User:YungHam/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of YungHam. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
== Stream Protection Rule ==
Introduction
The stream protection rule requires mining companies to track the water quality of the nearby streams. The rule also imposes guidelines on any other issues caused by mining. Trump repealed this rule to increase employment in the coal mining industry.
History
The Stream Protection Rule originally became effective on January 19, 2017 after being published on December 20, 2016 by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, of the United States Department of the Interior.[1] The Stream Protection Rule was passed following an issued Programmatic Biological Opinion by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on December 16, 2016, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, (ESA) 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), as the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify critical habitat.[2] The biological opinion resulted in the modification of Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, with the implementation of the Stream Protection Rule. [3]
In concurrence with the signing of the 2016 Biological Opinion, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the purpose of ameliorating the interagency coordination and cooperation of the Biological Opinion, as well guaranteeing that endangered species and designated critical habitats are adequately protected during all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and coal exploration under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. [4]
Repeal
Post-repeal Environmental impacts
There are two perspectives on the environmental impacts following the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule, the first of which entails that there is little to no impact on the environment. The second perspective is that there are significant environmental consequences after the repeal.
The first perspective is as follows: Subsequent to Trump's removal of the Stream Protection Rule, many Scientists, when interviewed, have said that it would have an insignificant impact on the activities that the coal companies are currently doing. These activities include the continuity of many very environmentally destructive mining practices, which the rule did not inhibit as a result of it's watered down nature.[1] Moreover, it has also been said that the repealing of the Stream Protection Rule doesn't affect many large energy companies such as Duke Energy, Southern Co., and American Electric Power. This is because these companies have transitioned their energy sources from coal to renewables and natural gas.[2]
On the contrary, many believe that the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule has substantial environmental impacts. According to Appalachian Voices, mountaintop removal mining is considerably disturbing to nearby streams. The removed debris both falls into the nearby streams, and is dumped by the mining company into valleys directly above streams. Furthermore, an immense amount of toxic debris has caused 2,000 miles of streams to disappear West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia. [3] This debris contains toxic metals which pollute the water in the streams. This water has been shown to cause health issues when drank from in nearby rural communities.[4] Now although the Stream Protection Rule is repealed, other previously established laws such as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are failing to mitigate contemporary environmental damage. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act restricts "material damage to the environment to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible." This act has failed to have any current impact due to its ambiguity and lack of enforcement by the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement. [3]
Environmental Justice
See Also
References
| This is a user sandbox of YungHam. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
- ^ Cornwall, Warren (2017-02-17). "Demise of stream rule won't revitalize coal industry". Science. 355 (6326): 674–675. doi:10.1126/science.355.6326.674. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28209847.
- ^ Silverstein, Ken. "Will Undoing The Stream Protection Rule Really Help Coal?". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
- ^ a b Plumer, Brad (2017-02-02). "Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams". Vox. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
- ^ Holzman, David C. (2017-03-01). "Mountaintop Removal Mining: Digging Into Community Health Concerns". Environmental Health Perspectives. 119 (11): a476–a483. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a476. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 3226519. PMID 22171378.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)