Surface mining in the Appalachian Mountains is polluting waterways and killing wildlife, says the Environmental Protection Agency.
Image: M. Tama/Getty
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
By Natasha Gilbert of Nature magazine
The US Environmental Protection Agency is fighting tooth and nail to stop destructive mining practices that threaten the aquatic habitats and wildlife of the Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia. Wednesday is the deadline for the agency to submit legal arguments in its appeal against a decision that overturned its veto of a permit for a vast surfacing-mining operation in the area.
Mountaintop mining involves removing large amounts of earth with explosives to allow the excavation of thin seams of coal beneath them. Last year, the EPA vetoed a permit for one of the largest such projects ever planned in West Virginia.
The permit had been awarded in 2007 by the Army Corps of Engineers to Mingo Logan, a subsidiary of Arch Coal — the second-largest coal producer in the United States, which is based in St Louis, Missouri. The EPA concluded that the Spruce 1 mine would have "unacceptable" effects on water quality and wildlife (see 'EPA nixes mountain mining plans').
But in March this year, US district judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the EPA does not have the authority to veto a permit once it has been issued by the corps. She said such authority would be “a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself”. Environmentalists fear that the move seriously threatens the EPA’s powers to effectively safeguard the environment.
In July, another district judge overruled EPA guidance that recommended preserving water quality by putting limits on the allowable electrical conductivity of stream water, a property that is increased by the presence of mining debris in the water.
A united front
The EPA has joined with environmental advocates to combat the March decision. Environmental lawyers including the firm Earthjustice, based in San Francisco, California, will submit legal arguments in support of the EPA's appeal, and oral arguments are expected to be heard by the end of the year.
The EPA announced in September that it will also appeal against the ruling on its water-pollution guidance.
The agency and Earthjustice argue that the law clearly gives the EPA the power to revoke permits. “We believe the court of appeal will apply administrative law and find that the EPA has authority and that its reading of the law is reasonable and permissible,” says Emma Cheuse, an attorney at Earthjustice.
The groups also argue that the scientific evidence “overwhelmingly demonstrates” the negative impacts of surface mining on sensitive habitats and wildlife including mayflies, fish and birds such as the Louisiana waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla). A surge of scientific studies published over the past three years strengthens the EPA's case, demonstrating that mountaintop rubble dumped in valleys buries streams and causes toxic selenium and other metals to leak into the water.
“This widespread land-use change will generate a complex chemical mix. It is really clear the mixture from the surface coal mining is causing the problem and can be clearly tied to the loss of sensitive taxa,” says Emily Bernhardt, a biologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who has conducted some of the most detailed work in this area.
Industrial opposition
But mining companies continue to question the scientific evidence.
In a legal brief submitted in March, Mingo Logan wrote that the impacts of mining on large invertebrates and salamanders are “utterly routine”. It also says that the effects on fish and the Louisiana waterthrush that were highlighted by the EPA are “speculative”.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentTo me it seems that the mining is definitely bad for the environment, but the EPA does not have the authority to rescind. However, the mining companies do not want to admit that the mining is bad, so they're taking what they see as a high road—"The EPA has no power *and* we do no harm"—what I see as reckless arrogance, but their only path to convince voters not ever to give the EPA any power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come every time evidence is researched and given they just brush it off as I don't believe the evidence. That's not a scientific answer to facts and research. Make the coal company's do the research that contradicts the facts and then have the law and community's then decide.Otherwise we are leaving the truth up to lawyers and judges that really don't have our best interest at heart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't stand the fact that science gets argued in court as if it were negotiable. Science needs a special level of protection. It's not right to argue that scientific findings are up for debate like any opinion. Arguments against science should only be made by more science that proves its case with scientifically sound data not rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are a nation of laws, under the Constitution, and we are all due our day in court. The science has to be able to hold up in court, to be considered. Would you want scientists to be above the law? Suppose they were, and in a few decades decided that there were too many people, will you go willingly? And who will decide who is a scientist? A court? The laws pertain to all citizens equally, there is no royal class in the US and there never should be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou misinterpreted what I was saying. Science should be able to be argued against, I never said it shouldn't. What I said was that it should be argued with science not rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrecisely. Take the vaccines-cause-autism debacle. Immunocompromised people like my mother are now in serious danger of getting pertussis because Andrew Wakefield got paid to alter his findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch massive destruction lasting many, many lifetimes for so little dirty coal to run a single plant for not even a yr per mountain top. Way to go West Virgina, Ky, NC, etc!! You are so smart doing this.
Such bueatiful states being laid to waste for a few dollars today.
jerry, read the article. This is not happening in NC, it is in WV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPostman get a life!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happens in more places than WV and even reular mining of coal caused too much damage for a very short term gain.