Who Killed Dunkard Creek? (Part 5)

A bizarre perspective (4.00 / 2)

.

Huffman says the sticking point is that the EPA believes that creating valley fills-the practice where the tops of the mountains are removed and put into a nearby valley-contribute to stream degradation. But Huffman says valley fills are essential to mountaintop removal, as well as the state's economy. "Mainly what we're concerned about as regulators is the ability to develop land after mining," he said. "You need valley fills if you're going to have a viable post mining economy. You need flat land. And in order to have flat land you need to have valley fills, and one of our biggest concerns is that EPA is wanting to reduce the size and number of valley fills in Appalachia."

(emphasis mine)

Apparently the concept of environmental protection is lost on Mr. Huffman, who seems more concerned with creating flat land than the overall environmental impact of MTR. He doesn't even know what the agency's mission is. I fail to see how any one with even a smattering of biology or ecology coursework could make these statements. What is Mr. Huffman's background?  

---

by: wv voice of reason @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 14:55:31 PM UTC

Mining Engineering, what else? (4.00 / 2)

Huffman, a West Virginia native, has a bachelor's degree in mining engineering technology from the West Virginia Institute of Technology, but has never worked in the mining industry as an engineer.He also holds a master's of business administration degree.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/...

---

by: JAWVMM @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 17:11:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are no "valley fills" on Coal River Mountain's blasting site. (4.00 / 3)

Note that the reason I put the phrase "valley fills" in quotation is because that term has been recently illicitly redefined, thanks to Joe Manchin, whose degree from WVU was in "Information Management". Seriously.

Massey subsidiary Marple Coal Company's Bee Tree permit (that's the Coal River Mountain surface mine site) requested no variance from the federal law requiring that the mountain should be restored to its approximate original contour either, thanks to his agency's re-defining of the phrase "approximate original contour", as well.

Read a portion of Huffman's Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife and explain how the flattening of the Coal River Mountain range will help Raleigh county when the BeeTree permit master plan for post-mining redevelopment as submitted called for forest, fish and wildlife.

The approach EPA has taken in its objection letters indicate that EPA is hostile to post-mining land uses that call for something other than a return of mined land to its approximate original contour (AOC).  This approach is contrary to the intent of Congress regarding development of mined lands expressed by its adoption of the federal surface mining act. The Report of the House of Representatives' Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, H.R. 95-218, which accompanied and recommended adoption of the bill that became the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, said:

[S]urface mining also presents possible land planning benefits as such mining involves the opportunity to reshape the land surface to a form and condition more suitable to man's uses. In such instances, the overburden and spoil become a resource to achieve desired configurations rather than a waste material to be disposed of or handled by the most economic means. The performance standards recognize that return to approximate premining conditions may not always be the most desirable goal of reclamation and thus appropriate exceptions to the general requirements are provided.  

H.R. 95-218, p. 94.  This committee report also went on to state:

[I]t may not always be best to return mountain lands to their approximate original contour. In various areas such as the mountainous Appalachian coalfields, there is a paucity of flood free, relatively flat developable land. Thus some surface mining operations offer the opportunity for creating a resource which otherwise might not be available or might be prohibitively expensive.

The mining application process and environmental standards allow the regrading and spoil placement requirements for mountaintop mining in order to achieve post mining land uses including industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, or public facility (including recreational facilities) development.

H.R. 95-218, p. 124.  To take advantage of the opportunity to create flat, developable lands in Appalachia presented by surface coal mining operations, Congress specifically provided for variances from the AOC requirement in 30 U.S.C. § 1265( c) so industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential or public facilities, including recreational facilities could be created.  This opportunity is very important in the southern West Virginia coal mining region where no flat land exists.  To assure that these opportunities are not lost, this year, the State has adopted legislation that requires a mine's post-mining land use to comport with county master land use plans that are developed by local economic development officials and approved by the State's Office of Coalfield Community Development.  These master land use plans target lands which are proximal to transportation or other infrastructure for development, so these areas of the State, which historically have had little economic activity other than coal mining, can develop sustainable post-coal economies.  EPA's objection to land uses which would allow for development of mined lands is contrary to the expressed intention of both the Congress and the West Virginia Legislature.  source

Seems to me that the best post-coal economy use of the land was well outlined by the study financed by Raleigh County residents, which concluded that

   * When externalities such as public health and environmental quality are factored in, a mountaintop removal mine ends up losing $600 million over its expected 17 year life.  The costs of these externalities are taken in by the public in the form of health expenses and environmental clean up costs as well as lost resources, like ginseng and wild game.  A wind farm would remain profitable over its life, forever.
   * The Raleigh County Government would receive $1.74 million each year from the property taxes on a wind farm, whereas only $36,000 would make its way back to Raleigh County from the severance taxes on the coal taken out of Coal River Mountain.  And the money from the wind farm comes in forever.
   * A scenario where a local wind industry came to the Raleigh County was considered.  In this scenario, over 1700 people would be employed at a local wind turbine production facility.  A facility such as this would only be placed in an area where wind farms were going up.

Yet despite that study, no counter-study was proffered to the state of West Virginia prior to its issuing of the permit to the Massey subsidiary to flatten that mountain range. Nor was one requested, even though the Surface Mine Reclamation Act requires one.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) provides that mountaintop removal coal mining operations (MTR) may be permitted only under specific conditions set forth in § 1265 (c) of SMCRA. That section provides that a permit to conduct MTR mining operations may be granted when the permittee proposes a post-mining land use that will generate jobs and spur economic development after the mine site has been reclaimed.  §1265 (c) of SMCRA states:

 

(c) Procedures; exception to original contour restoration requirements

   ***
   (3) In cases where an industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential or public facility (including recreational facilities) use is proposed for the postmining use of the affected land, the regulatory authority may grant a permit for a [mountain top removal] surface mining . . . where-

   (A) after consultation with the appropriate land use planning agencies, if any, the proposed postmining land use is deemed to constitute an equal or better economic or public use of the affected land, as compared with premining use;
   (B) the applicant presents specific plans for the proposed postmining land use and appropriate assurances that such use will be-
   (i) compatible with adjacent land uses;
   (ii) obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market;
   (iii) assured of investment in necessary public facilities;
   (iv) supported by commitments from public agencies where appropriate;
   (v) practicable with respect to private financial capability for completion of the proposed use;
   (vi) planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as to integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the postmining land use; and
   (vii) designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional standards established to assure the stability, drainage, and configuration necessary for the intended use of the site;

   (C) the proposed use would be consistent with adjacent land uses, and existing State and local land use plans and programs;

   (E) all other requirements of this chapter will be met

Clearly, the post-mining "economic development" of lands flattened by the Bee Tree, Massey MTR mining operation to the proposed "forest and wildlife" status was NOT the condition upon which Congress intended to permit the use of the environmentally invasive MTR mining method. If forest, fish and wildlife were the goal, then under SMCRA congress intended the mined land to simply be restored to its approximate original contour!

---

by: One Citizen @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 20:16:05 PM UTC

Restoration to approximate original contour (4.00 / 1)

is equivalent to restoring the turkey's original contour  the day after Thanksgiving. These 'regulations' are so bogus it is difficult to imagine anyone taking them seriously.

---

by: wv voice of reason @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 00:40:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fire Huffman for gross negligence, lying to congress, dereliction of duty (0.00 / 0)

He doesn't even know his job description yet he makes six figures.  On the one hand he talks about protecting the environment and on the other hand he says his duty is to promote post=mining land use....he must be paranoid schizophrenic and not fit to be the secretary of the dept.

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 21:22:53 PM UTC

wow (0.00 / 0)

i am being censored

---

by: stevewvu @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 13:29:19 PM UTC

Stevewvu, instead of simply shooting off your mouth, try posting your comment with a valid source. (0.00 / 0)

And instead of flat out lying, try telling the truth.

I didn't censor you but I appreciate why they did. I've long grown tired of you coming here just to stink up the place.

If I craved the sort of bullshit that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck slings I'd be watching it on ClusterFox.  

---

by: One Citizen @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 15:03:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

stevewvu (4.00 / 1)

It's not censorship, it's community moderation. Your comment is still there, it's just hidden to casual readers. Active participants still see it.

Like One Citizen, I didn't hide rate your comment but I can understand why other people wanted to hide it.

Consider it encouragement to post better comments if you want a larger audience. There's pretty wide latitude around here for dissenting opinions. There's very wide latitude for reasoned opposing arguments. I've noticed increasingly little patience for other forms of dissent.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 16:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you (0.00 / 0)

obviously didnt get the point of the comment...think man

---

by: stevewvu @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 16:56:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

stevewvu - It's your responsibility (0.00 / 0)

to make your point clear. Cryptic one-liners hardly ever make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. Why should any of us attempt to discuss anything with you when we have to imagine your argument as well as express our own. And there is no point in displaying pointlessness to the world.

---

by: JAWVMM @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 17:25:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And since you've used it twice, no one gets it (0.00 / 0)

And like Clem I just called it "unproductive", like my little brother hitting from behind and running away when we were twelve and eight.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 18:46:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and (0.00 / 0)

you guys call yourselves the intellectuals....scary man

---

by: stevewvu @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 19:18:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mind readers, no (4.00 / 1)

Peter Singer followers, no.

You are the one with that advanced degree, but you are so quick with the one liners.

I guessed what you may have been driving at, which, well, would not have been a well formed argument for replacing native species and healthy ecosystems with slime from Texas. But then I never liked Bush either.

I grew up fishing for rainbow trout in the Sierra Nevada, not hunting on old mountain top removal sites. Explain your self instead of the passive aggressive kicks in the shin.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 22:07:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]