U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

98–011 PDF 2016

H.R. 3734, TO AMEND THE SURFACE 

MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION 

ACT OF 1977 TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO 

MINING SCHOOLS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘MINING SCHOOLS ENHANCEMENT ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Monday, December 14, 2015 in Idaho Springs, Colorado 

Serial No. 114–26 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Paul Cook, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, December 14, 2015 ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Hardy, Hon. Cresent, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 4 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Perlmutter, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Freeman, Leigh, Principal, Leigh Freeman Consultancy, Denver, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 8 

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

Miller, Hugh, Associate Professor of Mining Engineering, Colorado School 

of Mines, Golden, Colorado .......................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Nuttbrock, Nancy, PE, Associate/Texas Regional Leader, Brierley 

Associates, Houston, Texas .......................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 29 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING ON H.R. 3734, 

TO AMEND THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 TO 

PROVIDE SUPPORT TO MINING SCHOOLS, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘MINING 

SCHOOLS ENHANCEMENT ACT’’ 

Monday, December 14, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Idaho Springs, Colorado 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in the 

Underground Classroom of the Edgar Mine, Colorado School of 

Mines Experimental Mine, 365 8th Avenue, Idaho Springs, 

Colorado, Hon. Doug Lamborn [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Bishop, and Hardy. 

Also Present: Representative Perlmutter. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources will come to order. 

Before we get started with our committee hearing, I would like 

to first recognize Matt Schreiner, the Mine Manager here at the 

Edgar Mine, for a safety briefing. 

Mr. SCHREINER. Thank you. Welcome all to the Edgar Mine. I am 

glad that we can do this here today. 

I will take a few minutes. Throughout your time underground 

today, I need everyone to please keep your hard hats on at all 

times. As you travel throughout the facility, please be mindful of 

your footing. You want to avoid slips, trips, and falls. You will see 

equipment, valves, disconnects, and switches. We ask that you do 

not touch any of that. 

Please stay together as a group; and if you have any questions 

about the mine, mine operations, or safety, please contact myself 

or some of the other workers that are identified by cap lamps on 

their hard hats. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right, thank you. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on a bill 

introduced by Representative Cresent Hardy, who is with us here 

today, H.R. 3734, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977, to provide support to mining schools, and 

for other purposes. It is the ‘‘Mining Schools Enhancement Act.’’ 

By way of introduction, I am Doug Lamborn, the Chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. I also represent the 5th District of Colorado, which is south and east of here. 

2 

Also with us today is Congressman Rob Bishop from Utah, the 

Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and 

Congressman Cresent Hardy of Nevada. 

We also have the pleasure of having with us today Ed Perlmutter 

of Colorado, a friend and colleague of many years who represents 

the Colorado School of Mines campus. 

Since Mr. Perlmutter does not serve on the committee, I ask 

unanimous consent that he be allowed to sit with the committee 

and participate in today’s hearing. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. Today the subcommittee is meeting to discuss 

H.R. 3734, the ‘‘Mining Schools Enhancement Act,’’ that was introduced on Friday, October 9 by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Perlmutter. 

Thank you again for joining us today. 

I am excited to be chairing what is, to my understanding, a historical first for Congress, the first congressional hearing held underground in a mine. What better place to gather and discuss the 

need for future mining engineering experts, a need felt by industry, 

states, and the Federal workforce, as well as nonprofits. 

This bill is the final in a three-pronged response to the EPA’s 

Gold King and Standard Mine spills that occurred here in Colorado 

in August and September of this year. These three bills provide a 

path forward to tackle the problem of abandoned mines that need 

remediation. 

My legislation, H.R. 3843, includes a Good Samaritan title, 

which provides limited liability relief for existing conditions at 

abandoned mine land (AML) sites for the Clean Water Act and the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), to encourage volunteer cleanup of both 

coal and non-coal AML sites. 

H.R. 3844, sponsored by Congressman Jody Hice of Georgia, provides a way for concerned individuals and organizations, like environmental groups that have been so vocal on this issue, to raise 

money to help fund the cleanups through the private sector. 

This bill, while receiving seed money from claim maintenance 

fees, provides a mechanism for unlimited funding through the nongovernmental sector. 

In the committee’s investigation of the Gold King Mine spill, we 

discovered that out of 15,326 employees that the EPA has, there 

is not a single mining engineer—out of 15,326 employees. They 

only have 68 geologists, only two of which are assigned to Region 

8, where these unfortunate spills occurred. In contrast, out of 8,790 

employees, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), does have 36 

mining engineers and 170 geologists. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the 

Interior’s recent Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine 

Incident Report, found that in abandoned mine guidelines and 

manuals, there is significant emphasis on environmental issues— 

‘‘with little appreciation for the engineering complexity of some 

3 

1http://www.usbr.gov/docs/goldkingminereport.pdf (page 2). 

abandoned mine projects that often require, but do not receive, a 

significant level of expertise.’’ 

This brings us to why we are here today. The Mining Schools 

Enhancement Act, sponsored by Congressman Hardy, provides support to the mining schools around our Nation which produce the 

mining engineers of the future. In part, this is to ensure that the 

Nation has the technical expertise to competently perform cleanup 

of AML sites. 

I am excited to hear from our witnesses today. Leigh Freeman, 

a professional talent recruiter for the mining industry, will be 

speaking on behalf of the National Academies of Science on a recent report from the Academies. This report on the emerging workforce trends in the U.S. energy and mining industries was 

instrumental in the development of this legislation. 

I would also like to welcome Dr. Hugh Miller, a Professor of 

Mining Engineering at CSM, the Colorado School of Mines; and 

Nancy Nuttbrock, who was with the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality until 2014, where she was Deputy Director. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here, and I look 

forward to hearing from them today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Today, the subcommittee is meeting to discuss H.R. 3734, the ‘‘Mining Schools 

Enhancement Act’’ that was introduced on Friday, October 9 by Mr. Hardy and Mr. 

Perlmutter. Thank you for joining us today. 

I’m excited to be chairing what is, to my understanding, a historical first for 

Congress. The first congressional hearing held underground in a mine. What better 

place to gather and discuss the need for future mining engineering experts, a need 

felt by industry, states and Federal workforces, and nonprofits alike. 

This bill is the final of a three-pronged response to the EPA’s Gold King and the 

Standard Mine spills that occurred in my state, Colorado, in August and September 

of this year. These three bills provide a path forward to tackle the problem of abandoned mines that need remediation. 

My legislation, H.R. 3843, includes a Good Samaritan title, which provides 

limited liability relief for existing conditions at abandoned mine land (AML) sites 

for the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), to encourage volunteer cleanup of both 

coal and non-coal AML sites. 

H.R. 3844 sponsored by Congressman Hice provides a way for concerned individuals and organizations, like environmental groups that have been so vocal on this 

issue, to raise money to help fund the cleanups through the private sector. This bill, 

while receiving seed money from claim maintenance fees, provides a mechanism for 

unlimited funding thought the non-government sector. 

In the committee’s investigation of the Gold King mine spill, we discovered that 

out of 15,326 employees EPA has, they have no ‘mining engineers’ and only 68 

geologists, two of which are assigned to Region 8 where the spills occurred. In contrast, out of 8,790 employees, BLM has 36 ‘mining engineers’ and 170 geologists. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the Interior’s recent 

Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident Report, found that in 

‘‘abandoned mine guidelines and manuals’’ there is significant emphasis on environmental issues—‘‘with little appreciation for the engineering complexity of some 

abandoned mine projects that often require, but do not receive, a significant level 

of expertise.’’ 1

This brings us to why we are here today. The ‘‘Mining Schools Enhancement Act’’ 

sponsored by Congressman Hardy provides support to the mining schools around 

our Nation which produce the mining engineers of the future. In part, this is to ensure that the Nation has the technical expertise to competently perform cleanup of 

AML sites. 

4 

I’m excited to hear from our witnesses today. Leigh Freeman, a professional talent 

recruiter for the mining industry, will be speaking on behalf of the National 

Academies of Science on a recent report from the Academies. This report on emerging workforce trends in the U.S. Energy and Mining Industries was instrumental 

in the development of this legislation. 

I’d also like to welcome, Dr. Hugh Miller, a professor of mining engineering at 

CSM; and Nancy Nuttbrock, who was at the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality until 2014 where she was Deputy Director. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and look forward to hearing from 

them today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would now like to recognize the author of 

H.R. 3734, Representative Hardy, for a statement on his bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. HARDY. I would like to thank the Chairman, and also 

Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing today. And thank you, 

Congressman Perlmutter, for going on and serving as an important 

asset to help get this bill through. 

I would also like to extend a special thank you to the Colorado 

School of Mines for hosting this today. I appreciate you for that. 

As a fifth-generation son of farmers and ranchers, and a former 

general engineering contractor, I am all about hard work and getting my hands dirty. The Edgar Experimental Mine here in Idaho 

Springs is my kind of environment. It is truly a privilege to get out 

of Washington and see what the next generation of scientists and 

engineers will learn in their craft. 

There is not a single sector of the economy that is not touched 

by mining, whether it be minerals to power our industrial companies, metals that allow our consumer electronics and our military 

to function, or the materials I relied on as a contractor to build 

roads, bridges, and dams. America’s economy, energy, and national 

security all depend on a capable mining and engineering workforce. 

Yet, despite the vital importance of these highly skilled and technical experts in the mining disciplines to private industry, academic institutions, and government agencies, we have witnessed a 

dangerous decline in the number of accredited mine schools and 

the graduates that they produce. 

This generated a vicious cycle that has a devastating impact 

across the board. We are at a generational crossroads as the demographics of the U.S. workforce continue to change. With Baby 

Boomers retiring in large numbers, experts in the mine disciplines 

are needed now more than ever. Private sector mining companies 

are in a constant search for STEM graduates with the capabilities 

to understand and employ advanced technologies, even in entrylevel positions. 

At our regulatory agencies, the situation is equally serious. 

According to Richard Perry, the Administrator of the Nevada 

Division of Minerals, agencies have had to hire graduates that do 

not have the technical skills required to manage and evaluate 

mine-related projects, mine reclamation and closure, or to evaluate 

environmental risk associated with orphan mines. This is due to 

the absence of available graduates with degrees in mining and 

5 

mineral engineering and may lead to more environmental disasters 

like the Gold King Mine water disaster and spill. 

As schools that produce the very mining engineering graduates 

that are shrinking in supply lack access to Federal funding for research, it has tripled the pipeline for new faculty and made mining 

education programs less and less sustainable. 

So, what can we do about it? To start, we can amend SMCRA 

by directing the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement to distribute 70 percent of the funding made available 

for applied science transfer programs and accredited mining 

schools. This will enhance and support those educational programs 

and involve more undergraduate and graduate students in critical 

research. 

The Mining School Enhancement Act is a common-sense 

bipartisan bill that would do just that. By supporting and training 

mineral engineers and scientists in the field of mining minerals resources and technology, my bill helps to restore the original intent 

of the Office of Surface Mining under SMCRA and will attack the 

shortage of mining engineers in this country head-on. 

To sum it all up, the Nation needs more mining engineers. To ensure that more mining engineers are produced, our mining schools 

must be sustained; and to sustain our mining schools, they need a 

strong faculty; to ensure that strong faculty, new professors need 

to make it through the tenure process; to make it through the tenure process, new professors need to conduct research; to conduct 

research, professors need to have Federal funding. We need to provide more funding to support mining schools, and the Mining 

Enhancement Act will help accomplish this. 

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues, the Colorado School 

of Mines, and the witnesses for being here today. I look forward to 

hearing the testimony. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I now recognize the original co-sponsor of this legislation, 

Representative Perlmutter, for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED PERLMUTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. I want to thank Congressman 

Lamborn and Congressman Bishop for letting me participate in 

this underground hearing today. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. It is really actually very exciting. I also want 

to thank Congressman Hardy for sponsoring this bill to help train 

and educate our mining engineers and scientists of the future. This 

is badly needed both in terms of developing and maintaining the 

extraction of our natural resources in a solid way, and also dealing 

with assets that were closed a long time ago where it needs help. 

It needs real science and real engineering to do it right. 

I would like to thank the committee for showcasing the Colorado 

School of Mines, which is one of the premiere engineering and research institutions in the world, and has students from all over the 

world that participate in it. I want to thank the School of Mines 

for hosting our hearing today. Thank you. 

6 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, the 

gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, for a statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to thank everyone who is here as well, especially the Colorado School of Mines for hosting this event. This is 

weird. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. It is great to be here. I appreciate Doug, Cresent, 

and Ed for joining us here. Thank you for coming down, for putting 

all of this together. 

We are here to hear testimony, specifically about H.R. 3734, 

from our three witnesses. That is part of a larger package that we 

have put together that deals with the Gold King Mine in the omnibus bill that should have been prevented and could have easily 

been prevented. 

These three bills that deal with the Good Samaritan Act, that 

deal with getting more engineers, more experts—however you want 

to define that—into the field, as well as involving the private sector 

and private money coming in with the Hice bill, they all are complementary, to be proactive in finding a solution so that none of 

this happens again. 

Secretary Jewell finally appeared before our committee last 

week, and there was something a little bit troubling about the report that the Interior Department, the Bureau of Reclamation 

specifically, gave to us. It did show what I think is a lack of transparency. There was unclear objectivity. It was a very narrowly 

focused investigation. But, it also showed that the government, specifically EPA in this situation, was blatantly mishandling the spill, 

both before and afterwards, and that we need to do something 

different. 

We have 400,000 abandoned mines still here in the country, and 

it brought into question the ability of the Federal Government to 

adequately manage those other mines and to clean them up, 

whether they can handle it or not. 

So, as Doug said, it is frustrating to us that EPA, with their 

15,000-plus employees, has no mining engineers. Our committee, 

by serendipity, actually has more mining engineers than EPA does. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. That is why Cresent’s and Ed’s bills are so significant, because obviously there has been a reduction of the students 

that we are putting out into that sector, and there has to be some 

kind of assistance to make it happen. 

We have an aging workforce, all sorts of good jobs that are out 

there, and potential. Americans need to have those jobs, and we 

need to start training Americans to take those jobs and expand and 

make better an industry that still has a lot to give to this country. 

That is very important to us. 

So, I am looking forward to that. I am happy to be here with my 

colleagues. I appreciate the witnesses who are here. I am looking 

forward to this hearing. 

7 

This is something that I hope we are taking lots of pictures of, 

because nobody, nobody is going to believe this back in 

Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. One last thing I would like to ask of our staff. I 

appreciate the hard work they put in to make this happen. 

How many of these do you think I can pack today? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. There is no bathroom here, so this will be—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I will apologize in advance, but we do have a plane 

to catch back to Washington. So between the plane ride and these 

three bottles, we may make a quick exit. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you all for being here. I appreciate being a 

part of this. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

First, I would like to thank the Colorado School of Mines for hosting us for this 

field hearing to discuss H.R. 3734, the ‘‘Mining Schools Enhancement Act,’’ 

introduced by our colleague, Mr. Hardy. 

H.R. 3734 is part of a larger mining development and reclamation bipartisan 

reform package that also includes two other bills: 

— H.R. 3844, the ‘‘Energy and Minerals Reclamation Foundation Establishment 

Act,’’ introduced by Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, which provides a private sector 

funding mechanism for Abandoned Mine Land (AML) cleanup, seeded by 

Federal mineral lease fees, and 

— H.R. 3843, the ‘‘Locatable Minerals Claim Location and Maintenance Fees 

Act,’’ introduced by Mr. Lamborn, which provides liability relief for Good 

Samaritan individuals or entities who wish to come in and restore AML sites. 

These three bills work in a complementary fashion to address the range of 

complex technical, legal, education and funding related challenges facing mining development and reclamation. 

While all three reforms offer a proactive and positive set of solutions that are long 

past due, they are now even more critical, in light of the EPA-caused Animas River 

spill, which occurred last August some 325 miles from here at the Gold King Mine, 

not far from Silverton. 

After months of failing to provide clear answers, last week Interior Secretary 

Jewell finally appeared before the committee to testify about her Department’s role 

in the spill, before, during, and after. The hearing underscored the deeply troubling 

response by this Administration to the spill, including a complete lack of transparency and objectivity and a too narrowly-focused investigation of the Federal 

agencies’ blatant mishandling of the spill and its aftermath. 

As a result of this disaster, the Obama administration’s credibility in managing 

abandoned mines is at an all-time low, which is why the legislation we are here 

today to discuss is so important. 

Today there may be as many as 400,000 abandoned mines across the western 

states, some of which pose serious health and safety hazards, and environmental 

risks as exemplified by the Gold King Mine spill. 

Although we still don’t know why the EPA started urgently digging at the Gold 

King Mine, resulting in the Animas River spill, the event did help draw a spotlight 

to broader mining reclamation challenges. 

It also further made clear that the Federal Government cannot handle the job. 

The EPA doesn’t even have the mining engineering expertise to do so. There are 

more mining experts on our own committee staff than even on EPA’s team. This 

is completely unacceptable. 

Mr. Hardy’s common-sense bill—H.R. 3734—encourages and provides support to 

America’s mining schools that produce and help train the experts needed on the 

technical side to do this work in the future. 

8 

I appreciate being here today with my colleagues, Subcommittee Chairman 

Lamborn, and Congressman Hardy, to discuss their bills; and I welcome Congressman Perlmutter and thank him for joining us today for this hearing. And I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. 

We will now hear from our panel of witnesses. Each witness’ 

written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask 

that witnesses keep their oral statements to 5 minutes as outlined 

in our invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 4(a). 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear, and at that 

time you should speed up. At 5 minutes, the red light will come on, 

and we ask that you finish your statement at that time. 

Before we hear from our witnesses, I also want to take a moment 

to urge the audience to submit written comments that will be included in the hearing record. We want to include as many comments as possible into the hearing record. There are comment 

forms at the room entrance, and you can also submit comments at 

our Web site, which is www.naturalresources.house.gov, under 

‘‘Contact Us.’’ 

We want to hear from you. If you have any questions about how 

to do this, please see one of our staff members. 

I will now introduce the witnesses. 

We have Mr. Leigh Freeman, Principal of Leigh Freeman 

Consultancy; Dr. Hugh Miller, Associate Professor of Mining 

Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines; and Ms. Nancy 

Nuttbrock, Associate and Texas Regional Leader of Brierley 

Associates. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Freeman for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF LEIGH FREEMAN, PRINCIPAL, LEIGH 

FREEMAN CONSULTANCY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. FREEMAN. Chairman Lamborn, Mr. Perlmutter, and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the invitation 

to address you on the subject of education, training, and workforce 

issues related to the U.S. mining industry. My name is Leigh 

Freeman, and I am the Principal at Leigh Freeman Consultancy. 

I have more than 40 years of experience in the private sector of the 

mining industry. 

Relevant to these proceedings, I served as a member of the 

Committee on Emerging Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy and 

Mining Industries of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences was 

chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology. 

In 2013, the Academies’ committee published a consensus report 

sponsored by the Department of Energy’s National Energy 

Technology Laboratory. Specifically, the report analyzed the need 

for and availability of workers for the hardrock and coal mining, 

oil and gas, geothermal, nuclear, solar, and wind energy industries. 

Two factors impact the workforce across all mining and energy 

sectors. The first is demographic. Approximately one-third of the 

9 

U.S. workforce comprises Baby Boomers, who are poised to retire 

in great numbers by the end of this decade. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Freeman, can I ask you to speak just a little 

bit louder for our recording equipment? Thank you. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Moreover, there are too few workers currently 

available and prepared to replace them. 

The second major crosscutting factor impacting the workforce is 

competencies. Specifically, the application of STEM principles in 

the workplace has increased the skill and competency requirements 

of the mining and energy workers. 

In its recommendations, the committee highlighted the importance of collaborative efforts among government, industry, and educational institutions to create multiple pathways in higher 

education. To ensure that there are enough faculty now and in the 

pipeline who qualify to work and teach at the cutting edge of technology, the committee also recommended that the government and 

industry consider public-private partnerships to provide joint support for mining and energy research programs at U.S. universities. 

The balance of my remarks will focus on the mining component 

of the report. 

The study committee identified a critical role for U.S. universities to develop graduate research programs in mining, with the 

goal of establishing global technological leadership. Although the 

need for sustaining highly qualified university faculty and graduates in mining engineering and mineral processing is evident, the 

capacity of U.S. universities to meet this need is severely challenged. Data illustrate the nature of these challenges. 

First, the number of accredited mining and mineral engineering 

programs has declined from 25 in 1982 to 14 in 2007. The number 

of faculty has also declined, from approximately 120 in 1984 to a 

mere 70 in 2007. 

Over the last 10 years, U.S. universities have produced fewer 

than 200 mining engineers per year for employment across the full 

spectrum of metals, coal, industrial minerals, and building materials in support of Federal positions. 

Observations from my own professional experiences complement 

work done by the Academies’ committee. In 2002, the industry and 

the academic community, acting through an industry-supported 

professional organization, the Society of Mining Metallurgy and 

Exploration (SME), recognized the pending crisis of talent in the 

U.S. mining industry. These efforts of SME supported the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, as well as the Academies’ report presented here. 

Consistent with the recommendations of the Academies, industry 

formed and funded the SME Education Sustainability Committee. 

This year, actionable items facilitated by this committee included 

two initiatives: one, the development of 4-year graduate fellowships 

for qualified Ph.D. students, who are committed to pursuing careers in academia; and two, the awarding of career grants to assist 

new faculty in establishing research and publication records necessary to achieve tenure and promotion. This program is chaired by 

Dr. Hugh Miller, Colorado School of Mines, who will be speaking 

next. 

The Academies’ report recommended industry-funded programs, 

such as ESC, as a short-term solution to a longer-term, stable 

10 

solution realized by public-private funding. In summary, the 

Academies’ report suggested expansion of research programs at 

universities, with matching funds from industry, could be directed 

toward advancing technology to drive innovation, and developing 

university faculty. 

I would like to thank the committee for its time and interest in 

this subject, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEIGH FREEMAN, PRINCIPAL, LEIGH FREEMAN

CONSULTANCY; AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON EMERGING WORKFORCE TRENDS IN

THE ENERGY AND MINING INDUSTRIES, BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND

RESOURCES, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES; AND BOARD ON HIGHER

EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE, POLICY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the committee, 

I would like to thank you for the invitation to address you on the subject of education, training, and workforce issues related to the U.S. mining industry. My name 

is Leigh Freeman and I am the Principal at Leigh Freeman Consultancy. I have 

more than 40 years of experience in the private sector of the mining industry. I am 

a Geological Engineering graduate of the University of Montana at Montana Tech. 

I am deeply involved in minerals education and talent development. To this end, 

I currently serve on industry advisory boards for the geological engineering department of the University of Montana at Montana Tech, the Profession Land & 

Resource Management program for the Western State University here in Colorado, 

and the mining engineering advisory boards for the South Dakota School of Mines 

and the University of Arizona. For much of my professional career I have been active on committees for the Society of Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME), 

particularly those committees involving minerals education and sustainability. 

Relevant to this proceeding, I served as a member of the Committee on Emerging 

Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy and Mining Industries of the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academy of 

Sciences was chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters 

of science and technology and later expanded to include the National Academies of 

Engineering and Medicine. 

In 2013, the Academies’ committee of which I was a member published a consensus report titled ‘‘Emerging Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy and Mining 

Industries: A Call to Action,’’ which was sponsored by the Department of Energy’s 

National Energy Technology Laboratory. The report examined the U.S. mining and 

energy workforce, and proposed approaches to address crucial, emerging needs to 

meet the Nation’s requirements for skilled workers in most mining and energy sectors, spanning the workforce in private industry, at universities, and in the Federal 

Government. The report task originated as a congressional mandate in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

Specifically, the report analyzed the need for and availability of workers for the 

hardrock and coal mining, and oil and gas, geothermal, nuclear, solar, and wind 

energy industries. In each of these sectors, the committee examined the availability 

of skilled labor at both entry and senior levels; the historical and current trends in 

the size, growth, and demographics of the workforce; labor market characteristics; 

future demand for and supply of workers; job health and safety impacts of potential 

labor shortages; and, particularly relevant to today’s discussion, the availability and 

need for education and training programs for workers in these sectors. The report 

recognized that creation of a skilled workforce begins early, that the Nation will depend on these workers to be capable in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and that this STEM prerequisite creates a parallel 

requirement for an educational system that can effectively teach these subjects. 

I will focus my remarks primarily on those aspects of the Academies report that 

are relevant for mining and the topic of today’s hearing. However, the broader scope 

of the report provides useful context to the mining information and I will share 

some of the overarching recommendations from the report. I will also add some personal observations from my own professional experience about what has taken place 

in academia and industry to address mining education at the university level over 

the last 15 years. 

Two major factors impact the workforce across all mining and energy sectors. The 

first is Demographic. Approximately one-third of the U.S. workforce comprises Baby 

11 

Boomers—the generation born between 1946 and 1964—and they are poised to retire in great numbers by the end of this decade. Moreover, there are too few younger 

workers currently available and prepared to replace them. The second major crosscutting factor impacting the workforce is Competencies. Specifically, the application 

of STEM principles in the workplace has increased the skill and competency requirements of the mining and energy workers. A strong foundation in STEM skills 

is therefore needed for many mining and energy jobs, and the need is growing at 

all levels as innovation and new technologies are increasingly applied in the workplace. The current pipeline of STEM-capable students and workers is inadequate to 

meet these workforce needs. The report outlined seven recommendations to address 

the shortfalls of the current education pipeline and I will review those briefly. 

In its recommendations to address challenges presented by Demographics and 

Competencies, the committee highlighted the importance of collaborative efforts 

among government, industry, and educational institutions to create and support 

new approaches to develop multiple pathways in higher education that can lead to 

a range of mining and energy jobs. To ensure that there are enough faculty now 

and in the pipeline who qualify to work and teach at the cutting edge of technology, 

the committee also recommended that the government and industry consider publicprivate partnerships to provide joint support for mining and energy research programs at U.S. universities, with the goal of attracting and better preparing students 

and faculty, promoting innovation, and helping to insure the relevance of university 

programs. Recognizing that industry’s ability to financially support these critical efforts is subject to market price cyclicity in the commodity sectors underscored the 

importance of government-industry partnerships in providing consistent financial 

support for mining and energy education. 

The availability of current, accurate mining and energy information was also 

highlighted by the committee as being important. The report stressed the need for 

industry and educational institutions to provide timely and accurate information 

about career opportunities in mining and energy fields, and educational and career 

navigation resources targeted toward students, educators, and policymakers. In a 

related way, the report called upon the Federal Government to work with industry 

to develop more agile and responsive workforce data that reflect the fast-paced 

change of jobs and occupations and allow students, educators, and employers to 

understand and take advantage of changing job opportunities. 

Finally, the report found a critical, pending shortage of Federal employees involved in mineral and energy fields due to high, ongoing retirement rates in the 

Federal Government sector. These Federal employees play an important role in data 

gathering and advising, as well as in oversight of mining and energy activities for 

an increasingly involved and concerned citizenry. The committee recommended several approaches for the agencies to attract and retain qualified workers to meet current and future needs in mineral and energy policy, permitting, extraction methods, 

production oversight, reclamation, and research and data provision. The committee 

noted the challenges faced by the Federal sector in hiring qualified employees both 

because of the high retirement rates and competition from the higher compensation 

offered by industry. 

The balance of my remarks will focus on the mining component of the report. 

Mineral and energy resources are essential for the Nation’s fundamental functions, 

its economy, and its security and are essential for the existence and operation of 

products that are used by people every day. The committee defined mining to 

include metals such as copper and iron—basic materials for all industrial nations— 

as well as rare earths and other metals necessary for high tech, national defense, 

and energy applications; industrial minerals such as potash used for fertilizer and 

sodium carbonate (trona) for glass production; coal for energy; and building materials including sand, gravel and crushed rock for infrastructure including houses, 

highways, and airport construction. In addition to the convenience and security offered by these kinds of products, minerals also support the economic standard of living in the United States. The USGS estimated that the overall value added to the 

U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 by major industries that consumed processed nonfuel mineral materials was $2.5 trillion. This contribution represented 

about 14.4 percent of the total U.S. GDP of $17.4 trillion in 2014. 

Although the committee’s recommendations were applied across the broad array 

of mining and energy sectors, the study committee noted a particularly acute situation regarding age demographics in the workforce and an accompanying shortage of 

STEM-capable, younger people to fill upcoming and current openings in mining and 

mining engineering. The USGS has monitored import reliance for decades and these 

data have shown an increase in the number of minerals for which the United States 

depends primarily or completely on foreign suppliers of the raw material. Whether 

or not the minerals used every day in the United States are mined domestically or 

12 

abroad, the capacity to conduct research and foster technological innovation are important. Without them, the committee suggested, the Nation may not be able to anticipate and react to potential restrictions in the mineral markets. A talent crisis 

for professionals and workers is pending, and already exists for faculty in mining 

and mining engineering, driven by an aging workforce and international competition 

for talent. Both will precipitate fundamental changes in the cost of talent at all skill 

and education levels, but particularly for those positions requiring the most highly 

trained or educated practitioners. 

Mining disciplines in higher education were broadly defined in the committee’s report to include fields such as mining exploration, mineral extraction and processing, 

metallurgy, extractive metallurgy, economic geology, exploration geophysics, and 

geochemistry, among others. The committee underscored the advantages of disciplinary diversity whereby students could be trained and educated across disciplinary 

lines to increase innovation and educate people with a breadth of skills to address 

career challenges in a cyclical commodity business. 

Although the need for sustaining highly qualified university faculty and graduates 

in mining and mining engineering is evident, the capacity of U.S. universities to 

meet this need is severely challenged. Some of the data available from the committee’s report—and updated, where possible, for this testimony—illustrate the nature 

of these challenges. First, the number of accredited mining and mineral engineering 

programs has declined from 25 in 1982 to 14 in 2007. The number of faculty has 

also declined, from approximately 120 in 1984 to 70 in 2007. This translates into 

an average of 5 faculty at each of the 14 programs, each awarding 9 B.S. degrees 

per year per school. Over the last 10 years, U.S. universities have produced fewer 

than 200 mining engineers per year for employment across the full range of metals, 

coal, industrial minerals, and building materials sectors, and in academia and 

Federal and state agencies. Relative to other engineering disciplines, these mining 

and mineral engineering programs are small and may be more vulnerable to financial pressures experienced by universities. Furthermore, the major proportion of the 

current technological leadership in U.S. institutions of higher education is approaching retirement without an obvious source of qualified replacements. The study committee identified a critical role for U.S. universities to develop graduate research 

programs in mining with a goal of establishing global technological leadership. 

One approach to reasserting U.S. leadership in mining fields suggested by the 

committee was the establishment of several interdisciplinary graduate Centers of 

Excellence in Earth Resources Engineering at leading U.S. research universities. 

These kinds of centers could help focus attention on the science and engineering 

challenges presented by the mining industries and develop the professional expertise that will be needed. These Centers could efficiently coordinate the work of faculty and research facilities at multiple universities and would complement the more 

classical programs of the U.S. schools of mines. In addition, Centers of Excellence 

could create an education system that responds to changes in the economy more 

quickly and produces a more flexible, STEM-competent workforce. The immediate 

goal in addressing the shortfalls of the current education pipeline would be to reestablish the pipeline of talent and particularly of qualified faculty in the 14 

remaining mining schools in the disciplines deemed to be ‘professions at risk’: 

mining, extractive metallurgy/mineral processing, and economic geology. The outcome from such an approach was envisioned by the committee to develop students 

equipped with multiple skills, who are prepared to adjust quickly to industry requirements and job availability. 

In my own professional experience, I have participated in a consistent industryacademic initiative since 2002 to try to develop more robust mining education programs and I’d like to briefly discuss a few of these here as complements to the work 

done by the Academies committee. In 2002, industry and the academic community 

recognized the pending talent crisis in the U.S. mining sector. This realization led 

to the formation of an Education Sustainability Task Force, where I served as cochairman under the auspices of the SME. At subsequent workshops and symposia, 

leaders from industry and the academic community, with participation from Federal 

agencies, established plans to stabilize and advance minerals education at U.S. 

universities with a special focus on funding to re-establish the ‘the pipeline for 

qualified faculty.’ These efforts continued in support of the aforementioned congressional mandate in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as well as the Academies report 

presented here. Consistent with recommendations in the Academies report to 

‘‘provide financial and leadership support to sustain critical teaching capacity until 

medium- and long-term solutions can be developed and implemented,’’ the effort led 

to the formation and subsequent funding by industry of the SME Education 

Sustainability Committee (ESC). 

13 

Since its inception in fall 2013, the ESC has sought to develop actionable items 

to address the long-term challenges to the sustainability of U.S. degree granting 

programs in Mining Engineering and Mineral Processing/Extractive Metallurgy. 

Given its mission and the implications of faculty shortages on the future viability 

of these academic programs, the ESC has focused its efforts on ways of rebuilding 

the faculty pipeline in order to address the growing absence of viable tenure-track 

candidates to replace the aging workforce of existing faculty at U.S. universities. 

The actionable items facilitated by the ESC culminated in two complimentary initiatives: (1) the development of 4-year graduate fellowships for qualified Ph.D. 

students who are committed to pursuing careers in academia; and (2) the awarding 

of Career Grants to assist new faculty in establishing research and publication 

records necessary to achieve tenure and promotion. Thus far, 3 Ph.D. Fellowships 

and 2 Career Development Grants have been distributed and the solicitation for 

2016 has been recently released. When full participation of the Grant Program is 

reached in 2018, the total financial commitment will be $1.477 million annually. 

This program, chaired by Dr. Hugh Miller of the Colorado School of Mines, will be 

discussed by others at this proceeding. The Academies report recommended industry-funded programs, such as ESC, as a short-term solution to a longer-term, stable 

solution realized by private-public funding. 

In summary, with a direct alignment to industry education and skill requirements, the Academies report suggested that the success of mining education 

programs can be measured by attainment of employment and advancement opportunities in the mining industries. Expansion of research programs at universities, with 

matching funding from industry, could be directed toward specific outcomes such as: 

(1) advancing technology or business processes to drive innovation and enrich graduate and undergraduate education; and (2) developing university faculty who work 

on the cutting edge of research to enhance the quality of higher education. For mining and mining engineering, where the supply of STEM-capable younger workers is 

inadequate to replace or sustain requirements for workers in the private sector, in 

academia, and in the Federal Government, establishing Centers of Excellence in 

Earth Resources Engineering or similar technology- and innovation-focused research 

and education programs could help re-establish a U.S. leadership role in mining. 

I would like to thank the committee for its time and interest in this subject and 

I look forward to questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Miller to testify. 

STATEMENT OF HUGH MILLER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

MINING ENGINEERING, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, 

GOLDEN, COLORADO 

Dr. MILLER. Great. Thank you. Chairman Lamborn, Mr. 

Perlmutter, and members of the committee. I would like to extend 

my sincere thanks for the opportunity to address the challenges associated with the U.S. academic programs in mining engineering. 

My name is Hugh Miller, and I am an Associate Professor in the 

Mining Engineering Department at the Colorado School of Mines. 

I have nearly 30 years of combined professional experience in both 

industry and academia. I also serve as the Chair of the Education 

Sustainability Committee for the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, 

and Exploration. 

As Mr. Freeman has addressed, one of the most ominous threats 

facing the industry is the steady decline in the number of accredited U.S. mining engineering programs over the last 30 years. 

Since these programs are largely responsible for educating the next 

generation of mining professionals who will assume technical and 

leadership positions in all sectors of the industry and government, 

the loss of these mining programs will have and have had a profound and long-lasting impact. The crisis in talent has prompted 

action within the industry, including groups like SME and the 

14 

National Academies, which have sought to quantify the reasons for 

the loss of these academic programs, to find ways for the remaining 

programs to remain stable, and to effectively increase the number 

of graduates being produced. 

Paramount among these challenges identified are shortages in 

qualified candidates to replace retiring faculty and the limited 

number of sources available to support academic research. While 

seemingly independent, the issues associated with faculty scarcity, 

research funding, the production of graduates, and program instability are all inter-related. 

Of significant concern is the absence of a viable means to address 

the current number of faculty vacancies, as well as the looming 

labor deficiencies associated with retirements over the next decade, 

when more than half of the existing tenure and tenure track 

faculty will be eligible for retirement within 5 years. 

To put this in context, the average nationwide graduation rate 

for mining Ph.D.s has historically been less than 15 annually, 

where the vast majority of these candidates who are graduates are 

international students. Even if 25 percent of these individuals had 

the interest of pursuing a career in academia and possessed the 

skill sets necessary to be successful as a tenure track faculty, we 

would fall far short in the number of faculty needed to sustain the 

current programs. 

Furthermore, the overall success rate in developing faculty from 

graduate school through tenure is extremely poor, with some estimates as low as 25 percent. While this low success rate is consistent with the belief of the national average associated with other 

engineering disciplines, the limited size of the candidate pool in 

mining compounds the current difficulties in attracting a critical 

mass of faculty that are needed for these programs. 

SME is focusing its efforts on rebuilding what is often referred 

to as the faculty pipeline, the mechanism through which individuals acquire the experience, skill sets, and qualifications necessary 

for employment at a university and then to subsequently achieve 

tenure. These efforts include the development of graduate fellowships for qualified Ph.D. students who are committed to pursuing 

careers in academia, and career development grants to assist new 

faculty in achieving tenure and promotion. 

The importance of research funding in higher education is not 

well understood outside of academia. While research is primarily 

used as a criteria for assessing faculty performance and is intimately tied to promotion and tenure, it is also the driver that enables programs to recruit and retain graduate students, acquire 

and maintain laboratory equipment and facilities for both 

education and research, and to publish. 

In addition, with the significant reductions in state funding over 

the last 10 years, most public universities have become increasingly dependent upon research overhead to offset the costs associated with operations and support staff. With the exception of CDC 

NIOSH, which is solely focused on occupational safety and health, 

there are very limited opportunities available for Federal funding 

for mining research at levels comparable to other science and 

engineering disciplines. 

15 

In summary, mining education is at risk. The continued loss of 

programs and the talent they generate will have a profound impact 

on the Nation’s economy and security. Without significant nearterm investment, academic programs in mineral engineering will 

not have the capacity to produce the graduates necessary to sustain 

industry demand. 

There are opportunities, however, where the Federal Government 

can make a substantive difference by investing in meaningful research initiatives that encourage industry, university, and government collaboration. Efforts to amend SMCRA in order to provide 

support to mining schools is a monumental step in the right direction and will have significant long-term benefits. 

I would like to thank the committee for the time and interest in 

this very important topic, and it is a pleasure to answer any 

questions you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGH B. MILLER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MINING

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the committee, 

I would like to extend my sincere thanks for the opportunity to address you regarding the long-term challenges that threaten the sustainability of U.S. Mining and 

Extractive Metallurgy/ Mineral Processing degree granting programs. My name is 

Hugh Miller and I am an Associate Professor in the Mining Engineering Department at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM). I have nearly 30 years of combined 

professional experience in both industry and academia. I also have the pleasure of 

serving as the Chair of the Education Sustainability Committee (ESC) for the 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME). The ESC is a committee 

comprised of academicians and experts in higher education that was formed with 

the expressed mission to develop specific actionable recommendations to address the 

daunting challenges facing these academic programs. 

I would also like to welcome you to the CSM Edgar Experimental Mine: a unique 

laboratory focal to the development of undergraduate and graduate students and 

cutting edge research in a wide variety of mineral and earth related disciplines including Mining, Metallurgical, and Geological Engineering, as well as Economic 

Geology, Underground Construction and Tunneling, Explosives Engineering, Environmental Engineering/Science, and Petroleum Engineering. 

This morning you will hear testimony from several experts on the importance of 

domestic mineral production as it pertains to our economy, standard of living, and 

national security, and the dire implications of disruptions to the production of these 

raw materials as a consequence of future shortages in skilled labor and professional 

talent. Contrary to public perception, and what’s often portrayed on television and 

in the media, mining and mineral exploration in the developed World is pushing the 

limits in terms of technology and innovation that extends from equipment and operating systems to processes and environmental controls. Furthermore, due to the economic pressures associated with declining ore value, increasing operating and 

capital costs, and growing regulatory oversight, companies are heavily dependent 

upon continuous improvement and the use of technology to remain viable. This is 

particularly true in the mining of unit value commodities, where U.S. operations are 

often at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign producers. As such, the future viability of the U.S. Mining Industry and the domestic production of raw minerals is directly dependent upon the availability of a skilled workforce which must 

possess technical capabilities and competencies that far exceed those needed a mere 

decade ago. This supposition is supported by a workforce study produced by the National Academies in 2013 titled, ‘‘Emerging Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy 

and Mining Industries: A Call to Action.’’ Mr. Leigh Freeman served on the Committee responsible for this critical study and will provide testimony later this morning. 

This study, and several others, identified significant threats to the stability of this 

skilled workforce. The aging demographics of the Mining Industry has long been a 

major source of concern that impacts both hourly and salaried labor, where there 

are simply too few workers available to adequately replace those that are retiring. 

In addition, the increasing technical sophistication of job assignments and the 

16 

requisite competencies these younger workers must have represents another 

challenge. The current labor pool does not have the skills and education necessary 

to adequately meet these workforce needs now, or in the future. 

With regards to professional talent, one of the most ominous threats facing the 

industry is the steady decline in the number of accredited U.S. Mining Engineering 

programs over the last 30 years. In 1982, there were 25 degree granting programs 

in Mining Engineering. Today, there are 14 accredited departments, of which only 

half can be considered healthy. Of these, only 12 of these remaining programs offer 

Ph.D. graduate degrees. Since these programs are largely responsible for educating 

the next generation of professionals who will assume technical and leadership positions in all sectors of the industry, the loss of these engineering programs will have 

immediate and long-lasting impacts. Beginning with the rise in commodity prices 

in the early 2000s, industry began to experience significant labor shortages in technical and supervisory positions. With regards to entry level engineers, there was insufficient capacity within the remaining mining programs to provide the new talent 

that these companies desperately needed. Driven by their constituencies, this 

‘‘talent crisis’’ prompted action within professional organizations, such as the Society 

for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), to quantify the causation factors responsible for the deterioration and loss of these academic programs and find ways 

for the remaining programs to become stable, and effectively increase the number 

of graduates being produced. A great deal of work was conducted by many throughout the decade to collect and analyze the data and to formulate strategic plans intended to stabilize and advance U.S. minerals education. These activities facilitated 

a unique collaboration between industry, academia, and government that resulted 

in numerous committees and task forces, workshops, symposiums, and related research activities. The consequence of these efforts led to formalized studies produced 

by the National Academies and SME, papers written by distinguished members of 

the academic mining community, and proposals regarding the promulgation of 

potential legislation. 

Building upon the contributions derived from these numerous sources, SME leadership created the ESC in fall 2013 with the expressed mandate to formulate meaningful, actionable recommendations to mitigate the prevailing challenges that 

threaten the survival and long-term viability of U.S. academic programs in Mining 

Engineering and Mineral Processing/Extractive Metallurgy. The primary intent of 

the Committee wasn’t to rectify all the threats and challenges facing these programs, but to focus on addressing those critical factors where interventions could 

have a direct and substitutive impact. The first step was to quantify the underlying 

factors jeopardizing the short-term and long-term sustainability of the current programs. This was performed by analyzing data and information previously collected 

through SME and other sources, where potential deficiencies were assessed. 

Additional information was then collected as deemed necessary. The Committee attempted to develop causation factors that correlated with the trends seen in the 

data. While the threats to specific academic programs vary by university, there were 

commonalities inherent to each of these degree programs. It’s important to note that 

these challenges are complex and interrelated, where many of the underlying 

threats identified are symptomatic of larger changes that have occurred in higher 

education and are difficult for an individual department or an external entity (e.g., 

professional organization or a company) to remedy or facilitate meaningful change. 

These issues are often driven by state mandated university policies and institutional 

economics, where student enrollment, the physical footprint, and cost per student 

associated with mineral engineering programs greatly contribute to their vulnerability. That said, the Committee was able to identify several common, underlying 

factors that significantly contributed to the current dilemma facing these mining 

programs. Paramount among these challenges includes faculty scarcity and insufficient sources of support for faculty research. While seemingly independent, these 

two issues are intimately related. 

FACULTY SCARCITY

As discussed previously, the labor shortages endemic to the Mining Industry also 

extend to academia. Of immediate concern is the absence of a viable means to address the current number of faculty vacancies as well as the looming future labor 

deficiencies associated with retirements over the next decade. Two fundamental 

studies conducted by McCarter (2007) and Poulton (2012) analyzed the demographics of U.S. mining engineering faculty and provided quantitative evidence of 

17 

1McCarter, M. (2007), ‘‘Mining faculty in the United States: current status and sustainability,’’ Mining Engineering, SME Publication, September, pp. 28–33. 2Poulton, M. (2012), ‘‘Analysis of the Mining Engineering Faculty Pipeline,’’ 2012 SME 

Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings, February, pp. 1–9. 3Department Survey, Mineral School Department Heads Meeting, 2013 SME Annual Meeting, 

Denver, CO, February 24, 2013. 4 ‘‘Federal Support for U.S. Mining Schools,’’ Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 

Position Paper, 2014. 

the pending crisis.1, 2 The results of these studies showed that of the 74 tenured 

track faculty reported in the 2009/2010 academic year, 100 percent of the senior faculty in the United States (39 mining professors) will be eligible for retirement by 

2020. Compounding this situation is that few qualified professionals are entering 

academia as new faculty, where only 13.5 percent were 40 years of age or younger. 

These factors have resulted in 14 open faculty positions being reported by 12 of the 

14 U.S. Mining Department Heads in the 2009/2010 academic year (Poulton, 2012). 

This study went on to estimate that an additional 18 faculty positions would be 

needed in 2015 and 21 more openings would occur by 2020. These ominous predictions were largely substantiated at the 2013 SME Annual Meeting in Denver, 

where a survey of the 14 mining departments indicated that there were 18 faculty 

positions either currently open or planned in the immediate future, including 5 

department head positions.3 To put this in context, the average nationwide graduation rate for Mining Ph.D.s has historically been less than 15 annually, where a vast 

majority of these graduates are international students. In the event that even 

25 percent of these individuals had an interest in pursuing a career in academia 

and possessed the skill sets necessary to be successful as tenure-track faculty, it 

would fall far short of the number of faculty needed to sustain the current programs. 

The situation facing the six remaining U.S. Extractive Metallurgy/Mineral 

Processing Departments appears to be even dire as a consequence of the limited 

number of key faculty keeping these programs stable. An examination of these programs reveals a population of approximately 22 tenured or tenure-track faculty, 

where 10 of these professors will be eligible for retirement within the next 8 years.4

The problem associated with faculty scarcity is cumulative and extends from recruiting appropriate candidates with a desire for pursuing a career in academia and 

the ability to successfully complete a Ph.D. degree, through the tenuous process of 

achieving tenure at a given academic program. The overall success rate of developing faculty from graduate school to tenure is extremely poor, with estimates as 

low as 20 percent. While this low success rate is probably consistent with the 

national average of other engineering disciplines, the very limited candidate pool of 

potential faculty only compounds the current difficulties associated with mineral engineering departments maintaining a critical mass of faculty because of the low 

Ph.D. graduation rates and the lack of qualified candidates. 

To address this challenge in a meaningful way, the ESC recommended to SME 

leadership, and its industry constituencies, that the organization focus its efforts on 

several complimentary actions related to rebuilding what is often referred to as the 

faculty pipeline. The pipeline represents the mechanism through which individuals 

have traditionally acquired the experience, skill sets, and qualifications necessary 

for employment as tenured-track faculty at an accredited university and then to go 

on to successfully earn tenure. As part of these efforts, the ESC recommended the 

following actions: (1) the development of a 4-year graduate fellowship for qualified 

Ph.D. students who are committed to pursuing careers in academia; and (2) the 

awarding of Career Grants intended to assist new faculty in establishing research 

and publication records necessary to achieve tenure and promotion. Both of these 

initiatives were strongly endorsed by the SME and SME Foundation Boards. The 

structure, guidelines, and budgets of these academic grants were formalized in 2014 

and fundraising efforts began shortly thereafter. The success of these activities, and 

the necessary industry buy-in to financially support them, led to the formal solicitation of applications in March 2015, and the awarding of 3 Ph.D. Fellowships and 

2 Career Development Grants in August 2015. The 2016 solicitation for these grant 

programs was released by SME in November. When full participation of the combined grant programs is reached in 2018, the total annual financial commitment 

will be $1.48 million and will be entirely supported from donations derived by SME 

members and industry partners. 

Beyond the Academic Grant programs, the ESC also outlined a full agenda of activities and recommendations intended to address challenges related to the availability of research funding, the recruiting of qualified industry professionals into 

both M.S. and Ph.D. degree programs, activities designed to mentor new faculty on 

18 

topics critical to tenure (e.g., teaching, research, publication, and service), and the 

development of a campaign to educate industry on the realities and threats facing 

higher education. These activities are active and on-going. 

RESEARCH SUPPORT

The importance of research funding to the health and welfare of an academic program is often not well understood outside of academia, even among a department’s 

industry advisors and constituencies. While research is usually a primary criterion 

used to assess faculty performance and is intimately tied to promotion and tenure, 

it is also the driver that enables programs to recruit and retain graduate students, 

acquire and maintain laboratory equipment and facilities used for both education 

and research, and generate peer-reviewed publications. In addition, with the significant declines in state funding, most public universities have become increasingly 

dependent on research overheads to offset the costs associated with department operations and support staff. While others have documented the increasing reliance 

of universities on tuition and in-direct financial support derived from research, I 

wanted to focus on the importance of research as it pertains to the challenges facing 

faculty scarcity, the redevelopment of the talent pipeline, and the overall health of 

academic departments. With the exception of the large, multi-national ‘‘majors’’, 

most mining companies want to employ our graduates but see little value in supporting funded research despite their dependence on technology. Research, student 

enrollment, and the number and productivity of faculty, however, are all interdependent. Put succinctly, without research academic programs in minerals engineering will simply cease to exit. Departments are generally evaluated by university 

administrators relative to their performance as measured by criteria such as research volume, scholarly work (publications), student credit hours, and the number 

of Ph.D. students that are produced. University resources (financial, space, and personnel) are subsequently distributed to individual departments on the basis of these 

criteria. By their very nature, mineral engineering departments are generally small, 

high cost programs with a significant footprint as a consequence of laboratories. 

These characteristics make them highly vulnerable. As such, research provides the 

catalyst for promoting stability and growth by creating the means to attract students, construct and operate labs, and justify the hiring and retention of faculty. 

The pipeline that recruits and funds graduate students, provides opportunities to 

hire new faculty and enables them to achieve tenure, and hence, teach and mentor 

undergraduate students, is all facilitated by research. 

With the closure of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1996, it’s become increasingly 

difficult for faculty to find Federal sources to support mining related research. With 

the exception of CDC NIOSH, which is solely focused on occupational safety and 

health, there are very limited opportunities available to fund mining research at levels comparable to other science and engineering disciplines. Furthermore, access to 

government and industry sponsored research is often tied to faculty expertise and 

program facilities, which make it very difficult for new faculty or departments that 

are under financial stress or below critical mass in terms of faculty. As such, the 

development of new Federal sources of research funding is critical to the well-being 

of current and future academic programs in Mining and Extractive Metallurgy/ 

Mineral Processing. 

In summary, mineral education is at risk. The continued loss of these programs, 

and the talent they generate, will have a profound impact on the Nation’s economy 

and security. Without immediate intervention and significant near-term investment, 

academic programs in mineral engineering will not have the capacity to produce the 

graduates necessary to sustain industry demand. Issues related to faculty shortages 

and limited availability of Federal research support are interrelated and among the 

most significant threats facing these programs. There are opportunities, however, 

where the Federal Government can make a substantive difference by investing in 

meaningful research initiatives that encourage industry/university collaborations 

and provide needed support for graduate students and promote faculty development 

and tenure. Efforts to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (H.R. 3734) in order to provide support to mining schools is a monumental 

step in the right direction and will undoubtedly have significant, long-term impacts 

that will benefit the Nation. I would like to thank the committee for its time and 

interest in this important topic and it would be a pleasure to answer any questions 

you might have. Thank you. 

19 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Nuttbrock to testify. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY NUTTBROCK, PE, ASSOCIATE/TEXAS 

REGIONAL LEADER, BRIERLEY ASSOCIATES, HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. Chairman Lamborn and members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony in 

support of your bill today. 

Please indulge me for just a minute while I tell you a little bit 

about my background. It will tie into my remarks. I graduated with 

a Bachelor’s degree in Geological Engineering from South Dakota 

School of Mines back in 1996. While in college, I worked as an intern for two summers for Phelps Dodge in Morenci, Arizona, which 

at that time was one of the world’s largest copper mines. After 

graduating, I worked for Pacificorp at their surface coal mine in 

Centralia, Washington. Then, I worked for Halliburton in 

Wyoming, and then relocated to Denver to pursue my Master’s degree in Mining Engineering here at the Colorado School of Mines. 

While pursuing my degree, I focused on tunnel design and was 

introduced to Brierley Associates, an engineering firm offering all 

varieties of tunnel and shaft design, and heavy civil underground 

construction. I worked with Brierley on tunnel projects across the 

United States and internationally for the next 5 years. Then, I left 

my friends at Brierley and headed back to Wyoming. For the next 

6 years, I served as the Deputy Director for the Wyoming School 

Facilities Commission, which proved to be a unique and beneficial 

tangent to my training in the earth sciences. Following this, for the 

next 3 years I served as the Administrator, and then the Deputy 

Director, for Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality. 

This position really took me back to my mining engineering 

roots. I ran a program there that regulated all the mining activity 

across the state. That included coal, trona, bentonite, uranium, 

sand and gravel, just to name a few. Then, about a year ago, I left 

Wyoming to rejoin my friends again at Brierley and to open our 

office in Houston, Texas. 

This bill is important for a lot of reasons, but from my perspective, it is particularly important to states like Wyoming with a 

robust mining economy. The regulatory program for Wyoming’s 

DEQ is charged with not only permitting the mining operation and 

ensuring that reclamation is successful, but everything in between. 

Mining operators are required to submit detailed mine plans to incorporate into their permits, which involve all aspects of a mine’s 

operation. With that, now also consider that Wyoming’s program is 

charged with regulating all forms of mining, each dramatically 

different. 

Consider a traditional open pit mine, where you would see the 

largest coal mines in the Powder River Basin, to the rare elements 

mines, to large and small sand and gravel operations. Now also 

consider underground mining, much like we are in today, the largest trona mines in the country, and underground coal gasification. 

Also consider in situ uranium mining. These are all dramatically 

different mining techniques, and some of Wyoming’s operations are 

the biggest in the world. 

20 

Wyoming’s program employed about 45 Earth Science 

professionals—geologists, range scientists, vegetation and reclamation experts, soil scientists, hydrologists, and engineers. These professionals are extremely capable and well-respected in their fields 

of expertise. 

In order to regulate the wide spectrum of mine types that I just 

described, each of those professionals must learn the technicalities 

of each operation assigned to them. For example, a soil scientist 

might be required to regulate an in situ uranium mine. To do that, 

each person learns from their peers, to a large degree they are selftaught, and they learn from the mine operators they are entrusted 

to regulate. 

Wyoming is very fortunate, and perhaps even a little rare, in 

that the mining industries and the regulatory entities honestly collaborate toward a balance between environmentally sound techniques and profitable operations. 

So, while it is true that Federal funding is needed to conduct 

research at mining schools, and new professors need to conduct 

research for tenure, the cycle still lacks a source of students. 

Simply stated, when contemplating the age-old question, ‘‘What do 

you want to be when you grow up? ’’, very few high school students 

will answer ‘‘a mining engineer.’’ If there was not a mining engineer in your family or if your dad was not one, the odds are you 

are not going to know what a mining engineer is. 

Recently, the president of Brierley Associates asked me, ‘‘Nancy, 

when you were 8 years old, what did you want to be? ’’ He chuckled 

at my response. I told him I wanted to be a truck driver, because 

that is the way I thought I could see the world and travel. 

I will leave you with this friendly recommendation from a person 

who had no idea what a mining engineer was. Include a mechanism to engage high school students, and especially those students 

who would not otherwise be exposed to mining engineering as an 

exciting career choice. 

Thank you for your efforts to bolster professionals in our 

industry and for listening to me today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nuttbrock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY NUTTBROCK, ASSOCIATE & TEXAS REGIONAL

LEADER, BRIERLEY ASSOCIATES

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony in support of H.R. 3734. My 

name is Nancy Nuttbrock. 

BACKGROUND

I graduated with a B.S. in Geological Engineering from South Dakota School of 

Mines and Technology in 1996. While in college, I worked as an intern for two summers for Phelps Dodge in Morenci, AZ, at that time, one of the world’s largest copper mines. After graduating, I worked for Pacificorp at their surface coal mine in 

Centralia, WA. Then, I worked for Halliburton in Wyoming. I relocated to Denver 

to pursue my M.S. in Mining Engineering here at the Colorado School of Mines. 

While pursing my Masters in Mining Engineering-Earth Systems Technologies, 

(aka: tunnel design), I was introduced to Brierley Associates, an engineering firm 

focusing on all varieties of tunnel and shaft design, and heavy civil underground 

construction. I worked with Brierley on tunnel projects across the United States and 

internationally for 5 years. Then, I left my friends at Brierley and headed back to 

Wyoming. For the next 6 years, I served as the Deputy Director for the Wyoming 

School Facilities Commission, which proved to be a unique and beneficial tangent 

21 

to my training in the earth sciences. Following this, for the next 3 years, I served 

as the Administrator, and then the Deputy Director, for Wyoming’s Department of 

Environmental Quality. This position took me back to my geology and mining 

engineering roots—I administered Wyoming’s program that regulated all mining activities across the state, including coal, trona, bentonite, uranium, and sand and 

gravel, to name a few. The program employed approximately 45 earth science professionals: geologists, range and reclamation scientists, hydrologists, and engineers. 

Then, about a year ago, I left Wyoming to rejoin my friends at Brierley Associates, 

and open our office in Houston, TX. 

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE

This bill is important for many reasons, but based on my background, it is particularly important to states like Wyoming with a robust mining economy. The regulatory program for Wyoming DEQ is charged with not only permitting the mining 

operation, and ensuring that reclamation is successful, but also everything in 

between. Mining operators are required to submit detailed mine plans to incorporate 

into their permits, which involve all aspects of a mine’s operation. With that, now 

also consider that the Wyoming’s program is charged with regulating all forms of 

mining that differ dramatically: 

• traditional surface mines (ranging from the world’s largest coal mines in the 

Powder River Basin to rare elements to small sand and gravel operations); 

• underground mines (including underground coal mines, underground coal 

gasification, and large trona mines); and 

• in situ uranium mining. 

Some of these mines are the largest of their kind in the world. 

The geologists, the reclamation and vegetation experts, the hydrologists and the 

engineers employed to run Wyoming’s program are extremely capable professionals 

in their respective fields of expertise. In order to regulate a wide spectrum of mine 

types, each professional must learn the technicalities of each operation assigned to 

them. To do so, each person learns from their peers, are self-taught, and/or learns 

from the mine operators and mine personnel they are entrusted to regulate. 

Wyoming is fortunate, and perhaps even rare, in that the mining industries and 

regulatory entities collaborate honestly toward a balance between environmentally 

sound techniques and profitable operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

While it is true that Federal funding is needed to conduct research at mining 

schools, and new professors need to conduct research for the tenure process so they 

can educate the next generation of mining and mineral experts, this cycle still lacks 

the source of students. 

Simply stated, very few high school students contemplating the age-old question 

‘‘What do you want to be when you grow up? ’’ will answer ‘a Mining Engineer’. The 

President of Brierley Associates recently asked me: ‘‘When you were 8 years old, 

what did you want to be? ’’ He chuckled at my response: I wanted to be a truck 

driver, because I thought that was the only way I could travel and see the country. 

Please consider this: include a mechanism to engage high school students and especially those students who would not otherwise be exposed to mining engineering 

as an exciting career choice. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for your efforts to bolster professionals in our industry, and for 

listening to me today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I also thank all the panel members for their testimony. 

I would like to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) 

imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. 

I will now recognize Members for any questions they may wish 

to ask the witnesses. We will start with subcommittee members, 

then full committee members, then Members of the Congress who 

are not on the committee. 

22 

The first question is to anyone who wants to weigh in. In your 

opinion, do you believe that the Gold King Mine spill might have 

been prevented if EPA had had a qualified mining engineer on the 

site who was involved with the remediation process? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I strongly believe all problems are solved with talent, and I think the more talent you can have and can bring to 

bear, both in terms of the discipline expertise that people have, as 

well as just pure talent, it certainly could have benefited from that. 

With respect to people that would be employed by the Federal 

agencies, I think there is a real challenge there, because the 

Federal agencies have the same demographic challenges as the industry has, and probably even more so. They also typically have 

pay compensation levels that are substantially below the industry. 

So, I think increasing the talent in all those agencies, including the 

talent that could be brought by mining engineers, would have been 

very important. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Dr. Miller or Ms. Nuttbrock? 

Dr. MILLER. Yes, I totally agree. The issues are technical, and to 

have an appreciation of the underground environment, understanding geo-mechanics, rock mechanics, soil mechanics, that is 

what mining engineers do. The protocols that are in place, there 

are best industry practices that are associated with that which 

were not followed. 

I am a huge advocate for eliminating some of these issues, to integrate technology that is being used in the industry currently, and 

to collaborate with government agencies. 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. Sure. I will just comment by saying in Wyoming 

there was a lot of effort put toward that collaborative nature. It is 

the mining operators working with the regulatory community, and 

a lot of times the mine operators themselves are telling the regulators how this is supposed to work, how this approach is supposed 

to work, in the technicalities of a particular mine. 

Like I said, an in situ uranium mine is dramatically different 

than a surface coal mine. In a lot of instances in Wyoming, for example, we had to regulate a mine’s operation, and you needed 

everybody from a soil scientist, to the vegetation experts, to the hydrologists, and the geologists—you needed that entire spectrum. 

But it would have been very helpful to have someone on staff, mining engineers on staff, who understood the full cradle-to-grave 

operation of a mine. 

Dr. MILLER. It is also about risk assessment. If you do not understand the dynamics of how those mines were built and designed, 

it is hard to figure out what the risks are. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Dr. Miller, it has been suggested that maybe the 

bill should be expanded to include not only mining and metallurgy 

engineering but also metallurgy. Can you tell me what goes on in 

the Colorado School of Mines and how that might make the bill a 

better bill? 

Dr. MILLER. Within SME, we actually incorporated mining engineering and efforts with mineral processing and extracting metallurgy, and the reason for that is the programs associated with 

extracting metallurgy are even in more dire shape than the mining 

programs. 

23 

There currently are six departments across the country employing some 22 faculty. Of those 22 faculty, 10 are eligible for 

retirement within 2 years. So, if you look at the dynamics of those 

programs, we will lose them if there is not some sort of 

interventions that are taking place. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Freeman, a minute ago you touched on the 

need for better representation in the Federal workforce by trained 

mining engineers. Could you elaborate on that just a little bit 

more? I had asked you in the context of the Gold King Mine, but 

just in general, what would be your advice? 

Mr. FREEMAN. The advice is first just to have a very strong cadre 

of talent within those Federal agencies. The Academies’ report 

recommended improving those methods within the Federal agencies for recruitment, development, and retention of talent. 

The other thing I would add personally, is I am very involved in 

working with communities in the mining industry, and increasingly 

the citizenry is concerned about that interface between natural resource recovery and reclamation. There are going to be increasing 

pressures on the Federal talent who stand at that interface. I think 

we need to try to make sure we have a strong cadre of talent there. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

I will now recognize Representative Hardy for his questions. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

Mr. Freeman, in your testimony you talked about the steady 

decline in the number of U.S. mining engineers over the last 30 

years. What role, if any, have the universities played in this effect? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I would have nightmares if I was trying to manage state institutions in the context of the access they have to dollars. It is a really difficult problem, and one of the challenges there 

is that the metrics for a lot of the universities are research dollars 

and numbers of Ph.D.s that are granted. All 14 of the mining programs are state-funded programs; so, there is a lot of pressure on 

trying to manage the university-level budget. 

In that, when we graduate a very small number of mining engineers, we do not need a huge number. In total, in the United 

States in the last 40 years, we have graduated 12,000. If you 

spread that over 40 years, that is 300 a year. That is not a lot to 

amortize the cost of the minerals education in engineering at the 

university level. It is one of the most expensive education programs 

on these campuses. 

One of the important and critical components of the erosion of 

that broad support that we had is it is just a very expensive program to have. So, the bill that you are contemplating here and in 

support of is to put the research behind that so the universities can 

justify this effort. As a result, we have about half the programs 

that we started with 20 years ago. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

Ms. Nuttbrock, has the lack of mining engineers played a role 

over the years in the process of getting permitting done for mining 

projects on Federal lands? Has that been a cause and effect? And 

if so, can you elaborate a little bit. 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. Oh, certainly. I do believe that there is a cause 

and effect relationship there. Take, for example, underground coal 

gasification. New technology in Wyoming, just a year ago when I 

24 

left the DEQ, they had just approved a permit for underground coal 

gasification. There are constantly bright minds thinking about 

better ways to extract the resource and less environmentally damaging ways of extracting the resource. If we had people working on 

the regulatory side of things who were up to speed with those up 

and coming technologies and the research that is going on in the 

universities, that would absolutely put state programs up to par 

and able to react and review documents more quickly and process 

permits more quickly. 

Mr. HARDY. Another question for you. The regulators you discussed that are basically relying on the operators themselves for 

the technology and an understanding of what their job is supposed 

to be, do we sometimes at the Federal level forget what our obligations are and who we are working with, that we are partners? 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. I would like to comment on that first, if I could. 

And again, Wyoming is a wonderful place. The mining environment, the political environment, and the people who are working 

in Wyoming in the mining industries are very much engaged with 

the regulatory community as well; and I mentioned that that might 

be a little bit rare. In working with my former colleagues out in 

the Eastern region, it is definitely a little rare because maybe that 

was not the case. We are working in lockstep with the people who 

are regulating and mining. 

But it is true, yes. For rare elements resources and, again, the 

new technologies, we are learning together and we are learning 

from the operators. 

Mr. HARDY. I have a quick question to Dr. Miller. 

Dr. Miller, the shortage of mining engineers, can you put in perspective what the potential crisis could be over the coming years 

to our economy, to the country at large? 

Dr. MILLER. It is huge, and it is kind of a vicious circle. If you 

do not have the faculty to teach and those faculty are not capable 

of getting the research required to get tenure, then the academic 

programs themselves suffer. They do not have the financial or the 

manpower, the talent to produce undergraduates. Put straightforward, a major talent crisis that occurred for undergraduates in 

the early 2000s, there was just nobody to hire. These operations 

are going to experience tremendous challenges associated with 

that. They are going to go abroad, or they are going to bring international people here. There is no other solution to it. And it is a 

huge security issue. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Dr. Miller, let me start with you. I am an old teacher, Liberal 

Arts though. People always talk about how it is important to have 

people working on the ground in the business world. But if I understand what you are telling me, there are few people who are graduating as mining Ph.D.s, few of those want to become teachers, and 

few of those who actually want to become teachers can get through 

the tenure process; and that becomes like a death spiral. 

Dr. MILLER. That is exactly right. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, what we are talking about is we need as a 

government to try to increase people to go into the industry, to go 

25 

into the Federal workforce, but also who can become teachers. So, 

the lessons that are taught in the classroom, that becomes 

extremely significant. 

Dr. MILLER. Without question, and you have hit it right on the 

head. It is a spiral. It comes with research dollars, and it comes 

through the education; and the working degree in the mining industry is typically still the undergraduate degree. So, to bring 

qualified people into the graduate programs is a struggle, particularly with the salaries that are being made in industry. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So a lot of the needs we are going to have in 

future research with you will be in mine reclamation. 

Dr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And that has to be done in the classroom? So how 

is what happens in the classroom so significant not only for the 

Federal workforce but also for the industry workforce? 

Dr. MILLER. One of the great things about mining is we do a lot 

in environments at actual mines or in laboratory facilities. We have 

a unique collaboration with industry in that we do an awful lot of 

our teaching at industrial facilities. The concept is we reinforce engineering principles and fundamentals at sites, and that is where 

that collaboration between government, industry, and academia 

will work effectively. Federal grants, we do that work at industry 

sites, and the promulgation of the knowledge base comes back to 

government as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Freeman, let me ask you a quick question. We 

had another hearing down in New Orleans, at that time a program 

at LSU. We talked about how fewer people are going into the engineering process, but a lot more are going into the regulatory 

stream, to become regulators. It would be my intention, though, 

that if you are talking about regulators on the Federal side dealing 

with mine safety, that this kind of background would be essential. 

Do you also think it would be profitable for somebody who is 

going to become a regulator to have some practical experience, like 

you did, in the industry before they become a regulator? 

Mr. FREEMAN. A real good example, and we in the industry talk 

about this, the idea of having a mine inspector who does not have 

industry experience would be really frightening. You really need 

that foundation of industry experience to be able to go forward. 

Mr. BISHOP. But they have to have the academic background before they get that. There are several steps you have to go through. 

Mr. FREEMAN. It is just like with any stepping of careers. You 

would like ideally 10 years’ worth of really good practical experience in the field and then be able to employ that in the regulatory 

environment. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, for both of you, the tenure process is really 

dependent upon grants to fund research. That says something negative about the tenure process, but it is the reality which we face. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Nuttbrock, obviously to get somebody in the 

Ph.D. program, you have to have an undergraduate program. To 

get somebody there, you have to have somebody in public schools, 

high school and K-12, who is excited about it. Oftentimes, people 

going into engineering, there has to be something that is really 

exciting or a chance to succeed and do something really cool, and 

we find that in other engineering areas. 

26 

How do we get kids in K-12 to become excited about starting this 

process? 

Mr. FREEMAN. You bring them in. 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. Thank you for asking that, because I think that 

is the missing link in this whole cycle. We still need to get kids interested in this industry. From talking with a number of you today, 

I know that the outreach program here at the Edgar Mine is much 

larger than I thought it was. But that is the fact, and I wonder if 

there is a mechanism in your bill that you could write in to say 

that with the Federal funding, it would require some collaboration 

with high schools and bringing them underground. Or in my industry, what kid would not like riding on the back of a TBM? 

Mr. BISHOP. That may not be the vehicle to accomplish that, but 

it is something we need to look at. 

I only have 10 seconds left, but sometime you have to tell me 

what tunnel design actually means. I don’t have enough time to get 

into it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. If the Chairman will wait—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you put some carpeting down—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. You can answer that question. 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. Sure. My background is geological engineering. 

We put tunnels in for highways, railroads. You drove through some 

tunnels coming up here. Water conveyance tunnels, I do a lot of 

those, and they are becoming huge in diameter. In Dallas right 

now, there is due next week a 40-foot-diameter flood control tunnel 

structure, 40-foot diameter for 5 miles long. So, flood control, a lot 

of different utilities, and our aging infrastructure in our cities is a 

huge market. 

Tunnel design is looking at the geology, looking at the groundwater, looking at the type of tunnel, looking at the excavation 

methodology, what you are going to do with the muck, how you are 

going to support that opening, how you are going to tie it in to the 

rest of the utilities. 

You would not believe what is under the city in terms of the utilities. It is just phenomenal, and that is the beauty of our industry. 

It is underground, out of sight, and out of mind; and that is kind 

of the way we like it. It is a fascinating industry, and it ties into 

mining engineering hand-in-hand. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Representative Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. The other Members of this hearing 

have asked all the right questions. I am not sure I have any for 

the panelists. Thank you very much. 

Obviously, here in Colorado, and it also applies to the Rocky 

Mountain West—Wyoming, Utah, Nevada—we love our outdoors. 

That is why we are here. We enjoy such an abundance of natural 

resources that are so necessary to everything we do in commerce, 

whether it is construction, energy, or technology, the rare earth 

minerals in my phone, all these kinds of things; but we always like 

to be outside climbing, skiing, fishing, whatever it might be. 

What I see, and the importance of this bill that Congressman 

Hardy has proposed, is we have to have the best and the brightest 

27 

to continue to be able to build these tunnels, to extract the minerals that we need for commerce, and to do it in a way that over 

time is environmentally sound, as you said, so that we can continue 

to enjoy our outdoors. 

Mr. Freeman, let me start with you. In terms of this bill, you had 

language, ‘‘the importance of collaborative efforts among government, industry, and educational institutions to create and support 

new approaches in higher education that can lead to a range of 

mining and energy jobs.’’ Do you think this bill helps us get that 

done? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. How? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Well, it builds a foundation for research that will 

support the universities, the education, and will support the tenure 

track of faculty members. I think all of us, going to college, were 

inspired by our ability to make a difference with the educations we 

have had and those professors that we learned under as mentors. 

I think they become a real critical component to that; and any 

damaging of that pipeline for those people, damages the entire U.S. 

economy in the end. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Absolutely. The collaborative piece of this, 

which you talked about in your testimony—let’s go back to the Gold 

King Mine disaster that we talked about a few minutes ago. Obviously, water was involved, the design of the several different mines 

out there. I mean, this is very complicated stuff, and I see a place 

both for the university to come in as kind of a consultant, but you 

want to have people who have the right qualifications to deal with 

the different tangents of the thing. 

Ms. Nuttbrock, could you comment on that? 

Ms. NUTTBROCK. I can. It is almost as if, in order to regulate to 

the extent that we would like to, you have to have an infinite understanding of the history of that mine, how it was built over the 

course of many decades. The retention systems and the water control systems are often aging, perhaps, and they need to be replaced. 

It is almost as if, in order to regulate, you need to know the history 

of the mine and how it has been operating. It has probably changed 

hands from one operator to the next over the course of its life, and 

they may have taken different design approaches. It is complex, 

and it is not as simple, I don’t think, as having more mining engineers on the regulatory side. It is that collaborative piece. 

You have a mining engineer on the regulatory side working with 

the mining engineer on the operator side, and they know that mine 

inside and out. When one of them says there is a potential for that 

toe to fail, they know what they are talking about, and they can 

go back and look at the design records and the as-builts for those 

structures and understand if that is, in fact, a failure point. 

But, it is that collaborative piece, without question. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. A couple more seconds. 

Dr. Miller, we are in the Edgar Mine. As a professor, do you 

bring students here? Do they benefit by actually being here? Is this 

something that this legislation might be able to provide some 

resources to you to continue to develop a program? 

Dr. MILLER. That would be fantastic. The unique element of the 

Edgar Mine—and it is just not solely limited to mining engineerVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:16 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERALS\12-14-15 FIELD\98011.TXT DARLEN
28 

ing. We teach, I think, parts of 19 courses in 6 different academic 

majors that are done here. One of the reasons this facility is great, 

is it allows you to apply engineering fundamentals on a projectoriented type of class. The students can actually see the dynamics 

of what they are doing, and it is a unique venue. 

But the biggest part of this is, it is about solving open-ended 

problems. It is about safety ethic. It is about the dynamics of what 

it takes to be a good, competent engineer; and you can only learn 

that in a unique environment like this. It is a great place. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

One last question for Dr. Miller. Do any of the 13 other mining 

schools in the country have a mine like this as part of their classroom experience? 

Dr. MILLER. Yes. Out of the 14, there are 4 universities that have 

school mines, the University of Arizona, Montana Tech, and the 

University of Missouri at Rolla, which is now Missouri Science and 

Technology. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Excellent. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the Members for their questions. The members of the 

committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, 

and we ask that you respond to these in writing. Under Committee 

Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be held open for 10 business days 

for these responses. 

I, and the other Members, want to thank the Colorado School of 

Mines for opening up this facility and for their work in making this 

available today. I want to thank the committee staff for all of their 

work so that we could take advantage of this unique venue. 

Before I conclude, I would ask unanimous consent that we enter 

into the record the letters of support for this legislation from the 

following schools: the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Colorado 

School of Mines, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 

Montana Tech, University of Nevada at Reno, New Mexico Tech, 

Penn State, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, South 

Dakota School of Mines, and West Virginia University, as well as 

the Nevada Division of Minerals. 

If there is no objection, so ordered. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

29 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Comment left at Hearing in Support from Eddie Kochman of 

Northglenn, Colorado 

Letters in Support: 

• Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral 

Resources, West Virginia University 

• Colorado School of Mines 

• Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers 

• Illinois Coal Association 

• Illinois Mining Institute 

• Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, University 

of Nevada, Reno 

• Missouri University of Science and Technology 

• Montana Tech 

• New Mexico Tech 

• Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences 

• South Dakota School of Mines & Technology 

• Southern Illinois University 

• State of Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources 

• University of Alaska Fairbanks College of Engineering & 

Mines 

Æ