News From Your Friends

Update and Background on the Chelatchie Bluff Surface Mining Overlay (SMO) on Forestland

October 23, 2024 in Accountability, Climate Change, Comprehensive Plan & Growth Management Act, Farmland & Forests, Mining

What is a Surface Mining Overlay (SMO)?

Surface mining refers to the removal of the terrain surface to access minerals underneath. An overlay “is a set of additional or stricter standards and criteria that are applied on top of existing land use designations or zoning districts” (Source). An overlay does not change the zoning that has been designated for that area of land.

Background (2020/2021):

In the case of the Chelatchie Bluff SMO, a request was made a few years ago for the County to approve an overlay on 330 acres of forestland, zoned FR-80 (resource land), for the purpose of making it available for mining projects. The applicants are Granite Construction and BRP Minerals (a huge international corporate conglomerate with lots of money). No application was made for a specific project.

The County approved the SMO with a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). Their rationale was that since there was no specific mining project in the application, no detailed environmental impact assessment pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was necessary.

Friends of Clark County filed an appeal to that decision in December of 2021, with the rationale that all surface mining has an environmental impact, and, in this case, substantial environmental impact because it would take place on forestland that houses the headwaters of Chelatchie Creek, a crucial fishery for anadromous species such as salmon and trout in Cedar Creek and the North Fork of the Lewis River.

Fast Forward to 2023: 

The appeal was heard by the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), a statutorily authorized tribunal, in March of 2023. The GMGB found that the action taken by the County in passing the SMO without first conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) violated state statutes and rules. This decision, therefore, placed the County in noncompliance with the law and invalidated the “order”.

As Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Christine Cook stated in a public meeting, “it’s kind of a good thing for counties to endeavor to be in compliance with state law”. When a county or city is out of compliance with the GMA, they can be ineligible for grants and low-interest loans.   Counties and cities rely heavily on state and federal grants and loans to pay many bills, and without access to those grants and loans, many local projects that support our everyday lives would not exist. In the case of Clark County, the Council was made aware of this on many occasions (all available publicly) by both the PA Cook and Director of Community Planning, Oliver Orjiako.

Although the Clark County Council was clearly made aware of the consequences of noncompliance, it continues to vote NOT to repeal the ordinance issuing the SMO on this 333 acres of forested land. The majority vote has continued to vote in favor of the interests of financially wealthy corporations (Granite Construction’s total revenue in 2023 was listed at over $3.5 billion dollars (Source). 

FOCC’s position has been and continues to be that there MANY good reasons to oppose the Chelatchie Bluff SMO on over 330 acres of forestland; and that, because of potentially environmentally damaging mining practices, any SMO should be subject to an EIS as part of the approval process.  

The Latest: 

On October 22nd, a public hearing was held with the agenda item of revisiting a repeal of the SMO Ordinance (Sub Section 5 of Section 2 of ORD, 2021-07-01). Although many residents showed up to beg the Council to repeal the SMO, the County Council’s majority ruled to NOT repeal the existing ordinance.

The only people at the hearing room speaking in favor of the SMO were lawyers for corporations, the mining industry, and building industry people. Every regular resident spoke in favor of a repeal. After some confusion, it was reiterated by a county staff person that due to ineligibility for grants because of the noncompliance, stormwater rate increases would be necessary and would, in fact, be passed onto ratepayers. Even though some councilors had paid lip service to drawing the line if funds became under threat on this issue, the County Council majority once again ruled in favor of corporate interests rather than the residents of Clark County.

Next Steps:

 

The argument now rests with the Court of Appeals, Division 1, on January 9, 2025.

Friends of Clark County will continue to watch potential mining interests in Clark County. We will work to keep our local officials deciding in favor of the law and the best interests of the residents of this beautiful county. You can help fund our legal costs to continue to fight to save this 330 acres of forest by donating here


Submitted by Ann Foster

    WEB & SEO