Comments on: EPA on mountaintop removal: What’s it all mean?

By: Coal Industry Reacts to EPA Crackdown on Mountaintop Removal Mining with Lies about Job Losses - Go Green - SustainLane

Sun, 17 May 2009 09:43:47 +0000

[...] AlterNet’s environment coverage then you are almost certainly aware that the Obama Administration signaled a major shift in how mountaintop removal coal mining will be regulated. In brief, Obama’s head of the EPA, [...]

By: Mountaintop Removal Blow-Back | Eco Friendly Mag

Mountaintop Removal Blow-Back | Eco Friendly Mag — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:53:05 +0000

[...] of the Huffington Post Green Page then you are almost certainly aware that the Obama Administration signaled a major shift yesterday in how mountaintop removal coal mining will be regulated. In brief, Obama’s head of the EPA, [...]

By: His Eyes Are on the Spadaro: Coalfields Need Jack Back at MSHA or OSM « luckyrooster

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:38:17 +0000

By: Bob Kincaid

Bob Kincaid — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:34:19 +0000

Ken,

The allusion to FEMA is intriguing, to say the least. Is your pull quote the extent of the remark, or is there more? How, for instance, would flood victims make it to the top of the removed mountain in question during such a “flooding event?” Is “flooding event” inclusive of some sort of disaster plan in the event of a sludge dam burst?

Second, as to the tonal difference between the two letters, might the difference lie in Massey’s history versus that of Central Appalachian Mining? Is there data to suggest one company has a longer, broader, deeper history as a scofflaw than another?

By: Bo Webb

Bo Webb — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:23:14 +0000

Thank you Ken for this excellent report. The EPA’s decision to step in and step forward is encouraging.
I’ve never been overly surprised by comments from Massey, but this one kind of got me. “Interestingly, EPA notes that Massey proposed to avoid using the approximate original contour/valley fill guidelines set up by WVDEP because it hopes the post-mining land use will â€œbe FEMA relocation for residents in stream valleys following flooding events.â€
Now, that is bold. Flood the folks out below and then move them to the flattened land on top.

By: Matt Wasson: Mountaintop Removal Blow-Back

Matt Wasson: Mountaintop Removal Blow-Back — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:49:01 +0000

By: Nanette

Nanette — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:16:56 +0000

Mr. Hager, you think that blowing the tops off the mountains is a good thing. You say that we need more flat land here in WV. Ok, just how many of the thousands of acres that have been flattened been developed? Not many. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure to these sites? The taxpayers? Who wins in this scenario? DELETED TO REMOVE NAME CALLING.

By: Ken Ward Jr.

Ken Ward Jr. — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:25:10 +0000

Thanks Matt and Dave for your kind words.

Frankly, part of the confusion here is that advocacy groups that didn’t understand what was going on started putting out news releases and blog commentaries before they talked to their lawyers and developed some understanding of what was up.

Of course, the coal industry and the politicians didn’t help the situation.

As for our print edition, we have a long story there, and it’s posted online as well:
http://wvgazette.com/News/200903240379

But Dave (and the OVEC folks who have complained about this as well), you guys need to understand what Coal Tattoo is all about. I never would have had the space to write 8 or 10 separate stories about this for today’s print edition. The blog eliminates the space considerations — which are especially difficult in today’s economy.

With Coal Tattoo, you get more information. We’re continuing to cover this in the print edition as we have for more than a decade now.

The journalism business is changing, and the Gazette is trying to keep up.

Anyway, this isn’t a blog about the newspaper/media business, so I’ll stop there.

Ken.

By: wvcitizen

wvcitizen — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:20:13 +0000

Thanks…I too have been wondering what this all really means. Hopefully it is the start of something good!
We all voted for change, right?

By: Dave Cooper

Dave Cooper — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:29:06 +0000

Thanks for the helpful insights Ken. I havent seen the Gazette yet but Im hoping that all of this information is in the print version. If not – it should be. There is a lot of confusion out there right now – Bill Caylor of the Kentucky Coal Association claims in the Herald Leader that 6,000 Kentcky miners could be put out of work. Oh, wait – he says that every time…

By: Robert Hager

Robert Hager — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:17:44 +0000

I, personally, do not think valley fills are terrible. I strongly support responsible surface mining. My opinion about taking the tops off of the mountains is that it is a good thing for the economic development of WV. WV needs more flat land. Valley fills do not inflict considerable harm on the environment, no more than driving a automoblie or people that smoke tobacco. I believe that the environmentalists should direct their resources to fighting second hand smoke that inflicts diseases and death on his fellow Americans and not worry about if a fish is getting enough water to survive.

By: Matt Wasson

Matt Wasson — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:41:02 +0000

Thank you for all of this, Ken – you’re the only one doing real reporting on this issue. I have the sense that the EPA folks in region 4 are still getting used to the idea that they can flex their muscles against the Army Corps – and it’s tough to flex muscles that haven’t been used for 8 years. But the region 3 guys who have been around a long time weren’t prepared to pull any punches.

All that is to say the difference in the letters could well have more to do with individual personalities than any substantive divisions within the EPA or differences between EPA regions. Clearly, the go-ahead came from the top, and that’s the important factor.

But I have been wondering about the EPA clarification statement and whether it might have been a slightly overenthusiastic EPA being reined in by CEQ – it’s hard to imagine the Army Corps wasn’t crying bloody murder yesterday at the press coverage. Which is to say, this may have a lot more to do with inter-agency dynamics than any posturing by the President.

Hopefully it will all come clear in time – thank you for doing your part in the clarifying.