BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1142
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1142 (Gray)
As Amended March 16, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 73-1 | (June 4, |SENATE: | 35-0 | (March 31, |
| | |2015) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY: Makes numerous changes to the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) that are all part of the year-long
stakeholder process convened by the Governor's office in 2015 to
recommend substantive and procedural changes to the state's
mining laws.
The Senate amendments reflect an agreement between the author of
this bill and the author of SB 209 (Pavley) of the current
legislative session to divide the subject matter of two surface
mining bills. Specifically, the Senate Amendments:
1)Require the division to provide an accounting of how fee
revenue is spent.
2)Define "reclamation" and "financial assurances".
AB 1142
Page 2
3)Allow the Department of Conservation (DOC) to appeal financial
assurance approvals that they believe are inadequate to the
Board.
4)Clarify the financial assurance and reclamation plan appeal
process to the California State Mining and Geology Board
(Board), establish time frames for hearings, specify issues
that need to be considered, and clarify under what
circumstances the Board can decline to hear appeals.
5)Clarify what must be included in a reclamation plan including
requiring maps, diagrams, and calculations in the reclamation
plan be done by appropriately licensed professionals.
6)Require lead agencies to certify that the proposed reclamation
plan is complete and compliant with applicable statutes and
regulations.
7)Allow DOC to make a determination of incompleteness and remand
the reclamation plan back to the lead agency for improvements
prior to approval. Set a deadline of 30 days for the director
of DOC (Director) to notify a lead agency and the operator
that a reclamation plan is incomplete. Set deadline of 30
days for the Director to prepare written comments on the
reclamation plan after notifying that a reclamation plan is
incomplete.
8)Prohibit a financial assurance mechanism shall not be released
without the consent of the lead agency and the department.
9)Clarify how a lead agency may cause the forfeiture of
financial assurance mechanism when an operator is financially
incapable of completing reclamation in accordance with its
approved reclamation plan
AB 1142
Page 3
10)Require the Board to develop a form for submission of
financial assurances.
11)Delete requirement that lead agency to accept or reject the
Financial Assurance Cost Estimates (FACE) within 60 days of
receipt of DOC's comments or the due date for the comments, if
comments are not received. Delete requirement for appeal
process and timelines if the lead agency determines the FACE
is inadequate. Senate amendments instead, establish a formal
process for review of FACE by DOC and include the ability of
the DOC to require consultations with lead agencies when they
do not agree with the DOC's assessment of the FACE. Require
lead agencies to explain in writing why the lead agency is not
modifying the FACE pursuant to comments made by the DOC.
12)Require inspection reports to be submitted to the DOC within
90 days and specify what is to be included in the reports.
13)Require lead agency to outline intended plan of action to
remedy violations noted in inspection report.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Creates SMARA, which prohibits a person from conducting
surface mining operations unless the lead agency for the
operation issues a surface mining permit and approves a
reclamation plan and financial assurances for reclamation.
Depending on the circumstances, a lead agency can be a city,
county, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, or the Board. Reclamation plans and financial
assurances must be submitted to the Director for review.
2)Requires the Board to impose an annual reporting fee for each
active or idle mining operation. Specifies that the maximum
AB 1142
Page 4
fee for any single mining operation may not exceed $4,000
annually and may not be less than $100 annually, as adjusted
for the cost of living, for the purpose of carrying out SMARA.
3)Provides a mechanism by which the Board can strip a local
agency of its lead agency status for failure to implement
state law, the Board then serves as the lead agency.
4)Requires lead agencies to require financial assurances of each
surface mining operation to ensure reclamation is performed in
accordance with the surface mining operation's approved
reclamation plan.
5)Requires the financial assurance to remain in effect for the
duration of the surface mining operation and until the
reclamation is complete. Requires the amount of financial
assurance to be adjusted annually to account for new lands
disturbed by surface mining operations, inflation, and
reclamation of lands accomplished in accordance with the
approved reclamation plan.
6)Requires lead agencies to conduct annual mine inspections to
determine compliance with SMARA.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, there are unknown costs to the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Account (special) for additional review by the
director of reclamation plans and financial assurances.
COMMENTS: There are over 1,000 active mines in California that
remove aggregate for building material, metals, and minerals.
California is the only state in the United States where surface
mine reclamation is not regulated by the state. Local
governments including cities and counties are the lead agencies
for most mines. However, DOC and the Board oversee their
permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions. Mining
AB 1142
Page 5
operators are required under SMARA to develop and implement
reclamation plans, which will return the mine to a condition
where it can be used for another purpose after the mining
operation is complete. Annual reports and inspections are
supposed to ensure that mining operators are making progress
toward reclamation. However, there are instances when the mine
operator cannot be located or is unable to complete the mine
reclamation. Financial assurances are required to make sure
there will be resources available to reclaim the mine. The
state and lead agencies have an interest in properly reclaimed
mines, because a surface mine is a large hole in the ground and
can have many dangerous features. If the mine is reclaimed, the
land can be returned to another use. If it is not, the state or
the lead agency could be responsible for protecting the public
from the dangers of the mine, cleaning up the mine, and
reclaiming the mine.
In the Governor's signing statement for SB 447 (Lara), Chapter
417, Statutes of 2013, he called for a top-to-bottom review of
SMARA. Multiple stakeholder group meetings have been held to
discuss the administration's concerns with SMARA. Issues that
are under discussion include:
1)Meaningful reclamation of disturbed mine lands;
2)Adequate financial assurance;
3)Financial assurances are not released until reclamation is
complete;
4)Financial assurance can be used for reclamation if the mine
owner does not reclaim their mine;
5)Quality inspections of mines occur annually;
6)When inspectors find non-compliance enforcement is clear,
timely, and meaningful;
AB 1142
Page 6
7)The Board has tools to improve local SMARA implementation;
8)Reporting fees and penalties are paid by operators and that
fees cover the cost of the program; and,
9)Inappropriate exemptions from SMARA are stopped.
The goal of these talks is to amend SMARA to meet its intent.
In DOC released language on these issues and solicited feedback
from stakeholders. This language was amended into this bill and
SB 209, and therefore, the current bill is the product of the
Governor ' s stakeholder process.
Analysis Prepared by:
Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN:
0002676