Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Court Rules in Favor of Mountaintop Mining
Update on mountaintop removal: The use of a streamlined, general permit for mountaintop mining was reinstated by an appeals court on Nov. 22, vacating a lower court decision to bar the use of a general permit for 11 coal mining projects in West Virginia. The three-judge panel concluded that the Army Corps of Engineers had complied with the Clean Water Act in issuing the general permit. The streamlined general permit requires far less scrutiny of environmental impacts than an individual permit. The decision is a defeat for local communities and environmentalist. From the BNA, Daily Report for Executives (subscription-only):

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows the Army Corps to authorize projects with individual permits or streamlined general permits for categories of activities that have minimal effects on the environment. Certain conditions must be met for coverage under a general permit. . . .

Issued in 2002, Nationwide Permit 21 authorized discharges of the fill material into waters of the United States.

Coal companies applying for a permit must file a "preconstruction notification" with the Army Corps, which determines whether proposed projects will have a minimal effect on the environment. The corps would then determine if the mining company should have to undertake separate projects to mitigate the environmental impact of their activity.

In his July ruling, Goodwin said the "fundamental problem with the corps approach is that NWP 21 defines a procedure instead of categories of activities."

He said the corps did not define mining activities that will have only minimal effects on the environment and only provided a "post-hoc, case-by-case evaluation of environmental impact."

Goodwin also said the process does not include a provision for public hearings.

The appeals court disagreed on each point. The three-judge panel said that the corps used both procedural and substantive parameters to define discharge activities covered under NWP 21.

Text of the decision available here.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 01:58:12 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Industry Ties Bind FDA Advisors

Right Whale Protection Rule Finally Here

Industry Pressuring EPA to Weaken Lead Rule

EPA Won't Keep Rocket Fuel out of Water

Roof Strength Rule Delayed Again

Bush Taking Credit for Whale Rule He Delayed

What Should the U.S. Do about China's Bad Milk?

Did OMB Block Asbestos Cleanup in Montana Town?

Whale Protection Rule Clears White House, 573 Days Later

EPA Just Kidding Around on Children's Health

Archived Entries for In the Courts

July

May

April

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

September, 2006

August, 2006

March, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

July, 2005

March, 2005

January, 2005

November, 2004

October, 2004