Mining Rules Comments to Rules Review Commission Due by Thursday, July 23, 5pm

(see below for suggested text)

**email to: [rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov](mailto:rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov) with cc to jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov**

Please e-mail NC Rules Review Commission (RRC) to REJECT proposed Rules as submitted by the Mining Commission. The NC Rules Review Commission will be evaluating the proposed Mining Rules sent over from the NC Mining Commission. By State Law ( G.S. 150B-21.9), the NC Rules Review Commission (RRC) must object to proposed Rules that are in conflict with the law (e.g., Mining Act of 1971), try to create new law, and are against public interest. The more public comments they receive will encourage the RRC to seriously evaluate each Rule.

**Please email the Rules Review Commission by THIS Thursday, July 23, 5pm to object to the proposed Rules.

**It is best if you list the number of proposed rule you request they reject because the RRC members go through each Rule by number (see below). Feel free to expand your comments, but the Umstead Coalition suggests you list the Rule number and why you object. Below are examples to consider to include in your email to the RRC:

Send email to: [rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov](mailto:rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov) with cc to [Jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov](mailto:Jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov)

Text to consider:

The NC Rules and Review Commission must reject the following proposed Mining Rules per your obligation under G.S. 150B-21.9. These are in conflict with the Mining Act of 1971, attempt to create law beyond what is specified in the Mining Act of 1971, and are against public interest.
Reject the following proposed Mining Rules:

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(2) – Definitions - Delete New Proposed Rule to exempt logging from mining. This rule should be rejected due to conflict with G.S.74-49 (Mining Act of 1971). Logging to prepare a mining site for extraction has been considered a mining operation by DEQ and is not exempted by the Mining Act. Delete Proposed new Rule.

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(4) – Authorities - Delete New Proposed Rule to allow the Director of Mining to Delegate authority. The Mining Act ONLY allows the DEQ Secretary to delegate (usually to the Director). This new rule could create potential abuses not allowed by the Mining Act. Delete Proposed Rule.

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(7)(C) – Buffer Definition - Delete “unexcavated” from proposed rule to allow “unexcavated” (e.g., land to be destroyed by logging, roads, processing plants, crushers, trucking, and more) to be included as a “buffer.” There is no allowance for such land destruction to be classified as a “buffer” in the Mining Act and goes against the Mining Act (G.S. 74-50 (b) (3)). No other local government or state government would consider a destroyed land surface a “buffer.” Remove “Unexcavated” from this proposed rule.

15A NCAC 05B .0104(d)(1) and (d)(3) – Required Permit Information - Delete allowing the Department to determine land ownership. Land ownership should be determined by the Register of Deeds and title searches or court records; abuse can occur if the department allow “other source of information” to be approved by department staff who are not qualified to make land ownership determinations. This Rule modification violates the Mining Act G.S.74-50 (b1).

15A NCAC 05B .0105(2) and (3) – Permit Conditions - REJECT change from “natural buffer” to “vegetated buffer” and reject limiting stream buffers to only those required by State or Local requirements. Stream buffers should remain as natural buffer and not allowed to be disturbed and revegetated. Stream buffers serve to protect against habitat fragmentation, noise, dust, and visual as well as water quality to serve the public interest. Stream buffers currently regulated are for a different purpose than mining. Not all streams in NC are protected by regulated buffers, but should be protected by mining operations. This change is attempting to allow stream buffer destruction and create new law which should NOT be allowed.

15A NCAC 05B .0111(a) Public Hearings - REJECT added text / added restriction “for a modification that adds land to an existing permit.” G.S. 74-51 of the Mining Act indicates that Public Hearings SHALL be held for new mining permits. G.S. 74-52 of the Mining Act indicates permit modifications must meet G.S. 74-51. Thus, all permit modifications, not just modifications that add land, are subject to public hearings when there exists a significant public interest. The Rule should state “If the Department determines that there exists a significant public interest for a new or modified permit, the Director shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct a public hearing on the application…”

15A NCAC 05B .0111(c) Public Comments related to Public Hearings - REJECT added text / added restriction “and no other public comments can be considered in the final determination of an application.” This added text violates the Mining Act, and is inconsistent with current DEQ practice that accepts and considers public comments until a Decision has been reached. Public Comments during a Public Hearing have a deadline in order to allow for the Hearing Report to be completed. Nowhere in the Mining Act are public comments in general limited to only public hearings and currently there is no such practice within DEQ for Mining or any other permits. Public comments, especially after new information is obtained or significant changes are made to an application, are allowed per Law. The Mining Commission is trying to create new law against public interest. These restrictions should be rejected.

15A NCAC 05F .0112 – Further Remedies - do NOT DELETE this Rule. The Director should be able to enforce the Mining Act.

======

DEADLINE to send written comments, THIS THURSDAY, July 23 by 5pm. Please e-mail NC Rules Review Commission (RRC) to REJECT proposed Rules as submitted by the Mining Commission.

Send email to: [rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov ](mailto:rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov) with cc to [Jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov](mailto:Jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov)