| Newest co-sponsors for the CWPA:
Tim Ryan (OH), Jerrold Nadler (NY) - 10/1/2007
Anthony Weiner, (NY), Bob Filner, (CA) 10/1/2007; Corrine Brown, (FL) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)- 10/4/2007;
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX),Carol Shea-Porter, (NH)
Stephen F. Lynch (MA) - 10/9/2007; Rep Daniel Lipinski (IL)- 10/15/2007; and Patrick J. Murphy (PA), John J. Hall (NY), and Joe Sestak, Joe (PA) - 10/18/2007.
Beth sez ( Once it has been accepted by OSM, you can find my comment by going to the 'Search for Documents' on the main navigation bar at regulations.gov and typing "8035fb14" in the 'Comment Tracking Number' field)
RE: RIN 1029-AC04
Dear Director Wahlquist:
I am writing to ask the Office of Surface Mining to eliminate its proposed rule regarding the stream buffer zone regulation. While I can support expanding the rule to encompass "waters of the United States" and have no problem with the agency's further regulation of the placement of excess spoil material and coal mine waste, the proposed clarification of the stream buffer zone rule forecloses litigation by those who oppose the destruction of our mountains through the process known as Mountaintop Removal (MTR). There must be a venue to challenge coal mining permits and operations when they seek to destroy the mountains. These activities are not integral to coal mining operations--they merely seek to maximize profits no matter what the cost to water quality, public health or Appalachian culture.
Congress, in passing SMCRA, stated unequivocally that the statutory purpose is to strike a balance between environmental protection and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy. This rule ignores the former in supporting the latter purpose. The statutory language and legislative history of SMCRA did not contemplate current MTR practices and required contour restoration except in a limited amount of cases. The industry has used this provision to escape the limitations that were supposed to be imposed.
The coal industry says that it is providing high paying jobs for local economies; however, the truth is that mountaintop removal uses 1/200th of the jobs that would be required by other still profitable ways of getting at this particular coal. While coal provides 50% of the electricity, the amount provided MTR is fall less. In fact, while the coal industry boasts of the economic development value of MTR, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of coal mined and the standard of living in the coal counties of Appalachia, where this rule is designed to promote MTR.
The buffer rule does not cripple the mining industry; it merely requires that the environment be protected in some small fashion. Please do not listen to threats that it would stop mining operations across the nation, an alarmist rhetoric developed to allow mine owners to continue its breaking the law. The industry should be required to mine coal in some other fashion, if it is indeed the fact, as stated in the agency's environmental impact statement, that there would be a 90 percent reduction in coal production in Appalachia if the stream buffer zone rule is interpreted to prohibit the placement of excess spoil placement or coal processing material in stream channels. While the industry uses this statement to support its contention that the rule should be eliminated, it actually points to the horribly destructive nature of its current practices which 90 percent of the time destroy our streams.
Congress enacted SMCRA to regulate surface coal mining operations, and SMCRA expressly requires OSM to balance environmental protection with our Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy. Please do so, rather than allowing the MTR operators to ignore the environment in their search for unreasonable profits.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
The NHA sez about Docket RIN 1029-AC04:
Stop the enviromentalists unwarranted lawsuits
Tell OSM to clarify the "Stream Buffer Zone Rule"
The National Mining Association (NMA) strongly urges you to sign and mail a letter to the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) supporting one of its recent proposed rules before November 23, 2007. OSM is proposing to clarify its "stream buffer zone" regulation. OSM needs to clarify this rule because environmentalists continue to file lawsuits in an attempt to shut down the coal mining industry based on vague regulatory language. OSM's proposal will put a stop to their unwarranted lawsuits.
Your support is critical, because if the OSM rule is not clarified and a court decides to interpret the rules the way the environmentalists want to, up to 90% of the mining industry in certain regions of the country could be shut down. Therefore, it is very important that you support this rule by sending a letter to the agency before November 23, 2007. A model letter is attached for your convenience.
You can also mail a letter, by clicking the printed letter option below, to the Office of Surface Mining at:
Brent Wahlquist
Director
Office of Surface Mining,
Reclamation and Enforcement
Administrative Record
Room 252 SIB
1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
"model" letter:
Brent Wahlquist
Director
Office of Surface Mining,
Reclamation and Enforcement
Administrative Record
Room 252 SIB
1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
RIN 1029-AC04-Proposed Rule on Stream Buffer Zone, Excess Spoil and Coal Mine Waste, 72 Fed. Reg. 48890 (Aug. 24, 2007)
Dear Director Wahlquist:
I am writing to support the Office of Surface Mining's proposed rule to clarify the stream buffer zone regulation. The proposed clarification of the stream buffer zone rule is necessary in order to put an end to the regulatory uncertainty and litigation spawned in recent years by opponents of coal mining. They have seized upon ambiguity in the language of the rule as a pretext for challenging coal mining permits and operations. They advocate reading the rule in a manner that would prohibit activities integral to coal mining operations within or nearby a stream. But the statutory language and legislative history of SMCRA clearly contemplate that various mining activities could and would be allowed to occur in these areas.
Coal production is critical to the energy supply and to the economy of the United States. More than 1 billion tons of coal is mined in the United States each year and is used to generate over 50 percent of the electricity in this country. Coal mining provides high paying jobs for local economies, infrastructure, as well as federal, state, and local taxes to support government services. These jobs and tax revenues provide enormous benefits to state and local economy by creating jobs and revenue for other businesses as well. Congress recognized the importance of coal in passing SMCRA by stating unequivocally that the statutory purpose is to strike a balance between environmental protection and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy.
OSM's proposal accomplishes its primary objective of clarifying the meaning of the existing rule. To apply it any other way would be nonsensical, and would cripple the mining industry. Misinterpretation of the buffer zone rule as applying to activities planned and designed to occur in stream channels would grind mining operations to a halt across the nation. The agency's environmental impact statement predicts a 90 percent reduction in coal production in Appalachia if the stream buffer zone rule is interpreted to prohibit the placement of excess spoil placement or coal processing material in stream channels. An interpretation prohibiting mining operations within 100 feet of a stream would also adversely affect coal mining operations in many other parts of the country by prohibiting other common and necessary mining activities such as mining through or diverting streams and creating stream crossings.
While the stream buffer zone rule clarification is necessary and appropriate, OSM needs to change two important aspects of the proposal. First, the agency should abandon its ill-advised expansion of the rule to "waters of the United States." The Supreme Court's decision last year in Rapanos v. United States confirms that the meaning of the term "waters of the United States" remains unsettled and confusing. Using an unsettled and confusing term such as "waters of the United States" would cause even greater uncertainty-exactly the opposite objective for a rule that is meant to clarify the existing regulatory framework. Therefore, the stream buffer zone rule should continue to apply only to perennial and intermittent streams.
Second, the proposal to regulate the placement of excess spoil material must return to its original objective and justification-spoil minimization in steep slope areas for operations that generate large quantities of excess spoil. SMCRA sets forth prescriptive criteria for the selection of suitable locations for excess spoil disposal. As written, the rules contain myriad requirements for a seemingly never-ending "alternatives analysis," and the proposed alternative analysis cannot be reconciled with the statutory standards for excess spoil placement related to stability, design, or configuration. Similar concerns exist with the proposed alternatives analysis for placement of coal mine waste. Since the alternatives analysis is not grounded in SMCRA, and instead appear to be a mixture of provisions borrowed from the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act, it needs to be removed.
Congress enacted SMCRA to regulate surface coal mining operations, and SMCRA expressly requires OSM to balance environmental protection with our Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy. Any rule must remain faithful to Congress' intent, which was to minimize disturbance to the extent possible, but not at the sacrifice of our Nation's energy supply.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. |
