These comments are submitted for agency consideration regarding permit No

Thomas Wilmes

Informations

• Publié par: Unko
• Nombre de lectures: 57
• Langue: Español

Extrait

Paul  Ehret   Director,   Division   of   Mine   Permits   Department   for   Natural   Resources   2   Hudson   Hollow   Frankfort,   Kentucky   40601     June   18,   2008     Re:    Permit   Conference,   Jamieson   Construction   Company,   DMRE   900 ‐ 0047   NW.     Dear   Mr.   Ehret:     These   comments   are   submitted   for   agency   consideration   regarding   permit   No.   900 ‐ 0047   NW,   DMRE   ID   No.   001392,   for   Jamieson   Construction   Company   (Applicant)   in   the   Sloans   Valley/Neelys   Creek   catchment   area   and   its   cave   systems,   draining   to   Lake   Cumberland.       The   comments   are   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   Sierra   Club   and   its   Kentucky   Cumberland   Chapter   whose   members   live,   work,   and   recreate   in   the   Sloans   Valley,   Neelys   Creek   and   Lake   Cumberland   area,   and   are   tendered   in   response   to   the   public   notice   soliciting   public   comment   on   the   proposed   agency   action.   The   Cumberland   Chapter,   founded   in   1968,   encompasses   the   Commonwealth   of   Kentucky   and   since   its   founding   has   grown   to   more   than   3600   members.   The   Cumberland   Chapter   is   a   member   of   the   Midwest   Regional   Conservation   Committee   and   an   affiliate   of   the   Appalachian   regional   Conservation   Committee.     We   believe   that   the   companys   permit   application   contains   the   following   serious   deficiencies   and   cannot   be   approved   in   its   current   form.   Our   comments   below   are   based   on   April   2008   application   adjustments   submitted   by   the   applicant.    Dr.   Hilary   Lambert   requested   and   received   another   look   at   the   permit   file   on   June   16,   2008   and   on   that   date   was   provided   with   a   mid ‐ July   2007   version   of   the   file,   with   no   subsequent   changes   provided,   or   any   indication   that   further   changes   and   updates   may   be   underway.      1.    Mining   would   permanently   degrade   the   aesthetic   value   and   diminish   tourism     revenue   generation   of   the   Sloans   Valley   Region   and   Lake   Cumberland.     The   Sloans   Valley   /   Neelys   Creek   catchment   area   contains   all   the   surface   and   groundwater   resources,   including   25+   miles   of   cave   passage,   the   74 th   longest   in   the   world,   4 th   longest   in   Kentucky,   and   longest   in   Eastern   Kentucky.   The   Sloans   Valley   Cave   System   was   nominated   as   a   Significant   Federal   Cave   in   1997.   Sloans   Valley   and  

 

1

Neelys  Creek  are  within  the  viewshed  of  Lake  Cumberland,  an  important  recreation   destination   for   millions   of   people   within   and   beyond   the   borders   of   the   Commonwealth.      Mining   activities   would   permanently   impact   the   Sloans   Valley   Cave   System   and   the   Sloans   Valley   /   Neelys   Creek   catchment   area   with   unforeseeable   and   potentially   catastrophic   impacts   to   subsurface   drainage,   surface   water   quality,   water   wells,   karst   structures   and   building   foundations.   Karst   aquifers   receive   distributed   recharge   from   percolation   through   the   soil   and   concentrated   recharge   from   surface   runoff   that   flows   directly   into   the   aquifer   at   stream   sinks   (swallets)   and   sinkhole   drains.   Because   of   the   rapid   velocities   of   these   underground   streams,   contaminants   may   travel   several   miles   through   the   aquifer   in   only   a   few   hours. 1   Any   drainage   from   surface   mining   operations   would   increase   sedimentation,   siltation,   and   Acid   Mine   Drainage   (AMD)   in   all   downstream   surface   and   subsurface   streams   and   ultimately   degrade   water   quality   in   Lake   Cumberland.      Siltation,   acid   runoff,   and   sulfur   by ‐ products   of   mining   as   well   as   diesel,   hydraulic   fluid   and   other   chemical   spills   will   be   harmful   to   streams   and   the   environment.    Chemical   spills   and   runoff   will   indirectly   flow   into   Cumberland   Lake   creating   pollution   absorbed   by   fish   and   other   wildlife   within   the   food   chain.    This   pollution   absorbed   by   fish   and   other   wildlife   could   adversely   affect   human   health,   particularly   the   young   and   elderly.     The   water   quality   and   appearance   of   this   area   is   vital   to   tourism   and   particularly   fishing,   to   the   residents,   the   fish,   plants   and   animals   (not   to   mention   drinking   water)   living   in   or   near   the   watershed.    The   re ‐ constitution   of   Wolf   Dam   and   subsequent   lowering   of   the   water   gives   some   indication   of   the   potential   economic   loss   of   tourism.       Mining   activities   would   negatively   impact   revenue   generation   in   the   Lake   Cumberland   region.   The   recreational   and   ecological   assets   of   the   Lake   Cumberland   region,   generates   in   excess   of   $150   million   annually,   primarily   from   seasonal   tourism.   Surface   coal   mining   constitutes   a   permanent   taking   of   the   aesthetic   value   of   the   Sloans   Valley   Region   and   would   diminish   tourism   revenue   generation   potential   in   a   region   of   Eastern   Kentucky   historically   independent   of   coal   tax   revenue.       

                                                  1 Introduction to Karst Environmental Problems – Groundwater Contamination  http://www.dyetracing.com/karst/ka01013.html

 

2

2.   The  DMRE  No.  900 ‐ 0047  application  is  incomplete,  unavailable  for  public   review   prior   to   the   close   of   the   public   comment   period,   and   does   not   comply   with   Kentuckys   Antidegradation   Implementation   Agreements   with   USEPA.     Although   the   Department   of   Natural   Resources   has   deemed   the   application   complete,   correspondence   from   the   Cabinet   to   Crystal   Lashon   of   Geotechnical   Services   Inc.   dated   May   23,   2008   states   the   application   has   been   placed   in   Technically   Withdrawn   (TWW)   status   and   details   26   sections   and   numerous   subsections   where   the   DMRE   No.   900 ‐ 0047   application   has   been   deemed   deficient   by   the   Cabinet.   These   deficiencies   include:     Within   the   Critical   Resources   Review   Section   (CRRS),   applicant   failed   to   adequately   address   and   demonstrate   tree   replanting   density   and   watering   areas   as   required   by   the   Indiana   Bat   Protection   and   Enhancement   Plan   (PEP).     The   Technical   Review   Section   is   incomplete,   including,   but   not   limited   to   the   following:      •   Failure   to   identify   a   spring   and   haul   road   ditch   facility   numbers.   •   Failure   to   identify   a   public   wildlife   management   area   and   the   pending   LUM   08 ‐ 1   petition.   •   Failure   to   identify   the   mining   commencement   date   and   duration.   •   Failure   to   specifically   describe   what   Best   Management   Practices   (BMP)   will   be   employed.   •   Failure   to   include   a   description   of   the   karst   formations   in   the   permitted   area.   •   Failure   to   provide   ground   water   sampling   data.   •   Failure   to   accurately   identify   the   impacted   reach   of   Neelys   Creek   as   ephemeral   or   intermittent   and   provide   adequate   samples.    •   Failure   to   accurately   portray   previous   mining   operations   in   the   watershed.   •   Failure   to   report   water   quality   impacts   to   ground   water   supplies.   • Failure   to   identify   the   impact   of   lime   and   fertilizer   to   karst   formations.     •   Failure   to   provide   a   timeline   for   alternate   sources   of   water.   •   Failure   to   accurately   identify   the   coal   seam   elevation.   •   Failure   to   justify   the   coal   seam   thickness.   •   Failure   to   Explain   why   the   acreage   for   hollow   fill   #1   volume   calculations   does   not   match   the   acreage   on   the   mining   and   reclamation   plan   (MRP)   map.   •   Failure   to   insure   all   toxic   materials   (grease,   lubricants,   and   flammable   liquids)   should   be   temporarily   stored   on   bench   and   away   from   a   natural   drain   area.     Failure   to   explain   how   the   applicant   will   ensure   a   thorough   blending   of   the   spoil   • to   create   a   net   neutralization.   •   Failure   to   consider   maintaining   the   grass   waterways,   straw   bales   and/or   silt   fences   around   the   haul   road   during   mining   operations.   With   the   nature   of   this  

 

3

area  (Lake  Cumberland,  disturbance  within  100  of  a  stream,  and  the  karst   system),   these   sediment   control   methods   could   be   very   beneficial   in   reduction   of   sedimentation   resulting   from   the   haul   road   activities.    •   Failure   to   provide   further   justification   for   the   grade   and   culvert   spacing   variance.     The   Groundwater   Review   Section   is   incomplete,   including,   but   not   limited   to   the   following:      •   Failure   to   provide   a   description   of   all   aquifers   located   adjacent   to   the   mining   area   of   the   permit   and   within   the   road   acreage   of   the   permit   including   those   of   the   karst   system.   •   Failure   to   accurately   state   that   karst   topography   has   basically   eliminated   the   potential   of   obtaining   potable   water   in   the   valley   bottoms   in   the   immediate   vicinity   of   the   proposed   mining.   The   applicant   has   documented   with   his   own   water   sampling   of   monitoring   site   SW ‐ 1   that   there   is   a   potential   of   obtaining   potable   water   from   the   cave   systems   in   the   adjacent   valley   bottoms.   •   Failure   to   describe   the   probable   hydrologic   consequence   of   the   haul   road   located   in   the   valley   bottom   on   the   limestone   and   adjacent   to   karst   features.   Specifically,   to   discuss   the   possible   affects   that   sediment,   water   runoff,   traffic,   and   any   chemicals   used   for   dust   control   or   on   vehicles   that   may   occur   during   the   construction,   reclamation,   and   use   of   the   haul   road.   •   Failure   to   provide   a   description   of   protective   measures   that   must   be   more   site ‐ specific   for   the   proposed   permit   such   as   describing   the   actual   sediment   control   plans   for   the   ponds,   when   alternate   sediment   control   measurements   will   be   used,   and   where   energy   dissipaters   will   be   used.   •   Failure   to   describe   the   protection   measures   that   will   be   taken   during   the   haul   road   construction   and   use   of   this   road   when   the   road   is   within   the   limestone   and   adjacent   to   the   karst   features.     The   Compliance   Review   Section   is   incomplete,   including,   but   not   limited   to   the   following:      •   Failure   to   provide   the   calculations   for   the   backfill   mine   area.   •   Failure   to   provide   lateral   drains   around   the   Upper   Beaver   Creek   coal   seam.   •   Failure   to   extend   the   under   drain   of   the   hollow   fill   over   the   coal   seams.   •   Failure   to   provide   justification   for   the   diversion   ditches   to   be   constructed   in   backfill.   •   Failure   to   clarify   the   under   drain   size.   •   Failure   to   include   the   rock   check   dam   on   the   MRP   map.   •   Failure   to   include   the   slope   on   the   sub   watershed   map.   •   Failure   to   clarify   in   Sec.   31.3   if   ponds   SS ‐ 1   and   SS ‐ 4   are   in   series.  

 

4