|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
2
Legal and Regulatory Framework
THE FEDERAL SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND
RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 AND 'RECHARGE CAPACITY"
Introduction
The Federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA; 30 USC 1201-1328)
is comprehensive, covering over 85 pages of printed
text. The specific language that this committee
was concerned with is a subpart of one of 25 listed
environmental protection performance standards that
are to guide surface mining. Because the context
in which the language appears is helpful in
understanding the scope and meaning of the
language, the full context is set out, with the
language of concern to this committee highlighted:
(b) General performance standards shall be
applicable to all surface coal mining and
reclamation operations and shall require the
operation as a minimum to--
(10) minimize the disturbances to the prevailing
hydrologic balance at the mine site and in
associated offsite areas and to the quality and
quantity of water in surface and ground water
systems both during and after surface coal mining
-7-
OCR for page 8
-8-
operations and during reclamation by--
(A) avoiding acid or other toxic mine drainage
by such measures as, but not limited to--
(i) preventing or removing water from contact
with toxic producing deposits;
(ii) treating drainage to reduce toxic
content which adversely affects downstream water
upon being released to water courses;
(iii) casing, sealing, or otherwise managing
boreholes, shafts, and wells and keep acid or other
toxic drainage from entering ground and surface
waters;
(B) (i) conducting surface coal mining
operations so as to prevent, to the extent possible
using the best technology currently available,
additional contributions of suspended solids to
streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area, but
in no event shall contributions be in excess of
requirements set by applicable state or federal
law;
(ii) constructing any siltation structures
pursuant to subparagraph (B) (i) of this subsection
prior to commencement of surface coal mining
operations, such structures to be certified by a
qualified registered engineer to be constructed as
designed and as approved in the reclamation plan;
(C) cleaning out and removing temporary or
large settling ponds or other siltation structures
from drainways after disturbed areas are
revegetated and stabilized; and depositing the silt
and debris at a site and in a manner approved by
the regulatory authority;
(D) restoring recharge capacity of the mined
area to approximate pre-mininz conditions;
it) avoiding channel deepening or enlargement
in operations requiring the discharge of water from
mines;
(F) preserving throughout the mining and
reclamation process the essential hydrologic
functions of alluvial valley floors in the arid and
semiarid areas of the country; and
(G) such other actions as the regulatory
authority may prescribe . . .
OCR for page 9
- 9 -
In the language to be interpreted, "restoring
recharge capacity of the mined area to approximate
pre-mining conditions," there are three key phrases
whose meaning must be delineated: (1) "recharge
capacity," (2) "the mined area," and (3) "restoring
. . . to approximate pre-mining conditions." None
of these words, terms, or phrases, is defined in
SMCRA.
~ ~ _ ~
A common dictionary contains meanings for all of
the listed words. For example, "recharge" is "to
charge again" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,
1Yb3, p. 706, and "capacity" is either "power of
receiving" or "extent of room or space" p. 122~.
However, a listing of even only two definitions for
"capacity" requires that selections be made.
"Approximate" is "nearly resembling" p. 44~;
"restore" is "to put back into the former or
original state" p. 722~.
Although standard dictionary definitions and
common usage may be sufficient for words such as
"restore" and "approximate,)' the definitions are
not sufficient for other words such as "recharge"
and "capacity." These words are used in SMCRA in a
specialized context in a specific combination.
Dictionary definitions do not reflect this context
and combination. Even in the specialized contexts
of water science and water law, the combination
"recharge capacity" does not have a clear and
universally understood meaning.
History* and Context
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974
The recharge capacity provision was added to a
Senate bill (S. 425) on October 9, 1973, through
amendment on the Senate floor. This bill was to
*For an overview of the legislative history
available on SMCRA, see Appendix B.
OCR for page 10
- 1 0 -
become the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1974. The specific proposal read as
follows:
At the appropriate place in Section 213 [Criteria
for surface mining and reclamation operations],
add a new paragraph (E) as follows: by restoring
recharge capacity of the aquifer at the mine site
and protecting alluvial valley floors.
(119 Cong. Rec. 33321 (1973~. For the entire
context, including two other amendments, in which
Senator Moss presented the proposal, see Appendix
B. All of the amendments were agreed to by
legislators acting as a bloc without a roll call
(119 Cong. Rec. 33322 (1973~.
This earliest language varies in two respects
from the language in SMCRA of 1977. It focuses on
the recharge capacity of the "aquifer at the mine
sites' and includes the concept of protecting
"alluvial valley floors." These focal points are
explained in Senator Moss's comments. He referred
to the problem that both surface and underground
mining could cause as "intersecting aquifers and
discharging this ground water into surface drainage
systems" (119 Cong. Rec. 33322 (1973~. He noted
that while such action might have little impact in
the eastern states, it could have substantial
impacts on land use and the economy in the arid and
semiarid states. He then stated:
In order to assure that both the short- and
long-term disruptive impacts of mining on ground
water supplies are minimized, it is necessary
that reclamation be conducted in such a way so as
to maximize the recharge capacity of the mine
sites. The design of spoil handling, placement,
and grading operations should be done to enhance
recharge potential at the site.
For those mining operations, singularly or in
combination, which cut across or destroy large
aquifers, mining should be predicated on the
OCR for page 11
- 11-
ability to replace the aquifer storage and
recharge capability by selective spoil material
segregation and handling.
Similarly, the alluvial valley floors and stream
channels at the mine site must be preserved
(119 Cong. Rec. 33322 (19739~.
The House bill (H.R. 11500) that passed and was
to be reconciled with S. 425 already contained the
provisions added by the Moss amendment to S. 425
when it was reported by committee to the House in
May 1974. Because none of the 15 House bills that
were introduced and considered in the public
hearings in 1973 contained the recharge capacity
language, it must have been added by committee
action. H.R. 11500 divided the recharge capacity
and alluvial valley provisions and omitted
reference to aquifers:
(D) restoring recharge capacity of the mine sites
to approximate pre-mining conditions;
(E) preserving throughout the mining and
reclamation process the hydrologic integrity of
alluvial valley floors in the arid and semiarid
areas of the country
(120 Cong. Rec. 23702, 23703, 23705 (1974~.
Since the House Committee first reported the
recharge capacity provision in 1974, the House did
not change its explanation of the provision. That
explanation is as follows:
In order to assure that both the short and long
term disruptive impacts of mining and ground
water supplies are minimized, it is necessary
that reclamation be conducted in such a way so as
to maximize the recharge capacity of the mine
site upon completion. Recharge capacity refers
to the ability of an area to replenish its ground
water content from precipitation and infiltration
from surrounding lands. Restoring recharge
capacity does not mean restoring the aquifer, but
Restoring recharge
OCR for page 12
-12-
rather that the capability of an area to recharge
an aquifer be restored. Spoil handling and
placement and grading operations should be
designed to enhance the recharge potential of the
site. It is anticipated that in those mining
operations which singularly or in combination
would mine or seriously affect large aquifers,
mining should be predicated on the ability of the
operator to replace to the extent possible the
ground water storage and recharge capability of
the site by selective spoil material segregation
and handling.
(H.R. Rept. No. 93-1072, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 100
(1974): H.R. Rent. No. 94-45, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.
No. 94-896, 94th Cong., 2d
~ ~ , ~
106 (1975); H.R. Rept.
Sess. 63 (1976); H.R. Rept. No. 95-218, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess. 116 (1977)).
Several comments made on the House floor reflect
on the meaning of the recharge provision.
ltWhat
_
is the difference "contrasting permitted river bed
mining] if the coal seam is an aquifer and the
ground has porosity and is not adversely affected?
That can be done under this very reasonable bill,
providing there is no damage to the hydrologic
balance of the mined area" (120 Cong. Rec. 23666
(1974~. The following exchange occurred between
Congressman Hechler and Congressman Regula:
congressman Koncallo or Wyoming commented:
[Hechler:] What would the gentleman propose in
those areas where the coal seam is actually the
aquifer? It seems to me in the vast areas in the
West which are very short in the supply of
rainfall, under 15 or 16 inches, and where the
coal seam constitutes the aquifer, that it would
make sense to prevent surface mining where we
could destroy the water supply in those areas.
[Regula:] What we have to weigh is the best use
of our land resources, including the mineral that
is contained therein in terms of our nation's
needs. There may be some instances where the
total use of our coal resource is just as we have
OCR for page 13
-13-
done in the bauxite mines, just as we have in
cement mines, gravel mines, and many other types
of mining, where we actually are in effect mining
the aquifer as the mineral resource. I do not
see any difference in some of the western areas
with approaching coal mining in the same way we
handle other types of mineral mining.
(120 Cong. Rec. 23671 (1974~.
In the discussions of surface mining bills,
members of Congress frequently referred to a 1974
National Research Council study (NRC, 19741;
particularly Chapter 4, "Water Resources in
Relation to Surface Mining", which was also cited
in the discussions on recharge capacity and
alluvial floors. The following excerpts from that
NRC study were noted in a statement by Congressman
Hechler: "Groundwater supplies upslope and
downslope from the cut may be depleted either
temporarily or permanently . . . . It is not known
to what extent the aquifer characteristics of the
stratum formerly occupied by the coal seam might be
restored" (120 Cong.
Congressman Evans also referred to a
the 1974 NRC study: "In planning of
mining and rehabilitation it is essential to
stipulate the alluvial floors be preserved" (120
Cong. Rec. 25011 (19749~.
Mr. Roncalio in discussing alluvial valley floors
and aquifer protection noted:
--a ~ ~ - _ _
Rec. 24100 (1974~.
~ - statement from
and oronosed
The Evans' amendment to protect these alluvial
valley floors should not be confused with mining
of coal seams that are aquifers. The committee
bill and the Evans' amendment would allow the
mining of aquifers so long as the hydrologic
; mnac t cuff the mining operation is
--on ~ r ~
'm~n~m~zed,--section 211. This would mean that a
coal company could remove a coal seam that was
serving as an aquifer.
(120 Cong. Rec. 25011 (1974~)
OCR for page 14
-14-
The other two bills actively being considered by
the House at the same time as H.R. 11500 contained
differing versions of Subsection (D). H.R. 12898
provided: "(E) restoring to the maximum extent
practicable recharge capacity of the aquifer at the
mine site to pre-mining conditions" (120 Cong. Rec.
23694 (1974) (emphasis added. H.R. 15000
provided: "(E) restoring recharge capacity of the
aquifer at the mine sites to approximate pre-mining
conditions" (120 Cong. Rec. 23703 (1974~.
Although, as originally introduced in the Senate,
the recharge provision included the dual protection
of aquifers and alluvial floors, they were
separated by the House and remained permanently
separated thereafter.
The Conference Report draft, adopted in both the
Senate and the House and sent to the president,
contained the House's separation of the recharge
capacity and alluvial floor provisions but more
nearly the Senate's language on recharge capacity:
"(D) restoring recharge capacity of the aquifer at
the mine site to approximate pre-mining conditions"
(H.R. Rept. No. 93-1522, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 37
(1974~. The Conference Report did not state any
reason for adopting the Senate's language. SMCRA
of 1974 was vetoed.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975
As passed in the Senate, S. 7 included the
language: "(D) restoring recharge capacity of the
mined area to approximate pre-mining conditions"
(121 Cong. Rec. 12943 (1975~. The House version,
H.R. 25, contained different language: "(D)
restoring recharge capacity of the aquifer at the
mine site to approximate pre-mining conditions"
(121 Cong. Rec. 6824 (1975~. The House language
had thus become identical to the language that the
Conference Report had adopted in SMCRA of 1974 and
to what had been originally the Senate language.
However, the new language in the Senate version was
similar to the House language in SMCRA of 1974
OCR for page 15
-15-
prior to the Conference Report. The draft of S. 7
reported to the Senate by the Senate Committee
contained interlineations showing that the
committee had changed the draft language from
"aquifer" restoration to ''mined area" restoration
(S. Rept. No. 28, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 84
(1975~. However, the Senate Committee did not
explain in the report why it had changed the
language.
If ~
Congressman Melcher of Montana moved on the House
floor to substitute the Senate language into the
House bill (121 Cong. Rec. 6830 (1975~. This
meant two changes. First, "of the aquifer" would
be deleted. Second, "mined area" would be
substituted for "mine site." Congressman Melcher
explained the reasons for the two changes as
follows:
[T]his amendment comes to me after virtually the
identical language was adopted by the Senate in
their version of the bill and at the
recommendation of Montana Power Co. who through
Western Energy is engaged in strip mining at
Colstrip, Montana.
. . . (D) refers to restoring the capacity of the
Omened area, to approximate pre-m~n~ng
conditions. As we have the bill before us we are
talking about the 'recharge capacity of the
aquifer at the mine site.' There are other
points to consider. One is when coal is the
aquifer and we remove it, it is pretty difficult
to come up with an equal aquifer, but what we are
really intending in the bill is to restore the
recharge capacity, the amount of water that was
there before.
That is what is important. Then rather than
saying 'mine site,' the amendment says 'mined
area.' Rather than just restrict the requirement
to the very narrow area being mined, my amendment
protects the water capacity of the area around
the mine site. Farmers and ranchers around the
perimeter of the mined area, may find themselves
having their water diminished or damaged. At
OCR for page 16
-16
times they are
prevent that.
~ ~ . .
seriously damaged. We want to
The first part of my amendment
wound give cnem protection.
(121 Cong. Rec. 6830-31 (1975~. This amendment
was approved without a roll call. As thus changed,
the language appeared in SMCRA of 1975, which
however, was vetoed.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
Both the House and Senate bills reported by
committee in 1977, and which were to become SMCRA
of 1977, contained identical recharge capacity
provisions: "(D) restoring recharge capacity of
the mined area to approximate pre-mining
conditions" (123 Cong. Rec. 12668 (1977) (House);
S. Rept. No. 95-128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 25
(1977) (Senates. Furthermore, this is the
identical language that had passed in SMCRA of
1975. Neither the House nor the Senate discussed
the 1977 provisions on the floor.
Because Congress contemplated that some aquifers
might be mined, it is essential to ask what would
determine which would be mined and which would
not. Two answers are reflected in SMCRA of 1977.
First, aquifers could not be mined if they were in
areas that had been declared unsuitable for
mining. Congress specifically provided in SMCRA
that "a surface area may be designated unsuitable
for certain types of surface coal mining operations
if such Anti one wi 1 1 effort r~n~w~hl
resource
~ . .
, C;F
_ ~ _ _ ~ ^~ ~ ~ _ ~ Hi._ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ _
lands in which such operations could
result in a substantial loss or reduction of
long-range productivity of water supply or of food
or fiber products, and such lands to include
aquifers and aquifer recharge areas" (30 USC
1272(a)~3~(C)~. Second, if not already included in
areas designated unsuitable for mining, aquifers
could be mined if the mine operation had been
designed to prevent material damage to areas
outside the mine permit area. One circumstance
OCR for page 17
-17-
that would lead to material damage would be an
inability to restore the "recharge capacity" of the
mined area to approximate pre-mining conditions.
The regulatory authority determines in the
permitting process whether restoration can be
accomplished. Detailed information relevant to
determining hydrologic balance in the context of
recharge capacity and in other contexts has to be
submitted in the application. These information
requirements are specified in SMCRA sections that
are direct successors to the other provis ions
introduced with the recharge capacity provision by
Senator Moss as amendments to S. 425, noted above
in the discussion titled "Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974" and set forth fully in
Appendix B. These sections as they appear in SMCRA
of 1977 are set forth in Appendix B. If the
recharge capacity cannot be restored, the permit is
denied. However, if either temporary or permanent
interference with a water supply should occur,
Congress protects preexisting state law water
rights (30 USC 1307(a)) and requires the operator
to provide for a substitute water supply under some
circumstances (30 USC 1307(b)~.
Although the phrase "approximate pre-mining
conditions" is not defined in SMCRA or by OSM
regulations, SMCRA uses the word "approximate"
different context in which SMCRA provides a
definition. After mining, the land is to be
restored to its "approximate original contour" (30
USC 1265(b)~3~. In defining "approximate original
contour," Congress indicated that the land after
reclamation was to "closely resemble the general
surface configuration of the land prior to mining"
(30 USC 1291~2~.
Interpretation and Action Subsequent to
Passage of SMCRA
In a
Since March 13, 1979, when the original permanent
program regulations were promulgated, OSM has
defined "recharge capacity" as "the ability of the
OCR for page 18
-18-
soils and underlying materials to allow
precipitation and runoff to infiltrate and reach
the zone of saturation" (44 Fed. Reg. 15320 (19799;
30 CFR 701.5 (1988~.
In addition to repeating the statutory
requirements, the regulations promulgated in 1979
also required that the reclamation plan include "a
plan for the restoration of the approximate
recharge capacity of the mine plan area in
accordance with 30 CER 816.51 . . . " (44 Fed. Reg.
15359 (1979). In 30 CFR 816.51, the 1979 OSM
regulations provided that
Surface mining activities shall be conducted in a
manner that facilitates reclamation which will
restore approximate pre-mining recharge capacity,
through restoration of the capability of the
reclaimed areas as a whole, excluding-coal
processing waste and underground development
waste disposal areas and fills, to transmit water
to the ground water system. The recharge
capacity shall be restored to a condition which--
(a) Supports the approved post-mining land use;
(b) Minimizes disturbances to the prevailing
hydrologic balance in the mine plan area and in
adjacent areas; and
(c) Provides a rate of recharge that
approximates the pre-mining recharge rate.
(44 Fed. Reg. 15402 (1979~; 30 CFR 816.51 (1979~.
This provision was removed from the regulations in
1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 43958-89, 43992
regulations adopted in 1983 rely instead on
hydrologic reclamation plan and the following:
(1) Ground water quality shall be protected by
handling earth materials and runoff in a manner
that minimizes acidic, toxic, or other harmful
infiltration to ground water systems and by
managing excavations and other disturbances to
prevent or control the discharge of pollutants
into the ground water; and
-
(1983)). The
the
OCR for page 19
OCR for page 21
OCR for page 22
OCR for page 23
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ground water
- 1 9 -
(2) Ground water quantity shall be protected by
handling earth materials and runoff in a manner
that will restore the approximate pre-mining
recharge capacity of the reclaimed area as a
whole, excluding coal mine waste disposal areas
and [excess spoil] fills, so as to allow the
movement of water to the ground water system."
~~ in
(1983~; 30 CFR 816.41
-20-
~ ~L-- -_ "No permit . . . shall be
approved unless . . . the regulatory authority
finds . . . that-- . . . (2) . . . reclamation
. . . can be accomplished . . . (3) the assessment
of the probable cumulative impact of all
anticipated mining in the area on the hydrologic
balance . . . has been made . . . and the proposed
operation thereof has been designed to prevent
material damage to hydrologic balance outside
permit area" (30 USC 1260b)~2~3~. Subsequently,
at the stage of mining and reclamation, the
regulatory authority must enforce the standard.
Hermit application: "No Dermi ~
KENTUCKY AND OSM ROLES
As noted in the discussion in Chapter 1, states
are allowed to assume primacy in the administration
of SMCRA and the regulations promulgated pursuant
to SMCRA with the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior and thus to become the regulatory
authority. Kentucky has assumed primacy with
federal consent (30 CFR pt. 917 (19881~. However,
OSM retains oversight duties when a state assumes
primacy. Thus the role and action of each, in
their respective capacities, will be set forth.
The Kentucky Surface Coal Mining Law (Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. 350.420~5) (1983~) contains the same
provision on recharge capacity that is in SMCRA.
The Kentucky regulations (405 Ky. Admin. Reg.
16:060, 5 (1989~; 405 Ky. Admin. Reg. 8:030,
32~19~2) (19899) copy the new federal regulations
set forth above.
Neither the federal regulations nor the Kentucky
regulations provide specifically that the applicant
must provide information on the amount and rate of
recharge in the area prior to mining and after
reclamation. However, the Kentucky permit
application form contains numerous ground water
provisions. They are set forth in Appendix B.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 provides that when a state assumes primacy,
the state's jurisdiction in administering SMCRA and
-21-
its regulations is exclusive except as provided in
Sections 1271 and 1273 of SMCRA (30 USC 12531.
Furthermore, SMCRA makes it clear that if any part
of a state program is not being enforced by the
state, OSM can enforce that part under Section 1271
(30 USC 1254~. Section 1271(a)~1) provides that
when the federal government learns of a possible
lack of enforcement, it is to notify the state, and
if the state fails to act or to explain its
inaction within ten days, the federal government is
to inspect and proceed as specified (30 USC
1271(a)~19~. Section 1271(a)~2) provides for
direct federal intervention in case of an "imminent
danger" (30 USC 1271~2~. Section 1271(b) provides
for full assumption of the state program by the
federal government (30 USC 1271(b)~. The Section
1271(a)~1) role, the most likely to apply in the
recharge capacity situation, is delineated clearly
in a recent federal court opinion arising in
Kentucky, Annaco Inc. v. U.S. Department of the
Interior (675 F. Supp.
. .
1052 (E.D. Ky. 1987)).
In addition to performing this direct oversight
function, OSM is permitted to promulgate
regulations that will facilitate its primacy
approval and oversight roles (In Re Permanent
Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 653 F.2d 514
(D.C. Cir. 1981) (in bench.
In 1986 the National Wildlife Federation and
others sued the Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet et al., claiming
that Kentucky had not properly administered and
enforced the SMCRA requirements since assuming
primacy. Among the claims was one that Kentucky
had not enforced the hydrologic protection
requirements of SMCRA. The case was settled, and
one of the specific items included in the
settlement agreement dealt with a hydrologic
study. OSM had been sued separately but became
involved in the suit against Kentucky and when OSM
became a party to the settlement with Kentucky, the
separate suit against OSM was dismissed. A
steering committee was to be selected to advise OSM
on a study of the hydrology of Kentucky, and
-22-
specifically,
that study was-to undertake to
"identify . . . cost-effective approaches to
determination of the pre-mining recharge capacity
for both eastern and western Kentucky coal field
regimes." As previously stated, the steering
committee requested assistance from the National
Research Council regarding the issue of recharge
capacity, and hence this committee was formed.
CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS
1. The recharge capacity provision of SMCRA does
not prohibit mining aquifers or otherwise
disturbing the ground water if after mining and
reclamation the hydrologic balance of the mined
area is not damaged materially when compared to the
pre-mining situation.
2. The hydrologic balance is damaged materially
if the mine operator cannot restore the recharge
capacity of the mined area to approximate
pre-m~ntug conditions.
3. "Recharge capacity" means recharge
capability. Although there is language in the
legislative history suggesting that at least some
members of Congress expected any mined aquifer to
be restored, this language gives way to the change
in the language of the recharge capacity provision
since first introduced and to clear statements such
as those in the House Reports cited above.
(Technically, however, "ground water recharge rate"
is the preferred term.)
4. The definition contained in the Code of
Federal Regulations since 1979, "the ability of the
soils and underlying materials to allow
precipitation and runoff to infiltrate and reach
the zone of saturation," represents a correct
interpretation of the law (30 CFR 701.5 (198891.
5. Although substantial relevant data are
required, neither the OSM nor Kentucky regulations
specify a data requirement on measuring pre-mining
or post-mining recharge capacity. Although the
hydrologic data that are required may provide
-
-23-
the regulators, OSM
_ . .
relevant parameters indirectly,
and Kentucky, should mandate spec't~ca'iy the
relevant parameters.
6. In summary, to implement the recharge
capacity restoration provision of SMCRA, the
regulatory authority must first determine whether
there is a useable ground water supply in the area
to be mined or an offsite supply affected by the
area to be mined.
If there is not a useable ground water supply,
the recharge capacity need not be restored because
the provision has meaning only in the context of
restoring something (a useable ground water supply)
of value. Congress was not concerned in the
recharge capacity provision with water in the root
zone, whereas it was concerned with that aspect in
the alluvial valley floor provision.
If there is a useable ground water supply, the
"recharge capacity" must be restored to approximate
pre-mining conditions. "Approximate" means closely
resembling. The legislative history and the
regulations indicate that this is to be done
through materials handling and placement. Although
not specifically stated in SMCRA, the assumption
would be that this restoration should be complete
before bond release. However, because the
requirement is only that the capability to recharge
ground water supplies in the area be restored,
there is no need that actual recharge to any
pre-existing level has occurred. Furthermore, how
much recharge will take place is also a function of
how much precipitation occurs and where.
The major problem. then. for the regulatory
either (1)
- $ ~ ~ ~
authority is that it must be able to
calculate in a scientifically acceptable yet
economical way how much recharge could take place
before mining and how much can take place after
mining or (2) determine that no matter how much
recharge capability existed before mining, the
conditions are such that recharge capability could
not be less after mining because the factors
controlling recharge have not been adversely
affected.
