Mineral Resource Development – SMARA’s Forgotten Promise to the Industry
By: Warren Coalson
About 2 years back, I wrote a letter to the Director of the Department of Conservation complaining about the unequal enforcement of SMARA, noting that while the regulatory functions have been vigorously supported and are highly effective, mineral resource conservation has been all but forgotten. My letter asks for increased efforts to ensure continued access to the State’s aggregate resources and questions the benefit of the current mapping and classification effort because it does not encourage or facilitate access to classified resources; in fact, the opposite is true.
As an example, we are involved in two permitting efforts on lands classified as MRZ-2a, resources of demonstrated economic value. Both projects are highly controversial and are being challenged by community activist groups. The permitting process includes a detailed CEQA evaluation for both sites which evaluates a full suite of environmental subjects, including consideration for impacts to mineral resource availability.
The lead agency has developed a guideline for the consideration of impacts to mineral resources. This guideline is intended to evaluate a development project’s potential to eliminate access to areas of identified resources or to have a negative impact on the ongoing activities of a resource development site (e.g., quarry). The guideline also requires a finding of significance where a reduction in access to the resource would occur. Taken to the extreme, a significant unmitigable impact would occur if 100% of the classified resource is not extracted. Any project with the potential for significant unmitigated impacts, cannot be approved unless overriding socioeconomic findings are adopted.
Such is the case for our two sand projects. The lead agency has determined that the projects will have a significant unmitigated impact to mineral resources because they do not recover all of the in-place resources. This results in the need to prepare overriding CEQA findings and gives the approval body another reason to deny approval. However, to enable full recovery of the resources, multiple significant impacts to other areas of environmental concern would be realized. These projects seek to strike a balance between resource recovery and impacts to other sensitive values (e.g., biological resources, aesthetics, flood control, etc.).
With one minor exception, all sand resources consumed within the lead agency jurisdiction are imported from distant production sites and results in significant vehicle miles traveled to support construction material needs. If materials can be mined from local sources, the transportation requirement can be significantly reduced. Although I’m not trying to make an argument for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the point is obvious. Providing for locally produced resources would result in reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, wear and tear on roadways and material costs. It would also provide well-paying jobs for local residents.
The Department of Conservation has a responsibility to ensure wise use of our mineral resources. As the agency with responsibility for oversight and guidance of SMARA requirements, it is important that all of SMARA’s promises are implemented. Obtaining a permit for any type of mining project is a difficult undertaking. Instead of focusing on resource mapping, providing encouragement for locally produced resources would be a better use of time and would actually address SMARA’s promise to the industry – ensuring access to mineral resources (SMARA §2712(b). It makes absolutely no sense to truck materials over extended distances when those resources are available locally. The current policy of mapping resources has no value and should be discontinued unless additional steps are implemented to ensure access to these resources.