West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia
Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Big Daddy Sen. Robert C. Byrd

Obama Admin Ends MTR Mining With A Name Change

by: Patriot Daily

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:59:20 PM EDT


( - promoted by Clem Guttata)

The Obama administration is at least testing the waters of changing the name of mountaintop removal mining to "Appalachian surface coal mining" or ASCM.  This name change, which neutralizes the horrific visuals of MTR mining, may help Obama gain support for a new policy to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of MTR mining.  

The Obama administration is taking steps that are a "firm departure" from Bush who "failed to protect our communities, water, and wildlife in Appalachia."  For the first time the government is acknowledging the adverse impacts of MTR mining and will, for example, review the "cumulative impact of valley fill permits on water quality and look at entire watersheds instead of isolated streams."

However, the question is whether MTR mining should be limited to a policy of environmental impact relativity or do we insist that MTR mining be stopped in obvious recognition that MTR mining by definition violates the environmental rules of law?  

Patriot Daily :: Obama Admin Ends MTR Mining With A Name Change
Changing the name from mountaintop removal mining to ASCM is one means of moving forward with a new policy rather than being restricted by the stranglehold of past Bush illegal actions.  The administration announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the Department of the Army, Interior Department and EPA for "Implementing the Interagency Action Plan" or IAP on "Appalachian Surface Coal Mining" (pdf file).  

In a conference call with members of the press, officials from CEQ, EPA, DOI and Corps explained that the administration's goal is not to end MTR, but to try to "significantly reduce the 'harmful environmental consequences of Appalachian surface coal mining operations, while ensuring that future mining remains consistent with federal law.'"

A first step toward consistency with federal law is to recognize that the appropriate legal terminology is "mountaintop removal mining," or MTR mining, not ASCM.

While there is no statutory definition of mountaintop removal, there is a regulatory definition:

ยง 785.14 Mountaintop removal mining.
(b) Mountaintop removal mining means surface mining activities, where the mining operation removes an entire coal seam or seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill, except as provided for in 30 CFR 824.11(a)(6), by removing substantially all of the overburden off the bench and creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour, with no highwalls remaining, and capable of supporting postmining land uses in accordance with the requirements of this section. [30 CFR 785.14(b)]

Consistent with this federal rule,  Congress, federal law (pdf file) and the courts (pdf file) use mountaintop removal mining, not ASCM.

Obama may prefer to use the euphemism of ASCM to disassociate his regulatory approach from the negative perceptions and visualizations of mining that removes mountaintops. As the CRS acknowledged, the name alone describes the environmental devastation caused by MTR mining (pdf file):


As its name suggests, mountaintop removal mining involves removing the top of a mountain in order to recover the coal seams contained in the mountain.  Explosives are used to break the mountain's rock, and massive earth-moving equipment, often including equipment called draglines, removes the spoil, i.e., the dirt and rock that composed the mountaintop over or between the coal seams.  While federal law calls for excess spoil to be placed back in the mined areas - returning the lands to their approximate original contour (AOC) - that result ordinarily cannot be accomplished with mountaintop mining because broken rock takes up more volume than did the rock prior to mining and because there are stability concerns with the spoil pile.  Mountaintop removal creates an immense quantity of excess spoil, which is typically placed in valley fills on the sides of the former mountains.  One consequence is that streams flowing through the valleys are buried.

The Obama administration wants to regulate MTR mining "consistent with federal law." One problem is that our federal laws did not allow MTR mining, so Bush changed the laws to legalize what previously had been illegal. Thus, consistency with federal law now means consistency with Bush's laws. As stated by Nancy Sutley, chair of White House Council on Environmental Quality, MTR is "allowed under current federal law."  

Well, not exactly true.  Bush changed a number of laws and rules in order to legalize the MTR mining that was illegal when authorized by his administration. Two primary rules he changed involved valley fills and the stream buffer rule.

However, there are a number of other laws that still do not allow MTR mining but these laws have simply not been enforced . One, federal reclamation law requires mining companies to restore land to original contours. Instead of compliance, we have the "absurd fiction that extraction pits filled with unconsolidated rocks and rubble where trees will never grow and streams will never flow are 'reclaimed.'"  Two, fill permits cannot be issued when the filling of streams will cause "significant degradation," such as the killing of streams, ecosystems and aquatic life by suffocation under the mining waste. Three, federal water law requires mining companies to prove that they can restore the "function and structure" of affected streams. Four, NEPA requires that an environmental impact study be conducted for each permit when a mine may have a significant affect on human health or the environment.

Yet, Obama administration officials "indicated last month that they will allow more than 100 permits to go forward while they carefully review their regulatory options."  Indeed, WH CEQ Chair Sutley stated the new approach is "a more environmentally tough review" using standards similar to a recent review of 48 MTR permit applications in which the EPA found "no significant problems with 42 of the applications, but it rejected six as too damaging."

A goal of reducing environmental impacts is meaningless relativity when the inherent nature of MTR mining simply renders the practice inconsistent with federal laws. It is not good enough to simply reduce the impacts of clear-cutting biologically diverse "miniature rain forests".  The climate change impact is stunning: We are removing the hardwood forests that are the "carbon sinks and lungs of the East Coast" and this deforestation can add "as much as 138 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." If we don't stop, an area twice the size of Rhode Island will be eliminated by 2012.

It is not good enough to simply reduce the impacts of using bombs to decapitate mountaintops of chains that have existed for millions of years. We have already allowed 500 mountains to be destroyed encompassing a million acres.  As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted, "[m]ining syndicates are detonating 2,500 tons of explosives each day -- the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb weekly -- to blow up Appalachia's mountains and extract sub-surface coal seams."

It is not good enough to simply reduce the impacts of allowing mining companies to use our streams and lakes as waste dumpsites all in the name of profits for them. All that blasted mountaintop is then dumped into the valleys:  One valley fill may be "over 1,000 feet wide and over a mile long."  Mining companies first dumped valley fills in ephemeral streams with intermittent flow from rain. Having exhausted the supply of smaller streams, the mining companies now dispose waste in any stream:

[In 2005,] the volume of a single stream fill can be as much as 250 million cubic yards.  As a result, streams are eliminated, stream chemistry is harmed by pollutants in the mining overburden, and downstream aquatic life is impaired.  From 1985 to 2001, an estimated 724 stream miles in West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Virginia and Tennessee were covered by valley fills and 1,200 miles of headwater streams were directly impacted by mountaintop mining activities.

The science is clear:

[T]his practice devastates ecosystems, obliterates streams, and pollutes water supplies.  Searching for environmentally acceptable mountaintop removal, which the administration has not ruled out, is futile.  This administration promised a science-based environmental policy, which is impossible to square with mountaintop removal.

As Devilstower says, Mr. President, go and see for yourself, the destruction and devastation to people and environmental resources is too grave to just apply a band-aid of some improvement.

These videos provide a mini aerial tour of the significant, deleterious impacts of MTR mining:

Devilstower offers 2 easy take action items :

Go to Twitter and send this message:

President Obama. Go to West Virginia. See for yourself what Mountaintop Removal is doing to the land, water, and people. #mtr

If you don't use Twitter, put it on your Facebook wall. If you don't use Facebook, use your blog site, or a diary on another site, or send it in email. Do all of the above. Get the message out there. Want a quick solution? [Send an email at the]  Try the Help President Obama See the Truth About Mountaintop Removal page from the Rainforest Action Network.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Highly informative! (4.00 / 2)
Thank for this highly informative diary. One question about the new name of "Appalachian surface coal mining."

Do you think this might be done to make a clear distinction between "mountain top mining" in Appalachia vs. the not as controversial surface mining in the West?

Right now the definitions for MTM would catch both, wouldn't they? As activists are most concerned about MTR in Appalachia, this at least serves as a rhetorical device for making it clear which is being talked about.

I'm still going to call it MTR... but I sure hope the Obama administration stops all future ASCM!


most people associate MTR with appalachia, so not (4.00 / 1)
sure why the ASCM would be needed to make the same distinction.

my guess is that ASCM sounds better, more like regular mining than mountaintop removal, which clearly says some mountain will be decapitated.

given that obama's policy is to reduce environmental impacts, kinda hard to make that case when the top of mountain is getting blown apart, a rather huge impact.  


[ Parent ]
wtf (aka OK) (4.00 / 1)
First off, I appreciate the research put into this post (links to laws, vids, etc.).  Secondly, why change the name?  It is what it is.  Changing the name does not sound like progress to me, it sounds like a smoke screen.  If this is intended to throw off coal wonks, then so be it.  If this becomes a way to not really deal with the problem, then we have a situation that must be addressed.  What matters to me is the change in policy and the enforcement of law so as to end this awful practice.

Changing the name helps w/regulations (4.00 / 3)
One of the ways the Bush administration got around regulations it didn't like was to change the name of something - look up how they got around rules on valley fills and stream buffers.

As Clem noted above, this would allow specifying changes in practices in Appalachia, rather than everywhere the practice of MTR is used. I can think of several reasons, both practical and political, this would be a shrewd move. For instance, by segmenting this practice geographically, future legislative efforts might be able to gain support from western senators and representatives because their states wouldn't be affected.


[ Parent ]
that was my initial question: why change the name? (4.00 / 1)
courts, congress and federal law use the term "mountaintop removal mining". my only guess is by looking at what obama admin officials stated was the goal of their new policy: to reduce environmental impacts and be consistent with federal law.

well, how do you reduce the impacts of blasting off mountaintops of chains that have lived for millions of years? do you blast off 800 feet instead of 1,000 feet?

It sounds like at this time that obama plans to gradually reduce impacts by gradually changing the law.

the problem is that before bush changed the laws and rules, the law prohibited this practice, and the problem was that the government did not enforce the law. Even the corps admitted that its fill material rule did not allow MTR.

Seems best way to be consistent with federal law is to return to the original laws and not just accept, as one obama official did, that the law is NOW the BS rules etc that Bush promulgated.  


[ Parent ]
Ken Ward over at Coal Tattoo (4.00 / 1)
does not like the name "mountaintop mining". There is a practice that pokes holes in the mountains, rather than removing the top. He wanted to make sure people know that the top comes off. MTR can also mean Motion to Recommit for all the House-watching geeks out there.

I don't know how much law was changed under Bush. The Washington Post did a series on regulations that were changed. I think it was in the summer before the 2004 election. Simply calling the excess rubble fill. Not calling mercury hazardous anymore. Wording. It included that wonderful quote about how we in Appalachia wanted golf courses more.

Like you reduce the number of repetitive stress injuries on the OSHA form by taking that check box off the form. Sec. Chao was another goo one for using regulations to gut laws. How many pay attention to the Federal Register and Rule promulgation?

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance


[ Parent ]
well, the official name is "Mountaintop removal mining" (4.00 / 2)
indicating that the mountaintop is removed.

As for Bush, the primary rules he changed to legalize their prior illegal actions were the fill material rule and buffer stream zone rule. Both rules, in their original form, prohibited MTR. There are two measures, one in Senate and one in House, to redefine fill material rule to reverse Bush's rule.

Given that the original and proposed fill material rule would ban valley fills, and given that mining companies have whined that they can not economically do MTR without valley fills, then these measures could end MTR.  


[ Parent ]
guess (4.00 / 1)
they didnt mountain top rearrangement as i call it

And that is why you are buying the first round tonight, right? (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
i am hoping (0.00 / 0)
to be in martinsburg the weekend of the 25th...if i am i will

[ Parent ]
Premium Advertiser

blog advertising is good for you

Welcome!

( Home )
Menu

Click here to join!

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About
- About WVaBlue.com
- Send us news at wvablue@gmail.com
-  Subscribe in a reader

Advertisers


Support WVaBlue

Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Current CO2 level in the atmosphere

Proudly displaying the West Virginia Red, White, Blue, Green and Orange.

Join me at http://www.350.org


WVa Democrats
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller
  • Sen. Joe Manchin III
  • Joe Manchin for Senate (2010/2012)
  • Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03)
  • Secretary of State Natalie Tennant
  • Auditor Glen Gainer
  • Treasurer John Perdue
  • Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglass
  • Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw
  • Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, acting as Gov.
  • Declared Candidates
  • Jeff Kessler
  • John Perdue
  • Natalie Tennant
  • Earl Ray Tomblin
  • Rick Thompson

  • Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
    Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
    This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
    Powered by: SoapBlox