- September 3, 2009. Letter from EPA to the Corps of Engineers who had authority to regulate the waterways. (link to document) 09.03.09
- October 16, 2009 A strongly worded response to Colonel Robert D Peterson, for refusing to act on the EPA's initial request to pull and review the basis of the Permits issued, because EPA findings (attached to the end of this document) test show Spruce Mine #1 has always operated outside of the legal limits of permits, in obeyance of the Clean Water Act, est 1971 (link to document)
- April 2, 2010 Published on the Federal Register. A Proposed Determination - to revoke and veto the 404 and 404(c) permits issued to Spruce Mine #1 (link to document)
- Addendum - References where all information regarding the environmental harm and devastation. Included are the references for every scientific, and medical notation. (link to document)
- Technical Support Document for all of the harmful, toxic and creepy things done to the waterways adjacent to Spruce Mine #1 (link to document)
- March 26, 2010 EPA-RO3-OW-2009-0985 to withdraw permits for disposal into open waterways(link to document) Between the March 26, 2010, and April 2, 2010 decisions by the EPA, there was one 30-day comment period. Then from April 2 2010, then extended to June 4, 2010, was a 60 day public comment period. As of April 20, 2010, the entire world was focused on the largest known environmental disaster ever. During this time, it was difficult to get the public to respond, but many did.
- March 26, 2010 News Release:
- May 4th, 2010 Federal Register Notices
- May 27, 2010 Public Comment time extended until June 4, 2010
- July 12, 2010 the time to make a determination was extended until September 24, 2010
- Determination basis, link to documents
- January 13, 2011 FINAL DETERMINATION This was not a shock, nor sudden move. The environmental degredation has continued since the permits were first issued, they have been warned time and again, to change the way they chose to operate within the same environment we all have to live in.
Applying the lessons of the past, we now know that failure to
control mining practices has resulted in persistent environmental
degradation in the form of acid mine drainage and other impacts that
cost billions to remedy. While the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the CWA, and other laws have put in place
controls addressing some environmental impacts, including acid mine
drainage, recent studies and experience point to new environmental and
health challenges that were largely unconsidered until more recently.
We know the regulatory controls currently in place have not prevented
adverse water quality and aquatic habitat impacts from other surface
mining operations. We also know the same types of impacts as those
anticipated from this project have had previously unforeseen
with the Spruce No. 1 project are not well understood. EPA has been
presented with household-specific and anecdotal information that
suggests individual and possibly public surface water and ground water
supplies could be adversely impacted by surface coal mining activities.
In addition, recent published studies directly relate intensity of
surface mining activities within Appalachia to degraded public health
and mortality. EPA has been presented with a petition from a variety of
local stakeholders that outlines many of these concerns and further
relates them to issues of environmental justice.
- The press, is not saying is the history of non-compliance of strip miners, and mountain-top miners.
- Anyone who could do that to a mountain, does not care about nature.
- Vetoing of the 404c and 404 permits once issued to Mingo Logan Coal Company, working reclamation of Spruce Mine #1 Surface Mine is due to a long legal battle that Coal money has kept going. Environmental Justice had one victory here on this day.