Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, the letter dated November 23. 1971, from J. Allen Overton, Jr., with answers to questions by Mr. Skubitz and Mr. Kastenmeier, will be placed in the record at this point. The letter follows: Hon. ED EDMONDSON, AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, Washington, D.C., November 23, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on Mines and Mining, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to answer questions posed by Messrs. Kastenmeier and Skubitz to Mr. Joseph S. Abdnor, Vice President, Pickands Mather & Co., when he testified on behalf of the American Mining Congress October 21 before your Subcommittee on legislative proposals affecting surface mining operations. Mr. Kastenmeier asked for figures concerning expenditures by the mining industry on mined-land reclamation and what this amounted to on a tonnage basis. Definitive figures on costs of reclaiming mined lands are not generally available. Several state mining organizations have collected figures from individual operators, on a more or less confidential basis, but these have not been widely or publicly revealed. The most recent estimates of reclamation costs on a per-acre basis have been derived from projects performed under provisions of the Appalachian Regional Development Act with funds provided by the federal government under supervision of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Mines. The work is performed by private contractors under agreements with APRC. Five such projects have been completed to date at a total cost of $679.132. involving 385 acres, with an average reclamation cost of $1,763 per acre, Emphasizing the widely varying costs of reclamation projects, and with the attendant difficulty in arriving at any meaningful average cost per acre based on amount of mineral produced, the following breakdown is of interest: (The Martin County School project had special problems and involved a county safety factor that increased costs. If this project were eliminated from a tabulation, the results would be a total cost of four projects of $460,000 for a total acres age of 358.2 acres or an average cost per acre of $1,284.00) The Bureau of Mines has five additional projects which are now in process under contract with private operators involving a total of 861.3 acres on a total contract bid of $1,817,690, an average of $2,110 per acre. These include: (The Martinsburg School project has such a high cost of reclamation because it involves filling a stone quarry, at the insistence of the local school administration, because of its proximity to a school playground. If this project were eliminated from the compilation, the average cost per acre of reclamation of the remaining projects would be reduced to an average of $942 per acre.) Reclamation cost figures published by the Department of the Interior in 1967 are questionable in the light of present-day requirements, but are interesting as a basis for comparison. A 1967 publication of the Interior Department entitled "Surface Mining and Our Environment" on page 90 contains the following statement: "The amount that surface mining operators can afford to pay for reclamation varies widely among industries and individual operations. In effect, reclamation merely imposes determined by the economics of doing business. For example, a survey by the Bureau of Mines of reclamation work conducted in 1964 by the major surface mining industries showed that, in the principal coal producing areas, average cost of completely reclaiming coal lands ranged from $169 per acre in the South Atlantic States to $362 in the Middle Atlantic area. For partial reclamation, costs ranged from $74 per acre in the East South Central region to $261 per acre in the Middle Atlantic." However, these estimates become obsolete in the light of more current information. In 1970 Elmore Grim, Director of Mine Reclamation, Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Kentucky, on the basis of information collected by his department, stated that the average cost of reclamation for Kentucky mines ranges from 17¢ per ton in eastern Kentucky to 7¢ per ton in western Kentucky. If the average yield per acre figures of 5,000 tons is applied, an average per-acre cost of $850 per acre in eastern Kentucky and $350 per acre in western Kentucky is realized. This is a substantial disparity from the high and low averages reported by the Department in its 1967 report. Some state laws call for more demanding reclamation practices than required by earlier statutes. Included are Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio. Even in these states, operators have gone beyond the letter of the law in land reuse programs. In two instances, which have been widely publicized by state enforcement agencies as "excellent”, the costs differ widely : For a project in Pennsylvania, where complete grading, backfilling and planting is done, the cost estimate of the owner is $1.26 per ton. Applying the average per acre yield of 5,000 tons, the per acre cost is $6,300. In Ohio, where filling and grading are done for pasture use, the owner's cost has been calculated at 93¢ per ton. However, in this operation the per acre yield is about 10,000 tons. This results in a per acre cost of reclamation for this project of $9,300. None of the costs enumerated in the above project summaries involves the segregation and replacement of topsoil, as is provided for in some of the legislative proposals being considered. Some experimental plots have been developed in several states, including Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois, where topsoil segregation has been employed. In these experimental operations, it was found that depending on the availability of the soil, length of haul, difficulty in spreading, etc.. additional costs for this practice varied between $1,200 and $2,500 per acre over conventional practices. In summary, the only positive conclusion that can be reached concerning reclamation costs is that there is no way to determine a general average. Each project bas to be computed individually. Mr. Skubitz asked Mr. Abdnor (page 408 of the transcript) to furnish to the Committee the position of the American Mining Congress on the imposition of a national severance tax on strip-mined coal, with the tax being returned to the states pro rata for land reclamation purposes. The American Mining Congress opposes the imposition of a national severance tax. Such a tax would not only be discriminatory against the coal mining industry, but would also discriminate between coal-producing states depending on their geography, terrain and land reclamation costs per ton of coal mined. It would also weaken the competitive position of coal. While there are no imports of coal per se, the domestic industry competes directly with imported residual oil in major markets (utilities and heavy industry). To add this burden to coal without an equivalent burden on imported residual oil would weaken coal's position in the marketplace. Furthermore, the coal industry is already struggling with additional costs related to air and water pollution control and health and safety legislation. To impose a national severance tax would work a further Lardship on an already harassed industry. We feel that a state should determine whether a severance tax is to be levied against its resources, not the federal government. In its 1971-72 Declaration of Policy with regard to environmental quality, the American Mining Congress recognized the need for continuing improvements and pledged to devote even greater effort, time and resources toward the pursuit of these environmental activities. I hope this answers Mr. Skubitz's question satisfactorily. Most respectfully yours, J. ALLEN OVERTON, Jr., Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, the letter dated January 19, 1972, from J. Allen Overton, Jr., with suggestions for specific legislative language will be placed at this point in the record. The letter follows: Hon. ED EDMONDSON, AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Mines and Mining, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On October 21, 1971, Mr. Joseph S. Abdnor testified before your Committee for the American Mining Congress on pending legislation to regulate surface mining. In that testimony, Mr. Abdnor set forth the general views of the American Mining Congress. Taking note of the broad range of legislative proposals then before you, he said that at such time as your Committee approached the point of marking up a bill, we would submit specific suggestions for amendment. This letter sets out our suggestions for specific legislative language. It also embodies our views on several additional general concepts in the bills you are considering. We hope that these supplements to Mr. Abdnor's testimony will be helpful to you and your colleagues. With respect to the legislative language suggestions in this letter, we have examined particularly the provisions of H.R. 60, H.R. 5689, and H.R. 10758, and have considered the testimony various witnesses have presented. We believe the legislative language we propose-under the various subjects below-could be readily adapted to your markup of a final bill in Committee. I. Because of the great diversity in surface mining practices, and the variety of reclamation conditions the pending legislation is intended to cover, there should be separate definitions for strip mining and surface mining, separate definitions for reclamation under each, and a precise definition of the mined area to be reclaimed. We recommend the following: SEC.- For purposes of this Act, the term (a) "strip mining" means the extraction of mineral deposits lying near the surface of the earth by means of removing the overburden above the deposits in rows or strips as distinguished from open pits, and where the extraction process is normally moved from place to place and does not involve the extraction of minerals at the same location over a substantial period of time. For purposes of this Act, "strip mining" shall include contour mining and auger mining. (b) "surface mining" means the extraction of minerals by means other than strip mining, but excluding the underground extraction from beneath the surface of the earth of minerals to which access is gained by wells, shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines penetrating or connected with excavations penetrating mineral seams or strata. (c) "mined area" means the surface of an area in which strip mining or surface mining operations are being or have been conducted after the effective date of this Act, including private ways and roads appurtenant to any such area, land excavations, workings, waste dumps, refuse banks, tailings, spoil banks, and other areas in which mining operations are situated. (d) "reclamation" means— (1) with respect to strip-mined land, actions performed during and after mining operations to shape, stabilize, and revegetate such mined areas in order to achieve a condition, appearance, or use as determined by a reasonable and concerned operator which can be sustained by the soil, climate, and topography of the area and where the benefits of such actions are reasonably related to the costs therof. (2) with respect to surface-mined land, actions performed during and after mining operations to recondition such mined areas on which mining shall have been completed to a state which, insofar as practicable. will serve a purpose not inconsistent with local environmental conditious and current mining and reclamation techniques, and where the benefits II. The pending legislation contemplates State regulation. We believe the Secretary should be required to approve regulations proposed by a State, provided those regulations meet certain minimum requirements set out in the statute. We recommended, therefore, that the following elements [(a) through (e) below] be required with respect to the issuance of permits: SEC.. The Secretary shall approve the regulations or revision of such regulations submitted to him provided— (a) The regulations require each operator engaged in surface mining or strip mining to obtain a mining permit from a State agency established to administer the regulations, and to file a reclamation plan describing the manner in which reclamation activity will be conducted and assuring that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the regulations. (b) The regulations require that the State agency must issue such mining permit unless it is specifically found that reclamation of the mined area will not be accomplished by the reclamation plan filed by the operator with such permit application. (c) The regulations require that (1) the State agency shall notify the applicant within 30 days after the filing of a mining permit application whether the application has been approved and if the application is denied specific reasons therefor must be set forth in the notification. Any denial of a mining permit must be only for failure of a plan submitted to provide proper and effective reclamation as determined in the State regulations, (2) the application shall be deemed approved if not denied within 30 days after the filing thereof, (3) within 30 days after the applicant is notified that its application is denied, the applicant may request a hearing into the reasons for said denial and a hearing shall be held, when so requested, within 30 days of the request, (4) at the hearing a record shall be kept of all procedings, and (5) within 30 days after the hearing is closed, the State agency must issue and furnish the applicant the written decision of the agency containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and incorporating therein an order either granting or denying the mining permit and stating the reasons therefor. (d) The regulations provide that mining permits granted under this section shall continue in force at least for the anticipated life of the mining operation and shall not be revoked except after a public hearing on at least 20 days notice to the operator, that such a hearing shall be held before the State agency which granted the permit, that at the hearing a record shall be kept of all proceedings and that within 30 days after the hearing is closed, the State agency must issue and furnish the applicant the written decision of the agency containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and incorporating therein an order either granting or denying the mining permit and stating the reasons therefor. (e) The regulations provide that during the term of the mining permit the operator may apply to the State agency for a revision of the mining permit, that such revision shall be approved unless it is specifically found that reclamation of the mined area will not be accomplished by the reclamation plan filed by the operator with such application for revision, that the revision shall be deemed approved if not denied within 30 days after the filing thereof, and that if such revision is denied, the applicant may request a hearing in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as provided in subsection (c)(3) through (c)(5) of this section. III. Requiring a performance bond should be discretionary with the State agency that issues the permit and approves the reclamation plan. As a general guide, we recommend the following: SEC.. The issuing agency may, in its discretion, require the posting of an appropriate performance bond sufficient to provide for compliance with the aproved reclamation plan. In determining whether such bond should be required the agency shall consider, among other things, the financial responsibility of the applicant, the amount of time represented in the estimated life of the mining operation and the proposed reclamation plan, whether other bond require Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, the letter dated January 13, 1972, from J. Allen Overton, Jr., with suggestions for specific legs.a tive language will be placed at this point in the record. The letter follows: Hon. ED EDMONDSON, AMERICAN Mining Congre88, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1972 Chairman, Subcommittee on Mines and Mining, Committee on Interior and Insulat Affairs, U.8. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On October 21, 1971, Mr. Joseph S. Abdnor testified before your Committee for the American Mining Congress on pending legislation to regulate surface mining. In that testimony, Mr. Abdnor set forth the general views of the American Mining Congress. Taking note of the broad range of legislative proposals then before you, he said that at such time as your Committee approached the point of marking up a bill, we would submit specific suggestions for amendment This letter sets out our suggestions for specific legislative language. It also embodies our views on several additional general concepts in the buils you are considering. We hope that these supplements to Mr. Abdnor's testimony will be helpful to you and your colleagues. With respect to the legislative language suggestions in this letter, we have examined particularly the provisions of H R. 60, H.R. 5689, and H.R. 1075%, and have considered the testimony various witnesses have presented. We believe *De legislative language we propose under the various subjects below - could le readily adapted to your markup of a final bill in Committee. I. Because of the great diversity in surface mining practices, and the variety of reclamation conditions the pending legislation is intended to cover, there should be separate definitions for strip mining and surface mining, separate definitions for reclamation under each, and a precise definition of the mallars] area to be reclaimed. We recommend the following: Sac. -—. For purposes of this Act, the term (a) "strip mining" means the extraction of mineral deposits lying near the surface of the earth by means of removing the overburden above te deposits in rows or strips as distinguished from open pits, and where th extraction process is normally moved from place to place and does not volve the extraction of minerals at the same location over a subtar” a period of time. For purposes of this Act, “strip mining" shall include contour mining and auger mining. (b) "surface mining" means the extraction of minerals by means oflap tan strip mining, but excluding the underground extraction from beneath the surface of the earth of minerals to which access is gained by wells, shafik slopes, drifts or inclines penetrating or connected with excavations penetrating mineral seams or strata. (e) "mined area" means the surface of an area in which strip ming? surface mining operations are being or have been conducted after the effective date of this Act, including private ways and roads appurtenant to any such area. Innd exenvations, workings, waste dumps, refuse barks fall rges, spot, banks, and other areas in which mining operations are situated (d) "recanation" means (1) with respect to strip-mined land, actions performed during and after mining operations to shape, stabilize, and revegetate such I trai areas in order to achieve a condition, appearance, or use as deter" it by a reasonable and concerned operator which can be sustained by the soil, elinate and topography of the area and where the benefits of arach actions are reasonably related to the costs therof. (2) with respect to surface mired land, actions performed during aafter mining operations to recondition such mined areas on which min ing shall have been completed to a state which, insofar as practione will serve a purpose not inconsistent with local environn ental cortar at 1 current in feing and reclamation techniques and where the bump |