Here is an excerpt on the proposed voluntary community service program that many are asking our next president to support. As an AmeriCorps Alum, I agree wholeheartedly and hope you will all support this initiative.

"The time has come for a bold program of national service that challenges every American to strengthen our nation through service, and that invests in our young people. Service should be both an expectation and a rite of passage for every citizen, and in turn, the nation should offer access to the American dream to all who serve. We need the equivalent of a GI Bill for the 21st century, but one that rewards many forms of service beyond the military.

Our goal is no less than to make national service a defining element of American democracy. Universal national service can achieve what many programs and initiatives have failed to do: Capture the imagination and spirit of the American people by asking them to put their hearts and hands to work for the benefit of our nation. What better way to show the whole world the true potential of our American community of liberty? What better way to lead the greatest mass democracy in history into an even more celebrated future?"
Full Text

MTR Part VI: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The RCRA deals with waste disposal. Although there is little to be found on the subject as it relates to MTR, mine overburden is, by definition, solid waste.
The term “solid waste” means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agriculture activities and from community activities, ….etc. [Even though considered solid waste,] mining overburden and wastes from extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including coal are not considered to be hazardous waste.” (Bell C. L., 2007)
Therefore, mine operators do not have to comply with hazardous waste disposal requirements.

Update on the Stream Buffer Zone Rule

Although I am not totally in agreement on the interpretation of the Stream Buffer Zone Rule and proposed changes, I am wholely against the destructive practice of mountaintop removal. Apparently I am not alone, as evidenced by the overwhelming response during the comment period. See this article for the complete update.

Abandoned Mine Posts

I just wanted encourage all my readers to check out the latest Abandoned Mine Posts about the history of coal. It is very informative and interesting. http://amp.wpcamr.org/

MTR Part V: Controversy about the proposed change

Controversy Ensues
As is to be expected with any hot button issue, opinions vary and opposition is fierce. Here are just a few examples:
Opponents’ opinions
“OSM proposes to change the rule to conform with its deviant behavior rather than requiring the coal industry to comply with the law.” (Lyric, 2007)
“It would exempt from the stream buffer zone rule those very mountaintop removal activities that are most destructive to streams, including “permanent excess spoil fills, and coal waste disposal facilities” — in other words, giant valley fills and sludge-filled lagoons.” (Lyric, 2007)
"What they are doing is, they are sacrificing Kentucky to the coal-mining powers," said Patty Wallace of Louisa, who is active with the group Kentuckians For the Commonwealth.” (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said yesterday that OSM has mischaracterized both the state of existing law and the impact of its proposed rule. "It's irresponsible from an ecological standpoint," FitzGerald said of the rule change sought by OSM. "It caters to worst mine plans rather than best practices, and it will further fuel outrage of people in the coalfields, in the scientific community and those who rely on coal-fired power and are tired of seeing coal mined in such an irresponsible manner." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Supporters say
Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, an industry group, said the proposed rule “merely continues the status quo. I don't see things changing at all. This rule simply recognizes existing practice." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Ben Owens, an OSM spokesman, contended that the new rule "would not legalize anything that was not legal before." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Courts rule
“The original rule was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a lower court decision holding that substantial portions of streams could not be buried under excess spoil or other mining-related structures.” (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
“In October 1999, the Federal District Court ruled that the SBZ rule prohibits valley fills in streams and held that the Stream Buffer Zone Rule is more stringent than the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) guidelines on placing fill into streams. There is concern such an interpretation of the SBZ rule makes it inconsistent with SMCRA.” (Mining, 2007)
“In April 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the Oct 1999 decision on constitutional grounds (11th Amendment).” (Mining, 2007)
“In May 2002, in Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v Rivenburgh, the district court held that SMCRA did not authorize the disposal of overburden in streams.” (Mining, 2007)
“In February 2003, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in KFTC v. Rivenburgh, stated that SMCRA at 515(b)(22)(D) envisions that overburden would be placed in waters of the U.S. and reversed the May 2002 District Court decision.” (Mining, 2007)
Resulting confusion
It becomes more and more obvious that not only is the rule unclear, but SMCRA contains a great deal of ambiguity regarding the practices of mountaintop removal. I find it difficult to imagine that OSM truly believes that valley fills, which in effect destroy headwaters streams, constitute a minimization of adverse impacts. However, it seems that the problem lay not in the SBZ rule but in the interpretation of SMCRA and other relevant laws.

MTR Part IV: Controversial proposed change to Stream Buffer Zone by OSM

The current administration recently proposed a controversial change in the SBZ rule. It sounds as though they plan to implement a new regulation to exempt certain coal mining activities from the Stream Buffer Zone Rule. As mentioned before, there is some confusing wording in the SBZ rule and as a consequence, it would be reworded to more accurately reflect the wording of SMCRA. I have examined the part of SMCRA that the SBZ rule is derived from and don’t find the change to be significant. As repugnant as I and others may find the practice of MTR, valley fills and the like, the change seems only to put into clearer terms what is already legal according to SMCRA.

Bush Administration’s Proposed New Rule (3/21/02 Draft)
§ 816.57 Hydrologic balance: Stream buffer zones.
(a) General. You must first obtain specific approval from the regulatory authority before conducting surface mining activities within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream. Except as provided in paragraph (b), the regulatory authority may authorize such activities only after making a written finding that the activities will—
(1) Not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards.
(2) Be conducted to minimize disturbances to the quantity and quality of water in the stream. This finding need not be made with respect to any reach of the stream that is upstream of a sedimentation pond located within the stream channel; provided that the pond meets the location requirements of § 816.46(c)(1)(ii) of this part.
(3) Be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbances and adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and related environmental values of the stream.
(b) Placement of excess spoil in perennial or intermittent streams. The findings required in paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) do not apply to the construction of excess spoil fills in perennial or intermittent streams. To approve construction of fills in these streams, the regulatory authority must find that the applicant has—
(1) Minimized the creation of excess spoil to the maximum extent practicable as required under § 780.18(b)(3) of this chapter and § 816.102(b) of this part; and
(2) Designed the fill to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to perennial or intermittent streams to the extent required under §780.16(c) of this chapter and § 816.97(f) of this part.
(Mountains, 2007)

“The agency is proposing to fully implement the requirements established by Congress, and water from strip-mined areas still must meet state and federal water-quality standards," OSM contends. (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007) The Office of Surface Mining points out that this proposal is a revision that will clarify existing requirements for mining in and around streams. They say that this is an effort aimed at achieving regulatory stability in Appalachia. (Owens, 2007)
OSM admits that valley fills disturb streams, but they must work within the bounds of SMCRA. It is their contention that this change will not have any noticeable impact on the way things are done in Appalachia.
Under the current stream buffer zone regulation, the length of streams permanently or temporarily directly impacted will be considerable. Approximately 535 miles of intermittent and perennial streams will be temporarily or permanently affected nationwide just from surface coal mining operations permitted from October 1, 2001 to June 30, 2005. We do not anticipate that revision of the stream buffer zone as described in the alternatives would cause additional stream disturbance as compared to the “No Action” alternative. (Enforcement, Environmental Impact Statement, 2007)


It is interesting to note that OSM did consider several alternatives, one of which would have amended the rule to prohibit any mining activity within the 100ft buffer zone. They discarded this alternative early on in the process, saying it would not be consistent with SMCRA regulations because it would significantly impact coal extraction activities, citing the following: “[OSM must]…assure that the coal supply essential to the Nation’s energy requirements, and to its economic and social well-being, is provided and strike a balance between protection of the environment and . . . the Nation’s need for coal as an essential source of energy.” (Enforcement, Environmental Impact Statement, 2007)

Hope and Hard Work Trainings

SAVE THE DATE!
HOPE AND HARD WORK TRAININGS
FOR APPALACHIAN WATERSHED WORKERS

Greetings! The Eastern Coal Regional Round Table is seeking determined
citizens' groups or organizations that are concerned with cleaning up
their local watershed, improving their community and learning how to
find the money to make improvement possible. The ECRR is offering the
opportunity to participate in a three-part training program called Hope
and Hard Work.

Spring training sessions will occur during March 26th-28th at Canaan
Valley Resort for Northern Coalfields groups and April 9th-11th at
Breaks Interstate Park for groups from the Southern Coalfields. The
ECRR will cover participants' lodging, food, and registration expenses.

Each attending group representative will participate in one of two
course tracks; water quality monitoring and fiscal sustainability. The
water quality monitoring track will teach groups how to effectively
monitor acid mine drainage (AMD) and wastewater contamination and how to
use this data to obtain funding to implement cleanup projects. The
fiscal sustainability track will focus on obtaining funds to build the
size, effectiveness, and capacity of your group or organization. A
topic based agenda can be found on the next page.

Two representatives from each group must commit to all three sessions -
the spring training, the summer practicum and the fall training.

We hope that you will join us in embarking on this exciting project to
restore Appalachia's watershed communities! If your group is interested
in this opportunity for free training focused specifically on the
coal-impacted counties of Appalachia, please contact us by email info@easterncoal.org or by phone at 304.329.8409. If you know of other groups that may be interested in
participating, feel free to pass along this information!

We look forward to building new partnerships with you that will
strengthen and expand on the good work of groups like yours in Coal
Country.

Sincerely yours,

Sarah Walters

Eastern Coal Regional Roundtable
119 S. Prince Street, Suite 209
Kingwood, WV 26537

MTR Part III-Stream Buffer Zone Rule

Stream Buffer Zone Rule (SBZ)

Existing Buffer Zone Rule 30 CFR § 816.57

§ 816.57 Hydrologic balance: Stream buffer zones.

(a) No land within 100 feet of a perennial stream or an intermittent stream shall be disturbed by surface mining activities, unless the regulatory authority specifically authorizes surface mining activities closer to, or through, such a stream. The regulatory authority may authorize such activities only upon finding that—

(1) Surface mining activities will not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other environmental resources of the stream; and

(2) If there will be a temporary or permanent stream-channel diversion, it will comply with Sec. 816.43.

(b) The area not to be disturbed shall be designated as a buffer zone, and the operator shall mark it as specified in Sec. 816.11.

[48 FR 30327, June 30, 1983] (Mountains, 2007)

OSM is not authorized to prohibit Mountaintop Removal Activities under SMCRA. All rules are extracted from SMCRA guidelines during rulemaking.[1] The Stream Buffer Zone Rule applies to mining activities in or around intermittent[2] and perennial streams.[3] There is much controversy regarding this rule and what proposed changes will mean.

The following is representative of environmental group’s interpretation of the SBZ rule: “The Stream Buffer Zone Rule prohibits coal-mining activities from disrupting areas within 100 feet of streams unless those activities in no way impact water quality or quantity.” (Lyric, 2007) But upon closer study, I find that OSM interprets the law as prohibiting activities that adversely impact water quantity or quality. In their reasoning, the law provides for a variance when in their estimation, the proposed activity will not cause significant damage. I think the misunderstanding stems from the use of the phrase, “will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality…..” (Mountains, 2007) A literal interpretation of this statement would lead one to believe that the activities in question are completely prohibited when in fact the actual wording in SMCRA uses the phrase, “minimize adverse impacts….” (Enforcement, Environmental Impact Statement, 2007) OSM is charged with balancing the nation’s need for energy with environmental concerns. Therefore, they will not and cannot, completely prohibit any mining activities allowed by SMCRA, but rather they can only regulate them to the extent allowed by law. “A Stream Buffer Zone is not required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). OSM created the existing Stream Buffer Zone rule as a framework for making sure this standard is met. While the law (SMCRA) does not prohibit most mining activities within and around streams, OSM and States have used the Stream Buffer Zone rule to require mine operators to take additional precautions within that zone.” (Owens, 2007)

---

[1] Rulemaking is the process by which OSM interprets the law into practicable actions.

[2] Refers to a stream that only flows for part of the year

[3]Refers to a stream that flows year round

Mountain top removal Part II: SMCRA and the AOC requirement

SMCRA

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was passed in 1977 to regulate all types of surface mining, including Mountaintop Removal. It may come as a surprise to some, that Mountaintop Removal Mining is not prohibited by SMCRA but is rather encouraged as a means of economic growth.[1] The next few posts will discuss the parts of this law that apply to MTR.

Approximate Contour Requirement (AOC)

Lands disturbed by mining must be reclaimed to their approximate original contour. SMCRA creates limited exceptions to this requirement for mountaintop removal, but operators wishing to take advantage of one of these exceptions must render the mined lands capable of one of several enumerated post mining land uses. It should only be allowed in situations where beneficial post mining land uses could compensate for the adverse effects of not returning the land to AOC, such as the greater number and size of the excess spoil fills generated by mountaintop removal. The Office of Surface Mining’s alternative post mining land use regulations impose a higher and better use reclamation standard on MTR. A post mining land use cannot be approved where the use could be achieved without the waiving of the AOC requirement, except in those rare instances where it is demonstrated that a significant public or economic benefit will be realized there from; and the post mining land use must always offer a net benefit to the public or the economy. (Enforcement, Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Mining Operations, 1999)

So, in other words, if the reclaimed land has a better use (according to what SMCRA considers better) than the existing use prior to mining then an AOC waiver[2] will be granted to the mine operator. The Office of Surface Mining has a list of specific uses constituting better usage. They are industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, and public facility.

“[Industrial use includes] heavy and light manufacturing facilities, production of materials for fabrication and storage of products.” (Enforcement, Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Mining Operations, 1999) This is considered a benefit because the writers of SMCRA believed it would create local job opportunities and stimulate the economy.

“[Commercial use includes] retail or trade of goods or services, including hotels, motels, stores, restaurants, and other commercial establishments.” (Enforcement, Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Mining Operations, 1999)This type of use provides a service to residents and increases the potential for tourism.[3]

Agricultural use is considered beneficial with forestry topping the list.[4] OSM regulations state that low-intensity, low-maintenance agricultural activities, such as grazing and pastureland are discouraged but that is often exactly what is done during reclamation. Some states are now beginning to use a different approach with less compaction, enabling replanted trees to flourish on past mining sites.[5] These techniques show a great deal of promise.

“[Residential use includes] land used for single- and multiple-family housing, mobile home parks, or other residential lodgings. “ (Enforcement, Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Mining Operations, 1999) This use provides needed housing to residents in the area, thus making it a better use according to SMCRA.

Public facility is the final approved use of reclaimed land. Interestingly, fish and wildlife habitat cannot be approved as a beneficial use in and of itself, even though that was most likely the pre-mining function. Fish and wildlife habitat is only considered better use if it is an integral part in the plan of a public facility. “Public facility use may include schools, hospitals, airports, reservoirs, museums, and developed recreational sites such as picnic areas, campgrounds, ball fields, tennis courts, fishing ponds, equestrian and off-road vehicle trails, and amusement areas together with any necessary supporting infrastructure such as parking lots, and rest facilities.” (Enforcement, Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Mining Operations, 1999)

---

[1] Some believe the creation of flat land in mountainous areas makes good economic sense. Others, who vehemently oppose the practice, disagree to say the least. MTR has become a hot issue to be discussed with care.

[2] An AOC waiver or variance grants permission to the mining operator to use an alternate reclamation plan other than approximate original contour as specified in SMCRA.

[3] Some locals would argue that the mountains are what the tourists come to see.

[4] Ideally all reclaimed sites would be planted with trees, but SMCRA regulations require compaction of the soil to prevent erosion. Trees have great difficulty growing in this type of environment.

[5] Appalachian Regional Restoration Initiative, http://arri.osmre.gov.

Mountain Top Removal-Part I

In this series of articles, I will explain what MTR is, talk about the laws that govern it and the controversy surrounding the practice.

Mountaintop Removal Mining
What is mountaintop removal mining (MTR)? What justifications are given to support this practice? How does MTR affect watersheds and the landscape? For anyone not familiar with the practice of mountaintop removal mining, these questions may come to mind. For anyone who lives near an MTR mine site, the answers are well-known.

Mountaintop removal is a common form of surface mining that has been in use since the 1970’s. Basically, mountaintops are quite literally blown off using generous amounts of explosives. The purpose being to extract entire coal seams as much as 1000ft below the peak. This type of mining is popular with coal companies because they get more bang for the buck. Mining jobs are all but eliminated and replaced by a huge piece of equipment called a dragline, which can cost upwards of $100million. MTR is simply an efficient and profitable way to recover energy from the earth.

This particular form of mining, while providing necessary energy, can be particularly intrusive to the surrounding area, often causing drinking water contamination, increased erosion, flooding and sedimentation[1], damage to home foundations[2] and some serious noise pollution[3]. Communities in the vicinity of mountaintop removal sites tend to suffer from decreased home values and depressed quality of life. Those who choose to leave may have trouble finding a buyer willing put up with the same conditions they themselves are trying to escape.

Personally, I don’t agree with the practice. A big problem I and others have with mountaintop removal, besides the complete destruction of a mountain, is the way the mining byproducts are handled. MTR operations are usually granted an AOC variance[4] creating excess spoil[5] which is disposed of in valley fills.[6] Coal slurry[7] impoundments are held in place by sludge dams constructed from excess spoil which can be unstable and prone to leakage.

For more information, here is an article from Earth Observatory: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/MountaintopRemoval/

[1] To facilitate MTR mining, the area is first clear-cut, exposing bare soil to the elements.
[2] Blasting is so strong it is often felt in nearby communities, causing structural damage to homes. [3] MTR operations can work 24 hours a day as close as 300ft to residential areas.
[4]
SMCRA requires mine sites to be reclaimed to Approximate Original Contour. Basically this means they must leave the site looking about the same as it did before it was mined. A variance or waiver can be granted if the proposed reclamation meets certain conditions. When a variance is granted, excess spoil is created because not all of the overburden is returned to the site.
[5] In surface mining, soil and rock overburden must be fractured and removed. These broken pieces of rock are referred to as spoil. Since the fractured rock has more volume than when it was undisturbed, the volume becomes greater. [6] A valley fill is the disposal of excess spoil by pushing it into the adjacent valley, burying headwaters streams and aquatic habitat. [7] Coal slurry is the left over wash water used to process coal in preparation for distribution. The water is usually contaminated with pollutants such as mercury and arsenic which are toxic to aquatic life and harmful to humans as well.

Skate Park Here We Come!!

A really great project in Appalachia, VA will benefit area teens and give them a place to hang.

See article at http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/sports.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-11-16-0121.html

Poverty and highwall mining in Appalachia

This is an article addressing poverty in SE Ohio.

http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=29931

Read this article on high-wall mining equipment. It makes claims of increased high-wall mining with decreased mountaintop removal mining resulting from recent court decisions.

http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/233700.html

House Environmental Committee Approves Coal Miner’s Day Resolution

The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee this week reported out House Resolution 410 (DeWeese-D-Greene) that designates December 19 as "Coal Miner's Day" in Pennsylvania.

The Committee is Chaired by Rep. Bud George (D-Clearfield) and Rep. Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango) serves as the Republican Chair.

Plans for coal-fired electric nixed

The new owners of TXU, formerly Luminant, have dropped plans to build 8 of 11 proposed coal-fired power plants. The energy company has been taken private in a $45billion deal.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/10/16/plan-to-build-8-coal-fired-power-plants-dropped/7838/

Coal Miner’s Day in PA

The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee meets next week to consider House Resolution 410 (DeWeese-D-Greene) that designates December 19 as "Coal Miner's Day" in Pennsylvania.

The Committee is Chaired by Rep. Bud George (D-Clearfield) and Rep. Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango) serves as the Republican Chair.

Coal-to-Liquid Fuels

The House recently held a hearing on coal-to-liquid technology. They concluded that not only can't the industry compete with out federal support, but it will do nothing to reduce greenhouse emissions.

"The unavoidable fact is that liquid fuel made from coal contains essentially the same amount of carbon as is in gasoline or diesel made from petroleum. Given these results, it is not surprising that a recent Battelle study found that a significant coal-to-liquids industry is not compatible with stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations below twice the pre-industrial value. "--David Hawkins, NRDC

It doesn't look like King Coal will be coming to the rescue of the planet anytime soon.

Upcoming events

October 4, 2007, 7:00 PM: Panel on the Impact of Sprawl on Natural Resources. Brian Hill will serve as one of 4 panelists. Location: Widener Law School in Harrisburg. PEC is co-sponsoring with PCIEP.

October 15, 2007: PEC presenting to Joint Committee on our Climate Change Roadmap: Location: Harrisburg, PA

October 15, 2007, 6:00 PM: Philadelphia Urban Sustainability Forum - Mayoral Debate - Submit your YouTube questions by October 5th. Location: Academy of Natural Sciences. 19th and Ben Franklin Parkway.

October 18, 2007, 6:00PM: PEC NE Dinner. Nancy Cole from the Union of Concerned Scientists is the featured speaker. Location: Woodlands Inn, Wilkes-Barre.

October 19, 2007, 12noon: Environmental Partners Program in Philadelphia. Jointly sponsored by Senator Erickson and Representative Vitali.

October 23, 2007, 9:00AM-4:00PM: COALS Summit in Harrisburg. Location: Pennsylvania State Capitol Building North Office Building, Hearing Room 1, Harrisburg Please.

More info on all these events can be found on http://www.pecpa.org under "news and events."

Still don’t believe in Global Warming?

Here's more evidence of global warming. Check out this sea ice graphic from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/01/science/20071002_ARCTIC_GRAPHIC.html?th&emc=th#

And if you're thinking it has nothing to do with Appalachia, where do you think most of the CO2 producing coal is coming from?

Cool Educational Tools

Really neat site that explains what all goes into the production of resource intensive products.

http://www.howproductsimpact.net/

 

A tongue-in-cheek metaphor poking holes in the feasibility of carbon emissions trading. From the UK, so prepared to be shocked/amused.

www.cheatneutral.com

 

Governor calls for new regulation in Utah mining

The governor of Utah will hear testimony from the commission formed after last months Crandall Mine Disaster. He is calling for state regulation of mining in Utah. Since SMCRA passed in 1977, the state has relied on federal inspectors to regulate its mining operations. Several coal-mining states in Appalachia, including West Virginia and Kentucky, have continued their own mining regulation program from the start relying on the feds only for oversight. I am not at all surprised to hear this sentiment in Utah, since major disasters usually spur cries for safety improvements and/or new laws. Why is it that someone (in this case 9 someones) has to die before people call for change? I hope they do begin to regulate the mining operations. Someone has to oversee the federal government. For full article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/us/25mine.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin