Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act (SMCRA)

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1328) — commonly known as SMCRA — is the primary federal law governing coal surface mining (strip mining) and the reclamation of abandoned mine lands. Before SMCRA, surface coal mining had devastated hundreds of thousands of acres across Appalachia and the Western coal fields — stripping away topsoil, burying streams under mining debris, leaving behind toxic acid mine drainage polluting waterways protected under the Clean Water Act, and creating hazardous open pits and unstable slopes. SMCRA established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) within the Department of the Interior, set minimum federal environmental performance standards for active mining operations, required mine operators to restore mined land to its approximate original contour and productive capacity, and created the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund — financed by per-ton fees on coal production — to clean up the legacy of pre-law mining. The AML Fund has collected over $12 billion since its creation and has reclaimed tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine sites.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 30 U.S.C. § 1211 — Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (establishes OSMRE within Interior; authorizes the Director to administer SMCRA, promulgate regulations, and enforce compliance)
• 30 U.S.C. § 1231 — Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (creates the AML Fund in the Treasury; funded by per-ton reclamation fees on coal production)
• 30 U.S.C. § 1232 — Reclamation fee (requires operators of coal mining operations to pay per-ton fees; sets rates for surface coal, underground coal, and lignite)
• 30 U.S.C. § 1251 — Environmental protection standards (establishes minimum performance standards that all surface mining operations must meet)
• 30 U.S.C. § 1256 — Permits (no person may conduct surface coal mining without a permit; permits require detailed mining and reclamation plans)
• 30 U.S.C. § 1265 — Environmental protection performance standards (detailed requirements for active mining: approximate original contour restoration, topsoil preservation, sediment control, water quality protection, revegetation)

How It Works

Before any surface coal mining can begin, the operator must obtain a permit from the regulatory authority (OSMRE or the state agency with primacy). The application must include a detailed mining plan (how coal will be extracted) and a reclamation plan (how the disturbed land will be restored), with documentation of land ownership, water rights, and environmental baseline conditions. Environmental performance standards are the heart of SMCRA: active operations must restore the approximate original contour of the land after mining (no permanent highwalls, spoil piles, or depressions), segregate and preserve topsoil for reclamation use, minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance, prevent acid mine drainage, revegetate reclaimed areas with species capable of supporting post-mining land use, and stabilize all surface areas to prevent erosion. Operators must post performance bonds before mining begins — financial guarantees sufficient to cover reclamation if the operator defaults — with bonds released incrementally as reclamation milestones are met. Bond inadequacy has been a persistent problem, with many bonds insufficient to cover actual reclamation costs.

SMCRA uses a cooperative federalism model: states can assume "primacy" by adopting programs at least as stringent as the federal standards, and most major coal-producing states have done so. OSMRE retains oversight authority and can step in if a state program fails to enforce its regulations; if a state doesn't adopt a program, OSMRE runs the federal program directly. One of SMCRA's most consequential provisions is the Abandoned Mine Land Fund: every ton of coal mined pays a reclamation fee ($0.224/ton surface, $0.096/ton underground, $0.064/ton lignite) that has generated over $12 billion since 1977. The fund distributes money to states and tribes to reclaim pre-SMCRA abandoned sites — priority targets include open shafts and tunnels that endanger public safety, acid mine drainage polluting streams, unstable slopes and refuse piles, and subsidence from underground mines. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) provided an additional $11.3 billion for AML reclamation over 15 years — the largest mine cleanup infusion in history.

How It Affects You

State Variations

SMCRA is built on cooperative federalism — state programs are central:

Implementing Regulations

• 30 CFR Parts 700–899 — OSMRE Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act regulations (permit requirements, performance standards, bonding, inspection/enforcement, Abandoned Mine Land reclamation, state program approval, federal lands programs)

• 30 CFR Part 816 — Permanent Program Performance Standards — Surface Mining Activities (55 sections): the minimum environmental protection standards that every state program must adopt and implement. These are the "floor" below which no state permitting program may go — states with primacy may adopt stricter standards but not weaker ones. Key provisions:

  • § 816.100 — Contemporaneous reclamation: reclamation (backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement, revegetation) must occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations — operators cannot mine large areas and defer all reclamation until the end; active reclamation must follow closely behind the mining face
  • §§ 816.102–816.107 — Backfilling and grading: disturbed areas must be backfilled and graded to achieve the approximate original contour — eliminating all highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions; thin overburden (§ 816.104) and thick overburden (§ 816.105) sites have specific exceptions; steep slope operations (§ 816.107) face additional requirements — no spoil may be placed on the downslope below the mining bench unless approved by the regulatory authority based on stability analysis
  • §§ 816.111–816.116 — Revegetation: operators must establish a vegetative cover on all regraded and disturbed areas (except water impoundments and approved roads) appropriate to the postmining land use; vegetation must be planted during the first favorable planting season after topsoil placement (§ 816.113); revegetation success is judged on cover compared to natural vegetation in the area and the effectiveness for the postmining land use (§ 816.116); bond release for revegetation requires demonstrating successful plant establishment sustained through the applicable liability period
  • §§ 816.131–816.133 — Cessation of operations: temporary cessation requires securing all surface facilities to prevent unauthorized access and hazards; permanent cessation requires backfilling, reclaiming, and stabilizing all affected areas; all disturbed areas must be restored to support their premining use or a higher or better use — postmining land uses designated in the permit can include cropland, pasture, wildlife habitat, recreation, commercial, or residential use, but operators must demonstrate the capability to achieve the designated use
  • § 816.150 — Roads: primary roads (used for coal transport or heavily traveled) face stricter construction, maintenance, drainage, and erosion standards than ancillary roads; roads must be built to minimize environmental impacts and be reclaimed after they are no longer needed

  Part 816's performance standards and their Part 817 counterpart (underground mining) are the operational heart of SMCRA's environmental protection framework. The most politically contested provision is the contemporaneous reclamation requirement: coal industry operators prefer flexibility to mine large areas before reclaiming, while environmental groups and nearby communities want reclamation to stay close to the active mining face. The Stream Protection Rule (81 FR 93392, Dec. 2016) would have added significant new stream buffer zone and hydrologic protection requirements to Part 816 — it was repealed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act (82 FR 54979, Feb. 2017) in one of the first acts of the first Trump administration.

• 30 CFR Part 886 — Reclamation Grants for Uncertified States and Indian Tribes: the grant program through which OSMRE distributes AML Fund revenues to states and tribes that have not yet "certified" completion of their coal AML reclamation inventory. An uncertified state or tribe still has significant unfunded coal AML problems on its priority list and receives annual grants to address them:

  • § 886.11 — Eligibility: a state or tribe is eligible for Part 886 grants if it has an OSMRE-approved reclamation plan (under 30 CFR Part 884) and has not yet certified its coal AML inventory as complete; eligible recipients include all major coal-producing states and several Indian tribes with historical coal mining on trust lands; states that have certified completion of coal AML (e.g., Tennessee, some smaller coal states) transition to Part 885 grants for non-coal AML and economic development
  • § 886.12 — Eligible uses: grant funds must be used for eligible AML reclamation and related activities — cleaning up dangerous openings (shafts, adits, portals), stabilizing unstable slopes and refuse piles, treating acid mine drainage, reclaiming lands affected by subsidence, and related prevention and education activities; the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) expanded eligible uses to include economic and community development on reclaimed sites, reflecting Congress's intent that AML funding create economic opportunity in coal communities
  • § 886.13 — Grant amounts: annual grant allocations are determined by a statutory distribution formula in 30 U.S.C. § 1232(g), based on each state's historical coal production as a share of total national production; states with larger historic coal output receive proportionally larger annual distributions; the BIL's $11.3 billion supplemental appropriation (15-year phase-in) follows a similar formula but with added weights for states with higher levels of unreclaimed AML and economic distress — directing more funding to Appalachian states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, which have the highest remaining AML inventories

  Part 886 grants fund the most visible AML cleanup work — plugging abandoned mine shafts, stabilizing acid-leaching refuse piles, restoring streams degraded by pre-law mining. The BIL's $11.3 billion infusion represents the largest single investment in AML cleanup since SMCRA created the fund in 1977, and was designed explicitly to benefit coal communities facing economic transition.

• 30 CFR Part 817 — Permanent Program Performance Standards — Underground Mining Activities (54 sections): the counterpart to Part 816, applying the same minimum environmental protection performance standards to the surface impacts of underground coal mining — subsidence, surface drainage, spoil placement from portals and refuse areas, and surface facilities (tipples, preparation plants, impoundments). The standards parallel Part 816's structure: contemporaneous reclamation of surface-disturbed areas (§ 817.100); backfilling and grading of surface spoil to approximate original contour (§§ 817.102-817.107); steep slope restrictions (§ 817.107); revegetation with appropriate species for the postmining land use (§§ 817.111-817.116); and postmining land use restoration (§ 817.133). The key distinction from surface mining: Part 817 addresses the surface-affecting dimensions of underground mining — the preparation plant, the refuse pile, the portal area, the water treatment systems — rather than the underground workings themselves, which are governed by state mine safety laws and MSHA regulations. Subsidence from underground mining is specifically addressed in § 817.121 — operators must minimize subsidence effects on surface lands and provide replacement water supplies when subsidence damages water supplies above the mine.

• 30 CFR Part 870 — Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Fee Collection and Coal Production Reporting: the OSMRE implementing regulation for SMCRA's AML fee — the mechanism by which coal mining operators pay the per-ton reclamation fee that funds cleanup of pre-SMCRA abandoned mines:

  • § 870.11 — Applicability: the fee applies to all surface and underground coal mining operations subject to SMCRA, with narrow exceptions for small-scale landowner noncommercial extraction; the fee obligation is tied to coal "produced for sale, transfer, or use" — operators cannot avoid the fee by mining coal that isn't sold if the coal is used by the operator for any commercial purpose
  • § 870.12 — Fee obligation: operators must pay the reclamation fee on each ton of coal produced; the fee is calculated based on the applicable rate (see below), multiplied by tons produced during each reporting period; fees are paid quarterly using OSM-1 (the Coal Production Report); operators who mine coal must maintain records sufficient to verify production tonnage
  • § 870.13 — Fee rates (through September 30, 2034): the specific fee amounts for coal produced from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2034 are: $0.224 per ton of coal produced by surface mining methods; $0.096 per ton of coal produced by underground mining methods; $0.064 per ton of lignite; these rates were originally higher and were reduced by SMCRA amendments; the rates apply through 2034, after which the AML fee authority expires unless Congress reauthorizes it
  • AML Fund mechanics: collected fees go to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund in the U.S. Treasury; 50% of fees from coal mined in a state are returned to that state for its AML program (with adjustments for Indian lands); the remaining portion is used for federal OSMRE programs and for states/tribes without their own approved AML programs; the fee system has collected over $12 billion since SMCRA took effect in 1977; the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) added a one-time $11.3 billion appropriation on top of the fee revenue

  The AML fee has become a shrinking revenue source as U.S. coal production has declined dramatically — from ~1 billion tons annually in the early 2000s to roughly 500-600 million tons by the mid-2024s; fee revenue has correspondingly declined from ~$200M/year to ~$125M/year, even as the backlog of unreclaimed abandoned mine sites remains enormous. The fee's scheduled 2034 sunset creates a long-term policy question: whether Congress will reauthorize it, raise the rates, or find alternative funding for AML cleanup — a question with particular urgency for communities in Appalachia, Illinois, and the Western coal states that still have substantial abandoned mine hazards.

• 30 CFR Part 872 — Moneys Available to Eligible States and Indian Tribes (OSMRE, 25 sections): the distribution mechanics regulation that governs how AML Fund revenues flow from the U.S. Treasury to state and tribal reclamation programs. Where Part 870 covers fee collection and Part 886 covers grant management, Part 872 specifies the mandatory annual distribution formula and the categories of money each eligible recipient receives:

  • § 872.11 — Sources of Fund revenue: AML Fund money comes from reclamation fees collected under Part 870, interest earned on Fund balances, and amounts received from charges for use of land acquired or reclaimed with Fund money; the Fund is a permanent Treasury account — unused balances carry over year to year rather than expiring
  • §§ 872.14–872.16 — State share funds: each state with an approved reclamation plan (and not yet "certified" as complete) receives 50 percent of reclamation fees collected from coal produced within that state in the prior fiscal year; state share funds are distributed as grants to the state's own Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund account (a separate account required by § 872.12); use is restricted to coal AML reclamation, water supply restoration, noncoal reclamation (at the state's request), and contributions to acid mine drainage treatment funds
  • §§ 872.17–872.19 — Tribal share funds: Indian tribes with approved reclamation plans receive 50 percent of reclamation fees collected from coal produced on Indian lands in which they have an interest; the same use restrictions apply as for state share funds
  • §§ 872.21–872.23 — Historic coal funds: a supplemental distribution category based on coal produced before SMCRA took effect on August 3, 1977 (the legacy production that created most of the abandoned mine problem); states and tribes with remaining unfunded Priority 1 and Priority 2 coal AML problems receive annual historic coal payments calculated from each recipient's share of pre-1977 national coal production; restricted to Priority 1–2 coal reclamation, water supply restoration, and acid mine drainage treatment — a tighter list than state share funds
  • §§ 872.24–872.25 — Federal expense funds: AML Fund money not allocated as state/tribal shares or historic coal; requires annual congressional appropriation before OSMRE may spend it; authorized uses include emergency projects, OSMRE federal program administration, Small Operator Assistance Program (up to $10 million/year), and the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)

  Part 872 is the fiscal plumbing of SMCRA's AML program. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $11.3 billion supplemental AML appropriation (2021) flowed through the Part 872 framework, with distributions weighted toward states with the largest remaining AML inventories and highest economic distress — directing the bulk of supplemental funding to West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other Appalachian states. Recent rulemakings: 87 FR 2345 (January 2022) — updated distribution procedures to implement the BIL supplemental appropriation; 90 FR 52864 (2025) — technical amendments.

• 30 CFR Part 762 — Criteria for Designating Areas as Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations: OSMRE regulations implementing SMCRA § 522 (30 U.S.C. § 1272), which authorizes state and federal regulatory authorities to permanently prohibit surface coal mining on lands where the activity would damage fragile or valuable resources. The "unsuitable lands" designation is a pre-mining exclusion — before any permit issues, a petitioner can seek a finding that specified lands should not be mined at all. Key provisions:

  • § 762.11 — Mandatory designation criteria: upon petition, an area must be designated as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining if the regulatory authority determines that reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible; or that the operations would be incompatible with existing state or local land use plans or programs; or that the operations would affect fragile lands (§ 762.5 defines these as areas containing natural, ecologic, scientific, or esthetic resources that could be significantly damaged — including natural areas, critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, and lands of high natural beauty); or that operations would affect renewable resource lands (croplands with high agricultural productivity, lands with significant recreational or scenic values)
  • § 762.12 — Additional state criteria: state regulatory authorities may establish additional or more stringent criteria for designating lands as unsuitable within their state — states may add water supply protection areas, historic or archaeological sites, or other resource categories that reflect state priorities; the federal criteria in § 762.11 are a minimum floor, not a ceiling
  • § 762.13 — Exemptions from designation: the designation requirements do not apply to lands on which surface coal mining was being conducted on the date SMCRA was enacted (August 3, 1977) — "grandfathered" operations are exempt from the unsuitable lands process even if they would otherwise meet designation criteria; similarly, lands under valid existing rights (permits issued before SMCRA) are exempt from new designations
  • § 762.4 — Responsibility: the regulatory authority (OSMRE or a state with primacy) evaluates each petition using the Part 762 criteria; petitions may be filed by any person, group, or government entity claiming that specific lands qualify for designation; the process requires investigation, public notice, and opportunity for comment before a final determination
  • § 762.15 — Exploration on designated lands: designation as unsuitable for surface coal mining does not prohibit exploration activities — coal exploration (drilling, sampling, seismic surveys) may still occur on designated lands, subject to a separate permit and performance standards; only the actual surface mining operations are prohibited

  Part 762 designations are the regulatory equivalent of "off limits" signs for surface coal mining — they permanently exclude mining from lands where the environmental or resource values are too important to accept the disturbance. In practice, Part 762 petitions have been filed to protect aquifer recharge areas, prime farmland, and areas near national parks or wilderness. The designation process is adversarial between the coal industry (which opposes designation of land over minable coal reserves) and environmental groups and affected communities (which use it to protect water supplies, agricultural land, and natural areas). No major Part 762 amendments in recent years — the criteria and procedures date to the early 1980s and have been stable.

• 30 CFR Part 842 — Federal Inspections and Monitoring: the OSMRE rules governing how federal inspectors enforce SMCRA compliance — setting out when OSMRE must inspect, the rights of inspectors, how citizens can trigger federal inspections, and how to challenge inadequate enforcement. Part 842 is the enforcement backbone of SMCRA's federal backstop. Key provisions:

  • § 842.11 — Federal inspections and monitoring: OSMRE authorized representatives must inspect surface coal mining operations: (1) to monitor and evaluate state program administration; (2) to develop or enforce federal programs on federal lands; (3) to enforce permit conditions that a state is failing to enforce (under SMCRA §§ 504(b) or 521(b)); and (4) to verify compliance with outstanding violation notices and cessation orders; mandatory federal inspection is required immediately when an authorized representative has reason to believe — from any source, including citizen complaints — that a violation poses imminent danger to health or safety or is causing or will cause irreversible environmental damage
  • § 842.12 — Citizen requests for federal inspections: any person may request a federal inspection by filing a signed written statement with OSMRE alleging a violation, imminent danger, or harm; the person must also have notified the state regulatory authority in writing and assert that the state has not taken action; the identity of the person requesting the inspection is confidential unless waived; after the inspection, OSMRE must provide the complainant with a written statement of findings and any enforcement actions taken
  • § 842.13 — Right of entry: OSMRE inspectors have a right of entry to any coal mining or reclamation operation without advance notice or a search warrant upon presentation of credentials; inspectors may copy records, inspect monitoring equipment, and gather physical and photographic evidence; no search warrant is required for entry onto the mining site itself (though a search warrant may be required for entry into enclosed buildings)
  • § 842.14–842.15 — Review of adequacy and challenges to non-enforcement: any adversely affected person may file a written complaint with OSMRE's Director alleging that federal inspections have been inadequate or incomplete; OSMRE must determine within 15 days whether adequate inspections have been made and provide a written response; similarly, citizens can challenge OSMRE's decision not to inspect or not to take enforcement action following a citizen complaint — OSMRE must review and respond within 30 days
  • § 842.16 — Public availability of records: all OSMRE inspection records, reports, and information must be made available to the public in the area of mining for at least 5 years after the mine ceases active operations or the reclamation bond is released — whichever is later; OSMRE may satisfy this requirement by making records available at a local government office in the county where mining occurs or by providing copies on request

  Part 842 is the citizen enforcement mechanism that distinguishes SMCRA from many other environmental statutes: citizens don't have to file a lawsuit to get a federal inspection — they can trigger mandatory federal review simply by filing a written complaint. This is particularly significant in states with weak primacy programs where OSMRE may need to step in. Recent rulemaking: OSMRE amended Part 842 at 89 FR 24735 (April 2024) to clarify inspection procedures following the Abandoned Mine Land economic development initiative, but the February 2026 rescission of the Ten-Day Notices rule (which would have formalized OSMRE's backstop procedures) reduced related oversight mechanisms.

• 30 CFR Part 865 — Protection of Employees: OSMRE anti-retaliation regulations implementing 30 U.S.C. § 1268, which prohibits any person from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees or their authorized representatives for activities protected under SMCRA:

  • § 865.11 — Protected activity: employees may not be fired, suspended, transferred, blacklisted, or otherwise penalized for: filing a complaint or report about SMCRA violations; testifying or preparing to testify in a SMCRA proceeding; initiating or causing to be initiated a proceeding under the Act; or assisting inspectors or exercising any other right under SMCRA; the prohibition applies to any person — not just the direct employer — covering situations where a mine operator retaliates against a contractor's employee, or a company blacklists a worker across multiple operations
  • § 865.12 — Filing a discrimination complaint: any employee or authorized representative who believes they have suffered discrimination in violation of § 865.11 may file an application for review with OSMRE; the complaint need only set out the facts of the adverse action and the protected activity the complainant believes triggered it; no particular form is required
  • § 865.13 — Investigation and conference: within 7 days of receiving a complaint, OSMRE mails a copy to the respondent and begins an investigation; OSMRE attempts to resolve the matter through an informal conference; if the discrimination is confirmed and not resolved, OSMRE refers the case for formal adjudication on the employee's behalf — the employee does not have to pursue the hearing alone
  • § 865.14–865.15 — Hearing: if OSMRE finds probable cause that a violation occurred and informal resolution fails, the Director requests a hearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals; formal adjudication follows 43 CFR Part 4 administrative hearing procedures; OSMRE prosecutes the case on behalf of the complaining employee, who participates as a party

Part 865's anti-retaliation framework is an important complement to SMCRA's citizen enforcement provisions: Part 842 allows citizens to trigger inspections, and Part 865 protects the workers and employee representatives who provide information to inspectors or testify about violations. Without anti-retaliation protection, workers — particularly those in areas with few alternative employment options — face significant pressure not to cooperate with enforcement. No major amendments in recent years — the regulations date to SMCRA's initial implementation and have been procedurally stable.

• 30 CFR Parts 900-999 — State and Federal Programs (State Primacy Framework): SMCRA's primary governance model is cooperative federalism — states that enact approved surface mining programs run their own regulatory programs; only states that cannot or do not develop approved programs are governed directly by OSMRE under a federal program. 30 CFR Parts 900-999 contain state-specific regulations for each state's program (Title V state programs at Parts 900-939 and federal programs for states without approved programs at Parts 940-999). Key states with OSMRE-administered federal programs (rather than state-run programs) include:

  • 30 CFR Part 903 — Arizona: establishes the federal program for Arizona, where coal mining is limited and the state chose not to develop an approved program; the federal program incorporates the general SMCRA regulations of Parts 700-800 by reference, with Arizona-specific modifications for the particular geology, climate, and land use patterns of Arizona coal mining areas
  • 30 CFR Part 905 — California: federal program for California; California coal production is minimal, and the state's program operates under federal administration
  • 30 CFR Parts 910/912/941/942/947 — Georgia, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington: additional state federal programs for states without approved state programs; these states have limited coal reserves and mining activity, making development of a separate state program economically unjustified; OSMRE district offices administer SMCRA permitting, inspection, and enforcement in these states

  The significance of this framework is that 26 states with substantial coal production (including Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Montana) have approved state programs — meaning OSMRE's role in those states is primarily oversight of the state program rather than direct regulation. OSMRE reviews state annual reports, conducts Ten-Day Notices (TDNs) when it believes a state is failing to enforce SMCRA requirements, and may ultimately withdraw state primacy (a power OSMRE has rarely exercised). Wyoming and West Virginia account for approximately 85% of U.S. coal production; their approved state programs are the operational reality of SMCRA for most of the industry.

• 30 CFR Part 780 — Surface Mining Permit Applications: Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan (OSMRE, 22 sections): the federal floor requirements for what a surface coal mining permit application must contain — specifically the operations plan and reclamation plan components. No surface coal mining may begin until a permit has been approved; Part 780 sets the minimum information that state regulatory authorities must require in surface mining applications (states may require more). Key provisions:

  • § 780.11 — Operation plan: the application must describe the type and method of mining, anticipated annual and total coal production (by tonnage), major equipment, and how all facilities — impoundments, overburden storage, coal handling structures, and waste disposal areas — will be constructed, used, maintained, and removed after mining
  • § 780.13 — Blasting plan: each application must include a detailed blasting plan explaining how the operator will comply with SMCRA's explosive use standards (30 CFR §§ 816.61–816.68), including maximum single-delay charge weight, blast frequency, and measures to protect structures and groundwater in the permit area
  • § 780.16 — Fish and wildlife information: the application must include baseline fish and wildlife resource information for the permit area and adjacent area; OSMRE or the state determines scope in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies; for operations near threatened/endangered species habitat, this baseline drives mitigation requirements
  • § 780.18 — Reclamation plan: each application must contain a reclamation plan demonstrating compliance with SMCRA § 515 and the Part 816 performance standards — showing how the land will be graded to approximate original contour, how topsoil will be segregated and replaced, and how revegetation will achieve the designated postmining land use; the reclamation plan is the core environmental commitment of the permit
  • § 780.21 — Hydrologic information: comprehensive baseline water quality and quantity data for surface and groundwater in the permit and adjacent areas, including stream flow measurements, groundwater levels, and chemical analysis; this baseline is used to establish the pre-mining hydrologic baseline against which "material damage to the hydrologic balance" is measured during operation
  • § 780.22 — Geologic information: geologic data sufficient to assess probable hydrologic consequences and acid-forming potential of overburden; acid-forming materials that will be disturbed must be identified and the application must propose measures to prevent or treat acid mine drainage
  • § 780.25 — Siltation structures and impoundments: design plans for each proposed impoundment, dam, or embankment within the permit area, including geotechnical stability analyses and emergency spillway capacity calculations; impoundment failures have been among SMCRA's most serious incidents (Martin County, KY, 2000; Buffalo Creek, WV, 1972)
  • § 780.35 — Disposal of excess spoil: maps and cross-section drawings of proposed spoil disposal sites and structural designs; excess spoil fills must meet Part 816 stability requirements and be located outside stream channels to the extent possible
  • § 780.37 — Road systems: plans and drawings for all roads to be constructed, used, or maintained in the permit area — primary roads (used for coal transport or high-traffic) must meet stricter construction and drainage standards than ancillary roads

  Part 780 is the permit application gateway: it requires coal operators to demonstrate their environmental commitments before any disturbance occurs. The 81 FR 93330 (December 2016) Stream Protection Rule update significantly revised Part 780's hydrologic information requirements — but the SPR was repealed by the Congressional Review Act (82 FR 54949, February 2017), restoring the pre-SPR hydrologic baseline requirements.

• 30 CFR Part 784 — Underground Mining Permit Applications: Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan (OSMRE, 23 sections): the counterpart to Part 780 for underground coal mining permit applications. Underground mining permits must also include detailed operations and reclamation plans, but the substantive requirements reflect the distinct surface-impact profile of underground operations. Key provisions:

  • § 784.11 — Operation plan: description of mining method (room-and-pillar, longwall, shortwall), anticipated production, major equipment, and plans for all surface facilities — portals, preparation plants, refuse areas, impoundments, and underground transport systems
  • § 784.13 — Blasting plan: surface blasting associated with underground operations (shaft sinking, portal construction) must meet the same Part 816 standards applicable to surface mining; underground blasting is separately governed by MSHA mine safety regulations
  • § 784.16 — Fish and wildlife information: same baseline requirement as Part 780 § 780.16, adapted to the footprint of underground surface impacts
  • § 784.20 — Subsidence control plan: each application for underground mining must include a subsidence control plan — the distinctively underground-mining requirement absent from Part 780. The plan must identify the measures the operator will take to minimize subsidence effects on surface structures, lands, and water supplies; where longwall or other full-extraction methods are planned, the plan must address the predictable subsidence trough and provide for monitoring of surface structures within the subsidence zone
  • § 784.21 — Hydrologic information: same baseline requirements as Part 780, plus assessment of how underground voids and dewatering operations will affect regional groundwater systems — a particularly important issue for operations beneath municipal water supply aquifers or important springs
  • § 784.22 — Geologic information: same acid-forming overburden assessment plus information on subsidence-prone geologic features (faults, old workings, solution channels)
  • § 784.25 — Siltation structures and impoundments: surface refuse and impoundments associated with underground operations (particularly coal slurry impoundments at preparation plants) require the same design and stability documentation as surface mining impoundments

  Part 784's subsidence control plan requirement (§ 784.20) is the key regulatory distinction from Part 780 — it represents Congress's recognition that underground mining's surface impacts, while less extensive than surface mining, require prospective planning and monitoring. The 82 FR 54958 (November 2017) rulemaking updated both Parts 780 and 784 to restore pre-Stream Protection Rule requirements following the SPR's CRA repeal.

• 30 CFR Part 773 — Requirements for Permits and Permit Processing (OSMRE, 24 sections): the procedural regulations governing how surface coal mining permit applications are reviewed, how permit eligibility is determined, and under what circumstances permits may be suspended or rescinded. Part 773 is the gate between application (Parts 780/784) and authorization to mine. Key provisions:

  • § 773.4 — Requirement to obtain a permit: no person may engage in or carry out surface coal mining and reclamation operations without a permit; this absolute requirement has been in effect since 8 months after a state's permanent regulatory program was approved — there is no exemption for small operations, and pre-SMCRA operations must have obtained permits for any continuation after the program effective date

  • § 773.5 — Regulatory coordination: each state regulatory program must provide for coordinated permit review with other applicable laws — specifically NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act (NPDES permits), the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106 consultation), and the Farmland Protection Policy Act; regulatory authorities must identify permit overlaps and avoid duplicating requirements while ensuring all statutory obligations are satisfied; in practice, this means OSMRE and state coal permit applications must integrate NHPA Section 106 cultural resource review and ESA Section 7 consultation results into the permit decision

  • §§ 773.9–773.12 — Compliance history review and permit eligibility: before issuing any surface coal mining permit, the regulatory authority must review the applicant's compliance history using the Applicant Violator System (AVS) — a national database maintained by OSMRE tracking ownership and control relationships, outstanding violations, and unabated civil penalties for all surface coal mining operations. An applicant is ineligible for a permit if any surface coal mining operation they own or control has an unabated violation of SMCRA or an unpaid final civil penalty (§ 773.12). This "permit block" mechanism — often called the "bad actor" provision — prevents companies from abandoning a site with outstanding violations and simply opening a new operation elsewhere under a different entity; OSMRE has broad authority to look through corporate structures and find "ownership or control" relationships based on financial interest, operational control, or organizational affiliation

  • § 773.13 — Unanticipated events at remining sites: an exception to the permit eligibility bar applies for "remining" — operations that return to previously mined (but incompletely reclaimed) sites to extract remaining coal and incidentally improve reclamation. If an unabated violation at a remining site resulted from an unanticipated condition discovered after permits were issued and the operator is proceeding diligently to correct it, the regulatory authority may grant a provisional permit for continuation rather than triggering a permit block; this exception recognizes that legacy contamination at old mine sites often surfaces unexpectedly and that punishing operators for conditions they did not create may discourage beneficial remining

  • § 773.15 — Written findings for permit approval: the regulatory authority must make 16 affirmative written findings before approving any permit application, including findings that: the application is complete and accurate; the proposed operation will not affect the rights of present surface owners or their lessees; the operation will not adversely affect any publicly owned parks or historic sites; the proposed reclamation measures comply with performance standards; the operation will not interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on alluvial valley floors in arid and semiarid regions; and the applicant and operator are not ineligible under the compliance history review; the written findings requirement creates an administrative record that can be challenged in court — appellants frequently rely on regulatory failures to make required findings

  • § 773.16 — Performance bond submittal: if the application is approved, the permit is not issued until the applicant submits a performance bond in the approved amount (calculated under 30 CFR Part 800); the bond amount must reflect the full estimated cost of reclamation if OSMRE or the state must perform reclamation itself — a chronic underfunding issue, with many bonds set below actual reclamation costs based on industry pressure during the permitting process

  • §§ 773.21–773.23 — Suspension and rescission of improvidently issued permits: when the regulatory authority has reason to believe it improvidently issued a permit — because the applicant misrepresented material information, because the AVS review was incomplete, or because ownership/control information was not properly disclosed — it may suspend or rescind the permit after notice and an opportunity to respond; emergency suspension (without prior notice) is available when the permittee is causing imminent irreversible environmental harm; this power is used relatively rarely but serves as the correction mechanism for permits that should not have been issued

  • §§ 773.25–773.28 — Ownership or control challenges: operators who believe they have been improperly listed in AVS as owning or controlling a violating operation may formally challenge the listing; the challenge process places the burden of proof on the challenger to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the ownership or control finding is incorrect; the regulatory authority must respond within 60 days; this challenge mechanism is frequently used by companies that acquired operations through bankruptcy sales and claim they should not be held responsible for violations by prior owners

  Part 773's AVS-based permit block is the most operationally significant provision in coal mining compliance. It means that a mining company cannot simply walk away from a site with unresolved violations and seek a new permit elsewhere — the company's entire ownership and control network is screened. Major coal bankruptcies (Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, Foresight Energy, in the 2015–2017 wave) created intense litigation over the scope of Part 773's ownership or control rules: bankruptcy sales purporting to transfer operations "free and clear" of AVS liabilities were challenged by OSMRE and state agencies on the grounds that SMCRA compliance obligations do not pass through bankruptcy. Courts have generally upheld OSMRE's authority to find post-bankruptcy "ownership or control" and maintain permit block designations when the new owner exercises sufficient operational control over the old violating operations.

• 43 CFR Part 3460 — BLM Environment — Coal Land Unsuitability and Federal Lease Surface Management: the Bureau of Land Management's counterpart to OSMRE's 30 CFR Part 762 — the BLM regulations applying the SMCRA § 522 unsuitability criteria to federal lands subject to coal leasing, and governing surface management obligations on active federal coal leases. Part 3460 covers two distinct programs: (1) pre-leasing unsuitability assessments (Subpart 3461), and (2) in-operation surface use and compliance on leased federal lands (Subpart 3465). Key provisions:

  • § 3461.5 — Unsuitability criteria for federal coal lands: BLM applies the SMCRA § 522(b) unsuitability criteria during the land use planning (RMP) process, not through the individual petition process used in OSMRE's state-program framework; the criteria require that lands be assessed as unsuitable for all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining if they fall within protected land system categories (wilderness, wild rivers, national parks, national wildlife refuges, Class I and II airsheds, critical watershed), or if mining would destroy significant cultural or scientific values, irreparably damage renewable resource lands, or is inconsistent with federal resource protection mandates; the criteria apply only to coal that would be mined by methods involving surface disturbance — underground coal beneath these lands is not automatically affected
  • § 3461.2 — Unsuitability assessment through land use planning: unlike the petition-driven OSMRE process, BLM integrates the unsuitability assessment into its Resource Management Plan (RMP) cycle; each BLM field office with coal potential must assess which lands within the planning area meet the unsuitability criteria and designate them accordingly in the RMP; this means unsuitability determinations for federal coal are made on a landscape scale during planning, not parcel by parcel during individual lease applications; lands designated as unsuitable in an approved RMP are removed from the lease sale nomination pool
  • § 3461.3 — Application to leased vs. unleased lands: the unsuitability criteria apply to unleased federal lands before a lease is issued; for already-leased lands, the criteria generally do not apply retroactively — the lessee has existing legal rights under the lease that BLM cannot revoke through an unsuitability finding; this prospective-only application has significant practical effect given that large tracts of federal coal were leased before SMCRA's passage in 1977
  • § 3461.4 — Exploration: unsuitability designation does not prohibit coal exploration on federal lands — drilling, sampling, and seismic surveys may proceed even on lands designated unsuitable for mining; this parallel to OSMRE's Part 762 approach reflects the view that exploration is far less disruptive than mining and carries different risk profile
  • § 3465.1 — Surface use on active federal leases: operators mining federal coal must use only the surface area included in their approved Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2) — an approved operating plan that specifies exactly where infrastructure, roads, and disturbance will occur; surface disturbance outside the R2P2 boundary is a lease violation; this operates as a spatial constraint on mining operations that supplements OSMRE/state permit conditions
  • § 3465.2 — BLM inspections and noncompliance: BLM authorized officers may enter federal coal leases for inspection without advance notice or a warrant and must inspect at frequencies sufficient to verify compliance with lease terms and the R2P2; upon discovering noncompliance, BLM may issue a Notice of Noncompliance requiring correction within a specified period, or issue an Immediate Cessation Order when noncompliance poses an immediate threat of irreversible damage; failure to comply with a cessation order may trigger lease cancellation and financial penalties

  The dual OSMRE/BLM structure reflects SMCRA's split jurisdiction: OSMRE (Interior) administers SMCRA's permit and reclamation requirements for coal mines, while BLM (also Interior) administers the federal land management and leasing authority for the same coal deposits. For a mine on federal land, the operator must satisfy both: an OSMRE/state surface mining permit and BLM lease compliance. The unsuitability analysis is BLM's unique contribution — it operates earlier in the process (during RMP development) and at a broader geographic scale than OSMRE's individual-petition approach, potentially removing large swaths of federal coal from the leasing pool before any operator even nominates a tract for competitive sale. No major Part 3460 amendments since the 2001 comprehensive revision of BLM's coal management regulations.

• 30 CFR Part 735 — Grants for Program Development and Administration and Enforcement (24 sections): OSMRE's grant program funding state regulatory programs for surface coal mining and reclamation — the financial backbone of SMCRA's cooperative federalism model. Because SMCRA's primary governance model relies on state-run programs ("primacy"), states need federal grant funding to develop, operate, and enforce those programs. Part 735 establishes how OSMRE awards these development and administration grants:

  • § 735.1 — Scope: Part 735 covers three types of grants — (a) development grants (to help states create programs to obtain primacy); (b) administration and enforcement grants (ongoing funding for states that have received primacy to run their regulatory programs); and (c) grants for Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP) administration (helping small surface mining operators comply with permit application requirements, particularly with reclamation cost estimates and environmental data collection)
  • § 735.4 — Grant application: states apply annually; applications must include a work plan describing the regulatory activities to be funded, a budget, and documentation of state matching funds; OSMRE reviews applications for consistency with the state's approved program and SMCRA requirements
  • § 735.11 — State matching requirement: states must provide matching funds equal to at least 50% of the total grant amount; the federal share may not exceed 50% of total administrative and enforcement costs; states that cannot meet the matching requirement may request a waiver if matching capacity is limited by unusual circumstances, but OSMRE rarely grants waivers; the matching requirement ensures state financial commitment to program quality
  • § 735.17 — Allowable costs: grant funds may be used for personnel (regulatory staff, inspectors, enforcement attorneys), equipment and supplies, training, travel, and technical assistance; indirect costs are allowable up to the state's negotiated indirect cost rate; grant funds may not be used for lobbying, construction of permanent facilities, or program activities outside the approved work plan
  • § 735.24 — Audit requirements: states must maintain financial records supporting all grant expenditures and must submit to periodic federal audits; OSMRE's Inspector General may audit state grant programs; disallowed costs must be repaid to the federal government
  • § 735.25 — Grant termination: OSMRE may terminate a grant if the state fails to comply with grant conditions, misuses funds, or materially violates the terms of its approved primacy program; termination of the administration grant is a serious sanction that can effectively end a state's primacy, reverting regulatory authority to the federal program

  Part 735 grants are the lifeblood of state SMCRA programs. All 24 states with approved primacy programs receive Part 735 administration and enforcement grants annually; total grant funding has historically been around $100–120 million per year. State regulatory programs vary significantly in size — Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Wyoming (the major coal states) receive the largest grants, reflecting the scale of their active mining industries and the complexity of their regulatory tasks. OSMRE uses the grant administration relationship to ensure state programs remain consistent with SMCRA minimum standards — if a state's enforcement falls below federal standards, OSMRE can use grant conditions as a lever to require improvement before resorting to the more drastic step of withdrawing primacy.

• 30 CFR Part 725 — Reimbursements to States (21 sections): a transitional grant program that reimbursed states for the additional costs of enforcing SMCRA's initial performance standards in the early years of the Act, when states assumed enforcement responsibilities before their programs were fully funded. Unlike Part 735's ongoing administration grants, Part 725 was designed as a startup reimbursement mechanism — covering costs above the state's "base program" (what the state was already spending on mine regulation) incurred in administering and enforcing the new SMCRA performance standards:

  • § 725.11 — Eligibility: a state must have assumed responsibility for enforcing SMCRA performance standards to receive Part 725 reimbursement; the state must demonstrate that its costs exceed what it would have spent under its pre-SMCRA regulatory baseline — the "base program" is the state's existing mine regulatory expenditures before SMCRA took effect
  • § 725.12 — Coverage of grants: grants cover costs in excess of the base program for administering and enforcing the initial performance standards — incremental inspection staff, additional legal proceedings, new laboratory equipment, and other direct program costs attributable to SMCRA compliance; states cannot receive reimbursement for costs that were already funded under their prior regulatory programs
  • § 725.13 — Amount of grants: OSMRE may pay up to 100 percent of the incremental costs — unlike Part 735 administration grants (which require 50% state match), Part 725 reimbursements carried no mandatory matching requirement, reflecting the transitional burden on states newly implementing SMCRA
  • § 725.15 — Application procedures: state agencies must submit three copies of the grant application to OSMRE's Director; applications must include a detailed cost breakdown distinguishing reimbursable incremental costs from base program expenditures
  • § 725.18 — Reduction and termination: OSMRE may reduce or terminate a Part 725 grant if the agency fails to carry out its enforcement responsibilities, misuses grant funds, or violates the terms of the grant agreement; termination requires written notice and an opportunity to cure

  Part 725 is now largely a historical provision — the initial SMCRA implementation period has passed, and states with primacy operate under ongoing Part 735 administration grants rather than transitional reimbursements. The Part 725 framework remains in the Code as authority for OSMRE to reimburse states in any future period when new SMCRA performance standards create incremental state costs beyond their established base programs.

Pending Legislation

No standalone SMCRA reform bills have been introduced in the 119th Congress. Related mining and environmental provisions appear in broader legislation — see Federal Mining Law and EPA and Environmental Protection.

Recent Developments

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) provided $11.3 billion over 15 years for AML reclamation — the largest investment in mine cleanup in history. This funding is particularly significant for Appalachian communities where abandoned mine lands represent both environmental hazards and economic development barriers. The decline of the coal industry has created a tension: fewer tons of coal mined means less AML fee revenue, even as the backlog of unreclaimed sites remains enormous (estimated at $10+ billion in remaining need). OSMRE has also focused on the connection between AML reclamation and economic diversification — reclaimed mine sites — where operators must also comply with waste management standards under RCRA — can support renewable energy installations, industrial parks, recreational areas, and agricultural uses. The stream protection rule and its regulatory history have highlighted ongoing debates about the stringency of environmental standards for mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.

• In February 2026, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement rescinded its April 2024 "Ten-Day Notices and Corrective Action for State Regulatory Program Issues" rule, rolling back oversight mechanisms for state surface mining programs.