IDNR urged to find Banner area unsuitable for strip mining
Village President Ken Fuller this week presented the head of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) a petition urging the department to declare an area near Banner unsuitable for coal mining. Reports of geological studies, archeological findings, and other documents also were presented.
Fuller drove Tuesday to Springfield and delivered hundreds of pages of documents to Scott Fowler, director of IDNR.
The Banner Village Board in July voted 5-0 to send such a petition to the department. It was submitted along with other material in September, but the department sent it back with a request for revisions.
“We revised it,” Fuller said Wednesday. “It took a while to get everything together to get it done.”
He said the paperwork included a report on local water quality and stability by a noted geologist, Chuck Norris of Denver.
Norris said Thursday he began his study last summer. He later sent a copy of his 49-page report Dec. 19 to attorneys representing a group of Banner residents.
He cited numerous sources of supplementary material for his report: the permit application for surface coal mining at Banner submitted by Capital Resources Development Company of Chicago, the Illinois Water Survey, Illinois Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Soil and Conservation Service, U.S. Corps of Engineers and other information.
Norris said the Banner site was not suitable for coal mining, because such operations would “deprive citizens of water.” The considerably high water table would be drawn down, causing some wells to dry up permanently and others part of the time. It would rob Banner Marsh of water running into it and also pull existing water out of the marsh area.
Mining also would intercept and reroute water moving to Rice Lake, he said. Whether water would return to the lake was unknown, Norris added.
He said it’s one thing to show how land may be restored after mining, but no attempt was made in the permit application to show how the water system may be restored.
Norris explained surface water, sediment, and ground water interact in complex ways. Factors involve how surface water runs off or through the land, and how the land and sediment are affected. The permit application failed to adapt a hydrogeological investigation of the site, Norris said.
“It floored me” that monitoring wells to track the elevation of ground water in flood basin sediment were not mentioned in the permit application, he added. He said the application called for monitoring coal but not sediment, which strongly interacts with the flow of surface water. No attempt was made to characterize the sediment.
From a hydrogeological and geological standpoint, it can be argued the Banner site is unique and unsuitable for surface mining, Norris said.
The site does not fit assumptions for an appropriate coal mining area, he added. The kind of results expected from a coal mine located on top of a bluff or above the flood plain cannot be assumed for the Banner area. Norris said he saw “glaring errors” in the mining proposal, because the site does not meet such assumptions.
“The site does not behave and respond in a manner that is consistent with analytical tools normally used in a permit application,” he said.
There are distinctly different surface and ground water flows, but that is not clear in the application. Yet regardless of the adequacy of the permit application, the site is not appropriate for surface mining. It is not suitable for that, he said.
Greg Arnett, a Canton man who designed the permit application, has said water studies have been conducted. Measures planned include building a temporary levy along Rice Lake, which later must be removed to meet reclamation requirements.
Also, sediment control structure and impoundment would be built in the area closest to Rice Lake to control water. Water passing through the structure must conform to Environmental Protection Agency standards to prevent excess sediment from leaving the mine property. There would be “very minimal impacts, if any” to the lake, Arnett said.
Any water that seeped into mine property would go to the sediment-control structure and be pumped back into Rice Lake. A natural flow of water also would continue to go into the lake. Arnett also pointed out a levy along Dike Road is quite high, preventing Copperas Creek water from seeping into the proposed mine property.
Arnett also discussed plans to ensure local residents are supplied with water.
The director of IDNR said reviewing a petition for unsuitability is a separate process from reviewing a permit application. At this point, the permit has been denied, Fowler noted Thursday.
Fowler noted petitions for unsuitability cannot be accepted for active coal mines. Such a petition urges that certain land should never be permitted at all due to unique features or other qualifying reasons, he noted.
In this case, the department will review the petition and supplementary material to see if the documentation is complete. If so, it will be reviewed to determine whether land identified in the petition should be deemed unsuitable for mining at any time, Fowler said.
Public notice would be given if such a review is to be conducted to provide the public an opportunity to provide information. All input provided would be included in a complete record regarding the petition of unsuitability, he added.
Fowler and other IDNR officials were on hand for a public hearing held in October in Canton in regard to a permit application from Capital Resources for a surface coal mine north of Canton and east of Brereton. Fowler said the department plans to ask for modifications to that permit application.
He said a letter will be sent to Capital Resources in possibly the next few weeks. It will list deficiencies found in the application and ask for modifications. The company will have a year to respond or face denial of the proposal.
