2conditions, the Corps did not conduct any review of potential public health impacts of this mine.The Corps disregarded numerous peer-reviewed studies, which Plaintiffs cited in comments onthe Permit, documenting these health risks.
Pls.’ Ex. C, Admin. Rec. Doc. # 291, MargaretJanes Comment Letter (August 8, 2011) at 58-59; Pls.’ Ex. D, Admin Rec. Doc. # 291 Ex WW
;Pls. Ex. E, Admin. Rec. Doc. # 291 Ex. c;
Pls.’ Ex. F, Admin. Rec. Doc. # 291 ex. j;
Pls.’ Ex.G, Admin Rec. Doc. # 317, Margaret Janes Comment Letter at 7-9 (November 11, 2011); Pls.Ex. H, Admin Rec. Doc. # 317 Ex. 10;
(cumulatively, Pls.’ Exs. C through H, are hereinafterreferred to as “Record Health Studies.”). The Corps also failed to do its own review of the bodyof literature documenting startling health disparities.
The Corps’ failure to consider the potential health impacts of the mine is particularlypuzzling in light of the considerable attention paid to mining-related health studies by the media,the public, and the Corps’ partner agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), andthe public controversy which has arisen in response.
Pls.’ Ex. I, Admin Rec. Doc. # 112,EPA Preliminary Review Letter at 4 (October 22, 2010); Pls.’ Ex. J, EPA, Improving Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National
Margaret Palmer, et al., “Mountaintop Mining Consequences,” Science (January 8, 2010)
Nathaniel Hitt and Michael Hendryx, “Ecological Integrity of Streams Related to Cancer Mortality Rates,”
(April 2, 2010)
Keith Zullig and Michael Hendryx, “Health Related Quality of life Among Central Appalachian Residents inMountaintop Mining Counties,”
American Journal of Public Health
, Vol 1001 No. 4 at 848-52 (May 2011)
Melissa Ahern et al. “The Association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in centralAppalachia, 1996-2003,”
Remarkably, the Corps has declined to prepare or file an official administrative record in this case. The Corpsrelies instead on materials previously provided to Plaintiffs under a FOIA and an index filed with the Court.
Doc. No. 16. In an effort to give the Court the most complete record possible Plaintiffs have included exhibits thatcontain the entirety of cited documents. To clearly distinguish studies which were part of the record Plaintiffs referto Exhibits C through H as “Record Health Studies.” Documents that were not submitted to the Corps, but whichPlaintiffs contend the Corps should have reviewed on its own initiative are referred to as “Non-Record HealthStudies” and are compiled in Exhibit M. Plaintiffs note however, that many of these “Non-Record Health Studies”were cited as authority in the “Record Health Studies” and thus were at least mentioned in the record.
Case 3:12-cv-00682-TBR Document 23-1 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 717