Mine permit process needs fixing

Today’s decision from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement was so long in coming that we wondered if it would ever arrive.

Three years ago, the federal agency told the state it had 10 days to explain why permits issued to Usibelli Coal Mine were still valid and, therefore, capable of being renewed.

The state argued that although the permits weren’t formally renewed, there was an implicit renewal when the state failed to revoke them after the coal companies they passed between failed to start mining within the permit’s specified five-year timeline.

There was some back-and-forth and then, months later, it just kind of petered out. We continued to ask about it, but the responses we got from people — Usibelli representatives and project opponents alike — said they were waiting on a response, too, and similarly had no idea when one might arrive.

But then, on Nov. 4, the federal agency issued its conclusions. The state should have taken action to revoke the permits or at least initiate a hearing process as to why they weren’t renewed and mining didn’t start, the federal agency said.

However, since the state did not do that, Usibelli can proceed. But the state is going to have to reckon with the federal government, engaging in a process with a familiar ring to anyone who has received a poor job performance review — the creation and execution of an “action plan.”

That it feels like the feds are reprimanding the state for poor performance, we believe, is appropriate. One quote in particular from the letter to Usibelli rang true for us:

“We reject DNR’s argument that it is acceptable practice to implicitly decide to extend the time to commence mining. Although the record indicates that there might have been grounds to justify some of the extensions, neither we, the public, nor the permittees themselves, have any way of ascertaining the rationale behind DNR’s decision.”

That’s exactly true. How is anyone to know how or why these decisions are made if the decisions are made passively rather than actively?

We believe that in nearly every case, transparency and a written public record is preferable to government opacity.

Whether mining returns to the Sutton area, DNR’s failure to follow its rules is a call to action for local residents, and our lawmakers in Juneau. DNR is the state agency tasked with enforcing state rules and regulations for mining. Not one more permit should be allowed to stand beyond its issued timeline.

The state must engage honestly with the federal government in developing an action plan process with the intention of creating a clear, transparent and active mining permit renewal process.

Mostly, we hope DNR will rise to the challenge and improve its internal enforcement practices. As Alaskans, we have a lot at risk when DNR gets it wrong. Indeed, who among us can live without clean water and breathable air?