Coal-mining states and their regulatory agencies are starting a fight against efforts by the Obama administration to increase its oversight of how those states police strip-mining.
Last week, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission issued a letter blasting the OSMRE plan, saying it would “seriously encroach upon and likely erode” the rights of states to regulate strip-mining within their borders under the 1977 strip mining law.
I’ve posted a copy of the letter here, and OSMRE has more information on its proposals here. Interestingly, OSMRE just announced on Tuesday — not long after the commission letter — that it would extend the public comment period on its proposals for increased oversight of state regulatory programs.
This will be a big test for OSMRE Director Joe Pizarchik — will he stand up to the states and continue this increased oversight plan? Remember that citizen groups opposed Pizarchik’s confirmation to the OSMRE job, but that he recently promised to take steps to reduce the impacts of mining on the environment and on coalfield communities. See previous posts here, here and here.
Perhaps even more importantly, it’s a big test for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the White House. Note that Greg Conrad, director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, addressed his letter of complaint not directly to Pizarchik — but over Pizarchik’s head, to Salazar and to Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. If the group wanted to play nice, why didn’t it just submit this letter as part of the public comment period, instead of raising the stakes?
Are Salazar, Sutley and President Obama serious about the administration’s promise to take unprecedented steps to minimize the impacts of strip mining?
If so, coalfield citizens and most experts on the problems caused by strip mining agree that a key step is to revitalize OSMRE, an agency that has never, ever lived up to its promise.
But this plan for increased oversight of state programs like West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection has certainly rubbed the Interstate Mining Compact Commission the wrong way. What is this group anyway, you ask? Well, the IMCC describes itself this way:
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission is a multi-state governmental agency / organization that represents the natural resource interests of its member states. First envisioned in 1964, the Commission came into existence in 1970 with the entry of its first four states. Since that time, 19 additional states have enacted legislation bringing them into the Compact, and 5 additional states have become associate members as they pursue enactment of legislation which will make them full members. The Commission established its headquarters in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. in 1988. The states are officially represented by their Governors who serve as Commissioners. The Commission operates through several committees composed of duly appointed representatives of the Governors from their respective Departments of Natural Resources or Environmental Protection.
Among other things, the IMCC objects to the notion that OSMRE will begin conducting its own inspections of active mining sites, without first warning state officials about the inspection and giving them the chance to come along. But the IMCC just basically wants OSMRE to leave states alone, saying:
Given the scope of the ‘oversight improvement’ initiative, it also appears to be based on a false assumption that states are not adequately regulating the coal mining industry nationwide. Nothing could be further from the truth.
OK … you have to wonder if the IMCC ever got a copy of the federal government’s programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Mountaintop Mining/Valley fills.
Anyway, the IMCC also demands:
Before proceeding with this ill-fated initiative, we believe that the administration should seriously revisit the need for these actions in light of the effectiveness of the existing oversight process. If you choose to continue moving forward, we request that you provide a detailed basis for doing so.
Stay tuned …
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » Coal states oppose increased OSMRE oversight blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached Coal-mining states and their regulatory agencies are starting a fight against efforts by the Obama administration to increase its oversight of how those states police strip-mining. [...]
Ken and others,
OSMRE had decided to extend the comment period from 30 to 60 days nearly several weeks ago since comments were only trickling in (and it was the holiday season. (Besides, many federal employees take vacation during the last two weeks of the years — to use up their 6 weeks of annual leave — so nothing happens then anways.)
The IMCC makes some good points in its letter to Interior Secretary Salazar, especially so, the lack of provided basis for needing to make changes.
Understandably, the IMCC letter includes an except from the infamous Watson letter that greatly binds OSMRE oversight of state activities. That entire Watson letter can be seen here:
http://groups.google.com/group/bob-mooney/web/watson-letter-10-21-05
The results of such binding can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_FYM2Y4AR4
—-
The present OSMRE oversight policy was implemented in 1996 in accordance with its Directive REG-8 that has not been substantively changed since it was created after a nearly two year effort under the Clinton Administration.
In my view — and in the views of many within OSMRE, see: http://groups.google.com/group/bob-mooney/web/osm-employee-survey-2009 — Directive REG-8 itself is not the problem. The PROBLEM is that OSMRE does nothing meaningful with its oversight findings — non-compliances languish for decades and exceptional performances by states are given recognition.
It needs to be noted that Joe Pizarchik will be the first confirmed OSMRE director that is unable to bring in a chief of staff from outside the agency. Other OSMRE directors had a political appointee position available to them for such a necessary person — someone to protect their backsides and to assure things got done. (This is how Tom Shope got his start in OSMRE.)
Joe was planning on bringing in such a person next month, but he has been told that all the limited number of political appointment positions for the Interior Department have already been used.
(This is reflective of the priority being given to OSMRE.)
Ken,
Would it not be more fair and balanced if an occasional picture of successful, mature coal mine reclamation was shown rather than the only-an-engineer could love, uglier, active coal mining operations pictures? After all that is typically the final product, is it not?
December 18, 2009
Mining industry fears federal review of state-issued permits
‘Absolutely no justification for it’
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_61a452eb-138d-56b8-af87-5faf0d0fafab.html
U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and six other GOP senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama this week criticizing what they claim is a “decision to review all state-issued coal permits.”
“States have been regulating coal for decades — but now the Obama Administration has announced another decision to exert even more control over our ability to manage our resources,” Barrasso said in a prepared statement. (Continued)
—-
The letter:
http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/12_16_09_SMCRA_Lttr.pdf
2010 regulatory grants
http://www.redesign.osmre.gov/resources/newsroom/News/Archive/2009/122209.pdf (page wouldn’t open)
This is a joke — in Fiscal Year 2009, quite a few states — including Kentucky — turned back in some of their regulatory grant allocations because they did not have sufficient state funds to match it. This was so even though such matches are dollar-per-dollar or, in one state, it could not come up with $1 to $6 ratio for allof its federal funding.
December 23, 2009
OSM increases size of mining aid to states
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal-mining-regulation-aid-grows1223,0,5675536.story
(Excerpt)
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement said Wednesday it’s providing $68 million this year, up from $60 million. Recipients can use the money to cover half the cost of issuing mining permits, inspecting mines and enforcement.
The bulk of the money is going to big coal-producing states. OSM says Kentucky, the nation’s No. 3 producer, tops the list at $13.3 million, followed by Pennsylvania at $12.6 million. West Virginia, the No. 2 U.S. producer, is receiving $11.93 million, while top producer Wyoming gets $2.3 million.