A week ago I attempted a post on mountaintop mining but withdrew it after realizing I needed to do more reading on the subject. Here is a second attempt that I hope will capture the key points.
Background
Mountaintop mining, or mountaintop removal mining as it is often called, is the name given to surface coal mining in the Appalachian states. It sometimes goes by the abbreviations MTM (mountaintop mining) or MTR (mountaintop removal). Elsewhere in the world it might be called strip mining, opencast mining, or just plain quarrying, but, in the rugged Appalachian Mountains, mountaintop mining is an appropriate description.
According to EPA estimates, the coal fields in the central Appalachian states West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee comprise an area of about 12 million acres. Disturbance from MTM operations will reach about 1.4 million acres of that total by next year.
While concerned about the overall disturbance, including deforestation, EPA is most concerned about the impacts of MTM operations on streams. EPA notes that an MTM operation will remove as much as 400 feet of overburden material to get at a coal seam. The overburden material is commonly placed in valley-fill dumps. EPA refers to these as MTM-VF operations. EPA estimates that, since 1992, more than 2,000 miles of streams in the region have been buried by MTM-VF operations, a rate of 120 miles per year.
Spruce No. 1 Mine
A focal point of EPA's attention has been the Spruce No. 1 Mine, called “the largest mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia”. Owned by a subsidiary of Arch Coal, the mine was proposed as a 3300 acre project back in 1998, and later reduced during the permitting process to 2278 acres. In January, 2007, the Army Corp of Engineers issued the mine a key permit, a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, which enabled the mine to dump its overburden material in three drainages on the property: Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch.
EPA expressed concerns over water quality and noted that there were already impacts along Seng Camp Creek from previous mining activities. The 404 permit was challenged in court by environmental groups. The mine was allowed to start within Seng Camp Creek. EPA, meanwhile, sought to limit the impacts on Pigeonroost and Oldhouse Branches, and, in 2009, requested that the Corps of Engineers modify or revoke the 404 permit. The Corps declined and EPA began its own course of action under the Clean Water Act.
On January 13, 2011, EPA revoked the 404 permit. In announcing its decision, EPA summarized the impacts that would occur if the mine was allowed to expand:
On the one hand, it's difficult to fault EPA's intentions. Who, after all, wants to see streams buried under piles of rubble and thousands of acres of habitat ruined. EPA also notes the unwillingness of Arch Coal to cooperate and modify its plans. Recently, EPA released an independent study that showed the mine could significantly reduce its impacts for a slight increase in operating costs. EPA gave the example of another mine it recently worked with to reduce its impacts and obtain a 404 permit.
Related Links* Burying more than 35,000 feet (more than 6 miles) of high-quality streams under mining waste, which will eliminate all fish, invertebrates, salamanders, and other wildlife that live in them;
* Polluting downstream waters as a result of burying these streams, which will lead to unhealthy levels of salinity and toxic levels of selenium;
* Causing downstream watershed degradation that will kill aquatic wildlife, impact birdlife, reduce habitat value, and increase susceptibility to toxic algal blooms;
* Inadequately mitigating for the mine's environmental impacts to high-quality streams, by using mining ditches, for example, to offset the functions provided by these natural streams; and
* Exposing Appalachian communities to additional mining related sources of pollution in a watershed already highly impacted by mining activity.
EPA noted that "it has used its Section 404(c) authority sparingly, prohibiting just 13 projects, including the Spruce mine, since 1972. EPA is taking this action because a substantial body of new scientific studies and work completed since the mine was permitted in 2007."
Commentary
Commentary
On the one hand, it's difficult to fault EPA's intentions. Who, after all, wants to see streams buried under piles of rubble and thousands of acres of habitat ruined. EPA also notes the unwillingness of Arch Coal to cooperate and modify its plans. Recently, EPA released an independent study that showed the mine could significantly reduce its impacts for a slight increase in operating costs. EPA gave the example of another mine it recently worked with to reduce its impacts and obtain a 404 permit.
On the other hand, industry groups and politicians point to the decision as "an unprecedented action in retroactively denying a permit." No business likes to operate under conditions where the rules change. In industries where projects depend on multi-year horizons for planning and permitting, such uncertainty is a serious deterrent to investment. Small projects might be able to tolerate it, but large ones, the kind that create large and stable employment and require major capital investment, can’t. EPA might say it’s acting with restraint, but it is setting a precedent all the same.
EPA’s decision to act proactively will also be disturbing to investment. The action was not taken for any specific violation or wrongdoing on the part of the mine, but was made for the future protection of the environment, both on and off the property. For the government to take such action and effectively make a park out of someone’s private property is not without precedent. Such cases can wind up in court being argued as a government taking.
In the case of Spruce No. 1 Mine, where jobs and a local economy are on the line, there is speculation an agreement between EPA and the mine will happen sooner rather than later. In any event, we can expect we have not heard the last of this story.
 |
| from EPA, Spruce No.1 Mine footprint (yellow) |
 |
| From EPA, Steps in Mountaintop Mining |
No comments:
Post a Comment