Judge hears coal mining concerns

Federal Judge Dee Benson will have to weigh the importance of coal mining to Emery County versus the environmental impacts of a mining operation proposed in the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

On Thursday, Benson heard arguments on both sides of the issue, from the coal company claiming it has provided 600 jobs and from environmentalists saying the environment has not been protected.

"Jobs are important to the region but so is the water," said Joel Ban, an attorney for Utah Environmental Congress, which is seeking to stop the entire operation.

UEC sued the Bureau of Land Management for approving Canyon Fuel's proposal to mine underneath a 143-acre portion of the East Fork of Box Canyon Creek drainage of the Manti-La Sal forest. In October, UEC won a temporary court injunction halting part of the project, but a big portion of it already has begun that the group asserts has damaged a 10,000-year-old prehistoric structure.

William Prince, Canyon Fuel attorney, said there's a difference of opinion on the damage.

"At heart of this is a dispute between experts," he said.

Prince argued that UEC has failed to take into account the importance the project has on the local economy. About 27 percent of Emery County's tax base is a result of the mining operations, he added.

"It's a balancing act."

Ban argues that the BLM, which controls the mineral rights on the Forest Service land, should have conducted additional environmental studies and disregarded the Forest Service's concerns about mining underneath a perennial stream, which could cause shifting and cracking that would alter the flow of water.

"The BLM primarily relied on studies that were six to seven years old and failed to continue to take a hard look at the impacts," Ban argued.

Carlie Christensen of the Attorney General's Office said the BLM did address the concerns and determined that additional environmental analysis wasn't necessary.

"BLM quite properly concluded that the project was covered by the full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)," Christensen said.

Benson, however, questioned why BLM didn't do additional analysis given the controversy of mining under perennial streams.

"The coal company knew the stipulation in the lease meant underground mining under perennial streams was a hotly-contested issue," Benson said. "Why wouldn't you do an environmental assessment at the minimum so everybody is more confident in moving forward?"

There are timing issues, responded Christensen. "There are good reasons why the BLM did not undertake additional analysis," adding that it would have essentially duplicated previous work and caused more delays.

---

E-mail: donna@desnews.com