118:(EJ) concerns into consideration when taking regulatory and other actions, and pursuant to the EPA's own guidelines for implementing that order finalized in 1998, the impact statement had a section addressing EJ concerns. The EPA studied the demographics of 286 coal-producing counties and identified 44 that had significant minority or low-income populations; half of those were in Appalachia. The statement predicted that the rules would probably lead to a decrease in coal production, which would lead to a loss of jobs and with respect to minority-owned coal producers (e.g. Native American tribes) this would be a negative socio-economic effect. The Statement also offered predictions on the likely effects on public health and safety; biological resources, water resources, and air quality; topography and land use; and recreation in minority and low-income counties, and found that there were likely to be negligible to very beneficial effects in each of those aspects. The statement also addressed protections for cemeteries and sacred lands on tribal lands.
211:, that was prepared for the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. That draft regulatory impact analysis (RIA) outlined the costs of the new rules to the coal mining industry, and provided an overall cost-benefit analysis of the rules. The draft RIA found that "added administrative costs resulting from the rule are expected to be small for industry, adding on average about $ 0.01 per ton of coal mined", although cost in Appalachia would be expected to be up to $ 0.04 per ton. Cost for small operators were expected to be higher. The draft RIA cites SMCRA Section 507(c) to assist these operators. The draft RIA expected administrative cost for government to range from $ 1,830 to $ 2,546 per mine depending on the region. The draft RIA found that under the proposed rule, coal production would "decrease in aggregate by about 1.9 million tons annually, or approximately 0.2% compared with production expected under the baseline," reflecting mainly substitution of natural gas for coal by U.S. power plants.
224:
167:, and long-term treatment of unintentional water contamination. Expanding on permits, the rule also guarantees that science and technology are leveraged to analyze the potential harms of mining. It also ensured that lands that are harmed by mining operations can be restored to a condition comparable to its condition before the mining operation was introduced. During the restoration process companies would be required to plant native trees and vegetation. 30% of the rule's provisions were revisions and organizational changes that aimed to help "improve consistency, clarity, accuracy, and ease of use."
332:
In early
February 2017, Congress voted to use the Congressional Review Act to pass a "resolution of disapproval" to revoke the Stream Protection Rule. The resolution to repeal the bill passed in the House by a 228–194 vote and in the Senate by a vote of 54–45, largely on party lines, with Republicans
157:
as a source of energy." To achieve this, the rule included improvements in the protection of water supplies, water quality, streams, fish and other wildlife, and other environmental issues that are harmed by surface coal mining; furthermore, the rule provided mine operators with more regulations that
170:
Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Hon. Janice Schneider testified before a joint House committee hearing stating "Every reclamation practice contained in the proposed rule has been successfully implemented by a mine operator somewhere in the country." and that the rule was based
140:
requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service published its Programmatic Biological Opinion, and
102:
stated in the reasoning to the Stream
Protection Rule that previous rules were not developed with current science and have failed to prevent environmental harm. Current evidence has linked coal mining with loss in stream water quality and ecosystem health. State regulatory agencies have rarely
344:, the U.S. representative for Ohio's 6th congressional district and sponsor for the disapproval measure, stated, "Make no mistake about it, this Obama administration rule is not designed to protect streams. Instead, it was an effort to regulate the coal mining industry right out of business."
214:
The draft RIA also found that the rule would "reduce adverse impacts on the environment and human heath" and that the rule's stream restoration and reforestation provisions would result in an estimated "2,811 acres of forest improved annually and 20 acres of forest preserved annually."
162:
as well as water treatment costs. In addition to these guidelines, the rule also included eradicating water pollution outside of permit areas, requiring thorough data collection for mining operations, protection and restoration of streams, updated guidelines for protecting
50:
required changes to the regulations, which were issued in 2008. These regulations were in turn struck down by a judge after litigation by environmental groups. The new regulations, the Stream
Protection Rule, were issued in January 2017.
337:, the 27 representatives that sponsored or co-sponsored the review of the rules received nearly $ 500 million from mining interests in 2016. Trump signed H.J. Res 38 on February 16, 2017, overturning the Stream Protection Rule.
94:
required changes to the regulations, which were issued in 2008. Environmental groups challenged the new rules in court and in 2014 a federal court struck them down, and the Obama administration began working on new rules.
174:
The Stream
Protection Rule covered waterways near surface coal mining operations in order to avoid pollution of rivers and streams, and also called for the restoration of streams that had been damaged by dangerous, heavy
207:, entitled "The Office of Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule: An Overview." The report described the history of law, regulation, and litigation that had led to the new rules. The report also summarized a report,
352:
Subsequent to the revocation of the Stream
Protection Rule by the Trump administration, many scientists, when interviewed, said that it would have had an insignificant impact on the activities of coal companies.
645:"Memorandum of Understanding, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement Re. Improved ESA Coordination on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations"
368:, and analysts said that even if the Stream Protection Rule had made coal more expensive for them, it would not have had much of an effect on the industry; its revocation meant little to them as well.
504:
400:
90:(SMCRA), the focus of which were the conditions for issuing permits to begin a mining operation. The regulations had been issued in 1979, updated in 1983, and litigation over
187:. The Rule would have protected an estimated 6,000 miles of streams over the next two decades, by establishing that coal companies were in fact, not allowed to damage the "
1177:
141:
both agencies published a
Memorandum of Understanding that described how OSMRE was implementing the findings of the Opinion, on the same day the new rules were published.
243:, which allows Congress and the President to force federal agencies to retract regulations that they judge go beyond what the law requires. Senate Majority Leader
111:
1187:
1121:
918:
340:
When he signed the resolution repealing the rule, Trump predicted that striking down the rule would save thousands of U.S. mining-related jobs. Republican
87:
43:
553:
62:
candidates for federal office saying that they would strike the regulations down if they would be elected. In
February 2017, the Republican-controlled
98:
In a joint hearing in
December 2015, by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Subcommittee on the Interior, U.S. Representative
960:
126:
133:
35:
813:
371:
The revocation of these regulations left unclear what regulation would be used to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
1182:
745:
1049:
1197:
1192:
570:
195:
had also said that the rule would protect 52,000 acres of forests as a default of keeping coal mining debris away from nearby waters.
456:
1146:
832:
554:"Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Analyses"
59:
931:
487:
223:
322:
777:
341:
204:
137:
107:
478:
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Subcommittee on the Interior. December 8, 2015
318:
55:
1024:
672:
594:
334:
310:
1147:"Utilizing the Congressional Review Act, Congress Moves Quickly to Repeal Numerous Obama-era Environmental Regulations"
235:, had made reducing regulation, and especially environmental regulation, a key message in their campaigns in 2016, and
395:
894:
895:
H.J.Res.38 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.
878:
192:
91:
47:
475:
121:
The revised rules, which became known as the Stream Protection Rule, were published on December 20, 2016 by the
74:
signed the legislation, repealing the rule. This left the status of regulations implementing the SMCRA unclear.
240:
150:
122:
83:
67:
39:
191:
balance" outside their permit area and enforcing a 100-foot buffer around streams to preserve native species.
853:
720:
882:
251:
313:
met in 2017, controlled by Republicans in both houses, a coalition made up of 124 organizations, including
63:
227:
President-elect Trump's pro-coal mining stances promoted during a Republican campaign rally in Louisiana.
250:
When the Stream Protection Rule was published, it was immediately challenged in court by the Republican
115:
643:
U.S. Directors of Fish and Wildlife Services and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
505:"GOODBYE, STREAM PROTECTION RULE: THE CHOICE BETWEEN PROTECTING THE COAL INDUSTRY OR NATURAL RESOURCES"
239:
had issued a plan called "Better Way" that laid out methods to reduce regulation, including use of the
390:
46:(SMCRA). The original regulations had been issued in 1979 and were updated in 1983. Litigation over
164:
149:
Following the law being implemented, the Stream Protection Rule aimed to create "balance between
1000:
978:
619:
1102:
1094:
785:
180:
1086:
419:
385:
365:
17:
1074:
700:
42:
that went into effect on January 19, 2017. These regulations implement Title V of the 1977
380:
357:
244:
203:
On January 11, 2017, a report for members and committees of Congress was published by the
159:
99:
1150:
1001:"Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams"
773:
422:
536:
1171:
644:
299:
255:
232:
71:
1050:"House GOP dismantles Obama regulation protecting streams from coal mining debris"
326:
106:
In July 2015 as part of the development of the new rules, OSMRE published a draft
1090:
361:
247:
had also claimed that the rule would decrease the number of coal-related jobs.
906:
314:
70:, passed a bill (a "resolution of disapproval") to revoke the rule. President
1098:
789:
236:
188:
1106:
909:, Office of the Clerk of the House, United States House of Representatives.
283:
279:
271:
267:
132:
Part of the work that led to the new rules was a collaboration with the
303:
287:
275:
259:
184:
103:
enacted policy to regulate impact on streams outside of mining sites.
263:
457:"The Office of Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule: An Overview"
848:
846:
542:. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. July 2015.
291:
222:
176:
82:
The Stream Protection Rule updated the regulations issued by the
961:"Trump Signs Measure Blocking Obama-Era Rule to Protect Streams"
565:
563:
488:"Study: Coal Mining Reduces Abundance, Richness of Aquatic Life"
329:, sent an open letter urging Congress not to overturn the Rule.
295:
154:
114:
issued by Bill Clinton, which required federal agencies to take
571:"Republicans take aim at Obama's Stream Protection Rule policy"
333:
voting in favor and Democrats voting against. According to the
537:"Draft: Stream Protection Rule Environmental Impact Statement"
209:
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Stream Protection Rule
919:
Vote Summary: Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 38)
814:"Senate Votes to Reverse Obama-Era Coal Rule, Sends to Trump"
778:"Republicans Move to Block Rule on Coal Mining Near Streams"
1122:"Will Undoing The Stream Protection Rule Really Help Coal?"
360:
had generally reduced its use of coal in favor of cheaper
833:"How Republicans Will Try to Roll Back Obama Regulations"
401:
Drinking water supply and sanitation in the United States
932:"Congress is set to overturn the Stream Protection Rule"
746:"Congress is set to overturn the Stream Protection Rule"
1075:"Demise of stream rule won't revitalize coal industry"
981:. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
921:, 115th Ogress, Secretary of the United States Senate.
254:
of several states, as well as the coal mining company
812:
Natter, Ari; Traywick, Catherine (2 February 2017).
123:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
84:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
40:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
462:. Congressional Research Service. January 11, 2017.
1025:"Trump Inks Revocation Of Stream Protection Rule"
715:
713:
879:13 Coal States Sue USA to Block Clean Water Rule
807:
805:
768:
766:
8:
954:
952:
129:. and became effective on January 19, 2017.
938:. Center for American Progress. 2017-01-31
88:Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
44:Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
1178:Environmental policy in the United States
531:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
451:
449:
447:
445:
443:
86:(OSMRE) to implement Title V of the 1977
27:Repealed United States federal regulation
127:United States Department of the Interior
411:
306:, all of which are coal-mining states.
258:. The states challenging the bill were
134:United States Fish and Wildlife Service
831:Huetteman, Emmarie (30 January 2017).
877:Daniel W. Staples & Ryan Kocian,
695:
693:
667:
665:
663:
661:
7:
1188:Water pollution in the United States
476:Examining the Stream Protection Rule
471:
469:
1145:Anderson, John (February 6, 2017).
907:FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 73
701:"Stream Protection Rule Fact Sheet"
620:"Building a Stream Protection Rule"
494:. 2018-04-18. Retrieved 2019-04-10.
110:about the new rules. Pursuant to
25:
854:"Goodbye, Stream Protection Rule"
721:"Goodbye, Stream Protection Rule"
959:Natter, Ari (16 February 2017).
1073:Cornwall, Warren (2017-02-17).
323:Center for Biological Diversity
1149:. Nossaman LLP. Archived from
205:Congressional Research Service
108:Environmental Impact Statement
1:
1091:10.1126/science.355.6326.674
335:Center for American Progress
199:Expected effects and impacts
18:User:Ilonamantachian/sandbox
1183:Mining in the United States
999:Plumer, Brad (2017-02-02).
396:Waters of the United States
319:National Women's Law Center
171:on industry best practice.
1214:
1198:Presidency of Donald Trump
1193:Presidency of Barack Obama
219:Challenges and overturning
153:and the nation's need for
92:mountaintop removal mining
48:mountaintop removal mining
435:Bluefield Daily Telegraph
54:They were a topic in the
38:regulation issued by the
1048:services, Tribune news.
979:"Stream Protection Rule"
673:"Stream Protection Rule"
595:"Stream Protection Rule"
241:Congressional Review Act
151:environmental protection
68:Congressional Review Act
883:Courthouse News Service
364:and to a lesser extent
252:state attorneys general
231:Republicans, including
193:The Interior Department
509:Wake Forest Law Review
503:Mayes, Morgan (2018).
228:
32:Stream Protection Rule
556:. US EPA. April 1998.
348:Effects of revocation
226:
116:environmental justice
112:Executive Order 12898
36:United States federal
575:The Washington Times
437:(February 17, 2017).
391:Plant Protection Act
885:(January 19, 2017).
1120:Silverstein, Ken.
1054:chicagotribune.com
837:The New York Times
782:The New York Times
229:
165:endangered species
1085:(6326): 674–675.
356:Moreover, the US
158:would help avoid
16:(Redirected from
1205:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1158:
1153:on April 7, 2019
1142:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1132:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1070:
1064:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1045:
1039:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1021:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1011:
996:
990:
989:
987:
986:
975:
969:
968:
956:
947:
946:
944:
943:
928:
922:
916:
910:
904:
898:
892:
886:
875:
869:
868:
866:
865:
850:
841:
840:
828:
822:
821:
809:
800:
799:
797:
796:
770:
761:
760:
758:
757:
742:
736:
735:
733:
732:
717:
708:
707:
705:
697:
688:
687:
685:
684:
677:Federal Register
669:
656:
655:
649:
640:
634:
633:
631:
630:
616:
610:
609:
607:
606:
599:Federal Register
591:
585:
584:
582:
581:
567:
558:
557:
550:
544:
543:
541:
533:
516:
501:
495:
485:
479:
473:
464:
463:
461:
453:
438:
431:
425:
416:
386:Clean Water Rule
311:the new Congress
21:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1156:
1154:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1130:
1128:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1058:
1056:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1033:
1031:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1009:
1007:
998:
997:
993:
984:
982:
977:
976:
972:
958:
957:
950:
941:
939:
930:
929:
925:
917:
913:
905:
901:
897:, Congress.gov.
893:
889:
876:
872:
863:
861:
852:
851:
844:
830:
829:
825:
811:
810:
803:
794:
792:
774:Tabuchi, Hiroko
772:
771:
764:
755:
753:
744:
743:
739:
730:
728:
719:
718:
711:
703:
699:
698:
691:
682:
680:
671:
670:
659:
647:
642:
641:
637:
628:
626:
618:
617:
613:
604:
602:
593:
592:
588:
579:
577:
569:
568:
561:
552:
551:
547:
539:
535:
534:
519:
502:
498:
486:
482:
474:
467:
459:
455:
454:
441:
433:Greg Jordan, ,
432:
428:
417:
413:
409:
381:Clean Water Act
377:
358:energy industry
350:
245:Mitch McConnell
221:
201:
160:water pollution
147:
100:Brenda Lawrence
80:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1211:
1209:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1137:
1112:
1065:
1040:
1016:
991:
970:
965:Bloomberg News
948:
923:
911:
899:
887:
870:
842:
823:
818:Bloomberg News
801:
776:(2017-02-02).
762:
737:
709:
689:
657:
635:
611:
586:
559:
545:
517:
496:
480:
465:
439:
426:
410:
408:
405:
404:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
376:
373:
349:
346:
220:
217:
200:
197:
146:
143:
79:
76:
66:, through the
56:2016 elections
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1210:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1152:
1148:
1141:
1138:
1127:
1123:
1116:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1069:
1066:
1055:
1051:
1044:
1041:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1006:
1002:
995:
992:
980:
974:
971:
966:
962:
955:
953:
949:
937:
936:ThinkProgress
933:
927:
924:
920:
915:
912:
908:
903:
900:
896:
891:
888:
884:
880:
874:
871:
859:
855:
849:
847:
843:
838:
834:
827:
824:
819:
815:
808:
806:
802:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
769:
767:
763:
751:
750:ThinkProgress
747:
741:
738:
726:
722:
716:
714:
710:
702:
696:
694:
690:
678:
674:
668:
666:
664:
662:
658:
653:
646:
639:
636:
625:
624:www.osmre.gov
621:
615:
612:
600:
596:
590:
587:
576:
572:
566:
564:
560:
555:
549:
546:
538:
532:
530:
528:
526:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
500:
497:
493:
489:
484:
481:
477:
472:
470:
466:
458:
452:
450:
448:
446:
444:
440:
436:
430:
427:
424:
421:
415:
412:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
378:
374:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
354:
347:
345:
343:
338:
336:
330:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
307:
305:
301:
300:West Virginia
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:Murray Energy
253:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
225:
218:
216:
212:
210:
206:
198:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
172:
168:
166:
161:
156:
152:
144:
142:
139:
135:
130:
128:
124:
119:
117:
113:
109:
104:
101:
96:
93:
89:
85:
77:
75:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
52:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
1155:. Retrieved
1151:the original
1140:
1129:. Retrieved
1125:
1115:
1082:
1078:
1068:
1057:. Retrieved
1053:
1043:
1032:. Retrieved
1028:
1019:
1008:. Retrieved
1004:
994:
983:. Retrieved
973:
964:
940:. Retrieved
935:
926:
914:
902:
890:
873:
862:. Retrieved
860:. 2017-02-01
857:
836:
826:
817:
793:. Retrieved
781:
754:. Retrieved
752:. 2017-01-31
749:
740:
729:. Retrieved
727:. 2017-02-01
724:
681:. Retrieved
679:. 2016-12-20
676:
651:
638:
627:. Retrieved
623:
614:
603:. Retrieved
601:. 2016-12-20
598:
589:
578:. Retrieved
574:
548:
512:
508:
499:
491:
483:
434:
429:
414:
370:
355:
351:
342:Bill Johnson
339:
331:
308:
249:
233:Donald Trump
230:
213:
208:
202:
173:
169:
148:
131:
120:
105:
97:
81:
72:Donald Trump
53:
31:
29:
858:Sierra Club
725:Sierra Club
362:natural gas
1172:Categories
1131:2017-03-01
1059:2017-03-23
1034:2017-03-02
1010:2017-02-28
985:2017-03-15
942:2017-03-16
864:2017-03-15
795:2017-03-23
756:2017-03-16
731:2017-03-16
683:2017-03-17
629:2017-03-01
605:2017-03-01
580:2017-03-23
515:: 767–786.
407:References
366:renewables
315:Greenpeace
189:hydrologic
145:Provisions
60:Republican
1157:April 22,
1099:0036-8075
790:0362-4331
652:osmre.gov
237:Paul Ryan
125:, of the
1107:28209847
375:See also
325:and the
284:Missouri
280:Kentucky
272:Colorado
268:Arkansas
64:Congress
1079:Science
327:AFL–CIO
304:Wyoming
288:Montana
276:Indiana
260:Alabama
185:arsenic
181:mercury
78:History
58:, with
1126:Forbes
1105:
1097:
1029:Law360
788:
321:, the
317:, the
264:Alaska
177:metals
136:; the
34:was a
704:(PDF)
648:(PDF)
540:(PDF)
460:(PDF)
423:93066
309:When
292:Texas
179:like
1159:2017
1103:PMID
1095:ISSN
786:ISSN
492:News
302:and
296:Utah
183:and
155:coal
30:The
1087:doi
1083:355
1005:Vox
418:81
138:ESA
1174::
1124:.
1101:.
1093:.
1081:.
1077:.
1052:.
1027:.
1003:.
963:.
951:^
934:.
881:,
856:.
845:^
835:.
816:.
804:^
784:.
780:.
765:^
748:.
723:.
712:^
692:^
675:.
660:^
650:.
622:.
597:.
573:.
562:^
520:^
513:53
511:.
507:.
490:.
468:^
442:^
420:FR
298:,
294:,
290:,
286:,
282:,
278:,
274:,
270:,
266:,
262:,
1161:.
1134:.
1109:.
1089::
1062:.
1037:.
1013:.
988:.
967:.
945:.
867:.
839:.
820:.
798:.
759:.
734:.
706:.
686:.
654:.
632:.
608:.
583:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.