By Cliff Montgomery – Nov. 22nd, 2010
A study on federal oversight of surface coal mining in Appalachia was released last month by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
It’s important, as the mining procedure–often called mountaintop mining–has a serious impact on American ecosystems, streams, landscapes and communities. And Appalachian surface coal mining affects a large swath of states: West Virginia, Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The quotes below come from the report’s cover letter on the issue, written by Anu Mittal–Natural Resources and Environment Director for the GAO–for Nick Rahall, the House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee Chairman:
“Dear Mr. Chairman:
“In 2009, West Virginia accounted for about 43 percent of the surface coal mining production in Appalachia. Surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of Appalachia—a process often referred to as mountaintop mining—has generated opposition in recent years because of its impact on landscapes, streams, ecosystems, and communities.
“In mountaintop mining, before the underlying coal can be extracted, the land is cleared of forest and other vegetation. Explosives or other techniques are then used to break up the overlying solid rock, creating dislodged earth, rock, and other materials known as ‘spoil.’
“Some or most of the spoil is placed back on the mined-out area—however, spoil that cannot be safely placed back is often placed as ‘fill’ in adjacent valleys or hollows. In some cases, this fill buries the headwaters of streams.
“Activities associated with surface coal mining are regulated under both the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). SMCRA requires mine operators to obtain a permit before they begin mining.
“In West Virginia, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) administers the SMCRA permit program, subject to the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSM) finding that the state program is in accordance with federal law.
“OSM annually evaluates how well the state program is administered. To obtain a permit, operators must submit detailed plans describing the extent of proposed mining operations and how they will reclaim the mine site. If the proposed mining operation discharges pollutants into the waters of the United States, the operator also must obtain a CWA section 402 permit.
“WVDEP administers the section 402 permit program, subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authorization of the state’s program. EPA may review proposed state-issued permits and object to the issuance of a section 402 permit.
“In addition, if the operation discharges dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, the operator must obtain a CWA section 404 permit.
“In West Virginia, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for making permit decisions and issuing the section 404 permits—EPA may prohibit, withdraw, deny, or restrict section 404 permits.
“Furthermore, any discharges into the waters of the United States resulting from activities conducted under a federal permit, including a section 404 permit, require a state certification under CWA section 401 that the discharges will comply with water quality standards.
“In West Virginia, WVDEP is responsible for issuing this certification.
“At the beginning of 2009, many CWA section 404 surface coal mining permit applications for operations in Appalachian states, including West Virginia, had been pending for over a year because of litigation and other issues, creating a backlog. A case challenging the adequacy of the Corps’ analysis of environmental impacts on several section 404 permits was decided in the Corps’ favor in February 2009.”
“As the [Enhanced Coordination Procedure, or ECP] states, its purpose is to:
• Expedite review and final decisions regarding pending section 404 permit applications for surface coal mining in Appalachia for which the Corps had issued a public notice or coordinated with EPA as of March 31, 2009
• Provide the timely resolution of issues for those permit applications about which EPA has raised substantial environmental concerns
• Ensure effective coordination among the agencies and consistent compliance with applicable CWA provisions, regulations, and relevant policy, and
• Provide additional transparency to the public during the period the ECP is in effect.
“In order to facilitate timely resolution of permit applications subject to the ECP, Corps districts and EPA regions are to discuss applications identified as requiring additional review and coordination before the beginning of the formal 60-day review process to reduce the total time necessary to reach agreement on each permit.
“If more time is needed, EPA or the Corps may seek a 15-day extension to the 60-day review process. Should the Corps choose to issue a section 404 permit after the 60-day review period ends, even if issues remain unresolved with EPA, the Corps will provide EPA, within 10 days, a written notice explaining how the Corps is responding to EPA’s concerns.
“Within 10 days of receiving the Corps’ written notice, EPA is to decide whether it intends to veto or restrict a permit under its CWA section 404(c) authority or to allow the Corps to proceed with its permit decision.”
