Obama's EPA clears 42 of 48 New Mountaintop Removal Mining Permits
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Obama administration has cleared more than three-dozen new mountaintop removal permits for issuance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, drawing quick criticism from environmental groups who had hoped the new president would halt the controversial practice.
In a surprise announcement Friday, Rep. Nick J. Rahall said 42 of the 48 permits already examined by the U.S. Environmental Protection had been approved by EPA for issuance by the corps.
"It is unfortunate that, when EPA once again began reviewing proposed coal mining permits earlier this year, alarmists claimed that a moratorium on permit issuance was being proposed," Rahall said in a telephone news conference. "That was not that case then, and it is not the case now."
The West Virginia Democrat is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the federal strip mining law, and represents a district that includes most of the state's southern coal counties.
Rahall said officials from the EPA told him their review so far has objected to only six of the 48 Clean Water Act permits the Corps of Engineers had proposed to issue.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had announced in March that her staff was taking a closer look at those permits because of concerns that mountaintop removal was burying streams and damaging downstream water quality. Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club environmental group, said Friday's announcement by Rahall raises questions about whether Jackson and EPA are up to the task.
"Because it appears that EPA is unwilling to intervene, it is now imperative that the White House Council on Environmental Quality take immediate action to stop the bulldozers," Pope said in a prepared statement. "The Obama administration should take swift action to fix the flawed 'fill rule' that enables this type of devastating mining and should act decisively to save the mountains, rivers and communities of Appalachia."
The exact implications of Rahall's announcement were not clear, though, and some of the numbers he mentioned did not match earlier information made public about the numbers of permits objected to by the EPA.
Rahall said the EPA had objected to three permits in West Virginia, two in Ohio and one in Kentucky, but previously, the EPA had released objection letters to at least five permits in West Virginia alone.
"We have asked the agency to identify 42 permits over which it does not have concerns, and to explain the difference between the mines they have approved and the few where they have raised concerns," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice.
"So far, we have not seen any such information," Mulhern said. "There is no scientific study that we are aware of that finds that there is any mountaintop removal that is not harmful."
At the same time, Rahall said there are still probably another 150 mountaintop removal permits across the Appalachian coalfields that are still awaiting EPA review.
Rahall said he has asked federal officials "to conduct permit reviews in a transparent and coordinated process" and "to conduct them as expeditiously as possible.
"For its part, the coal industry cannot comply with a moving target," Rahall said. "Having regulatory stability is vitally important to the industry, its workers and those of us who reside in the coalfields of Southern West Virginia. It is also equally important to environmental protection."
Adora Andy, a spokeswoman for the EPA's Jackson, issued a short statement early Friday evening in response to questions about Rahall's announcement.
"EPA continues to conduct a detailed and rigorous review of all pending Clean Water Act permits for mines in the Appalachian coalfields," the statement said. "We have concluded, under the law, that six projects of an initial 48 permits EPA reviewed will not proceed unless adverse environmental impacts are further reduced.
"We will continue to follow the law and use the best science as we quickly and thoroughly evaluate over 150 pending applications to reduce harmful environmental impacts," the EPA said.
The statement said, the "EPA decided not to provide additional comments on the remaining 42 permits after consideration of the nature and extent of project impacts. Twenty-eight of the projects have two or fewer valley fills. Eleven have no valley fills at all. None have more than six.
"EPA's understanding is that none of the projects would permanently impact high value streams that flow year-round," the EPA said. "By contrast, EPA has opposed six permits because they would all result in significant adverse impacts to high value streams, involve large numbers of valley fills, and impact watersheds with extensive previous mining impacts."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Ward. Great work. Please keep us advised of any upcoming CD actions.
Keep voting for Democrats and Republicans, and nothing will change in America, excpt things will keep going to hell. If we don't break the one party system of war and corporations it over for our country.
tea bagama- if he drank the water or had to breathe the air...... france is a nice place. they have a fking DEMOCRACY there!
obama pulled this kind of shit there millions jump into the street. how about us? what we WAITING for? obama take a
napkin to your cheek.
But...he PROMISED not to do it!!!
Is the Obama administration trying to fuel civil war in the U.S., or what?.
I was informed a couple months ago by some Federal Office of Surfce Mining (OSM) workers the West Virginia that it was was all just for show. So, I'm not suprised.
The big problem is that there is no solid evidence of major water-quality impacts of MTR mining aside from increases in dissolved solids and hardness. So, it cannot be stopped using the tools of the Clean Water Act. The real objection is aesthetic. MTR is ugly as hell, permanently buries scenic, but otherwise non-endangered, Applacian stream-hollow ecosystems, and the completely alters the natural landscape. This is still reason enough to ban MTR. But unfortunately, unlike in European countries, "private property rights" prohibit any kind of banning of economic activity on rural property solely because of aesthetic impacts. Could you imagine Germany allowing MTR mining in the (similar to West Virginia) Black Forest? But in the US, activists end up pushing for new interpretations of existing laws. It isn't working. The only thing that is going to work is specific legislation banning MTR mining - and even then it could get shot-down by the Supreme Court.
"...drawing quick criticism from environmental groups who had hoped the new president would halt the controversial practice." No sense in hoping anymore. We should expect nothing from this new president. He is missing the moral gene.
Shades of Clinton-Gore.
Lest we forget
Remember the promise Clinton-Gore made on an Ohio toxic waste incinerator:
'In response to questions posed to presidential candidates by the League of Conservation Voters in December 1991, Clinton said, "I am in support of a moratorium on the construction of new garbage and hazardous waste incinerators." And on July 19, in Weirton, West Virginia, a stop on Clinton's first post-convention bus tour, Gore said that the Ohio incinerator was "deserving of a full-scale investigation," claiming, "if you had seen a Clinton-Gore administration in the past four years, you would not have seen this."' -- http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/04/mm0493_04.html
Soon after the election the Clinton-Gore administration gave the go-ahead for the incinerator.
In our "two party system" you get to choose whether to get stabbed in the chest or stabbed in the back.
PRESIDENT FAUST. I wish he had used his right name.
/cm
People should organize to reverse this decision. Mountaintop removal is severely destructive and should have no place in our energy policy.
Anybody remember Libbey Montana
So, what will keep the people who are "down stream" of these major polluters from taking action on their own,
Pool their money resources, hire some of the soon to be discharged/dislocated/out of work/ money and "missions" soldiers and Marines---aka 'Mercenaries' and simply put those companies out of business.
Insurance companies being what they are. After a few major equipment destruction "demonstrations" by the "down streamers" and their "hired mercenaries" the companies involved would have no insurance against losses---and quietly go away---or-----
Hire their own Mercenaries and assassins to "kill off the opposition leaders"---and stay in business----
Or--the "Down Streamers" could do the same to the company executives---who after two or three of them were blown up in their Mercedes while leaving for the "office"---would either resign----stay at the 'office' --full time---' or -----
hey, when there is no true government to protect the people from the "money guys" then the people have every right to take matters into their own hands---and see that the 'money guys'---'sleep with the fishes'-----------
I will only speak for myself----but if you want to pollute my little area-----make your will and testament current, kiss your children/wife/dog/cat/hamster good bye each day-----and then--"put your head down between your knees and kiss your ass good bye"------you don't stand a chance of spending the money you make from the venture------it really is that simple.
Good Luck America, you really need it..............
The people who live downstream have no money. That's why they live downstream from a MTR project.
barackstar will fall as fast as, or faster than, his ascension. once again, and again, again, an utter disappointment in his spineless attempt at leadership.
It's getting harder to defend Obama.
No!!! Come on, you can do it! Don't give up.
I've been to the mountaintop - and blown it away.
Joe
I have stated in the past that, despite his efforts to perfect his impersonation of Bush, Obama had managed to do a few things right.
He just gave back one of those things - the biggest one.
Damn his lying ass to hell.
q