89–010 

Calendar No. 534 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–264 

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 

AUGUST 5, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2830] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 2830) to amend the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain 

noncoal reclamation projects, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 

bill, as amended, do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 

the following: 

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

(a) RECLAMATION FEE.—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

(b) FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS.—Section 409(b) of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting 

‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

(c) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘section 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409’’. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2830 is to amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and 

Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
2 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) was enacted, among other things, to promote the reclamation of abandoned mines that endanger public health and safety and degrade the environment. It created a reclamation program, 

which is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement of the Department of the Interior, and is funded 

by an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fee assessed on each ton of 

coal produced. Funds collected under the program are used to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public 

health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of 

land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 409 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1239), funds 

have historically been available to address noncoal mine sites. Several western states, including New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, 

have traditionally relied on AML funds to reclaim noncoal sites. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments 

of 2006, which was enacted as part of the Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109–432), reauthorized collection of 

the AML fee, which would otherwise have expired. In addition, the 

2006 amendments added a provision to section 411 of SMCRA that 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to pay states and Indian 

tribes the so-called ‘‘unappropriated balance amounts,’’ which were 

previously allocated, but had not been paid, to the states and 

tribes. The Department of the Interior, pursuant to a Memorandum 

Opinion (M–37014) issued by the Solicitor on December 5, 2007, 

has interpreted the amendment to section 411 to prohibit 

‘‘uncertified’’ States and Indian tribes (i.e., States and tribes that 

have not certified completion of their abandoned coal reclamation 

work pursuant to section 411(a) of SMCRA with the Secretary’s 

concurrence) to use their ‘‘unappropriated balance amounts’’ provided to them under the AML program to address problems relating to noncoal abandoned mines. This same Memorandum Opinion 

also limits the ability of uncertified States and Indian tribes to use 

unappropriated balance amounts under the AML program for deposit into an acid mine drainage abatement and treatment fund. 

As previously noted, prior to the enactment of the 2006 amendments, AML funds were available to uncertified States and Indian 

tribes to reclaim both coal and noncoal sites and western states 

such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah were able to prioritize the 

use of their AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation 

work on both coal and noncoal mine sites. While activities on 

noncoal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of 

the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in 

terms of public health and safety at these sites is considerable, and 

there is significant work yet to be done. Similarly, acid mine drainage continues to pose a significant problem particularly in the Appalachian States where coal mining is prevalent. The 2006 amendment to section 411, as interpreted by the Solicitor, prevents states 

from allocating their AML funds to address their most pressing 

needs. 

S. 2830 would address this problem by giving uncertified States 

and Indian tribes flexibility to use unappropriated balance amounts 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
3 

paid to them pursuant to the 2006 amendments for noncoal reclamation. In addition, uncertified States and Indian tribes would 

have the flexibility to use such funds for deposit in an acid mine 

drainage abatement and treatment fund without respect to certain 

time limitations. The bill addresses those unexpended and unappropriated balance amounts already paid to the States and Indian 

tribes pursuant to the 2006 amendments, as well as those to be 

paid pursuant to the 2006 amendments. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2830 was introduced by Senator Bingaman on December 3, 

2009, with five original co-sponsors, Senators Bennet, Bennett, 

Hatch, Mark Udall, and Tom Udall. The Subcommittee on Public 

Lands and Forests held a hearing on the bill on April 21, 2010. The 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources considered the bill 

and adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute at its 

business meeting on June 16, 2010. The Committee ordered S. 

2830, as amended, favorably reported at its business meeting on 

June 21, 2010. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on June 21, 2010, by a voice vote of a quorum present, 

recommends that the Senate pass S. 2830, if amended as described 

herein. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During its consideration of S. 2830, the Committee adopted an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment provides 

that unappropriated balance amounts paid to uncertified States 

and Indian tribes under the Abandoned Mine Land Program pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act can be 

used for acid mine drainage set-aside programs and for noncoal 

abandoned mine land reclamation. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1(a) amends section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act by adding a reference to provide that 

certain funds made available pursuant to section 411(h)(1) may be 

received and retained for acid mine drainage abatement in accordance with the subparagraph. 

Section 1(b) amends section 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act by adding a reference to provide that certain 

funds made available pursuant to section 411(h) may be used by 

States and Indian tribes for the purposes of section 409, including 

noncoal reclamation. 

Section 1(c) amends section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) to provide references 

to sections 402(g)(6) and 409 to provide that uncertified States and 

Indian tribes may use funds received under the subparagraph in 

accordance with those sections. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
4 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 2830—A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain 

noncoal reclamation projects 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 2830 would reduce direct spending by about $5 million over the 2011–2020 period; therefore, payas-you-go procedures would apply. Enacting the legislation would 

not affect revenues. S. 2830 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Each year, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) provides more 

than $300 million in grants and payments to states and Indian 

tribes to reclaim land and water resources that have been degraded 

by past mining practices. Because such grants and payments are 

not subject to annual appropriation, they are considered direct 

spending. States and tribes that currently have backlogs of coal 

reclamation projects—so-called noncertified states—are obligated, 

under current law, to use those grants exclusively for those specific 

coal projects. 

S. 2830 would allow those noncertified states and tribes to use 

those funds for other types of reclamation projects not related to 

coal mining. CBO expects this change would increase direct spending in the near term by accelerating spending of reclamation 

grants. However, that short-term increase would be more than offset by reduced spending in later years because enacting the bill 

would prolong the certification process for some states. On balance 

CBO expects that this change would reduce the amount of direct 

spending by the federal government over the next 10 years. 

Under current law, once states and tribes certify that they have 

completed all outstanding coal reclamation projects, they become 

eligible for additional payments from OSM. Under S. 2830, if some 

states and tribes substitute noncoal projects for coal projects in the 

near term and delay their certification status by at least one year, 

total direct spending over the next 10 years would be less than anticipated under current law. The number of states and tribes that 

would be affected and the extent to which they would delay certification are uncertain. However, based on information from OSM 

and some of the affected states and tribes, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would reduce direct spending by about $5 

million over the 2011–2020 period. Under current law direct spending for these grants and payments is expected to total about $4 billion over that period. 

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending or revenues. S. 2830 would reduce direct spending from 

certain payments to states and tribes to reclaim abandoned mines. 

The changes in the deficit that are subject to those pay-as-you-go 

procedures are shown in the following table. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
5 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 2830, A BILL TO AMEND THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 TO CLARIFY THAT UNCERTIFIED STATES AND 

INDIAN TRIBES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN NONCOAL 

RECLAMATION PROJECTS, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ON JUNE 21, 2010 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010– 

2015 

2010– 

2020 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (–) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo ......................... 0 1 2 2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 1 ¥5 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 2830. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 2830, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

S. 2830, as reported, does not contain any congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The views of the Administration were included in testimony received by the Committee at a hearing on S. 2830 on April 21, 2010, 

which is provided below. 

STATEMENT OF GLENDA OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM) regarding S. 2830. I look forward to working with 

you on matters relating to the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

S. 2830 would allow noncertified states and tribes to use 

certain SMCRA payments for non-coal reclamation. While 

we recognize the importance of addressing hardrock mine 

hazards, we cannot support this bill because it is inconVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:08 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR264.XXX SR264

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
6 

sistent with the President’s FY 2011 Budget proposal to 

limit SMCRA payments to high priority coal sites. 

The FY 2011 President’s Budget includes a proposal to 

focus AML funds on the high priority coal reclamation 

sites in order to ensure that the most hazardous issues can 

be addressed before the AML fee expires. In addition to 

terminating unrestricted payments to certified states and 

tribes, the proposal will require all noncertified states to 

use their funding only for high priority coal reclamation 

projects. 

BACKGROUND

Through SMCRA, Congress established OSM for two 

basic purposes. First, to ensure that the Nation’s coal 

mines operate in a manner that protects citizens and the 

environment during mining operations and to restore the 

land to beneficial use following mining. Second, to implement an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program to address 

the hazards and environmental degradation created by two 

centuries of weakly regulated coal mining that occurred 

before SMCRA’s enactment. 

Title IV of SMCRA created an AML reclamation program funded by a reclamation fee assessed on each ton of 

coal produced. The fees collected have been placed in the 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (Fund). OSM, either 

directly or through grants to States and Indian tribes with 

approved AML reclamation plans under SMCRA, has been 

using the Fund primarily to reclaim lands and waters adversely impacted by coal mining conducted before the enactment of SMCRA and to mitigate the adverse impacts of 

mining on individuals and communities. Also, since 

FY1996, an amount equal to the interest earned by and 

paid to the Fund has been available for direct transfer to 

the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit 

Fund to defray the cost of providing health care benefits 

for certain retired coal miners and their dependents. Section 402(a) of SMCRA fixed the reclamation fee for the period before September 30, 2007, at 35 cents per ton (or 10 

percent of the value of the coal, whichever is less) for surface-mined coal other than lignite, 15 cents per ton (or 10 

percent of the value of the coal, whichever is less) for coal 

from underground mines, and 10 cents per ton (or 2 percent of the value of the coal, whichever is less) for lignite. 

As originally enacted, section 402(b) of SMCRA authorized 

collection of reclamation fees for 15 years following the 

date of enactment (August 3, 1977); thus, OSM’s fee collection authority would have expired August 3, 1992. However, Congress extended the fees and fee collection authority through September 30, 1995, in the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 

extended the fees through September 30, 2004. A series of 

short interim extensions in appropriations and other acts 

extended the fees through September 30, 2007. 

The AML reclamation program was established in response to concern over extensive environmental damage 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
7 

caused by past coal mining activities. Before the 2006 

amendments, the AML program reclaimed eligible lands 

and waters using the Fund, which came from the reclamation fees collected from the coal mining industry. Eligible 

lands and waters were those which were mined for coal or 

affected by coal mining or coal processing, were abandoned 

or left inadequately reclaimed prior to the enactment of 

SMCRA on August 3, 1977, and for which there was no 

continuing reclamation responsibility under State or other 

Federal laws. 

SMCRA established a priority system for reclaiming coal 

problems. Before the 2006 amendments, the AML program 

had five priority levels, but reclamation was focused on eligible lands and waters that reflected the top three priorities. The first priority was ‘‘the protection of public health, 

safety, general welfare, and property from extreme danger 

of adverse effects of coal mining practices.’’ The second priority was ‘‘the protection of public health, safety, and general welfare from adverse effects of coal mining practices.’’ 

The third priority was ‘‘the restoration of land and water 

resources and the environment previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices.’’ 

As originally established, the Fund was divided into 

State or Tribal and Federal shares. Each State or tribe 

with a Federally approved reclamation plan was entitled 

to receive 50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually from coal operations conducted within its borders. 

The ‘‘Secretary’s share’’ of the Fund consisted of the remaining 50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually and all other receipts to the Fund, and was allocated 

into three shares as required by the 1990 amendments to 

SMCRA. First, OSM allocated 40% of the Secretary’s share 

to ‘‘historic coal’’ funds to increase reclamation grants to 

States and Indian tribes for coal reclamation. However, all 

the funds which were allocated may not have been appropriated. Second, OSM allocated 20% to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), operated by the Department 

of Agriculture. However, that program has not been appropriated AML funds since the mid-1990s. 

Last, SMCRA required OSM to allocate 40% to ‘‘Federal 

expense’’ funds to provide grants to States for emergency 

programs that abate sudden dangers to public health or 

safety needing immediate attention, to increase reclamation grants in order to provide a minimum level of funding 

to State and Indian tribal programs with unreclaimed coal 

sites, to conduct reclamation of emergency and high-priority coal sites in areas not covered by State and Indian 

tribal programs, and to fund OSM operations that administer Title IV of SMCRA. 

States with an approved State coal regulatory program 

under Title V of SMCRA and with eligible coal mined 

lands may develop a State program for reclamation of 

abandoned mines. The Secretary may approve the State 

reclamation program and fund it. At the time the 2006 

amendments were enacted, 23 States received annual 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
8 

AML grants to operate their approved reclamation programs. Three Indian tribes (the Navajo, Hopi and Crow 

Tribes) without approved regulatory programs have received grants for their approved reclamation programs as 

authorized by section 405(k) of SMCRA. 

Before the 2006 amendments, States and Indian tribes 

that had not certified completion of reclamation of their 

abandoned coal lands could use AML grant funds on 

noncoal projects only to abate extreme dangers to public 

health, safety, general welfare, and property that arose 

from the adverse effects of mineral mining and processing 

and only at the request of the Governor or the governing 

body of the Indian tribe. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

Amendments of 2006 were signed into law as part of the 

Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, on December 20, 

2006 (Public Law 109–432). The 2006 amendments revised 

Title IV of SMCRA to make significant changes to the reclamation fee and the AML program. One change extended 

OSM’s reclamation fee collection authority through September 30, 2021. The statutory fee rates were reduced by 

10 percent from the current levels for the period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012, and an additional 10 percent from the original levels for the period 

from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2021. 

The Fund allocation formula was also changed. Beginning October 1, 2007, certified States are no longer eligible 

to receive State share funds. Instead, amounts that would 

have been distributed as State share for fee collections for 

certified States are distributed as historic coal funds. The 

RAMP share was eliminated, and the historic coal allocation is further increased by the amount that previously 

was allocated to RAMP. 

Since 2006, the Department has interpreted the language of SMCRA section 411(h) to require that OSM use 

grants to provide funds to eligible States and Indian tribes 

and to preclude noncertified states and Indian tribes from 

using funds that they receive under that section for 

noncoal reclamation. 

S. 2830

Under SMCRA, states can use some of the AML funds 

they receive for non-coal reclamation. S. 2830 would 

amend SMCRA to allow noncertified states and tribes to 

use their mandatory funds received under Section 

411(h)(1) from their unappropriated AML Fund balance for 

reclamation activities on non-coal mine sites. Noncertified 

states and tribes can already use the funds they receive 

from the ‘‘state share’’ and ‘‘historic coal’’ formulas for noncoal reclamation. 

When Secretary Salazar appeared before the Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources to testify about the FY 

2011 President’s Budget for the Department of the Interior, he noted that in developing a balanced budget request 

for FY 2011, tough choices had to be made. The budget, in 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
9 

addition to eliminating unrestricted payments to certified 

states, also proposes limiting the use of AML payments to 

priority coal reclamation projects. The Department cannot 

support S. 2830 because it is inconsistent with the Fiscal 

Year 2011 budget. 

In an effort to focus the AML program on coal reclamation before the reclamation fee terminates, the President’s 

FY 2011 budget proposes to restrict the use of AML funds 

by noncertified states to high priority coal reclamation. Because S. 2830 is inconsistent with the Administration’s 

goal of ensuring expeditious coal reclamation, we cannot 

support this bill. 

While we recognize the dangers that abandoned hard 

rock mines can pose, AML funding needs to be focused on 

the highest priority problems Congress originally identified 

in 1977. The challenging economic conditions, coupled with 

this Administration’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, 

only heighten the need for AML funds to be devoted to the 

highest priority coal problems. We note that the administration has continued to invest in AML, both through the 

Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding 

and the FY 2011 President’s Budget to address hardrock 

mine reclamation on Federal Lands. 

We share your concern about non-coal abandoned mine 

sites and would be happy to share the expertise gained administering SMCRA and work with the Congress and this 

committee as we seek to address abandoned non-coal mine 

problems. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today and testify on this bill. I look forward to 

working with the Subcommittee to ensure that the Nation’s abandoned mine lands are adequately reclaimed. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

ordered reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 

omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in 

italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 

OF 1977 

Public Law 95–87, as amended 

AN ACT TO provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and 

the States with respect to the regulation of surface coal mining operations, and 

the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 

be cited as the ‘‘Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977’’. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
10 

RECLAMATION FEE 

SEC. 402. (a) * * * 

(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—(1) * * * 

(6)(A) Any State with an approved abandoned mine reclamation 

program pursuant to section 405 may receive and retain, without 

regard to the 3-year limitation referred to in paragraph (1)(D), up 

to 30 percent of the total of the grants made annually to the State 

under paragraphs (1) and (5) and section 411(h)(1) if those amounts 

are deposited into an acid mine drainage abatement and treatment 

fund established under State law, from which amounts (together 

with all interest earned on the amounts) are expended by the State 

for the abatement of the causes and the treatment of the effects of 

acid mine drainage in a comprehensive manner within qualified 

hydrologic units affected by coal mining practices. 

* * * * * * * 

FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS 

SEC. 409. (a) * * * 

(b) Funds available for use in carrying out the purpose of this 

section shall be limited to those funds which must be allocated to 

the respective States or Indian tribes under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (5) of section 402(g) and section 411(h)(1). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 411. CERTIFICATION. 

* * * * * * * 

(h) PAYMENTS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(D) USE OF FUNDS.— 

* * * * * * * 

(ii) UNCERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.—A 

State or Indian tribe that has not made a certification 

under subsection (a) in which the Secretary has concurred shall use any amounts provided under this 

paragraph for the purposes described in øsection 403¿ 

section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS