The new administration's EPA has moved quietly and efficiently in approving more than 2 dozen new mountain top open mining projects. Until today it has flown off radar. Environmentalists that have fought MTM in the past are saying they have been betrayed, and that this has been done mainly to cement votes in weak D states like West Virginia.
The LAT finally broke the story today:
With the election of President Obama, environmentalists had expected to see the end of the "Appalachian apocalypse," their name for exposing coal deposits by blowing the tops off whole mountains.
But in recent weeks, the administration has quietly made a decision to open the way for at least two dozen more mountaintop removals.
In a letter this month to a coal ally, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), the Environmental Protection Agency said it would not block dozens of "surface mining" projects. The list included some controversial mountaintop mines.
During the Clinton Administration, the Department of Energy estimated that Appalachia held at least 100 times as much coal, 28.5 billion tons, as had been mined in total to that point. That coal provides almost 100% of energy needs for states like West Virginia. Although production of coal in WV remains steady, the recent EPA ruling allows for dozens of mountain tops to be scraped off, creating additional environmental problems for the area.
With the mountaintop open mining that currently exists, at least 1,200 miles of headwaters streams were directly and negatively impacted by MTM/VF features including coal removal areas, valley fills, roads, and ponds between 1992 and 2002. At least 724 stream miles were covered by valley fills from 1985 to 2001.
A hesitant EPA that refuses to take a stand against MTM notes that the environmental impacts of MTM are indisputable. Based on studies of over 1200 stream segments impacted by mountaintop mining and valley fills the EPA found an increase of minerals in the water. Increased zinc, sodium, selenium, and sulfate levels that may increase and negatively impact fish and macroinvertebrates leading to less diverse and more pollutant-tolerant species. Streams in watersheds below valley fills tend to have greater base flow leading to greater erosion. Stream blocked by being filled in. Creation of low quality wetlands (mudflats). Shattered forests. Compacted soils slowing any regrowth of anything. No idea what the real cumulative environmental are-they have not even been identified, as neither have social, economic and heritage issues and impact.
Certain watersheds were more impacted by MTM than others. In 2005, a Bush led EPA produced an extensive 500 page report Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement concluding both that MTM had less negative impact then critics claimed, and that additional protections were required for MTM operations because of severe negative impacts to the surrounding environment, extending downstream for miles away from the primary site.
In that same Appalachian area, studies by the National Hydropower Association have shown a 17 Gigawatt (17,000-Megawatt, or about 17 full throttle nuclear reactors) resource of existing flood-control dams and navigation locks, tapping existing structures and creating no further ecological impact, in some cases mitigating that impact.
Appalachian mines currently provide about 35% of the nations coal supply. Compared to western state coal, Appalachian coal is higher in sulphur content, and especially higher in mercury content, and emits more of these and other pollutants into the atmosphere than western coal, or in properly equipped coal fired plant. Most of the power plants in the area do not utilize the current modern scrubbers needed to remove 80-90% of these pollutants; rather they use the minimum clean air gear required by the EPA. As a result, tons of pollutants are emitted yearly. Off and on over the past few decades, that has made itself an election issue.
Some area approved for having their mountain tops blasted open, and ruining miles of headwaters, are prime for another type of energy source: wind.
"I live in the west end of the county, which has been heavily impacted by coal mining," Lorelei Scarbro of Rock Creek said. "Our concern today is our homes, our environment and the sustainability of the environment."
Scarbro says she owns 10 acres that are at risk due to four massive strip mining permits for Coal River Mountain that would level 6,600 acres and lead to the construction of 19 valley fills, 14 of which would impact the Sycamore Creek watershed.
"These permits haven’t been issued yet," she said. "These mines would be at the heads of Horse Creek, Dry Creek and Rock Creek, and will surround nearly the entire length of Sycamore Creek, which is considered to be the most pristine stream in the area."
Scarbro says many residents living in the proposed strip mining area favor an alternative — wind power.
"We want Raleigh County to be in the forefront of renewable energy sources," she said. "We are asking the Raleigh County Commission to support a proposed wind farm for Coal River Mountain."
The isolation of the areas eliminates noise and light flutter issues for neighbors, and wind industry labor statistics support claims that on a per megawatt basis, wind energy provides an equal number of jobs. Some groups tracking this issue now report wind energy provides more jobs than coal energy on a well-to-wheel basis.
So why has the current administration quietly moved forward with a huge expansion of an ecologically destructive mining process? The end result is expansion of an energy source campaigned against, and whose additional mined energy output can be created in ways with little (wind) or no (hydro) additional environmental impact.
The gist of the LAT article is that this decision was made for the crassest of reasons-political expediency to get votes. Additionally, why would an administration that has positioned itself as determined to move forward on trimming atmospheric carbon emissions, purposefully expand the production of highly polluting coal? What benefit will this actually bring the residents of this area? More health problems? A devastated ecology? Destroyed recreational opportunities?
No press conference has been scheduled, and no WH press release has been issued to explain the rationale behind expanding mountaintop mining.