These are both the best of times and worst of times for California's mining industry. The Interior Department has lifted some Clinton-era restrictions for hardrock mining on federal land. However, the State Mining & Geology Board is considering new regulations for implementing the Surfacing Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) that miners say will be burdensome. The regulatory issues are important in California, which produces more "non fuel" minerals than any other state. California's 1,000 active mines produced $3.38 billion worth of minerals, including about $1 billion worth of sand and gravel, in 2000, according to the state Division of Mines and Geology. The state board is scheduled to consider adopting the administrative regulations May 9. Most changes are not controversial. But miners question amendments that would redefine when a new reclamation plan is needed, ending the practice of using multiple reclamation plans for different phases of the same mine. Surface mines often evolve over time, growing beyond the bounds of original permits. Miners and geologists accept the slow and difficult-to-predict expansion as the nature of the resource extraction business. The state board has long required a new reclamation plan when a miner proposes a "substantial deviation" from an approved mining plan. The proposed regulation would require a new reclamation plan when "the surface mining operation is appreciably changed." Denise Jones, executive director of the California Mining Association, said this amendment could open up many more operations to new scrutiny, even if expansion is not contemplated. Furthermore, the requirement for one reclamation plan means that miners will have to bring an entire site up to present-day standards, even if they posses a valid reclamation plan for other parts of the mine or quarry. "The significant question we have is, when is an approval an approval?" Jones said. Douglas Sprague, manager of reclamation for Vulcan Materials Co. Western Division, said moving an access road could be considered an appreciable change that would trigger a long review process. And, he noted, reclamation plans are subject to California Environmental Quality Act review. "It reopens everything," Sprague said. "As far as we can see, it's an unending process because in the mining industry, you are always changing things, particularly when it comes to reclamation, which is an evolving science." Mines have multiple reclamation plans for a variety of reasons, said Sprague: They operate in multiple jurisdiction; different landowners own different parts of the site; part of the mine is in a stream and part is a pit. Forcing all those instances into one plan that would have to be revised anytime there is an appreciable change will discourage investment in aggregate mining, Sprague warned. However, Robert Joehnck, Department of Conservation staff counsel, said the industry is making too much of the amendments. "We think it's a clarification of the existing law" and will affect the minority of operators, he said. Joehnck declined to say how a CEQA review would fit into the process of revising a reclamation plan. He said the more important issue could be application of new reclamation standards — such as updated rules regarding revegetation — to all portions of a mine site. Jim Ellis, a planning division chief for Kern County, said his agency has always treated expansions as separate from an existing mine. The proposed change to one reclamation plan would probably make administration simpler, he said. But he questioned whether the amendments were fair to miners with valid permits. In earlier written comments to the state board, Kern County planners questioned the proposal for determining a "substantial deviation" that would trigger the need for updating a reclamation plan. "Conceivably, no deviation may be able to meet the test of the criteria and all plan amendments would therefore be substantial deviations," the county testified. While the industry is nervous about state action, it was pleased when the Bureau of Land Management rolled back hardrock mining rules that had been adopted less than one year earlier. The decision took effect December 31, 2001. Environmental groups condemned it and filed suit. What the changes mean for a controversial gold mine proposed in eastern Imperial County is unclear. Federal officials first adopted hardrock mining regulations in 1980, but environmentalists complained that they did not address present-day open pit mining practices. The BLM began reviewing the regulations in 1991 but never adopted any changes. In 1997, BLM restarted the rulemaking process, which then lasted four years. The rules that finally took effect in the last days of the Clinton administration set in place stricter environmental standards regarding acid mine drainage and other impacts of open pit mining, required bonds to clean up and reclaim a mine site prior to the start of mining, allowed the BLM to fine violators, and gave the BLM authority to deny a mining permit if the operation would cause "substantial irreparable harm" to environmental, scientific or cultural resources. Environmentalists cheered the regulations, but miners hated them and tried to block them in court. Interior Secretary Gail Norton suspended the regulations only weeks after taking office in 2001. After a review, the BLM repealed the "substantial irreparable harm" provision and the ability to impose fines. It retained some — but far from all — of the new environmental standards, and it kept the bonding requirement. The latest changes were a setback for environmentalists, said Lexi Schultz, legislative director for the Washington, D.C.-based Mineral Policy Center. The regulations do not take full advantage of the research that is available on how mines affect water, and plants and animals, she said. Moreover, the relaxed environmental standards mean the bonding requirements are not as significant, she said. But BLM spokesman Lawrence Finfer said the agency kept regulations regarding acid mine drainage, retained new regulations for small mines that had been exempt from most rules, and retained the full-cost bonding mandate. "It's hard to argue that that's a defeat for the environment," Finfer said. "Bonding is central because it provides an incentive to do the job right, and it protects the taxpayers. … That's a big change from what had previously existed." The agency dropped the provision allowing federal land managers to reject a permit because of the potential for substantial irreparable harm because of legal and policy concerns, Finfer said. But, he added, "We already have authority to, if not deny permits, send applicants back to the drawing board." In January 2001, only days before Clinton left office, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt did deny an application from Glamis Gold Ltd. for a 1,500-acre open pit mine in eastern Imperial County. Babbitt determined that the mine would destroy numerous Quechan Tribe cultural sites. And Glamis proposed leaving behind an 880-foot-deep pit and 280-foot-tall tailings pile. Interestingly, Babbitt based his decision on the 1980 regulations. However, Norton withdrew Babbitt's decision in November, and in February the BLM began reviewing the validity of Glamis's mineral rights. Glamis estimates it can pull 3 million ounces of gold from the site. "It looks like the new administration wants to reach back in time and pretend they were the decision-maker," said Courtney Coyle, an attorney for the Quechan Tribe. "It raises the questions of when are the decisions final." In an April letter to Norton, State Attorney General Bill Lockyer sided with the tribe and environmentalists, saying the BLM has a duty to protect lands within the California Desert Conservation Area from "undue impairment." U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and 29 House representatives, have also protested Norton's decision. Contacts: Douglas Sprague, Vulcan Materials, (323) 258-2777. Denise Jones, California Mining Association, (916) 447-1977. Robert Joehnck, Department of Conservation, (916) 323-6733. Lexi Schultz, Mineral Policy Center, (202) 887-1872. Courtney Coyle, attorney for Quechan Tribe, (858) 454-8687. Glamis Gold Ltd. website: www.glamis.com