LoveMountains

Mitigation

By law the Corps must assure adequate

“mitigation” will be undertaken to

offset harm caused by the activity it is

permitting. “….In the DEIS the Army

Corps of Engineers must also claim that

mitigation and reclamation eliminate to

insignificance the harm from valley fills

and other project activities, or risk undermining

the very 404 permit they intend to

issue.” Hence, comments on the DEIS

pay particular attention to this issue and are unequivocal in their assessment.

“The widespread devastation documented in the MTRPEIS is clear proof

that the mitigation prescribed by the Army Corps of Engineers to offset these

harms is a complete failure. Without effective mitigation valley fills at

mountaintop removal sites cannot legally be permitted. “ More specifically,

“the mitigation proposed for Spruce No 1 is scientifically unjustified and will

fail to offset harms caused by the operation.”

The comments also emphasize the following.

· Environmental risks must be considered and quantified related to

toxic selenium discharges

· The DEIS Relies on a Flawed SWROA [Storm Water Runoff Assessment]

to Assess Project Impacts on Run-off and Flooding

· The Army Corps of Engineers Inappropriately Claims that Topsoil

Substitutes Will Adequately Replace Native Soils

· The Army Corps of Engineers Does Not Consider or Compensate for

the Time for Reforestation to Occur or its impacts on hydrological reclamation

· Issues impacting the citizens in the region that must be considered

by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The comments close with these remarks. “The Army Corps of Engineers’s

DEIS on the Mingo Logan Spruce No. 1 Mine does not comply with NEPA.

Over and over again the Army Corps of Engineers has made empty unsubstantiated

claims both minimizing the individual and cumulative damages from

MTR and also exaggerating even fantasizing the benefits of the planned

mitigation. NEPA clearly requires “scientific integrity,” in the studies and evaluations

contained in an EIS. 40 C. F. R. § 1502.24. The Army Corps of Engineers

has simply failed to deliver. Clearly, if the Corps had thoughtfully used

prevailing science to evaluate the project, the conclusions in the DEIS would

be far different, that substantial harm to the environment and communities

will occur. Thus, because the DEIS is fatally flawed the only alternative is for

the Army Corps of Engineers to either deny the permit or to extensively reevaluate

both the DEIS, the project, and the mitigation plan.”

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this