sites left by abandoned coal mines, resulting in 

increased safety for millions of Americans. Specifically, more than 285,000 acres of 

abandoned coal mine sites have been reclaimed through $3.5 billion in grants (administration and construction) to states and tribes under the AML program. This 

means hazards associated with more than 27,000 open mine portals and shafts, 2.9 

million feet of dangerous highwalls, and 16,000 acres of dangerous piles and embankments have been eliminated and the land reclaimed. Despite these impressive 

accomplishments, $3 billion Priority 1 and 2 problems threaten public health and 

safety and remain unreclaimed. These hazardous sites require safeguarding by the 

states and tribes AML programs. 

The Association is extremely pleased over the passage of the 2006 Amendments 

to SMCRA. The 15-year extension coupled with increased funding will provide the 

states and tribes with the ability to carry out the remaining AML reclamation work. 

It is the intention of the states and tribes to focus on the protection of the public 

health and safety to ensure restoration in the coalfields of America. The Association 

would also like to thank the Congress for reauthorizing the AML Program and for 

taking the AML funding to states and tribes ‘‘off-budget’’. With the funding off-budget, this will finally allow the states and tribes to make staffing decisions and in turn 

begin planning for long range design and reclamation activities. Included with our 

testimony is a copy of an AML booklet called ‘‘Safeguarding, Reclaiming, Restoring’’ 

71

for your review. The booklet was developed by the Association and OSM to highlight 

the various AML projects across the United States that have protected the public’s 

health and safety. 

It is important to remember that the AML program is first and foremost designed 

to protect public health and safety. The majority of state and tribal AML projects 

specifically correct AML features that threaten someone’s personal safety or welfare. 

While state and tribal AML programs do complete significant projects that benefit 

the environment, the primary focus has been on eliminating health and safety hazards first. The OSM inventory of completed work reflects this fact. 

This committee has asked the NAAMLP to comment on the 30th Anniversary Review of SMCRA. The following quotes and excerpts are from some of the Association 

members that I believe are representative of many of the members views and are 

intended to address the effectiveness of Title IV of SMCRA: 

1. Montana: ‘‘From the Montana perspective the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 

Program under Title IV of SMCRA has been a huge success. Montana’s AML program was approved in 1980 and the program has had a high approval rating ever 

since. Montana’s program is a success from the aspect of protecting human health 

and safety, protecting the environment, and from the perspective of creating jobs 

and putting people to work. Acceptance of the AML program has run high because 

AML results in on the ground accomplishments that are immediately visually apparent. 

From the program management perspective Montana’s AML program is a success 

because of the manner in which the Abandoned Mined Lands program is managed 

by Office of Surface Mining. Montana’s experience with OSM oversight in the AML 

program is one of collaborative assistance that focuses on accomplishing the goals 

of AML. OSM provides the oversight and assistance necessary to keep the AML program on track without creating unnecessary or confusing paperwork or reports. 

OSM provides important training in the areas of computer software and modeling 

geographic information systems, and data systems. This focused training gets staff 

trained using software packages that would not be available through State computer 

systems. In addition, OSM sponsors training through their National Technical 

Training Program in subjects such as subsidence control, mine fire abatement, mine 

hydrology and project management. This specialized training is just not available 

from other sources and without it Montana AML would not have the necessary 

problem solving tools. 

2. North Dakota: ‘‘Overall, I believe the AML program has been very successful 

in identifying abandoned mine sites and eliminating safety hazards associated with 

many of them. As you know, much more AML work remains to be done in most 

states and re-authorization of the program will allow most of this remaining work 

to be completed over the next 15 years. However, for the minimum program states, 

one of the failures has been the lack of full funding for the minimum program states 

over the past 15 years. SMCRA amendments in 1992 set the minimum program 

funding level at 2 million dollars per year, but Congress typically appropriated only 

enough funds for 1.5 million per year. If the other 0.5 million dollars had been appropriated each year, the backlog of AML work in these states would be much less 

and hazards would have been eliminated sooner and at lower costs. Since there is 

nothing that can be done about past actions, we shouldn’t dwell too much on that 

and move forward instead. With re-authorization now in place, it’s time for OSM 

to ensure that funding for minimum program states is at the 3 million dollars per 

year authorized in that legislation. The increased funding to that level for the minimum program states needs to begin in FY 2008.’’

In closing, I would like to commend OSM for their efforts to work with the states 

and tribes in the rulemaking process for the implementation of the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA. OSM has spent considerable time and effort meeting and responding to questions and concerns from the Association regarding rule development. Although much has been done to address problems identified by the states 

and tribes, there are still significant shortcomings that need to be addressed. Several issues still have not been resolved, thus the states and tribes have serious concerns about how effectively the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA will be implemented. 

The issues are: 

1. Funding for Minimum Program States. 

• The Minimum Program States are Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma. 

• OSM has indicated that the minimum program states will not receive the full 

$3 million allocation until FY 2010. The states believe that this is a misinterpretation by OSM and that the minimum programs should receive $3 million 

per year beginning in FY 2008. 

72

2. Use of Grant Mechanism to Distribute Payments from the U.S. Treasury 

for both the prior unappropriated state/tribal balances and payments 

in lieu of future state and tribal share to certified states and tribes. 

• The states and tribes would like the option of receiving the Treasury payment 

by the current grant process or by direct payment from the Treasury similar 

to mineral royalties paid to states under the Mineral Leasing Act. • The states and tribes want flexibility and discretion with regard to the types 

of mechanisms that are available for distributing and expending Treasury payments. 

3. Use of Unappropriated State Share Balances for Noncoal Reclamation 

and AMD Set-Aside. 

• In its most recent interpretation of the 2006 Amendments, OSM has stated that 

the funds returned to the states and tribes from the unappropriated state share 

balance cannot be used for noncoal reclamation or for the 30 percent AMD setaside. • Pursuant to Section 411(h)(1) of the 2006 Amendments, the states and tribes 

assert that these moneys should also be available for noncoal reclamation under 

Section 409 and for the 30 percent AMD set-aside. There is nothing in the new 

law that would preclude this interpretation. Policy and practice over the past 

30 years confirm it. 

These three items represent some of the unresolved issues between OSM and the 

States and Tribes on the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA. These issues are very important and we request that this Committee urge OSM to address these problems, 

as we believe they will lay the foundation for successful implementation of the AML 

Program for the next 15 years. The Association can provide this committee a copy 

of a letter to OSM dated May 21, 2007 which provides significant detail and rationale behind our concerns over these listed topics and other important issues. We can 

also provide a copy of the response letter from OSM dated June 14, 2007. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement and provide comments. 

Please contact me if the NAAMLP can provide more information or assist the Committee in any way. 

[NOTE: The AML booklet entitled ‘‘Safeguarding, Reclaiming, Restoring’’ has been 

retained in the Committee’s official files.]

May 21, 2007

Brent Wahlquist 

Acting Director 

Office of Surface Mining 

1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Mr. Wahlquist:

This letter represents the comments of the National Association of Abandoned 

Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP) and the Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

(IMCC) regarding draft rules (proposed and interim final) developed by the Office 

of Surface Mining (OSM) to implement the provisions of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-432). OSM provided 

both the NAAMLP and IMCC with copies of the draft rules in April and also attended a meeting of both organizations on May 2 and 3 in Indianapolis to discuss 

the rules. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the draft rules as 

OSM prepares to move forward with their promulgation later this year. 

There are several key sections of the draft rules that we will address in these 

comments, as noted below. However there are a few over-arching issues related to 

the interpretation of the new law that we will discuss first, as they set the stage 

for some of our recommended changes to the rules. All of these issues grow out of 

OSM’s ‘‘Major Policy Issues’’ paper that was also shared with the states in April. 

I. GENERAL OVERVIEW COMMENTS 

Use of Grant Mechanism to Distribute Payments from the U.S. Treasury 

Pursuant to the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA, two new types of payments from 

the U.S. Treasury are established: 1) distribution of the prior unappropriated state/

tribal share balances over a seven year period (Section 41 l(h)(l)) and 2) payments 

in lieu of future state/tribal shares formerly paid out of the AML Trust Fund pursuant to section 401(g)(l) (Section 41 l(h)(2)). Section 402(i)(2) requires the Secretary 

73

of the Treasury to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘such sums as are necessary to pay the amount’’ described above, but no specific payment mechanism is 

prescribed. OSM prefers to distribute these payments via grants to states and 

tribes, based on its reading of the law and on past practice, rather than via direct 

distribution of cash from the Treasury. The states and tribes posit that the new law 

does not directly address this matter and therefore the Secretary has the discretion 

to design a payment mechanism that meets the needs of the states and tribes. In 

line with this discretionary authority, the states and tribes prefer an approach that 

will provide them with immediate access to those moneys that are due and owing 

from the Treasury. This can be accomplished through a traditional grant process for 

those who desire the ‘‘protection’’ and guidance that such a process affords these 

monetary distributions. However, there is also flexibility to design either a grant or 

a direct payment mechanism that provides more unrestricted and immediate access 

to these moneys for states who desire maximum discretion with regard to the use 

of these moneys in line with the language in Section 41 l(h)(l)(D)(i) and (ii). In the 

latter circumstance, the state legislatures will exercise their fiduciary responsibility 

to insure that the funds are spent legally and appropriately in accordance with the 

dictates of the 2006 Amendments and state contracting law. Federal audits will also 

provide a measure of scrutiny and review of project selection and expenditures. 

There are also other mechanisms available for tracking and facilitating these payments, one example being the management of mineral royalties paid to states under 

the Mineral Leasing Act and another being a general statement of work detailing 

how the money will be spent. The states and tribes therefore urge OSM to incorporate significant flexibility and discretion with regard to the types of mechanisms 

that are available for distributing and expending Treasury payments for both the 

prior unappropriated state/tribal balances and payments in lieu of future state/tribal 

share to certified states and tribes. 

Funding for Minimum Program States 

The 2006 Amendments include several provisions that govern the award of grant 

funds by OSM to states. Section 402(g) has three paragraphs that bear on that 

topic. Section 402(g)(I) directs that; ‘‘50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually in any State’’ be distributed to that state. Under section 402(g)(5)(A), ‘‘[t]he 

Secretary shall allocate 60 percent of the amount in the fund after making the allocation referred to in paragraph (1)’’ for additional grants to states. And section 

402(g)(8) states that ‘‘In making funds available under this title, the Secretary shall 

ensure that the grant awards total not less than $3,000,000 annually to each State 

and each Indian tribe...’’ (emphasis added). This latter provision provides OSM the 

justification for insuring annual minimum program grant funding in excess of the 

base $3 million level as long as OSM does not contribute more than $3 million from 

its own discretionary funds. 

Section 401 of the bill also has relevant provisions. Sections 401(f)(l) and (2) direct 

OSM to distribute grant funds to states annually, including the amount needed for 

the adjustment under section 402(g)(8) (i.e., the ‘‘minimum program’’ adjustment up 

to $3.0 million). Section 401(f)(3) has a similar provision: 

‘‘IN GENERAL.—...for each fiscal year, of the amount to be distributed to 

States and Indian tribes pursuant to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 

distribute—

(i) the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) of section 402(g), the amounts 

allocated under paragraph (5) of section 402(g), and any amount reallocated under 

section 41 l(h)(3) in accordance with section 41 l(h)(2), for grants to States and 

Indian tribes under section 402(g)(5); and 

(ii) the amounts allocated under section 402(g) (8).’’

This again makes it clear that the legislation requires OSM to provide minimum 

program states at least $3.0 million annually, under section 402(g)(8), commencing 

October 1, 2007. 

In its restrictive reading of the bill, OSM depends upon a single provision in section 401(f)(5)(B) to reduce the amounts of annual grants to minimum program states 

from the minimum $3.0 million annual required grant amount. That provision reads 

(with emphasis added): 

‘‘(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the amount distributed under this subsection for the first 4 fiscal years beginning on and after 

74

October 1, 2007, shall be equal to the following percentage of the amount 

otherwise required to be distributed: 

(i) 50 percent in Fiscal Year 2008. 

(ii) 50 percent in Fiscal Year 2009. 

(iii) 75 percent in Fiscal Year 2010. 

(iv) 75 percent in Fiscal Year 2011.’’

OSM’s reliance on this provision ignores the fact that by its own terms (i.e. the 

‘‘notwithstanding’’ phrase), it only overrides the requirements of section 401(f)(3). 

Yet other provisions of the bill independently require the distribution of the minimum amount of $3.0 million. See sections 401(f)(l) and (2) and section 402(g)(8). 

The provision cited by OSM does not override the clear requirements of those other 

parts of the bill. 

The phase-in schedule of section 401(f)(5) only applies to such additional funds as 

might otherwise be provided by OSM to the minimum program states above the 

guaranteed distributions required elsewhere in the statute. This means that OSM 

cannot contribute more than $1.5 million in additional funding to each minimum 

program state in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, and not over $2.3 million in additional funding in each of Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, and not over $3.0 million in 

additional funding in each subsequent year through Fiscal Year 2024. 

This debate goes much deeper than the interpretations of the two sections mentioned above. Congressional intent and history in the passage of P.L. 95-87, the 

original ‘‘Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,’’ deserves merit in 

the interpretation debate. In the 95th Congress, the late Morris K. Udall (considered 

by many as the ‘‘father’’ of P.L. 95-87) worked tirelessly with government agencies, 

industry, and other organizations to make sure this law became a reality. With regard to the reclamation of abandoned mine lands, Title IV of P.L. 95-87 has been 

the guiding light for both OSMRE and the States/Tribes for almost 30 years. During 

this time, AML funding issues have overshadowed Congressman Udall’s intent as 

outlined in Section 403 of P.L. 95-87 ‘‘Objectives of the Fund.’’ Section 403 set specific priorities as to the expenditure of moneys from the AML fund. The number one 

priority is ‘‘the protection of public health, safety, and property from extreme danger 

of adverse effects of coal mining practices,’’ It is significant that the Surface Mining 

Control and mandated annual $2 million was ‘‘budget deficits.’’ Then under the 

Clinton administration, there was a ‘‘budget surplus,’’ but the annual allocation remained at $1.5 million. For the last 13 years, Minimum Program States have been 

critically underfunded in respect to the number of Priority 1 and Priority 2 AML 

hazards that need to be reclaimed. Respective Administration budgets and Congressional budgets continued to hold the AML Fund ‘‘hostage,’’ while unappropriated 

balances continued to rise. 

In early December 2006, much to the surprise of both OSMRE and States/Tribes, 

the 2006 Amendments took AML funding off budget. No longer would Congress appropriate AML funds on an annual basis. The pressure was now on OSMRE to develop a method(s) to distribute the AML funds to States and Tribes. OSMRE began 

to develop future funding projections under the new law. Since December 2006, 

OSMRE has distributed four different funding charts. With each successive chart, 

the funding numbers for the States and Tribes would change. But in all four of 

these OSMRE charts, there was one constant—the Minimum Program States (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma) would receive no 

funding increases for FY 2008 and FY 2009. Not until FY 2012 would Minimum 

Program States receive an annual $3 million. 

In the last OSMRE Funding distribution chart (Chart 4), the following funding 

increases are reflected when comparing FY 2007 AML funding to FY 2008 AML 

funding, as well as the amount of Priority 1 and Priority 2 coal hazards in the AML 

Inventory for each state:

75

Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 removed the words ‘‘general welfare’’ from the 

original wording of Section 403(1). In their infinite wisdom, the 109th Congress 

wanted to further strengthen Section 403(1) by placing a special emphasis on public 

health, safety, and property. 

There are no specific provisions in P.L. 95-87 or the 2006 Amendments that discuss in detail the specific State/Tribe AML funding formulas that embrace historic 

coal production, state share (present coal production), and federal discretionary expenses. However, in the 2006 Amendments Congress did single out states and tribes 

specifically in Section 402(g)(8)(A) stating, ‘‘In making funds available under this 

title, the Secretary shall ensure that the grant awards total not less than $3,000,000 

annually to each State and each Indian Tribe having an approved abandoned mine 

reclamation program pursuant to section 405 and eligible land and water pursuant 

to Section 404, so long as an allocation of funds to the State or tribe is necessary 

to achieve the priorities stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 403(a).’’ The fact 

that Congress has always (and in the 2006 Amendments continues to) dedicate a 

section of the law to states and tribes traditionally known as those with ‘‘Minimum 

Programs’’ solidifies the Congressional intent that these states and tribes annually 

receive not less than $3,000,000. 

In the late 1980s the Mid-Continent Coal Coalition was formed because the Minimum Program States and Tribes had several hundreds of millions of dollars worth 

of Priority 1 and Priority 2 AML hazards that posed, and continue to pose, a very 

high public health and safety risk. AML funding had fallen to an annual $1 million 

level that would not allow the efficient operation of a State/Tribal AML Program. 

This Coalition gathered Congressional support through letters, resolutions, testimony at Congressional committee hearings, etc. As a result, the budget reconciliation bill passed by the 101st Congress in the fall of 1990 required that the Secretary allocate annually not less than $2,000,000 to Minimum Program States and 

Tribes. The passage of this bill inl990 was definitive proof that Congress supported 

an increase in funding for the Minimum Program States and Tribes. 

For three years (FY1992, FY 1993, and FY 1994) the Minimum Program States 

received $2 million annually. Since that time the Minimum Program States have 

been limited to an annual allocation of only $1.5 million. The primary reason given 

for not allocating the statutorily could be used to help fund the Minimum Programs 

at the annual $3 million level Furthermore, in its News Release of February 5, 

2007, OSM noted that it has off-budget funds in its FY 2008 budget that could fully 

fund AML minimum programs at not less that the $3 million level. This money was 

provided to OSM for the purpose of, and should be used for, fully funding the minimum programs at the $3 million level. The bottom line is the Minimum Programs 

have been ignored for too many years. With the passage of P.L. 109-432, Congress 

has sent a message to OSMRE that Minimum Programs should be funded at an annual rate of $3 million, starting with the FY 2008 budget. The sad part of this impasse is the fact that those living near or visiting these Priority 1 and Priority 2 

AML sites are exposed on a daily basis to the possibility of death and/or injury. 

Congress gave OSMRE the authority to develop the AML funding distribution 

numbers for the states and tribes. The NAAMLP and IMCC urge that during the 

development of proposed rules and regulations for the 2006 Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act Amendments, OSMRE ‘‘look outside the box’’ and consider the 

real reason that Title IV was enacted almost 30 years ago. 


37013.021
76

Use of Unappropriated State Share Balances for Noncoal Reclamation and 

AMD Set-Aside 

Since the inception of SMCRA in 1977 and the approval of state/tribal AML programs in the early 1980’s, the states and tribes have been allowed to use their state 

share distributions under section 402(g)(l) of the AML Trust Fund for high priority 

noncoal reclamation projects pursuant to section 409 of SMCRA and to calculate the 

set-aside for acid mine drainage (AMD) projects. Under the new amendments, states 

and tribes will receive their unappropriated balances in seven equal payments beginning in FY 2008. In its most recent interpretation of the 2006 Amendments, 

OSM has stated that these moneys cannot be used for noncoal reclamation or for 

the 30% AMD set-aside. OSM also initially stated that the historic coal distribution 

to non-certified states and tribes would also not be available for noncoal reclamation, but the agency appears to have relented on this issue and will allow these 

moneys to be used for both noncoal reclamation and the 30% AMD set-aside. With 

regard to the unappropriated state and tribal share balances that will be distributed 

pursuant to Section 41 l(h)(l) of the 2006 Amendments, the states and tribes assert 

that these moneys should also be available for noncoal reclamation under section 

409 and for the 30% AMD.

It should be noted that the term ‘‘minimum program’’ does not refer to lack of 

AML hazards that a state or tribe has to address, but rather with the lack of funding being generated by active coal mines within the state or tribe for purposes of 

remediating hazards associated with past coal mining. For example, Oklahoma has 

an AML inventory of priority 1 and 2 sites that will cost between $125 and 130 million to reclaim using today’s cost figures. Kansas has an AML inventory of priority 

1 and 2 sites that will cost over $200 million to remediate. However, funds generated by current coal mining activities in these two states generate around $25,000 

annually for Kansas and around $100,000 annually for Oklahoma. For perspective, 

states like Kentucky and West Virginia receive between $6,800,000 and $8,300,000 

annually to perform remediation of hazardous AML sites. Interestingly (and in some 

respects, unfortunately), Oklahoma has an AML inventory of priority 1 and 2 hazards that will cost more to remediate than 14 of the states and tribes listed above 

and Kansas has an AML inventory of priority 1 and 2 hazards that will cost more 

to remediate than 16 of the above-listed states and tribes. Therefore, even though 

the ‘‘minimum program’’ states may get minimum funding, they certainly have their 

fair share of AML priority 1 and 2 hazards. 

From December 2006 through February 2007, OSMRE continued to change their 

funding distribution charts, using factors such as historic coal production, state 

share fund balances, and present coal production. During this three month process, 

each time a new chart was developed OSMRE failed to put emphasis on the real 

problem; How much is the public affected by Priority 1 and Priority 2 AML hazards? 

Ignoring AML project sites that are an eminent danger to the health and safety of 

the public is not what Congress intended. 

OSMRE can find the funds in their FY 2008 budget to fond AML Minimum Programs. OSMRE is phasing out the Clean Streams Initiative Program and the Watershed Cooperative Agreements Program. This money set-aside. There is nothing in 

the new law that would preclude this interpretation. Policy and practice over the 

past 30 years confirm it. The unappropriated state and tribal share balances consist 

of past moneys collected from coal producers in these states and tribes that were 

never distributed due to restricted and under-funded appropriations. This money 

has always been ‘‘colored’’ as state/tribal share money, available for expenditure in 

accordance with the provisions of SMCRA and now 30 years of experience. The fact 

that the money is being paid out of Treasury funds does not change the ‘‘color’’ or 

operation of that money—it has been and will always be state/tribal share money 

allocated pursuant to section 402(g)(l) of SMCRA. 

OSM’s new interpretation of SMCRA based on the 2006 Amendments is without 

support in the law when read as a whole. In interpreting the meaning of section 

411, the entire statute must be read in context. Section 403 (which OSM points to) 


37013.022
77

is modified by Section 409, which provides for the expenditure of AML funds at any 

priority 1 or 2 site, regardless of the commodity that was mined. Section 409(b) indicates that the 50% state share (from 402(g)(l)) and the historic production distribution (402(g)(5)) can be used for noncoal reclamation. If Congress had intended to 

limit the use of the unappropriated state/tribal share balances (or historic production distributions) that are now finally being returned pursuant to section 41 l(h)(l), 

it could have easily done so. However, no changes were made in section 411 to accomplish this. Nor was Section 409 amended in any way. 

OSM’s new interpretation is also a dangerous policy choice. OSM claims that once 

a state has completed all of its coal projects, it can then use all of its grant funds 

for noncoal projects. This will require that states spend years working on high-cost, 

low-priority coal projects that present little threat to public health and safety, while 

numerous highly hazardous abandoned noncoal mines remain unattended. In many 

western states, the AML programs have employed their AML grants to protect people and property threatened by noncoal abandoned mines. In New Mexico, for instance, the state estimates that over 10,000 mine openings remain. The overwhelming majority of these openings are at abandoned noncoal mines. All of the fatalities at abandoned mines in New Mexico over the past few decades have occurred 

at noncoal mines. With urban growth pushing into undeveloped areas and recreational uses increasing, the danger to public health and safety from abandoned 

noncoal mines throughout the country is increasing 

Much of the above reasoning also holds true for the availability of the unappropriated balances for purposes of calculating the 30% set-aside for AMD abatement. 

Again, this work falls within the clear purposes of section 403 of SMCRA and thus 

any type of restriction on the use of these funds for AMD remediation is inappropriate. Section 403(g)(6)(B)(ii)(I) establishes and defines the use of AMD set-aside 

funds. That section states that a qualified hydrologic unit destined for AML abatement must have land and water that ‘‘...include any of the priorities described in 

Section 403.’’ Obviously, this passage provides a clear nexus to section 403 of the 

Act. The 2006 Amendments at section 41 l(h)(l)(D)(ii) state that non-certified states 

must use amounts provided from Treasury funds in place of the unappropriated balances for ‘‘...purposes described in Section 403.’’ Again, a clear nexus to section 403 

is stated. Actually, the references in sections 402 and 411 to section 403 are identical. Therefore AMD abatement is a purpose under section 403 and Treasury funds 

should not be artificially excluded for use in the set-aside for AMD. Finally, we 

should note that each appropriation bill over the past several years has included 

language that supports the use of funds made available under Title IV of SMCRA 

for the purpose of environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of 

AMD without restriction. Based on the above, the NAAMLP and IMCC request that 

OSM reconsider its interpretation on the use of unappropriated state and tribal 

share balances for noncoal reclamation and the AMD set-aside. Adjustments to the 

draft rules based on these arguments appear below. 

Reduction of the Treasury l/7th payments for the unappropriated balance 

by the amount of the export tax lawsuit loss 

The relevant citations: 

411(h)(l)(A)(i)ofP.L. 109-432

In General—Notwithstanding section 401(f)(3)(B), from funds referred to in section 402(i)(2), the secretary shall make payments to States or Indian tribes for the 

amount due for the aggregate unappropriated amount to the State or Indian tribe 

under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 402(g)(l) 

41l(h)(l)(B) of P.L. 109 432 (emphasis added) 

Amount Due—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘amount due’’ means the unappropriated amount allocated to a State or Indian Tribe before October 1, 2007 under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 402(g)(l). 

As a part of our discussion on the unappropriated balance, OSM has stated that 

should the export tax lawsuit ultimately be lost on appeal, the loss shall be paid 

out of the trust fund and the l/7th payments out of the Treasury to each State or 

Tribe shall be reduced by the like amounts each State or Tribe owed for the lawsuit. 

Section 41l(h)(l)(B) of P.L. 109-432 states that the amount due each State or 

Tribe is the amount allocated to each State or Tribe (State Share) before October 1, 

2007. Unless the export tax lawsuit is resolved prior to October 1, 2007, then the 

amount paid out of the Treasury in l/7th installments to each State or Tribe for the 

unappropriated balance should not be reduced due to the lawsuit. Although the 

trust fund would ultimately be reduced by the amount of the export tax lawsuit loss, 

the payments out of the Treasury should remain unchanged since the amount the 

payments will be based upon will be established as of October 1, 2007. Further, we 

78

1Major Provisions of P.L. 109-432: SMCR.A Amendments Act of 2006. page 3. Distributed to 

NAAMLP members at its business meeting February 28 - March 1. 2007. 

do find any language in P.L. 109-432 that can be interpreted to give OSM the authority to reduce payments from the Treasury for the unappropriated balance. 

Effective Date of In-Iieu Payments 

There has been some confusion about when in-lieu payments from the U.S. Treasury begin under the 2006 Amendments. OSM has stated that they begin in FY 

2009, and that payments to certified states and tribes of their 50% share in FY 2008 

are made from the AML Trust Fund. Our reading of the 2006 Amendments is that 

the in-lieu payments from the Treasury begin immediately in FY 2008. The relevant 

citations are: 

Section 401 (f)(3)(B) of P.L. 109-432: 

(B) EXCLUSION. ‘‘Beginning on October 1, 2007, certified States shall be 

ineligible to receive amounts under section 402(g)(l). 

Section 411 (h)(l)(B & C) of P.L. 109-432: 

(B) AMOUNT DUE.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘amount due’’ means the unappropriated amount allocated to a State or Indian tribe before October 1, 2007 under 

subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 402(g)(l). 

(C) SHEDULE.—Payments under subparagraph (A) shall be made in 7 equal annual installments, beginning with Fiscal Year 2008. 

Section 411 (h)(2)(A) of P.L. 109-432: 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 401(f)(3)(B), from funds referred to in section 402(i)(2), the Secretary shall pay to each certified state 

or Indian tribe an amount equal to the sum of the aggregate unappropriated amount allocated on or after October 12, 2007, to the certified State 

or Indian tribe under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 402(g)(l). 

OSM has advanced the following explanation to support its current declared intention to pay state share funds to the certified states under section 402 (g)(l) in FY 

2008 (emphasis added): 

‘‘Certified states and tribes will receive distributions under section 401(f) only in 

FY 2008 because the bill adds a new section 401(f)(3)(B), which provides that certified states and tribes are ineligible to receive their state-share or tribal-share allocations with respect to fees collected after FY 2007. However, FY 2008 distributions 

consist of FY 2007 fee collections, so certified states and tribes are eligible to receive 

50% of their state or tribal share allocation of fees collected for that year. 

Beginning with FY 2009, certified states and tribes will receive annual payments 

from the Treasury in lieu of the amount of fee collections during the previous year 

that would otherwise have been allocated to their state or tribal share accounts in 

the AML fund in the absence of new section 401(f)(3)(B) of SMCRA. Section 4U(h)(2) 

ofSMCRA. 1

Section 401(f)(3)(B) of P.L. 109-432 states that beginning October 1, 2007, certified states shall not be paid under 402(g)(l). This provision is a complete exclusion. 

It prohibits certified States or Indian tribes from receiving grants funded by the reclamation fee effective October 1, 2007. There is no language in this section to support an interpretation that a certified State or Indian Tribe can receive after 

October 1, 2007 grants funded by reclamation fees collected prior to October 1, 

2007. 

In order to support the position that the exclusion established by Section 

401(f)(3)(B) does not apply to grants issued in Fiscal Year 2008 if funded by reclamation fees collected during Fiscal Year 2007, OSM staff have explained that the 

term ‘‘received’’ as used in Section 401(f)(3)(B) means ‘‘allocated’’. This interpretation is contrary to the normal and ordinary usage of the term ‘‘received’’ and is contrary to standard principles of statutory construction. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, or the word has been given a specific definition, words in a statute are to be given their normal meaning. 

Relying on this interpretation, OSM has developed a distribution chart dated February 22, 2007, showing that $41.6 million will be paid to the certified States or 

Indian tribes under 402(g)(l) in FY 2008. This distribution represents FY 2007 fee 

collections. This approach is correct for distributions to non-certified states as required by 401(f)(2) and (3). However, Section 401(f)(3)(B) prohibits certified States 

or Indian tribes from receiving payments of funds under 401(f) beginning on 

October 1, 2007. The fees collected and allocated in FY 2007 are to be included in 

the amounts due to the states that are allocated but not appropriated under Section 

41 l(h)(l)(B). These funds are then paid over seven years, beginning in FY 2008 

under 41 l(h)(l)(C). 

79

The effect of this misinterpretation of Section 401(f)(3)(B) and 41 l(h)(l)(B) is that $41.6 million would be paid to certified States or Indian tribes with fee collections 

instead of Treasury funds as required by Section 41 l(h)(l)(A)(i). The funds so paid 

will then not be available to be reallocated as historic share funds available for 

grants under Section 41 l(h)(4)(A). Furthermore, the interest that should be earned 

annually on this $41.6 million and paid to the Combined Benefit fund would not 

be earned and available to be paid. 

The draft language in the Proposed and the Interim-final regulations on this subject is consistent with the statutory language in P.L. 109-432 and so does not need 

to be changed. However OSM’s interpretation of P.L. 109-432 is flawed. Based on 

the above arguments, the NAAMLP and IMCC urge OSM to revise the proposed 

AML funding distribution chart to show that: 

(a) no state share funds are distributed to the certified States or Indian tribes in 

FY 2008; but, (b) the $41.6 million should then be included in the calculation of the amount due 

to certified States and Indian tribes under Section 411(h)(1)(B). 

Adjustments to the Grants Process 

There is a fair amount of concern by the states and tribes about how the grants 

process will work under the 2006 Amendments. With the increased amount of 

money that will be flowing to the states, it will be incumbent on both OSM and the 

states and tribes to be particularly sensitive to the impacts on the grants process—

especially with regard to the length of grants, rollovers, tracking of grant amount 

(especially by account), recapture, and paperwork reduction. We assert that the timing is ripe for revisiting the existing simplified grants process to consider additional 

streamlining and simplification. There is some concern that the 2006 Amendments 

could unnecessarily complicate the paperwork demands associated with annual 

grants, especially if we are required to track various kinds of moneys that are received. It will be particularly important to clarify that moneys are ‘‘expended’’ once 

they are obligated, encumbered or otherwise committed for projects. Even with this, 

deobligation could become a problem if we are unable to roll grants over from year 

to year. We understand that OSM will be considering various adjustments to the 

Federal Assistance Manual and to its AML directives and we request an opportunity 

to review those revisions once they are available. This may present an ideal opportunity for further clarifications to address the above concerns. 

Annual Distribution Charts 

It will be critical for the states and tribes to receive the annual distribution charts 

for AML grants as soon as practicable after the beginning of each fiscal year (i.e. 

by no later than November 15). This will be particularly true in the first few years 

as the states and tribes attempt to forecast how the distribution will impact their 

respective programs. In this regard, we have attached a chart that, in simplified 

terms, demonstrates our understanding of the gross distribution formula as presented by OSM to date. It should be noted that the states and tribes do not agree 

with this distribution formula, as indicated by our comments on the proposed and 

interim rules. In fact, we have argued in these comments for various adjustments 

to the formula and to the use of the distributed funds based on our reading of the 

new 2006 AML amendments. Nonetheless, we would appreciate OSM’s comments on 

our attempt to capture OSM’s distribution formula under their interpretation of the 

2006 Amendments and any additional explanations (flowcharts) that OSM can share 

with us regarding their interpretation of the distribution formula under the new 

law. 

Training 

It will be very important for the states and tribes to receive the necessary training 

to implement the provisions of the new rules, once they are in place—especially as 

they impact the grants process. We urge OSM to keep this in mind as they consider 

implementation plans for the future. 

Preamble Language 

We recognize that one mechanism OSM has available to clarify certain aspects of 

the proposed and interim final rules is through the use of preamble language. We 

would encourage OSM to do so. One example is the need to adjust the priority matrix contained in the Federal Assistance Manual (FAM) to reflect regional differences in land use patterns. Given that much of SMCRA’s history was predicated 

on land use patterns and experience with hazards in the Eastern United States, 

there are unintentional gaps that fail to recognize the uniqueness of circumstances 

in other regions of the country. Whereas residents of Eastern states, for instance, 

may have residences or other structures that were built adjacent to known hazards, 

80

residents of Western states (and non-resident recreational users of Western lands) 

are exposed to AML features that consist of largely unknown hazards that are 

equally, if not more, dangerous than ‘‘known’’ features. Thus, as we consider what 

would be defined as an ‘‘extreme danger’’, we need to be cognizant of the fact that 

unknown hazards in remote or rural areas can be even more dangerous than known 

dangers as the unsuspecting public encroaches on these areas through occasional 

use or through urban sprawl. Recognizing the exposure of the populace to the hazards associated with abandoned mine sites will assist the states, tribes and the federal government in fully implementing the objectives of the AML program under 

SMCRA. 

II. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO OSM’S DRAFT PROPOSED AND INTERIM 

RULES 

The NAAMLP and IMCC recommend the following changes to OSM’s draft proposed and interim final rules based on the above commentary. 

Section 870.5—Definitions 

‘‘Adjacent’’—change to read as follows: 

‘‘Adjacent means adjoining, in proximity to or contiguous with eligible lands and 

waters.’’

Justification: OSM’s draft rule implies that a Priority 1 or 2 project must be undertaken in order for a Priority 3 project to be considered ‘‘adjacent to’’ the Priority 

1 or 2 problem. This is not what the law requires. It is not a matter of priority; 

it is a matter of proximity. As long as the Priority 3 project is geographically connected to the Priority 1 or 2 site, the test is satisfied. Furthermore, OSM’s proposed 

language conflicts with statutory provisions in sections 403(a)(l)(B)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) 

that eligible lands include those that ‘‘are adjacent to a site that has been or will 

be remediated. (emphasis added). In its proposed language, OSM is implying that 

for a priority 3 feature to be eligible, it has to be reclaimed in order to access or 

remediate the priority 1 or 2 feature. This simply cannot be the case if the priority 

1 or 2 feature has already been reclaimed or may be so in the future, as anticipated 

by the 2006 amendments. We recommend use of the common dictionary definition 

of ‘‘adjacent’’. We also oppose the concept of tying the definition to a monetary determination. There is nothing in the law to support this criterion and we believe it 

would be difficult to determine and apply. The use of a proximity criterion will also 

allow us to take into consideration public rights of way, roads, etc, that may be 

present at or near the site. Finally, to define the term otherwise would be to severely limit the number and types of Priority 3 projects that could be addressed, 

which is contrary to the intent of the law. 

‘‘In conjunction with’’—change to read as follows: 

‘‘In conjunction with means reclamation of priority 3 features in phases or 

through a combination of contracting and construction with priority 1 and/or 2 features.’’

Justification: It is important to recognize that Priority 3 work cannot only be done 

in conjunction with a Priority 1 or 2 feature through a combined contracting or construction effort, but in phases of construction with a Priority 1 or 2 project, especially where the project is particularly large or the AML program is small (as with 

the minimum program states). We recommend deletion of the phrase ‘‘would have 

provided significant savings to the AML fund’’ for the same reason we recommend 

deletion of the last sentence in the definition: these terms are elusive and difficult 

to define and quantify. The law does not specify this type of monetary criterion and 

it would be challenging to implement. We assert that it is best to focus on the administrative aspects of project work, which are easier to define. Finally, to define 

the term otherwise would be to severely limit the number and types of Priority 3 

projects that could be addressed, which is contrary to the intent of the law. 

‘‘Qualified Hydrologic Unit’’—change to read as follow: 

Change the word ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ between subparagraphs (b)(l) and (2), as in the existing regulations. 

Justification: We realize that OSM’s new definition is consistent with the statutory language, but actual practice over the past 25 years has been that hydrologic 

units are defined as containing lands and waters that are either eligible OR the subject of bond forfeitures, but not both. To define the term otherwise would be to severely limit the scope of this important provision of the law. With the new emphasis 

on allowing states to set aside upwards of 30% of their AML funds for the abatement of acid mine drainage projects, to limit the definition in this way would emasculate the purposes and intent of the program. 

Section 872.1 l(b)(l)—Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 

Delete section 872.1 l(b)(4)(ii)(E). 

81

Justification: Based on the arguments articulated above with respect to the use 

of the states’ and tribes’ unappropriated share balances, this section should be deleted. There is no basis to restrict the use of these moneys for noncoal reclamation. 

Section 872.13—Other Treasury Funds for Abandoned Mine Reclamation 

Programs 

Change the reference in the introductory phrase of subparagraphs (a) and (b) to 

read: ‘‘872.1 l(b)(l)(vi) and (b)(2)(vi)’’—NOT ‘‘(vii)’’. 

Change Subparagraph (a) and (b) to read as follows: ‘‘Notwithstanding Sec. 872.1 

l(b)(l)(vi) and (b)(2)(vi), from funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated and 

transferred to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 402(i)(2) of the Act, 

effective October 1, 2007, OSM shall make payments to States and Indian tribes....’’ 

Also, in subparagraph (a), change the reference to ‘‘prior balance funds’’ to ‘‘prior 

balance payments’’. 

Change section 872.13(a)(3) to read as follows: ‘‘States and Indian tribes may 

apply for and receive these annual installments in grants, following the provision 

of Section 886. Unless a certified State or Indian tribe specifically requests that 

OSM disburse funds due the State or Tribe in whole or in part through a grant or 

grants, payments referred to in Section 41 l(h)(l)(A) (prior balance payments) shall 

be made in one lump sum payment to the State or Tribe no later than 90 days after 

the start of the federal fiscal year in which the payment is due.’’

Change section 872.13(b)(3) as follows: delete the current language and insert the 

following: ‘‘Unless a certified State or Indian tribe specifically requests that funds 

be disbursed through a grant or grants following the provisions of section 886, payments referred to in Section 41 l(h)(2)(A) (in lieu of payments) shall be made annually in one lump sum payment to the State or Tribe no later than 90 days after 

the end of the federal fiscal year in which the collections are made.’’

Change section 872.1 l(b)(4) by striking the word ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’. 

Justification: All of these changes are intended to reflect the discretionary authority vested in the Secretary to make payments to states and tribes through either 

grants or direct payments, depending on the preference and needs of the respective 

state or tribe. Section 411 (h) uses the term ‘‘payments’’ which appears to embrace 

a wider degree of flexibility regarding distribution of funds other than just grants. 

See also the discussion on this topic above. 

Change subparagraph 872.13(a)(5) to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) States and Indian tribes that are not certified under section 41 l(a) of the Act 

shall use any amounts available under this paragraph to achieve the priorities described in sections 403(a)(l),(2) and (3) of the Act, for water supply restoration under 

sections 403(b)(l) and (2) of the Act, for AMD abatement under section 402(g)(6) and 

for noncoal reclamation under section 409 of the Act.’’

Justification: The 2006 Amendments at Section 41 l(h)(l)(D)(ii) state that the unappropriated prior state and tribal share funds must be used as described at section 

403. In interpreting the meaning of sections 411 and 403, the entire statute must 

be read in context. When doing so, it is clear that section 403 is modified by section 

409. Section 409 provides for expenditure of funds at any priority 1 or 2 site, regardless of commodity mined. Furthermore, section 409(b) states that the 50% state and 

tribal share can be used for noncoal reclamation (referencing section 402(g)). The 

unappropriated state and tribal shares are in fact the balance of the 50% shares 

referenced in section 402(g) that have been held in abeyance over the years. There 

should be little ambiguity that this money is available for noncoal reclamation (as 

well as for the 30% AMD set-aside). If Congress had intended to somehow qualify 

or restrict the use of the unappropriated balances, it could easily have done so in 

section 411. However, it failed to do so and thus we can only assume that the traditional funding mechanism that has prevailed over the past 30 years remains intact. 

Such an interpretation is also consistent with the purposes and objectives of Title 

IV of SMCRA, which are to protect citizens from the adverse impacts of past mining 

practices—both coal and noncoal. 

Add a new subparagraph 872.13(b)(5) as follows: ‘‘Payments referred to in section 

872.13(b)(3) to certified States and Tribes shall be used with priority given to abandoned coal mine reclamation needs until the State or Tribe and OSM determine that 

abandoned coal mine reclamation is substantially complete. Thereafter, current in 

lieu payments will be used for purposes established by the state legislature or tribal 

council.’’

Justification: The law and draft rules are unclear as to how certified states and 

tribes may use current in lieu funds when the state or tribe has completed abandoned coal mine reclamation. Current in lieu funds in excess of those required for 

completion of abandoned coal mine reclamation should be used for purposes estabVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
82

lished by the state legislature or tribal council with priority given to addressing the 

impacts of mineral development. 

Section 873.12—Future set-aside program criteria 

In subparagraph (a), change the last phrase to read as follows: ‘‘...are expended 

by the State or Indian tribe solely to achieve the priorities stated in Sections 403(a) 

and 409 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1233 and 1239, after September 30, 1995’’. 

Justification: This adjustment is needed to clarify that funds set-aside by the 

states prior to December 12, 2006 are available for both coal and noncoal work. 

Section 875.15—Reclamation priorities for noncoal program. 

Delete Subparagraphs (c) - (f)-

Justification: These subparagraphs must be deleted in order to be consistent with 

the new provisions in the 2006 Amendments at section 41 l(h)(l)(D)(i) regarding use 

of AML funds by certified states and tribes. Pursuant to this section of the 2006 

Amendments, certified states and tribes are allowed to use their AML funds ‘‘for the 

purposes established by the State legislature or tribal council of the Indian tribe, 

with priority given for addressing the impacts of mineral development’’. Thus those 

provisions in OSM’s existing regulations that provide for a concurrence role by the 

OSM Director are no longer applicable and should be removed. Furthermore, as we 

argue above, the payment mechanism that will attend the distribution of these 

funds will likely be different than what has occurred in the past, and therefore the 

provisions in subparagraphs (c), (e) and (f) will likely no longer be applicable. 

Section 876—Acid Mine Drainage Treatment and Abatement Program 

Section 876.12 Eligibility—add the following: ‘‘or up to 30% of the funds received 

pursuant to Section 412 l(h)(l) of the Act.’’

Justification: this language clarifies that up to 30% of the prior unappropriated 

state and tribal share balances distributed form Treasury funds may be deposited 

into state and tribal AMD set-aside funds. 

Section 886.12(b)—Coverage and amount of grants. 

Change subparagraph (b) to read: ‘‘Grants shall be approved for reclamation of 

eligible lands and water in accordance with sections 404 and 411 of the Act and 30 

CFR 874.12, 875.12 and 875.14, and in accordance with the priorities stated in sections 403, 409 and 411 of the Act....’’

Justification: We have added section 409 as part of the priority reference to be 

consistent with the above changes regarding noncoal reclamation and to specifically 

reference noncoal lands. 

Section 886.13 (b)—Grant period 

Change subparagraph (b) to read as follows: ‘‘The Director shall approve a grant 

period on the basis of the information contained in the grant application. The grant 

period should normally be for 3 years, and may be extended. Grants of funds distributed in Fiscal Years 2008, 2009 and 2010 shall be awarded for 5 years.’’

Justification: We understand that OSM will not require specific projects to be listed in the grant application, so this phrase has been removed. We also Understand 

that OSM will allow extensions of the normal 3 year grant period and that those 

extensions may be for more than one year, which we believe is appropriate. Finally, 

we assert that the 2006 Amendments specifically call for a 5 year grant period for 

Fiscal Years 2008-2010 and that this is a mandatory requirement. 

One further note: it does not appear that the section 41 l(h)(l) Treasury funds are 

subject to any of the grant period timelines established by section 402(g)(l)(D). Nor 

does there appear to be any authority in the Act to establish timelines for the use 

of 411 funds. Thus, an annual distribution payment in the full amount due under 

section 411 should be available as an option for grants to each state/tribe, which 

in turn could be deposited into a separate state account and considered state funds 

and used without restriction for any section 403 priority (including AMD abatement). 

Section 886.16(a)—Grant agreements. 

Change subparagraph (a) to read as follows: ‘‘OSM shall prepare a grant agreement that includes a general statement of the types of work to be covered by the 

grant.’’

Justification: We assert that the grant agreement need only contain a general 

statement of the types of work to be covered by the grant, not a listing of specific 

projects. This change is intended to clarify that intent. 

83

Section 886.26—Unused Funds 

Delete subsections 886.26 (a)(iii) and (iv). Also, delete subparagraph 886.26(b) and 

add the following: ‘‘Deobligation requirements do not apply to certified States and 

Tribes.’’

Justification: No treasury payments should be subject to deobligation requirements. OSM should work with the states and tribes to insure that funds do not revert back to the Treasury. With maximum flexibility in designing payment protocols 

and with appropriate grant periods and applicable requirements, there should be no 

need for reversion of these payments, especially if OSM and the states/tribes are 

working together to closely monitor the situation. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and trust that OSM will 

give them serious consideration as the agency moves forward with the development 

of the proposed and interim final rules. We would welcome the opportunity to meet 

with OSM to further discuss the draft rules, should you so desire. Should you have 

any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely,

John Husted 

President, NAAMLP 

Gregory E. Conrad 

Executive Director, IMCC 

Attachment

cc: NAAMLP Member States and Tribes 

IMCC Commissioners


37013.023
84


37013.024 37013.025
85

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Corra. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN CORRA, DIRECTOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Mr. CORRA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you 

and the members of the Committee for inviting the State of Wyoming to testify today. 

I am here to speak about the successful implementation of 

SMCRA, and to express a few concerns over the implementation of 

the recently passed amendment to that Act. 


37013.026
86

Wyoming is the nation’s leading producer of coal, providing fuel 

for over 35 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electric power, and by 

far the largest contributor to the Abandoned Mine Land Account. 

Clearly, the success of SMCRA and how well it functions in the future is of critical importance to my state. 

Although my remarks are somewhat Wyoming-centric, they are 

shared by the other western states and the Reclamation Committee 

of the Western Interstate Energy Board. Over half the nation’s coal 

production comes from our sister states in the West. 

Over the years, 134,000 acres have been disturbed by coal 

mining in Wyoming. A true measure of the success of SMCRA is 

that almost half of those acres have already been reclaimed. An example of successful reclamation is the Dave Johnson Mine in Wyoming, where the land has been reclaimed to the point where the 

untrained eye cannot tell the difference between the native undisturbed land and the reclaimed land. I have posters behind me that 

demonstrate that. 

The photographs illustrate some of these lands. Notice the abundance of shrubs, a feat that can be extremely challenging in the 

arid West, particularly in Wyoming, where many areas have annual rainfall of less than 15 inches. 

Another example is the designation of part of the reclamation at 

the Jacobs Ranch Mine as crucial winter habitat for elk. And that 

declaration was made by the Wyoming Game and Fish Division. 

Another success of SMCRA is the maturation of the relationship 

between the states and the Office of Surface Mining. Initially there 

was a high level of confrontation and a lack of trust. This relationship has changed for the better. There is a desire to assist the 

states and be responsive to the states’ needs, as evidenced by several technical assistance programs now available. These programs 

help the states because of their ability to marshal resources far 

greater than what the individual states can afford. 

These programs also contribute to the development of state 

staffs. This has allowed Wyoming to respond to ever-increasing coal 

production while reducing the number of staff due to shortfalls in 

the Federal grant. I have a couple of exhibits behind me, Mr. 

Chairman, that demonstrate those trends. 

Another success story is the cooperative relationship with the industry that we regulate. Over the years we have come to understand the value of being responsive to each other’s needs. To be effective and efficient, we have learned that open and honest communication is essential. We are truly partners in protecting the environment. 

The biggest challenge facing the states is funding. State regulatory programs provide an incredible return on the investment of 

Federal dollars. In Tennessee, where the OSM has the responsibility to administer SMCRA, the cost to the Federal government is 

$1.13 a ton of coal mined. In contrast, neighboring Virginia has primacy, and the cost to the Federal government is a mere 11 cents 

a ton. The difference is remarkable. 

The other important part of SMCRA that I want to discuss is 

Title IV, abandoned mine lands. Although much success has been 

experienced, this success is spotty. The Act requires that 50 percent of the abandoned mine land fees be returned to the states to 

87

deal with the environmental consequences and legacy of past mining. 

In Wyoming, the closure of 1,500 hazardous mine openings and 

the reclamation of over 32,000 acres of land are just a couple of examples of success. With respect to AML non-coal work, I want to 

point out that over the past 20 years, OSM has recognized the importance of providing support to western states to clean up the 

overwhelming number of abandoned non-coal sites. 

Speaking for Wyoming, we have been very pleased with the balance of support from OSM. At this time, however, we cannot predict that the future will be as productive as the past, primarily due 

to current rulemaking that will implement the changes to SMCRA. 

Although OSM has been very kind in allowing the states to provide 

their viewpoints on rulemaking, I am compelled to express some 

very serious concerns. 

Much of the state share of the fee collected was never returned. 

Using Wyoming as a case-in-point, over $500 million has been 

withheld over the years. The amendments, in part, are intended to 

rectify that, as well as other problems associated with the funds 

flow to the states. 

From Wyoming’s perspective, the OSM appears to be using old 

tools to implement the requirements of the new Act, primarily in 

the form of the existing grant process, to manage and distribute fee 

collections. The new language in the recent amendments requires 

that certified states, such as Wyoming, will receive their unappropriated balance in seven equal payments, beginning in Fiscal 

Year 2008. It further requires that the state’s share of annual fee 

collections going forward be in the form of a payment from the U.S. 

Treasury in lieu of an actual distribution from the current fees collected. 

The traditional administrative process, which consists of the 

states applying for, and the OSM approving and authorizing, 

projects and grants does not serve the intent of the Act, and would 

be seriously flawed. 

I conclude by reinforcing the key variables to ensure that we 

build on our past successes and avoid the mistakes. First is to ensure that the professional relationships that have been built between the regulated community, the states, and the Federal government continue to be nurtured. 

Second, the serious funding shortfalls must be addressed to ensure that we maintain efficiency and not lose effectiveness. 

Last, we need to take great care in drafting the rules that will 

implement the amendments to SMCRA. This is an opportunity to 

truly leverage what we have learned over the years, and ensure 

that the pressing reclamation needs across the country are addressed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corra follows:]

Statement of John Corra, Director,

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is John Corra. I am the Director of the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. I wish to thank you and the members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources for inviting the State of Wyoming to testify at this hearing today. 

88

I am here to speak about the excellent history and successful implementation of 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and to express 

a few concerns over the implementation of the recently passed Amendment to that 

Act. Wyoming is the nations leading producer of coal, and by far the largest contributor to the Abandoned Mine Land reclamation program. Clearly the success of 

SMCRA and how well it functions in the future is of critical importance to my State. 

Although my remarks are somewhat Wyoming centric, they are shared by the 

other western states and the Reclamation Committee of the Western Interstate 

Energy Board which is associated with the Western Governor’s Association. 

With the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, Wyoming coal production started 

a steady increase. Today, Wyoming is the country’s largest producer of coal with 

production approaching 450 million tons per year; more than double that of any 

other state. Wyoming coal is used to generate over thirty five percent of the county’s 

coal generated electrical power. Over half the nation’s coal production comes from 

the western states. 

Coal mining is by far the most stringently regulated mineral extraction industry 

and yet has seen tremendous growth since the passage of SMCRA. The biggest success of SMCRA has been the ability to accommodate this growth while still achieving compliance with the regulatory requirements. For example, over 134,000 acres 

have been disturbed by coal mining in Wyoming (an area that is nearly three and 

a half times the size of the District of Columbia). A true measure of success is the 

reclamation, and almost half of those acres have been reclaimed. Several innovative 

approaches to creative reclamation have been developed and implemented in Wyoming and at other western coal mines, resulting in better and more cost effective 

reclamation. These include the use of variable topsoil replacement depths to achieve 

specific vegetation goals; the creation of bluff features to replace natural features 

removed by mining; and the replacement of alluvial valley floors. Coal operators in 

Wyoming and the western states have won numerous reclamation awards as a result. 

An example of successful reclamation is the Dave Johnston Mine in Wyoming 

where the land has been reclaimed to the point where the untrained eye cannot tell 

the difference between the native-undisturbed land and the reclaimed land. The attached Photographs 1 thru 4 illustrate some of these reclaimed lands. Notice the 

abundance of shrubs, a feat that can be extremely challenging in the arid West, particularly in Wyoming where many areas have annual rainfall of less than 15 inches. 

These shrubs provide important habitat for sage grouse which was considered for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. Another example is the designation of 

part of the reclamation at the Jacobs Ranch Mine in Wyoming as Elk Crucial Winter Range by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (see attached Photograph 

5). 

Another success of SMCRA is the maturation of the relationship between the 

states and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Wyoming, as with many other 

states, had a coal regulatory program in place prior to the passage of SMCRA. Initially, there was a high level of confrontation between the state regulatory agencies 

and OSM. The states felt that OSM’s attitude was ‘‘we’re here to tell you how to 

do it right’’ and the states’ attitude was ‘‘we know what we’re doing as we were 

doing it long before you were created.—There was also a lack of trust as the states 

felt OSM was primarily interested in catching the states doing something wrong. 

This relationship diverted energy and resources from the true purpose of SMCRA—

that of protecting citizens and the environment from the impacts of coal mining. 

This relationship has changed for the better. Most within OSM truly have a desire 

to assist the states and be responsive to the states’ needs. Programs that have exemplified this attitude include the Western Regional Office of Technology Transfer, 

OSM’s National Technical Training Program and the Technical Innovation and Professional Services Program. These programs provide great assistance to the states 

because of their ability to marshal resources far greater than what individual states 

could afford. Wyoming has used this assistance to improve our technical capabilities 

in the area of Global Positioning Systems to track reclamation progress and problem 

areas in the field. The OSM’s technical assistance and training programs have also 

contributed to staff development. This has allowed Wyoming to respond to ever increasing coal production while reducing the number of staff devoted to coal due to 

shortfalls in the federal grant. 

The heart of any program and the key to its success or failure is the people who 

implement it. With the maturation of the coal regulatory program is a corresponding 

maturation of the staff, both in the states and in OSM. The states have been successful in attracting and retaining well-educated staff, many of whom have been 

with the program for more than 20 years. This experience is a key ingredient in 

the success of the regulatory program. Many of the environmental issues that we 

89

face are long term issues and retaining and developing an experienced staff is therefore a high priority. 

The science of reclamation is still young and progress takes time and people who 

are willing to devote their time and energy to the work. When SMCRA was passed 

30 years ago, achieving successful revegetation in arid and semi-areas with less 

than 15 inches of average annual precipitation was considered to be nearly impossible. The mines have demonstrated revegetation is possible. Over the past 30 years, 

dedicated individuals with the state and the mines have developed new reclamation 

techniques and seed mixes to enhance reclamation. Not only to achieve success at 

the end of the ten year bond liability period, but beyond. 

Another of the key elements in our maturing programs is the development of a 

cooperative relationship with the industry that we regulate. In the early years of 

our program there was a great deal of distrust, animosity and a generally adversarial relationship all around. Over the years we have come to understand the value 

of being responsive to each other’s needs. In order for our programs to be effective 

and efficient we have learned that open and honest communication is essential. The 

industry needs to understand the regulators’ concerns and vice versa. The industry 

and the agencies have learned that we are truly partners in protecting the environment. Partnership is founded on mutual trust and respect. An adversarial relationship is not generally effective for either side. This partnership has been crucial as 

our staffing levels have decreased. 

The biggest challenge facing the states is funding and this is also the biggest failure of SMCRA. Section 705 authorizes the Secretary to make annual grants to 

states with approved State Programs for 50% of the cost of the program. This 

amount is increased for states with cooperative agreements for federal lands by an 

amount not to exceed the amount the Federal Government would have expended if 

the state had not entered into a cooperative agreement. This has not happened and 

Title V Grants to the states have not kept pace with inflation. 

Attached Figure 1 shows the rise of western production along with the level of 

Title V grants to the western states. The grants have been adjusted to constant 

1994 dollars to account for inflation. The chart shows that, adjusted for inflation, 

grants to western states have actually decreased. Western programs are typically 

small in size even though coal production is equal to or greater than eastern or mid 

continent states. For example, Wyoming has the largest staff with 24 employees, 

while other states have less than 20 people. And, there are some state staffs with 

fewer than ten people. A small shortfall in funding can have a huge impact on our 

programs. 

States are faced with two choices. One is to use state funds to make up the shortage in the federal grant. While this has occurred, states at times are faced with 

budget constraints of their own. Even for states with robust economies, there is little desire by state legislatures to accept unfunded federal mandates. The other option is to reduce the size of their programs and operate at lower levels of service. 

Vacancies go unfilled and staff is transferred to other programs. The loss of one or 

two staff positions due to grant shortages can mean a five to ten percent reduction 

in the program effectiveness. This can be devastating to a small program. Montana, 

Utah and Wyoming have all experienced a reduction in coal program staffing levels 

due to grant shortfalls. This trend cannot continue without significant impacts to 

the quality of the programs, i.e., permitting and compliance responsibilities and 

mine site reclamation. In Wyoming, coal production is soon expected to reach 500 

million tons per year. We will not be able to maintain our permitting, inspecting 

and enforcement capabilities at current levels if the downward trend in staffing continues (see Figure 2). Building on the success of SMCRA over the past 30 years will 

be very difficult, perhaps impossible, unless federal funding policies are changed. 

The experience in Tennessee highlights the importance of OSM adequately funding state programs. Tennessee relinquished its state program and it is now a federal 

program state where OSM is the regulatory authority. In FY 2005, 2.98 million tons 

of coal was produced in Tennessee. OSM spent $3.37 million on this program for 

a regulatory cost of $1.13 per ton. For the same year, coal production in neighboring 

Virginia was 29.64 million tons. The total cost of Virginia’s program was $6.8 million or $0.23 per ton. OSM’s grant share of that cost is a mere 11 cents per ton! 

There is a huge difference between the cost of OSM implementing a coal program 

and the states doing so. By extrapolation, it is estimated the cost of running federal 

programs in the western states would be $56 million. By contrast the western states 

are only asking for $9 million in their grants for the federal cost share of their programs. SMCRA anticipated issuing grants to the states to pay for implementing the 

coal program as if OSM were to implement the program. The states are requesting 

an amount far less than that. The federal government is getting a fantastic return 

for the money spent on state grants, but the ability to sustain high quality programs 

90

into the future is jeopardized. For the continued success of SMCRA, the shortfall 

in the federal grants to the states must be addressed. 

The other important part of SMCRA that I want to discuss is Title IV—Abandoned Mine Lands. Although much success has been experienced, this success is 

spotty. The intent of SMCRA not only was to address the impacts from active mines 

but also pre-law mined areas that were never reclaimed. Many of these sites not 

only severely impact the environment but posed dangerous risks to human health 

and safety. To address these issues, SMCRA imposed a fee on coal production to 

fund the intent of Title IV. The Act requires that 50% of all abandoned mine land 

fees collected by the federal government be returned to the states for use in reclaiming abandoned mines, and to deal with the environmental consequences and legacy 

from mining conducted prior to enactment of SMCRA in 1977. 

State level Abandoned Mine Land Programs have had great success as evidenced 

by the large amount of work completed. This has been possible through the excellent 

efforts of state personnel and the cooperation from OSM over the years. In Wyoming, since 1983, AML has closed 1,500 hazardous mine openings, reclaimed over 

32,000 acres of disturbed land, abated or controlled 25 mine fires and thirty eight 

miles of hazardous highwalls have been reduced to safer slopes. Additionally, over 

$80 million has been spent to mitigate and prevent coal mine subsidence in residential and commercial areas of five Wyoming communities, and $84 million have been 

invested in infrastructure projects in communities impacted by past mining. We also 

maintain an active partnership with federal agencies to eliminate mine-related hazards on federal lands. 

The AML program’s failure is that much of the state share of the fee collected 

was never returned to the states, thus postponing the important work that was intended to be completed by Congress at the time of passage of SMCRA. Using Wyoming as a case in point, over $500 million has been withheld over the years. Meanwhile, impacts to the environment continue and lives continue to be lost in old mine 

workings. 

With respect to AML non-coal work, I want to point out that over the past 20 

years OSM has recognized the importance of providing support to western states to 

clean up the overwhelming number of abandoned non-coal sites. Speaking for Wyoming, we have been very pleased with the balance of support from OSM. At this 

time, however, we cannot predict that the future will be as productive as the past, 

primarily due to current rulemaking that will implement the changes to SMCRA 

from the recently passed Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments 

(Amendments). Although OSM has been very kind in allowing the states to provide 

their viewpoints on the rulemaking, I am compelled to inform this Committee of 

some very serious concerns. 

From Wyoming’s perspective, the OSM appears to be using old tools to implement 

the requirements of the new Act, primarily in the form of the existing grant process, 

to manage and distribute fee collections. The Amendments specifically state otherwise. The new language in the recent amendments requires that certified states 

such as Wyoming will receive their un-appropriated balance in seven equal payments beginning in FY 2008. It further requires that the state’s share of annual fee 

collections going forward be in the form of a payment from the U.S. Treasury in 

lieu of an actual distribution from current fees collected. 

The traditional administrative process which consists of the state applying for and 

the OSM approving and authorizing projects and grants does not serve the intent 

of the Act and would be seriously flawed. The Act does not specify a grant process, 

and very clearly does say that payments will be made. Indeed, § 401(f)(3)(B) excludes certified states from receiving grants. The Act also specifies that these funds 

are to be used for purposes as established by the state legislature with priority 

given to addressing the impacts of mineral development. Our legislature has already 

moved to position itself to take on this task. A law creating an abandoned mine land 

funds reserve account was passed earlier this year. All funds received from the federal government from the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 must flow into this account and remain there until appropriated by 

the legislature. The Wyoming Legislature has a long history of successfully fulfilling 

its fiduciary responsibilities and competently managing funds distributed from federal accounts. The capability exists to do the same with the fee payments that the 

Act calls for. 

Western states are committed to completing the abandoned coal mine reclamation 

work, and fulfilling the original intent of SMCRA. But they are also faced with significant threats to the environment and to human health and safety from abandoned non-coal mines. Current rulemaking efforts by OSM must allow discretion to 

these states so that this serious problem can be addressed. Each state is unique, 

and the OSM should be flexible and provide a regulatory framework that meets the 

91

needs of each state. We believe that the core Mission of OSM, and the original intent of SMCRA will not be compromised by doing so. 

I conclude by reinforcing the key variables to ensuring that we build on our past 

success and avoid the mistakes. First is to ensure that the professional relationships 

that have been built between the regulated community, the states and the federal 

government continue to be nurtured. Second, the serious funding shortfalls must be 

addressed to ensure that we maintain efficiency and not lose effectiveness. Last, we 

need to take great care in drafting the rules that will implement the Amendments 

to SMCRA. This is an opportunity to truly leverage what we have learned over the 

years, and ensure that the pressing reclamation needs across the country are addressed. 


37013.004
92


37013.005 37013.006
93


37013.007 37013.008
94

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony this 

morning. 

Let me begin by asking you, Secretary Timmermeyer—first, 

thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate it. And before I ask 

the panel the questions I have, let me ask the audience, is there 

anybody from the Office of Surface Mining that has remained with 


37013.009 37013.010
95

us? Anybody here representing the Office of Surface Mining even 

taking notes to send to them? 

Well, I guess they are closely glued to their tubes watching the 

internet, then. I hope they are. 

Madame Secretary, you noted that about 75 percent of all surface 

mining applications in West Virginia set forest land as a post-mining land use. This shows that the state is stepping up to the plate 

in terms of creating natural carbon sinks to capture greenhouse 

gases. 

But at the same time, continuing with the theme that I started 

in my opening remarks and in a question to OSM, to what extent 

are mountaintop removal operations in West Virginia being granted an AOC exemption in providing those post-mining land-use 

plans that the law requires—commercial, et cetera—as opposed to 

timberland? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Well, I know that we recently went through 

rulemaking in West Virginia to do what we could to spur companies to choose forestland as a post-mining land use. And there was 

a lot of deliberation and thought and discussion with scientific and 

technical folks that went into that. 

And so I think that we are just beginning to see that choice of 

a post-mining land use to continue to be used more. And certainly, 

as you said, that is very significant when you talk about climate 

change issues, because a growing forest actually uptakes more carbon dioxide than even an old-growth forest. So that is something 

that is sort of a co-benefit of that. 

And post-mining land use is one of the most important parts of 

SMCRA. And certainly it is our job as regulators to continue to assure that the land is being used for a higher and better purpose. 

And as I said, we have several examples in West Virginia of where 

that is being done. 

The Governor right now is working on, as I mentioned in my 

comments, an Executive Order to continue to take that a step further and make sure that the industry understands that when that 

variance is obtained, that those post-mining land uses should be for 

development purposes, and that there should be things left behind 

for the communities to be used into the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a little further on that last point 

about this Executive Order. As I recall, the Underwood Administration and the Legislature created what is called the Coal Field Development Office, that was supposed to have done just to what you 

refer. More with the framework of these activities is already set 

forth in section 515[c] of the Act, established 30 years ago. And I 

am just wondering, could you elaborate just a little more on that 

framework? On what this new framework is going to be? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Well, there is a Coal Field Community Development Office that has been working with communities on master 

plans, but this really is going to take it a step further. And we are 

bringing in people who haven’t typically been working on this 

issue. We are bringing in many of the state’s economic development 

leaders and science leaders to work on the issue, to try to promote 

more economic development opportunities on post-mining land use 

sites. 

96

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I was aware that this is going a little 

further than previous efforts, as far as being more inclusive of 

those that are involved in not only post-land use planning, but also 

economic development and the new technologies and the new businesses we are seeking as we seek to diversify our economy. 

It does involve much more. We are involved with it at the Rahall 

Transportation Institute, for example, with Marshall, and working 

with these economic development planners in developing better 

post-mine uses of the land. So I appreciate that effort that you and 

the Governor are making. 

Deputy Chief Husted, let me ask you. I note the three unresolved 

issues the states still have with OSM, with respect to implementing the changes in the law that Congress passed last year, 

this is a concern. But I think overall most of the states are pretty 

flush as a result of these amendments, which made the states’ 

grants mandatory, no longer subject to the whims, the caprices, the 

annual appropriation process. 

My question is, to what extent are the states prepared to now 

spend those funds for on-the-ground reclamation? Are contracts, for 

example, being expeditiously entered into? 

Mr. HUSTED. Mr. Chairman, to answer your question across the 

board, for all the 30 states and tribes, I would have a difficult time 

saying what collectively was being done. I can give you an example 

of what is happening in Ohio. 

For the last six months we have been working on a reorganization plan to be able to structure our organization to be able to handle the increased funds that will be made available to the state for 

the purposes of being able to do abandoned mine land reclamation. 

My assumption is that you will be seeing the same sort of efforts 

taking place in other states and tribes. 

We won’t be seeing the large increase come for about another two 

to three years. But if Ohio is any example, you have states and 

tribes out there looking at their programs and trying to organize 

themselves in such a way so that they can efficiently and effectively spend that new money. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any others wish to comment on that question? 

Mr. CONRAD. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that part of the case 

that we attempted to make to Congress over the course of the last 

several years regarding the need for reauthorization for increased 

funding was the fact that there are several of these projects on the 

shelf, ready to go. And I believe that the states are preparing now 

to move forward with many of those. 

The bigger frustration continues to be with some of the minimum 

program states, who also have these larger projects that sometimes 

take multi-millions of dollars to actually effectuate the project. And 

hence, their concern about moving that funding forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Madame Secretary? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would say that it is an 

interesting and uncommon problem to have in environmental protection that we have more money than we can spend right now. 

Certainly what we want to do is have a plan for spending that 

money responsibly. 

I think that the real test will be 15, 25 years from now, if people 

look back and say did this agency have a plan in place, and did 

97

they use the monies appropriately and responsibly for not only reclaiming the land, but also for making sure we don’t have a legacy 

of acid mine drainage problems in the state, and also to get water 

to those folks who had their water infrastructure affected by these 

pre-law sites. 

So we are certainly working feverishly to be able to get a 

program together as well in West Virginia to spend the money 

appropriately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Glad to hear that. The gentleman from 

New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony that each one of you have given. 

Director Corra, there is discussion right now here in Congress 

about climate change. And on the cutting edge of that discussion 

is the coal industry, because there are people saying we can’t use 

coal to produce that. 

If we experience a decrease in production based on something 

that we might do here in Congress, what happens to the AML program, the Abandoned Mine Land Program? If production drops, 

how drastically is the AML affected? 

Mr. CORRA. Mr. Chairman, speaking for the State of Wyoming, 

the amount of money that we presume will be sent to us by OSM 

is sufficient to take care of our problems going forward. As coal 

production is impacted by any Federal legislation, it is our sense 

that the impacts will be gradual rather than abrupt, and fees will 

continue to be paid. 

I might add that Wyoming is a certified state, and so what we 

receive actually is a payment in lieu of the fees that are collected 

from Wyoming, from the Treasury. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. Secretary Timmermeyer, I appreciate 

your observation, and I really appreciate the balance in the comment that we are to reduce the impact, and yet keep people in 

business. I think that that is an evolved point of view that is very 

productive, and I appreciate that. 

You were mentioning the companies that were walking away 

since we implemented SMCRA. The companies that would walk 

away probably started before that, but of the start-ups after 

SMCRA, do you find the walk-away occurring at all, or very limited? How does that compare to before? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. I think it certainly occurs less because of the 

program we have in place about companies, once they have walked 

away, cannot mine again, those types of issues. 

But as with any business, it really trends. And we have seen 

throughout the years since SMCRA, there will be a lot of bankruptcies. And that just sort of goes with coal production, up and 

down. 

I think the issue that you raised with the smaller companies 

going out of business, and now that we have larger companies 

doing business is an important point. Because now when companies 

do walk away, we have a lot larger sites and multiple sites on our 

hands to deal with in our special reclamation program, which deals 

with those post-law, post-SMCRA bankruptcy sites. 

And so that has been an interesting twist on the way that we 

have to deal with that program. But fortunately we have a process 

98

in place in West Virginia, as the Chairman is well aware, the recently authorized seven-up tax that was put on coal to help deal 

with the older special reclamation sites. And we are continuing to 

work into the future with dealing with ones that are current. 

Now that really is evolving into thinking about what to do with 

those facilities which have perpetual AMD treatment issues. And 

so now we are talking about the next generation of how to deal 

with those sites, which may be water trusts and those types of 

things. 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, your testimony, to me—in fact, the testimony 

of all four of the participants—came across pretty positive that we 

are moving our way to protecting our environment, and yet still 

providing a significant energy resource for the country. 

Has your office, Secretary, done anything, any research about the 

coal-to-liquid discussion? In other words, that is another thing that 

is very highly politically charged. People saying it is absolutely not 

possible. And yet if it were possible, then coal could be really a tremendous help to us providing energy. Has your department done 

anything on studies about the safety of coal to liquids? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Yes, sir, really at the request of Governor 

Manchin, along with my fellow agencies in the state. We have been 

working on that issue. We have all had folks in our agencies actually do site visits for other states that are trying to introduce this 

technology. 

And really, the first stage of that obviously is gasification before 

you liquefy. And so we are working diligently right now on a potential facility that will come into West Virginia to start that first 

stage of it, and then possibly move to that next stage. 

So certainly it is a technology that many feel has been in place 

in other countries. And to the extent that that will help with our 

energy independence in West Virginia, our Governor is certainly 

very interested in that, and we continue to work on that issue. 

Mr. PEARCE. And that conversion can be done with an environmentally safe impact? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. That would be the key to making it happen. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time 

is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you 

for being here today. 

First of all, a point of clarification. Are all six or seven of those 

binders one permit? 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Yes, sir, this is one permit that was signed 

this week. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All of them, OK. 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. And this is a separate 1977 one. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. I just wanted to be sure of that. A question 

that I have is concerning the funding. And the debate over the last 

couple years in Congress has been certainly to try to get increased 

funding for abandoned mines, but the debate has raged. Does the 

money go to the West, where now most of the coal is produced, and 

that is where most of the fees are coming from? Or does the bulk 

of it stay in the East, where for the last half of the 1800s and the 

99

first half of the 1900s, coal was, for the most part, coming out of 

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, which fueled the engine of America? 

So that is the debate. 

So I wondered if each of you can comment. I can probably guess 

by where you are from, where you are going to come down. But I 

am especially interested, Mr. Corra, what your view is, and what 

your argument is as to why the West should get—and I know on 

the surface what you are going to say, but give me your argument. 

Why don’t we start with you first? 

Mr. CORRA. Well, Mr. Chairman, there was a bargain struck, if 

you will, when the Act was passed. And the Act clearly describes 

that funds are to be returned to the states, in a specific proportion. 

And that has never happened. And we just have that as a matter 

of principle, and that is our view. 

I might add, though—I think it gets to your question, also—the 

recent amendments to the Act does provide for the actual fee collections which Wyoming coal miners will continue to pay on into the 

future, which will probably amount to about $125 million a year. 

Those actual fee collections are now going to be sent to other states 

where there are significant needs, such as Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia and some of the others. My personal feeling about that is 

that is reasonable. 

In return, what we get is, for our fee share is we will get payments from the Treasury. And quite honestly, Mr. Chair, we are 

still not sure how that is going to happen, and if we will get those 

payments. But we do believe, and we appreciate the efforts of Congress in recognizing the western states, particularly Wyoming, in 

terms of returning those state shares. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Secretary Timmermeyer, if you might respond to 

that. 

Ms. TIMMERMEYER. Well, you are right in your statement that 

the eastern states, like Pennsylvania and like West Virginia and 

also Virginia, made sacrifices years ago. And really, to be able to 

fuel the nation’s economy back during that time. And so it was very 

important to us that that be taken into consideration as the fund 

was reauthorized. 

That said, I think that the result of the reauthorization was a 

compromise, and a very good compromise. And we are certainly excited about the prospects of the monies that we are going to receive 

over the next 15 years. And I think that that is our focus at this 

point. 

Mr. CONRAD. One thing I might add, Congressman, is when we 

were first looking at potential accommodation of everyone’s interests to find a piece of legislation that would work to address this 

issue, there was a meeting, an attempt of the meeting of the minds. 

And some of the states represented at this table came together 

early on to try to resolve those eastern and western differences and 

concerns. And the result of that, from my perspective, was a reauthorization bill that does do that, and will allow us to address the 

high-priority coal issues in the East, as well as the concerns in the 

West. 

Mr. HUSTED. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, I believe 

that the amendments passed in 2006 to SMCRA do address the 

historic coal mining problems that have plagued many of the eastVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
100

ern states. With regards to the fairness between the East and the 

West, I believe that Director Corra addressed that as well as it 

could be. But I am very satisfied with the reauthorization of 

SMCRA that took place in 2006. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I wonder if you could comment—could I ask 

one more quick question—on productivity of reclaimed land. What 

have you found? I saw the pictures there, and you turn them into 

schools. But I am talking more about when you are turning them 

back into forests or other agricultural lands. How has the productivity been on reclaimed land, as compared to land that has not 

been mined? 

Mr. CONRAD. With regard to trees, reforestation——

Mr. SHUSTER. Trees, anything. Growth, agriculture, anything 

that——

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, there are statistics that are gathered on that. 

Several of the universities, like Virginia Tech, Indiana University 

for the mid-continent, for prime farmland productivity, Southern Illinois University, they have been in the forefront of gathering those 

kinds of productivity numbers and doing those kinds of analyses in 

terms of particularly the restoration of the soil to allow those kind 

of productivity numbers to get where they are today. 

And in almost every instance, they are in higher, better condition 

than would have been expected, and in some cases higher and better than before the land was mined. So we are seeing that we are 

able to accomplish that with some of the new technologies and 

techniques that are being used in the reclamation process. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Does anybody else care to comment? 

Mr. CORRA. Mr. Chair, very quickly I would just say in Wyoming, 

we have seen very good productivity. And one of the things that 

was integral to that was some flexibility on the part of OSM in 

working with us, for example on topsoil replacement, which, in the 

arid parts of our state, was pretty significant enabling us to do 

that. But we have seen good productivity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And when good productivity, is that close to, as 

good, or better than before it was mined? That states a general 

question. 

Mr. CORRA. Sure. Mr. Chairman, for the most part, better than 

it was before. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. All of you have commented on Congress’s action in the end of last session, reauthorizing the AML program and how it was a compromise. You have 

saluted many people, and certainly it was a coalition that had to 

come together to produce this legislation. The United Mine Workers deeply involved, the coal industry deeply involved, the Bituminous Coal Operators Association. All of you were involved in it, 

and many across the Appalachian coal fields were involved in putting together this compromise. And finally we were able to secure 

the approval in the Congress. 

I would also like to add and compliment a former member of this 

committee on what was then the majority side, Barbara Cubin, 

from your home state of Wyoming, who was instrumental on this 

effort, as well. We introduced the original Cubin-Rahall language, 

101

a bipartisan legislation that started us down this road to where we 

are today, in a successful piece of legislation. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. Did 

you have any further questions? OK. Thank you. 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panelist is Mr. Cecil E. Roberts, President, United Mine Workers of America. It says on the agenda Fairfax, Virginia, but I know him to be Cabin Creek, West Virginia. 

And the Chair would like to compliment Cecil for his efforts not 

only on behalf of our working men and women in our coal mines 

in West Virginia and across the coal fields, but in so many legislative efforts. Whether it is reauthorization of the AML or whether 

it is the safety and health of our nation’s coal miners, Cecil is a 

true leader. And we are honored to have you here this morning. 

STATEMENT OF CECIL E. ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, UNITED MINE 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to be here today. And I would also like to thank you for your 

years and years of service, particularly to the coal miners of this 

nation. You give me much too much credit with respect to the 

health and safety fights that we have been through. 

I want to thank you for your efforts last year, when we faced a 

tremendous crisis, where 47 miners lost their lives in the nation’s 

coal mines. You and other Members of the House and Senate took 

the leadership position that we needed stronger health and safety 

laws, and you led that fight. And I want to thank you for that. 

I want to thank you for the passage of SMCRA back in 1977. You 

mentioned the Buffalo Creek disaster, which I think was probably 

the impetus for the passage of this law. 

I just want to point out that many UMWA members lived on 

Buffalo Creek. Many UMWA members actually worked for the 

Pittston Company that constructed the impanelment that failed. It 

was a devastating time for all of us. And for you to be able to come 

to Congress as a freshman House Member and pass this law was 

truly a remarkable feat. 

And I would just say to all of us, as we reflect on the benefits 

of SMCRA over the past 30 years, there is certainly a lot of criticism that could be offered, obviously, and it has been offered today. 

But I would just suggest to everyone that we would have had many 

more Buffalo Creeks had we not passed this law 30 years ago. 

I come today as a representative of coal miners. The United Mine 

Workers have been in the coal mines for 117 years. Our original 

fights obviously were for better working conditions in the coal 

mines, fewer working hours underground, more health and safety, 

higher wages and benefits. Miners were originally paid by the ton, 

and that is the only way they got paid. If they didn’t load any coal, 

they didn’t get paid. 

But we have been involved in the early fights over housing for 

coal miners, and the company houses and the company towns, 

fighting over fights dealing with the company store and being 

treated fairly by the company store and their employers. We have 

been in these communities; that is where our people live. With respect to the mountains and the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky 

102

and all across this nation, coal miners do a couple different things. 

They hunt and they fish, and they mine coal, for sure. So it is important to our members that they have these opportunities available to them on a recreational basis, and also a safe and healthful 

place to work. 

I think I should just say to this committee that Congress stepped 

forward to aid coal miners in 1946 and 1947 with the passage or 

the signing of a contract that was signed by the Federal government to provide healthcare to retirees. And one of the main reasons 

I wanted to be here today is to speak to that issue. 

In 1946 the government seized the coal industry, and John L. 

Lewis and the United Mine Workers went on strike. And the government signed a contract with John L. Lewis saying that retirees 

would have lifetime health coverage. 

We talk about abandoned mines. We had abandoned people back 

in 1992. And through your leadership, particularly in the House, 

Mr. Chairman, we were able to pass the Coal Act. And of course, 

with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Byrd in the Senate, we provided legislation that protected coal miners’ healthcare. 

That promise fell apart also as time went on, because some of the 

mechanisms that were put in the original law by Congress collapsed. 

I have just come today to say thank you to you. And I also want 

to mention Representative Cubin from Wyoming; she was very 

helpful with respect to trying to see and deal with the problems of 

retirees from the industry. 

Someone mentioned Horizon Natural Resources here earlier. I 

would just point out that those people who worked for Horizon Natural Resources, a huge company, when it went out of business they 

dumped like 5,000 or so pensioners. The UMWA paid their 

healthcare for eight months while this legislation was pending. 

Now they are covered by healthcare that is funded by the interest 

money that was set up in 1992 originally. 

And then I want to commend you and this committee for the 

work that you did last year. It is so hard to bring all the parties 

together. And I think I should publicly thank everyone that was involved in this. All the states looked at these retirees and said they 

should be taken care of. Every state said that. The environmental 

community said that, and I thank them. And the coal industry said 

we realize that we can’t pass legislation without dealing with these 

people who gave their lives to this industry. 

I will just correct one thing that was said here earlier, when the 

question was posed about how many coal miners are there in the 

United States. And the answer was about 250,000. That is incorrect. There are less than 100,000 coal miners in the United States. 

I think that number varies somewhere between 65,000 to 75,000 

nationwide. 

But I would point out, and then I will take any questions that 

you have, that there are many people who make their living supporting the coal industry. And just to give you an example of that, 

there are 700,000 people that have a job in West Virginia. One 

hundred thousand of them are tied somehow to the coal industry, 

and there are only approximately 14,000 to 17,000 coal miners in 

West Virginia. So the remainder of those people are supporting the 

103

coal industry. So there is a lot of jobs indirectly tied to this industry that provides good wages and good benefits, and I thought it 

would be helpful to correct that error from previous testimony. 

I would be glad—I know I went over a bit, and I apologize for 

that. But I will take any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]

Statement of Cecil E. Roberts, President,

United Mine Workers of America 

Chairman Rahall, members of the Committee, I am Cecil E. Roberts, President 

of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). The UMWA is a labor union that 

has represented the interests of coal miners and other workers and their families 

in the United States and Canada for over 117 years. We appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before the Committee to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), an historic piece of legislation that continues to be of vital importance to mining communities across this nation. 

When enacting the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977, Congress found that ‘‘surface and underground coal mining operations affect interstate 

commerce, contribute to the economic well-being, security, and general welfare of 

the Nation and should be conducted in an environmentally sound manner.’’ That 

statement is as true today as it was in 1977. Coal mining contributes significantly 

to our national economy by providing the fuel for over half of our nation’s electricity 

generation. Coal miners are proud to play their part in supplying our nation with 

domestically-produced, cost-effective, reliable energy. We also live in the communities most affected by coal mining and support the intent of Congress that coal 

mining must be conducted in an environmentally sound manner. 

Throughout our 117 year history, the UMWA has been in the forefront of bringing 

social, economic and environmental justice to our members and the nation’s coal 

fields. Our members toil in the nation’s coal mines to provide domestically-produced 

energy that helps fuel our economy. The UMWA’s goal is to protect the interests 

of our members on the job and when they return home to their families after a hard 

day’s work. The UMWA has led the fight throughout our history to enact tough 

mine health and safety laws to protect miners on the job. Unfortunately, advancements in health and safety too often happen only after miners are killed on the job, 

as we all witnessed again last year. We have fought for compensation laws to assist 

those who are injured and occupational disease laws to provide for those whose 

health has been taken from them. The UMWA has also been in the forefront of providing health care and pensions to workers, establishing one of the first industrywide multiemployer benefit plans. Through the historic 1946 Krug-Lewis Agreement—signed in the White House between Secretary of the Interior Julius Krug and 

UMWA President John L. Lewis—the UMWA, the coal industry and the federal government created the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds. Over the last 60 years 

the UMWA Funds has provided pensions and health care to hundreds of thousands 

of our nation’s coal miners and helped to modernize the delivery of health care in 

coal field communities across the nation. 

Indeed, years ago the Funds established ten regional offices throughout the coal 

fields with the direction to make arrangements with local doctors and hospitals for 

the provision of ‘‘the highest standard of medical service at the lowest possible cost.’’ 

One of the first programs initiated by the Funds was a rehabilitation program for 

severely disabled miners. Under this program, more than 1,200 severely disabled 

miners were rehabilitated. The Funds identified disabled miners and sent them to 

the finest rehabilitation centers in the United States. At those centers, they received 

the best treatment that modern medicine and surgery had to offer, including artificial limbs and extensive physical therapy to teach them how to walk again. After 

a period of physical restoration, the miners received occupational therapy so they 

could provide for their families. 

The Funds also made great strides in improving overall medical care in coal 

mining communities, especially in Appalachia where the greatest inadequacies existed. Recognizing the need for modern hospital and clinic facilities, the Funds constructed ten hospitals in Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. The hospitals, 

known as Miners Memorial Hospitals, provided intern and residency programs and 

training for professional and practical nurses. Thus, because of the Funds, young 

doctors were drawn to areas of the country that were sorely lacking in medical professionals. A 1978 Presidential Coal Commission found that medical care in the coal 

field communities had greatly improved, not only for miners but for the entire comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
104

munity, as a result of the UMWA Funds. ‘‘Conditions since the Boone Report have 

changed dramatically, largely because of the miners and their Union—but also because of the Federal Government, State, and coal companies.’’ The Commission concluded that ‘‘both union and non-union miners have gained better health care from 

the systems developed for the UMWA.’’ Federal funds have substantially improved 

the overall quality of medical care in these previously under-served communities. 

Mr. Chairman, you know America’s coal miners about as well as anyone I know. 

I think you would agree that they value the natural resources that God has given 

us. In their free time, you will find many of them fishing in the streams and hunting in the forests throughout the coalfields. Because of their love of the land, they 

are strong defenders of the need for responsible reclamation laws. Because they 

work in a vital energy industry, they also know that the nation needs the product 

of their labor. Perhaps more than most, they understand the need for responsible 

policies that balance our need for energy with our need to protect the environment. 

We believe the 1977 Surface Mining Act struck the right balance and the authors 

and supporters of that effort should be proud of their accomplishments. I know that 

Chairman Rahall was a member of the Committee at that time and a strong supporter of SMCRA during the Congressional debates of the 1970s and ever since. We 

are proud to say that the UMWA has been a steadfast supporter of SMCRA 

throughout its 30 year history. While more than $5.7 billion has been appropriated for mine site reclamation 

since 1978, there are still many more sites requiring attention. With the reauthorization of the AML program as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act last December, Congress extended the AML Fund for 15 years. States and tribes will finally start to receive the resources they need to take care of the reclamation projects 

within their respective jurisdictions. The 2006 AML reauthorization also provided 

the long term financial solution for the health care of the thousands of abandoned 

retired coal miners and their dependents whose employers went out of business and 

ceased fulfilling their contractual promises to pay for their retirees’ health care. 

Coal miners especially appreciate the substantial financial support SMCRA has 

provided through the Abandoned Mine Land Fund (AML) to reclaim abandoned coal 

mines in the coal field communities. Through the AML Fund, mining communities 

across this country have received billions of dollars—monies collected through fees 

imposed on a per ton basis for all coal that is mined in the United States—to clean 

up abandoned coal mines. While the overwhelming majority of these funds has paid 

for the reclamation of abandoned mines, with the passage of the 1992 Coal Act, interest earned on the AML principal since 1995 has been used to help support the 

health care needs of abandoned retired coal miners. In other words, the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act has provided essential support for both the 

needs of abandoned coal mines and abandoned retired miners and their dependents. 

Once again, Chairman Rahall and other members of this Committee played a vital 

role in ensuring that the needs of abandoned coal miners were not forgotten. 

When Congress authorized the use of AML interest to help finance the cost of 

health care for retired coal miners, it was a logical extension of the original intent 

of Congress when the AML Fund was established. Congress joined these two programs together for a specific reason—they both represent legacy costs of the coal 

industry that compelled a national response. When Congress created the AML Fund 

in 1977, it found that abandoned mine lands imposed ‘‘social and economic costs on 

residents in nearby and adjoining areas.’’ When Congress enacted the Coal Act in 

1992, it also was attempting to avoid unacceptable social and economic costs associated with the loss of health benefits for retired coal miners and widows. Moreover, 

as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in its 2002 report on the 

Coal Act entitled ‘‘Retired Coal Miners’ Health Benefit Funds: Financial Challenges 

Continue,’’ CBF beneficiaries traded lower pensions over the years for the promise 

of their health benefits and engaged in considerable cost sharing by contributing 

$210 million of their pension assets to help finance the CBF. 

Although some criticized the use of AML interest money to help cover the cost 

of coal miners’ retiree health care, this marriage proved to be the catalyst for last 

year’s reauthorization of the AML program which successfully addressed the varied—and sometimes conflicting—needs of the many interested parties. With all parties having a stake in the SMCRA debate—states and tribes, coal companies, environmental groups, and UMWA members—working together for the passage of the 

Tax Relief and Health Care Act last year, Congress was able to forge a political consensus that had eluded us for many years, allowing us to achieve goals that many 

of us have been pursuing since the passage of SMCRA in 1977 and the Coal Act 

in 1992. Not only did that legislation succeed in securing the long term financial 

support for retired coal miners’ health care, but it modified the AML formulas to 

provide historic production states that have the most serious reclamation problems 

105

with higher allocations, provided relief to operators by reducing the AML fees by 

20%, and also mandated that minimum program states are guaranteed at least $3 

million each year for reclamation efforts. In addition, the legislation took a portion 

of the AML fees collected off budget and, over a seven year period, all states and 

tribes will receive from the General Treasury an amount equivalent to their unappropriated balances in the AML fund. The end result of the legislation is that it resolved many longstanding and contentious disputes that had blocked AML reform 

for several years. More importantly, the legislation will mean more funds will be 

available to address vital reclamation needs in the coal fields. 

In terms of abandoned retiree health care, the passage of the Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act has addressed the financial problems that have plagued the Coal 

Act since its passage in 1992. As many are aware, adverse court decisions and an 

unanticipated series of bankruptcies in the coal and steel industries had eroded the 

original financial mechanism Congress intended to fund Coal Act health care obligations. As a result, on three separate occasions Congress had to provide emergency 

appropriations, using unused AML interest money, to keep health care benefits from 

being cut. With passage of last year’s AML reauthorization, these and many other 

issues have been resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, the UMWA and its members are grateful that Congress forged a 

bi-partisan consensus to reauthorize the AML Program and provide a long-term solution to the coal industry retiree health care financial crisis. We have in previous 

appearances before the Committee provided the historic context for the government’s unique promise of health care to coal miners. You know all too well that over 

their working lives, these retirees traded lower wages and pensions for the promise 

of retiree health care that began in the White House in 1946 when the Krug-Lewis 

agreement was signed. In 1992, miners willingly contributed $210 million of their 

pension money to ensure that the promise would be kept. Everything that this nation has asked of them—in war and in peace—they have done. They are part of 

what has come to be called the ‘‘Greatest Generation’’ and deservedly so. They have 

certainly kept their end of the bargain that was struck with President Truman. In 

2006 we were delighted that Congress forged the political consensus that allowed 

the federal government to keep its promise once again. 

Today, we appreciate having this opportunity to thank every Member of Congress 

for remembering the plight of our retired miners and widows. I come before you to 

convey a heartfelt thank you from all the retirees including the original 112,000 

beneficiaries for the hard work of this Committee in keeping that promise. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Cecil. You have referred to the original legislation in 1992, in which I was heavily involved, as well. It 

did allow for the first time the interest on the unappropriated balance in the AML to be used for coal miner healthcare. You refer 

to that and the ensuing amendments of last year, and all the individuals and groups involved. I certainly commend you for your 

leadership, as well. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. It would not have happened if the United Mine 

Workers had not been there and deeply involved on a daily basis, 

especially the individual sitting right behind you in the name of 

Bill Bannick. We appreciate the professional and respected team 

you have working for you here. 

So I guess I would just ask one simple question. And you referred to the promise of healthcare that goes back to John L. Lewis 

days. Have we kept the promise? Has Congress kept the promise 

of cradle-to-death healthcare for our nation’s coal miners? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I can report to you, as of the end of December, 

every retiree that had the requisite years of service—20 years, age 

55—and whose company was gone, went bankrupt, abandoned 

them, as you will; as of the end of December, every one of those 

retirees had their healthcare. And this Congress I think should feel 

good that they kept the promise that this government made. 

106

Now, as time goes on, people will retire. There will be some dispute, debate about the eligibility requirements. But when we finalized this bill at the end of December, every single retiree who was 

pension-eligible or had that promise made to them was getting 

their healthcare. And I just feel that I should say thank you to this 

Congress for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am glad to hear that. And you mentioned 

it, and I mentioned it throughout these deliberations. As we seek 

to address the problems of abandoned mine lands, it is most important that we not forsake the abandoned coal miner, him or herself. 

Mr. ROBERTS. That is true. And one of the things I would point 

out, more often than not when a mine site is abandoned, that company has probably gone into bankruptcy; probably left people without their wages, without their benefits, without their healthcare. 

And so we have two types of problems here with respect to this. 

It is abandoned mines and the communities that are adversely affected by that. But we also have abandoned human beings who 

gave their lives to this industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask you one final question. 

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, and I quote, ‘‘I much prefer the 

dreams of the future than the history of the past.’’ And I applaud 

that sentiment. Yet the past of your union is so clearly grounded 

in places like Paint Creek, Cabin Creek, Blair Mountain, where the 

struggle for dignity, the struggle for workers’ rights were fought 

with blood. That while we can prefer the dreams of the future, the 

past certainly cannot be ignored. Equally with the history of surface mining. 

So as we look to the future, do you see a time in the hills and 

hollows of the Appalachian coalfields where we can have a dovetailing, as I referred to in my opening statement, of the interests 

of environment with that of surface mining? 

Mr. ROBERTS. As has been properly pointed out here today, it is 

a difficult struggle. But I happen to believe, as we came together 

last year with so many competing interests, and sent together people from Wyoming and people from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and all across this nation—quite frankly, Republicans and 

Democrats, conservatives and liberals—and came to grips with this 

extremely, extremely complex problem of how to re-fund and reauthorize AML, and we did it. It wasn’t easy, but it took your leadership and others, and Representative Cubin’s leadership also. I 

would like to think that people of good mind and good heart and 

common objectives can do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Roberts. 

As I listened to Secretary Timmermeyer’s on the last panel, she 

talked about the companies that are more sophisticated, that was 

from her environmental point of view that they are more geared for 

today’s regulatory environment in our culture. 

What about from the worker’s point of view? Are the companies 

more sophisticated? Give me a little bit of insight on that. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, companies, I am sure the industry might 

have a different perspective on this, on any given day I am either 

107

up here working with the industry or fighting with the industry. 

And that is just the nature of what I do. 

But I think there are many sophisticated companies out there, 

and then there are some companies that are not too sophisticated, 

and quite frankly are living way, way in the past, just to be quite 

honest about it. But many of the companies that we deal with, we 

have disagreements, for instance, with Council and Peabody, but 

we find a way to work out our differences. And generally when 

they have a good labor relations program, they don’t necessarily 

leave the environment in a mess, either. 

But it is the companies that want to have bad labor relations, 

that takes you to bad environmental record. There are some companies—and you can look at the statistics and see who they are—that 

have horrendous environmental records in West Virginia. 

Mr. PEARCE. Talking about environmental things, you heard my 

questions earlier about coal to liquids. Has the UMWA taken a position on coal to liquids? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Absolutely. We have supported this. It seems ironic to me, if you read the history of World War II, the Nazi war effort was fought with fuel made from coal because the oil supplies 

were bombed by the Allies. But they found a way back in the 1940s 

to convert coal to liquid and jet plane fuel, and fueled artillery 

pieces, and transported them by fuel made from coal. 

There is a picture, I am sure Congressman Rahall has seen it, 

of former Senator Jennings Randolph. It must have been taken I 

guess in the late fifties, mid-fifties. He was in a plane that he was 

flying that someone had made fuel from coal, and he was flying in 

that plane. It is a very famous picture back in West Virginia. 

We are extremely supportive of this program. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. So I have an online petition that was submitted 

to us that basically says, I think, that liquid coal would be a disaster in our fight against the climate crisis; Congress should vote 

against tax breaks and substitutes for coal. So I suspect that I 

would clearly understand that you would ask that I not respond in 

a positive way to this particular online poll? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, I am not going to sign that petition, if that is 

what——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PEARCE. What about the, there is a move in Congress to 

have the coastal states be allowed to prevent coal mining in inland 

states. Has your UMWA taken a position on that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We have not. When you talk about the inland 

states, very little coal—and I might stand to be corrected when I 

give this a little bit of thought—is mined from inland states. But 

I guess——

Mr. PEARCE. New Mexico does have——

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. And I think, I don’t know if Louisiana has a 

coal mine now or not. But New Mexico does. We have UMWA 

members mining coal in New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. But the discussion is that we would allow those 

states on the coast to dictate, to actually shut down mining in 

the——

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, you are saying that coastal states could dictate 

to anyone. 

108

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, yes. 

Mr. ROBERTS. No, we would not be supportive of that. 

Mr. PEARCE. That actually is a provision. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I misunderstood your point. 

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate that. It was actually a provision. It was 

in H.R. 2337 that we passed out of here, that would allow that to 

occur. It is a provision that concerned me quite a lot, and we actually spoke about that and tried an amendment, unsuccessfully. 

But the stakes are very high right now for the coal industry. The 

climate-change argument has coal exactly in its bomb sites, and 

there are people who would shut down the entire production of 

electricity from coal, who we have had testimony in this room that 

would say stop coal, use wind and solar. And you produce 52 percent of the nation’s energy; wind and solar, 1 percent producers. I 

personally don’t see how we could get from 1 percent wind to let 

50 percent of our power be produced by wind. 

Have you got any comments about that focus that is on you all 

as an industry? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, our analysis of removing coal from the 

energy mix would be impossible. If you passed a law today and said 

you couldn’t burn coal, why, I think you would be revisiting that 

issue pretty rapidly, because many people would lose their lights, 

their heat, their air conditioning. 

Let me make another comment about that, if I might. We approach this from another direction. There are 36 or 37 million people in this country living in poverty, as we speak. Coal provides the 

cheapest form of electricity in the United States, and we have benefitted from that for many, many years. And there isn’t enough 

natural gas, by the way, to substitute for coal. And if there was 

enough natural gas to substitute for coal, people’s electric bills 

would either double or triple, more likely triple. Although the BTU 

cost right now is about twice as much as the BTU cost from coal. 

When you start talking about taking coal out of the competition, 

then natural gas prices are going to go through the roof. So people 

probably could not afford to pay their electric bills if that happened. 

With respect to wind, there is no way to generate enough electricity from wind to substitute what coal does. 

I think the answer here, and we have been an advocate of this 

for many, many years, and we have been here to Congress to advocate that we invest in technology to find a way to remove carbon 

from the burning of coal. The issue about coal to liquids is that particular issue: you do generate more carbon when you do this than 

with just gasoline that we use today. 

But it seems to me that we invest an awful lot of money, Congressman, to figure out how to fight wars, and all the technology 

that goes into smart bombs and all this. I would like to see us invest some of that money in smart energy and how to burn coal 

more cleanly, so we maybe wouldn’t need all those weapons that 

we invest in, and our economy could thrive, and people in West 

Virginia could have jobs, and people all across this country could 

have jobs. That seems like a pretty good idea to me. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well stated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

109

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair would just like to respond 

to the statement the gentleman from New Mexico just made in regard to this committee’s energy bill, something to the effect that we 

allow coastal states to prohibit coal development through our 

energy bill. And I am just totally flabbergasted. I am not sure what 

provision to which the gentleman refers. 

I do recall that we set up, or we voted a couple times, and our 

language does allow the coastal states, through their coastal management plans, to come together and coordinate and make sure and 

decide that what they do as far as offshore OCS drilling is not in 

violation of any Federal laws or state plans that they have. I don’t 

interpret that as, in any way, saying that these states could, coastal states, could join together to prohibit the development of coal on 

inland states. 

Mr. PEARCE. And with the Chairman’s permission, we would like 

to get the testimony that occurred in that hearing, if you don’t 

mind, and see if we can connect those dots, and see if my memory 

is correct or not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Testimony. But I am looking for the language in 

the bill. 

Mr. PEARCE. The testimony that the language in the bill actually 

does that, and there appear to be deep consensus. But let me see 

if our staff can find that. I do appreciate that question, thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Roberts, great 

to have you here with us today. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I hail from western Pennsylvania, which is, I have 

a lot of coal in my district. And as I mentioned earlier in questioning, coal is coming back strong. One of the problems I hear 

from coal companies is we don’t have enough, we can’t train 

enough people to get into the mines. So that is a good problem to 

have, to employ more people. 

And it is good to hear that you report that at the end of December, that 100 percent of the retirees had healthcare. 

Mr. ROBERTS. A lot of them in your state, by the way. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, sir, I do know that. And certainly one of my 

goals here in Congress is to seek coal production, coal employment 

rise in western Pennsylvania and across this country, because I 

think it is a large part of the answer to our energy situation. And 

mining it, and figuring out ways to liquefy it naturally, I believe 

about $100 million was appropriated to a coal liquefication plant 

in eastern Pennsylvania. I certainly wanted it in western Pennsylvania, but you don’t always win those fights. But I am very pleased 

that the money is there to try to move forward on that. 

My question to you is that it seems to me that, and as the Ranking Member mentioned, the coal industry is under attack by groups 

in this country. And I think, as I said, it is good for workers, it is 

good for communities. And many communities in my district felt 

the effects of the decline in coal. And now we are struggling to reopen mines, and it is very difficult, very costly to get them open. 

In fact, one company made a big announcement they were going to 

try to open a mine, and it was going to take five or six years. And 

they have decided to abandon that idea. 

110

So I just wanted your thoughts on how do we move forward? 

What do you see are the hurdles, the stumbling blocks to mining, 

to creating these jobs? Because in the end, the best thing I think 

we can do for coal miners is create more jobs for them. So what 

are the hurdles? What are the things that you see out there in the 

regulatory arena that we need to change or streamline? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me just harken back to testimony I gave I 

guess three or four years ago on another committee, and I was 

asked that very question. 

I think the biggest challenge for coal miners, and you talk about 

well, you can’t find enough coal miners, there are a lot of people 

who are not certain that they would like to work in this industry. 

Not because the industry doesn’t pay well, and not because there 

isn’t an excellent benefit plan available, particularly at union 

mines, but because of the uncertainty. 

I would suggest to you, Congressman—I could perhaps go for another 30 minutes talking about this—the uncertainty about this industry. And it has probably been this way for 40 or 50 years, but 

it is probably more so right now. 

Two years ago or thereabouts, there was a lot of investment in 

the industry. If you have read the financial pages recently, there 

are many analysts suggesting that coal is not a good investment, 

or at least is not as good an investment as they have been recommending, because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. 

That is true I think in any type of mining, in any state of the 

Union right now, and on a national basis. I think a number of coal 

companies, a number of investors, and for that matter young people trying to decide if this is an industry that they want to spend 

their future in, whether or not this industry is going to exist. And 

if it is going to exist, at what level, and what are the rules they 

must play by going into the future. That is a summary pretty 

much. 

One word is uncertainty, both to coal miners and the industry 

itself, as to what the future might hold. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And what is the key component of that uncertainty, in your view? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I think if you read, it is not secret that for 

a number of years now there has been a huge debate, not just in 

this country but around the world, about global warming, and 

rightfully so. 

We opposed the Kyoto Treaty not because we didn’t think that 

greenhouse gases existed, and not because we had some belief that 

earth wasn’t warming. The Kyoto Treaty did not require what was 

known then, and I assume they still call themselves this, the G67 plus one. The plus one was China, and the 77 were the developing nations of the world, to be bound by this treaty. 

Part of the problem we fight with over every day in the labor 

movement is the trade deficit. And that trade deficit is climbing 

rapidly, as we speak here, to billions of dollars, as we speak. And 

it gets higher and higher and higher every year. 

The question is, if China doesn’t have to comply with what we 

do here, and Mexico doesn’t have to comply, and India doesn’t have 

to comply, how are we going to control the emissions in the atmosphere? It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything. It does mean we 

111

should compel others to do something correspondingly with what 

we do. 

We went on record, and some of my friends in the coal industry 

would tell you that I shouldn’t have, supporting the Bingaman approach. But the Bingaman approach requires the developing countries of the world to participate in anything that we are doing here 

to control emissions into the atmosphere. 

So that is part, probably the biggest question mark as we move 

forward. What is going to happen with respect to what Congress 

may do with respect to that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I see my time has expired, but I agree with 

your 100 percent. And not only were they not going to comply, but 

it was really a drop in the bucket. 

And again, I agree. Is there global warming? Yes, probably. But 

96 percent, 97 percent of it is not caused by plants that are burning coal, or even the cars that are burning gasoline. So if we are 

going to move forward, you are absolutely right; everybody ought 

to have to get on the same playing field. Fair trade is what we try 

to achieve in the world. Free trade doesn’t exist anywhere, but on 

Main Street USA, when you can decide which store you are going 

to buy, or which car dealership you are going to buy a car from. 

So I appreciate your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Washington, 

Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Roberts, thanks for being here. I am 

a person who has been active. Excuse me, I turned that off. Excuse 

me. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I heard you, but it was a little hard. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. And coal is obviously an enormous potential for us to get hundreds of years of supply, but obviously it 

puts out prodigious amounts of CO2. And I have been one who has 

supported the concept of doing vigorous research in trying to figure 

a way to burn coal cleanly. 

I have recently reviewed the MIT study that suggests that there 

is at least a good chance of being able to find some economic way 

to sequester CO2. And I support a Federal investment on that in 

an accelerated way, to do as much as we can to figure out what 

that capacity is. 

Now, that is not a unanimous opinion, because some folks, because of coal’s history, have just failed to be able to envision a way 

to burn it cleanly. And my view is we need to try to find a way 

to do that. 

But there are issues about the environmental issues regarding to 

mining, particularly the amount and type of mining issues that we 

have. And I thought that if we were going to build support, broadbased support for clean coal technology, it would be helpful to be 

able to give people confidence that the mining process will not extract unacceptable environmental consequences. All energy sources 

have environmental consequences. There is no totally benign 

energy source. Solar-cell energy creates mining issues for the rare 

minerals we use. Wave-power technology interferes with some fishing issues. Wind power has a visual impact. Everything has some 

environmental consequence. 

112

But I think it would be helpful to build confidence in a potential 

clean-coal future if we can find a way to tell Americans we are trying to move forward to reduce the environmental consequences of 

mining, particularly this mountaintop mining that is contentious. 

Do you have any thoughts in that regard, how we could try to 

build that confidence to help us in those efforts? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would consider that along the same lines as the 

Chairman’s question about whether or not people of good heart and 

mind and objectives could sit down and find a way to come to grips 

with some of these difficult problems. 

I think, from my perspective, one of the things that I have seen, 

particularly on this mountaintop mining situation, I know there 

are some folks who are adamantly opposed to it and want to abolish it. I respect that. There are others on the other side who might 

be making their living doing that. 

I find myself, quite frankly, in a unique position. In one week 

about a month ago, two coal company executives wrote letters to 

the editor criticizing me, and one environmentalist, for being too 

close to the coal companies. So in a week I ran the entire gauntlet. 

So that tells me I must be somewhere in the middle here. 

But coal miners, just to make a point, they don’t get to decide 

what type mining the company does. The company decides that. 

One of the issues has been let us stop mountaintop mining, and 

let us do deep mining. Well, if you can convert those jobs that the 

people have right into that, that would be a good point. The problem we have is we live in a competitive economic environment. If 

a coal company shuts down any mine, whether it is a deep mine 

or a mountaintop mine or a contour mine, whatever it might be, 

long-wall mining, miner sections, they close it down. What happens 

is it is like a jump ball in basketball. Those jobs don’t belong to 

West Virginia. They don’t belong to Kentucky. They don’t belong to 

Wyoming. That marketplace doesn’t belong to West Virginia. That 

marketplace doesn’t belong to Wyoming. 

The utility, once someone who is supplying to coal to them, now 

say OK, who wants to fill this order. And the truth is, if you go 

back and look from the passage, you talk about unintended consequences, I would suggest to you the 1990 Clean Air Act had some 

unintended consequences here. We lobbied here to require technology to be placed—and it was available on every utility in the 

United States. And we lost that fight. 

But what happened is coal mines in northern West Virginia 

closed. Coal mines in western Kentucky closed. All the mining industry in Illinois shut down. The mining in Indiana shut down. Did 

mining stop? No. The mining shifted from traditional deep mines 

in those areas to the Powder River Basin. And it is good for Wyoming, but it is not very labor-intensive in Wyoming, because it is 

low-sulfur coal. So we displaced all those coal miners who used to 

belong to our union. We didn’t get as good a result with respect to 

reducing sulphur nitrite, which we were attempting to do with the 

passage of the Clean Air Act. And we lost all these jobs. And then 

we had the problem that Congressman Rahall and I have been trying to deal with since the late eighties and early nineties, is what 

do we do with all these people who lost their jobs and lost their 

healthcare in the Appalachian communities. 

113

So one of the things we have to be very careful with, the mentality, if we close some type of mining down, we are just going to 

shift that from Boone County over to Logan County, and we will 

all still have these jobs. It won’t happen. Those markets will be 

made available. And what has happened here, there is more coal 

being mined, as we speak, west of the Mississippi River than east 

of the Mississippi River. And for the first couple hundred years of 

our history, that wasn’t the case. But that is a direct, unintended 

consequence of shifting markets and shifting jobs from West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky 

to west of the Mississippi River with the passage of the Clean Air 

Act. 

And if you can show me, or if somebody can have a conversation 

with me on how we are going to keep these people working. One 

of the things that happens to me, put yourself in my position, I 

have been around a long time. I started mining coal in 1971. I hate 

to be this long, but I have to make this point. I apologize. 

I started mining coal in 1971. People don’t call me President that 

is in our union; they call me Cecil. Because we have known each 

other for 30 years. And I get a call from somebody I have known 

for 30 years, been in our union 30 years, and say hey, they are closing our mine down. Which side am I supposed to be on in that 

fight? I have to be on the side of the union members that I have 

known for 30 years. 

I don’t want to fight with somebody else. I mean, a lot of the people are on the other side of this issue, and I have great respect for 

them. But when you start saying well, we are going to put your 

members out of a job, there is only one place for the union president to be. If you get a union president who is not there, he is 

probably a person who shouldn’t be representing workers. 

So to answer your question in short, I think it is a difficult proposition. That is utopia, and that is what we would like to do, but 

it is hard, because we have all been through this for the last 30 

years. This is not a new issue for us, trying to figure out how to 

keep jobs and dealing with the environment. 

We predicted this, by the way, when we were up here—we were 

much younger then—when we were up here in 1990, saying we 

think there is going to be a tremendous job shift here. We think 

these jobs going west of the Mississippi River, and all these communities are going to be devastated. And guess what, they were. 

We have tried to recover from that, but it has made it more difficult. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, in response to your question, and I 

appreciate that, section 472 is where I drew the comments from 

that amends the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 by allowing 

for climate change. And specifically, as we go through the wording, 

in paragraph one it provides the assistance on down to a state that, 

to minimize the contributions to climate change and to prepare for 

and reduce the negative consequences that may result from climate 

change in the coastal zone, in our attempt to amend the Act and 

take this provision or somehow limit it, that was our point. That 

this section is going to allow the coastal states to go to the nonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
114

coastal states in saying that you are affecting us, you are affecting 

our management zone by your output of carbons. And we will then 

effect those negative consequences—line 21. 

I still feel like that with your question, that this does have a serious impact and a serious implication. I understand what your questions are, but the bill nowhere mentions, in this section, simply 

limiting to offshore production. It is a very broad application. And 

that is then the reason that we then submitted the amendment, to 

tighten it up or avoid the adverse impacts. Because I think that we 

all want to protect the environment, but we do need to be aware 

of what is taking place here. 

The entire State of Florida is defined as a coastal zone, and so 

that gives us some understanding of the broadness of this. And I 

would yield to questions from the Chairman, but appreciate his observations. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to the language that the 

gentleman just read from our energy bill that came out of our committee. 

We in no way are granting the coastal zone states any regulatory 

authority. It does say in the coastal zone, those decisions are to be 

made. It is bootstrapping to arrive at the conclusion that any regulatory authority is in that provision. 

So the Chair would respond in that manner to the gentleman’s 

concerns. 

Cecil, thank you. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, thank you. I am sorry I got so——

The CHAIRMAN. This particular point did not involve you. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I am sorry I got—two things I didn’t understand. 

The Ranking Member’s original question, I apologize for that. And 

I apologize for being so—I have been accused of this—long-winded 

with the answer. 

But I want to make sure before I leave here that you and this 

committee and all Members of Congress, on behalf of the original 

112,000 retirees whose healthcare was at risk, that we appreciate 

so much what you have done for us. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being with us. We do have a series 

of votes on the House Floor at this time, probably 30 minutes at 

least worth of votes. So with the concurrence of the minority, it 

would be the Chair’s idea, and the patience and forbearance of the 

panels yet to be heard from, and I appreciate that, that we recess 

and come back at 1:30. I am sorry, 12:30. What is that, 11:30? 

Mr. PEARCE. It is 12:30. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is 12:30 now. We will come back at 1:30. The 

Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume its hearing, and call 

to the witness table panel number four, composed of Walton D. 

Morris, Jr., of Charlottesville, Virginia; Joe Lovett, the Executive 

Director, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, Lewisburg, West Virginia; Brian Wright, Coal Policy Director, Hoosier Environmental Council, Indianapolis, Indiana; and 

Ellen Pfister, Shepherd, Montana, on behalf of the Northern Plains 

Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. 

115

Lady and gentlemen, we have your prepared testimony. It will be 

made part of the record as if actually read. And you may proceed 

as you desire. Mr. Morris, you want to start first? 

STATEMENT OF WALTON D. MORRIS, JR.,

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. MORRIS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak here today. 

I am Walton Morris, an attorney based in Charlottesville, Virginia. For the past 17 years I have practiced law on behalf of environmental organizations and the residents of America’s coalfields 

in matters arising under the Surface Mining Act. 

Earlier in my career, I served for nine years in the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior. During that time I litigated, 

or supervised other lawyers who litigated, most of the important 

early cases involving the Surface Mining Act. 

Today I wish to address the history, current status, and future 

of the Surface Mining Act’s public participation provisions. 

The Committee’s report on the bill that became the Surface 

Mining Act correctly concluded that the success or failure of a national coal surface mining regulation program will depend, to a significant extent, on the role played by citizens in the regulatory 

process. With that conviction in mind, Congress established a 

broad range of public participation procedures meant to empower 

coalfield citizens, to supplement governmental regulatory efforts, 

and ensure effective oversight of state programs. 

Soon after Congress enacted the Surface Mining Act, coalfield 

citizens actually began to use these provisions; to play precisely the 

role that Congress expected. Citizen efforts led to important successes in rulemaking, the maintenance of state programs, on-theground enforcement actions, and designation of lands as unsuitable 

for coal mining. These successes demonstrated the wisdom and 

practicality of Congress’s plan for vigorous public participation. 

However, even as citizens successfully invoked the Surface 

Mining Act’s public participation provisions, obstacles began to appear. Rather than valuing the help that citizens provide, OSM 

grew hostile to public prodding, and has remained so, even to the 

point of stonewalling or unreasonably delaying response to the 

public’s requests for basic information. As a result, the inspection 

and enforcement requests on both the state and Federal level are 

now turned aside for entirely unjustified reasons, or ignored altogether. 

To compound matters, a host of misguided administrative and judicial decisions have curtailed the public’s ability to compel inspection or enforcement action, or to correct state program deficiencies 

through actions in Federal Court. As a result, public participation 

under the Surface Mining Act has become so hobbled that, as a 

practical matter, citizens can no longer play the important supporting role that Congress envisioned. 

For example, today OSM continues to withhold copies of permit 

application materials from New Mexico citizens despite a 

January 11, 2007, administrative decision directing OSM to make 

the requested documents available no later than 20 days from the 

date of that decision. 

116

Today OSM, as the regulatory authority in Tennessee, routinely 

delays citizen requests to review permit applications and inspection 

documents. And the agency refuses to allow citizens to speak to 

mine inspectors regarding conditions that the mine inspectors have 

seen on the ground. 

Today the state regulatory authority in Virginia continues to 

refuse to investigate citizen allegations that a coal operator is 

mining without a permit on the incredible theory that the state has 

no obligation to inspect, because it hasn’t issued a permit yet for 

the mining operation in question. 

Today Virginia’s field office continues to ignore a citizen request 

for inspection and enforcement in the very same manner, even 

though the time for responding, under OSM’s own regulations, has 

long since passed. 

Today coalfield citizens in West Virginia face the crippling expense and uncertainty of a second round of administrative hearings 

in two appeals before a so-called multiple interest board, solely because the testimony of state and industry witnesses in the first 

round of hearings does not support legal arguments that the state 

regulatory authority subsequently dreamed up in a desperate attempt to prevail in the case. 

Today citizens throughout America’s coalfields are compelled to 

address environmental problems caused by surface coal mining operations under such statutes as the Clean Water Act, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, because courts have foreclosed the use of the Surface Mining Act’s citizen suit provision 

against state regulators who fail to perform mandatory duties that 

the Surface Mining Act imposes on those officials. 

To restore public participation as an effective supplement to governmental regulatory efforts, and as a means for securing effective 

oversight of state programs, I urge this committee, and the Congress as a whole, to investigate and then counteract agency 

stonewalling of citizen requests for information, unwarranted deference to state regulators by Federal officials who are charged with 

oversight of state programs, the injustice of administrative review 

before state multiple-interest boards, and recent judicial misinterpretations of the statute. 

I have addressed these problems more specifically in my written 

statement, and so I will now yield to my colleagues on this panel. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]

Statement of Walton D. Morris, Jr., Attorney-at-Law 

I am Walton Morris, an attorney based in Charlottesville, Virginia. For the past 

seventeen years, I have practiced law on behalf of environmental organizations and 

residents of America’s coalfields in cases arising under the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (‘‘the Surface Mining Act’’). Earlier in my career, I 

served for nine years in the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior. During that time I litigated, or supervised other lawyers who litigated, most of the important early cases involving the Surface Mining Act. 

Introduction 

This Committee’s report on the bill that became the Surface Mining Act concluded 

that: 

The success or failure of a national coal surface mining regulation program 

will depend, to a significant extent, on the role played by citizens in the 

regulatory process. The State or Department of Interior can employ only so 

117

may inspectors, only a limited number of inspections can be made on a regular basis and only a limited amount of information can be required in a 

permit or bond release application or elicited at a hearing....Thus in imposing several provisions which contemplate active citizen involvement, the 

committee is carrying out its conviction that the participation of private 

citizens is a vital factor in the regulatory program as established by the act. 

With that conviction in mind, and mindful also that ‘‘increased opportunity for 

citizens to participate in the enforcement program are necessary to assure that the 

old patterns of minimal [state] enforcement are not repeated,’’ Congress established 

a broad range of public participation procedures meant to empower coalfield citizens 

to supplement governmental regulatory efforts and ensure effective oversight of approved state programs. These procedures implement the public’s statutory rights: 

(1) to comment on proposed regulations and obtain judicial review of final rulemaking; 

(2) to comment on proposed state program provisions and to obtain judicial review of decisions to approve them; 

(3) to review and obtain copies of permit applications, inspection materials, and 

other information obtained or developed by the regulatory authority; 

(4) to comment on permit applications and obtain administrative and judicial review of permitting decisions; 

(5) to notify federal officials of violations of the Surface Mining Act or its implementing regulations, to participate in inspections conducted as a result of such 

notices, and to obtain review of adverse inspection or enforcement decisions; 

and 

(6) to bring civil actions to compel coal operators to obey the law or to compel regulatory officials to perform any of the mandatory, non-discretionary duties the 

statute imposes on them. 

Soon after Congress enacted the Surface Mining Act, coalfield citizens began to 

use the statute’s public participation provisions to play precisely the role that Congress expected. Citizen comments on OSM’s initial and permanent program regulations helped shape those rules into effective tools which ended many of the abuses 

that bedeviled America’s coalfields. In litigation challenging rules that OSM improperly adopted, coalfield citizens further ensured that federal surface mining regulations accurately reflected Congress’s intent. 

In other litigation coalfield citizens reached settlements with OSM which led to 

correction of the coal industry’s gross abuse of the so-called ‘‘two acre’’ exemption 

and to creation of OSM’s Applicant/Violator System Office, which began the process 

of holding major coal producers accountable for environmental violations committed 

by business entities that those producers owned or controlled—generally, their ‘‘contract miners.’’ Additionally, citizens prosecuted civil actions that ultimately caused 

State officials to strengthen state regulatory programs that had fallen far short of 

‘‘minimum floor’’ that Congress meant the Surface Mining Act to establish. 

In the administrative sphere, citizens filed inspection and enforcement requests 

and appeals to the Interior Board of Surface Mining Appeals (later the Board of 

Land Appeals) that ultimately led OSM and state regulators to compel major coal 

producers to reclaim mines that their contract miners had abandoned and to pay 

delinquent abandoned mine land fees associated with those mines. These and many 

other citizen successes proved the wisdom and practicality of Congress’s plan to supplement governmental enforcement of the Surface Mining Act with the efforts of empowered coalfield citizens. 

The Current Impairment of Public Participation Under the Surface Mining 

Act 

Even as citizens used the Surface Mining Act’s public participation provisions to 

achieve numerous successes, obstacles to effective public participation began to appear. Rather than valuing the help citizens provide, OSM became hostile to public 

prodding and has remained so—even to the point of stonewalling or unreasonably 

delaying response to the public’s requests for basic information in instances where 

OSM is the regulatory authority. Inspection and enforcement requests on both the 

state and federal level are turned aside for entirely unjustified reasons or ignored 

altogether. To compound matters, a host of misguided administrative and judicial 

decisions have curtailed the public’s ability to compel inspection or enforcement action or to correct state program deficiencies through actions in federal court. As a 

result, public participation under the Surface Mining Act has become so hobbled 

that, as a practical matter, citizens can no longer play the important supporting role 

that Congress envisioned. For example: 

• Today, OSM continues to withhold copies of permit application materials from 

New Mexico citizens despite a January 11, 2007, administrative decision directVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
118

ing OSM to make the requested documents available no later than twenty 

working days from that date; 

• Today, OSM, as the regulatory authority in Tennessee, routinely delays citizen 

requests to review permit applications and inspection documents, and the agency refuses to allow citizens to speak to mine inspectors regarding the conditions 

they have observed on the ground; 

• Today, the state regulatory authority in Virginia continues to refuse to investigate citizen allegations that a coal operator is conducting mining operations 

without a permit—on the incredible theory that the State has no obligation to 

inspect because it has not issued a permit for the mine; 

• Today, OSM’s Virginia field office continues to ignore a citizen request for inspection and enforcement in the same matter, even though the time for responding under OSM’s regulations has long since expired, and OSM continues 

to question in other proceedings whether the agency must make any response 

at all to a citizen complaint that OSM deems insufficient—even a response that 

simply informs the complainant of OSM’s view; 

• Today, coalfield citizens in West Virginia face the crippling expense and uncertainty of a second round of administrative hearings in two appeals before a socalled ‘‘multiple interest’’ board, solely because the testimony of State and industry witnesses in the initial hearings did not support legal arguments that 

the state regulatory authority subsequently dreamed up in a desperate attempt 

to prevail; 

• Today, citizens throughout America’s coalfields are compelled to address environmental problems caused by surface coal mining operations under the Clean 

Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or other federal statutes because the courts have foreclosed the use of the Surface Mining Act’s citizen suit provision against state regulators who fail to perform mandatory duties that the Surface Mining Act imposes on them. 

To restore public participation as an effective supplement to governmental regulatory efforts and a means for securing appropriate oversight of state programs, I 

urge this Committee and the Congress as whole to investigate and then counteract 

agency stonewalling of information requests, unwarranted deference to state regulators by federal officials charged with oversight of state programs, the injustice of 

administrative review before state ‘‘multiple interest’’ boards, and judicial misinterpretation of the statute. I address each of these problems in turn. 

Stonewalling Information Requests 

Without ready access to permit applications, inspection reports, enforcement citations, and other documents generated in the regulatory process, the public cannot 

effectively participate in the regulatory scheme. For the most part, state regulatory 

authorities provide documents on request without significant delay and in convenient formats for the public’s use. In marked contrast, OSM currently appears engaged in a puzzling effort to hamper citizen participation by denying information 

requests that state regulatory authorities fulfill routinely as a matter of ordinary 

business. As mentioned above, the agency continues to ignore its clear duty to 

produce permitting materials for New Mexico citizens concerned about mining operations on Indian lands in that State, where OSM is the regulatory authority. 

In Tennessee, where OSM also is the regulatory authority, the agency has imposed an arbitrary two-day waiting period before it will allow any citizen to review 

permitting, inspection, or enforcement materials. Far worse, the agency has refused 

to allow citizens to speak with mining inspectors regarding on-the-ground conditions 

at mines that may adversely affect the citizens’ interests. Conversations between 

citizens and mine inspectors employed by state regulatory authorities are commonplace and highly beneficial to all concerned, because mine inspectors often correct 

misunderstandings and, in other instances, confirm facts on which citizens subsequently rely in making inspection or enforcement requests. 

The only conceivable reason for OSM’s stonewalling of citizen requests for information about specific mining operations is to curtail or misdirect efforts by the public to participate in the regulatory scheme in the manner Congress expressly intended. In the interest of effective public participation, I ask this Committee to investigate the marked differences between OSM’s performance in this area and that 

of state regulatory authorities and then to take appropriate action to cause OSM 

to provide requested information without undue delay or restriction. 

OSM’s Unwarranted Deference to State Regulators 

After noting that ‘‘[e]ffective enforcement is central to the success for the surface 

mining control program contemplated by H.R. 2,’’ this Committee’s report on the 

bill that became the Surface Mining Act emphasized that ‘‘a limited Federal overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
119

sight role as well as increased opportunities for citizens to participate in the enforcement program are necessary to assure that the old patterns of minimal [State] enforcement are not repeated.’’ The essence of both effective Federal oversight and citizen supplementation of governmental enforcement is a thorough, independent assessment by OSM of whether a violation exists and whether prescribed remedial 

measures are adequate to correct it. 

To oversee a state enforcement program effectively in the context of a citizen’s request for inspection and enforcement, OSM must take a critical, independent look 

at the State’s response to each ten-day notice. Where any doubt remains whether 

an alleged violation actually exists or whether prescribed remedial action is sufficient to correct a violation, OSM can meet the Surface Mining Act’s enforcement 

mandate only by conducting a federal inspection and deciding the matter on the 

basis of OSM’s independent evaluation of the facts and the law. If OSM merely defers to the State in resolving doubts about the validity of a citizen complaint, the 

agency will, for that reason alone, overlook a multitude of violations that an independent assessment of the facts and the law would detect. 

Despite this straightforward principle, OSM in 1988 formally adopted the ‘‘arbitrary or capricious’’ standard for evaluating the responses of state regulatory authorities to ten-day notices that OSM issues in response to citizen requests for inspection and enforcement action. From that point forward, OSM has systematically 

relied on the ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ standard as a basis for preferring a State’s 

paper denial that a violation exists over a citizen’s assertion to the contrary. In such 

situations OSM refuses to conduct the federal inspection necessary to a make a 

thorough, fully informed, and independent assessment of whether the citizen’s complaint is valid. Indeed, under OSM’s current standard for evaluating state responses 

to citizen complaints, the agency rarely, if ever, permits the complaining citizen to 

rebut the State’s assertions. As a result, citizen efforts to supplement or strengthen 

enforcement of the Surface Mining Act are often stymied without the federal inspection that Congress intended OSM generally to make. 

Section 521(a) of the Surface Mining Act, which prescribes the ten-day notice 

process, contains not one word authorizing OSM to defer to the response of a state 

regulatory authority where doubt remains regarding the existence of a violation or 

the effectiveness of remedial action that a State has ordered where the violation is 

not in doubt. The statute authorizes OSM to decline to inspect only where a State’s 

response to a ten-day notice firmly establishes either that the State has taken appropriate action to cause the violation to be corrected or that the State has ‘‘good 

cause’’ for failing to take such action. 

Deference to the views of state regulatory officials is inherently incompatible with 

the vigorous, independent oversight process that Section 521(a) prescribes. This is 

so because deference requires OSM to accept a State’s ten-day notice response even 

where, on balance, OSM would decide the matter differently. Both OSM’s role as 

watchdog of America’s coalfields and the need for effective citizen participation in 

enforcing the Surface Mining Act demand that OSM inspect in such circumstances 

and respond based on conditions on the ground rather than simply defer to whatever view State officials may express on paper. 

To revive effective public participation in overseeing state efforts to enforce the 

requirements of the Surface Mining Act, I urge this Committee and Congress to consider and enact an amendment to the statute which forbids OSM from deferring to 

the responses of state regulatory authorities to ten-day notices. The Committee and 

Congress should require instead that OSM conduct a federal inspection wherever a 

State’s response does not demonstrate to a certainty that an alleged violation does 

not exist or that there is no need for additional remedial measures. 

The Injustice of Administrative Review Before State ‘‘Multiple Interest’’ 

Boards 

Where OSM is the regulatory authority or acts in its oversight capacity, citizens 

may obtain administrative review of adverse agency decisions before full-time administrative law judges who are free of any conflict of interest in matters that come 

before them and who generally have sufficient training and resources to provide effective review consistent with the due process of law. In marked contrast, administrative review of the decisions of many state regulatory authorities occurs before 

‘‘multiple interest’’ boards whose members are not ‘‘employees’’ of the regulatory authority for conflict-of-interest purposes and who, in fact, own coal mines or are employed by those who do. Although such boards typically have one or more members 

drawn from environmental protection organizations, State multiple interest boards 

are generally, if not uniformly, dominated by majorities drawn from the coal industry, consultants to the coal industry, and other pro-development interests. As a reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
120

sult, citizens are compelled to seek administrative review of adverse permitting or 

enforcement decisions before tribunals that are manifestly biased against them. 

Wholly apart from pro-industry bias, State multiple interest boards typically do 

not have a majority of members who have the necessary training or experience to 

conduct evidentiary hearings or to issue review decisions in a manner consistent 

with the requirements of applicable administrative procedure statutes. Consequently, citizens who seek review before these boards are often prohibited from 

introducing vital evidence or else see the board wholly ignore citizens’ evidence in 

reaching a decision. The procedural errors that these boards routinely commit in 

conducting hearings and issuing decisions trigger judicial review in an inordinately 

large number of cases, no matter who prevails before the board. Judicial review in 

such circumstances results only in remand to the multiple interest board for yet another hearing and decision, with no promise that the second round will not end up 

as procedurally flawed as the first. 

For all these reasons, state multiple interest boards are where public participation 

in state regulatory programs comes to die. The substantial financial expense and 

time investment necessary to pursue administrative review in the first place becomes overwhelming to citizens where review results in procedurally flawed decisions that must be reviewed again once they are overturned on judicial review. As 

mentioned earlier, one multiple interest board has recently ordered a second round 

of hearings in two appeals for the sole stated reason that the record made in the 

first round of hearings did not support arguments that the State’s lawyers later decided to make. Add to all this the fatal anti-citizen bias of these boards and it is 

easy to see why citizen participation in States that have multiple interest boards 

does not accomplish what Congress hoped. 

To secure the benefit of meaningful public participation in all state regulatory 

programs, I urge this Committee to investigate the role of multiple interest boards 

in stifling effective citizen involvement. Based on that investigation, I urge the Committee and the Congress to amend the Surface Mining Act to prohibit multiple interest boards from conducting administrative review of the decisions of state regulatory authorities and to require instead that administrative review occur before administrative law judges who are free of conflicts of interest and who are adequately 

trained to conduct hearings in accordance with state administrative procedure requirements. 

Judicial Misinterpretation of the Surface Mining Act’s Citizen Suit 

Provision 

In reporting the bill that became the Surface Mining Act, this Committee found 

that ‘‘providing citizens access to administrative appellate procedures and the courts 

is a practical and legitimate method of assuring the regulatory authority’s compliance with the requirements of the act.’’ Accordingly, the Surface Mining Act includes 

a provision authorizing any adversely affected person to bring an action in federal 

court to compel ‘‘the appropriate State regulatory authority’’ to perform any act or 

duty under the statute which is not discretionary. 

From enactment of the statute until 2003, citizens brought actions under the Surface Mining Act’s citizen suit provision which resulted in settlements or court orders 

that corrected a host of shortfalls on the state level and strengthened overall administration of the statute. Beginning in 2003, however, a string of judicial decisions 

has misinterpreted the scope of the citizen suit provision and rendered its authorization of actions against state regulatory authorities virtually a dead letter. 

These decisions mistakenly construe state regulatory programs that implement 

the Surface Mining Act as purely state law rather than as both state law and federal law by virtue of the Secretary’s approval of them and their codification in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. Based on the misinterpretation of state regulatory programs as purely state law, the pertinent judicial decisions reason that the Eleventh 

Amendment bars actions that the Surface Mining Act expressly authorizes citizens 

to bring against State officials. Accordingly, these decisions close the federal courts 

to citizen suits that would otherwise identify regulatory lapses on the part of State 

officials and compel them to correct those lapses. 

To restore the ability of citizens ‘‘keep regulators on their toes’’ and ensure implementation of state regulatory programs in accordance with the requirements of the 

Surface Mining Act, I urge this Committee and Congress as whole to consider and 

enact appropriate amendments to correct, in any one of several possible ways, the 

judicial misinterpretation of statute I have just described. The viability of public 

participation in the oversight of state programs depends on the enactment of such 

an amendment as soon as possible. 

121

Conclusion 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to address these issues, and I look forward with hope to the Committee’s response. If I may provide additional information, I will be pleased to do so on request. 

[Additional information submitted for the record by Mr. Morris 

follows:]


37013.182
122


37013.183
123


37013.184
124


37013.185
125


37013.186
126


37013.187 37013.188
127

The CHAIRMAN. Joe. 

STATEMENT OF JOE LOVETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR THE ECONOMY AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT, LEWISBURG, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. LOVETT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

the opportunity to appear here today. 

First of all, after listening to OSM and state regulators here this 

morning, one would think that all is well with environmental regulation of coal mining in the Appalachian coal-bearing regions. 

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Bureaucratic double-speak and sugar-coating reclamation failures, and a few carefully chosen pictures, cannot change the facts. 

Mountaintop removal is destroying a huge swath of Appalachia forever, and the regulators are complicit in this disaster. 

The Surface Mining Act is an imperfect, but useful, law. The 

problem is that the Bush Administration’s OSM has completely refused to enforce that Act. The outright failure of OSM to carry out 

its duties is devastating our region. In fact, I believe that if OSM 

disappeared tomorrow, there would be no negative impact to the 

environment. OSM has become a useless agency, and as such, has 

rendered SMCRA itself useless. 

Appalachian coal mining has worldwide effects. Burning coal 

from only three Appalachian states—West Virginia, Kentucky, and 

Virginia—accounted for approximately 15 percent of total CO2

emissions generated in the entire United States from all fossil fuels 

in 2001. Burning coal produces more CO-2 per BTU than any other 

energy source, and now accounts for more than 50 percent of U.S. 

electricity consumption. 

If you care about the future of our planet’s climate, you must 

care about burning coal. Coal to liquids would be an added insult 

to our region. CO-2 produced from coal to liquids is tremendous, 

but it would also exacerbate mountaintop removal mining. 

The coal-rich mountains of central Appalachia are home to generations-old communities, and contain beautiful hollows through 

which thousands of miles of pristine and ecologically rich mountain 

streams flow. Mountaintop removal mining carelessly lays waste to 

our mountain environment and communities. 

This deforestation is not only an ecological loss, but is a permanent blow to a sustainable forest economy in a region in desperate 

need of long-term economic development. Mountaintop removal has 

already transformed huge expanses of one of the oldest mountain 

ranges in the world, into a moonscape of barren plateaus and 

rubble. 

Appalachian coal is cheap only because OSM and other agencies 

ignore their duty to enforce the Act, and allow the coal industry to 

pass its costs on to workers, communities, and local and state 

economies, as well as the environment. The mining industry naturally takes advantage of the Federal regulators’ failure to enforce 

the law. One of the worst consequences of OSM’s disregard of the 

law is the prevalence of these mountaintop removal mines, and the 

attendant large valley fills. 

Mountaintop removal mines are changing the landform of our region in a way more profound than any change occurring in the 

128

United States. A recent study singles out mountaintop removal and 

valley fills in West Virginia and adjacent states as by far the greatest contributor to earth-moving in the United States. 

Mountaintop removal and other large surface mining operations 

have been authorized by permitting authorities that have allowed 

the destruction of over 2,000 miles of our streams, and have allowed the destruction of over a million acres of our forests. These 

headwater streams and forests, the most productive and diverse 

tempered hardwood forests in the world, are valuable long-term 

economic assets that are being lost forever. Future generations will 

not forgive us for what we are now doing to the Appalachian Mountains. 

In a few decades we have destroyed mountains and forests that 

have taken hundreds of thousands of years to create. Appalachian 

mining may cumulatively impact 1.4 million acres, or 11.5 percent 

of the area being mined, according to a Federal EIS. 

I will just touch on one big problem with the OSM’s regulation, 

and that is its failure to enforce the rules requiring restoration to 

approximate original contour. The Act requires that the post-mining land generally resemble the surface configuration of the premining land. Anybody can look at these mines and know that is not 

the case. The valley fills that are part of these operations look like 

no landscape on earth, much less like our Appalachian Mountains. 

The agency’s continued issuance of these permits is a clear violation of the Act. There are several other violations of the Act cited 

in my statement, written statement, and I won’t bother to go 

through them here. 

I will just summarize by saying that what we heard about reclamation here today is also a sham, and I would like to take the 

opportunity to invite members of this committee and its staff to 

come to West Virginia to witness the devastation caused by these 

mountaintop removal mines, and appreciate the incalculable harm 

that OSM’s failure to enforce the Act has done to our region. 

Contrary to what we heard OSM say here today, and what you 

will undoubtedly hear from the industry, reclamation, to put it 

kindly, is a joke in our state. You need to see it to believe it. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovett follows:]

Statement of Joe Lovett, Executive Director,

Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Rahall and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. My name is Joe Lovett and I am the Executive Director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, a law and 

policy center located in Lewisburg, West Virginia. I am also a lawyer who has been 

attempting to enforce surface coal mining and other environmental laws that federal 

and state regulators refuse to enforce in Appalachia. 

From its inception in 2001, the Appalachian Center has been at the forefront of 

the battle to end the abuses associated with the devastating method of coal mining 

known as mountaintop removal. The Center serves low-income citizens, generationsold communities, and local and grassroots groups of central Appalachia. 

Unfortunately, it is necessary for us to direct much of our work to rein in federal 

agencies, whose refusal to enforce environmental laws in our region permits the environmental devastation and community destruction that results from mountaintop 

removal coal mining. 

129

In the abstract, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is an imperfect 

but useful law. Since at least 2001, however, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has refused to enforce the Act. The outright failure of OSM 

to carry out its duties has had devastating impacts on Appalachia. 

Appalachian coal has world-wide effects: burning coal from only three Appalachian states (West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia) accounted for approximately 

15% of the total CO2 emissions generated in the entire United States from all fossil 

fuel sources (including petroleum) in 2001. Burning coal produces more CO2 per 

BTU than any other energy source and now accounts for more than 50% of U.S. 

electric consumption. 

The local impacts of coal mining, particularly mountaintop removal mining, are 

just as devastating to the environment of the Appalachian region as coal burning 

is to the global climate. 

The coal-rich mountains of central Appalachia are home to generations-old communities and contain beautiful hollows through which thousands of pristine and ecologically rich mountain streams flow. Mountaintop removal mining carelessly lays 

waste to our mountain environment and communities. The deforestation is not only 

an ecological loss, but a permanent blow to a sustainable forest economy in a region 

in desperate need of long-term economic development. Mountaintop removal has already transformed huge expanses of one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world 

into a moonscape of barren plateaus and rubble. 

Appalachian coal is ‘‘cheap’’ because OSM ignores its duty to enforce the Act and 

allows the coal industry to pass its costs onto workers, communities, local and state 

economies, and the environment. The mining industry naturally takes advantage of 

federal regulators’ failure to enforce the law. One of the worst consequences of 

OSM’s disregard for the law is the prevalence of mountaintop removal mines, large 

strip mines with attendant valley fills. 

Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining 

Disregarding human and environmental costs, mountaintop removal coal mining 

as currently practiced in Appalachia eradicates forests, razes mountains, fills 

streams and valleys, poisons air and water, and destroys local residents’ lives. Toxic 

mine pollution contaminates streams and groundwater; hunting and fishing grounds 

are destroyed. Because the large-scale deforestation integral to mountaintop removal takes away natural flood protections, formerly manageable storms frequently 

inundate and demolish downstream homes. 

Mountaintop removal mines are changing the landform of our region in a way 

more profound than is occurring in any other area. A recent study singles out mountaintop removal mining and valley fills in West Virginia and adjacent states as by 

far the greatest contributor to earth moving activity in the United States. Hooke, 

R.L. 1999, ‘‘Spatial distribution of human geomorphic activity in the United States: 

Comparison with rivers, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24: 687-92. In 

other words more earth is moved in this region than in intensively developed areas 

like southern California or the Northeast corridor. 

Mountaintop removal and other large scale surface mining operations have been 

authorized by permitting authorities that have allowed the destruction of over 2,000 

miles of Appalachian streams and more than 1,500 square miles of forested mountain terrain. These headwater steams and forests (the most productive and diverse 

temperate hardwood forests in the world) are valuable long-term economic assets to 

the local communities and to the Nation and are being forever lost. 

Environmental Impact Statement on Mountaintop Removal 

Because of litigation that I brought in 1998, a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on mountaintop removal was performed by EPA, the Army Corps 

of Engineers and OSM. The EIS found that present and future mining in Appalachia may cumulatively impact 1.4 million acres, or 11.5% of the study area, and 

that the destruction of these nearly 1.5 million acres of forest is profound and permanent because ‘‘unlike traditional logging activities associated with management 

of hardwood forest, when mining occurs, the tree, stump, root, and growth medium 

supporting the forest are disrupted and removed in their entirety.’’

The EIS also determined that mountaintop removal mining causes ‘‘fundamental 

changes to the terrestrial environment,’’ and ‘‘significantly affect[s] the landscape 

mosaic,’’ with post-mining conditions ‘‘drastically different’’ from pre-mining conditions. Further, mining impacts on the nutrient cycling function of headwaters 

streams ‘‘are of great concern’’ and mining impacts to habitat of interior forest bird 

species could have ‘‘extreme ecological significance.’’

The EIS further concluded that mining could impact 244 terrestrial species, including, for example, 1.2 billion individual salamanders, and that the loss of the geVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
130

netic diversity of these affected species ‘‘would have a disproportionately large impact on the total aquatic genetic diversity of the nation.’’ Finally, the EIS observed 

that valley fills are strongly associated with violations of water quality standards 

for selenium, a toxic metal that bioaccumulates in aquatic life. All 66 selenium violations identified in the EIS were downstream from valley fills, and no other tested 

sites had selenium violations. 

OSM’s response to these devastating conclusions was to further weaken its enforcement of the Act in Appalachia. 

In 2001 and 2002, the federal agencies responsible for regulating mountaintop removal weakened the EIS and did not proceed with necessary scientific studies when 

they realized that the science was showing that mountaintop removal could not be 

practiced without devastating the environment and economy of our region. The 

agencies simply halted the economic study that was crucial to the EIS when it became apparent that the results were not what OSM wanted them to be. 

In sum, the EIS was supposed to demonstrate the environmental and economic 

impacts of large scale strip mining on Appalachia and propose ways to protect the 

environment and mitigate the impacts of mining on the region. In spite of the fact 

that the environmental studies that were performed all showed significant harm to 

the environment, OSM guided the other agencies involved to make permits easier 

for mining operators to receive. OSM ignored the science and turned the EIS on its 

head. 

Because of OSM’s role in this process, we still desperately need an adequate and 

impartial EIS to be performed to demonstrate the far reaching impacts this form 

of mining is having on the Appalachian region. 

Approximate Original Contour 

The heart of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is the requirement 

that mining companies must restore surface mines to approximate original contour, 

or AOC. If mines are restored to AOC, the disturbed area is smaller, valley fills and 

stream impacts are reduced. The Act provides that approximate original contour is 

the surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area so 

that the reclaimed area closely resembles the general surface configuration of the 

land prior to mining and blends into and complements the drainage pattern of the 

surrounding terrain. 

Remarkably, there are few, if any, large surface mines in Appalachia that comply 

with this basic requirement. Instead, mining operators, with the acquiescence of 

OSM, thumb their noses at the law and create monstrous valley fills and sawed off 

mountains that more closely resemble the surface of the moon than our lush, green 

hills. 

Mountaintop removal mines are not required to restore the post mining site to 

AOC. The Act sanctioned mountaintop removal mining, but only in very limited circumstances. The Act requires that all mines be restored to AOC unless the mining 

company shows that it will restore the site to an industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, or public facility (including recreational facilities) use. 

Almost no postmining land in Appalachia is put to any of these uses. The post 

mining land is in isolated mountain areas, the land is unstable for building and it 

will no longer support native vegetation. There is no surface or groundwater available on the post mining sites because the mountain has been blown to bits. In short, 

mountains and valleys have been changed dramatically in contour so that they resemble no surface configuration on Earth and the land is useless for future development. Whether the mines are technically ‘‘mountaintop removal mines’’ or not (and 

OSM has so bent the definition of ‘‘mountaintop removal’’ that not all mines that 

have the affect of mountaintop removal mines are classified as such), almost all Appalachian surface mines fit this description. OSM has not lifted a finger to stop this 

complete abuse of the most important provision of the Act. 

Stream Buffer Zone 

Another of the most important provisions of the Act requires that no mines be 

permitted unless they prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance off site 

and minimize disturbance on site. OSM promulgated the stream buffer zone rule in 

1983 to carry out the Congressional mandate to protect the hydrologic balance. 

The buffer zone rule, 30 C.F.R. 816.57, states that no land within 100 feet of a 

perennial stream or an intermittent stream may be disturbed by surface mining unless the regulatory authority specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer 

to, or through, such a stream. The regulatory authority may authorize such activities only upon finding that surface mining activities will not cause or contribute to 

the violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and will not 

131

adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other environmental resources of 

the stream. 

On its face, this rule prohibits valley fills in intermittent and perennial streams 

and, in 1999, a federal judge in West Virginia agreed that this is what the rule 

means. That decision was reversed on appeal for purely procedural reasons—the 

Court of Appeals did not reach the merits. 

To protect the coal industry, OSM is in the process of trying to promulgate a new 

and weaker rule to override this 25 year old rule. It is absurd to allow, as OSM 

has, more than 2,000 miles of mountain streams to be permanently buried beneath 

mining waste and still claim to be protecting the hydrologic balance. Rather than 

weakening the rule to accommodate the mining industry, a responsible agency 

would force the industry to conform to the law. 

Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts 

OSM is also charged with protecting the cumulative hydrological integrity of the 

mining region. Again, OSM utterly fails to discharge its duty to assure that states 

are performing adequate cumulative hydrological impact analyses as the Act requires. For example, according to information released by the Corps, by 2001 as 

much as two percent—1,208 miles—of streams in Appalachia had been buried or directly harmed by valley fills and over 1.5 million acres of forest had been destroyed. 

This amounts to 11.5 percent of the land area in the region encompassing eastern 

Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and areas of eastern Tennessee. As a result of this destruction of headwater streams, mountaintop removal 

mines cumulatively devastate aquatic ecosystems. OSM has not attempted (and has 

not forced the states to attempt) to analyze and minimize the environmental harm 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future surface mining operations in Appalachia. These impacts include total elimination of all aquatic life in buried 

streams, negative impacts on the proper functioning of aquatic ecosystems (including fisheries located downstream of mountaintop removal mining operations), and 

impairment of the nutrient cycling function of headwater streams. 

For example, in the Coal River watershed in West Virginia, existing and pending 

surface mining permits cover 12.8% of the watershed. In the Laurel Creek of the 

Coal River watershed, existing and pending surface mining permits cover 28.6% of 

the watershed. Surface mining permits including valley fills cover 14.5% of first 

order streams and 12% of all streams in the Coal River watershed and surface 

mining permits including valley fills cover 37.3% of first order streams and 27.9% 

of all streams in the Laurel Creek watershed. 

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that mountaintop removal 

mining results in forest loss and fragmentation that is significant not only within 

the project area, but also regionally and nationally. In particular, the mines cause 

a fundamental change in the environment from forestland to grassland habitat, 

cause significant adverse impacts to the affected species, cause loss and/or reduced 

quality of biodiversity, and cause loss of bird, invertebrate, amphibian, and mammalian habitat. 

When Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977, 

it thought that it was enacting a law to protect the environment and citizens of the 

region. OSM has used, and has allowed the states to use, the Act as a perverse tool 

to justify the very harm that Congress sought to prevent. The Members of Congress 

who voted to pass the Act in 1977 could not have imagined the cumulative destruction that would be visited on our region by the complete failure of the regulators 

to enforce the Act. 

Higher and Better Use and Topsoil 

The Act requires that all postmining sites be restored either to conditions that are 

capable of supporting the uses they were capable of supporting before any mining 

or to higher or better uses. The Act also requires operators to save and replace the 

topsoil found on the mining site. 

Again, OSM’s record here is dismal. Our mountains have been reduced to 

scrubland that will not support native hardwood tree species. Far from requiring a 

higher or better use of that land, OSM has acquiesced to allowing operators to turn 

the most productive temperate hardwood forests in the world into useless and unproductive grasslands. One of the reasons for the sham reclamation practices that 

are common practice on Appalachian surface mines is OSM’s failure to assure that 

operators save and reuse the topsoil. Very few, if any operators, save the topsoil as 

the law requires. Instead, they are permitted to use ‘‘topsoil substitutes’’ and dump 

the irreplaceable topsoil into the bottoms of valley fills. 

132

Economics 

Mountaintop removal is also devastating the economy of the coal bearing regions 

of Appalachia. In 1948, there were 125,669 coal mining jobs in West Virginia and 

168,589,033 tons of coal mined. In 1978, there were still 62,982 coal mining jobs in 

West Virginia with only 84,696,048 tons mined. By 2005, however, only 17,992 of 

these jobs remained despite the fact that coal production had again risen to 

159,498,069 tons mined. 

So, although coal production today is roughly the same as it was sixty years ago, 

the number of coal mining jobs has decreased by more than 85%. This job loss has 

been driven not by environmental production or decreased production, but by coal 

operators themselves who have replaced workers with machines and explosives. 

McDowell County, which has produced more coal than any other county in West Virginia, is now one of the poorest counties in the Nation. Far from being an economic 

asset to communities, mountaintop removal devastates economies wherever it occurs. 

Summary 

With increasing global demands for energy, the oppressive influence of ‘‘big coal’’ 

has not weakened in our region since 1977. As the price of coal increases and socalled ‘‘clean coal’’ and coal conversion technologies are promoted, the pressure to 

evade the law and recklessly permit mines will increase. The peak of world oil production, the political vulnerability of the world’s oil supply, and the increased price 

of oil has quickly transformed the economics of the ‘‘coal to liquids’’ industry. The 

United States has the largest coal reserves in the world and we must control ourselves to protect the Earth and our region. 

There is no such thing as ‘‘clean coal.’’ Increased burning or liquefying of coal will 

produce unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide. Mountaintop removal mining destroys forever central Appalachia’s communities, forests, streams, and wildlife. The 

region is a ‘‘hot spot’’ for migratory birds and the giant holes now being opened in 

the forest canopy by mountaintop removal mining are devastating important populations of migratory birds. To compound the problem, as the price of coal rises, coal 

operators are today mining coal that until now was too expensive to recover in the 

past. As the price of coal increases or as mining technology becomes more ‘‘efficient,’’ 

coal seams that were off limits in the past are coming on line. Mining those more 

‘‘marginal’’ seams is even more environmentally harmful as coal operators are able 

to blow up more mountains and move more earth to get at ever thinner and deeper 

coal seams. The nation is at a tipping point on energy and climate change policy 

and the impacts of coal mining on Appalachia are an essential consideration in the 

development of an environmentally responsible energy policy. 

Conclusion 

I am pleased to see that this Committee is conducting this hearing on the thirtieth anniversary of the Act. I hope that it will actually take action to compel OSM 

to discharge its duties. The absence of energetic oversight invariably leads to problems, particularly with agencies like OSM that have close ties with the industries 

that they regulate. 

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to invite members of the Committee 

and its staff to travel to West Virginia to witness the devastation caused by mountaintop removal to help you appreciate the incalculable harm that OSM’s failure to 

enforce the Act has done to our region. We would be pleased to provide flyovers of 

mountaintop removal areas and to arrange meetings with community members 

whose lives and property are severely impacted by the illegal mountaintop removal 

mines that OSM refuses to regulate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wright. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN WRIGHT, COAL POLICY DIRECTOR, 

HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INDIANAPOLIS, 

INDIANA 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name 

is Brian Wright; I am the Coal Policy Director for Hoosier Environmental Council, a statewide organization in Indiana that represents over 25,000 members. 

In the nine years that I have worked for the Council, I have 

spent thousands of hours reviewing mining permits, ground-to-surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
133

face-water monitoring records, and scientific studies and government reports on the disposal of coal combustion waste in mines. I 

have also spoken with numerous citizens in Indiana and across the 

country on the impacts of mining on their homes, quality of life, 

and environment. 

I have come here to speak on behalf of residents in the Illinois 

coal basin, which stretches from Illinois into southwest Indiana. 

While SMCRA has addressed some of the most damaging mining 

practices within the coal basin, coalfield residents must still contend with contamination, loss of local groundwater, lasting damage 

to homes, unresponsive regulatory agencies, large-scale open dumping of coal combustion waste in the mines, and growing concern 

about damage from longwall mining. 

In 1977, the U.S. Congress decided that it would no longer allow 

the coalfields of this country to be treated as sacrifice zones, and 

coalfield residents to be treated as second-class citizens. So has 

SMCRA lived up to these intended purposes in the Illinois coal 

basin? It has the skeleton of a good law, but in many areas SMCRA 

still lacks the muscles and teeth needed to adequately protect coalfield communities and their environment. 

For example, SMCRA lays the groundwork for good groundwater 

protection, but the language in SMCRA remains too vague to offer 

meaningful protection for this vital resource. 

As you brought up earlier with the language of the approximate 

original contour and the fact that it has never been clearly defined 

in the law, SMCRA and Federal regulations have never defined the 

provisions and requirements for groundwater protection. 

SMCRA requires mines to minimize disturbance within the 

mined area to the hydrologic balance, and prevent material damage 

outside of the mine to groundwater, but has never defined either 

of these terms. As a result, state agencies have been given too 

much wiggle room in how to interpret these standards. 

Illinois and Indiana groundwater rules are written in such a way 

as to turn mine areas into sacrifice zones once again. During the 

mining process, no standards actually apply within the mined area. 

In the case of Indiana, any contamination that occurred in the 

mine would have to migrate 300 feet beyond the mine area and all 

the mine operations before any regulatory action would be applied. 

By that time, the contamination would be so well established that 

it would be extremely difficult to take any meaningful action. 

Once bond release occurs, in both states the groundwater receives a permanent designation as impacted by the mines, and the 

groundwater standard within those mine permit areas becomes the 

amount of contamination caused by the mining. There is no numeric standard holding them to minimizing contamination within 

the mine area, or preventing material damage outside. 

Both of these rules were given full approval by the Office of Surface Mining, despite their clear contradiction to the regulations and 

intent of SMCRA. 

Coalfield residents are supposed to receive help from their state 

agencies when they have a complaint about blasting, water loss, or 

other damage from the mine. And regardless of the area of the 

country, the mining agency or official or the mining company involved, I have heard the same consistent story time and time again 

134

from coalfield residents. No matter how well they can document the 

damage to their property, both the agencies and the mining companies continue to dismiss their complaints, or perform token actions 

which truly don’t address the damage. 

Citizens consistently find themselves placed in an adversarial relationship with the very agencies that are supposed to be protecting their interests. 

In addition to all of these existing problems, coal mines in the 

Midwest and throughout the country are now being used as open 

dumps for vast quantities of coal combustion waste. SMCRA was 

never designed to regulate these types of dumping operations, and 

coalfield residents have been forced to fight an unjust double standard when it comes to dumping in minefields. Disposal practices 

that would not be allowed anywhere else—for example, mass 

dumping in direct contact with groundwater—are allowed in the 

coalfields, strictly on the basis the dumping is occurring in mines. 

While OSM has called for a rulemaking on this practice, based 

on my experience with the Office of Surface Mining and state 

mining agencies coming from years of being involved in public forums, OSM conferences on mine disposal, and other rulemakings, 

state rulemakings throughout the last nine years, I can say with 

complete confidence that coalfield residents will not get meaningful 

protection for their health and their water unless you step in to demand that protection. 

The very recommendations given in National Research Council’s 

report on mine disposal are almost word-for-word regulations that 

citizens have been struggling for years to try and get in their own 

states, only to have OSM and state agencies fight them at every 

step of the way and oppose those types of safeguards. To now expect them to immediately do a 180-degree turn and turn around 

and support those recommendations from the National Research 

Council I found somewhat unbelievable. 

Concern has come up that is not being taken care of in any way, 

shape, or form by the local agencies is underground longwall mining. This is a serious concern to the citizens I contacted in Illinois, 

getting prepared for this testimony. 

Unlike traditional coal mining, longwall mines are allowed to 

completely collapse. This can lead to subsidence that can drop the 

ground as much as four to five feet on the surface. In Pennsylvania, subsidence from longwall mines has damaged homes, destroyed streams, and ruined farmland. The Illinois DNR refuses to 

accept any sort of regulatory authority over the surface impacts of 

these mines. 

We ask that you please consider taking the following steps to 

give SMCRA the muscles and teeth it needs to adequately protect 

coalfield communities and their environment. 

Number one. Defining what it means to minimize disturbances 

and prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance. 

Create better oversight of the state agencies. 

Require national regulations on mine disposal that at a minimum incorporate the recommendation of the National Research 

Council’s report, managing coal combustion residues in mines. 

And pass requirements to minimize surface impacts from 

longwall mining. 

135

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

Statement of Brian Wright, Coal Policy Director,

Hoosier Environmental Council 

Members of the Natural Resources Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important issue. My name is 

Brian Wright. I am the Coal Policy Director for Hoosier Environmental Council, a 

statewide environmental organization in Indiana that represents over 25,000 members. In the 9 years I have worked for the Council, I have spent hundreds of hours 

reviewing permit applications and ground and surface water monitoring records for 

Indiana coal mines. I have spoken with numerous citizens in Indiana and across the 

country about the effects of mining on the property rights, quality of life, health, 

and environment, and witnessed first hand damage to homes that coalfield citizens 

assert is from blasting at nearby coal mines. I have also played a central role in 

national campaigns to create national regulations on the disposal of power plant 

wastes in coal mines. 

Introduction 

My comments are presented on behalf of coalfield residents and citizen advocacy 

groups in the Illinois coal basin. The basin stretches through southern Illinois and 

southwest Indiana. Mining in the area is mostly done by surface mining, but the 

number of underground mines is growing in both states. While SMCRA has addressed some of the most egregious mining practices, coalfield residents must still 

contend with contamination and loss of local ground water, blasting damage to 

homes, unresponsive regulatory agencies, large scale open dumping of industrial 

wastes into mines, and growing concern about subsidence from longwall mining. 

In 1977, the U.S. Congress decided that it would no longer allow the coalfields 

of this country to be treated as sacrifice zones and coalfield residents to be treated 

like second class citizens. SMCRA was passed with the goal that the mined land 

be returned to original or better uses instead of being reduced to moonscapes, that 

ground and surface water quality and quantity be protected instead of being rendered too acidic to support life, and that the homes and quality of life of coalfield 

residents would be protected instead of damaged or destroyed in the name of extracting the coal. In order to ensure that SMCRA was carried out properly, requirements for public participation were put into place in order to ensure citizens could 

hold mining companies and state and federal agencies accountable when mining 

laws and regulations were not followed. 

So how effective has SMCRA been in protecting the property rights, quality of life, 

and environment of the residents of the Illinois coal basin from modern day mining 

operations? SMCRA has the skeleton of a good law, but in many areas it lacks the 

muscles and teeth needed to adequately protect coalfield residents and the environment. In the rural areas where these mines are located, ground water most often 

makes up the only reliable source of water for residents. SMCRA lays the ground 

work for good ground water protection. However, the language in SMCRA remains 

too vague to offer meaningful protection to this vital resource. 

The law contains protections for homes from blasting damage, but I have visited 

many homes and received many complaints from coalfield residents who watch as 

large cracks appear in their walls and their foundation after the mines move in. 

When they bring these damages to the attention of the state mining agency, the 

damage to their homes is dismissed as the house settling. In our experience, coalfield residents are left feeling despair and hopelessness as no amount of documentation or evidence seems to change the state agencies explanation to the damage to 

their homes. 

Regardless of the area of the country, the mining agency or official, or the mining 

company, I have heard the same consistent story time and time again from coalfield 

residents: agencies and mining companies dismiss the complaints of citizens no matter how well they can document damage to their property. Whether it is an issue 

on blasting damage to homes, harm to wells, or a rulemaking issue, citizens consistently find themselves placed in an adversarial relationship with the very agencies 

that are supposed to be protecting their interests. 

Citizens seeking relief through the permit appeal process find the deck stacked 

against them. Even in instances where citizens can clearly document where a permit application fails to meet state and federal requirements, the state agencies still 

consistently side with the mining company. Citizens are then forced into devoting 

scarce resources into fighting the uphill legal battle of convincing the agency’s own 

judges that their agency has acted in error in granting a deficient permit. 

136

Beyond these threats and challenges posed to coalfield residents, there are two 

practices never envisioned by the writers of SMCRA that are becoming increasingly 

common in the Illinois coal basin. Coal mines in the Midwest and throughout the 

country are being used as open dumps for vast quantities of power plant wastes. 

SMCRA was never designed to regulate these types of dumping operations. Coalfield 

residents have been forced to fight an unjust double standard when it comes to 

dumping in mines. Disposal practices that would not be allowed anywhere else such 

as disposal into direct contact with groundwater are allowed in the coalfields. The 

National Research Council, in their 2006 report ‘‘Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines’’, found that national regulations are needed to prevent harm to the 

health of coalfield residents and their environment. 

Based on my experience with the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and state 

mining agencies, I say with complete confidence that coalfield residents will not get 

meaningful protection for their health and their water unless you step in and demand that protection. For years, OSM and state agencies have fought against citizen requests for regulations similar to the recommendations made in the OSM report. 

Mining companies in the Midwest are increasingly turning to underground mining. If these companies decide to use the longwall mining method, there are no federal laws or regulations in place to protect coalfield residents from the surface impacts of longwall mining. Unlike traditional coal mining, which leaves pillars in 

place to prevent collapse, longwall mines are allowed to collapse. This can cause the 

ground to drop as much as 4-5 feet. The subsidence from longwall mines has damaged homes, destroyed streams, and ruined farmland. The Illinois and Ohio Farm 

Bureaus have passed resolutions calling for regulations on longwall mining out of 

concern over the damage this mining method could cause to prime farmland and 

historic farms in the Midwest. SMCRA must be amended to regulate all surface impacts from underground mines. Otherwise, citizens are helpless towards protecting 

their property and their environment from the impacts of longwall mining. 

Ground Water Protection 

Federal mining regulations require that coal mines ‘‘minimize disturbance of the 

hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, prevent material damage 

to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, to assure the protection or replacement of water rights, and to support approved postmining land uses.’’ (30 CFR 

Sec. 816.41) The regulations also require that the mine conduct a thorough, site specific analysis of the local ground and surface water resources, the cumulative 

hydrological impact assessment (CHIA). If the water source of a landowner does become contaminated, the mine owner is required to replace it. These requirements 

create the good framework for protection of ground water resources in the coalfields, 

but in reality these regulations have been inadequately applied in order to protect 

the water of coalfield residents in the Midwest. 

SMCRA and its associated regulations have never defined what it means to minimize disturbance within the permit area or prevent material damage. As a result, 

state programs are given too much latitude in deciding when a problem actually occurs. The Indiana ground water rule (327 IAC 2-11) makes it almost impossible to 

properly enforce these regulations. While the mine operation is occurring, a ground 

water management zone is established that extends 300 ft. from the mined area in 

all directions. Ground water standards are only applied at the boundary of the 

ground water management zone or beyond. No standards apply within the ground 

water management zone. This means that any contamination must migrate 300 ft. 

from the mine or the mine property boundary before any standards would be applied, meaning that any ground water pollution will be well established by the time 

it is subject to regulation. 

Once the mine has achieved bond release, the permit area of the mine becomes 

designated as limited class ground water (327 IAC 2-11-4(d) (1)). The standards for 

this area become the existing levels of contamination within the mined area at the 

time of bond release. This rule runs completely counter to the requirements and intent of SMCRA. Instead of setting standards and requirements to prevent the contamination, the state allows existing levels of contamination to lower the bar and 

water quality. 

Federal and state mining law require that mined land be reclaimed to original 

or better uses. 30 U.S.C.A. § 1265; Ind. Code § 14-34-10-2. However, the adopted 

ground water rule will automatically designate all ground water in mined areas 

damaged by the mining activities. Under this Rule, no mine can return an area to 

original or better uses if those uses relied on ground water, in violation of the federal and state SMCRA requirements. 

137

Under SMCRA, all mining operations must also ‘‘minimize the disturbance to the 

prevailing hydrologic balance at the mine-site and in associated 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.’’ 30 U.S.C.A. 

§ 1265(b) (10); Ind. Code § 14-34-10-2 (13). Indiana’s rule eliminates any incentives 

to minimize impacts to ground water quality because the area will be designated 

as limited upon bond release. Furthermore, Section 4 of the Rule contemplates that 

the limited classification may apply to an undefined zone of influence around a coal 

mine area, outside the 300 ft. limit. 

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has stated that the limited use 

designation will not change the requirements for reclamation, but Section 4 of the 

Rule clearly states that the limited use designation will have an impact on Ind. 

Code § 14-34-4-7, coal mine permit or approval. Section 7 states what is expected 

of the mine operator in terms of protecting ground water in order for the permit 

to be approved. The fact that this section of mining law is affected by the limited 

use designation would seem to indicate that a lesser expectation of ground water 

protection would result. It is reasonable to expect some impact upon ground water 

within the mined area, but this rule would make mined areas permanent sacrifice 

zones in regards to ground water. 

Indiana is not the only state that seems to remove mines from any accountability 

to ground water standards. The Illinois ground water rule (35 IAC 620) is similar 

to the Indiana rule. No ground water quality standards apply for inorganic constituents and pH within the area covered by the cumulative hydrologic impact area while 

the mine is in operation (35 IAC 620.450). Once bond release occurs, the ground 

water for mined areas is classified as ‘‘other groundwater’’. The standard for this 

classification is the existing level of contaminants present in the mine area. This 

classification is also extended to coal mine refuse disposal areas not contained within an area from which overburden has been removed, a coal combustion waste disposal area at a surface coal mine, or an impoundment that contains sludge, slurry, 

or precipitated process material at a coal preparation plant (35 IAC 620.240). 

It would be unrealistic to assume ground water in mined areas will remain in 

pristine condition. There should be a qualitative, numeric standard in place that establishes a clear line when an unacceptable amount of contamination occurs. 

SMCRA only creates a narrative standard and gives no real clarification on this 

issue. Without any real measure of when mines violate the ground water protection 

provisions of SMCRA, there is no accountability toward protecting the water of coalfield communities. When the drinking water of coalfield communities is at stake, the 

decision of when action needs to be taken should not be left to opinion. SMCRA 

needs to be amended to provide a clear, defined point where enforcement is needed. 

In order to determine how to go about minimizing the damage to water resources 

within the mine area and preventing material damage outside the permit area, each 

mine is expected to complete a cumulative hydrological impact assessment (CHIA), 

which evaluates the probable impacts to the area’s ground and surface water due 

to mining. The CHIA should examine site specific information in order to accomplish 

this task. 

HEC reviewed five CHIAs prepared by the Indiana regulatory agency that covered 

mines in five separate counties across a large geographical area. In all five, almost 

identical boiler plate language was used to describe the geologic conditions, the geochemistry of sites and effects on groundwater after mining. None contained the detailed site-specific analysis required before a responsible determination can be made 

of the possible impacts on the ground and surface water and how to best minimize 

these impacts. All five CHIAs assumed that the mine had a clay layer to prevent 

downward migration of water. Not one contained any analysis—much less acknowledgement—that water moves sideways and downgradient. 

There is little if any aquifer specific information in Indiana’s strip mining permits; 

The state does not require that different aquifers be sampled individually for quality, or that bale tests or pump tests be performed on aquifers individually to determine their permeability, rate of flow or connections with other aquifers. The state 

is not requiring that recharge rates be calculated for individual aquifers or cumulatively for all aquifers in the area to be mined. The state assumes that the direction 

of ground water flow is according to the structural contour of the layers of earth, 

or simply quotes the U.S. Geological Survey’s estimate for general flow of ground 

water for the entire region. Indiana does not require that static water levels be 

mapped from individual aquifers to determine direction of flow. Without this aquifer 

specific information, a proper analysis of the possible impacts of the mining on nearby wells is not possible. 

All five assessments also made the statement that the mine area had very little 

ground water regardless of the number of ground water users in the area. For examVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
138

ple, the CHIA for the Farmersburg mine, permit # S-287-1, made this declaration 

despite the presence of hundreds of households within 5 miles of the northern end 

of the mine that used ground water as their primary source of drinking water. 

The CHIA was supposed to be a valuable tool in addressing site specific ground 

water concerns at each mine. Instead, these assessments have become boiler plate 

reports used to belittle ground water concerns rather than address them. Without 

numeric standards in place or adequate site characterization, the drinking water 

supply for numerous coalfield communities is not being adequately protected. 

Citizen Participation 

When SMCRA passed in 1977, it included ground breaking language on citizen 

participation. Citizens were given the right to actively participate in the permitting 

process, the right to file a Lands Unsuitable for Mining Petition (LUMP), the ability 

to hold agencies accountable when the law is not properly enforced, and the ability 

to recover legal costs when they are forced to take legal action to ensure proper enforcement. Citizens were given tools including pre-blast surveys in order to protect 

their homes from blasting damage. The rights granted to citizens are one of the 

most important parts of SMCRA. 

These rights are not being upheld by the state agencies. I spoke with a number 

of Illinois residents while doing research for this testimony. They have all encountered stonewalling, refusal to accept citizen petitions, refusal to hold a public hearing, and long delays in the administrative appeals process that can last for years 

by the Illinois DNR. The citizens of Indiana have encountered similar tactics from 

the Indiana DNR. In fact, lack of good public participation was the most consistent 

complaint I have heard from Illinois residents. 

For example, at the closed Monterey Mine 2, ExxonMobil refused to place an impermeable cap over their 30 million cubic yard coal waste pile, claiming the pile 

wasn’t contaminating the groundwater off-site even though high levels of arsenic 

were being detected in nearby drinking water wells. In 2002, Illinois DNR ignored 

the request for a Public Hearing about the high hazard dams that contain the 

waste. In 2003, The DNR granted a public hearing on the reclamation plan, but refused to answer any of the public’s questions on the plan. 

In 2003, the reclamation plan was approved despite the fact that the mining company did not tell where the monitoring wells on the site were located. Illinois DNR 

itself admitted in its own evaluation that this made it impossible to determine 

whether any possible contamination was migrating off site. Without this data, there 

is no way to address whether the reclamation plan adequately addressed possible 

ground water contamination at the site. The reclamation plan has been under appeal for over 4 years. The appeal is now at the federal level. Meanwhile, the first 

off-site sampling of the groundwater by the mine was performed in 2006 and 

showed contamination. 

In August 2005, Illinois DNR found that the pipeline the mining company had 

been operating to pump diluted contaminated groundwater into the Kaskaskia River 

was an on-going regulated activity. As a result, the public had a right to a public 

hearing on the pipeline. Illinois DNR had agreed to hold a hearing, but backed down 

when ExxonMobil filed extensive legal briefs arguing against the need for a hearing 

and designation of the pipeline as regulated under mining law. DNR sent the legal 

arguments to the OSM for review, who found that the mine arguments were not 

valid. In December 2006, Illinois DNR nevertheless changed their position in favor 

of the mine. The appeal of that decision is still underway. 

In a recent case in Indiana, citizens appealed the issuance of the mining permit 

for Vigo Coal Company’s Chili Pepper Mine. The appeal was based on the fact that 

the mine permit application did not have all necessary documents required for approval of the permit. Indiana regulations (312 IAC 25-4-23) clearly require that the 

mine list the permit numbers or permit application numbers for other necessary 

permits. Even though the language of the regulation is clear and unambiguous, the 

Indiana Natural Resources Commission ruled in favor of the Indiana DNR on the 

grounds that the Commission always defers to agency interpretation of the regulations. The Natural Resources Commission is supposed to be the rulemaking body 

over the Indiana DNR, and is the final step in the administrative appeal process. 

Yet, they admitted in the public hearing on this appeal that they will always defer 

to agency opinion. 

The citizens filing the appeal did not have the resources to appeal the case to the 

state’s courts so the precedent is established that agency interpretation of regulations will be a deciding factor in appeal cases. This has the effect of making any 

citizen appeal of a DNR decision a lost cause from the state unless they have the 

resources available to pursue the multi-year appeal process through the state and 

possibly federal courts. In short, the appeal process in Indiana is broken. 

139

For the sake of brevity, I have only included two examples of how the permit appeal process has been skewed against citizens. More can be provided to the committee upon request. Coalfield residents wishing to appeal a permit must fight the 

uphill battle of convincing the agency’s own judges to rule that their agency has 

acted in error. Before they can reach any truly independent court, they must spend 

a large amount of time and money going through the administrative process. This 

system does not provide true oversight. 

Power Plant Waste Disposal 

Coal mines across the country are increasingly used as dump sites for coal power 

plant wastes (PPW). The disposal of millions of tons of PPW raises unique problems 

and issues that are very different from those created by mining. SMCRA is simply 

not written with the intent of ever regulating such disposal operations. State regulations and policies on mine disposal of these wastes consistently fail to enact the 

most basic environmental safeguards needed to adequately protect human health 

and the environment. Disposal practices that would be forbidden under solid waste 

laws for the same wastes are approved in mines. 

The National Research Council (NRC) did a thorough study of the placement of 

PPW in mines throughout the country, ‘‘Managing Coal Combustion Residues in 

Mines’’ (2006). The study found that ‘‘enforceable federal standards are needed for 

the disposal of [coal combustion residues] in minefills to ensure that states have 

specific authority and that states implement adequate safeguards.’’ The report found 

major deficiencies in existing state regulations on mine placement including inadequate waste and site characterization and the lack of enforceable performance 

standards. 

The focus of SMCRA and the regulatory agencies in regards to protecting water 

quality is preventing acid mine drainage, which results from the oxidization of sulfur and iron deposits in the mine overburden. PPW, on the other hand, presents 

completely different kinds of concerns and thus requires very different solutions. 

The major concern with PPW is that wastes have the potential to produce toxic levels of a number of different pollutants when they come into contact with water. 

The NRC’s report found that ‘‘high contaminant levels in many [coal combustion 

residues] leachates may create human health and ecological concerns at or near 

some mine sites over the long term.’’ PPW contains concentrated levels of different 

pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, boron, and sulfates. Dozens 

of scientific studies have found that contamination from PPW can cause deformities, 

reproductive problems, and death in mammals, fish, and reptiles. Despite all the 

available evidence of contamination problems from PPW, most state mining agencies 

refuse to admit that any threat is posed to ground and surface water quality by 

these wastes. 

The OSM has announced that it will be conducting a rulemaking on the placement of PPW in mines. We are thankful to OSM for starting the process of developing these regulations, but we have serious concerns whether the OSM will develop 

regulations that offer a sufficient level of protection to citizens beyond the status 

quo. For many years, OSM and state agencies have vehemently opposed citizen requests to enact regulations similar to the recommendations made in the NRC report. In order to ensure that the proposed federal regulations adequately protect 

human health and the environment, HEC believes the following elements must be 

included into the rule: 

The proposed rule must include the basic requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The disposal of large quantities of PPW raises 

unique problems and issues that are very different from those created by mining. 

The proposed rule must include the basic safeguards laid out in the federal waste 

rule, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as separation of the 

wastes from ground water, long-term ground water monitoring, and corrective action 

standards in order to ensure that these disposal operations are managed properly. 

Incorporation of RCRA into the rule will also ensure that citizens will receive a consistent level of protection for their health, water, and environment regardless of 

what kind of disposal facility they live next to. 

The current system of some disposal sites being regulated under RCRA and some 

under SMCRA has resulted in a double-standard for citizens living next to mine disposal sites in violation to their right of equal protection under the law. Coalfield citizens have been exposed to disposal practices at mines that would be in violation of 

RCRA such as open dumping into direct contact with groundwater. We therefore ask 

that OSM choose its recommended options of either a joint SMCRA and RCRA rule 

on mine disposal or a RCRA Subtitle D rule that is enforceable through SMCRA 

permits. These options are necessary to ensure a rule that provides adequate and 

equal protection to coalfield citizens. 

140

The regulations should include at a minimum the basic environmental safeguards 

recommended by the National Research Council study. These safeguards include 

waste characterization, site characterization, monitoring, standards for clean ups, 

and public input requirements. The study also recommends that contact between 

the wastes and water be minimized. We believe this would be best achieved by a 

requirement to prohibit disposal of the wastes below the pre-mining ground water 

table. These requirements should be enforced regardless of whether the PPW is 

being dumped or used for ‘‘reclamation’’ in active or abandoned mines. 

OSM should adhere to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process in 

order to ensure that all stakeholders are brought to the table for an open discussion 

of the proposed rule. Coalfield residents and citizens groups have been underrepresented at numerous OSM forums on the issue of mine placement of PPW. These 

stakeholder groups deserve adequate representation in discussions of the proposed 

rule. We ask that regional public hearings be held on the proposed rule to ensure 

citizens have adequate opportunity to voice their concerns. 

Longwall Mining 

In Illinois and Ohio, homeowners and farmers are very concerned about the increased use of longwall mining. Unlike traditional room and pillar mining, longwall 

mining removes the entire coal seam in thousand foot long panels beneath an area 

that can extend for tens of thousands of acres. The mines are allowed to subside, 

which can cause the surface to sink as much as four to five feet. Illinois DNR has 

claimed that it has no authority over longwall mines even though SMCRA regulates 

the surface impacts of underground mining (30 USC 1266). 

The subsidence from longwall mining has caused a number of serious problems 

in Pennsylvania. Houses have suffered severe damage including being pulled off 

their foundation, fallen chimneys, broken window and door frames, and broken 

water and gas pipes. Longwall mining can also have a serious effect on ground and 

surface water. The subsidence can cracks to form in aquifers, which leads to dried 

up wells and springs. On the surface, it can alter the flow of streams, turning the 

waterways into isolated pools. 

The major concern for residents of Montgomery County Illinois will be the impact 

on farmland. Many of the farms in the area are centennial farms that have been 

owned by families for generations. In Pennsylvania, longwall mining has altered 

drainage patterns and rendered farmlands too wet to be farmed. Over 27,000 acres 

of the farmland in this county is in bottomlands and subsidence of four feet would 

most likely disrupt drainage ways, and lead to more flooding of the farms. Subsidence from longwall mining has also opened up cracks and deep fissures in crop and 

pasture land that pose serious hazards to livestock and farm equipment. 

The Illinois DNR has repeatedly refused to address citizen concerns about possible 

damage to their homes and farms on the grounds that SMCRA does not give them 

the authority to regulate underground mines. Citizens in Montgomery County have 

filed a petition to designate the area as lands unsuitable for mining. The Illinois 

DNR has denied the permit repeatedly on the grounds that it cannot accept such 

petitions for underground mines, but this would appear to directly contradict their 

own regulations, which declare the ‘‘An area shall be designated as unsuitable for 

all or certain types of mining operations.’’ (225 ILCS 720/7.02) 

The Illinois DNR seems to be completely unwilling to take any sort of regulatory 

action in regards to longwall mining. This situation leaves citizens with no recourse 

for protecting their homes and their property from possible damage from longwall 

mines. Coalfield residents in Pennsylvania have also experienced the same resistance from their state agency. Congress must take action to protect the property 

rights and environment of citizens potentially impact by these mines. Currently, 

mines are given a green light to damage peoples’ property. 

Conclusion 

While SMCRA is at its core a good law, the language needs to be strengthened 

in many places in order to adequately protect coalfield communities and their environment. The need for coal is not going away anytime soon, but that need must not 

grant companies a license to damage homes, quality of life, and drinking water. 

We ask that you please consider taking the following steps to give SMCRA the 

muscles and teeth it needs to adequately protect coalfield communities and their environment: 

• Define what it means to minimize disturbances and prevent damage to the hydrologic balance 

• Create better oversight of the state agencies 

141

• Require national regulations on mine disposal that at a minimum incorporate 

the recommendations of the National Research Council’s report Managing Coal 

Combustion Residues in Mines 

• Adopt requirements to minimize surface impacts from longwall mining 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Pfister. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN PFISTER, ON BEHALF OF THE 

NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL AND THE 

WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, 

SHEPHERD, MONTANA 

Ms. PFISTER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on the 30th anniversary of 

this landmark legislation. 

I am Ellen Pfister, a rancher from the Bull Mountains North of 

Shepherd, Montana. Unlike most, if not all, of you here today, I 

own property that is the subject of an ongoing coal permit. 

I first testified before this committee in September 1972 in support of Representative Kenneth Heckler’s bill for a temporary ban 

on strip mining. At that time, strip mining was proposed for the 

north end of our ranch. Like many others who were involved in the 

passage of SMCRA, I was naive enough to believe that the law 

would be enforced, and that I could go on about my life. 

From 1988 through 2007, I have been involved with the permitting process for a speculative longwall mine that will undermine 

part of my property. Right now it is shut down for lack of money, 

but, like cancer, it has not gone away yet. 

SMCRA is a good law as far as it goes. It has resulted in the regarding of a great many spoils areas and revegetation of those 

areas, with varying degrees of success. 

But the three biggest failures in SMCRA are the failure to include the reclamation of surface effects of longwall mining beyond 

the mine adit areas, the failure to anticipate the expansion of 

mountaintop removal, and the failure to reclaim underground 

water resources by minimizing damage to them. The first two are 

omissions from the law, and the third is a failure to adequately enforce the law. 

In the West we don’t have mountaintop removal, but we have aquifer removal, because surface mining in the West is mining the 

aquifer. The damage mountaintop removal does is spectacular, like 

beheading a person. Longwall and aquifer mining are like dying of 

pancreatic cancer. One death is much more spectacular and visual, 

but one is just as dead from cancer. 

The failure to protect our water resources is connected to overall 

reclamation rates in the West that are abysmal. OSMRE data 

shows only about 6 percent as much acreage reclaimed as mined 

in the West over the last 10 years. 

Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Natural Resource Defense Council will be releasing a report next Friday, the 

30th anniversary of the Act, with this and other findings about the 

status of reclamation and enforcement under the Act in the West. 

We will provide copies of this report to the Committee, and ask 

that it be made part of the record. 

142

One of the reasons for this low level of bond release is the way 

the permit plans have been approved. Decker and Spring Creek 

Mines in Montana were allowed to mine for years before regrading 

any appreciable acreages, let alone beginning revegetation. We believe the permits which allowed that were granted in violation of 

SMCRA’s standard that reclamation be as contemporaneous as possible. Twenty years does not meet that standard. The State of Montana should not have allowed it, and OSMRE should have held the 

state responsible. 

This situation presents a good opportunity for further oversight 

by Congress. There is another phrase that has no definition after 

30 years of the law. 

Additional reasons for low levels of final bond release detailed in 

my written statement are the attitudes of company managers, 

which are reflected in the revegetation on the ground, and do very 

significantly. The use of rolling bonds and the failure to reclaim the 

water resource, which is required before final bond release, water 

replacement in Montana is euphemistically termed opportunistic. 

This means no positive action is taken to prevent the destruction 

of aquifers, and no plan exists to replace or protect the damaged 

water. 

Mining companies are allowed simply to keep their eyes open for 

opportunities to replace destroyed wells and springs as they mine 

along. However, they do seem to overlook opportunities. 

I do not believe there is anything especially wrong with SMCRA, 

with the exception of not covering longwall mining and mountaintop removal. But I do believe that as an agency, OSMRE has long 

been lacking the intent and resources to enforce SMCRA as it 

should be enforced. 

The inspectors are the face of OSMRE and the states to protect 

the citizens from the effects of coal mining. SMCRA was well 

drawn, with two enforcement agencies, state and Federal, because 

it is all too easy to co-opt one or the other. It is a little harder to 

co-opt both, although I am now beginning to wonder. 

Essentially, OSMRE inspection personnel are constables on patrol, and if a state has primacy, their inspectors have the same 

mandate. 

In closing, Congress could pass more laws and see them twisted 

or ignored. It is better to seek enforcement of the law you have. 

When the agency charged with enforcing laws you have passed attempts to withdraw from enforcement and hide from the public, 

who believed in the law you have passed, the agency causes the 

public, both industry and citizens, to hold the law in contempt. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, you should be 

angry that SMCRA is being administered in this fashion. We appreciate your action in holding this hearing, but you need to do 

closer oversight on OSMRE, in Washington and in the field, to hold 

OSMRE accountable for its enforcement of the Act, and for adopting regulations and policies consistent with the intent of Congress, 

and for ensuring that state agencies do likewise. 

We urge you to use your oversight authority to impress upon 

OSMRE the importance of improving reclamation, with a special 

attention to reclamation of water resource within the mine permitted areas. Whether the issue is acid mine drainage, the impacts 

143

of mountaintop removal and longwall mining, and the routine aquifer removal we see in western strip mines. 

We also suggest that you demand improved reporting from 

OSMRE, and urge you to support more funds to OSMRE and state 

agencies. The agencies can do a much better job with the amount 

of money they have, but it is also clear that lack of funds and personnel is part of the problem. 

I am submitting some pictures showing some of the coal mine 

sites I have visited over the years, as well as a copy of a document 

from the Western Interstate Coal Board, called an impending crisis 

for coal supplies, which deals with funding to the coal programs of 

the western states. 

Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to thank you for your 

leadership on the 1872 Mining Law Reform, as well. Western Organization of Resource Councils and Northern Plains also strongly 

support your legislation that is being heard tomorrow. 

Thank you. 

[NOTE: The pictures contained on a CD have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pfister follows:]

Statement of Ellen Pfister, Shepherd, Montana,

on behalf of the Northern Plains Resource Council 

I am Ellen Pfister, a rancher from the Bull Mountains North of Shepherd, Montana. I own property that is the subject of an ongoing coal mining permit. I am testifying today for the Northern Plains Resource Council and the Western Organization 

of Resource Councils. Northern Plains is a grassroots conservation and family agriculture group that organizes Montana citizens to protect our water quality, family 

farms and ranches, and unique quality of life. WORC is a regional network of seven 

grassroots community organizations, including Northern Plains, which have 9,500 

members and 45 local chapters in seven states, including the coal-mining states of 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and North Dakota. 

In the early 1970s, huge energy corporations threatened the homes and livelihoods of ranch families near Colstrip and in the Bull Mountains. Those families and 

other Montanans formed Northern Plains in 1972. Northern Plains’ early efforts led 

to passage of a state strip mine law, and Northern Plains was also a national leader 

in securing passage of the historic federal strip mine law in 1977. 

I first testified before this committee in September 1972 in support of Representative Kenneth Heckler’s bill for a temporary ban on strip mining. Little did I know 

that I was about to get involved with a sideline project that would occupy the rest 

of my life. At that time, strip mining was proposed for the north end of our ranch. 

There were no safeguards for the surface property owner at all. On the third attempt at passage, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of l977 was 

passed by Congress and signed by President Carter. 

30 Years of SMCRA 

SMCRA is a good law as far as it goes. It has resulted in the regrading of a great 

many spoils areas and revegetation of those areas with varying degrees of success. 

There has been little success in reforesting areas which were previously hardwood 

forests. Most of the mountaintop removal areas are denuded of trees. The western 

prairies have vegetation ranging all the way from weed patches to some pretty good 

looking mixed grasslands. The spoils are being regraded to approximate original 

contour to a greater or lesser extent. 

The three biggest failures in SMCRA are the failure to include the reclamation 

of the surface effects of longwall mining beyond the mine adit areas, the failure to 

anticipate the expansion of mountaintop removal and the failure to reclaim underground water resources. The first two are omissions from the law, and the third is 

a failure to adequately enforce the law. 

Underground coal mining, whether room and pillar or longwall or any other kind 

of underground extraction, should be included within the purview of SMCRA. When 

the strippable coal is gone the coal industry will turn to other methods for coal recovery. The surface damages and damage to water will not abate with a change in 

144

the method of mining. These surface impacts of underground mining should be 

clearly included. 

When it passed SMCRA, Congress did not foresee the damages that large scale 

longwall mining can do or the potential for explosion in size of mountaintop removal. In the West, surface mining removes the underground water aquifer—the 

coal seam. All of these mining methods are extremely damaging to water regimes. 

All of these damage the surface, but in different ways. Mountaintop removal is like 

beheading a person, and longwall mining and surface mining are like dying of liver 

or pancreatic cancer. Beheading is much more spectacular and visual, but one is just 

as dead from cancer. 

OSM has permitted the States to approve permits that I believe violate mandates 

within SMCRA itself, such as the standard for reclamation to follow behind mining 

as contemporaneously as possible. Permits that allow a mine to wait 20 years before 

beginning regrading and other reclamation procedures certainly have no element of 

contemporaneous reclamation. SMCRA is bent to the mine operator’s complete convenience. Certain pits that are left open for years on the chance that the mine may 

need that coal to blend fall short of contemporaneous reclamation as well. 

The practice seems to be that the terms of permits will be enforced even if the 

permit does not comply with SMCRA, as long as the permit is complete by dealing 

with every section of the state regulations. Granting the permit gives an easy out 

on enforcement of the standards of SMCRA to the permittee and the agencies. 

As a subject and participant in the permitting process in Montana, I have come 

to the conclusion that it can be summed up as ‘‘Promise her anything, but give her 

Arpege’’...or maybe, dime store perfume. Any remediation in the permit can be relaxed or voided if the permittee cries economic hardship. As someone who will suffer 

economic harm if remediation measures are not enforced and successfully implemented, I really do not know what the final remediation will look like. I suspect 

the permittee’s economic hardship will trump my economic hardship. The permit is 

supposed to be a promise of reclamation and repair by the State to its citizens, because the State approved the reclamation plan and accepted the promise from the 

permittee. I have grave doubts as to how binding that promise is on the permittee. 

Speculative Mine Permitting 

From my personal experience, application of SMCRA’s mine permitting procedures by state and federal agencies does not deter application for permits by speculative ventures. I hope that what I have dealt with for the last 18 years is not common nationwide. 

Like many others who fought for passage of SMCRA, I was naı ̈ve enough to believe the law would be enforced, and that I could go about my life. Coal entered my 

life again at Christmas l988, when two boys from Pikeville, Kentucky, came around 

wanting to start a coal mine that would affect the north end of our place. Then a 

bigger fish, Burlington Resources, came around with the idea of a longwall mine and 

a proposal to trade Federal coal for some of their land. It would be a large block 

of coal and would support a 3 million ton a year mine. I knew Burlington Resources 

would never mine a lump of coal on their own. Their ambition was to be gentlemen 

royalty collectors, but the permitting process began, and regardless of how speculative a mine plan is, a landowner or party adjacent to a mine cannot afford to ignore 

it. The permitting process grinds on regardless of the economic feasibility of a 

project. This speculative mine has occupied my time and the Montana Coal Program’s time for 18 years with no sign of economic success for the mine. 

Burlington Resources put the permit on the market as soon as it was issued in 

l992 and finally found a buyer in John Bauges, Jr. of Tennessee in l995. He began 

mining then, but in l998, the permit was permanently revoked for mining with a 

pattern of violations, and the bond forfeited. Two years later the state of Montana 

had barely begun to clean up Baugues’ mess, when John Baugues showed up again, 

striking a deal with the State of Montana to reduce his fines by about two-thirds 

and requesting that the State of Montana resurrect the permanently revoked permit. OSMRE was brought in to rule on whether a permanently revoked permit could 

be resurrected. OSMRE ruled that there was one precedent for doing so from West 

Virginia; however, no permit number or mine name or location was ever cited. No 

one that I met from West Virginia had ever heard of it. OSMRE enabled the resurrection of a mine that is a pure speculation. 

Once the permit was resurrected in 2000, Baugues et al came back with a bigger 

and better plan to mine 12 million tons a year, which would take out the whole coal 

reserve in our area in 30 years and leave the entire heart of the Bull Mountain recharge area with deeply damaged water. In addition to the mine, the Baugues consortium proposed a 700 MW merchant power plant, which has now morphed into 

a 300 MW power plant and a 22,000 barrel a day coal to liquid fuels plant, which 

145

in turn needs an additional 150 million tons of strippable coal to be even remotely 

feasible. 

The Bull Mountain Mine shut down again in March 2007, as it was being sued 

in foreclosure by bond holders, North Carolina and Florida churches and retirees, 

who were promised 11% return on their investment bonds. While Baugues et al 

were defaulting on their bonds, they were running around our country trying to buy 

ranches, some of which they lost their earnest money on, not being able to make 

the final payment. 

In January 2007, Montana DEQ finally approved the permit amendment to the 

Bull Mountain Mine, which takes in the north end of our place. They claim our high 

springs will not be damaged. Our springs are in the vicinity of 500 feet above the 

coal. Aside from the property owned by the coal company, our ranch will be the second property to be damaged when the second longwall panel begins operation. I am 

not optimistic about the future of our water; ‘‘no damage’’ does not jibe with what 

I have seen in other areas of the country. The primary authority relied upon by the 

state is a consultant paid by the permittee in l992, who cited no specific instances 

in western longwall mining similar to the geologic conditions in the Bull Mountains 

in finding that there would be little or no damage to our water. 

Since the mine was first permitted in l992, it has never operated on the schedule 

shown on the permit. They are months and years behind schedule. The mine would 

eventually take out a subdivision in the Bull Mountains, if it proceeds as planned. 

Those homeowners are hoping the threat will go away, and don’t want to face the 

problem of what and when will something happen to their property. The town of 

Roundup no longer holds its breath with anticipation when the mine makes an announcement promising jobs and economic development, and payment terms in 

Roundup are cash only for the mine. The permit is the only thing that holds this 

speculation together. 

Longwall Mining 

Most of the longwall mines in the West are under public lands; the people are 

gone. The effects are hidden underground, known only to the regulators and the 

mining companies. Since the U.S. Bureau of Mines was closed in 1996, there have 

been and still are no studies being done on the effects of longwall mining. The only 

studies I could find were scientists putting their sensors down well holes in the east, 

and bewailing the fact that after the longwall machine passed, they couldn’t get 

anymore readings on where the water went. They had no money to pursue the information, and probably no way to access legally the land that was mined. That is a 

failure in SMCRA. The entire area in an underground permit should be included 

in SMCRA, because the affects of longwall coal removal go to the surface miles away 

from the adits and processing plants. Unless there is jurisdiction through government action, there is no way for follow-up studies to be done of water damage in 

longwall mine areas, and no one with the resources to find the lost water. 

Since l989 when longwall mining came to the Bull Mountains, I have tried to find 

out what has happened in longwall areas across the country. The water buffalo—

a plastic above-ground cistern, usually set on the road in front of a house, which 

mining companies use to deliver replacement water to homes and farms—is the indicator species for the health of water in longwall areas. Where has the original 

water gone that was once in wells and springs? No one seems to know, and landowners are powerless to force a search. I cannot think that water stored for home 

use in water buffaloes is healthy for families. 

I met a dairyman in Western Pennsylvania whose farm dated back to l795 who 

was ultimately forced out of dairying because the water hauled to his cows was 

chlorinated, and they could not thrive on it. I have been visiting by e-mail with a 

farmer, Floyd Simpson, in Southeastern Ohio whose land lies about 500 feet over 

the coal seam being longwalled, who lost springs going back to the late 1700’s, and 

old wells. It took about three weeks for the water to fail after undermining. The 

coal company has been very slow to deal with the promises it made him prior to 

undermining. He has had trouble with water haulers after undermining, and his 

historic farm buildings were severely damaged. He has a website, 

www.countrymilefarm.com, with a diary of the damage that occurred when he was 

undermined in late 2003. He does not know where his water went. He knows he 

does not have the water he had. 

Southwestern Pennsylvania has been devastated by longwall mining; it is a land 

of leaning chimneys, damaged homes, and water buffaloes. Interstate highways as 

well as county roads have been undermined. I have seen half a county road slipped 

40 feet down the hill from where it had been, thanks to subsidence. 

146

Acid Mine Drainage 

Permits that allow acid mine drainage are still being issued. I do not find that 

a failure in the law, but in the administration of the law. Acid mine drainage from 

Eastern mines seems to be the norm. Save Our Cumberland Mountains fought for 

10 years to get Fall Creek Falls State Park in Tennessee declared unfit for mining 

due to the certainty that mining in that watershed would cause acid mine drainage 

over the falls. I doubt if many permits have been denied on the grounds that mining 

would cause acid mine drainage. Although SMCRA allows the designation of areas 

unsuitable for mining, very few areas have that designation, and it is difficult to 

get. 

Save Our Cumberland Mountains did a study in l989 on acid mine drainage on 

reclaimed sites in Tennessee and found a lot of it, despite the promise we saw in 

SMCRA to end it. I have watched over the years as OSMRE tried different things 

to mitigate the improvidently granted mine permits that were discharging acid mine 

drainage. There was the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative that tried to dip into 

USDA funds to help out, as well as waylay any other money that could be found. 

There was AMD and ART, which was an attempt to show how acid mine drainage 

treatment areas could be turned into a community enhancement. That, too, used 

funds other than funds from the party who caused the damage in the first place. 

OSMRE has not had the guts to face down the companies to make them internalize 

the costs of their actions, and fix the damage that is occurring on permitted mine 

sites. 

Since the passage of SMCRA in l977 the size of Eastern mines, particularly 

longwall and mountaintop removal, is increasing and beginning to approach the size 

of some Western mines. The Eighty-four longwall mine at Washington PA was permitted to undermine 22,000 suburban acres initially. The mountaintop removal 

mines are up to 5,000 acres and above. The mountaintop removal mines are depopulating the towns and settlements that are unlucky enough to reside below them. 

The Western mines depopulate areas as well. The practice has been to buy out 

the rancher and give them an option to buy back at some time in the future. If the 

mine is on public lands, the public is excluded from the mining area. Both East and 

West are depopulating coal bearing areas. If one becomes a tenant of the company 

when he had previously been a landowner, he is no longer independent or in a position to speak his own mind. The company regards the permit as being between the 

company and the agency and no one else should have anything to say. If the people 

are gone, there is no one to see or to tell how badly the mines reclaim the mined 

lands. 

Water Damage 

We don’t have mountaintop removal in the West, but we have aquifer removal. 

The mining companies and regulatory agencies regard water in the western mines 

as fair game for damage and diminution. Water from disrupted aquifers comes into 

the pit, with no attempt to insulate the water from contact with the spoils materials. Experimental practices have been suggested from outside the agencies and industry, but those practices would take planning at the permit issuance stage. That 

has not been done in the past, and there are no plans to do it in the future. Some 

of the Western mines are dry in the pit, but others have quite a lot of water that 

pours into the pit. The flushing that does occur within the pit is unpredictable and 

uncontrolled. Now, to add insult to injury, OSMRE is considering a new regulation 

that would allow the dumping of fly ash in the strip pits in the East. I do not believe that Congress meant to allow the dumping of industrial wastes in surface 

mining pits when it passed SMCRA. 

The Colstrip, Montana, electric generating plants offer a good preview of what can 

happen when fly ash is mixed with water. The fly ash pond at Colstrip was constructed in about 1974 to a depth of eighty feet, but only the top 40 feet were lined 

with impermeable material. Water began leaking from the bottom of the fly ash 

pond shortly after, contaminating the wells on the Kluver Ranch downstream. Thirty years later, the pollution has advanced downstream to contaminate the wells on 

the McRae Ranch. The ranch wells were drilled deeper to get below the pollution, 

but there is nothing to keep the pollution from eventually reaching the deeper water 

as well. The company has been pumping the surface water from the toe of the pond 

back into the pond, but the water keeps traveling underground. I do not think 

OSMRE has the will to enforce anything that might approach safe storage of fly ash 

underground in a wet mine, and I know the State of Montana does not. 

Recently the Rosebud Mine at Colstrip cut into an area called Lee Coulee, which 

was a new mining area. They hit a tremendous vein of water which they pumped 

on down the coulee, ruining 90 acres of hay land. It drained the springs above the 

mine cut. They are no more. Don Bailey’s hay ground is ruined, and the water is 

147

gone. He had to sue the mine to recover his damages. The waste of water from Lee 

Coulee is an act of extravagance like lighting cigars with thousand dollar bills. 

The Rosebud mine also had a twenty mile highwall open for a number of years—

10 miles on the north side of the hill, and 10 miles on the south side of the hill, 

and the mine is moving in a direction which has the potential to create even longer 

highwalls. The mine was keeping the mine road at the base of the highwall open 

to have a loop road on which to haul coal. 

The State of North Dakota issued a permit to turn Kenney and Gwen Thompson’s 

farm land into a dump for an adjacent mine that was mining on the farm. The farm 

couple didn’t know about it until diesel fuel turned up in the well at their house. 

OSMRE was no help to them. They eventually sold to the mine due to the farmer’s 

ill health. Miners at the mine told the couple about all the hazardous waste the 

mine dumped in the mine pit on their land. 

Now there is a lawsuit filed in Denver over dumping fly ash in the Navajo Mine 

in New Mexico and leaving it open, blowing ash in the wind. OSMRE is responsible 

for mining on Indian lands. OSMRE allows dumping fly ash in the mine pit, which 

is not clearly authorized by SMCRA. The mine operator is not even covering it in 

a prompt manner, which should be required even if SMCRA authorized dumping fly 

ash in a mine. I saw fly ash being dumped in that mine in a flyover in l992. There 

is a lot more fly ash there now. 

When we were in the permitting stage of the initial Bull Mountain Mine, we were 

told by state agency personnel that water replacement would be ‘‘opportunistic’’. 

This means that the mine operator would develop sources of replacement water 

when they run across them, in the course of mining—as opposed to having a plan 

for replacing the water up-front, in the permit, before mining begins. A Colstrip 

area rancher watched one of the mines bury a spring that could have been developed with a little care—so much for opportunistic development. 

The Jacobs Ranch Mine in Wyoming is finally putting in for bond release on the 

areas against the Rochelle Hills, which were mined about 1980 when the mine 

opened, because water is finally beginning to infiltrate into the mine areas from the 

undisturbed areas toward the hills, starting to re-establish the groundwater that 

was there before mining. As it advances west, the mine is also dewatering the coal 

in advance of its mining area to get the coalbed methane out before it removes the 

coal. The combination of surface mining and coalbed methane development may result in an area devoid of any water for a very long time. 

Water loss in the East is typically dealt with by either a water buffalo or connecting people to a pipeline from somewhere else. I have always wondered what will 

happen when that ‘‘somewhere else’’ is also damaged by coal mining, and that water 

disappears as well. 

The Citizen: Regulation and the Law: State and Federal 

To the ordinary person, of the 4 sets of documents that can govern coal mine reclamation, SMCRA is the plainest to read and understand. The language is generally 

set in terms of ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘will’’, which most people understand, whether they like 

it or not. Going back about the last 25 years at least, OSM has been in the business 

of putting out regulations to bend ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘will’’ into something else, if possible. 

I don’t know of any proposals to strengthen SMCRA regulations during that time. 

Neither the states nor OSMRE have any programs to educate citizens about their 

rights under SMCRA, the law’s citizen enforcement provisions, or the standards of 

reclamation established by SMCRA on other than an ad hoc basis. There is no easy 

reading document for citizens. The text of SMCRA itself is the plainest of the materials available. 

The federal regulations are long and a lawyer’s joy. When the state laws and regulations are added on top of that, which is the case when a state has primacy, the 

amount of material to digest becomes nearly overwhelming. Montana’s education for 

citizens about what the law says was to give them a copy of the state regulations, 

but even that seems to have gone by the wayside in recent years. 

The Montana law has gone from a law which said ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘will’’ to one which 

says ‘‘may’’ and ‘‘should’’ to favor the newly fashionable tenses in legal writing. 

‘‘Shall’’ and ‘‘will’’ are clearly defined in court cases and English classes. The Department of Environmental Quality, acting at the direction of the Montana legislature, 

is attempting to conceal the mandatory effect of SMCRA, and OSMRE has gone 

right along with this, although SMCRA requires state programs to be no less effective than the federal program. Essentially, OSMRE inspection personnel should act 

as constables on patrol, and if a State has primacy their inspectors have the same 

mandate. Montana is trying to obscure that mandate and to remove the sense of 

immediacy of enforcement under the law changes of 2003 and 2005. OSMRE tried 

to obscure the sense of immediacy with its Reg. 8. 

148

Reg 8, in its latest, 1999 incarnation, is an internal OSMRE directive that has 

functionally eroded the independence and ability of the agency’s field staff in overseeing state programs. Much like ‘‘Catch-22’’, Reg 8 effectively allows state agencies 

a veto over what part of their programs can be evaluated and corrected by OSMRE, 

and prohibits evaluation of off-site impacts by OSMRE if the state program doesn’t 

define them as off-site impacts. 

It takes years for OSMRE to approve or disapprove changes to Montana’s law and 

regulations. In the meantime, the Montana agency enforces changes made by the 

legislature to the law and its own changes to implementing regulations, regardless 

of whether they comply with SMCRA or have been approved by OSMRE. I wonder 

what happens when Montana approves actions under its law while waiting for 

OSMRE to rule, and later it is found that the approved action was not in compliance 

with SMCRA. 

OSMRE’s budget for ‘‘environmental protection,’’ which includes funding for state 

program evaluation, fell by almost 18 percent, adjusted for inflation, between 1997 

and 2005. The number of state program evaluation staff also fell. This may explain 

why OSMRE is so slow in processing regulatory packages. It takes so long, that if 

one has commented on a package, by the time the ruling comes out, one has almost 

forgotten about it. If the non-compliant action is ensconced in the permit, will Montana enforce that rather than an action which would comply with SMCRA? 

Regulation and Money: State and Federal Relationship 

OSMRE was a victim of the Clinton balanced budget drives. The first people cut 

were the inspectors, and the first of those to go were women and minorities. The 

cuts have not slowed down under subsequent administrations. It is no wonder that 

now, as its personnel ages and retirees, OSMRE is running into a shortfall of qualified people to move up. 

The inspectors are the face of OSMRE and the states. They protect the citizens 

from the effects of coal mining. OSMRE has tried to withdraw itself from direct enforcement and contact with possible on the ground enforcement. SMCRA was welldrawn with two enforcement agencies, state and federal, 

because it is all too easy to co-opt one or the other. It is a little harder to co-opt 

both, although I am now beginning to wonder. OSMRE has further tried to reduce 

its presence by refusing to consider offsite impacts from mining unless the states 

report the offsite damage in state statistics. 

The Western Area Office of OSMRE is not even listed as tenant in the Denver 

office building in which it is located on the 33rd floor. Not only has OSMRE tried 

to withdraw from direct enforcement by way of Regulation 8, but apparently the 

Western District Office of OSMRE is trying to physically hide. 

In passing SMCRA, Congress intended that the regulating agency keep a presence 

in the coalfields and that the permits be available for inspection in the coal fields. 

Montana is just barely in compliance with SMCRA on that point, with the Billings 

Office having only a generalist and a secretary. The generalist employee is also an 

inspector. All the other inspectors in Helena are also specialists in other fields, and 

every specialist is an inspector. The question is whether academic specialists also 

have the temperament to make the kinds of decisions that an inspector must make. 

Billings is about 90 miles from the closest big surface mine. The rest are hundreds 

of miles further. Helena is 250 miles from Billings. Inspecting from Helena will be 

difficult, and I think the amount of travel time will render the coal program less 

effective. 

The Montana Coal Program has been losing employees, and the money to hire replacement employees has been declining, especially from Federal sources. The Federal Government was obligated to fund the Western States to the extent that the 

coal in the state belonged to the United States. The Western Interstate Energy 

Board says that the Federal Government is saving money with the states accepting 

primacy, because the state pay levels are so much lower. Yet the Federal Government still keeps cutting real dollars from OSMRE and state budgets. 

Montana has been saving money by paying wages for people with advanced degrees that are significantly below what they could earn in industry. Either the people who chose to work for Montana are dedicated to something other than top dollar, 

or they are short on competence, or they have reached a certain age in industry 

where industry no longer wants to hire them. I do know that the State has been 

a revolving door for hydrologists of all types. They get a little experience from the 

State to show on their resume, and then move on. The Montana Coal Program has 

been defunded and short changed on personnel, and it is no wonder it is teetering 

on the brink of someone requesting a 731—asking OSMRE to take over a state program because of the state’s failure to meet the requirements of SMCRA. The Montana legislature found $250,000 additional temporary funding this year, but now it 

149

appears that only part of the money will be available to alleviate the employment 

problems at DEQ. 

If there is not better funding forthcoming, it is possible that the United States 

will have to pick up the tab for regulating the damage that will come from its appetite for coal. Funding less today will cost you more tomorrow. 

Bond Release 

OSMRE data shows that 22,905 acres have been reclaimed and achieved final 

(Phase III) bond release in the West over the last ten years; meanwhile, 400,000 

acres were disturbed by new mining. I think there are several reasons for this low 

level of bond release (about six percent as much acreage reclaimed as mined). 

The first is the way the permit mine plans were approved by the agencies. Decker 

and Spring Creek in Montana were allowed to mine for years before treating any 

appreciable acreages for regrading, let alone revegetation. We believe the permits 

which allowed that were granted in violation of SMCRA’s standard that reclamation 

be as contemporaneous as possible. Twenty years does not meet that standard. The 

State of Montana should not have allowed it, and OSMRE should have held the 

state responsible. This situation presents a good opportunity for further oversight 

by Congress. 

The second reason is that some companies do not want to comply with the revegetation standards. Westmoreland has been head butting Montana over that for some 

years now. Westmoreland lobbied successfully for significant changes to revegetation 

and postmining land use standards in the 2003 Montana legislature—just as another mine in the state showed that it was possible to meet Montana’s the previous, 

standard for revegetation. The difference was the attitude of company management. 

The mine which did a good job was a Rio Tinto mine, and its company managers 

had decided it was cheaper to comply with environmental laws than to constantly 

be hauled into court. The attitude of the managers was reflected in the quality of 

reclamation on the ground. 

Revegetation is possible in most of the northern high plains, given the right company attitudes, but water resource reclamation is much more problematic, and is 

the third reason why final bond release is low. Water resource reclamation has had 

the lowest priority in the permitting and reclamation process. There are promises 

in the permits to replace individual water resources, but it is unclear whether and 

how those promises have been kept. Replacing individual resources depends on having a resource that can be found and depended upon to be potable, at the very least. 

I don’t know how the states are going to meet the standard of not degrading and 

diminishing the water resource in the mine area. The practice today—leaving up to 

time and fate to clean up water quality and quantity—is not satisfactory to those 

of us who live in the coal fields. There is no research in the area, and the regulators 

are accepting time and fate instead of requiring specific actions to restore pre-mining hydrology. 

Until the water is reclaimed, there should not be bond release. The States and 

OSMRE are coupled in ignoring this problem. If the States and OSMRE accept any 

more permits or permit amendments that ignore reclamation of the total water resource, a fine would be in order again. 

Montana has been doing what is called rolling bond release, which is a fourth reason why final bond release is so low. In Montana, Stage IV bond release is the final 

stage indicating that the water resource has been reclaimed, and the state retains 

a small amount of bond money until Stage IV release. 9/11 raised the costs of bonds 

across many industries, including coal. The Stage IV bond money is now mounting 

up, and there are fears that if large amounts of acreage are suddenly up for bond 

release, there will be great pressure on the state to release, regardless of quality 

of reclamation, because if something should cause a bond forfeiture, there would not 

be enough money left to fix the problem. 

Self bonding is allowed in some states. The State of Colorado allowed the MidContinent Mine to self bond with a limestone plant as collateral. The sole market 

for the limestone plant was Mid-Continent mine. Korea cancelled its marketing 

agreement with Mid-Continent. The mine closed. The bond was forfeited, the limestone plant now a worthless property that had lost its market. Meanwhile, the family that owned Mid-Continent had invested in Colorado mountain real estate. 

OSMRE had the authority to pursue that money, but did not with any vigor. The 

taxpayers have picked up the tab for what reclamation has been done on the Forest 

Service land where Mid-Continent operated. 

Citizen Action 

Citizens can file complaints in writing under SMCRA, but there are informal ways 

to make one’s voice heard. The regulators see industry people on a regular basis. 

150

They develop a familiarity with each other. They drink beer together in the hotel 

bar, if they are at an away meeting. If there is a regulatory office in a reasonably 

convenient location, citizens should stop by when they don’t have a complaint. If 

there is a basis of familiarity, perhaps relations would be a little better. Such visits 

also help inform the citizens about conditions within their regulatory agency. 

In Montana, it would be helpful if more of the state regulatory agency were closer 

to the mines. Because of the travel distances involved, most of the contact between 

the Montana state agency and citizens near the Eastern Montana mines consists of 

more formal meetings, and because of the turnover of regulatory personnel in sensitive areas, frequently the sacrificial agency lamb at such meetings is the newest 

and most inexperienced of Montana personnel. 

The Casper Field Office of OSMRE, which regulates the highest producing coal 

area in the United States, has the most area to cover, and probably the fewest inspectors. Distance operates against a citizen getting a clear idea of how that office 

operates. It is 379 miles from Casper to Billings, 629 miles from Casper to Helena, 

and God knows how far to North Dakota. For quite a while last year, the Casper 

Office operated without a field office director. The Field Office Director from Albuquerque filled in. I would say that is hardly effective administration. Getting acquainted with the regulators will not solve all the problems relating to SMCRA enforcement, but it is a small step that citizens can take. 

Conclusion: Congress’ Responsibility for the Enforcement of SMCRA 

Some of the agency actions are in effect, actions in contempt of Congress, as evidenced by Congress’ intention expressed in SMCRA. I do not believe there is anything especially wrong with SMCRA, with the exception of not covering longwall 

mining and not coping with mountaintop removal, but I do believe that as an agency 

OSMRE has long been lacking intent to enforce SMCRA as it should be enforced. 

The agency has been a great hand to not want to take action on something unless 

it is immediately hazardous to human life. That is a judgment call, and the agency 

is not prescient. The process to pass SMCRA began with the disaster at Buffalo 

Creek, WVA. Fortunately, a similar tragedy for human life has not happened again, 

but how much luck was involved with the Kentucky River flood through Louisa, KY 

or the water break out at the AEP mine in Ohio? There are a number of sludge 

ponds throughout the East that are known by the agency to be unstable, but they 

remain unremediated, and the locations are not known to the public. Is OSMRE 

prescient as to which one will break first? Where are the states and OSMRE on 

this? Both are negligent and trying to hide out from that unpleasant policeman’s 

task. 

Congress could pass more laws and see them twisted and ignored. It is better to 

seek enforcement of the law you have. When the agency charged with enforcing laws 

you have passed attempts to withdraw from enforcement and hide from the public 

who believed in the law you have passed, the agency causes the public—both industry and citizens—to hold the law in contempt. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, you should be angry that SMCRA 

is being administered in that fashion. We appreciate your action in holding this 

hearing, but you need to do closer oversight on OSMRE. We respectfully suggest you 

hold more such hearings both here and in the field, to hold OSMRE accountable for 

its enforcement of the Act, for adopting regulations and policies consistent with the 

intent of Congress, and for ensuring that state agencies do likewise. 

We also suggest that you demand improved reporting from OSMRE. You also 

have the power to issue contempt citations, and I believe that you should seriously 

consider doing so. If you cannot get OSMRE to respect and enforce the law which 

it is paid to administer, then perhaps you should consider housecleaning in the 

agency. 

We urge Congress to provide more funds to OSMRE and state agencies. The agencies can do a much better job with the amount of money they have, but it is also 

clear that lack of funds and personnel is part of the problem. 

OSMRE and the states should require vastly improved reclamation at all phases, 

from regrading to water resource reclamation, revegetation, and final bond release. 

The percentage of mined acres reclaimed in the West is abysmal, and does not meet 

any definition of ‘‘contemporaneous reclamation,’’ as the Act requires. A critical first 

step is for OSMRE to define contemporaneous reclamation, a job that has been 

pending for years now. OSMRE should also make clear in its regulations that mine 

permits will not be issued for areas in which a mine plan does not allow for and 

require contemporaneous reclamation, and consider increasing bond amounts to provide an adequate incentive for companies to apply for bond release, but also to do 

better reclamation in the first place. We urge you to use your oversight authority 

to impress upon OSMRE the importance of addressing these problems, with special 

151

attention to reclamation of the water resource within mine-permitted areas—whether the issue is acid mine drainage, the impacts of mountaintop removal and long 

wall mining, or the routine aquifer removal we see in Western strip mines. 

Finally, OSMRE should adopt a policy prohibiting the issuance of new mine permits or expansions in areas where stripmined land remains unreclaimed after more 

than ten years. 

NOTE: A report entitled ‘‘An Impending Crisis for Coal Supplies: Demand Rises, 

Regulatory Grants Fall Short’’ prepared by the Western Interstate Energy Board 

dated November 30, 2006, is available at http://www.westgov.org/wieb/reclamation/

2006/12-01finalrpt.pdf. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before the Chair asks its first questions, it is 

going to ask a question of the audience that he asked earlier. Is 

anybody from OSM here? Did they reappear? Anybody representing 

OSM taking notes in any way? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let the record show that unlike OSM, our 

West Virginia State Regulatory Authority, in the form of our Secretary of DEP, Stephanie Timmermeyer, is still with us. And I appreciate very much her being here to listen to the panels. 

Mr. Morris, let me go back to something you mentioned about a 

mining operation taking place in Virginia, I believe it was, that is 

not permitted, and the state regulatory authority will not take any 

actions or inspect because it is not a permitted operation? 

Mr. MORRIS. That is my understanding. This is not my case, it 

is Mr. Lovett’s case, and perhaps he can give you some more detail. 

But the claim by the citizens——

The CHAIRMAN. Did I have the state right? In Virginia? 

Mr. MORRIS. It is in Virginia. The claim by the citizens is that 

a mining operator, in advance of approval of a mining permit for 

which the operator has applied, has already begun to conduct preliminary operations, which are surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations, without the permit. 

According to OSM’s regulations, and the regulations in Virginia 

as well, that constitutes an imminent danger to the environment. 

It is supposed to be addressed in the most expeditious and forceful 

way that either agency can possibly do it. And Virginia is refusing 

to take, as I understand it, to allow the citizens, to take the citizens and even inspect the area because it hasn’t issued a permit 

yet. 

And of course, the long and short of that is that any operator 

who goes forward without a permit in Virginia would be immune 

from action by the regulatory authority. They would never go out 

and look for it because they haven’t issued a permit for it yet. It 

is absurd. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lovett, can you expound on that? 

Mr. LOVETT. I agree with what Mr. Morris said. That is exactly 

what has gone on. 

In addition to that, because the state refused to take the citizens 

up, we asked OSM to take the citizens up. And that has been more 

than two weeks, OSM still has not done so. The people are being 

just completely disregarded by both agencies in Virginia. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is reminiscent, in my opinion, of the old days 

of the two-acre exemption and the chain of pearls. And we thought 

we had closed that exemption, and evidently we have not. 

152

Mr. MORRIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, in this situation it not a small 

chain-of-pearls-type operation. This is a huge mining permit, and 

the operations that are going on, according to the citizens’ allegations, are extensive. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Lovett, everybody we have heard 

from so far today seem to be the most negative of everybody. I 

mean, you state our future generations will not forgive us. You 

know, I take that as an affront. I go to bed at night and sleep 

soundly, and think I am doing all I can to protect our environment 

and provide for jobs. But there is an insinuation there that I am 

not. 

You stated that we would be just as well off if OSM would disappear, and not be around. Let me ask, then, would we be just as 

well off if SMCRA were not ever enacted? 

Mr. LOVETT. Mr. Chairman, first let me address your first point. 

I certainly didn’t mean to cause affront to you personally; I am 

complicit in this, as well. 

I think that our generation is currently decimating central Appalachia, and I believe my children will look back to me and ask me 

questions about it, as well. I use coal as well as anyone else. I don’t 

mean to exempt myself from that, and I don’t mean to cause you 

personal affront. 

But I do take this as a very serious issue facing our region. And 

I think that all of us need to act to change it. 

Second, in response to your question about OSM, I think that 

SMCRA has good provisions in it. It is a good law in many ways, 

if the agency would enforce them. 

One of the questions you raised earlier was the question about 

approximate original contour. If the state agency or the Federal 

agency would enforce the requirement that the land look, after 

mining, like it did before mining, these mines wouldn’t be occurring. Because very few of them are put to any productive use. 

In fact, there are a handful of examples. Now, don’t forget there 

have been over a million acres stripped in this region since the passage of the Act. And yet there are a handful of projects. There 

aren’t golf courses—I think there is one golf course. There aren’t 

schools. Those are exaggerations of what is going on. These are 

very isolated mines, and there is really almost no development on 

them at all. 

So yes, I do believe that OSM’s failure to enforce the Act has rendered it meaningless right now. I hope that we have a better Administration that will be willing to enforce the Act in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. SMCRA requires its sediment ponds be constructed to control runoff from mining operations, including mountaintop mining operations in valley fields. Do you agree with that 

statement? 

Mr. LOVETT. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morris, let me ask you then. Your experience 

in the Solicitor’s Office lends great credence to what you have to 

say. Would you expand on what you termed as a judicial misinterpretation of the Act’s citizen supervision? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, the decision of the Fourth Circuit in West Virginia Coal Association v. Bragg, or actually I think it is Bragg v. 

West Virginia Coal Association, proceeded on the theory that apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
153

proved state programs under the Surface Mining Act are purely 

state law; that they are not a hybrid Federal and state law, even 

though Federal approval of those statutes is necessary before they 

can take effect, and even though those statutes are codified, state 

statutes are codified in the Federal rules, the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Using that theory, that judicial misinterpretation, the Court 

went on to say that the provision that this committee and the Congress put in the Surface Mining Act authorizing adversely affected 

persons to sue state regulators in Federal Court to compel compliance with mandatory non-discretionary duties was unconstitutional, under the 11th Amendment, because the 11th Amendment 

will not allow private citizens to sue state officials for violations 

purely of state law. 

But when Mr. Lovett brought the case that became Bragg v. 

West Virginia Coal Association, he was suing state officials to comply with the state program itself, which is, in our view, and in the 

view of the Department of Justice, stated to the Fourth Circuit in 

the very case, both Federal and state law, and thus the citizen supervision, is entirely constitutional and doesn’t offend the 11th 

Amendment in any respect. 

What we have here is a judicial misinterpretation of the nature 

of state programs under the statute, that is repeated in a ruling 

of the Third Circuit, and which the Department of Justice is no 

longer willing, as I understand it, to challenge in other circuits, 

that needs Congressional correction. 

There are several ways, it seems to me, that the statute might 

be quickly and readily amended, but that correction needs to happen because without it, citizens cannot use the Federal forum to 

compel state officials to carry out mandatory duties under the statute, even where it is clear that the state officials are failing to do 

their job. As it was, as Judge Haden pointed out in Mr. Lovett’s 

case, in the Bragg case, it was clear. And the Fourth Circuit did 

not have any quarrel with the merits, didn’t even reach the merits. 

So I repeat my urging for the Committee to take a very serious 

look at correcting that problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very interesting. I appreciate that. I do have a 

couple more questions, but I am out of time, and I want to yield 

to the, or excuse me, recognize the Ranking Member for his questions. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate each one of 

you for testifying today. 

Mr. Wright, do you think that coal has a place in today’s energy 

portfolio? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I believe it is not going to be feasible any time soon 

to remove it completely out of the portfolio. I do believe we need 

to further diversify our electricity portfolio to include more renewable sources, such as wind and solar. I think it is easily achievable, 

given today’s technology, to have a renewable electricity standard 

of 10 percent or 20 percent, have that achieved. 

Mr. PEARCE. What level could we achieve, in your opinion? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Ten to 20 percent. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Lovett, you, in the opening part of your statement—it is not actually part of the written statement, but your 

154

oral testimony—you were trying to distance yourself from the views 

in the second panel, and said that you would like to contrast that. 

Now, I heard a balance of views there that were reassuring, but 

I think most reassuring was Secretary Timmermeyer’s testimony. 

And so you would describe her testimony as rose-colored? What 

would you—because I had commented walking out that I was 

greatly reassured that they were achieving a balance of regulation 

and business interests. How would you characterize that testimony? 

Mr. LOVETT. Well, I have had long-running disputes with the 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. I do not 

believe that it is discharging its duties under the Surface Mining 

Act to require reclamation. 

It may be true that trees can be grown on these sites after mining. Professor James Burger at Virginia Tech has done significant 

research—I think it would probably be fair to call him the foremost 

reclamation specialist in the country—that shows that trees can be 

grown after mining. 

But it requires a couple things. It requires that the topsoil be 

saved, as the Act requires. And it requires that the next layer, the 

brown, weathered sandstone, part of that be saved, as well. 

Mr. PEARCE. Excuse me, I was asking for you to reflect on her 

testimony. 

Mr. LOVETT. OK, I will make it quicker. The DEP refuses to require operators to save that topsoil, even though it is required by 

the Act. And because it does so, there is no indication that trees 

will grow on any of these sites. 

So to the extent that we are saying that reclamation is being 

achieved by state regulations——

Mr. PEARCE. Excuse me, we are right back where we were. I was 

just asking you to characterize her testimony. 

Mr. LOVETT. Oh. I disagree. 

Mr. PEARCE. And so you find it to be false. You find her testimony to be false. 

Mr. LOVETT. I disagree with it, yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Would you shut down all coal mines? 

Mr. LOVETT. No, of course not. My lights would go off like everyone else’s if that happened. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you think that coal—in your testimony you say 

that there is no such thing as clean coal. 

Mr. LOVETT. I believe that. That is why I tell my kids to turn 

the lights off. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you are content with global warming effects that 

are attributed to coal, because you say there is no such thing as 

clean coal. You are satisfied with those effects into the future. If 

you don’t have clean coal, and sequestration is a dream that is 

probably 40 years in the future, frankly, so you either shut down 

the mines, or you understand that we don’t have clean coal. 

Mr. LOVETT. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were 

asking me if we should shut down the mines today. The answer to 

that is no. I do believe that we need to start making a transition 

away from a coal-based energy economy to more renewables and to 

more conservation. 

155

Mr. PEARCE. Do you think Mr. Wright was correct, that we can 

achieve 20 percent right now? 

Mr. LOVETT. I don’t know the answer to that. I believe that we 

need to make a serious effort as a country to wean ourselves from 

coal. I don’t see that happening. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you think that the lack of preserving of the topsoil that you are bringing up, do you think that is because of just 

bad corporations? Or do you think it is feasibly impossible? 

Mr. LOVETT. I don’t think it is because of bad corporations. I 

think that corporations do what agencies allow them to do. I think 

that the Act clearly requires that topsoil be saved, unless it can be 

shown that there is a substitute that would be better than the topsoil for the use. 

I think that growing trees, growing our native trees, our Appalachian trees requires a slightly acidic soil, like the one we have. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you see any countries around that do have the 

correct standards? I mean, like the Chairman, I find you to be 

somewhat disappointed maybe in the environment that exists 

today, the environment and the regulatory agencies. 

Do you find a country where that is carried out more properly? 

Mr. LOVETT. I don’t know what happens in other countries. I 

have great hopes for our country. And all I can do, of course, is try 

to work in my state and in my country to make it as good as I can. 

I don’t mean to be a negative person. Generally I don’t think of 

myself that way, and I apologize if that is the impression here. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you could not, in other words, you do a pretty 

good job of absolutely ripping every regulator, every department 

that is engaged in this. I think many times I am like the Chairman; I find that very strong. 

So if you have an opinion, then it would be productive for us to 

see good examples. If those good examples don’t exist in the world, 

it just might be that you are not the only one correct; that maybe 

the regulators are doing the best they can with a very bad situation. And in fact, maybe those trees might grow. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish. I have some more questions, too. 

Mr. LOVETT. May I answer the question? I do think that the previous Administration was making an effort, the Clinton Administration was making an effort to change these things. I think that 

I am negative about the Administration that is currently in office, 

because it has gone out of its way, I think, to help weaken enforcement in our region. I think that, and I hope that we will get the 

next Administration, whether Republican or Democrat, that will 

take more seriously the concerns that we have. 

Mr. PEARCE. Would any of the four of you, I will just go down 

the row, would you favor nuclear energy? Mr. Morris? 

Mr. MORRIS. That is out of my field, Congressman. 

Mr. PEARCE. Or are all of us going to have to turn on the switch 

and get electricity? I understand. Mr. Lovett? 

Mr. LOVETT. I am the same. I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Wright? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, as I said earlier, I am in favor of diversifying 

our electricity portfolio. I think there is cheaper options out there 

than nuclear. 

156

Mr. PEARCE. Which options would that be? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Wind is comparable with the modern-day coal 

plant. It would have to be built today and beat all the modern environmental requirements. 

Mr. PEARCE. Are you aware that coal, I mean that wind places 

a tremendously large footprint on the environment? That the footprint left by one wind generator is maybe—I forget exactly, they 

testified in here—about six or eight times the size of an oil well. 

And that an oil well can be drilled out this way, so you get one 

footprint. The wind generators have to be multiplied. And do you 

think that wind, then, is a satisfactory environmental solution? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. And I have talked with farmers who are putting wind turbines onto their own property, and they are going to 

be able to farm right up to the base of that wind turbine. 

Mr. PEARCE. No, believe me, I agree. I think we should have energy, and I think we should have renewable. And the wind, the testimony is pretty far into the distant future. And unlike you, the 

specialists in the industry say that it is not as economic; that in 

fact, we are actually subsidizing it quite heavily. Wind is subsidized. 

We want to shut off coal, and we think that it is not suitable for 

the environment. But we, frankly, the industry has testified that 

your 20 percent threshold is not achievable in the near future, and 

it might be 20 or 30 years away. That in fact it is 1 percent that 

it produces today. And converting from a 52 percent producer of 

energy to a 1 percent, and causing that 1 percent to expand geometrically 50 times, is technologically not capable. 

But also, there is no transmission to and from. That is one of my 

problems with the bill that we just passed out of here, that we 

tried to encourage transmission corridors for the renewables, wind 

and solar. But those transmissions corridors were deeply harmed 

in H.R. 2337. 

And so I do wonder at some point what we are going to do for 

energy. I think that Mr. Roberts testified on the previous panel 

that we are going to see 30 percent and 40 percent increases. And 

it is the low-income people in our population that are going to really suffer those increases. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I have finished. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WRIGHT. If I could respond to that. I have heard similar industry claims. We have just gone through this debate in our own 

state, and we did a comprehensive rate base analysis of what the 

impact of a 10 percent renewable electricity standard would be on 

Indiana electricity rates. And based on the data we gathered, we 

only found a 1 percent to 2 percent cost increase from that 10 percent renewable electricity standard. 

Meanwhile, the industry came back and was claiming anywhere 

from 5 percent to 10 percent, but they refused to release any of the 

data on where they received, were able to calculate those figures 

from. 

So you will excuse me if our publicly available data comes up 

with one result, but I am somewhat skeptical when industry comes 

back with a completely different result, and refuse to release any 

of the data on how they reached it. 

157

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Before proceeding with my last questions, I see that Mr. Conrad is still with us in the back of the room, 

with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. And I understand Virginia is a member of your organization. 

And if you could help us get to the bottom of this unpermitted 

mining issue that Mr. Morris brought up, I know this committee 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. CONRAD. I had thought of it, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I take that as an affirmative answer, 

for the record. Thank you. 

Mr. Wright, let me ask you to expand, if you would, on the coal 

power plant combustion waste issue. As you know, I am the one 

who requested the National Research Council study to which you 

referred. 

For instance, to what extent are you aware that these waste residues are being employed in mine reclamation? 

Mr. WRIGHT. First of all, thank you for calling for that report. I 

can’t say nationwide. I know, just for example, Indiana. We have 

calculated the total permitted tonnage currently existing, and it is 

125 million tons just for Indiana mines. That is about as much as 

produced nationwide in one year. 

And I believe in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, there is even 

more large-scale dumping. So we are talking on the order of hundreds of millions of tons being planned to be shipped to these 

mines. 

The CHAIRMAN. Over what time period is that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Again, I can’t answer that off the top of my head. 

There is going to be a report coming out on the Pennsylvania program soon that should have a little bit more details on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you share those——

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN.—results with this committee? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Pfister, certainly you have a 

great deal of experience with SMCRA; you stated that in your testimony, and you have a long and dedicated history. This committee 

certainly appreciates that. 

From the perspective of the West, what is the single largest issue 

of concern? Is it the aquifer removal issue that you noted in your 

testimony? 

Ms. PFISTER. I would say that it is, sir, because the water that 

lies within the mine permit area is basically considered, it is just 

like it is not there. Whatever time and fate does to it, that is what 

is going to be. There is no attempt to protect. There is water in 

some places that comes in on one side of the pit, goes into the 

spoils material, and then goes on down out the other way. There 

is no attempt to conduct that water to protect it from touching the 

soils materials, or completely absorbing and becoming a mud in the 

bottom. 

And in the West, where you don’t have a whole lot of streams, 

which is typical of eastern Montana and Wyoming, that groundwater is the resource. For instance, at Colstrip, Montana, they 

have disturbed around 22,000 acres. So you have basically got 

22,000 acres of unpredictable water quality in that area. And of 

158

course, eventually the pollution in the mine moves as a plume 

down the country. 

So what you are trying to do in the mine would be to minimize 

the amount of water quality degradation that you get as a result 

of mining. 

There is no thought, no experiments, no technical studies on how 

to do this. It is just mine it and dump it back in. And I would say 

that is the worst problem. Because if we don’t have water in the 

West, we don’t have anything. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you have Clean Water Act issues here, as 

well. 

Ms. PFISTER. You certainly would if you threw in some coal combustion waste. But with what you have, I don’t know if it is clean 

water, but you are just not supposed to make it so terrible that you 

can’t use it. 

And of course then you have your water quality standards, your 

Class I, your Class II, and your Class III. But eventually there 

comes a point when a cow won’t drink it, either. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you. Do you have any further 

questions? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for being with us today. 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel, number five, is composed of the 

following individuals: Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President, 

Legal and General Counsel, National Mining Association, Washington, D.C.; William B. Raney, President, West Virginia Coal Association, Charleston, West Virginia; Eric Fry, Director of Regulatory Services, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, on behalf of the Illinois Coal Association; and Marion Loomis, Executive 

Director, Wyoming Mining Association, from Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you to the Committee. We appreciate the 

sacrifices you made to be with us today, the travel and being with 

us for close to five hours now. So we appreciate your patience. 

Hal, you may go first. Good to see you again. And Bill, it is always good to be with you, as well. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. QUINN, JR., SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT LEGAL AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL 

MINING ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, and good 

afternoon, Congressman Pearce. I appreciate your attendance 

today. 

We appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to be here to 

speak about our SMCRA experience on this 30th anniversary. 

Let me begin by an observation that I suspect that among those 

on hand when President Carter signed Public Law 95-87 on a summer morning 30 years ago, only a few perhaps would have forecasted the successes of this coal industry and the state and Federal 

regulators in both responding to the nation’s increasing demand for 

more energy and improved environmental performance. 

In the 30 years since SMCRA’s enactment, the coal industry has 

supplied over 29 billion tons of coal to fuel our nation’s energy reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
159

quirements and prosperity. This is the equivalent of 115 billion 

barrels of oil, and is five times our proven domestic oil reserves. 

In the meantime, over 2.2 million acres of land supplying this 

coal resource have been restored to a wide variety of productive 

uses, including farmlands, as we see here in Indiana, pasture 

lands, wildlife refuges, gold courses—a stunning and challenging 

gold course, Twisted Gun in West Virginia—as well as wetlands 

and timberlands, recreational areas, and areas for even commercial 

development. 

These achievements of the first order in energy production, environmental stewardship, and reclamation are the product of collective efforts of the coal industry and state and Federal governments. 

They underscore the underlying strength of America’s coal resource 

as a foundation of our nation’s prosperity and energy security. 

Now, SMCRA was the culmination of a sustained effort throughout the 1970s to enact a comprehensive Federal regulatory program for coal mining. I recall that in the 1970s, our nation was in 

the throes of an economic turmoil related to its vulnerable dependence upon foreign sources of energy. SMCRA attempts to strike a 

balance between our nation’s need for coal as an essential energy 

source, and our need to protect the environment. 

This balance rests upon several key principles. First, coal is an 

indispensable and prominent part of our nation’s energy requirements and prosperity. 

Second, coal mining should serve as a temporary use of the land. 

Third, coal mine development and resource management must be 

integrated to successfully restore mine lands to support future 

uses. 

And finally, given the diversity in terrain and other physical conditions among our coal mining regions, states are best positioned 

to develop and administer programs designed to meet those objectives. 

SMCRA is an ambitious law. Its protracted and contentious legislative history caused some of your colleagues to predict that the 

law’s implementation would meet with regulatory delays and endless litigation. Unfortunately, the early SMCRA experience would 

not disappoint them. 

The first attempt to implement the permanent regulatory program produced 150 pages of regulatory text to flesh out what was 

already a fairly descriptive 90-page statute. This regulatory text 

was accompanied by another 400 pages explaining what that regulatory text actually meant. The detail and the complexity of the 

regulations defy comprehension by those charged with complying 

with it, the industry, as well as those who are tasked to implement 

it, the states. I suspect that it even challenged the comprehension 

of the legal minds that produced the product itself. 

Several years later the program was revised to substitute performance-based approach for inflexible design standards, and to 

empower the states to tailor more suitable versions to accommodate their regional differences. 

Not surprisingly, based on this experience, SMCRA implementation has proven a fertile ground for litigation. About a little past 

a decade into its implementation, one court observed this history 

or captured aptly this history with the following metaphor beginVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
160

ning its opinion on a rules challenge. ‘‘As night follows day, litigation follows rulemaking under this statute.’’

But from there, the program also experienced a difficult transition from its initial phase of shared Federal and state responsibilities to the permanent phase that vested day-to-day regulatory authority with the states. The coal industry expected to find, during 

this permanent phase, only one regulatory master in the field: the 

state. Both for purposes of inspections, as well as permitting. Instead, the coal industry often found itself positioned between conflicting state directives and Federal demands. 

Further complicating the regulatory transition were structural 

changes the coal industry was, upon the coal industry by both market forces and public policy choices. These changes included rapid 

consolidation within the industry driven by falling prices in coal, 

which required a powerful and sustained increase in mine productivity to cope with these decreasing margins. 

At the same time, public policy choices and the Clean Air Act 

created a dramatic shift in coal production on the eastern coalfields 

to the western United States. 

As we have already mentioned, it was through perseverance and 

innovation that the coal industry has mastered the demands of the 

law. We have made a substantial investment, and we can report 

some impressive successes. As I previously indicated, we restored 

2.2 million acres of land to productive uses. We have provided wildlife habitat for a diverse variety of species, created recreational 

areas, paid over $8 billion in abandoned mine land taxes to restore 

unreclaimed lands, mines, prior to SMCRA, and we have developed 

innovative reclamation and technology practices. 

These accomplishments have all occurred while the coal industry 

continues to supply the fuel that accounts for one third of our primary energy production, and over half of electricity produced in the 

United States. 

Tomorrow’s successes will depend largely upon the lessons we 

have learned from our 30-year experience under SMCRA. At this 

point, I would like to just mention a few that we find particularly 

instructive. 

First, when it comes to regulatory approach, design standards 

versus performance standards, we find that the early reliance on 

successfully prescriptive design standards compounded the complexity and detail of the statute. Performance standards have been 

far more effective and responsive to the very conditions under 

which mining operations operate. We believe the switch to performance standards in the 1980s has contributed greatly to the mine 

land reclamation successes we see today. 

On state primacy, each state and region has different conditions 

and needs and interests when it comes to land use. Mr. Chairman, 

as our mutual friend, Ben Green, former President of West Virginia 

Mining and Reclamation Association, once advised, a perfectly good 

hunting dog in Wyoming may not hunt in West Virginia, and viceversa. 

SMCRA recognizes this. Indeed, state primacy is the cornerstone 

law because good ideas and practices in one state for meeting a national goal may not be a good one in another. 

161

However, right now it appears that state primacy may be threatened by fiscal constraints to some of these states that jeopardize 

their continued retention of their programs. The time may be coming to consider adjusting the laws matching the Federal funding 

formula in order to support the continuation of state primacy. 

Regulatory duplication and efficiency is still a remaining legacy 

of SMCRA. While SMCRA established a comprehensive program 

for regulating the effects of coal mining, it did not displace all existing laws that address the specific resources coal mining affects. 

A prominent example is the Clean Water Act, which overlaps 

SMCRA’s extensive requirements for hydrologic analysis and measures to protect water quality. We believe that by relying more upon 

the regulatory benefits of SMCRA, we can avoid the unnecessary 

duplication, and achieve greater regulatory efficiencies. 

Let me close with this one observation. When President Carter 

signed SMCRA three decades ago, energy independence was a national imperative. It is no less so today. Since SMCRA’s passage, 

our energy use has jumped 23 percent, but our energy production 

has increased by only 7 percent. Meanwhile, energy imports have 

climbed by 70 percent. 

There is no question that our nation will require more energy in 

the future; the only question is where we will find it. 

Not surprisingly, it is expected that coal will remain a vital national resource. Coal consumption is projected to increase by 50 

percent through 2030 just in order to meet our future electricity requirements. 

Meeting these demands will be a challenge, but a challenge that 

can be met with policies that enhance the role of all our energy 

sources, including coal. SMCRA will continue obviously to play a 

major role in that effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pearce, for your attention today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:]

Statement of Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President &

General Counsel, The National Mining Association 

My name is Hal Quinn, senior vice president, legal and regulatory affairs, and 

general counsel for the National Mining Association (NMA). I am appearing on behalf of the NMA to testify about the coal mining industry’s experience and success 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. I suspect 

that among those on hand when President Carter signed Public Law 95-87 on a 

summer morning 30 years ago, only a few would have ventured to predict the many 

successes of America’s coal industry in responding to the nation’s increasing demand 

for more energy and improved environmental performance. 

NMA represents producers of over 80 percent of America’s coal—a reliable, affordable, domestic fuel that is the source of more than 50 percent of the electricity used 

in America. NMA’s members also include the producers of metals and non-metal 

minerals, manufacturers of mining equipment and supplies, transporters of coal and 

mineral products, and other firms serving the mining industry. 

General Introduction 

In the 30 years since SMCRA’s enactment, the coal industry has supplied over 

29 billion tons of coal to fuel our nation’s growth and prosperity. This is the equivalent of 115 billion barrels of oil and is five times our proven domestic oil reserve. 

Over 2.2 million acres of the lands supplying this coal resource have been restored 

to a wide variety of productive uses including farmlands, pastures, wildlife refuges, 

parks, recreational areas, wetlands, and commercial development. These achievements of the first order in energy production, environmental stewardship and reclamation are the product of the collective efforts of the coal industry, and state and 

162

federal governments. They underscore the underlying strength of America’s coal resource as the foundation of our nation’s prosperity and energy security. 

SMCRA Legislative History 

SMCRA was the culmination of a sustained effort throughout the 1970’s to enact 

a comprehensive federal regulatory policy for coal mining. Unlike environmental legislation directed at the impacts of many industries upon one natural resource—e.g., 

Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act—SMCRA focuses upon one industry and its effect 

upon various natural resources. As the legislation proceeded through successive congressional sessions, the product transformed from a 17-page version passed by the 

House of Representatives in 1972 to a 90-page bill reported by the conference committee and signed by President Carter on the morning of August 3, 1977. 

Throughout the protracted legislative process, one theme emerged to become the 

central purpose of the law: strike a balance between our nation’s need for coal as 

an essential energy source and protection of the environment. Recall that in the 

1970’s, this country was in the throes of economic turmoil related to its vulnerable 

dependence upon foreign sources of energy. The oil embargo in October of 1973 focused attention on domestic energy security and the ability of our domestic coal resources to meet increasing energy requirements. At the same time, concerns existed 

about the potential environmental consequences of increased coal mining. 

The balance SMCRA intends to strike between meeting our energy needs and environmental protection rests upon several principles. First, coal is an indispensable 

and prominent part of our nation’s energy requirements and prosperity. Second, coal 

mining should serve as a temporary use of the land. Third, coal mine development 

and resource management must be integrated to successfully restore mined lands 

to support future uses. And, fourth, given the diversity in terrain and other physical 

conditions among our coal mining regions, states are best positioned to develop and 

administer programs designed to meet those objectives. 

Industry’s SMCRA Experience 

The protracted and contentious legislative history of SMCRA caused some lawmakers to predict that the law’s implementation would meet with regulatory delays 

and endless litigation. See H.R. Rep. No. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 193 (1977). The 

early SMCRA experience would not disappoint them. The first attempt to implement 

the entire range of permanent program requirements produced 150 pages of regulatory text to ‘‘flesh-out’’ an already prescriptive 90-page statute. An additional 400 

pages were required to explain what the regulations meant. Several years later, a 

comprehensive review of the rules converted some of the unyielding design standards to more flexible performance standards and empowered states to tailor more 

suitable versions to accommodate regional differences. 

Not surprisingly, SMCRA implementation has proven fertile ground for litigation. 

The battles waged over SMCRA implementation have extended from the most fundamental questions about the jurisdictional reach of the law to the more arcane, 

such as the permissible conservation and husbandry practices to demonstrate successful reclamation. One court aptly characterized this early regulatory history with 

the following metaphor: ‘‘As night follows day, litigation follows rulemaking under 

this statute.’’ National Wildlife Federation v. Lujan, 950 F.2d 765, 766 (D.C. Cir. 

1991). 

Apart from the turmoil accompanying efforts to establish the basic regulatory 

framework, the program experienced difficulty in its transition from the initial 

phase of shared federal and state responsibilities to the permanent phase that vested day-to-day regulatory authority with the states. In the field, the coal industry 

expected to see only one regulator, the state, for both permit and inspection tasks. 

The states shared a similar expectation since SMCRA declared that they would assume ‘‘exclusive’’ regulatory jurisdiction upon approval of their laws and regulations, 

and that the Federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would recede to a secondary 

role of overseeing state performance. In practice, the coal industry found itself positioned between conflicting state and federal applications of the law. States saw their 

exclusive role undermined with little deference or respect accorded to their applications of the law by OSM. 

Serving two regulatory masters further compounded the difficulties coal companies confronted in complying with changing regulations. Uncertainty becomes especially frustrating to a regulated industry that operates under a statute that places 

a premium upon the principles of planning and sound resource management. The 

absence of a stable regulatory framework undermines the planning imperative. 

Changing standards and inconsistent application compromise the integrity of any 

planned strategy. 

163

Changes in Industry Structure 

In the midst of this regulatory transition, the coal industry experienced structural 

changes as a result of a combination of market forces and public policy choices. The 

number and size of coal mines and companies changed substantially. When SMCRA 

was debated, economic analysts predicted that coal prices would soon exceed $50 a 

ton. These forecasts proved well off the mark. The average price of coal in real 

terms declined $10 per ton in just 10 years (1975-1985), and by 1988 it fell to $22 

a ton. 

These market conditions forced a rapid consolidation within the industry. Between 1976 and 1986 the number of producing coal mines dropped by 32 percent 

(from 6,161 mines to 4,201 mines) while production increased by almost the same 

percent (from 685 million tons to 886 million tons). The remedy for the diminishing 

margin between increasing mining costs and decreasing coal prices was a powerful 

and sustained increase in productivity, i.e., more production from fewer and larger 

mines and companies. The trend in consolidation continued, and the coal industry 

today produces 40 percent more coal (1.2 billion tons) from 75 percent fewer mines 

than it did just before SMCRA’s enactment. 

Perhaps the most significant development related to coal markets over the past 

30 years is the shift in coal production from the Eastern coalfields to the Western 

United States. Coal demand in the United States is driven by the electric power sector, which consumes 90 percent of annual coal production. The policy choices arising 

over the last two decades under the Clean Air Act substantially influenced the fuel 

choices made by the electric power industry. The increasingly more stringent limits 

on emissions of sulfur dioxide at power plants made low-sulfur coal in the Western 

United States a cost-effective compliance strategy for many power plants. Favorable 

geologic conditions and economies of scale off-set the disadvantages some Western 

mines confront due to their distance from markets. As a result, coal produced from 

mines west of the Mississippi—which accounted for only 25 percent of the annual 

production in 1977—comprises almost 60 percent of production today. 

SMCRA Successes 

Both the industry and the SMCRA program have evolved over the past 30 years. 

Through persistence and innovation and aided in part by maturation in the administration of the regulatory programs, the industry has mastered the demands of the 

law. We are hopeful the program has turned the corner where conflict has given 

way to cooperation, and litigation has been replaced by innovation. The investment 

to date has been substantial, and we can continue to report impressive returns: 

• Restoration of 2.2 million acres of land to productive uses—three times the size 

of Rhode Island; 

• Farmland with crop yields that exceed their pre-mining capabilities; 

• Pasture lands that support grazing of more livestock per acre than pre-mining 

capabilities; 

• Wildlife refuges providing new habitats for a diverse variety of species; 

• Recreational areas to support fishing, hunting and other leisure activities; 

• Forest lands; 

• Sites in steep slope terrain that will support commercial, residential and economic development in areas where land suitable for such purposes is limited or 

unavailable; 

• Payment of over $8 billion in Abandoned Mine Land (AML) taxes to restore 

unreclaimed mined lands abandoned prior to SMCRA; 

• Restoration through remining of more abandoned mined lands than the AML 

program—at no cost to the AML program; and 

• Innovations in reclamation technology and practices including post mining landscape design and land use planning, water management and treatment technology, and ground control and subsidence mitigation measures. 

These accomplishments have all occurred while the coal industry continues to 

supply our nation annually with the fuel that: 

• Generates over half of all the electricity in America; 

• Affordably furnishes the power to support over 151 million Americans in all activities of their daily life; 

• Reliably provides the power to support employment of almost 127 million Americans; and 

• Accounts for one-third of our primary energy production—the largest portion of 

any energy source. 

Lessons Learned 

It would be imprudent to simply praise these collective achievements without 

drawing any lessons from the 30 years of experience in the implementation of 

164

SMCRA. Tomorrow’s successes will depend largely upon whether we learn anything 

from our past. 

Design vs. Performance Standards: Some have observed that the excessive complexity and detail of the statute, compounded by the zeal of the federal agency to 

outdo the legislators with even more detailed regulatory design standards, defied 

comprehension—let alone implementation—by the industry and states, and even by 

the legal minds that produced the regulatory product. Design standards are inherently inflexible and counterintuitive for national goals whose success will require 

the accommodation of diverse physical and geological conditions. A design standard 

approach to regulation stymies innovation. By contrast, a performance-based approach can accommodate new technology and advancements in mining and reclamation practices and is therefore more responsive to the diverse conditions found in 

the mining regions and an evolving industry. The switch to performance standards 

in the 1980’s contributed greatly to the mined land reclamation successes we see 

today. 

State Primacy: The regulation of land use, a historically local prerogative, on a 

national basis is difficult at best, and all but impossible if local, state and regional 

differences cannot be accounted for in the implementation of statutory goals. Each 

state and region has different needs and interests when it comes to land use. As 

our good friend, Ben Greene, the former president of the West Virginia Mining and 

Reclamation Association, once advised, ‘‘a perfectly good hunting dog in Wyoming 

may not hunt in West Virginia, and vice versa.’’ But SMCRA recognizes this: indeed, 

state primacy is the cornerstone of the law precisely because good ideas and practices in one state for achieving a national goal may not be good ones in another. 

State primacy needs to be supported culturally and financially to assure continued 

success. For the most part, the earlier distrust of state capabilities has receded and 

has been replaced by respect and cooperation between the federal and state agencies. However, fiscal constraints in some states may jeopardize the continued retention of their programs. Consideration should be given to altering the law’s matching 

federal funding formula, which is capped at 50 percent of program costs, particularly as one considers that some of the increased costs have arisen from new federal 

mandates imposed by OSM regulatory initiatives. The OSM experience in Tennessee 

is ample proof that investing a greater share of federal dollars into state primacy 

will save the federal government substantially, since the state programs have been 

dollar-for-dollar more cost-effective than a federal program. 

Regulatory Duplication and Efficiency: SMCRA established a comprehensive program for regulating the effects of coal mining upon a wide array of natural resources. Nonetheless, it did not displace all existing laws that address specific resources, for example the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. In the past, this overlap 

has caused confusion and, at times, conflict for the industry in meeting overlapping 

program goals. The Clean Water Act is a prominent example of this overlap. 

SMCRA contains extensive requirements for hydrologic analysis, monitoring and 

protection requirements for coal mines. In some cases, federal and state agencies 

have strived to reconcile these programs and minimize duplication. Nonetheless, 

more can still be done to rely upon the regulatory benefits of SMCRA, avoid unnecessary duplication, achieve regulatory efficiencies and reap the attendant environmental benefits as envisioned by both the Clean Water Act and SMCRA. 

Looking Ahead 

As we reflect today upon SMCRA’s 30th anniversary in light of today’s energy picture, I cannot help but think of the film Back to the Future. When President Carter 

signed SMCRA that Wednesday morning in the Rose Garden, ‘‘energy independence’’ was a national imperative. It is no less so today, but it now goes by the name 

‘‘energy security.’’ Today, we import about 60 percent of our petroleum needs, a 

share that the Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects will grow to 75 percent 

by 2030. By that time, we will consume 28 percent more oil and 19 percent more 

natural gas. Yet the United States has only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves and 

not much more of its gas reserves. Since SMCRA’s passage, our energy use has 

jumped 23 percent, but our energy production has increased by only 7 percent. 

Meanwhile, energy imports have climbed by 70 percent. 

We sometimes forget that the United States is a growing country. Our population 

grew by almost 3 million people in 2005 and now exceeds 300 million. Our economic 

growth has eclipsed most mature economies. So, there is no question that our nation 

will require more energy in the future, just as it did 30 years ago, to sustain our 

economic growth. We will use energy more efficiently due to technological advances, 

conservation and increased efficiency. But, we will still use more energy. Not surprisingly, therefore, coal consumption is projected to increase from 22.9 quads in 

165

2005 to over 34 quads in 2030, reflecting the 156 gigawatts of new coal-based generating capacity that are projected to be needed by the end of the EIA forecast period. 

Meeting this demand with reliable, affordable and secure sources will be a challenge, but a challenge that can be met with the correct policies that enhance the 

role of all domestic energy sources, including policies that ensure that our coal resources can continue to play the critical role in our energy future. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you the mining industry’s experience 

under SMCRA and to express its views on the critical role of our domestic coal resources to our nation’s energy security and prosperity. 


37013.011 37013.012
166


37013.013 37013.014
167

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. RANEY, PRESIDENT, WEST 

VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. RANEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Bill 

Raney, and I am representing the West Virginia Coal Association, 

whose members collectively produce more than 85 percent of West 

Virginia’s coal. And as was said earlier, we were the first state to 

gain primacy in 1979, under SMCRA. 

I am also pleased and equally proud today to represent the associations from seven states of the Appalachian region of this country, in addition to West Virginia. Those would be Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, that all surround us, and our 

southern neighbor, Alabama. 

When you think about all those who are mining the coal and protecting the environment in those seven states, I am very fortunate 

to be representing more practicing environmentalists than any organization in this country, and I suggest in this world. More than 

20,000 of them in West Virginia are digging coal every day. More 

than 13,000 of them belong to Cecil Roberts’ organization across 

the seven states. 

There are more than 54,000 coal miners in these seven states, 

and that comprises more than 70 percent of all the coal miners in 

this nation. And every one of them, as I say, is a practicing environmentalist. Along with the thousands of specialty contractors, 

every day they are practicing mining stewardship. They are constructing ponds, backfilling, watering roads, maintaining ditches, 

protecting water quality, planting trees and native grasses. 

They are protecting the land like it is their own, because they 

want their children and their grandchildren to hunt the same 

mountains and fish the same streams that they did when they 

were growing up. They are practicing environmental protection. 

They are not marching about it, nor are they preaching about it. 

They make it happen every day. And they are proud of their work, 

and we are extremely proud of what they do each day. 

But we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, about them and their future, and we are here to ask for some help. We were supportive of 

SMCRA in 1977, upon its passage. And because of the changes you 

made, Mr. Chairman, so that the bill would be workable in the 

East. It provided for valley fills, it provided for mountaintop mining, and it provided for the reasonable regulation of steep-slope 

mining. It intended for OSM and SMCRA to be the one and only 

regulatory program for coal mining throughout the country. And 

we need to return to that solid foundation of 30 years ago. We need 

your attention to remove the conflicts and the overlaps that we see 

today. 

The states and OSM continue to make professional progress, but 

other agencies are frustrating that process, as they have over the 

years. But more frustrating is the continued filing of opinion-based 

lawsuits attacking the very foundation of this Act by exploiting 

these overlaps between SMCRA and the Clean Water Act. 

Lawyers and opponents who seem to offer no real alternative 

continue to file suit after suit, and threaten our people’s jobs, despite each of those suits getting overturned on appeal every time. 

Looking back, the purpose of the original legislation of striking 

a balance between the protection in the environment and the naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
168

tion’s need for coal as an essential source of energy has been accomplished, and continues to be accomplished today. With all the 

attention being given to global warming today, being the sexy topic 

of the day it seems, the world has overlooked our leadership: West 

Virginia’s leadership, Appalachian Region’s leadership, and America’s leadership, and the continued mining of coal, and the continued protection of our environment. We literally in America are the 

best in the world at mining stewardship, and no one seems to be 

paying any attention. 

The Abandoned Mine Land Program created by SMCRA has been 

remarkably successful, with the reclamation of pre-law sites, the 

protection of healthcare for the United Mine Worker miners, and 

the installation of drinking water systems in many areas of rural 

America. 

However, without new permits, expanded operations and continued mining, the benefits of the AML program and the UMWA, to 

the UMWA and to the mining states, will cease. And remarkably, 

we have judges in West Virginia who don’t seem to make that connection. 

Since 1977, SMCRA has provided for valley fills, drainage control, and mountaintop mining. And for 30 years the states and the 

industry have proven that those work. With consistent refinement, 

reclamation has been exceptional. The coordination of mining with 

highway construction and development has provided benefits 

thought impossible 30 years ago. It is the persistence of the industry and its vendors. It is the dedicated professionalism of our coal 

miners, the unique oversight of OSM, and the flexibility of the 

states that have combined with the solid platform of SMCRA to 

better protect the environment than ever before, as we continue to 

mine coal for our energy independence. 

So, Mr. Chairman, you are to be complimented, because we are 

better today than we were yesterday. In 1996, as you may recall, 

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stood on a mountaintop operation with valley fills in Boone County, West Virginia, and stated 

that this is what was intended when the law was passed in 1977. 

It is that way today. The intent of the law is being carried out, and 

we are proud of that. 

However, there are judges and redundant lawsuits attempting to 

alter the 30-year-old wisdom of Congress, at the expense, and most 

concerning at the expense of our people in the East. A strong alliance for 30 years between the states, OSM, and industry has 

served this country well. And we hope you will help us, Mr. Chairman, preserve our future as we go through the next 30. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raney follows:]

Statement of William B. Raney, President,

West Virginia Coal Association 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Bill Raney, President of the West Virginia Coal Association. 

First, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the members and staff of the 

Committee for the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing regarding the 

30th Anniversary of the Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act (‘‘SMCRA’’) of 

1977. I am very proud to be here on behalf of the Coal Association’s membership, 

which accounts for over 85 percent of the Mountain State’s underground and surface 

coal production. Today’s coal industry in West Virginia directly employs more than 

169

20,000 miners and more than 25,000 contractors whose specialty skills and services 

are required to keep mines operating everyday. 

For purposes of today’s hearing, I am most proud to have been asked to also represent the Coal Associations from the states that collectively make up this country’s 

Appalachian coal basin. In addition to West Virginia, those include Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Alabama. In 2005, these states produced 

more than 37% of this nation’s coal while employing more than 54,000 coal miners, 

nearly 70% of the country’s total mining workforce. Again, using 2005 Energy Information Administration statistics, more than 62% of the miners in Mr. Roberts’ 

United Mine Workers of America (‘‘UMWA’’), are working in one of these seven 

states. As you can see, this region is absolutely critical to sustaining this nation’s 

energy production and the employment of a majority of America’s coal miners (see 

generally attachments ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’). 

I am honored to represent the proud heritage of mining in this region that fueled 

the industrial revolution and made the United States the most powerful nation in 

the world. The Appalachian coal basin fueled the furnaces, foundries and mills that 

built the enduring infrastructure of this country, it powered the nation’s railroad 

system and it helped America achieve victory in two world wars. The proud miners 

of today continue that legacy so they can raise their families and provide a future 

for their children in the same area where they were raised, the states of Appalachia. 

Continued coal mining in West Virginia and the eastern states is absolutely critical 

to this future. 

That, Mr. Chairman, accentuates the importance of what you did thirty years ago. 

Your influence and involvement, recognizing the challenges of mining coal in the 

eastern United States, with provisions for steep slope and mountain top mining as 

well as the use of valley fills, allowed the bill to be passed and signed into law, after 

two previous vetoes and a difficult time in Congress. The passage of HR2 and the 

signing of Public Law 95-87 was important to the continued viability of mining in 

the Appalachian region as it proposed national standards for permitting while allowing states the flexibility to specifically tailor their regulatory programs to meet their 

unique needs through the innovative concept of primacy. These thirty years have 

not been without difficulty, conflict and heated exchanges, but the original platform 

of SMCRA remains in place and has been successful. It is important that this continue because the needs of the eastern U.S. industry are quite different from those 

of the industry in the Midwest and the Western states. 

While the practicality of SMCRA has matured over the years through interpretation and regulatory implementation, it was the amazing foresight of its purposes 

that makes it more pertinent today than ever before. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, thirty years ago the framers of this legislation stated one of the purposes of 

the Act was to 

...assure the coal supply essential to the Nation’s energy requirements, and 

to its economic and social well-being is provided and strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the 

Nation’s need for coal as an essential source of energy. 

When one considers the tremendous progress our society has made over the past 

three decades, most of which is energy-dependent, with the fact that America’s coal 

production has nearly doubled in that same period, the relevance of that 30-yearold purpose is evident. Deliberate pursuit of that purpose is more important today 

than it was in 1977. 

It is imperative that U.S. coal production increases so as to contribute to America’s energy security and it is equally critical that production from the Eastern 

states be sustained in order to ‘‘keep America’s lights on’’ and to provide Americans 

with a comfortable, convenient, electrically-dependant, lifestyle. In so many ways, 

the modern-day American dream is one that is coal-fired and it requires all of our 

coal, whether it comes from the East, the Midwest or the West. OSM’s demonstrated 

ability to run SMCRA’s national regulatory program while recognizing the needs of 

different regions is critical to this sustainment and America’s continued growth as 

a model for reclamation and environmental protection throughout the world. 

SMCRA has provided the ‘‘baseline’’ of legislation and regulation that has allowed 

our industry to answer the changing energy needs of this country and we have accomplished that with professional stewardship. It is SMCRA’s solid foundation that 

has afforded our people the opportunity to ‘‘set the pace’’ for reclamation and environmental protection. No one ever gives credit to the states, OSM, Congress, the 

coal industry or our people for the fact that we are leading the world in mining 

stewardship. It is a fact and thereby, perhaps, not newsworthy! It is, however, something we point to with pride and is ever more important so as to preserve the jobs 

and professions of our more than 54,000 miners and thousands of specialty contractors. 

170

Because all of our employees are ‘‘practicing environmentalists’’, working every 

day to insure their environment, the environment around the mine, is protected, 

preserved and maintained. Every time I get the chance I tell people I am proud to 

represent more ‘‘practicing environmentalists’’ than any other organization in the 

world. That is especially true today since I am speaking for the other six Appalachian coal-mining states. You see, each one of these miners or contractors is protecting the environment while they are mining or helping to mine our coal. They 

may be protecting water quality, restoring original land contours or providing for 

future developments, planting trees, constructing ponds and doing the myriad tasks 

required to insure that their children and grandchildren can hunt the same mountains and fish the same streams as they once did. These coal miners and practicing 

environmentalists are proud of their work to both fuel this country and protect its 

social and natural environment, and we are, of course, proud of them and their 

enormous contribution to the economy, security and social fabric of their native 

states and this great country and I am honored to speak on their behalf today. 

While the reasonable implementation of SMCRA has provided a platform for these 

demonstrated achievements, it remains under constant attack by lawyers, groups 

and other federal agencies attempting to detract from its original purposes and intents. Congress intended, thirty years ago, for SMCRA to be the ‘‘brace’’ of protection as the primary environmental enforcement structure for coal mining throughout the federal government and to standardize the complications of permitting and 

regulation among the states and Indian reservations. SMCRA was to literally ‘‘level 

the field’’ of requirements among the states and other federal agencies for permitting, operating and reclaiming mine sites throughout the country. 

Despite this intent for SMCRA to be the ‘‘federal baseline’’, some 30 years after 

its passage there remains conflict and uncertainty. SMCRA encouraged and, in some 

cases, directed other federal agencies, i.e., EPA, the Corps of Engineers and other 

Department of Interior offices and services, to cooperate with OSM. SMCRA’s regulatory requirements were to become the platform for evaluating and permitting 

mining operations, no matter where they were or what type of operations they proposed. Here we are thirty years later and that still has not happened. That ‘‘overlapping redundancy’’ provides fertile ground for harassing lawsuits and judicially inspired regulatory confusion, which is typically overturned at the appeal court level. 

Since 1997, there have been scores of federal lawsuits challenging the very foundation of the mining regulatory structure sanctioned and approved by Congress in 

1977. Most of these challenges centered on the practice of valley fill construction. 

All coal mining, surface and underground, in the steeply sloped terrain of Appalachia is dependent on the ability to construct valley fills, a practice that was started in West Virginia and recognized by Congress in SMCRA as the best possible way 

to safely and permanently store the excess dirt and rock not needed to restore the 

approximate original contours of the land following the completion of mining (see 

attachment ‘‘C’’, relevant pages from OSM’s implementing regulations, attachment 

‘‘D’’, relevant pages from a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit decision regarding SMCRA and the practice of valley fill construction and 

attachment ‘‘E’’, photographs of active and reclaimed valley fills). As you may recall, 

Mr. Chairman, this was one of the issues that was addressed before the bill was 

approved in 1977. However, time and time again federal judges, reacting to the 

claims of extremist environmental groups, have interpreted the Clean Water Act to 

outlaw the very activities that Congress approved in SMCRA. 

For example, SMCRA mandates the installation of ponds below valley fills. These 

sediment ponds were recognized by Congress as the best technology available to control runoff and meet water quality standards from mining operations (see attachment ‘‘F’’, photographs of valley fills and in-stream ponds, attachment ‘‘G’’, relevant 

pages from an OSM-published Handbook for Small Mine Operators and attachment 

‘‘H’’, relevant pages from OSM’s implementing regulations). In June of this year, a 

federal judge, reacting to an extremist lawsuit, ruled that these ponds cannot be 

constructed because they are illegal under the Clean Water Act. So, we have a federal judge using one statute to outlaw another agency’s regulations, despite 30 years 

of outstanding experience and accomplishment through OSM’s interpretation and 

implementation of SMCRA. 

All of that frustrates the development of mining operations in Appalachia and 

needs Congressional attention. The overlaps that exist between SMCRA and the 

other federal environmental laws and programs need to be addressed with the same 

intent as expressed in 1977 that SMCRA was and is to be the ‘‘federal baseline’’ 

for permitting and enforcement of mining operations throughout the country. While 

some agencies have perpetuated this confusion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

through its Assistant Secretary for Civil Works and its Huntington and Pittsburgh 

District offices have done as much as possible to reduce and eliminate conflicting 

171

program requirements under SMCRA and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Despite the cooperative efforts of these two agencies pursuant to SMCRA, lawyers continue to attempt to stop mining in West Virginia and take the jobs of our miners 

and disrupt their lives and the lives of their families. These lawyers, which usually 

end up being paid by the federal government, are exploiting these ‘‘redundant overlaps’’ among the programs. We hope you and the Committee will give this matter 

your prompt attention because the original intent of SMCRA was clear in 1977 and 

has typically withstood many legal tests. 

As mentioned earlier, the 1977 Act showed great foresight and vision relative to 

America’s importance as a leader in balancing the world energy needs and protecting its environment. SMCRA is also unique in that it provided not only the 

structure for regulation of future coal mining activities, it also established the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program, funded entirely by a tax collected on active coal 

production, to address the environmental, social and infrastructure problems presented by older sites that had been mined prior to the passage of SMCRA. It is important to emphasize the fact that this entire program is paid for completely with 

industry money because many Americans are not aware of the benefits of this program and the fact that it is funded entirely by the industry. This successful program 

continues to reclaim ‘‘pre-law’’ mine sites, install much-needed infrastructure in 

rural mining areas, address emergency situations from past mining and provide 

medical benefits for thousands of the retired coal miners and their dependents. 

Again, the foresight and vision of SMCRA, as expressed in 1977, is evidenced in the 

successful AML Program. However we feel more credit needs to be given to the fact 

that this program is funded with money from today’s coal production and how important it is for coal mining to continue so the AML program can be sustained at 

the same level of funding. Lawyers and judges need to recognize the implication of 

diminished domestic coal production on this notably successful program of environmental remediation, infrastructure development and social rescue. 

Back in 1977 West Virginia’s pre-SMCRA mining environmental program served 

as the model for this federal legislation and West Virginia was the first state to obtain primacy under the cooperative federalism structure established by Congress 

that recognized not only the need for a level playing field of regulation for the sake 

of interstate commerce and environmental protection but also acknowledged the expertise of the individual states to regulate activities occurring within their own borders. 

We believe that SMCRA and the administration of its implementing regulations 

by the Office of Surface Mining have been largely successful. Again relying on Congress’ stated purpose that the country’s need for energy must be balanced with environmental protection, one only has to realize that coal production has increased 

since the passage of the Act in 1977 at no sacrifice to the natural environment. 

Sure, there have been growing pains over the years, where industry and sometimes even state regulators have disagreed with OSM but, by and large, we believe 

that SMCRA has achieved the environmental goals envisioned by this Congress 30 

years ago, just as former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt observed when he 

and Chairman Rahall marked the 19th Anniversary of SMCRA in West Virginia in 

1996 (see attachment ‘‘I’’). On August 3, 1996, then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt visited a reclaimed mountain top mining operation with valley fills in Boone 

County, West Virginia and observed, among other things, ‘‘the landscape is better 

in many ways’’. If former Secretary Babbitt was to return to the this site or any 

site in any of the Appalachian states he would be even more impressed today with 

the resiliency of SMCRA and the tremendous achievement of the miners and operators, all of whom are ‘‘practicing environmentalists’’. 

Mr. Chairman, your attention and amendments in 1977 allowed this bill to be 

passed because those changes recognized the significance of coal production in the 

Appalachian region of this country and the need to sustain that production and protect the jobs of our people. Your amendments relevant to this Act and the Clean 

Water Act that have been passed since 1977 were also important to that 

sustainment and protection. Your continued leadership is equally important today 

to be sure those same protections are in place for the operations and the miners 

of Appalachia. You and your Committee’s vision, as demonstrated 30 years ago, is 

critical today to eliminate the ‘‘redundant overlap’’ between Congressional intent as 

expressed in SMCRA and the Clean Water Act. 

This ‘‘overlap’’ dilemma casts a long shadow over the coal industry in Appalachia, 

creating regulatory uncertainty that discourages new and continued investment in 

the very region that serves as the basis for the country’s industrial and electrical 

fuel supply. Perhaps most disturbing, it questions the future of our more than 

54,000 coal miners, our ‘‘practicing environmentalists’’, who continue to work, live 

and raise their families in their native Appalachia. Those workers are threatened 

172

by these frivolous lawsuits and continued attacks. (See attachment ‘‘J’’, affidavits 

filed by four coal miners in a related court case). 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we believe that these miners are 

owed a stable future as they work to provide the energy for the rest of the country. 

As we stated previously, SMCRA was a critically important step in providing that 

stable future. It established that federal baseline, that brace of regulation that leveled the playing field among the coal producing states. It provided protection for the 

natural and social environmental, allowing the diverse environmental setting of Appalachia to maintain and flourish. SMCRA protects our communities and our people, 

preserving the social fabric of the Appalachian coal mining communities where our 

coal miners live and work. But, there is still some work to be done. Removing the 

judicially-inspired regulatory confusion that flourishes because of these ‘‘redundant 

overlaps’’ between SMCRA and section 404 of the Clean Water Act will firmly reestablish Appalachia as a source of domestic, industrial and consumer energy, allowing our miners, our practicing environmentalists, to continue to work and live uninterrupted as they mine the coal which not only powers the economic engines of this 

country, but provides the revenue stream for the AML program and is the economic 

lifeline for our seven Appalachian states. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, I express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before your Committee. You set the stage 30 years ago and have diligently protected our people and their jobs ever since then. We are, however, threatened today. 

Our people are threatened. We turn to you, as we did in 1977, to protect us and 

bring peace of mind to the miners and companies in the coalfields of Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, the proud states 

of America’s Appalachian basin. 

ATTACHMENT ‘‘A’’

OVERVIEW OF EASTERN COAL 2007


37013.027 37013.028
173

PRODUCTION TRENDS


37013.029 37013.030
174

EMPLOYEES


37013.031 37013.032
175

RESERVES


37013.033 37013.034
176

RESEARCH NEEDS

• Safety 

• Production 

• Thin seam mining 

• Environmental 

• Carbon Capture 


37013.035 37013.036
177

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NEEDED

• Research needs 

• Coal-tp-liquids incentives 

• Greenhouse gas policies

ATTACHMENT ‘‘B’’

SUSTAINING EASTERN COAL PRODUCTION

The Coal Industry is well poised to capitalize on the high growth opportunities 

as the country pursues energy independence and economic wealth from a strong domestic energy industry. 

On balance, the industry has great capacity, committed management teams, aggressive business plans and a strong will to succeed. Consequently, from a big picture or macro view, the industry is well situated to meet the demands of tomorrow 

but not without major challenges. Global climate change, national energy policy and 

the coal-to-liquids program are at the forefront of these challenges and coal’s future 

depends largely on the manner in which these policy questions are answered. 

From a regional standpoint, particularly the east and mid-west portions of the 

country, where overall market share has fallen in recent years, we have additional, 

unique challenges—some technological, some political—which must be overcome if 

we are to remain viable and retain our place in domestic and world energy markets. 

It has been widely reported that the eastern region is particularly confronted with 

labor shortages, ongoing environmental challenges, a diminishing reserve base and 

overall tougher geology. Geology that requires deeper, more difficult and more expensive mining with thinner seams and lower recovery ratios. The future of the coal 

industry in the states east of the Mississippi River will depend on how these issues 

are addressed. 

Operating in today’s highly competitive global markets, where contracts are won 

and lost on pennies per ton, additional cost burdens are a tremendous obstacle to 

overcome. The Illinois and Appalachian basins are blessed with the highest quality 

coal in the world, mined by the world’s best coal miners, with technology second to 

none. The region has nearly one-half (47.7%) of this nation’s mineable reserves remaining with all the ingredients to succeed for the next 200 years, but we are 

threatened! 

• On April 19, 2007, the New York investment firm, Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 

observed: ‘‘...We expect total Appalachian volumes to fall from 390 million tons 

in 2006 to 354 million tons in 2008...We expect increased coal production from 

the western U.S. (+44 million tons 2006 to 2008), imports, and other U.S. regions to offset the Appalachian declines and allow for some growth in demand.’’... 

• Central Appalachian coal production has been inelastic and resistant to price 

triggers during the rally of 2004, with mining companies straining to make the 

most of depleting reserves at existing sites and constrained from developing 


37013.037
178

new mines by permitting delays.... Nowhere is this more true currently than in 

West Virginia. (Coal Daily—3/4/05) 

We are threatened and we need your help to sustain our production for tomorrow. 

With the threat of increased pressures from foreign and western coal, we must ‘‘toolup’’ to meet the demands of today’s market.. 

Production and Demand 

National energy demand is on the rise. Increasing oil prices and a national desire 

to decrease American dependence on foreign oil have brought coal to the forefront 

of energy production. We hope the strong market will continue, but history and 

world turmoil brings a sense of unpredictability. To prepare for this uncertainty we 

need to encourage investment to be sure we are ready to competitively meet the 

world’s demands. 

Installing and expanding modern, ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ capital projects today will help 

alleviate the negative pressures of an unpredictable regulatory atmosphere that is 

more restrictive than any other nation and geologic conditions that are ever more 

challenging that puts the Appalachian coal industry at a competitive disadvantage. 

For the last several years, the United States has produced and consumed more 

than one billion tons of coal. That level of national consumption is predicted to continue. Eastern coal contributes 40% to the nation’s needs, down from 55% ten years 

ago. 

• Production next year will probably equate to 1.15 billion tons, an increase of 

over 4% over the 2004 levels. The National Mining Association expects that the 

bulk of this total, some 650 million tons will come from Western production. 

Permitting problems are a factor in constraining production in Central Appalachia... (Coal News, December 2004) 

• According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), total U.S. production is 2.1% less than last year. However, production west of the Mississippi 

River is 1.7% more than last year while production east of the Mississippi is 

7.1% less. 

• For the month of February ‘‘07, imported coal exceeded exported coal. 2.656M 

tons imported versus 2.649M tons exported. Although year-to-date ‘‘07 (January 

‘‘07 and February ‘‘07) totals indicate more exported than imported (6.955M 

tons exported v. 5.501M tons imported) the trend is concerning since eastern 

production accounts for the majority of exported coal in the US. 

COAL PRICES 

• Since Q404, the price of Appalachian steam coal has dropped from $62-$64 per 

ton to a price in Q107 of $38-$40 per ton (based on NYMEX pricing of 12,500 

BTU <1%S coal). 

As evidenced above coal prices from the Appalachian Basin have been falling rapidly over the past two years. In fact, notwithstanding the past couple of years, coal 

prices were on a downward spiral for years amidst increasingly competitive markets 

which effectively inhibited the development of the infrastructure needed to take full 

advantage of the current demand for coal.


37013.038
179

MINING DIFFICULTIES THAT THREATEN EASTERN PRODUCTION

• Today’s Appalachian coal seams are more difficult to access, require more sophisticated preparation and are further from the transportation points of rail 

and barge. Developing infrastructure, i.e., shafts, slopes, rail sidings and loading facilities, today will help the coal ‘‘flow’’ tomorrow. 

• Mining costs, i.e., fuel, engineering, permitting and reclamation, personnel, 

equipment and supplies have all turned sharply upward. As always, the costs 

increase when prices increase, but the costs do not decrease when the prices 

drop! 

• The entire industry is facing the problems of an aging workforce and an overall 

shortage of workers. It is, however, most critical for our region since 79.2% of 

the miners are working in the eastern and mid-western coal industry. Human 

infrastructure must be developed today. 

• Legal challenges and continuing unpredictability in the permitting process have 

further inhibited the ability of the industry to maximize its production opportunities. Acknowledgement of advancements in applied technology and environmental expertise are immediately needed. 

We need help in addressing these challenges and uncertainty. We must take full 

advantage of today’s ‘‘optimistic atmosphere.’’ It is an ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime’’ opportunity! 

Domestic Competition 

Aside from severe competition from countries that do not have the environmental, 

health and safety standards of the U.S. industry, we must also compete with coal 

from western states with more inviting geology. For instance, in Wyoming, the coal 

seams can be greater than 80 feet in thickness while the typical seams found in 

eastern mines average from 3 to 6 feet thick. 

• Output from the PRB has continued to make inroads into regions traditionally 

supplied by Central Appalachian, Illinois Basin or other origins, with the lowsulfur product in demand from fuel buyers facing increasing environmental regulation. (Coal Daily—3/4/05)

It is a tribute to the quality of Appalachia and Illinois Basin coals, to the expertise of its workers and to the efficiencies of its industry that this region has been 

able to maintain its production of 42.3% of this nation’s coal That requires proper 

equipment, skilled manpower, modern infrastructure, and a stable, predictable regulatory climate. The use western coal in our traditional eastern is increasing. 

• A West Virginia utility is taking steps to blend western coal with its traditional 

fuel mix. (State Journal—3/11-17/05) 

It is critical to maintain market share if the eastern states are to continue to 

share in the economic prosperity of the U.S. coal industry. To do this, we must have 

regulatory predictability, a fair level of regulatory controls with achievable standards and an aggressive program to encourage future development. This is the ideal 

time for the federal government to encourage the ‘‘re-tooling’’ and expansion of the 

Appalachian industry’s infrastructure to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity offered by current energy market demands. 


37013.039
180

Frankly, many say there is not enough coal being mined in this country to supply 

its needs! However, that demand is so price sensitive that the attractiveness of 

western coal, where the seams are thick and mining costs are low, will overwhelm 

the higher cost Appalachian coals, found east of the Mississippi River. Without immediate attention to the challenges facing our eastern and mid-western coals, imported coals, typically mined with less environmental, safety and human regulation, 

pose the same threat. So, yes, it may be true that there is not enough American 

coal being mined to supply America’s needs, but you may be certain that the coal 

will be found from some source, someplace. We want to maintain our market share! 

Governmental Actions 

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the actions of government have a very 

real statistical impact on coal production. Yearly production totals can be charted 

with the implementation of major government regulatory acts. 

History indicates that each significant action of government was accompanied by 

an immediate and negative effect on production. However, the reverse can also be 

true. That is, positive governmental encouragement will likely result in the capital 

investment necessary to sustain future production at or above current levels. 

Partnership 

Given that coal production from the states east of the Mississippi River makes 

up a significant portion of overall domestic energy production (42.3%), it is incumbent on State and federal governments and the coal industry to act in partnership 

to ensure the continued economic viability of our industry In the Appalachian region. We must be competitive and prepared for the uncertainty of tomorrow. We 

need your help if the eastern states are to remain competitive. 

We have a ‘‘once in a lifetime’’ opportunity for the eastern coal industry. In these 

times of a robust energy market with strong pricing, we must raise the confidence 

of all companies to invest in this region. 

Recommendations: 

1. Increase Congressional funding for coal extraction research. 

2. Continue funding for miner training programs. 

181


37013.040
182


37013.041
183


37013.042
184


37013.043
185


37013.044
186


37013.045 37013.046
187


37013.047 37013.048
188


37013.049 37013.050
189


37013.051 37013.052
190


37013.053
191


37013.054
192


37013.055
193


37013.056
194


37013.057
195


37013.058 37013.059
196


37013.060
197


37013.061
198


37013.062 37013.063
199


37013.064
200


37013.065
201


37013.066
202

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fry. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC FRY, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY 

SERVICES, PEABODY COAL COMPANY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, 

ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS COAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FRY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee members. 

My name is Eric Fry; I work with Peabody Energy. I am here today 

representing the Illinois Coal Association, and pinch-hitting for 

Mark Yingling, who was supposed to be here, but couldn’t make it 

today. 

Prior to SMCRA being enacted in 1977, many states, trade associations, and coal operators had already established private-public 

partnerships to address mine reclamation by working with local 

legislatures. These groups developed regulations for regrading, 

soils replacement, and revegetation. Programs like Peabody’s Operation Green Earth and the early state programs provided much of 

the basis for SMCRA, which in turn has guided the mining industry to the current high level of excellence and environmental stewardship. 

Mine reclamation has been advanced from what was once identified as one of this nation’s major environmental challenges to being 

a story of success. Now, through initiatives like the Asian Pacific 

Partnership, many requirements of SMCRA are being used as examples of best practice across the globe. 

SMCRA provides for open involvement from stakeholders, regulators, and the public. The permit application, review, and approval 

and modification process allow for full characterization of the premine resources, consistent mining and reclamation plans, public 

input, and dependable bright lines. The applicant violator system, 

financial assurance requirements, and bond release performance 

standards assist in maintaining a high degree of industry credibility. 

The ever-present inspection and enforcement provides for ongoing dialogue in planning and performance requirements. Reclamation of prime farmland, water resources, fish and wildlife resources, 


37013.067
203

forestry and rangeland once thought to be a major challenge is now 

routinely accomplished. These ongoing successes support the realization that mining is a temporary use of the land, and that value 

creation can extend well beyond mineral extraction. 

A large part of the success of SMCRA is attributable to the singular focus on mining, as opposed to programs that address multiple industries. SMCRA is a mature program, administered by experienced and knowledgeable mining professionals in both Federal 

and state programs. This level of professionalism helps to provide 

the consistency and regulatory certainty needed by a dynamic coal 

industry. 

While SMCRA has proven to be a successful program, there is always room for improvement. A concerted effort should be made to 

fully utilize existing resources. Examples include items such as the 

AML Fund, where remaining projects should be finished as soon as 

practical. 

Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are, for the most 

part, addressed in SMCRA requirements. This triple-overlap of regulation is confusing, inefficient, costly for both operators and regulators, and blurs the bright lines. 

Additionally, while SMCRA provides solid guidance, a one-sizefits-all approach is not always appropriate. Coal regions span the 

U.S. and have wide ecological, hydro-geological, and climatological 

differences. SMCRA needs to allow for flexibility in the use of local 

proven practices, such as grading diversity, that creates wildlife 

protection zones, small depressions that supplement the landscape, 

topsoil substitutes that improve plant diversity, and partial 

highwall retention that improves wildlife habitat and aesthetics. 

I have some time left. I have a few slides. Go to the third one, 

active research. No, no, back. I think you picked the wrong one. 

There we go. Now to the third one. Peabody engages in active research programs. Some examples in the Midwest are the American 

Chestnut Foundation. That is a study of adaptability of chestnut 

trees on reclaimed land. We have a study with the University of 

Kentucky to study the growth rates for trees on reclaimed land. We 

work with the Indiana Division of Reclamation to study soil handling techniques. 

Go to the next one. No. No. This isn’t working very well. Sorry. 

Back. There we go. 

Community outreach is important. Several ways that we do this 

are to hold open houses, field days that invite exchange between 

industry, agencies, and academia. The Sierra Club has come to 

these field days before. 

Also, educational workshops that are, that take place on the 

mines. OK, the next one. There we go. 

Large wildlife areas are sometimes created. In this example in Illinois, the River King Fish and Wildlife Area, 1800 acres of water 

and wetlands. And this is just one example of many. Next one. 

Ongoing wildlife research. This isn’t in the Midwest, but this is 

a research project that North Antelope Rochelle, a three-year research project on greater sage grouse. Next one. 

Arizona Best Practices and Reclamation recognized at the International Global Awards. Next one. 

204

The Asia Pacific Partnership promotes sustainable practices. 

This is an international agreement between Australia, India, 

Japan, China, and Korea, and involves the development and transfer of technology on environmental issues. That is good. 

That is what I have got. Thank you very much. 

[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Fry on behalf of 

Yingling follows:]

Statement of Mark R. Yingling, VP of Environmental Services and Conservancy, Representing Peabody Energy and the Illinois Coal Association 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Mark Yingling. I am the Vice President of Environmental Services and Conservancy for Peabody Energy and a member of the Executive Board for the Illinois Coal Association and I am committed to the proper utilization and sustainability of this country’s natural resources. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States currently imports 59 percent of its oil requirements. This dependence is expected to 

grow 70 percent by the year 2025. Additionally, natural gas accounts for 16 percent 

of America’s energy imports. 

Even with our current dependency on foreign energy supplies, we need to celebrate the enormous American coal resource that has added to the security of energy 

in the United States. Coal mining shoulders half of this Country’s electricity generation while lessening the dependence on foreign oil and, increasingly, our dependence 

on imported natural gas. 

Prior to SMCRA being enacted in 1977, many State Agencies, Trade Associations 

and Coal Operators, in conjunction with local Legislatures, had already established 

private/public partnerships to address mine reclamation. These groups developed 

regulations for re-grading, soils replacement, and revegetation. Programs like 

Peabody’s Operation Green Earth and the early State regulation provided much of 

the basis for SMCRA which, in turn, has guided the mining industry to its current 

high level of excellence in environmental stewardship. Mine reclamation has advanced from one of this Nation’s major environmental challenges in the 70’s to being 

a success story of private/public partnership. Through initiatives like the Asian Pacific Partnership, many requirements of SMCRA are now being used as examples 

of best practice across the globe. 

SMCRA provides for open involvement from stakeholders, regulators, and the 

public. The permit application, review, approval and modification processes allow for 

full characterization of the pre-mine resources, consistent mining and reclamation 

plans, public input, and dependable ‘‘bright lines’’. The Applicant Violator System, 

Financial Assurance requirements and Bond Release performance standards assist 

in maintaining a high degree of industry credibility. The ever present inspection & 

enforcement provides for ongoing dialogue on planning and performance requirements. Reclamation of prime farmland, water resources, fish & wildlife resources, 

forestry, and rangeland, once thought to be a major challenge, now is routinely accomplished. These on-going successes support the realization that mining is a temporary use of the land and that value creation can extend well beyond mineral extraction. 

A large part of the success of SMCRA is attributable to the singular focus on 

mining as opposed to programs that address multiple industries. SMCRA is a mature program administered by experienced and knowledgeable mining professionals 

in both the Federal and State programs. This level of professionalism helps to provide the consistency and regulatory certainty needed by a dynamic coal industry. 

While SMCRA has proven to be a successful program, there is always room for 

improvement. The ingenuity that has given confidence to achieving many sensitive 

and difficult performance standards now needs to be used to become more efficient 

in meeting and even exceeding these same requirements. A concerted effort should 

to be made to fully utilize existing resources. A prime example includes the AML 

fund where remaining projects should be finished as soon as practical. 

Another area that should be fully promoted are the benefits of reduced grading 

which includes lower soil compaction, reduced erosion, higher soil moisture retention, better water quality and lower fuel consumption. An associated benefit of reduced grading is increased vegetation production both above ground and within the 

rooting media which all leads to greater uptake and retention of atmospheric carbon 

dioxide. 

An ongoing source of permitting inefficiency is Section 401 and Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. These requirements are, for the most part, addressed in the 

205

SMCRA requirements. This triple overlap of regulation is confusing, inefficient, costly (for both Operators and Regulators), and blurs the ‘‘bright lines’’. 

Additionally, while SMCRA provides solid guidance, a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach 

is not always appropriate. Coal regions span the U.S. and have wide ecological, 

hydro-geological, and climatological differences. SMCRA needs to allow for flexibility 

in the use of local proven practices such as grading diversity that creates wildlife 

protection zones, small depressions that supplement the landscape, sinuous drainage patterns that improve drainage stability, topsoil substitutes that improve plant 

diversity and partial highwall retention that improves wildlife habitat and aesthetics. 

Thank you for allowing me to provide these comments. Following is a brief set 

of slides on a few of the many successes during the past 30 years of SMCRA. 


37013.015
206


37013.016 37013.017
207

STATEMENT OF MARION LOOMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WYOMING MINING ASSOCIATION, CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Mr. LOOMIS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pearce, thank you for 

inviting us to come back today. I am Marion Loomis, the Executive 

Director of the Wyoming Mining Association. 


37013.018 37013.019
208

The Wyoming Mining Association represents bentonite coal, 

trona, and uranium producers in Wyoming. I am sure that you are 

aware that Wyoming leads the Nation in production of coal, but 

you may be interested to know that Wyoming also leads the Nation 

in the production of bentonite, trona, which is converted into soda 

ash and is a primary ingredient in the manufacture of glass, and 

we lead the Nation in the production of uranium. 

Wyoming coal mines now produce almost 450 million tons of coal 

annually, which is 38 percent of this nation’s coal production. Wyoming coal is shipped to 36 states, from New York to Washington 

and Texas to Minnesota. 

Mr. Chairman, some feel that Wyoming just started producing 

coal after the Clean Air Act passed in 1970, and indeed, that was 

one of the reasons for the tremendous growth in coal production in 

Wyoming. But Wyoming started producing coal in 1869, with the 

completion of the Trans-Continental Railroad. At our peak prior to 

1970, Wyoming produced 9.8 million tons of coal in 1945, and our 

peak employment came in 1922, with 9,000 miners. So Wyoming 

has had a long history of providing coal to fuel this country’s 

energy needs. 

After the railroad switched from coal to diesel, Wyoming reached 

a low in production in 1958, with 1.6 million tons, and a low of employment in 1967, with only 332 miners. However, the industry 

turned around in the 1960s, with the construction of several coalfired power plants. By the time the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act passed, Wyoming mines were producing 44 million 

tons per year, with employment of 3300 miners. 

The late 1960s, the mining industry in Wyoming recognized that 

mine lands needed to be returned to a productive use after mining. 

The industry and the Wyoming Mining Association worked with 

legislators to pass a reclamation act in 1969, called the Open Cut 

Land Reclamation Act, and it applied to all minerals, not just coal. 

All mined minerals. 

Granted, that first act was rather weak by today’s standards, but 

it shows that the industry recognized the need for a reclamation 

law that applied to everyone, so no one company had an advantage 

over another. The 1969 Act was replaced with a much more comprehensive act in 1973, which addressed not only land reclamation, 

but air quality, water, and solid waste issues. 

The industry has struggled to make the provisions of SMCRA 

work in the arid West, where a lack of water and topsoil much different than in the East, where there is abundant rainfall and plenty of topsoil. It is difficult to make the one-size-fits-all mandates of 

the Federal law work in all the areas. SMCRA and the Federal regulations do recognize the difference between these areas that receive less than 26 inches of precipitation, and those that receive 

more. Currently this is reflected in an extended bond liability period, but we feel this is an area that should be explored to expand 

and enhance reclamation options. 

Congress also recognized differences in mining areas of the country, when Representative Roncalio from Wyoming was successful in 

including a provision that recognized the unique features of a special bituminous mine. If that provision had not been inserted, one 

209

of the truly remarkable mines in Wyoming would have not been 

able to operate. 

The Kimmler Mine, located in southwest Wyoming, has multiple 

coal seams, with the bottom seam over 100 feet thick. The Act recognized that the backfill provisions of the Act would not work for 

the Kimmler Mine, and a special provision was written into the Act 

to allow for a different reclamation procedure to be used. That 

mine opened in 1897, and is still operating. To date, the Kimmler 

Mine has produced over 148 million tons of coal. 

We have seen a growing understanding of the differences in the 

mining areas by those administering the Federal Act. One of the 

concerns of our companies was the ability to restore wildlife habitat. In many cases, the pre-mining wildlife habitat is eroded gullies 

and arroyos, which cannot be part of a successful reclamation effort. Our reclamation has to be erosionally stable. 

But we can take part in the reclaimed highwall and create an 

erosionally stable wildlife feature that will provide protection, diverse vegetation, and the ability to store water. We are pleased 

that OSM is now working with the industry to allow us to create 

these features in the post-mine topography as a replacement for 

natural habitat removed by mining. 

We encourage the Committee to support OSM’s efforts to design 

and implement policy which will facilitate mining companies to create wildlife habitat. 

You are very aware of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation 

fund, and there has been a lot of talk about it here today. We are 

very pleased that Congress will fund the balance of the AML fees 

owed to the states. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we want 

to also express our thanks to Congresswoman Cubin, for all of her 

efforts and your efforts in this regard. 

Wyoming producers have paid well over $2.3 billion in AML fees 

over the last 30 years, and we are very appreciative that the portion owed to Wyoming will now come back for the many uses the 

state has to address mineral-impact issues. 

We are, however, somewhat concerned that OSM seems to believe that the money will only be released when projects are identified. Our understanding of the Act that you passed last year requires that the back balance be paid in equal installments. The 

Wyoming Legislature passed legislation this year to hold those 

back payments until the Legislature decides how to allocate those 

monies. It is our hope that the back payments would come to the 

state without any strings attached. 

In summary, we feel the industry, OSM, and the states have 

come a long way in the past 30 years. We are producing more coal, 

reclaiming more land, and providing a reliable, affordable energy 

resource for this nation. As we go forward, it is our hope that we 

will continue to work together to address the many issues that will 

face us to allow the industry to continue to provide a secure source 

of energy for our nation, and still restore the land to a beneficial 

use after mining is completed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loomis follows:]

210

Statement of Marion Loomis, Wyoming Mining Association 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Marion Loomis. I am the Executive Director of the 

Wyoming Mining Association. The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) represents 

bentonite, coal, trona and uranium producers in Wyoming. You know that Wyoming 

leads the nation in production of coal, but you may be interested to know that Wyoming also leads the nation in the production of bentonite, trona (which is converted 

into soda ash for use in glass and chemical manufacturing) and uranium. 

Wyoming coal mines now produce almost 450 million tons of coal annually which 

is 38% of this nation’s coal production. Wyoming coal is shipped to 36 states from 

New York to Washington and from Texas to Minnesota. 

Mr. Chairman, some feel that Wyoming just started producing coal after the 

Clean Air Act passed in 1970 and indeed that act was one of the reasons for the 

tremendous growth in coal production in Wyoming, but Wyoming started producing 

coal in 1869 with completion of the transcontinental railroad. At our peak prior to 

1970 Wyoming produced 9.8 million tons in 1945, but our peak employment was in 

1922 with 9,192 miners, so Wyoming has had a long history of providing coal to fuel 

this country’s energy needs. After the railroads switched from coal to diesel, Wyoming reached a low in production in 1958 with 1.6 million tons and a low in employment in 1967 with only 332 miners. However, the industry turned around in the 

1960’s with the construction of several coal fired power plants. By the time the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) passed, Wyoming mines were 

producing 44 million tons per year with employment of 3,300 miners. 

In the late 1960’s the mining industry in Wyoming recognized that mined lands 

needed to be returned to a productive use after mining. The industry and the Wyoming Mining Association worked with legislators to pass a reclamation act in 1969 

called the Open Cut Land Reclamation Act and it applied to all mined minerals, 

not just coal. Granted that first act was rather weak by today’s standards, but it 

shows that the industry recognized the need for a reclamation law that applied to 

everyone so no one company had an advantage over another. The 1969 act was replaced with a much more comprehensive act in 1973 which addressed not only land 

reclamation, but air quality, water, and solid waste issues. 

The industry struggled to make the provisions of SMCRA work in the arid west 

where the lack of water and topsoil make reclamation much different than in the 

east where there is abundant rainfall and plenty of topsoil. It is difficult to make 

the one size fits all mandates of the federal law work in all areas. SMCRA and the 

federal regulations do recognize a difference between those areas that receive less 

than 26 inches of precipitation and those that receive more. Currently this is reflected in an extended bond liability period but we feel this is an area that should 

be explored to expand and enhance reclamation options. 

Congress also recognized differences in mining areas of the country when Representative Roncalio from Wyoming was successful in including a provision that recognized the unique features of special bituminous mines. If that provision had not 

been inserted, one of the truly remarkable mines in Wyoming would not have been 

able to operate. The Kemmerer mine located in Southwest Wyoming has multiple 

coal seams with the bottom seam over 100 feet thick. The Act recognized that the 

back fill provisions of the Act would not work for the Kemmerer mine and a special 

provision was written into the Act to allow for a different reclamation procedure to 

be used. That mine opened in 1897 and is still operating. To date the Kemmerer 

mine has produced over 148 million tons of coal. 

We have seen a growing understanding of the differences in the mining areas by 

those administering the federal act. One of the concerns of our companies was the 

ability to restore wildlife habitat. In many cases the premining wildlife habitat is 

eroded gulleys and arroyos which cannot be part of a successful reclamation effort. 

Our reclamation must be erosionally stable. But, we can take part of the reclaimed 

highwall and create an erosionally stable wildlife feature that will provide protection, diverse vegetation and the ability to store water. We are pleased that OSM 

is now working with the industry to allow us to create these features in the post 

mine topography as replacement for natural habitat removed by mining. We encourage the Committee to support OSM’s efforts to design and implement policy which 

will facilitate mining companies creating wildlife habitat. 

You are very aware of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation fund. We are very 

pleased that Congress will fund the balance of the AML fees owed to the states and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Cubin for your efforts in this regard. 

Wyoming producers have paid well over $2.3 billion in AML fees over the last 30 

years and we are very appreciative that the portion owed to Wyoming will now come 

back for the many uses the state has to address mineral impact issues. We are, 

however, somewhat concerned that OSM seems to believe that the money will only 

211

be released when projects are identified. Our understanding of the act that you 

passed last year requires that the back balance be paid in equal installments. The 

Wyoming legislature passed legislation this year to hold the back payments until 

the Legislature decides how to allocate those monies. It is our hope that the back 

payments would come to the state without any strings attached. 

In summary, we feel the industry, OSM and the states have come a long way in 

the past 30 years. We are producing more coal, reclaiming more land, and providing 

a reliable, affordable energy resource for this nation. As we go forward, it is our 

hope that we will continue to work together to address the many issues that will 

face us to allow the industry to continue to provide a secure source of energy for 

our nation and still restore the land to a beneficial use after mining is completed. 

Thank you for allowing me to provide these comments. 

Mr. PEARCE. The Chair thanks the panel for their testimony. 

Bill, let me say first to you, I really appreciate your testimony. 

It was right on target, in my opinion. Your membership is a practicing environmentalist. And I have known many of your members, 

not just as constituents and good corporate citizens of the Congressional District I am honored to represent, but also as lifelong 

friends. And I know that what you said was from the heart, because your membership—we all are environmentalists, let us face 

it; each and every one of us are environmentalists. 

And the jobs that your membership provides are appreciated by 

all of West Virginia, and by this nation. And many of your membership just finished involving themselves with the most successful 

Friends of Coal Auto Show since you have been putting that on. 

And it was a great performance, a great turnout this past weekend 

in my hometown. Congratulations on that. 

I want to ask my first question, though, to Hal, who I must say 

I am pleased to finally get before this committee, because we go 

way back, as well. Your experiences on mining issues are well 

known, and I certainly look forward to working with you on reforming the Mining Law of 1872. And we are working together on that. 

Mr. QUINN. Yes, we are. 

The CHAIRMAN. And people can say what they want about mountaintop removal mining, or they can say what they want about me, 

a coal miner from the East, trying to do, as they put it, what I am 

trying to do to the hardrock mining industry in the West. They can 

say what they want about it. But at least, at least our surface 

mining coal mining industry has some Federal standards on the 

books governing their mining and the reclamation. And at least our 

mining industry pays a royalty when it comes to mining on Federal 

lands. 

So Bill, let me go back to you and ask you my first question, I 

guess. No, Hal, would you wish to comment on that? 

Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as you stated, we welcome the opportunity to work with you on the mining law, as we have discussed 

in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which would kick off tomorrow, by the way. Our 

first hearing. 

Mr. QUINN. You will hear from a representative of our organization tomorrow, and I appreciate that invitation for that. We are 

looking forward to working with you in trying to find the balance, 

just like SMCRA struck a balance, but find some balance in how 

to make some changes to the mining law that served the country, 

212

served the industry, and move us forward on those issues, and 

keep us competitive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, let me ask you. Has SMCRA truly leveled 

the playing field? Now, I am not trying to create regional rivalries, 

because, as we all know, one of the purposes of SMCRA was to 

eliminate state competition, state versus state, or trying to undercut each other in order to sell more coal. 

But is the regulation of surface mining in the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, for example, the same as it is in the State of West Virginia? 

Mr. FRY. You know, as far as from a SMCRA standpoint, Mr. 

Chairman, I think it very much has leveled the field. And this is 

a perception from me, sitting in West Virginia not doing a great 

deal of study of other states. But my perception of that is that 

SMCRA clearly has leveled it. 

And where we run into disparity of, either on operations or enforcement regulation lawsuits being riled, are these eternal conflicts with the Clean Water Act and the interpretation that is given 

to them in different states, as compared to what we have in West 

Virginia. And that seems to be where we have the most difficult. 

And insofar as a framework created by SMCRA, I think it has 

very much leveled the playing field. When you think about where 

you were in 1977, and all the things that were going on in the different states then, then I think it very much has brought consistency to regulation along the line. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we don’t have one state trying to undercut a 

neighboring state now in order to sell their coal. 

Mr. FRY. That is certainly not my perception, no. There is not 

enough coal being mined in this country to take care of this country’s needs right now, which is a very fortunate position to be in. 

But, and we hope that condition continues, unlike some of those 

that came before us on testimony. We hope we continue to can’t 

mine enough coal to meet America’s needs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me continue to ask you to comment on one 

of the themes of the hearings today, which is the issue of whether 

mountaintop removal operations are indeed complying with the letter and the intent of SMCRA. With respect to the AOC variances 

and those more beneficial post-mine land-use plans. 

Mr. FRY. Absolutely they are. In our opinion, Mr. Chairman, they 

clearly are. And I think it is demonstrated, we are always in someone’s front window in West Virginia, it seems like. And those are 

clearly being done, and approximate original contour is being 

achieved. And if it is not being achieved, then there is a post-mining land use that is in the plan to be accomplished following the 

mining. 

Is every site being developed? No, it isn’t. But what site is not 

being developed is being restored to the approximate original contour. 

We do have a definition in West Virginia, a very clear definition. 

And it has come as a result of the agencies joining together, the 

initiative of the state, as well as the initiative of the industry. And 

we know what it is. It is spoil minimizations. Very complicated. A 

bunch of engineers put it together. I mean, you have to work your 

213

way through it. We know what that is in West Virginia, and we 

are doing that. And we are very pleased about it. 

It is a little bit aggravating to have everybody come in and disparage the fact that it is not working, because we have a whole 

gang of people every day that show up making sure it is working. 

And I think it clearly is working, and it is thanks to the cooperation of a whole lot of people in West Virginia. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you believe we can have a dovetailing of the 

interests of protecting our environment and mining coal at the 

same time. 

Mr. FRY. Absolutely. And the real benefit, the thing that we have 

lost in all this tale of lawsuits that runs around, is what a rare 

commodity and a valuable commodity level ground is in southern 

West Virginia in your district, Mr. Chairman. And in order to—we 

are finally getting smart enough to coordinate mining and highway 

construction, and those kinds of things. 

But just to leave the ground in a more moderate slope than what 

it was naturally there is a tremendous opportunity for an economic 

development in the future. 

Well, we pretty much have forgone that, thanks to all these lawsuits and everything, where you have to stack and build that 

mountainside back up now, unless you have a very specific plan. 

So we are trying to do a better job of coordinating mining with the 

economic development, thanks to the agency that was created 

under Governor Underwood you referenced and all of those things. 

So we are getting a little smarter about that. But the travesty 

is that there is a lot of level ground that is being stacked back up 

to 60 percent slopes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill. The gentleman from New 

Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Quinn, what I read 

from H.R. 2337, Title IV, subtitle D, Chapter 2, it talks about having the Secretary really to assist, to develop policies that will assist 

wildlife populations and their habitats in adapting to and surviving 

the effects of global warming. That is kind of a theme that runs 

through this entire, of the section 42, and in the pages around that. 

Have you had a chance to take a look at that? And can you give 

some idea of what that is going to mean to miners? 

Mr. QUINN. Congressman, I have not looked at that section. And 

I will give my attention to that and try to respond to the question. 

But from what you read, I really don’t know what it would mean, 

or how we would go about doing it, to be quite honest with you. 

In terms of trying to study the effects of——

Mr. PEARCE. No, it is not to study. It is to assist wildlife populations and their habitats in adapting to and surviving the effects 

of global warming. 

Mr. QUINN. Well, it would certainly add a new and very large 

wrinkle to our resource planning, under SMCRA or any other law 

that I am aware of at this point in time. But I am not familiar with 

the section, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. If you get a chance to review that, you might 

give me your input. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

214

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Raney, I appreciate your testimony. Now, you 

heard testimony from Mr. Lovett, who is also from West Virginia, 

and he was unimpressed with the state and their oversight, and 

with the OSM and their oversight. And maybe even, I don’t know 

if he actually said it, but I kind of got the idea that it might just 

be a bunch of a wink and a nod, and send them on their way, as 

the regulators looked at the companies. 

Do you have a particular perspective? Do you see any of that 

looking the other way, where the law is just not enforced? 

Mr. RANEY. No, sir. Mr. Lovett and I ride on different sides of 

the bus, I guess. So no, absolutely not. And I mean, I represent a 

whole bunch of companies that are full of engineers and mine managers that absolutely would argue incessantly that that is patently 

untrue. 

And it is one of those babbling allegations that comes from those 

opponents to the industry, I think, that has absolutely no substance whatsoever behind it. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Fry, we have also the allegation that, in the testimony that I was referring to, that they just are allowed not to say 

the topsoil, very few say the topsoil is exact quote. And yet I see 

things growing. I see crops, and I see grass, and I see things like 

that. 

Do you all not see the topsoil? Is that fair? Is that an accurate 

allegation? 

Mr. FRY. Well, I can’t really respond to that definitely in West 

Virginia. But in the——

Mr. PEARCE. No, I am talking about in general. In general. I 

mean, the reclamation, the Surface Mining Act is going to apply everywhere, so surely you have to——

Mr. FRY. Yes, if you go to the mines in the Midwest and out 

west, you will find large piles of topsoil that are put back to——

Mr. PEARCE. Talk to the microphone. I flew jets for an awful long 

time. 

Mr. FRY. Sorry. The answer to your question is yes, that most 

mines you go to you will find large piles of topsoil that are put 

back. They are vegetated to prevent erosion, and there is a requirement to put them back during the reclamation process. 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, in Mr. Wright’s testimony, he claims on page 

two that he can say with complete confidence that coalfield residents will not get meaningful protection for their health and their 

water unless we step in and demand that protection. Do you all 

find the OSM to be that functionless? In other words, do you find 

them to be an easy touch for a company to go into and just move 

right on past? That was kind of the feel; that they are toothless, 

that they do not do their job very well in providing for protection. 

Can you talk about that just a bit? 

Mr. FRY. Yes. You are mostly dealing with the state programs, 

and then most of the states that I am familiar with, if someone has 

an issue with water, there is a requirement that the company provide the water before it is known that the company is at fault. 

No, there are very strict rules to make sure that water is replaced, and that best management practices are practiced in order 

to prevent water contamination to the degree possible. 

215

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions if you 

have a second round. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thanks. OK. Similarly, on this testimony of Mr. 

Wright, the, page four, he has a fairly long section where he is 

talking that Indiana test seems to remove mines from any accountability to groundwater standards. Do you all mine in Indiana? 

Mr. FRY. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you find that Indiana does not, do they not 

have—tell me about the enforcement mechanisms you all have had 

to go through on groundwater standards. 

Mr. FRY. Groundwater standards are set by the states. And some 

states don’t have groundwater standards, and other states do have 

groundwater standards, and they differ in each state as to——

Mr. PEARCE. And you have to comply. I mean, do you have to do 

clean-ups? You have to make sure it is not contaminating, it is not 

having the aquifers contaminated, or whatever? 

Mr. FRY. Yes, there are specific standards that have to be met. 

As you probably know, that in a spoil aquifer, that there is some 

mineralization that takes place, and there is not anything you can 

do about that. And that is taken into effect in the groundwater 

standards of some states. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Fry, the 2262, the Hard Rock Mining Act, has 

a section in it which asks that the permits be reviewed every three 

years. From a mining point of view and working with bankers, my 

experience with oil and gas is that you are not going to get a 

project funded if you only have three years worth of approval. 

Can you address whether or not your financing is going to be facilitated or made more difficult if you have a permit review process 

that is only three-year windows, and then is up for review? At 

which point it could be declined, or maybe approved again. Could 

you address the financing possibilities that that will affect? 

Mr. FRY. I am not sure that I understand that question. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK, that is a little out of your area. But just, if you 

have—mines are basically the same sort of financial structure. And 

I am asking a permit process. Now, I know you are not hardrock 

mine, you are a coal mine. But if a mine only had a window of 

three years, at which time it would have to come up for review for 

its permit again, I am asking is that going to be a process that the 

banks look on with favor? Or is that going to penalize you and give 

you a higher rate, or maybe limit capital? 

Mr. FRY. I would certainly guess the latter. And as you gentlemen know, mining is very capital-intensive; you have to lay out a 

lot of money at the front end of it. And regulatory uncertainty certainly is a big issue. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Raney—this will be my last question, Mr. 

Chairman. Mr. Raney, you have mentioned the lawsuit after, suit 

after suit that threatened your jobs. Do you find, when those suits 

are filed, that they have a justifiable outcome? Or do they appear 

to be simply a stalling mechanism, or may be a mechanism to try 

to stop the mine from actually going forward? Or can you, even if 

you disagree with it, look at the suit and say well, it is not my approach, but I understand what they are getting at; or do they appear to be frivolous? 

216

Mr. RANEY. In my opinion, they are frivolous. They file the same 

suit after, and after they just get a little different approach to it, 

file the same suit. We go to Richmond, to the Fourth Circuit. 

Thank goodness the Fourth Circuit overturns it. And we made two 

or three trips down there already; they have done that. And we 

come back, and then we are confronted with another suit very similar to, questioning the very same thing. Find another judge, and 

you get the decision at the District Court level that just absolutely 

paralyzes the permitting process. And not so much at the state 

level with the SMCRA permits, but it just paralyzes the issuance 

of the Corps of Engineer 404 permits and the Clean Water Act. 

So it is that almost, you don’t see the effect of it, but what happens is they are just tying the hands and the minds of those permit-issuing authorities with the confusion that is created in the 

courts. I sort of think that they are frivolous, and I think they are 

an effort to delay, and just trying to disrupt the coal industry of 

particularly our state. And they reach across state lines every once 

in a while and do the same thing to Kentucky. 

Mr. PEARCE. I find the same thing in New Mexico, not necessarily with miners, but with forestlands or whatever, that the 

same objection is filed over and over. So if they were trying to find 

factual evidence or an answer, they would get that and then say 

OK, we disagree with the opinion. But instead it is filed and filed, 

and then injunctions or whatever. 

Thank you again. A great panel, and a great hearing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to the gentleman from New Mexico, 

if he was referring to my hardrock mining law reform bill, is that 

the bill——

Mr. PEARCE. Is this yours, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. That is my name on it, yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Oh. I was just reading it in big print, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, read the fine print there; you will find my 

name on it. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you are referring to the three-year permitting 

review process, I would just remind the gentleman we in this body 

are up for review every two years. 

Mr. PEARCE. We also don’t finance, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, we spend a lot of finances every two years. 

Let me say to the panel and to all the witnesses that were before 

us today, we certainly appreciate you being with us. There were a 

number of issues discussed, specifically the Clean Water Act, for 

example, concern to many in the industry, an issue over which this 

committee does not have jurisdiction. We discussed CTL today, as 

much as this gentleman is in favor of it, again an issue over which 

this full committee has no jurisdiction, but rather, other committees of the Congress. 

I am going to ask the panel in toto, give them a chance, that is, 

since they have been so patient with us, and one of the advantages, 

I guess you might say, of being last in a long day, is I am going 

to give each of you a chance to respond to anything you have heard 

during the course of the day. I believe most of you, if not all of you, 

217

have been here during the course of the day. Have a free shot at 

anybody. Go ahead. 

Mr. LOOMIS. Well, you know, my daddy said not to say anything 

bad about people if you can’t say something good. 

You know, one thing I want, to invite the gentleman from New 

Mexico to come see some reclamation. I know you, as a panel, were 

invited to come see what Attorney Lovett suggested you need to 

come look at. And you, Mr. Chairman, have, of course, many times 

been on reclamation sites in West Virginia. And I would encourage 

you to bring any member of the Committee, all of the Committee, 

and certainly the staff, to come and look at West Virginia, and see 

what we are truly doing. We are very proud of it, and the people 

that are there every day doing it are very proud of it, as you well 

know, Mr. Chairman. 

But to you, sir, from New Mexico, I would certainly invite you 

to West Virginia and to Kentucky. I think any of the states that 

I mentioned would welcome you to come and look, and see that we 

are proudly mining coal, and meeting, we think, the energy needs 

of this country in a very professional manner. 

I notice, it is not up there now, but you, Mr. Chairman, are 

aware of Twisted Gun. And I promised the Buckskin Council that 

I would let you know today that the Buckskin Council is conducting their annual fund-raising golf tournament on Twisted Gun 

today in Mingo County, which is just full of valley fills, and happens to be one of those dreaded mountaintop operations that other 

testifiers have spoken so harshly about today. 

But I don’t have any particular problem with anybody that appeared here today. They have all got their own opinions. We appreciate very much the opportunity, and we like to parade what is 

going on in West Virginia because we are very, very proud of it. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill. Anybody else? 

Mr. QUINN. If I could just supply the Committee——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Hal. 

Mr. QUINN.—with some facts. Congressman Pearce was asking 

some questions at the outset of the hearing this morning. 

The amount of the production annually is about 1.2 billion tons. 

You wanted to know how many miners; I think Mr. Roberts answered that correctly. But the full employment directly is about 

123,000 nationwide. Average wages annually is about $64,000 for 

a coal miner, and we know many a coal miner who will make plenty more than that once they do their overtime. It could go up to 

80 or more thousand dollars a year. And the value of our product is about $28 to $30 billion annually, 

not including once it has passed upstream through electricity. 

Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pearce, I would also like to say 

a word. Thanks for your support on issues related to the development of a coal-to-liquids industry. And just to mention that, as you 

know, Mr. Chairman, there will be a symposium that we are cosponsoring with other groups in your district next month. 

And thank you for your invitation today again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Hal. 

Mr. LOOMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would echo what Mr. Raney said, 

too. We would welcome you and your committee to come to WyoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
218

ming and look at some of the reclamation that we have been able 

to accomplish, some of the wildlife habitat that we have been able 

to create. 

I grew up on a ranch and hated prairie dogs all my life. But one 

of the crowning achievement of one of the mines is reestablishment 

of a prairie dog colony on some of their reclamation, and creating 

habitat for the mountain plover, which is a threatened species. So 

we are doing some innovative things there that the industry is very 

proud of, and we would love to show it off to you. 

Mr. FRY. I am going to pass. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you for your patience and being with us today. 

As I conclude this oversight hearing on the 30th anniversary of 

SMCRA, let me say, Moe, this one is for you. Committee adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[A letter submitted for the record by Cathie Bird, Chair, Save 

Our Cumberland Mountains, on behalf of the members of SOCM 

Stripmine Issues Committee, follows:]

SAVE OUR CUMBERLAND MAMMALS 

224 S. Main Street, Suite 1 * PO Box 479 

Salt Lake City, TN 37769 * http://www.socm.org 

865-426-9455 * FAX 865-426-9289

August 3rd, 2007

Jim Zoia, Staff Director 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

http://www.house.gov/resources

Dear Mr. Zoia and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SMCRA at its 30-year anniversary. 

A reading of the original SMCRA legislation makes it clear that coal extraction for 

U.S. energy supply was, at the time, to be supported by the Act. It is interesting 

to note that the majority of paragraphs specify the intention of Congress to protect 

citizens and the environment from known effects of surface mining that disturb surface areas in ways that ‘‘burden and adversely affect commerce and the public welfare’’ [30 USC 1201 § 201(c)]. 

Save Our Cumberland Mountains (SOCM), a member-run organization that encourages civic involvement among Tennessee people so that they may have a greater 

voice in determining their future, was very involved with other grassroots organizations in the initial SMCRA legislative process. When the Act became law in 1977, 

SOCM members hoped that it would bring destructive surface mining practices 

under control in their Appalachian homelands, but realized that coalfield citizens 

would have to stay involved and alert to potential shortcomings of the Act. At this 

30th Anniversary of SMCRA, many coalfield residents are not secure in the belief 

that their homes, communities and mountains are being protected as this law envisioned. 

Problems with enforcement 

SMCRA was designed to protect private property from water pollution, blasting, 

and other damage by surface mining, and to give citizens a way to seek recourse 

if such damage occurred. In too many cases this is not happening. People are left 

with cracked foundations, caked coal dust on their houses, and hot and cold running 

black sludge from their faucets. A recent study of violations and complaints about 

Zeb Mountain Mine in Campbell and Scott counties in Tennessee revealed that 

blasting has caused thousands of dollars in damage to several homes. In one of 

these homes, the water is no longer fit to drink. Citizens are given ridiculous explanations for their cracked walls such as ‘‘closing windows, rocking in a rocking chair 

219

or jumping rope.’’ The residents get little help from OSM enforcement personnel 

who are supposed to be protecting them, and. have had to shoulder the burden of 

responsibility for fixing the damage. We hope that members of the Committee will 

be as outraged as we are here in the coalfields, and that you will investigate why 

such things are still happening under SMCRA 3D-years after its adoption. Unfortunately, enforcement problems also allow damage to water, wildlife and forest resources. According to a SOCM enforcement case study at Zeb Mountain, located in Elk 

Valley, 1N. From the start of surface mining in 2003 to the present, a total of 31 

violations have been issued. For seven of the violations, the federal office of surface 

mining has granted extensions. Of the seven violations, four of those violations had 

over 12 extensions translating into 3-years of extension per violation. This is of 

grave concern to citizens who’s homes and water have been damaged as a result of 

these violations. 

OSM has granted large numbers of numerous violations incurred by coal operators. In addition, the mine operator has filed many permit revisions, some of which 

were intended to fix situations created by illegal operations at the mine, In other 

words, it is commonplace for mining companies to mine outside the parameters of 

their permits, and then retroactively allow for a permit revision with little to no repercussions. These extensions by OSM and foot-dragging on required revision data 

by the operator have allowed environmental damage to remain unabated several 

years after the fact. Again, we would hope that the Committee would be outraged 

that this is happening 30 years post-SMCRA. 

Antiquated programmatic EIS 

OSM, the regulatory authority in the non-primacy state of Tennessee, still measures its assessments of surface mining impacts on the environment with a document 

that was adopted in 1985. Since then a number of changes have influenced surface 

mining practices, and a large body of scientific research has informed state-of-theart consensus on the impact of mining activity on headwater streams, and even entire regions downstream from major coal-producing states. It is time for this PElS 

to be updated, an opinion supported by SOCM as well as the Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation. Currently the Department of Interior has, on two 

occasions, denied requests from the State of Tennessee to revise the state’s 1985 

programmatic EIS. 

Destruction of headwater streams by mountaintop mining 

The arrival of mountaintop mining to the coal industry’s repertoire of extraction 

techniques has drastically changed the skyline of the Appalachians, it is estimated 

that over 2500 peaks in Appalachia have significantly altered forever as a result of 

mountaintop mining. In addition to its assaults on the homeland security of coalfield 

residents, this practice has eliminated hundreds of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams whose functioning is critical to water quality downstream, far from 

the .uplands where these environmental assaults are committed. The federal government’s own Programmatic Mountaintop Removal and Valley Fill EIS speaks to 

the horrendous impacts of this practice, even though more conclusive research was 

aborted when the inconvenient truth of headwater losses began to emerge. We fail 

to understand why this destructive practice is still allowed. We urge the Committee 

to consider abolishing any mining practices that dumps mining wastes into streams, 

allows valley fills, or mines through streams. 

Inadequate assessment of cumulative impacts 

In reviewing mining permit applications we are consistently disappointed in the 

inadequate attention to cumulative environmental impacts of surface mining, especially mountaintop mining. OSM has failed to protect cumulative hydrologic integrity of the Appalachian coalfields by allowing valley fills that buried more than 1200 

miles of streams and 1.5 million acres of forest vegetation that is inextricably involved in maintaining hydrologic balance. These activities have destroyed the functioning of whole aquatic ecosystems, including destruction of nutrient cycling services that headwater streams provide for downstream fisheries and other aquatic and 

riparian species. 

Problems with public participation 

Public participation in the control of surface mining is a core element of SMCRA, 

and, at the time, offered more opportunities for public involvement than perhaps 

any other environmental legislation. Under SMCRA, citizens are allowed to comment on proposed regulations, to obtain judicial review of final rulemaking, to comment on proposed state program provisions and obtain judicial review of decisions 

to approve them. They can review (and get copies of) permit applications, inspection 

220

materials, and other information held by the regulatory authority. Citizens can comment on permit applications and request administrative and judicial review of permitting decisions. If SMCRA is violated, coalfield citizens can initiate complaints to 

federal authorities and accompany inspectors who investigate their complaints. If 

not satisfied with inspection results, citizens can call for a review of inspection and 

enforcement decisions. Until court decisions in the past four years discouraged such, 

citizens were allowed to bring civil actions to force coal operators to obey the law 

or to make regulatory officials do their jobs under the law. 

Citizen participation since adoption of SMCRA has helped create a better system 

than the one originally on the books. But those of us on the front lines 30 years 

later still encounter delays in getting access to material, in some cases being required to file for information under FOIA. People seeking reparation for damage to 

their homes or water supplies have to negotiate the system with little assistance, 

and the results (as noted above) are often unjust and burdensome. SOCM and other 

coalfield groups have sought legal relief from intolerable environmental damage 

through NEPA and the Clean Water Act when it appears that no avenue is open 

via SMCRA. We would suggest that this in itself is a red flag and that the Committee needs to investigate how user-friendly SMCRA really is from the point of 

view of coalfield residents. 

Coal: Poverty or Prosperity? 

In the past, rural Appalachian communities were dependent on coal mining for 

jobs, and often dependent on the coal companies for virtually all economic activity. 

The advent of mountaintop removal mining has shifted the equation. Mountaintop 

removal is a mining technique designed, from the very start, to take the labor force 

out of the mining operation. What used to take hundreds of miners employed for 

decades, now takes a half dozen heavy equipment operators and blasting technicians 

a couple of years. According to the bureau of labor statistics, in the early 1950’s 

there were between 125,000 and 145,000 miners employed in West Virginia; in 2004 

there were just over 16,000. During that time, coal production has increased. This 

decline in the workforce continues today. Draglines and other advances in technology resulted in a 29% decline in mining jobs during 1987 and 1997, while coal 

production rose 32 percent during the same period. 

All of this translates into profits for mining companies, all of which are 

headquartered outside of the region. Massey Energy, for example, is headquartered 

in Richmond, Virginia. As of January 31,2007, Massey Energy operated 33 underground mines and 11 surface mines in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia. In 

2006 Massey earned $2.14 billion in revenue, and CEO Don Blankenship received 

more than $10 million in compensation. Arch Coal, based in St. Louis, operates 21 

mines in Appalachia and the West. In 2006, Arch brought in $2.5 billion in revenue. 

Peabody, also based in St. Louis, operates 40 coal mines in the U.S., Australia and 

Venezuela, and brought in $5.22 billion in revenues in 2006. A relatively new company, founded in 2002, Alpha Resources, has 27 active ‘‘surface’’ mines in Appalachia, as well as underground mines and road building operations to facilitate moving the coal out. Alpha is based in Abingdon, Virginia and brought in $1.96 billion 

in 2006 -all based on Appalachian coal. Despite these profits, particularly the wealth 

accruing to top executives, coal companies are quick to label property damage resulting from their activities ‘‘an act of God,’’ thus avoiding any financial responsibility to the people who suffer the consequences. 

To add insult to injury, in addition to the loss of jobs and exportation of profits, 

mountaintop removal effectively destroys the potential for many alternative economic growth options. In North Carolina and Tennessee mountain counties without 

coal mining, tourism income far outpaces the coal income in coal counties -an option 

unavailable to counties whose mountains and streams have been destroyed. Traditional wild ginseng gathering and small-scale agriculture are also obliterated when 

mountains are blown up. Not only must mountaintop removal be stopped, aggressive alternative, sustainable economic development options must be pursued. People 

of the coalfields need alternative means of livelihood that do not leave them dependent on the very coal companies that are destroying their communities, health and 

the land they need for long-term survival. 

History demonstrates that long-term sustainable economic well-being eludes local 

economies tied to the one-time windfall of resource extraction, particularly coal. Coal 

producing counties are among the poorest in the nation. In a review of more than 

300 studies of the economic impacts of mining industries on non-metropolitan communities, university researchers found that .roughly half of all published findings 

indicate negative economic outcomes in mining communities and the remaining half 

are split roughly evenly between positive and neutral/indeterminate outcomes. Positive outcomes are also more likely to come from the Western United States. MoreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 Jan 10, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\37013.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
221

1Freudenburg, William, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Wilson, Lisa, University of 

California Santa Barbara, ‘‘Mining the Data: Analyzing the Economic Implications of Mining for 

Non-Metropolitan Regions,’’ Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, No. 4, Fall 2002. 

over, over half of all positive findings come from years prior to 1982. In virtually 

all other categories, the majority of the findings were negative. 1

Given both the negative economic track record and the severe ecological impacts 

of surface mining, it is critical that government fully evaluate the expected local 

benefits and local costs to determine if mining in fact brings sufficient benefits to 

merit the decision to approve a mine. 

The future of coal as a workable energy source 

As discussion of a climate legislation moves onto the national political agenda, 

citizens groups-particularly citizens who have generations of experience with the 

true costs of coal are working to frame extraction issues as part of the larger debate. 

The SOCM Stripmine Issues Committee believes that those coalfield communities 

where coal is currently or has been extracted deserve the right to secure, sustainable jobs and energy sources. The committee further believes that while coal has 

provided a source of income and opportunity for generations, the price of coal does 

not expose the true costs of damage to the land, water and people of Tennessee. Additionally, as stated above, it is strongly held that failure of enforcement for thirty 

years has shown a not only a weak link in the system, but that it is also evidenced, 

that mountaintop mining can not occur without immensely devastating impacts to 

coalfield communities. 

The SOCM Stripmine Issues committee concludes that ‘‘alternative’’ coal technologies—such as so called ‘‘clean coal’’, IGCC, and coal to liquids—are incompatible 

with a sustainable federal energy policy and a step backwards for the coalfield communities of Tennessee. Therefore every possible immediate action must be taken by 

the House Natural Resource Committee, in their review of SMCRA, to ensure that 

mountaintop mining and other forms of steep slope mining be immediately abolished, and more stringent enforcement be put in place. 

Cumulatively, while we agree that some things are working, we also harbor a fair 

amount of discontent with how SMCRA is actually functioning, especially since the 

25 th anniversary review in 2002. We believe that coalfield citizens have gone above 

and beyond the call of duty to keep OSM and coal companies true to the intent of 

SMCRA. There are many of us here in the coalfields who would be glad to share 

our experiences in more detail. We are interested to see how the Committee responds to our concerns.

Sincerely,

Cathie Bird, Chair 

For the members of the SOCM Stripmine Issues Committee 

222

[A letter submitted for the record by Joyce Blumenshine, Peoria, 

Illinois, follows:]


37013.098
223


37013.099
224


37013.100
225

[A letter submitted for the record by Julia Bonds, Rock Creek, 

West Virginia, follows:]


37013.101
226


37013.102
227


37013.103
228


37013.104 37013.105
229

[A letter and exhibits submitted for the record by Beverly 

Braverman, Executive Director, Mountain Watershed Association, 

dated August 3, 2007, follow:]

Mountain Watershed Association

P.O. Box 408

Melcroft, PA 15462

August 3, 2007

Chairman Nick Rahall 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Rahall:

We appreciate the opportunity to submit formal comments for inclusion in the 

record in response to the House Natural Resources Committee hearing concerning 

the SMCRA held by you on July 25, 2007. 

White SMCRA was written to answer the promise of protection in the coalfields, 

implementation has fallen short. Some of the successes have been restoration of 

some abandoned mine lands, provision for running state programs under Title IV, 

and Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative grants to watershed groups doing reclamation in their communities. 

These successes, however, are overshadowed by the lack of enforcement of the 

purpose and intent of the Act. The gradual erosion of the Act by State programs 

refusing to follow the laws set forth about blasting, strip mining, and public participation has created a situation where those who supported passage barely recognize 

‘‘the promise’’ they were given in the Rose Garden those many years ago. 

The lack of implementation and enforcement of SMCRA by the federal and state 

government has seriously weakened the needed benefits and controls that led to its 

passage in the first place. The dearth of oversight of state promulgated coal-friendly 

regulations that fly in the face of the law has contributed to the failure of the Act 

to protect our environment, our quality of life, and our communities. 

Enclosed for inclusion in the record is a booklet (Exhibit A) called the True. Cost 

of Coal, which shows the degradation and destruction resulting from weak enforcement of SMCRA and passage of regulations that add to the emasculation of the law. 

This pictorial record includes subsided streambeds, which have occurred as a result 

of surface-effects of underground mining, an area that SMCRA was meant to control. Also, included are pictures of mountain top removal, which is totally outside 

the realm of the law. Many valley fills are in complete violation of the Act. Home, 

highway, water line impacts caused by longwall mining are also surface effects of 

underground mining that the Act was meant to control. 

In addition to these surface impacts of underground mining, OSM has allowed the 

destruction of homes on the Historic Registry. The tragic story of the Thralls House 

is a shameful abrogation of federal control over the coal industry. 

The promulgation of coal-friendly regulations have upheld the further weakening 

of the Act. States like Pennsylvania now permit the allowance of unacceptable mitigation of surface effects, such as in Exhibit B, a picture of a dry streambed and 

pipes carrying the water, will not be overthrown through federal oversight under 

SMCRA. So far, they have been correct in this analysis. OSMRE has been MIA. 

There is a belief that citizens in the coalfields can bear the burden of continued 

damage to their homes ’from strip mining. SMCRA was passed in major part to shift 

the burden of coal mining from citizens living in the coalfields to the people responsible for the burden and profiting from the burden, the coal companies. This burden 

has not been shifted. Living in coalfield communities means that any day a permit 

may be issued beside your home that will cause excessive amounts of dust and noise 

to become part of your daily life. It means that any day, you may wake up and not 

have water sufficient in quantity and quality to get you through the day OR you 

may not have water at all. You are then at the mercy of the coal company to provide 

you with this most precious resource. 

Blasting damage continues to plague citizens despite the position in SMCRA that 

NO DAMAGE, NOT EVEN COSMETIC DAMAGE, is to be allowed. In Pennsylvania you are expected to believe that blasting did not cause the damage to your 

home despite the reality that the damage was not there prior to mining as shown 

in your pre-blast survey but is there in the post blast survey—You are told that the 

problem of blasting damage is a civil matter between the homeowner and the coal 

230

company. The PA Department of Environmental Protection states ‘‘it has no authority to require the company to compensate the homeowner for damage.’’ Where is federal oversight under SMCRA at this point? The burden of blasting damage caused 

by strip mining has not been lifted from the citizens of the coalfields. Most of the 

communities where mining takes place are economically struggling and underserved. To expect the people living there to hire an attorney to protect their interests or pursue a lawsuit for damages from blasting is totally unacceptable and unreasonable. They cannot afford to hire an attorney. But, then, that is the idea, is 

it not? 

Another purpose of SMCRA was to improve disbursement of information, particularly accessibility of permit applications. This would be a great idea if OSM’s 

website were not opaque, that is, if it was up to date with pertinent information. 

Further, if OSM oversaw the state’s provision of information to citizens, it would 

see that they are being charged for copies at a high rate; permit applications are 

deemed complete even if they are only administratively complete, not technically 

complete; and permit information is submitted in a piecemeal fashion, which makes 

citizen review an ordeal. 

Inadequate bonding is another ongoing nightmare for communities. On August 2, 

2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit gave a victory to 

Pennsylvania’s environment and economy by ruling in favor of a coalition represented by Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must require the state’s coal operators to post bonds to cover 

the entire cost of environmental cleanup. The case began in December 2003 FOR 

THE SECOND TIME, when PennFuture filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania 

Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited (formerly 

PA Trout), the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Tri-State Citizens Mining Network (now known as the Center for Coalfield Justice) and the Mountain Watershed Association against both the federal and state governments for their failure 

to protect Pennsylvania’s environment from damage caused by mining operations, 

including acid stream pollution. 

I am enclosing this decision (Exhibit C), which indicates another serious problem 

with how SMCRA is enforced. It is disheartening that our government officials had 

to be taken to court and forced to do the right thing. With an existing $15 billion 

backlog of old mine damage, it is crystal clear we need to take action to stop the 

problem from getting any worse. But the state adopted policies that slashed the 

amount of revenue generated by its reclamation fee, and has even proposed to eliminate that fee entirely. The court’s ruling makes clear that those decisions took the 

state in the wrong direction. 

We thought the recognition of citizen suit provisions and public participation by 

Congress was a-great step forward. But, how much damage has gone uncorrected 

in the years our bonding suit struggled through the courts? It certainly is much better for citizens and the environment if the law is enforced in the first place. 

Public participation provisions in the Act have been emasculated by state practice. 

Attached is an exchange of letters between citizens and the PA Department of Environmental Protection concerning the practice of holding public meetings in the middle of the day when most working citizens cannot attend. (Exhibit D) Further, public notice has become a farce as notices are placed in papers where few people in 

the proposed affected area are among the paper’s circulation, the meeting is held 

in a neighboring township and the township supervisors of the proposed affected 

township are not notified. The request for evening meetings (even those requests 

made by the township supervisors) are rejected by the state regulatory agency based 

according to them on budgetary constraints. The Congressional provision for public 

participation has fallen victim to the budgetary concerns of the state. Somehow, I 

do not think that is what Congress had in mind when they provided for this right. 

There are numerous other concerns. However, I am certain that my comments are 

not the only ones that will be submitted for inclusion in this record. I leave it to 

others to continue my lament.

Very truly yours,

Beverly Braverman 

Executive Director, Mountain Watershed Association 

Home of the Youghiogheny Riverkeeper®

Member, WaterkeeperTM Alliance Chair, 

Center for Coalfield Justice Pennsylvania Board Representative, 

Citizens Coal Council 

(724) 455-4200

on behalf of:

231

Jim Kleissler, Executive Director, 

Center for Coalfield Justice 

(724) 229-3550

Krissy Kasserman 

Youghiogheny Riverkeeper®

(724) 455-4200


37013.109
232


37013.110
233


37013.111
234


37013.112
235


37013.113
236


37013.114
237


37013.115
238


37013.116
239


37013.117
240


37013.118
241


37013.119
242


37013.120
243


37013.121
244


37013.122
245


37013.123
246


37013.124
247


37013.125
248


37013.126
249


37013.127
250


37013.128
251


37013.129
252


37013.130
253


37013.131
254


37013.132
255


37013.133
256


37013.134
257


37013.135
258


37013.136
259


37013.137
260


37013.138
261


37013.139
262


37013.140
263


37013.141
264


37013.142
265


37013.143
266


37013.144
267


37013.145
268


37013.146
269


37013.147
270


37013.148
271


37013.149
272


37013.150
273


37013.151
274


37013.152
275


37013.153
276


37013.154
277


37013.155
278


37013.156
279


37013.157
280


37013.158
281


37013.159
282


37013.160
283


37013.161
284


37013.162 37013.163
285

[A letter submitted for the record by Vernon Haltom, CoDirector, Coal River Mountain Watch, dated August 6, 2007, 

follows:]


37013.164
286


37013.165
287


37013.166
288

[A letter submitted for the record by Robert L. Johnson, PE, 

Collinsville, Illinois, dated August 3, 2007, follows:]


37013.167
289


37013.168
290


37013.169
291


37013.170
292

[A letter and attachments submitted for the record by Clarence 

Loucks, Hillsboro, Illinois, follow:]


37013.171
293


37013.172
294


37013.173
295


37013.174
296


37013.175
297


37013.176
298


37013.177
299


37013.178
300


37013.179
301


37013.180
302


37013.181
303

[A letter submitted for the record by David Webb, Naoma, West 

Virginia, dated August 4, 2007, follows:]


37013.189
304


37013.190
305

[Comments dated August 1, 2007, submitted for the record by 

Ronald E. Yarbrough, Ph.D., PG, Professor Emeritus, Earth 

Sciences, Southern Illinois University, follow:]


37013.191
306


37013.192
307


37013.193
308

Æ


37013.194