wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
HHSF223200730236G, ERG Task No. 0193.16.001.001.
Dated: April 26, 2010. Leslie Kux, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2010–10078 Filed 4–29–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 780, 784, 816, and 817 RIN 1029–AC63
Stream Protection Rule; Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to analyze the effects of potential rule revisions under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act) to improve protection of streams from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations. We are requesting comments for the purpose of determining the scope of the EIS.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your electronic or written comments on June 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods, although we request that you use electronic mail if possible:
Electronic mail: Send your
comments to email@example.com.
Mail, hand-delivery, or courier:
Send your comments to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 252–SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., MS 202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone 202– 208–2866.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents
Why are we planning to revise our rules?
What is the proposed federal action?
How do I submit comments?
How do I request to participate as a
I. Why are we planning to revise our rules?
On December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75814– 75885), we published a final rule modifying the circumstances under which mining activities may be conducted in or near perennial or intermittent streams. That rule, which this document refers to as the 2008 rule, took effect January 12, 2009. A total of nine organizations challenged the validity of the rule in two complaints filed on December 22, 2008, and January 16, 2009 (amended complaint filed February 17, 2009): Coal River Mountain Watch, et al. v. Salazar, No. 08–2212 (D.D.C.) (‘‘Coal River’’) and National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Salazar, No. 09–115 (D.D.C.) (‘‘NPCA’’). Under the terms of a settlement agreement signed by the parties on March 19, 2010, we agreed to use best efforts to sign a proposed rule by February 28, 2011, and a final rule by June 29, 2012. We also agreed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, as appropriate, prior to signing the final action. On April 2, 2010, the court granted the parties’ motion to hold the judicial proceedings in abeyance.
However, we had already embarked on that course following the change of Administrations on January 20, 2009. On June 11, 2009, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) entered into a memorandum of understanding 1 (MOU) implementing an interagency action plan designed to significantly reduce the harmful environmental consequences of surface coal mining operations in six Appalachian states, while ensuring that future mining remains consistent with Federal law. Among other things, the MOU committed us to consider revisions to key provisions of our rules, including the 2008 rule and approximate original contour requirements, to better protect the environment and public health from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining.
Consequently, on November 30, 2009, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on ten potential rulemaking alternatives. See 74 FR
The MOU can be viewed online at http:// www.osmre.gov/resources/ref/mou/ ASCM061109.pdf. 1
62664–62668. In addition, consistent with the MOU, we invited the public to identify other rules that we should revise. We also announced our intent to prepare a supplement to the EIS developed in connection with the 2008 rule.
We received approximately 32,750 comments during the 30-day comment period that closed December 30, 2009. After evaluating those and other comments, we determined that development of a comprehensive stream protection rule (one that is much broader in scope than the 2008 rule) would be the most appropriate and effective method of achieving the goals set forth in the MOU and the ANPRM. We believe that this holistic approach will better protect streams and related environmental values. The broader scope of the stream protection rule means that we will need to prepare a new environmental impact statement rather than the supplement to the 2008 EIS that we originally intended to prepare.
II. What is the proposed federal action?
The proposed Federal action consists of revisions to various provisions of our rules to improve protection of streams from the impacts of surface coal mining operations nationwide. We do not believe that it would be fair, appropriate, or scientifically valid to apply the new protections only in central Appalachia, as some commenters on the ANPRM advocated. Streams are ecologically significant regardless of the region in which they are located. Principal elements of the proposed action include—
Adding more extensive and more
specific permit application requirements concerning baseline data on hydrology, geology, and aquatic biology; the determination of the probable hydrologic consequences of mining; and the hydrologic reclamation plan; as well as more specific requirements for the cumulative hydrologic impact assessment.
Defining the term ‘‘material damage
to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.’’ This term is critically important because, under section 510(b)(3) of SMCRA, the regulatory authority may not approve a permit application unless the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. This term includes streams downstream of the mining operation.
Revising the regulations governing
mining activities in or near streams, including mining through streams.
13:40 Apr 29, 2010