Led by International Coal Group’s Gene Kitts, some folks in the coal industry have tried to depict the Obama administration’s somewhat meager efforts to crack down on mountaintop removal as a case of putting mayflies ahead of jobs.
During today’s Senate hearing on mountaintop removal (it’s just starting now — watch the Web cast here), the Manchin administration throws in with that argument. In his prepared testimony, West Virginia Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman — in a broad defense of the coal industry — said his agency doesn’t see any other significant environmental impacts from mountaintop removal:
Without evidence of any significant impact on the rest of the ecosystem beyond the diminished numbers of certain genus of mayflies, the State cannot say that there has been a violation of its [water quality standards].
All this talk of mayflies stems from the fact that, in questioning several mountaintop removal permits, EPA officials cited this study by agency scientists, which does indeed talk about the impacts from mountaintop removal on mayfly populations downstream from mining operations and valley fills. But as I tried to explain in a story about this study more than a year ago, this isn’t just about mayflies — it’s about mayflies as one measure of overall stream health. We care about mayflies because they are an indicator species that helps us understand broader environmental impacts.
And in more prepared testimony for today’s hearing, a top EPA water quality official went into great detail to make this all clear, and tell lawmakers and the public about the environmental impacts that have his agency — as well as other scientists — concerned.
That EPA official was John “Randy” Pomponio, who is director of environmental assessment and innovation for EPA’s mid-Atlantic regional office in Philadelphia. He started off by reminding us of the direct impacts of streams buried by valley fills:
… Between 1992 and 2002, more than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been filled at an average rate of 120 miles per year by ongoing surface mining practices.
In addition to those impacts:
Valley fills associated with surface coal mining increase the total loading of trace metals and toxic salts (sulfates, magnesium, bicarbonate, and additively–total dissolved solids) to downstream aquatic communities. These dissolved ions are not readily sequestered by the surrounding geology and may ultimately emanate from the fills for decades.
Yes, the impacts include killing off mayflies:
Certain macroinvertebrates are highly sensitive and thus disappear from the streams draining from the valley fills. This impairs the use of the streams and ultimately leads to listing of these streams as impaired water bodies†in EPA’s water quality reports required under Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act.
An EPA scientific study released in July 2008 shows that more than 63 percent of the streams sampled below mountaintop coal mining operations exhibit such impairments. In some large watersheds, such as the Coal River in West Virginia, more than half of the streams are impaired.
And don’t forget about the selenium:
Concentrations of selenium, a heavy metal naturally found in rock, can also be elevated in streams draining valley fills. Often these concentrations result in exceedances of State and Federal water quality standards for aquatic life. Deformities in fish have been observed in reservoirs downstream of coal mining operations where selenium is a known pollutant. In peer reviewed scientific studies, high concentrations of selenium in fish tissue have been linked to physical deformities and reproductive failure.
Further:
Dissolved and particulate organic carbon fuels the food web of headwater streams and this nutrient energy cascades downstream. Healthy forest soils and streamside vegetation supply food webs with this high-quality energy source that further delivers high-quality food to downstream communities of other consumers, such as fish and humans. Mining operations and associated valley fills essentially rob downstream aquatic communities of this energy source, damaging the food webs that serve to purify freshwater for aquatic life and human consumption.
And, it’s not just streams … mountaintop removal and valley fills “can destroy forests, habitat and other important ecosystems” –
EPA’s 2002 Landscape-Scale Cumulative Impact Study modeled terrestrial impacts based on past surface mine permit data. These data provide a retrospective examination of the impacts to forest that occurred over the 11-year period from 1992 to 2002. The Study estimates that 595 square miles (380,547 acres) of the forest environment (vegetation and soils) in the study area will be cleared due surface coal mining during this 11-year period. This represents 3.4 percent of the forest area that existed in 1992. Based on a 2003 analysis, the impacts to forest and forest soils have subsequently been projected over the next 10 years. For the entire 22-year period from 1992 to 2013, the estimated forest clearing in the study area would be 1,189 square miles (761,000 acres) or 6.8 percent of the forest that existed in 1992. Should these forest not be restored, invaluable water quality and ecological services will be lost.
Forest losses of this magnitude, although largely temporary, are not inconsequential.
In addition to the popularly appreciated wildlife, recreational, and timber resources associate with forests systems, many ecological services can be attributed to forest systems.
We are just beginning to understand and assign value to these ecological services.
I’ll have more later, including a complete report on a new paper submitted during the congressional hearing by two top scientists who are studying mountaintop removal …
updated, 4 p.m.: All of the testimony is online here.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Lamar Alexander’s comments about how the economies of Tennessee once-poor, coal-dependent counties is improving because of the natural beauty and natural resources. People want to visit, people want to move there. The biggest issue in the most Republican county in the state? Clean Air.
Hard to believe those are quotes from a state Department of Evironmental Protection secretary, isn’t it? He’s not even attempting to hide the industry bias. Maybe I’m still expecting too much, but it honestly blows my mind.
I watched the webcast of the hearing. Huffman made me so ashamed. He made the appearance of being pro coal and made no bones about it. I think Senator Cardin called his hand on some of the comments he made about economic development on these sites. Huffman’s claims sounded ridiculous and his talking about what Manchin was doing made our state look even worse IMHO.
I hope that Senators Alexander and Cardin have actual scientific facts to rely on and not the blathering of our seemingly inept DEP official. Why on Earth does this state continually put such people in positions as the head of the DEP?
Huffman’s testimony covered all of the changes and environmental improvements to the regulations that have been made. Randy Pomponio of the EPA discussed the need for additional improvements to minimize the negative effects of mining. Randy also recognized the importance of coal to the nation’s energy requirements. I appreciate the “cool heads” testimony being made.
If it’s not grown then it’s mined. Mining has negative effects on the planet just like urbanization does and there certainly is not much that is pretty about the “construction” part of the disturbance. Pomponio talked about the negative affects that can last for decades. I wonder what happens to the levels of dissolved ions and elevated levels of heavy metals from mining after 50 years? I would think that the negative aspects of urbanization remain and continue to grow but maybe that from mining greatly decreases.
I certainly support energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources and nuclear. I liked to see constant coverage and literature on improvements that homeowners can make to reduce energy consumption. Coal is abundant and relatively inexpensive and currently necessary to our standard of living. We need to continue to improve the negative aspects of mining but not ban it.
Well, well and here I thought President Obama was black when in fact on MTR he is a very bright yellow.
[...] As always, Ken Ward’s Coal Tattoo blog provided the most comprehensive coverage and analysis: Mountaintop Removal: Jobs vs. Mayflies? NOT [...]
[...] As always, Ken Ward’s Coal Tattoo blog provided the most comprehensive coverage and analysis: Mountaintop Removal: Jobs vs. Mayflies? NOT [...]
I would like to point out that this study doesn’t show “diminished numbers of certain genus of mayflies” associated with MTR. It shows a inverse relationship with Mayfly abundance and increasing MTR mining on a stream as indicated by ionic strength (i.e., Dissolved Metals and salts) with certain highly sensitive genera of mayflies being eliminated first. In fact, after a certain point, the ionic strength will eliminate all Mayflies; not a genus or some genera, but a whole Order of Insects…two whole levels of taxonomy higher than a genus. To put this into a little perspective, humans are in the genus Homo and Order Primates. Primates includes all Apes, Monkeys, Tarsiers, Lemurs, Gibbons, Pre-historic Hominids or “Cavemen”, and Humans. Albiet, the Class Insecta is the single most diverse group of Animals on the planet, so the comparison of Mayflies to Primates is a bit off…there are far more genera of Mayflies in existance than Primates.
Since Mayflies are universally accepted as a key component of insects based stream health indicies due to their sensitivity to pollution, almost any way you look at the data, there is an extremely high chance that if you have enough mining on a stream, it will fail the health index and be considered biologically impaired. If the stream is considered biologically impaired, then what is the potential for human health issues. As explained by the EPA guy, the concern is not for the Mayfly’s health, it ultimately for human health.
In addition, the paper has a literature review that indicates that the truely lasting effect of the mining is the ionic strength as eventually the habitat will return to the stream as the vegetation returns to mined streams (except for those streams that were buried, of course). So not only does MTR mining mess up the streams, it does so for a long period of time.
Nanette…you ask,
“Why on Earth does this state continually put such people in positions as the head of the DEP?”
Because ultimately, the coal industry has enough political control to get them put in charge.
I am in agreement that MTR is devastating, but in Illinois, longwall mining is equally destructive to our flat, fertile, farmland. It subsides our fields into swamps; never to be used as productive farmland again. How will we feed the world when coal is taking our land? Our Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources, the regulatory agence should be renamed the Illinois Dept of Coal!
[...] As always, Ken Ward’s Coal Tattoo blog provided the most comprehensive coverage and analysis: Mountaintop Removal: Jobs vs. Mayflies? NOT [...]