Your EIS Comments -
Big Brother at OSM Is Watching Us!

Law student Nathan Fetty used the Freedom of Information Act to get information on the development of the draft Mountaintop Removal Environmental Impact Statement.

The FOIA info included one e-mail from the Office of Surface Mining’s Michael Gauldin to loads of his co-workers, as well as people at the WV Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior, which summarized environmental groups’ comments about the draft EIS.

The e-mail said, "Attached is my summary of the published criticisms of the EIS. It looks like they fall into about four or five general themes. If anyone wants to take a crack at drafting a response to any or all of these, I’m accepting contributions."

The quotes he summarized were from newspaper articles quoting staff of OVEC, Coal River Mountain Watch, the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Earthjustice and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

Fortunately, we had worked together to make certain our statements did get published. If the press had

only used the multi-agency press release on the mountaintop removal EIS, then the public would have only read about how the MTR permitting process needs to be streamlined.

Gauldin told his colleagues that our comments fell into these categories:

"The real purpose of the EIS is to help coal companies get their mine permits faster and easier."

"The EIS says nothing about protecting the environment and communities."

"The EIS eliminates requirements for individual permits for operations that propose to fill 250 acres or more of a valley."

"The Bush Administration wants to eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone."

"Steve Griles, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, refocused the EIS toward streamlining permitting."

Unsupported rhetoric, such as Judy Bonds’ comment: "The study shows that mountaintop removal is socially evil and environmental insanity."

It’s nice to know the agencies are watching what we say, even if Gauldin wants to call some of our observations "unsupported rhetoric."

It would be even nicer to know that the "regulators" are watching both what the coal industry does and how the agencies themselves are failing to enforce the laws.