affecting research and development, and are counterproductive to the law's goals. I would add the almost ritualistic confrontation between the industry and environmentalists - in public forums, in the - stands a good press, in the courts, and before lawmakers chance of turning people away from intelligent involvement in environmental goals. I'm very aware that much of this is the result of a law born out of controversy, and we in the industry share the blame. Abandoned surface mining scars are still a reminder of an era of different priorities, and also abuse by irresponsible operators. But after ten years, it's time to raise the tone of the surface mining issue. It's time to recognize that choices among important values in the public interest have to be made in an atmosphere of calm deliberation. It's also past time that coal companies and environmentalists joined together -if not to solve, then to mitigate the surface mine problems that still exist. There are some positive indications the confrontational approach is waning. Recent actions of OSM have shown far more balance between coal companies and environmentalists. The recent House and Senate vote eliminating the "two acre exemption" will remove a source of strife that's plagued the law for ten years. It may even end the practice of judging the entire coal industry on the antics and abuses of a maverick few. I do not know what vehicle should be used with SMCRA to get both communities together. It could be done under the auspices of an existing organization, such as the National Environmental Development Association, or a different forum. But the dialogue should begin, because even a cursory look ahead reveals an increasing demand for the nation's coal resources. I am convinced that strong enforcement will solve the abuse problem. But I am equally convinced that as long as this attitude of hostile confrontation exists, those involved in its perpetration do a disservice to the values the Surface Mining Act is intended to protect. Simply put, the environment suffers over the long term, and where is the sense in that? 7 It's been said that continued prosperity of our nation hinges on a better conceptual approach to environmental problems, and rational laws passed by Congress that promise no more than can be delivered. That's good advice and the challenge to us all as we start SMCRA's second ten years. TESTIMONY OFFERED BY AUGUST KELLER DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION AND BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS AUGUST 3, 1987 TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. My name is August Keller. I am the Director of Government and Public Affairs for The North American Coal Corporation. I appear before you today on behalf of the National Coal Association and the American Mining Congress. The company I work for operates three mines in Western U.S. and has approximately 25,000 acres under permit in various stages of production and reclamation. In 1986, our Western division mines produced over 15 million tons of coal. Since all of the coal we mine in Western division is surface mined, we can say, with assurance, that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) works; reclamation is a reality. Both our management and our employees are committed to the goal of "zero violation". At the time SMCRA was being legislated and implemented, the relations between coal operators, environmental groups, and state and federal agencies were confrontational. Since then, all groups have matured. The operators and other groups have cooperatively worked to successful implementation of SMCRA. So much so that, while some questions still may remain about the long term success of reclamation, we can say that the lands we have reclaimed and put back into agricultural production are meeting the expectations that this Committee had when it worked to put SMCRA into operation; those lands are producing at, or in excess of, their pre-mining production levels. SMCRA's success is not limited to agricultural lands. We are proving what many thought was impossible. We are creating new and better wetlands for wildlife. This year, one of our subsidiary companies was awarded the first annual "Excellence in Surface Coal Mining Reclamation" award by the Office of Surface Mining for a wetlands project at our Falkirk Mine in McLean County, North Dakota. We created a new wetlands area that we were able to exchange for some wildlife easements held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Without the exchange, we would have permanently bypassed the coal under the easement areas (a series of small potholes). Our reclamation people participated with the Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and with hydrologists and botanists in a Wetlands Advisory Committee. In cooperation with the North Dakota Public Service Commission, which administers SMCRA, the committee reviewed and directed the wetlands reclamation project, and the interagency agreements appear in Exhibit 1.0. A summary of the project appears in Exhibit 2.0. This new wetlands area has become a duck nesting area and has also hosted up to 400 geese during the 1987 fall migration. Everyone benefitted from this exchange. The Fish and Wildlife Service have an improved habitat, and we were able to recover the coal resource that would have been lost through bypass. We are proud of that project, as we are of all of our reclamation. We believe that there remains room for substantial fine tuning. For instance, the arbitrarily established year 10 liability provision shoud be made flexible to reflect post mine land use. Our experience has shown that in the case of crop land a post mined bond period of 2 to 3 years would be equally effective and would allow the farmer-land owner to get his post mine farming operation going 7 or 8 years sooner. In the case of range land a more appropriate time is 5 to 7 years. Using new information to fine tune any law makes good since. SMCRA works; but reclamation is not cheap. division it costs from $17,000 to $28,000 an mined land. We do not begrudge that expense, In our Western acre to reclaim but when that expense makes our coal and electricity less competitive than foreign imports, one |