Skip to Content

Press Release

States Sidelined by Obama Administration on Stream Buffer Zone Rulemaking

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 18, 2015 | Committee Press Office (202-225-2761)
As it made its way this morning to the Office of Management Budget (OMB) for review, the new Stream Buffer Zone (SBZ) rulemaking came under full scrutiny at the Committee on Natural Resources’ hearing on "Effect of the President’s FY 2016 Budget and Legislative Proposals for the Office of Surface Mining on Private Sector Job Creation, Domestic Energy Production, State Programs and Deficit Reduction.” 

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (CO-5) questioned Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Director Joseph Pizarchik about the agency’s compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations, which require the lead rulemaking agency to involve cooperating agencies.  A number of states had previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with OSM to act as cooperating agencies during the SBZ rulemaking.

Administration’s Side? 

"It's quite clear, for the first time in the history in OSM, we had included states as cooperating agencies. We brought them in early in the process," stated Director Pizarchik during the hearing.

States’ Side? 

  • 11 cooperating state agencies claim OSM has limited their participation in the development of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and given them no real opportunity to provide substantive comments. These states sent a letter about  their concerns to OSM, stating that “OSM has not communicated with them since 2011” and with “limited consultation prior to that.

  • Three states have withdrawn from the Memorandum of Understanding with OSM due to lack of consultation and the opportunity for meaningful involvement.

    •

“How can that be in compliance with NEPA regulations pertaining to cooperating agencies which call for consultation with states during the drafting process?” Chairman Lamborn posited to Pizarchik.
Lamborn added: “This exclusion of the states from cooperating in a significant or meaningful way…don’t you think that exposes your agency and the department to litigation over the rule when the rule is finalized?”

Watch the exchange here.