University of Kentucky researchers explore alternative to filling surface mining sites in Appalachia

By: Donald Smith, Staff Member

There is a new stream at Guy Cove in Kentucky's Robinson Forest, and it could have a significant impact on the future of environmental law with regard to surface-mining. Bill Estep, Buried Streams, Ripple of Hope, Lexington Herald-Leader, Jan. 31, 2010, available at http://www/.
kentucky.com/latest_news/
story/1118658.html#. When coal companies remove rock for surface mining, the "spoil" (extra rock and dirt) that cannot be placed back in the mined area because it swells, is placed into fills in hollows around the site and compacted for stability. Id. This process often results in covering up parts of streams, to the extent that a 2003 federal study found that an estimated 730 miles of streams in Eastern Kentucky were wiped out by surface-mining activities. Id. This is likely an underestimate, as Greg Pond, formerly a biologist with the Kentucky Division of Water who is currently employed at the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), explains in a 2004 research paper that the estimate in the federal study addressed only a particular class of stream, and it is likely that surface-mining has in fact buried hundreds more miles of headwater areas in Kentucky. Gregory Pond, Effects of Surface Mining and Residential Land Use on headwater Stream Biotic Integrity in the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region, http://www.water.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ED76CE4E-F46A-4509-8937-1A5DA40F3838/0/coal_mining1.pdf (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). The coal industry has taken a different approach entirely as to what constitutes a stream. As explained in the Lexington Herald-Leader, "[the coal industry says it would be impossible to mine coal without creating fills. To many associated with the industry, the areas high on the side of a hill where water begins to collect are not streams at all, but merely drainage ditches that only flow with water when it rains or when snow melts." Bill Estep, Buried Streams, Ripple of Hope, Lexington Herald-Leader, Jan. 31, 2010, available at http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/
story/1118658.html#.

University of Kentucky researchers built a new stream atop the fill at Guy Cove, and planted vegetation and trees. Id. The result is a promising alternative to the current method of filling that, while in its early stages, appears, to have provided for high quality water in a stable stream as a method of reclaiming watersheds. Id. The new research development is particularly interesting against the backdrop of the current legal climate with regard to stream reclamation. The EPA has stalled dozens of permit applications in Appalachia, including Eastern Kentucky, for further review, for concerns including restoration of stream functions after mining. Id.

In a recent decision...

...the United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to issue permits for the discharge of slurry, a by-product of the mining technique referred to as “froth flotation.” Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 129 S.Ct. 2458 (2009). Overturning the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court determined that slurry is, in fact, “fill material” as defined by the Clean Water Act (the CWA or the Act), and, in accordance with the CWA, the disposal of such material shall be regulated by the Corps without regard to the strict limitations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) for the disposal of pollutants. Id. at 2463.

The defendant in the case, Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), attempted to revitalize an 80-year-old gold mine in Juneau using the “froth flotation” technique whereby the mine’s crushed rock would be mixed with certain chemicals, resulting in the separation of valuable minerals. Id. at 2463-2464. One of the considerations in developing this plan, as is common in most mining operations, was what to do with the mixture of crushed rock and chemicals, referred to as slurry, once the valuable minerals were extracted. Coeur Alaska determined that the most cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly method of disposal would be to deposit the slurry into a nearby lake. Id. Upon approval by the Corps to implement its plan, several environmental activist groups filed suit against Coeur Alaska alleging that the mining company did not comply with the CWA. Id. at 2463.

The Supreme Court’s decision was not a difficult one as the language of the CWA and the regulations that accompany the Act clearly give the Corps the authority to issue permits for the discharge of slurry. However, the Appalachia Restoration Act, which was introduced in the Senate in March, 2009, proposes to change the definition of “fill material” to exclude slurry. S. 696, 111th Cong. (2009). Although no major congressional action has been taken, the Bill presents another potential challenge for companies like Coeur Alaska in the development of their mining operations.

The following post was written by staff member Meghan Jackson.