This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Lawyers for environmental groups opposing a coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park argued Monday before the Utah Supreme Court that the state neglected key permitting requirements when allowing the project.
The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining and its board should have required more thorough plans for protecting archaeological sites and water, attorney Walt Morris told the justices. Instead, he said, the state glossed over some of those questions and approved an incomplete permit for mining on private land.
Utah law governs mining on private lands, but Morris argued the Interior Department's approval of the state program overseeing mines was contingent on state rules being as protective as the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
"It has to be no less effective and no less stringent than the federal law," said Morris, a Virginia attorney specializing in mining law and representing the Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, National Parks Conservation Association and Natural Resources Defense Council.
The mine area, about a dozen miles west of Bryce near Alton, is densely sprinkled with ancient campsites, SUWA attorney Steve Bloch said after the hearing. The groups allege that while the company mapped cultural sites it did not specify areas where mine activity might disturb those sites outside of the actual mine footprint.
They also contend that the state didn't define what sort of damage to the area's hydrology would be tolerated, or how water quality and quantity monitoring would be used during the mine's life. State law directs the division to maintain its "primacy" over mining, Morris said, which means satisfying federal expectations.
Attorneys for the state and Alton Coal Development said division employees scrutinized the application appropriately. They maintain consultants mapped locations of archaeological sites and set out a plan for determining how the mine would affect water flows and quality in Kane Creek.
The division prepared "nine hefty volumes," Assistant Attorney General Steve Alder said.
Justices quizzed the attorneys on whether Utah's mine regulation process must strictly mirror federal rules for the state to retain authority over mine permitting. Both sides agreed that the state may deviate, though Morris argued that the deviation may not lessen the protections — and that he believes it did in this case.
Alder countered that the federal mining law allows broad discretion to states because the nation's diversity of terrain, geology and climate necessitates different standards in different places.
The federal surface mining law "requires deference" to states, he said.
The court took the case under advisement. If it rules for the environmental appellants, it would remand the permit for further review by the state.
The mine is already operating as an open pit on private lands, and a proposed expansion onto federal lands is currently under review by federal authorities. Agencies such as the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have said they are troubled by the expansion plan.