The People Comment Passionately On
Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

July 24, 2003

Comments by Mel Tyree, Charleston, WV

1. Let's be honest here. Mountain Top Removal is about cheap, easy access to a non-sustainable energy source. It's not about economic development. We have to work toward a culture of permanance and sustainable energy development.

2. In "Alternative 2", what would be the Corps of Engineer's criteria for deciding between Nationwide and Individual Permit status. This concerns me.

3. Will replacement wetlands and other mitigation measures involving "Waters of the US", have to be equal to the quality, functionality and species diversity as the wetlands and waters of the US destroyed by Mountain Top Mining under the conditions of each of the alternatives? If not, why not?

4. What are the long-term impacts to the downstream energy budgets resulting from the loss of ephemeral and headwater streams? Won't loss of detritus and other nutrients from the lost ephemeral streams have some fairly severe impacts to the downstream ecology? I don't think this was adequately covered in the EIS.

5. How will the increased permitting responsibilities of the WVDEP be funded under Alternative 3? As a past WVDEP employee, I remember how tight budgets were. Plus, state budgets are tight everywhere now.

6. If, God forbid, MTR is allowed to continue, shouldn't there be conditions in place to guarantee that any post reclamation development of MTR sites be developed with economically and environmentally sustainable businesses BEFORE the permit is granted. It seems to me this has been a problem in the past. It's simple. Unless the responsible parties (owners and operators) are bound by law and held accountable, they will not make an effort to improve the local economies after the MTR sites are closed.

7. Why wasn't the "No Mountain Top Mining Alternative" selected as one of the final EIS alternatives?