|
This article originally provided by
The Charleston Gazette
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Coal operators in Southern West Virginia are
not restoring large strip-mining sites to their "approximate
original contour," despite a state policy change meant to require
such reclamation, according to a previously unpublished federal
government report.
U.S. Office of Surface Mining investigators found that reclaimed
mining sites were left much lower in elevation than required to meet
the approximate original contour formula spelled out in their
approved permit applications.
In one of the eight instances examined by OSM -- the most extreme
example in the federal agency study -- the mine operator left the
land more than 200 feet lower than required by a permit approved by
the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Under federal law, mine operators must generally put strip mine
sites back the way they were prior to mining. The law calls this
"approximate original contour," or AOC. In limited circumstances,
operators that proposed post-mining development can leave mined
sites flattened or with gently rolling hills.
But OSM investigators found mine operators did not return the
land to its original topography, or to the configuration spelled out
in approved permit applications. Similar violations existed at both
sites where AOC was required and where operators obtained variances
allowing them to avoid that standard.
"At virtually every site, there were certain areas where the
actual measured ground surface was significantly above or below the
proposed lines shown in the permit," said a draft of the OSM report
obtained by the Sunday Gazette-Mail.
The OSM report adds to growing criticism of mountaintop removal
coal mining and the way the practice is regulated by the DEP under
Gov. Joe Manchin. Environmental groups have asked the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to take over enforcement of the
Clean Water Act in West Virginia, citing largely broad gaps in the
way DEP polices water pollution from coal mining.
OSM engineers and inspectors completed a draft of their report in
June 2008, but the agency has never finalized the document or made
it public.
Roger Calhoun, director of the OSM's Charleston field office,
said similar studies are underway in Kentucky, Virginia and
Tennessee, and his office has been trying to compare notes with OSM
officials in those states.
Also, Calhoun said Friday, top OSM officials in Washington have
decided to make AOC enforcement a national priority that all agency
regional offices will focus on.
As for his office's report, Calhoun said its release has also
been delayed as he tries to negotiate with DEP to come up with a
list of actions the state will take to resolve the problems
uncovered by OSM investigators.
"We would prefer to have a report with an action plan, rather
than just a list of recommendations," Calhoun said.
The AOC reclamation standard is the heart of the 1977 federal
Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act. Under the law, mine
operators must put rock and dirt back so that the site "closely
resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to
mining." Variances to this are allowed, but only in limited
situations where mining companies propose post-mining plans for
schools, factories, commercial sites or public parks.
But as mountaintop removal grew in the 1990s, state and federal
regulators abandoned any clear guidelines for defining when a mining
proposal conformed with AOC. A special report by the Gazette-Mail,
published in 1998, detailed this lack of enforcement. Later, OSM
investigators confirmed the newspaper's findings.
Today, though, there is still no clear, nationwide rule from OSM
for how to apply the AOC standard. In July 2007, Acting OSM Director
Glenda Owens told a House committee hearing that her agency was
working on such a rule. But no such rule has yet been published, or
even listed among OSM's rulemaking priorities.
"Regulatory clarification is needed that 'approximate original
contour' means both that the reclaimed are should resemble the area
before mining in both aspect, or slope, and elevation," Tom
FitzGerald of the Kentucky Resources Council told OSM officials at
an annual meeting in May.
As part of a lawsuit settlement with environmentalists in West
Virginia, the DEP wrote a new formula that aims to define when a
mining proposal meets AOC and, at the same time, optimize the size
of valley fill waste piles.
Industry experts and observers generally credit the AOC formula
with helping to reduce the size of valley fills over the last
decade.
During testimony last month to Congress, DEP Secretary Randy
Huffman touted the formula, saying it is used "to verify valley
fills are as small as physically possible." But Huffman also
criticized EPA, saying the agency was wrongly pushing state
officials to require AOC reclamation, instead of allowing more land
to be flattened for post-mining development.
"This opportunity is very important in the Southern West Virginia
coal-mining region, where no flat land exists," Huffman told a
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee on
June 25.
But Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the
Economy and the Environment, has told Congress that there is little
post-mining development of mountaintop removal sites across Southern
West Virginia.
"The post-mining land is in isolated mountain areas, the land is
unstable for building and it will no longer support native
vegetation," Lovett said during a July 2007 hearing. "In short,
mountains and valleys have been changed dramatically in contour so
that they resemble no surface configuration on Earth and the land is
useless for development."
Lovett also explained the connections between AOC enforcement and
environmental impacts of large-scale strip mines.
"If mines are restored to AOC, the disturbed area is smaller,
valley fills and stream impacts are reduced," Lovett said.
"Remarkably, there are few, if any, large surface mines in
Appalachia that comply with this basic requirement.
"Instead, mining operators, with the acquiescence of OSM, thumb
their noses at the law and create monstrous valley fills and sawed
off mountains that more closely resemble the surface of the moon
than our lush, green hills," Lovett said.
Even some supporters of mountaintop removal, such as House
Natural Resources Chairman Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va., have been
critical of the lack of state and federal enforcement of the AOC
standard.
"Thirty years, and we are still looking for a definition of AOC,"
Rahall said at his committee's 2007 hearing.
The National Mining Association, meanwhile, has touted tougher
state regulations on AOC and post-mining land use variances as proof
that mountaintop removal is being properly regulated.
But except for the previously unreleased OSM report, there has
not been a public accounting of whether these new rules and
regulations were doing any good.
Starting in late 2007, OSM engineers and inspectors -- working
with DEP officials -- examined a sample of large mining permits.
Their goal was to see if they were returned to AOC.
OSM investigators studied four permits that were supposed to meet
the AOC rules and four that received AOC variances.
On both types of permits, federal officials found that the final
reclamation configuration did not match that spelled out in the DEP-approved
permits. In some instances, post-mining elevations were slightly
higher than required by the permits.
But in most cases, mine operators left the land much lower than
required by their permits. The elevation changes ranged from 24 feet
to 205 feet, according to the draft OSM report.
"Comparison of field measured data with approved mine plan data
showed that at virtually every site, there were certain areas where
the actual measured ground surface was significantly above or below
the proposed lines shown in the permit," the OSM report concluded.
Calhoun said that further review by OSM officials discovered some
errors in their numbers, but that those errors did not change the
overall thrust of the report.
OSM recommended that DEP and the industry come up with a better
system for measuring post-mining configuration, perhaps using
surveying or GPS data. Also, federal officials said, DEP "should
adopt a system similar to the one used in this study to spot check
backfilling and grading of mountaintop surface mining operations."
OSM also noted that DEP continues to do a poor job keeping track
of how much of the land that is strip mined is reclaimed to AOC or
for some post-mining development.
"The percentage of reclaimed land under the AOC variances by
post-mining land use type, adequate infrastructure, and current
functional public or private development is not tracked in such
detail," the OSM report found.
"The only available data rendered is the allowed mining methods,
variance and land use," the report said. "Mountaintop removal
variance and steep slope variance permits can be rendered for
permitted current acres."
Also, the OSM report said, "there continues to be confusion" in
DEP permits about the "type of mining and type of variance" issued
to each mining operator.
Tom Clarke, director of DEP's Division of Mining and Reclamation,
said he is waiting on a report from one of his staff on ways to
address the issues raised in the OSM report. But Clarke also
downplayed OSM's findings, saying federal officials found only
"minor differences" between permits and on-the-ground reclamation
results.
The on-the-ground reclamation found by OSM "might be considered
within the acceptable range of tolerance, considering you are
sculpting the ground with a bulldozer, not Michelangelo doing Venus
de Milo or something."
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at
kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.
|