Bill Text: OH HR48 | 2011-2012 | 129th General Assembly | Comm Sub
Bill Title: To express opposition to the revocation of the 2008
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 8-0)
Status: (Passed) 2011-04-22 - Adopted [HR48 Detail]
Download: Ohio-2011-HR48-Comm_Sub.html
|
|
Representative Landis
Cosponsors:
Representatives Adams, J., Thompson, Carey, Blessing, Combs, Hackett, Mecklenborg
| To express opposition to the revocation of the 2008 | 1 |
| stream buffer zone rule and the implementation of | 2 |
| the environmental impact statement of the Office | 3 |
| of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement in | 4 |
| the United States Department of the Interior. | 5 |
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
| WHEREAS, From 2003 to 2008, the Office of Surface Mining, | 6 |
| Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSM) in the United States Department | 7 |
| of the Interior conducted a five-year review of its regulations | 8 |
| related to stream buffer zones and surface mining. The process | 9 |
| included public hearings, the submission of public comments, and | 10 |
| the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The process | 11 |
| culminated in final regulations that added significant new | 12 |
| environmental protections regarding the placement of excess spoil | 13 |
| and clarified OSM's regulations related to stream buffer zones | 14 |
| pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act | 15 |
| (SMCRA); and | 16 |
| WHEREAS, OSM's 2008 regulations were consistent with the | 17 |
| decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kentuckians | 18 |
| for the Commonwealth v. Rivenburgh, 317 F. 3d. 425, 443 (4th Cir. | 19 |
| 2003), in which the court held that it is "beyond dispute that | 20 |
| SMCRA recognizes the possibility of placing excess spoil material | 21 |
| in waters of the United States even though those materials do not | 22 |
| have a beneficial purpose." In addition, the regulations helped to | 23 |
| significantly reduce regulatory uncertainty brought on by earlier | 24 |
| litigation that questioned the meaning of OSM's stream buffer zone | 25 |
| rule and whether it prohibited valley fills in streams; and | 26 |
| WHEREAS, The Secretary of the Interior attempted to avoid a | 27 |
| public rulemaking process by asking a court to vacate the 2008 OSM | 28 |
| stream buffer zone rule without public comment as required under | 29 |
| the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the Secretary was | 30 |
| rebuked by a federal court in National Parks Conservation | 31 |
| Association v. Salazar, 660 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2009), | 32 |
| which ruled that the Secretary may not repeal the stream buffer | 33 |
| zone rule without following the statutory procedures for repealing | 34 |
| a rule, including public notice and comment; and | 35 |
| WHEREAS, On June 11, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior, the | 36 |
| Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Environmental | 37 |
| Protection Agency entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) | 38 |
| implementing an "interagency action plan." The plan was designed | 39 |
| to "significantly reduce the harmful environmental consequences of | 40 |
| surface mining coal mining in six Appalachian states...." In | 41 |
| addition, it suggested that coal mining jobs that would be | 42 |
| sacrificed should be replaced with "green" jobs promoted by the | 43 |
| MOU. OSM further committed in the MOU to consider revisions to the | 44 |
| 2008 stream buffer zone rule; and | 45 |
| WHEREAS, The Obama Administration admitted that before any | 46 |
| public comments were received on its proposals, it had "already | 47 |
| decided to change the [stream buffer zone] rule following the | 48 |
| change of Administrations on January 20, 2009." In addition, the | 49 |
| new rule is being called the "stream protection rule" and is much | 50 |
| broader in scope than the 2008 stream buffer zone rule; and | 51 |
| WHEREAS, OSM has not justified why a new "stream protection | 52 |
| rule" is necessary and has not explained the problem that it is | 53 |
| attempting to correct. These concerns have been echoed by the | 54 |
| Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which is an organization | 55 |
| that represents state mining regulators and has substantial | 56 |
| expertise in SMCRA regulation; and | 57 |
| WHEREAS, OSM is inappropriately rushing to complete the | 58 |
| rulemaking because it has committed to a self-imposed deadline of | 59 |
| February 28, 2011, to publish a proposed rule through a unilateral | 60 |
| settlement agreement with environmental groups. In addition, OSM | 61 |
| has limited public comment and participation by refusing to extend | 62 |
| the comment period on their advanced notice of proposed | 63 |
| rulemaking, by failing to adequately provide sufficient notice of | 64 |
| the alternatives being considered, and by conducting sham | 65 |
| "listening sessions" in which OSM has prohibited any public | 66 |
| speaking by those concerned about the rule; and | 67 |
| WHEREAS, The coal mining industry is critical to the economic | 68 |
| and social well-being of the citizens of Ohio, accounting for over | 69 |
| 51,950 high-wage jobs in the state, averaging over $62,600 a year, | 70 |
| and over $2.8 billion in labor income and adding $4.7 billion to | 71 |
| the gross domestic product; now therefore be it | 72 |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of | 73 |
| Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of | 74 |
| Ohio, express serious concern about the scope, the justification, | 75 |
| and the substance of OSM's stream protection rule and about the | 76 |
| procedures and processes that OSM has been using to implement the | 77 |
| rule; and be it further | 78 |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of | 79 |
| Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of | 80 |
| Ohio, strongly urge OSM to immediately suspend work on the | 81 |
| environmental impact statement and the stream protection rule | 82 |
| until OSM does all of the following: | 83 |
| (1) Clearly and publicly articulates why the 2008 stream | 84 |
| buffer zone rule has not been implemented and provide specific | 85 |
| details why OSM considers the rule to be insufficient; | 86 |
| (2) Provides scientific data and other objective information | 87 |
| to justify each provision of the new stream protection rule; | 88 |
| (3) Explains why OSM is contradicting its own annual state | 89 |
| inspection reports, which indicate good environmental performance | 90 |
| and refute the need for the new stream protection rule; and | 91 |
| (4) Justifies why a more limited approach using the 2008 | 92 |
| stream buffer zone rule would not achieve OSM's objectives; and be | 93 |
| it further | 94 |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of | 95 |
| Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of | 96 |
| Ohio, request the Governor and the members of the Ohio | 97 |
| Congressional delegation to oppose the unwarranted effort by OSM | 98 |
| to revoke the 2008 stream buffer zone rule and the implementation | 99 |
| of the environmental impact statement and to call upon the Obama | 100 |
| Administration to withhold funding for OSM until OSM justifies the | 101 |
| revocation of the rule as described above; and be it further | 102 |
| RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives | 103 |
| transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the | 104 |
| President of the United States, the Speaker and Clerk of the | 105 |
| United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore | 106 |
| and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Secretary of the | 107 |
| Interior, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the | 108 |
| Governor, and the news media of Ohio. | 109 |
