Mining

Subscribe to Mining via RSS

Ready or not, California’s new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) is here and mine operators should be vigilant in monitoring and actively participating in developments under the law. Previously, the use of groundwater was largely unregulated.  Now local agencies are in the driver’s seat when it comes to addressing a very complex problem: managing groundwater to ensure sustainability.

Earlier this week, environmental consultant Bob Anderson, of Geosyntec and Stoel Rives attorneys Wes Miliband and Tom Henry hosted a webinar about the implications of SGMA for mine operators.  You can view a recording of the webinar here.  Below are a few key take away points for operators as they tackle SGMA.

The Compliance Timeline is Aggressive

SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSAs”) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based groundwater sustainability plans (“GSPs”). GSAs have already started to form and will be developed by June 30, 2017.  Operators should investigate the proposed GSAs affecting their sites.  The Department of Water Resources has developed a useful interactive map showing the proposed GSAs.  Operators and the general public have the opportunity to be involved in the formation of GSAs and preparation of GSPs.
Continue Reading Why California’s New Groundwater Management Law is a Game Changer for Mine Operators

The Alaska DNR is requesting public comments on its mining regulations for establishing and maintaining mining claims – 11 AAC Chapter 86. These regulations (as well as related regulations at 11 AAC 82 and 11 AAC 88) establish or address many of the requirements for locating claims on state lands, performing assessment work, paying rent,…

Minerals are part of virtually all the products we use every day, acting as the raw materials for manufacturing processes or as the end products themselves. Not surprisingly, minerals also are used in the energy generation that we rely on every day.  Emerging energy technologies like wind, solar and nuclear heavily rely on minerals to…

On January 29, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to finalize the long-awaited “financial assurance” regulations under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  The hard rock mining industry is first in line to be subject to  the new requirements.

The D.C. Circuit’s order is the result of a case brought by several environmental groups against the EPA seeking to force the EPA to put into effect the so-called “financial assurance regulations.”

In enacting CERCLA in 1980, Congress directed the EPA to ensure that companies remain financially capable of cleaning up contaminated sites. These financial assurance rules were intended to prevent companies from creating toxic sites and then becoming financially unable to clean them up, often causing the cleanup to be delayed for years.

In the intervening thirty years since CERCLA took effect, the EPA made little progress toward promulgating any financial assurance regulations, that is, until a court ruling in 2009 (brought by many of the same groups) ordered them to start. Pursuant to the 2009 ruling, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register designating the hard rock mining industry as its priority for the development of financial responsibility requirements.  In making this determination, the EPA cited a heightened “risk” associated with hard rock mining which increases the likelihood of releases of hazardous substances.
Continue Reading Financial Assurance Requirements are on the Horizon for Hard Rock Miners

On January 20, Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz unveiled a “discussion draft” of the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act. The proposed bill undertakes the difficult task of balancing economic development and conservation on public land in the State of Utah.

Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz began working together on the bill in February 2013. Since that time, more than 120 different stakeholders have submitted more than 65 detailed proposals regarding land management in eastern Utah. Altogether, their offices have held more than 1,200 meetings with local and tribal leaders, interested parties, and subject matter experts.

The bill is organized in two parts: “Division A” covers land protection and conservation and “Division B” covers recreation and economic development opportunities.

Division A creates forty-one new wilderness areas covering 2,274,373 acres of federal land. Wilderness is a legal designation designed to provide long-term protection and conservation of public lands. Wilderness areas are protected and managed so as to preserve the area’s natural surroundings in an unimpaired condition. Generally, motor vehicles and mechanical transport are prohibited in wilderness areas. However, the proposed bill makes certain exceptions for maintaining grazing facilities and access to water resource facilities.
Continue Reading Utah Congressmen Unveil Landmark Public Land Bill

On Tuesday, November 3, the White House released a Presidential Memorandum: “Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment” (“Memorandum”).  The Memorandum was sent to the Secretaries of Defense, Interior and Agriculture and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and purports to establish a general “no net loss” goal for natural resources impacted by federal actions.  The Memorandum recognizes “a moral obligation to the next generation to leave America’s natural resources in better condition than when we inherited them” and establishes the following policies applicable to identified federal departments and agencies (and all bureaus and agencies within them):

  • To avoid and to minimize harmful effects to land, water, wildlife and other ecological resources (natural resources), and to require compensatory mitigation for the projects they approve.
    Agency mitigation policies should establish a net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for natural resources each agency manages that are important, scarce, sensitive, or “consistent with [an] agency[’s] mission.”
  • For compensatory mitigation, agencies are directed to give preference to advance compensation mechanisms, such as mitigation bank approaches. “Advance compensation” is defined to mean a form of compensatory mitigation for which measurable environmental benefits (defined by performance standards) are achieved before a given project’s harmful impacts to natural resources occur.
  • Agencies are encouraged to use large-scale plans to identify areas where development is most appropriate, where natural resource values are irreplaceable and development policies should require avoidance, and where high natural resources values result in the best locations for protection and restoration.

Continue Reading Presidential Memo Imparts “Moral Obligation” on Agencies to Mitigate Impacts of Natural Resource Development

On September 24, 2015, the federal Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) published a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal (“BLM notice”), proposing to withdraw from mineral location and entry federal lands identified as “sagebrush focal areas” in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. The BLM notice commences a two-year temporary segregation period, prohibiting location and entry of new mining claims on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands in these sagebrush focal areas. If the BLM decides to withdraw the area at the end of the segregation period, the withdrawal will last up to 20 years, but could be extended in the future. The proposed withdrawal area covers approximately 10 million acres. The map below from the BLM shows the proposed withdrawal area, and an interactive map with more detail is available here.
Continue Reading Mining on 10 Million Acres in Six States Impacted by BLM’s Proposed Withdrawal

In a speech at the Rocky Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced yesterday that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will not list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Finding that protection under the ESA is no longer warranted due to an “unprecedented conservation partnership,” the USFWS announced that it was withdrawing the species from the candidate list.   The decision comes roughly a week before a court-ordered deadline for a decision.
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Determines Protection for Greater Sage-Grouse No Longer Warranted

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has recently announced that it would take steps to finalize rules establishing financial responsibility requirements for hard rock mines under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

Section 108(b) gives the EPA the authority to require certain facilities to have some type of financial security mechanism in place – such as a bond or insurance policy – that can be used to pay for spills or cleanups should a mining or mineral processing company declare bankruptcy or be otherwise unable to conduct necessary response activities. CERCLA requires the financial responsibility to be consistent with the degree of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances.

In 2009, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register designating the hard rock mining industry as its priority for the development of financial responsibility requirements. In making this determination, the EPA cited a heightened “risk” associated with hard rock mining which increase the likelihood of releases of hazardous substances.

The framework for the new regulations assigns financial responsibility amounts based on a facility’s characteristics (i.e., open pits, waste rock, tailings, heap leach, process ponds, water management, and operations, maintenance and monitoring). Natural resources damages and health assessment costs would be separate fixed amounts imposed on each facility. The financial responsibility requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from other federal closure and reclamation bonding requirements imposed under other statutes.
Continue Reading Miners and States take Notice, the EPA is Updating its CERCLA Financial Responsibility Requirements

About the Mineral Law Blog

Learn More

Here Stoel Rives shares insight and analysis about key mineral law developments. Drawing on a very active natural resources practice, we aim to keep readers informed about the legal aspects of news that impacts exploration and development of all things mineral.