Source: http://www.govpulse.us/entries/2004/01/07/04-266/surface-coal-mining-and-reclamation-operations-excess-spoil-stream-buffer-zones-diversions
Timestamp: 2015-10-05 21:37:25
Document Index: 199026490

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 780', '§ 780', '§ 816', '§ 816', '§ 816', '§ 816']

govpulse | Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations; Excess Spoil; Stream Buffer Zones; Diversions
A. Reclamation Plan (§ 780.18(b)(3))
B. Disposal of Excess Spoil (§§ 780.35 and 816.71)
C. Stream Buffer Zones (§§ 816.57/817.57)
D. Diversion of Perennial and Intermittent Streams. (§§ 816.43(b) / 817.43(b))
David G. Hartos, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220; Telephone: 412-937-2909. E-mail address:dhartos@osmre.gov. Additional information concerning this rule and related documents may be found on our home page on the internet at http://www.osmre.gov.
C. Stream Buffer Zones (§ 816.57/817.57)
D. Diversion of Perennial and Intermittent Streams (§ 816.43(b)/817.43(b))
The operator grades the spoil so that it closely resembles the pre-mining topography. We refer to this as returningthe reclaimed mine to the approximate original contour, or simply AOC. Under certain circumstances, by obtaining the necessary approvals, the mine operator may get a waiver from the AOC requirement that allows the operator to grade the backfilled spoil to a shape capable of supporting an alternative postmining land use.
A. Why Is OSM Initiating Rulemaking To Minimize the Adverse Environmental Effects Stemming From the Construction of Excess Spoil Fills? ↑
As the population and the cumulative surface extent of surface mines and excess spoil fills have increased, so have the concerns regarding the adverse environmental effects from the construction of excess spoil fills. In the summer of 1998, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy—an environmental organization—and several citizens filed suit in Federal court against the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) alleging that the State was not administering its SMCRA-based coal regulatory program in compliance with State requirements. Bragg v. Robertson(Bragg), Civ. No. 2:98-0636 (S.D.W. Va.).
In addition to suing the WVDEP, the plaintiffs in Bragg sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) concerning its implementation of CWA Section 404 in the permitting of excess spoil fills. Among other issues, plaintiffs argued that the USCOE should have been individually permitting excess spoil fills rather than issuing authorizations under its nationwide permits (NWP) process. Coal mining activities affecting “waters of the United States” are subject to applicable requirements of CWA Section 404. The USCOE is the primary Federal authority responsible for issuing Section 404 permits, which may be either NWP or individual permits (IP). The USCOE uses the NWP process for coal mining activities that have less than a minimal impact on aquaticresources—both individually and cumulatively.
While work towards finalizing that EIS continues, we recognized the need to revise and clarify our national rules to address environmental effects from the construction of excess spoil fills.
We are moving forward with this rule to expeditiously address concerns regarding the construction of excess spoil fills and regulatory uncertainty regarding our stream buffer zone regulations.
Accounting for the volume of excess spoil material is standard engineering practice in mine design, and is clearly envisioned by section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA. Concerning thick overburden, this section requires the operator to demonstrate that, due to volumetric expansion of the overburden and other spoil and waste material, more than sufficient material is available to reclaim the site to AOC. In response to a comment on the proposed rule adopted in 1983 on thick overburden performance standards, at