« New Energy Audit Grants and Renewable Energy Assistance Programs For Rural America - USDA | Main | Industrial Polluters Will Have to Cleanup and Pay Hefty Fees for EPA Violations »
Monday
Apr132009

EPA Puts Hold on Permits for Kentucky and W. Virginia Mountain Top Mining Operations

A baby holds a protest sign at a rally on the state capitol grounds in Charleston, West Virginia to tell Governor Joe Manchin to end mountaintop removal. The photo is courtesy of Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Huntington, W. Va, and taken by Jesse Mwaura.

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Concerns over potential irreparable harm to West Virginia and Kentucky ecosystems from mining proposals by Highland Mining Co., Morganfield, Ky., and Central Appalachia Mining LLC, Freeburn, Ky. has caused the United States Environmental Protection Agency to postpone giving the companies permits to proceed pending further discussing and proposal modifications. Permit applications for such projects are required by the Clean Water Act.

Two EPA senior officials sent letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating that the coal mines would likely cause:

  • Water quality problems in the streams below the mines.
  • Significant degradation to streams buried by mining activities.

In addition, the letters expressed concerns that the proposed steps to offset these impacts are inadequate. More specifically, with regards to Highland Mining, John R. Pomponio, director of the EPA’s Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division, said in his letter to Colonel Dana R. Hurst, that “the permit, if issued, will eliminate or impact 13,174 linear feet of headwater streams” near the town of Ethel, Logan County, West Virginia.

Mr. Pomponio added that the “EPA remains concerned about the (company’s) conceptual mitigation plan. The conceptual plan is likely inadequate to fully compensate for the lost functions of the aquatic ecosystem and will not be able to return aquatic life uses downstream.

“The EPA believes additional avoidance and minimization efforts must be considered to reduce the adverse impacts of the proposal…therefore the EPA must recommend the denial of the permit as proposed.”

In this matter, as with the issues regarding the Central Appalachia Mining Co., the agency is in current talks with all the concerned parties to try to establish acceptable resolutions, according to Enesta Jones, an EPA spokesperson.

With regard to Central Appalachia Mining, James D. Giattina, director of the EPA’s Water Protection Division, said in his letter to Col. Hurst, that the EPA has reviewed the “proposal to discharge fill material into approximately 22,223 linear feet of water of the United States in conjunction with the construction, operation, and reclamation of the Big Branch Surface Mine in Pike County, Ky.”

Mr. Giattina adds that, “the proposal includes direct permanent impacts to 18,833 linear feet of ephemeral and intermittent channels of Big Branch, Daniels Branch, and Left Fork Malachi Branch. Project water-dependent components include eight valley fills, eight sediment control ponds, and three temporary stream crossings.”

Further concerns were expressed by Mr. Giattina, regarding “the cumulative impacts of this project on the watershed, impairments of downstream water quality, [and] the degradation of perennial stream channels.” He went on to say that, “Moreover, [the] EPA does not believe the proposed mitigation will adequately offset the persistent and permanent impacts to the aquatic ecosystem communities and functions.”

Among the measures that the EPA would like to see implemented by the mining company are:

  • A reduction of the valley fill size and frequency.
  • Revisiting the approximate original contour configurations to maximize the spoils returned to the mined area.
  • Consideration of alternative disposal sites that do not impact waters of the United States.

Mr. Giattina elaborated on the status of the company’s permit stating that the “EPA is working with the with the Commonwealth of Kentucky to ensure a Section 402 Individual Permit is obtained by the applicant rather than the General Permit for Coal Mining Activities currently issued by the Commonwealth. Possibilities remain for further restrictions to this project mainly centered on water quality issues.”

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend