MIRA is a tool that EPA has developed to assist decision makers to make more informed environmental decisions by allowing the consideration of a broad array of scientific and technical information in their program and policy decisions. MIRA assists program managers by organizing and comparing pieces of relevant project data and information. It allows decision makers to compare different decision options based upon one or more common criteria and become more informed regarding the various criteria and how those criteria can be considered. In essence, MIRA is a process that helps decision makers organize and rank decision criteria or indicators, link the data to a policy decision, use the decision context to determine the relative importance of the decision criteria, and explore alternative decision options.

 

For more information about the ECP/MIRA process please visit the EPA website.

 

The implementation of the ECP/MIRA process has come with a great deal of controversy.  A process already exists under SMCRA and the CWA {add link to permitting section} whereby mine operators are required to file voluminous information that is subject to EPA review and comment without the addition of the ECP/MIRA process.  In December of 2010 the National Mining Association (NMA) filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers that among other things challenged the ECP process.  The states of Kentucky and West Virginia have also filed legal actions challenging the EPA’s ECP/MIRA process.  NMA believes that the EPA is trying to impose substantive changes to the 404 permitting process by creating a new level of EPA review, with the ECP process.  The problem is, although EPA is a regulatory agency they are guided by their regulation of 404 permits through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the CWA did not consider another level of EPA review.  Therefore, NMA is suggesting that EPA is trying to somewhat change the CWA, which is outside of their authority.  In essence, NMA feels that the newly implemented ECP process is being used by the EPA to cause further permit issuance delays, therefore, slowing down the mining process.

 

With respect to this argument, on January 14, 2011 the court ruled “It seems clear…that Congress intended EPA to have a limited role in the issuance of 404 permits, and that nothing in [CWA 404] gives EPA the authorization to develop a new evaluation or permitting process which expands its role.”  With this ruling, there will be an upcoming trial to decide further on the above matter.

 

For further information see U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works study.