The 114th Congress has featured a significant amount of legislative activity related to Abandoned Mine Lands (AML). The Gold King Mine Spill in August of 2015 brought AML to the forefront of national attention, invigorating consideration of the many-faceted dilemma posed by the AML sites. The state AML programs have long endeavored to educate lawmakers and inform debate on potential solutions, bringing their practical experience and technical expertise to bear on the search for policies that best address the wide range of effects felt by AML-impacted communities. The National Association of Abandoned Mine Lands Programs (NAAMLP) and Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) provide a forum for state AML program managers to discuss contemporary issues in AML policy and enables them to make concerted recommendations to policy-makers. This presentation will review and provide state regulatory perspectives on the AML-related topics under consideration during the 114th Congress, including: Hardrock AML, Reauthorization of the AML fee, Response to the Gold King Mine Spill, Good Samaritan Liability Protection, AML Appropriations, Economic Revitalization, and others. This presentation will also include a review of specific bills and legislative proposals put forward in the current Congress and provide an account of the positions and actions taken by state AML regulatory authorities through NAAMLP and IMCC.

1. State Perspectives on AML-Related
Legislative Activity in the 114th
Congress
Ryan Ellis
Interstate Mining Compact Commission
June 22, 2016

2. Gold King Mine Spill Response
• Gold King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015, S. 2063
(Companion to H.R. 3602)
– Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), Senate Judiciary
• Gold King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015, H.R. 3602
(Companion to S.2063)
– Rep. Lujan (D-NM), House Transp. and Infrastructure
• Gold King Mine Spill Accountability Act of 2016, H.R.
4483
– Rep. Pearce (R-NM), House Transp. and Infrastructure
• Abandoned Mine Reclamation Safety Act, H.R. 4323
– Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), House Natural Resources

3. National Hardrock AML Program Bills
• Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act,
H.R. 963, Title IV
– Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), House Natural Resources
• Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2015,
S. 2254
– Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), Senate Energy and Natural
Resources
• Locatable Minerals Claim Location and
Maintenance Fees Act of 2015, H.R. 3843 Titles I
& II
– Rep. Lamborn (R-CO), House Natural Resources

4. Good Sam Issues
• Who should be eligible for Good Samaritan protections?
• What types of sites should be eligible?
• What should the Authorization/Approval/Permit System
be?
• What is the proper role of the state programs and the
federal agencies?
• Can Good Sam projects generate revenue? Profit? How can
proceeds be used? (Change order of these)
• What should cleanup standards be?
• What is the proper scope of Liability Protection?
• How do we maintain the integrity of the Clean Water Act?
• How do we avoid another Gold King?
• What enforcement actions should be available when a
project goes wrong?

5. Good Samartian Bills
• Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act,
H.R. 963, Title VI
– Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), House Natural Resources
• Locatable Minerals Claim Location and
Maintenance Fees Act of 2015, H.R. 3843 Title III
– Rep. Lamborn (R-CO), House Natural Resources
• Good Samaritan Cleanup of Orphan Mines Act
of 2016, Discussion Draft
– Sen. Gardiner (R-CO); Sen. Bennet (D-CO), Senate
Environment and Public Works

6. 2016 AML Appropriations
• In 2015, total AML fee collections totaled $194 million
• In total for 2016, $225 million was distributed in
mandatory grants to states and tribes,
– after sequestration reductions of 6.8% were applied
– about $14 million withheld due to sequestration this year
• State Share distribution: $32 million
• Historic Coal: $113 million
• Certified in Lieu: $61 million
• Minimum program make up: $18 million

7. RECLAIM Act provisions
• Distribute $1 billion from the unappropriated balance of
the AML Trust Fund, to be distributed to states and tribes
over the course of 5 years at a rate of $200 million per
year.
• $195 million per year will be distributed to “uncertified”
states, meaning those who have not completed
reclamation of their coal AML inventories.
• $5 million per year for which certified and minimum
program states can apply, with OSM selecting the most
worthwhile project proposals.
• During the first year, uncertified states may set aside 10%
of their distribution for the purpose of project planning and
collaboration.

8. RECLAIM Act provisions cont.
• For a project to be approved a state must demonstrate
and OSM must agree
– That the AML project is reasonably likely to create
favorable conditions for economic development,
– the project is conducted on or directly adjacent to a
SMCRA eligible AML site,
– that the project is located in an area affected by declines
in coal production,
– and that the project has been the subject of planning and
collaboration between the state agencies and other
groups.
• To ensure that projects will create favorable economic
conditions, state must submit documentation
justifying the projects role in development.