Spruce No. 1 Clean Water Act Permit Hearing

Several hundred citizens gathered in the Charleston Civic Center Tuesday night for an EPA-sponsored public hearing on their agency's "proposed determination" to block the Clean Water Act permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine.

If allowed to move forward, the Spruce No. 1 mine would be the largest in West Virginia history and cover 7 miles of streams in Logan County, W.Va., near Blair. The Army Corps of Engineers approved a scaled-back version of the permit in 2007, which the EPA moved to veto last October. In March of 2010, the EPA announced a "proposed determination" to block the Clean Water Act Permit for the mine, saying it had "reason to believe that the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as currently authorized, could result in unacceptable adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources." 

Despite the deeply divided sentiments that pervaded the room, the hearing proceeded in a civil manner, with the crowd respectfully allowing each speaker their allotted two minutes.
 

“I’m glad that the EPA has finally decided to be the Environmental Protection Agency and not the Economic Protection Agency, “ said Junior Walk, 20, a Coal River Valley local and organizer with Coal River Mountain Watch. A former coal company employee, Walk told the crowd that he believes no one should have to grow up with poisoned water, as he did.

Speakers who opposed the permit included residents, a former UMWA miner, anti-mountaintop removal activists and scientists. They argued against the permit from a wide variety of angles, pointing out the health, environmental, human and economic impacts of coal.

“I’m glad that the EPA has finally decided to be the Environmental Protection Agency and not the Economic Protection Agency, “ said Junior Walk, 20, a Coal River Valley local and organizer with Coal River Mountain Watch. A former coal company employee, Walk told the crowd that he believes no one should have to grow up with poisoned water, as he did.

Speakers who opposed the permit included residents, a former UMWA miner, anti-mountaintop removal activists and scientists. They argued against the permit from a wide variety of angles, pointing out the health, environmental, human and economic impacts of coal.

Robert Goodwin, an environmental permit analyst and researcher with Coal River Mountain Watch, used his two minutes to make some suggestions to the National EPA. Because the EPA so often offers coal companies variances when it comes to parts of the valley fill permitting process, Goodwin wryly questioned why laws regarding overburden and water quality even existed.

The opposition was heavily weighted with coal industry higher-ups and politicians. Nick Rahall of West Virginia's 3rd Congressional District compared Gulf fisherman whose livelihoods have been ravaged by the recent oil spill to the impact vetoing Spruce No. 1 would have on strip miners-- despite the fact that fishermen livelihoods were ruined by an extractive industry. Bill Raney of the West Virginia Coal Association and Randall Maggard, a manager at Argus Energy, also spoke—emphasizing that vetoing the permit would take away jobs and create a precedent that could threaten the mining industry as a whole. No one in favor of the permit mentioned that economically mineable coal will likely be gone from southern West Virginia within the next few decades.

Strip miners and residents were among the pro-Spruce speakers, but comprised a minority. Representatives of the Logan Chamber of Commerce and the county schools, both of which receive coal severance tax dollars, spoke out in favor of the permit.

Environmentalists and coal supporters met to debate the largest mountaintop removal mining permit to date—the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, W.Va.—at a public hearing on May 18 in Charleston, W.Va. EPA officials accepted comments from the public regarding the permit at what was a subdued and small gathering compared to the large, heated Army Corps of Engineer hearings held last fall.pass4sure VCP-410In March, The EPA announced that it planned to significantly restrict or prohibit mountaintop removal mining at Spruce No. 1.“pass4sure 350-001Coal, and coal mining, is part of our nation’s energy future, and for that reason EPA has made repeated efforts to foster dialogue and find a responsible path forward.pass4sure 640-802 But we must prevent the significant and irreversible damage that comes from mining pollution — and the damage from this project would be irreversible,” said EPA Regional Administrator for the Mid-Atlantic, Shawn Garvin. pass4sure SY0-201“This recommendation is consistent with our broader Clean Water Act efforts in Central Appalachia. EPA has a duty under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on these waters for drinking, fishing and swimming.”
The Appalachian Mountains (En-us-Appalachian.ogg ˌæpəˈleɪʃɨn (help·info) or /ˌæpəˈlætʃɨn/), often called the Appalachians 642-642, are a vast system of mountains in eastern North America. Definitions vary on the precise boundaries of the Appalachians. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines the Appalachian Highlands220-702 physiographic division as consisting of thirteen provinces: the Atlantic Coast Uplands, Eastern Newfoundland Atlantic, Maritime Acadian Highlands, Maritime Plain, Notre Dame And Megantic Mountains, Western Newfoundland Mountains, Piedmont,70-432 Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, Saint Lawrence Valley, Appalachian Plateaus, New England province, and the Adirondack provinces640-863 A common variant definition does not include the Adirondack Mountains, which are often said to have more in common with the Canadian Shield than the Appalachians.
 
  Share