CHAPTER 9 THE STUDY OF RECLAMATION STANDARDS FOR SURFACE MINING OF MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL (COSMAR)
| Jurisdiction | United States |
(Nov 1979)
THE STUDY OF RECLAMATION STANDARDS FOR SURFACE MINING OF MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL (COSMAR)
Pickands Mather & Co.
Cleveland, Ohio
Federal government control of surface mining and mined land reclamation first received serious congressional attention in 1965 when the 89th Congress passed Public Law 89-4, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.
Section 205(C) of that Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to make a survey and study of strip and surface mining operations and to submit to the President recommendations for a long-range, comprehensive program for reclamation of strip and surface mining lands in the United States. The report was completed and recommendations developed in 1967 (Appendix 1). For convenience, I shall refer to this as the "1967 Report". As a result of this activity, the American Mining Congress created its first Committee on Mined Land Reclamation. By way of introduction, I have served as Chairman or Co-Chairman of that Committee since its inception.
The 1967 Report made findings as well as recommendations. The findings were:
"Basic reclamation comprises remedial measures necessary to alleviate or eliminate conditions resulting from surface mining, such as: erosion, flooding, water pollution, damage to aquatic and wildlife habitat, barriers to access and hazards to public safety.
"A supplemental program of rehabilitation comprises land development for parks and recreational areas, residential and industrial sites, scenic improvements, and other specialized land uses contributing to the economic potential or social improvement of areas."
[Page 9-2]
In the years to follow, a number of mined land reclamation bills were introduced in both the Senate and the House, generally going along with the recommendations set forth in the 1967 report, specifically including:
(A) that the federal government establish standards and reclamation requirements for the reclamation and conservation of surface mined areas;
(B) that it should be recognized as an obligation of the state governments to enact and enforce regulations on nonfederal lands adequate to assure that the costs of reclaiming the lands mined from now on become a public responsibility;
(C) that in the absence of satisfactory state regulation to control current and future surface mining operations or failure of enforcement, federal standards and reclamation requirements should be imposed until such time as the state is prepared to assume its responsibilities; and
(D) that federal standards should include:
1. control of surface mining operations that have a harmful impact upon the environment during and following mining,
2. specific provisions relating to control of water pollution, control of soil erosion, elimination of health and safety hazards, conservation of natural resources, and preservation and restoration of natural beauty,
3. issuance of a permit or license contingent upon an acceptable mining and reclamation plan, and
4. performance bonds and provisions for penalties.
[Page 9-3]
The report also made recommendations relating to what was termed "repair of past damage". This would include authority to the federal government to acquire previously-mined lands and to convert the same into park and refuge areas with authority to transfer some of these properties to appropriate state or local agencies.
Comparison of the recommendations of the 1967 Report with proposed legislation in the years to follow will demonstrate the consistency with which the Congress adhered to recommendations made in 1967. It might be stated parenthetically here that the 1967 recommendations were not based upon the same facts that existed by the time the coal mine reclamation law was enacted in 1977. During the intervening ten years, numerous federal laws had been adopted which actually provided many of the programs, regulations, and controls recommended in 1967. All of this will be discussed in greater detail later in this presentation.
In the years to follow the 1967 Report, a number of bills were introduced in both the Senate and the House. The appropriate committees of the Congress were provided with a great deal of testimony, factual submissions and arguments, which came from all sides. It seemed obvious at the time that as the congressional committees developed an awareness of the actual facts concerning the mining industry, the committees began to struggle with the problem of attempting to write into one law the very broad concepts of mining and reclamation which would be required to encompass the wide diversity in the various types of mining; the differing climatic, geographic, economic, and social conditions encountered; the various mining methods used; and other highly variable factors. In any event, the House of Representatives in 1973, under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairpersons Mink and Udall, elected to turn attention to only the mining and production of coal, essentially
[Page 9-4]
excluding from the terms of the proposal then before the House, the matter of control of mining and reclamation of minerals other than coal.
The proposed legislation affecting coal mining was not passed until 1977 when it became Public Law 95-87. While minerals other than coal were not generally subjected to its terms, these minerals were by no means totally overlooked within the requirements of the Act. Section 709 (Appendix 2) directed the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for an in-depth study of current and developing technology for surface and open pit mining and reclamation for minerals other than coal to assist the establishment of effective and reasonable regulation of surface and open pit mining and reclamation. Specifically, the Act provided that the study should:
"1. assess the degree to which the requirements of this Act can be met by such technology and the costs involved;
"2. identify areas where the requirements of this Act cannot be met by current and developing technology;
"3. in those instances, describe requirements most comparable to those of this Act which could be met, the costs involved, and the differences in reclamation results between these requirements and those of this Act; and
"4. discuss alternative regulatory mechanisms designed to insure the achievement of the most beneficial postmining land use for areas affected by surface and open pit mining."
Although the time frame set forth in the Act called for a report for sand and gravel and a separate preliminary report for oil, shale, and tar within one year from August 3, 1977, the date of the Act; and a report on
[Page 9-5]
all other types of noncoal mining within eighteen months from the date of the Act, the action of all concerned was deferred because of budgetary problems. The Act itself rejected any appropriation for the fiscal year 1977, thus requiring the CEQ to secure a budgetary approval for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1977. Budgetary approval to contract for the study was received about November 1, 1977. It was not until January, 1978, that the Council on Environmental Quality was able to announce the contract with the National Academy of Sciences to perform the study called for in Section 709. In April of 1978, the CEQ issued its first progress report on the National Academy of Sciences surface mining study (Appendix 3) outlining the contractual arrangements of the same, the scope of the study and other information concerning its progress. This progress report specifically called for participation of government agencies and institutions, industry, and the public. The broad scope of participation was revealed by this report which indicated that the CEQ and the Academy had had by April 1 the opportunity to meet with and receive comments from individuals representing a number of interested organizations. These included the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, American Mining Congress, National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Foundation, National Sand and Gravel Association, Environment Policy Center, Environment Policy Institute, and staff from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The broad scope of communications developed by the CEQ and the Academy with various organizations has been delineated to emphasize the opportunity for participation given to a broad base of interested organizations specifically including environmental organizations and government agencies. This presentation will deal essentially with the participation of the American Mining Congress.
[Page 9-6]
It might be noted at this point that the American Mining Congress had been called upon to suggest the names of individuals for appointment to the Study Committee. Since the National Academy is essentially an academic organization, the American Mining Congress recommended five individuals from the academic arena. The AMC also felt that the Study Committee might well have industry representation and thus suggested the names of seven in the mining industry. None of these nominees for membership on the Study Committee were included in the selection of Committee members. In fairness, it should be noted that some of these were later selected to serve as members of the fact-finding panels serving the Study Committee. By May 1, 1978, the Academy announced the formation of a Committee on Surface Mining and Reclamation, to be known as COSMAR (Appendix 4), this Committee to be responsible for the study required by Public Law 95-87, Section 709.
The notice of May 1, 1978, provided us with a COSMAR membership list and a list of the organizations, including the American Mining Congress, which were invited to appear at the first meeting of COSMAR on June 8, 1978. All of the invitees were asked to submit background information, viewpoints, concerns and issues related to the study. This list of...
To continue reading
Request your trial