|
The online versions of legislation provided on this website are not official. Enrolled bills are the final version passed by the Ohio General Assembly and presented to the Governor for signature. The official version of acts signed by the Governor are available from the Secretary of State's Office in the Continental Plaza, 180 East Broad St., Columbus.
|
Am. H. R. No. 48 As Re-Reported by the House Rules and Reference CommitteeAs Re-Reported by the House Rules and Reference Committee
| 129th General Assembly | | Regular Session | | 2011-2012 |
| |
Cosponsors:
Representatives Adams, J., Thompson, Carey, Blessing, Combs, Hackett, Mecklenborg
A RESOLUTION | To express opposition to the revocation of the 2008
stream buffer zone rule and the implementation of
the environmental impact statement of the Office
of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement in
the United States Department of the Interior.
|
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
| WHEREAS, From 2003 to 2008, the Office of Surface Mining,
Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSM) in the United States Department
of the Interior conducted a five-year review of its regulations
related to stream buffer zones and surface mining. The process
included public hearings, the submission of public comments, and
the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The process
culminated in final regulations that added significant new
environmental protections regarding the placement of excess spoil
and clarified OSM's regulations related to stream buffer zones
pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA); and |
| WHEREAS, OSM's 2008 regulations were consistent with the
decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kentuckians
for the Commonwealth v. Rivenburgh, 317 F. 3d. 425, 443 (4th Cir.
2003), in which the court held that it is "beyond dispute that
SMCRA recognizes the possibility of placing excess spoil material
in waters of the United States even though those materials do not
have a beneficial purpose." In addition, the regulations helped to
significantly reduce regulatory uncertainty brought on by earlier
litigation that questioned the meaning of OSM's stream buffer zone
rule and whether it prohibited valley fills in streams; and |
| WHEREAS, The Secretary of the Interior attempted to avoid a
public rulemaking process by asking a court to vacate the 2008 OSM
stream buffer zone rule without public comment as required under
the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the Secretary was
rebuked by a federal court in National Parks Conservation
Association v. Salazar, 660 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2009),
which ruled that the Secretary may not repeal the stream buffer
zone rule without following the statutory procedures for repealing
a rule, including public notice and comment; and |
| WHEREAS, On June 11, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
implementing an "interagency action plan." The plan was designed
to "significantly reduce the harmful environmental consequences of
surface mining coal mining in six Appalachian states...." In
addition, it suggested that coal mining jobs that would be
sacrificed should be replaced with "green" jobs promoted by the
MOU. OSM further committed in the MOU to consider revisions to the
2008 stream buffer zone rule; and |
| WHEREAS, The Obama Administration admitted that before any
public comments were received on its proposals, it had "already
decided to change the [stream buffer zone] rule following the
change of Administrations on January 20, 2009." In addition, the
new rule is being called the "stream protection rule" and is much
broader in scope than the 2008 stream buffer zone rule; and |
| WHEREAS, OSM has not justified why a new "stream protection
rule" is necessary and has not explained the problem that it is
attempting to correct. These concerns have been echoed by the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which is an organization
that represents state mining regulators and has substantial
expertise in SMCRA regulation; and |
| WHEREAS, OSM is inappropriately rushing to complete the
rulemaking because it has committed to a self-imposed deadline of
February 28, 2011, to publish a proposed rule through a unilateral
settlement agreement with environmental groups. In addition, OSM
has limited public comment and participation by refusing to extend
the comment period on their advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, by failing to adequately provide sufficient notice of
the alternatives being considered, and by conducting sham
"listening sessions" in which OSM has prohibited any public
speaking by those concerned about the rule; and |
| WHEREAS, The coal mining industry is critical to the economic
and social well-being of the citizens of Ohio, accounting for over
51,950 high-wage jobs in the state, averaging over $62,600 a year,
and over $2.8 billion in labor income and adding $4.7 billion to
the gross domestic product; now therefore be it |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of
Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of
Ohio, express serious concern about the scope, the justification,
and the substance of OSM's stream protection rule and about the
procedures and processes that OSM has been using to implement the
rule; and be it further |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of
Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of
Ohio, strongly urge OSM to immediately suspend work on the
environmental impact statement and the stream protection rule
until OSM does all of the following: |
| (1) Clearly and publicly articulates why the 2008 stream
buffer zone rule has not been implemented and provide specific
details why OSM considers the rule to be insufficient; |
| (2) Provides scientific data and other objective information
to justify each provision of the new stream protection rule; |
| (3) Explains why OSM is contradicting its own annual state
inspection reports, which indicate good environmental performance
and refute the need for the new stream protection rule; and |
| (4) Justifies why a more limited approach using the 2008
stream buffer zone rule would not achieve OSM's objectives; and be
it further |
| RESOLVED, That we, the members of the House of
Representatives of the 129th General Assembly of the State of
Ohio, request the Governor and the members of the Ohio
Congressional delegation to oppose the unwarranted effort by OSM
to revoke the 2008 stream buffer zone rule and the implementation
of the environmental impact statement and to call upon the Obama
Administration to withhold funding for OSM until OSM justifies the
revocation of the rule as described above; and be it further |
| RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives
transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the
President of the United States, the Speaker and Clerk of the
United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore
and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Secretary of the
Interior, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the
Governor, and the news media of Ohio. |
|
|
