{ "id": "R44150", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44150", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458139, "date": "2017-01-11", "retrieved": "2017-01-13T15:41:33.551859", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": "On July 16, 2015, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of the Department of the Interior proposed a Stream Protection Rule that would revise regulations implementing Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Revised rules are intended to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of coal mining on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources by limiting the mining of coal in or through streams, placement of waste in streams and limiting the generation of mining waste. Some of the existing regulations that would be replaced by the proposed rule were promulgated more than 30 years ago. OSM asserts that updated rules, which have been under development since 2009, are needed to reflect current science, technology, and modern mining practices.\nThe proposal retained the core of existing rules in many respects, including the stream buffer zone rule. It requires that land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream shall not be disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of mining waste, unless the regulatory authority grants a variance that specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer to or through such a stream. The 2015 proposed rule, called the Stream Protection Rule, also included new requirements for baseline data collection to determine the impacts of proposed mining operations, more specificity on reclamation plans, and more specificity on measures to protect fish and wildlife.\nOSM estimated that the coal industry would incur annual compliance costs of $52 million under the proposal. These costs would be above baseline costs that would be incurred in the absence of the rule. Costs of the proposed rule were expected to consist of $45 million annually for surface coal mining operations and $7 million annually for underground mining operations. Nearly 46% of the expected compliance costs reflect new regulatory requirements on coal mining operations in Appalachian states. Of the increased costs in those states, OSM estimated that 72% are for costs to surface mining operations there\u2014or, 33% of the total cost of the rule. Other regions also are expected to experience operational costs, but impacts are anticipated to vary across mine type (e.g., surface or underground) and region. Because of data limitations, OSM could not quantify benefits of the proposal, but qualitatively, the agency said that the rule is expected to reduce the adverse impacts of coal mining on water resources and aquatic habitat.\nTo stakeholders, OSM\u2019s Stream Protection Rule raised a number of questions, including whether new regulations are needed; if so, whether benefits of the proposed rule justify the projected compliance and associated costs; and whether an alternative regulatory approach with greater benefits but also increased costs would better achieve SMCRA\u2019s purposes.\nConcern that OSM\u2019s efforts to develop a new rule would be costly and burdensome to the coal industry has led to strong congressional interest for some time. Oversight hearings have been held, and legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress to halt or re-direct OSM\u2019s initiatives, including H.R. 1644 (passed by the House January 12, 2016), S. 1458, and a provision of H.R. 2822. Mining industry groups were very critical of the costs of the proposal, while environmental groups that have generally supported strengthening SMCRA regulations contended that the rule should be stronger to provide more protection to streams. A number of states say that the rule would undermine state authority and that OSM failed to consult adequately with states during development of the rule.\nOSM issued the final revised Stream Protection Rule on December 19, 2016. Opposition by coal industry groups and some Members of Congress was immediate, and legislation to overturn the rule was introduced, including H.J.Res. 11 and H.J.Res. 16 in the 115th Congress. If the final rule were overturned by legislative or presidential action, the existing rules (i.e., the 1983 stream buffer zone rule) would remain in place, unless or until new rules or guidance were issued.\nThis report briefly describes SMCRA and the context for the 2015 proposed rule. It discusses major elements of the proposal and OSM\u2019s estimates of its costs and benefits. It describes congressional activity concerning the proposed rule and highlights key elements of the final rule, which was released on December 19, 2016.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44150", "sha1": "4131c1d58455678ff0150eb25eb01622c99b1f07", "filename": "files/20170111_R44150_4131c1d58455678ff0150eb25eb01622c99b1f07.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44150", "sha1": "aeb8ad15c32441ec3bdb6788400bda94f4aa8d86", "filename": "files/20170111_R44150_aeb8ad15c32441ec3bdb6788400bda94f4aa8d86.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4929, "name": "Water Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457198, "date": "2016-11-18", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:05:36.937829", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Proposed Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": "On July 16, 2015, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of the Department of the Interior announced a Stream Protection Rule that would revise regulations implementing Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The proposal is intended to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of coal mining on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources by limiting the mining of coal in or through streams, placement of waste in streams and limiting the generation of mining waste. Some of the regulations that would be replaced by the proposed rule were promulgated more than 30 years ago. OSM asserts that updated rules, which have been under development since 2009, are needed to reflect current science, technology, and modern mining practices.\nThe proposal retains the core of existing rules in many respects, including basic elements of the existing stream buffer zone rules. The buffer zone rules provide that no land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream shall be disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of mining waste, unless the regulatory authority grants a variance that specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer to or through such a stream. The 2015 proposed rule also includes elements to strengthen the current rules, such as new requirements for baseline data collection to determine the impacts of proposed mining operations, more specificity on reclamation plans, and more specificity on measures to protect fish and wildlife.\nOSM estimates that the coal industry would incur annual compliance costs of $52 million under the proposal. These costs would be above baseline costs that would be incurred in the absence of the rule. Costs of the proposed rule are expected to consist of $45 million annually for surface coal mining operations and $7 million annually for underground mining operations. Nearly 46% of the expected compliance costs reflect new regulatory requirements on coal mining operations in Appalachian states. Of the increased costs in those states, OSM estimates that 72% are for costs to surface mining operations there\u2014or, 33% of the total cost of the rule. Other regions also are expected to experience operational costs, but impacts are anticipated to vary across mine type (e.g., surface or underground) and region. Because of data limitations, OSM cannot quantify benefits of the proposal, but qualitatively, the agency says that the rule is expected to reduce the adverse impacts of coal mining on water resources and aquatic habitat.\nTo stakeholders, OSM\u2019s proposal has raised a number of questions, including whether new regulations are needed; if so, whether benefits of the proposed rule justify the projected compliance and associated costs; and whether an alternative regulatory approach with greater benefits but also increased costs would better achieve SMCRA\u2019s purposes.\nConcern that OSM\u2019s efforts to develop a new rule would be costly and burdensome to the coal industry has led to strong congressional interest for some time. Oversight hearings have been held, and legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress to halt or re-direct OSM\u2019s initiatives, including H.R. 1644, which the House passed January 12, 2016, S. 1458, and a provision of H.R. 2822. Mining industry groups have been very critical of the costs of the proposal, while environmental groups that have generally supported strengthening SMCRA regulations contend that the rule should be stronger to provide more protection to streams. A number of states say that the rule would undermine state authority and that OSM failed to consult adequately with states during development of the rule.\nOSM issued a final environmental impact statement for the rule on November 16, 2016. A final rule could be issued 30 days later. When promulgated, it will take effect in states with federal programs (currently Tennessee and Washington) 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. In primacy states (those with approved regulatory programs), implementation may take up to 42 months. If a final rule is not issued by the Obama Administration before the new administration takes office in January 2017, or if a final rule were overturned by legislative or presidential action in the 115th Congress, the current rules (i.e., the 1983 stream buffer zone rules) would remain in place, unless or until new rules or guidance were issued.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44150", "sha1": "f332f497c09b248870d6b544015c6cba8af0ad3f", "filename": "files/20161118_R44150_f332f497c09b248870d6b544015c6cba8af0ad3f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44150", "sha1": "dd5069befd25fdbffc64ae34d9443a1787280b3e", "filename": "files/20161118_R44150_dd5069befd25fdbffc64ae34d9443a1787280b3e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453431, "date": "2016-06-02", "retrieved": "2016-06-21T21:09:19.519819", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Proposed Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": "On July 16, 2015, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of the Department of the Interior announced a Stream Protection Rule that would revise regulations implementing Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The proposal is intended to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of coal mining on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources by limiting the mining of coal in or through streams, placement of waste in streams and limiting the generation of mining waste. Some of the regulations that would be replaced by the proposed rule were promulgated more than 30 years ago. OSM asserts that updated rules, which have been under development since 2009, are needed to reflect current science, technology, and modern mining practices.\nThe proposal retains the core of existing rules in many respects, including basic elements of the existing stream buffer zone rules. The buffer zone rules provide that no land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream shall be disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of mining waste, unless the regulatory authority grants a variance that specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer to or through such a stream. The 2015 proposed rule also includes elements to strengthen the current rules, such as new requirements for baseline data collection to determine the impacts of proposed mining operations, more specificity on reclamation plans, and more specificity on measures to protect fish and wildlife.\nOSM estimates that the coal industry would incur annual compliance costs of $52 million under the proposal. These costs would be above baseline costs that would be incurred in the absence of the rule. Costs of the proposed rule are expected to consist of $45 million annually for surface coal mining operations and $7 million annually for underground mining operations. Nearly 46% of the expected compliance costs reflect new regulatory requirements on coal mining operations in Appalachian states. Of the increased costs in those states, OSM estimates that 72% are for costs to surface mining operations there\u2014or, 33% of the total cost of the rule. Other regions also are expected to experience operational costs, but impacts are anticipated to vary across mine type (e.g., surface or underground) and region. Because of data limitations, OSM cannot quantify benefits of the proposal, but qualitatively, the agency says that the rule is expected to reduce the adverse impacts of coal mining on water resources and aquatic habitat.\nTo stakeholders, OSM\u2019s proposal raises a number of questions, including whether new regulations are needed; if so, whether benefits of the proposed rule justify the projected compliance and associated costs; and whether an alternative regulatory approach with greater benefits but also increased costs would better achieve SMCRA\u2019s purposes.\nConcern that OSM\u2019s efforts to develop a new rule would be costly and burdensome to the coal industry has led to strong congressional interest for some time. Oversight hearings have been held, and legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress to halt or re-direct OSM\u2019s initiatives, including H.R. 1644, which the House passed January 12, 2016, S. 1458, and a provision of H.R. 2822. Mining industry groups have been very critical of the costs of the proposal, while environmental groups that have generally supported strengthening SMCRA regulations contend that the rule should be stronger to provide more protection to streams. A number of states say that the rule would undermine state authority and that OSM failed to consult adequately with states during development of the rule.\nOSM submitted a final rule for interagency review on May 24. A final rule, when promulgated, will take effect in states with federal programs (currently Tennessee and Washington) 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. In primacy states (those with approved regulatory programs), implementation may take up to 42 months.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44150", "sha1": "00199f14952063d158c88911d76fb361a28a91bb", "filename": "files/20160602_R44150_00199f14952063d158c88911d76fb361a28a91bb.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44150", "sha1": "63a334d23ad36be2f2945db66440fc6f1ed12237", "filename": "files/20160602_R44150_63a334d23ad36be2f2945db66440fc6f1ed12237.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 449362, "date": "2016-02-01", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:21:05.574406", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Proposed Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": "On July 16, 2015, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of the Department of the Interior announced a Stream Protection Rule that would revise regulations implementing Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The proposal is intended to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of coal mining on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources by limiting the mining of coal in or through streams, placement of waste in streams and limiting the generation of mining waste. Some of the regulations that would be replaced by the proposed rule were promulgated more than 30 years ago. OSM asserts that updated rules, which have been under development since 2009, are needed to reflect current science, technology, and modern mining practices.\nThe proposal retains the core of existing rules in many respects, including basic elements of the existing stream buffer zone rules. The buffer zone rules provide that no land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream shall be disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of mining waste, unless the regulatory authority grants a variance that specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer to or through such a stream. The 2015 proposed rule also includes elements to strengthen the current rules, such as new requirements for baseline data collection to determine the impacts of proposed mining operations, more specificity on reclamation plans, and more specificity on measures to protect fish and wildlife.\nOSM estimates that the coal industry would incur annual compliance costs of $52 million under the proposal. These costs would be above baseline costs that would be incurred in the absence of the rule. Costs of the proposed rule are expected to consist of $45 million annually for surface coal mining operations and $7 million annually for underground mining operations. Nearly 46% of the expected compliance costs reflect new regulatory requirements on coal mining operations in Appalachian states. Of the increased costs in those states, OSM estimates that 72% are for costs to surface mining operations there\u2014or, 33% of the total cost of the rule. Other regions also are expected to experience operational costs, but impacts are anticipated to vary across mine type (e.g., surface or underground) and region. Because of data limitations, OSM cannot quantify benefits of the proposal, but qualitatively, the agency says that the rule is expected to reduce the adverse impacts of coal mining on water resources and aquatic habitat.\nTo stakeholders, OSM\u2019s proposal raises a number of questions, including whether new regulations are needed; if so, whether benefits of the proposed rule justify the projected compliance and associated costs; and whether an alternative regulatory approach with greater benefits but also increased costs would better achieve SMCRA\u2019s purposes.\nConcern that OSM\u2019s efforts to develop a new rule would be costly and burdensome to the coal industry has led to strong congressional interest for some time. Oversight hearings have been held, and legislation has been introduced to halt or re-direct OSM\u2019s initiatives, including H.R. 1644, which the House passed in January, S. 1458, and a provision of H.R. 2822 in the 114th Congress. Initial reactions to the proposed rule by stakeholder groups have varied. Mining industry groups have been very critical of the costs of the proposal, while environmental groups that have generally supported strengthening SMCRA regulations contend that the rule should be stronger to provide more protection to streams.\nThe proposed rule and supporting documents are open for public comment until October 26. The agency is holding public hearings on the proposal in several cities in September. A final Stream Protection Rule, when promulgated, will take effect in states with federal programs (currently Tennessee and Washington) 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. In primacy states (those with approved regulatory programs), implementation may take up to 42 months.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44150", "sha1": "cd72413f9f2754a64273e0753448a08670af0075", "filename": "files/20160201_R44150_cd72413f9f2754a64273e0753448a08670af0075.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44150", "sha1": "f0c2be8325f629c8abdde870e88c0277b7958f2e", "filename": "files/20160201_R44150_f0c2be8325f629c8abdde870e88c0277b7958f2e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810075/", "id": "R44150_2015Sep10", "date": "2015-09-10", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Proposed Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150910_R44150_4f9ca8aaa1a49c34f4989f2a048503649e813425.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150910_R44150_4f9ca8aaa1a49c34f4989f2a048503649e813425.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc815118/", "id": "R44150_2015Aug11", "date": "2015-08-11", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Office of Surface Mining\u2019s Proposed Stream Protection Rule: An Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150811_R44150_77c63382ae46cd4bffef7a9ff745213387f08d1c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150811_R44150_77c63382ae46cd4bffef7a9ff745213387f08d1c.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }