How bad has it gotten for coal companies fighting with the Environmental Protection Agency? Even U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, who once advocated outlawing surface mining, is mad at the EPA.
“I am angry with the EPA’s announcement that they will use veto power to revoke the authorized Spruce Mine permit in Logan County,” Rockefeller said in a news release. “It is wrong and unfair for the EPA to change the rules for a permit that is already active.”
The EPA took a baseball bat to Arch Coal’s knees last week with its stunning announcement that it’s taking the first step that may lead to the revocation of the Arch’s permit at Spruce No. one. The EPA said the mining “may result in unacceptable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.”
This comes after ten years of permitting and legal fights that eventually cleared the way for the huge mine in Pigeonroost Hollow near Blair. That process, which included an Environmental Impact Statement and EPA review, led to one of the strongest mine permits ever issued in West Virginia.
Both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Environmental Protection signed off on the project. But now the EPA under the Obama Administration has reopened the fight using the Clean Water Act, something the EPA concedes it’s never done since the Act was passed in 1972.
“We are taking this unusual step in response to our very serious concerns regarding the scale and extent of significant environmental and water quality impacts associated with the Spruce No. 1 mine,” the EPA Acting Regional Administrator William Early wrote in a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Does that mean the EPA is worried that coal sludge will be pouring into the watershed? Not hardly. Rather, the EPA claims that the water quality downstream will be changed so that it won’t support certain very sensitive types of aquatic insects, which it incredibly considers an adverse impact to fish and wildlife.
Specifically, according to an EPA study, certain kinds of mayflies are not as common downstream from the valley fills. The EPA argues that these streams are then “impaired” because not as many mayflies are around, even though other insects may take their place.
The problem is that the EPA is using an excessively strict interpretation of the term “significant adverse impact” in evaluating water quality. We know mining will change what happens downstream; Good industry practices can reduce the environmental impact and protect the ecosystem.
West Virginia law already prevents a “significant adverse impact” on aquatic ecosystems, and by that standard the state Division of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers already approved Spruce No. one.
However, this current EPA is trumping the state DEP and the Corps, setting the standard so high that the downstream waterways have to be precisely as they were before the mining, mayflies and all.
This is impractical and potentially very costly to West Virginia because of the jobs that will disappear and the revenue that will be lost. Rockefeller, Gov. Manchin and others keep telling the EPA that, but it doesn’t seem to be listening.
.
Post Your Comments
All comments are moderated before showing up on the site. Comments are only reviewed for inappropriate language and libelous or damaging comments.