schuyler olt
06-24-2005, 09:01 AM
At Ronnie's request, I attended yesterday's summit concerning mine reclamation and strategies involving wildlife habitat, at least as much as I could because of a work situation which prevented me from attending some of the more technical presentations in the afternoon.
However, I did attend the morning session, which was more policy oriented. The several speakers came at the issue from different perspectives, but all sent a common message--noncompaction methods specifically designed to create wildlife habitat are not only cheaper, they are much better ecologically. Unfortunately, in the permitting process (which is undertaken before mining begins), wildlife habitat is bureaucratically seen as a relatively low-value goal (why disturb the woods at all just to restore the woods seems to be the cross-headed thinking), and secondary economic uses seem to get higher priority, particularly where MTR (mountaintop removal) is sought.
In other words, after strip mining, there are various uses to which the ground can be put. For example, an airport, a housing development, a factory site, a shopping center, a county park, or a WMA. As you may imagine (and as those of you who live there KNOW), competing interests come into play with all the wonderful politics that goes along with that. Flat land is a premium, obviously, and I can see how local communities greatly desire that man-made mesa for economic development.
Right now, only about 28% of reclaimed property is being restored for wildlife habitat.
But Washington seems to be waking up and smelling the coffee, perhaps. Coal is still recognized as a critical part of our long-term energy policy. Because it is so heavily used for electricity, cost is a major factor. Reclamation adds to the cost of coal. Restoration of wildlife habitat is the cheapest form of reclamation, and therefore impacts the cost per ton less than other methods. In addition, states and local communities are recognizing that hunting can potentially be a major economic impact. Accordingly, what was once seen as allowing land to go passive is now beginning to be seen as land actually generating significant revenues.
Accordingly, the OSM is taking a long, hard look at regulations which, to this point, chilled the ability of operators to reclaim for habitat. The presentations by the Director of OSM and his boss, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, were heartening, and clearly their efforts are worthy of support.
The conference was the product of a ton of hard work by David Ledford (Elkguy), who deserves a big round of cyber-applause for a job fantastically well done.
However, I did attend the morning session, which was more policy oriented. The several speakers came at the issue from different perspectives, but all sent a common message--noncompaction methods specifically designed to create wildlife habitat are not only cheaper, they are much better ecologically. Unfortunately, in the permitting process (which is undertaken before mining begins), wildlife habitat is bureaucratically seen as a relatively low-value goal (why disturb the woods at all just to restore the woods seems to be the cross-headed thinking), and secondary economic uses seem to get higher priority, particularly where MTR (mountaintop removal) is sought.
In other words, after strip mining, there are various uses to which the ground can be put. For example, an airport, a housing development, a factory site, a shopping center, a county park, or a WMA. As you may imagine (and as those of you who live there KNOW), competing interests come into play with all the wonderful politics that goes along with that. Flat land is a premium, obviously, and I can see how local communities greatly desire that man-made mesa for economic development.
Right now, only about 28% of reclaimed property is being restored for wildlife habitat.
But Washington seems to be waking up and smelling the coffee, perhaps. Coal is still recognized as a critical part of our long-term energy policy. Because it is so heavily used for electricity, cost is a major factor. Reclamation adds to the cost of coal. Restoration of wildlife habitat is the cheapest form of reclamation, and therefore impacts the cost per ton less than other methods. In addition, states and local communities are recognizing that hunting can potentially be a major economic impact. Accordingly, what was once seen as allowing land to go passive is now beginning to be seen as land actually generating significant revenues.
Accordingly, the OSM is taking a long, hard look at regulations which, to this point, chilled the ability of operators to reclaim for habitat. The presentations by the Director of OSM and his boss, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, were heartening, and clearly their efforts are worthy of support.
The conference was the product of a ton of hard work by David Ledford (Elkguy), who deserves a big round of cyber-applause for a job fantastically well done.