EPA plans major scientific review of mountaintop removal
The Obama administration has quietly put together plans for a major scientific review of the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials published a notice about the review in today’s Federal Register, but so far I have not seen any press announcements or statements issued by EPA about the matter.
According to the notice, EPA is seeking nominations to form an ad hoc panel, under the auspices of the agency’s Science Advisory Board, to provide expert advice to EPA “on a draft assessment of the ecological impacts associated with a surface coal mine technique known as mountaintop mining and valley-fill where mining overburden is placed in adjacent valleys.”
The assessment, according to the notice, is being prepared by EPA’s Office of Research and Development at the request of the agency’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Office in Philadelphia.
The Federal Register notice includes this background statement:
Recent published scientific information reveals that mountaintop mining and valley-fill operations in Southern Appalachia may be linked to degraded water quality and adverse impacts on in-stream biota. Discharges from surface coal mining operations are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA Section 402 provides authority to regulate discharges of pollutants to streams from valley-fills and associated operations. CWA Section 404 provides authority to regulate construction of the valley-fill itself to the extent rock and dirt are placed in waters of the United States, including streams and wetlands. Surface coal mining operations are regulated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
It goes on:
EPA’s Region 3 Office has requested EPA’s ORD to prepare a scientific assessment of the ecological impacts related to mountaintop mining and valley-fill operations. The scope of this assessment includes: loss of headwater streams, downstream water quality and subsequent effects on in-stream biota, and cumulative ecological impacts. In addition, the draft assessment will evaluate restoration and recovery methods used by mining companies to address these ecological impacts associated with mountaintop mining and valley-fill operations. Cultural, aesthetic and human health impacts that may be associated with this mining technique are not part of the scope of this current assessment. ORD requested the SAB review and provide advice on the scientific adequacy, suitability and appropriateness of the draft assessment.
UPDATED: I wanted to emphasize this … what EPA says is not part of this study:
Cultural, aesthetic and human health impacts that may be associated with this mining technique are not part of the scope of this current assessment.
EPA has previously promised to take “unprecedented steps” to reduce the impacts of mountaintop removal. Two weeks ago, EPA announced it planned to take a closer look at 79 mining permit applications proposed for operations across Appalachia. A 14-day public review of that list of 79 permits ends tomorrow. EPA told me yesterday it was extending that deadline until Monday. A final announcement on which permits would go further review under the Obama administration’s “Enhanced Coordination Procedures” will be announced soon after Monday, EPA said. That final list will be given to the Corps of Engineers and then made public.
9 comments
It looks like the Mayflies will get their day in court before the people of Appalachia do. If the EPA does not follow the law, they will of course face lawsuits from citizens groups. Suing the coal companies for the floods, the poisoning of people wells and making them sick, and for the destruction of their property has not worked very well, but this little insect my prove to be their worst nightmare.
Strange — the notice does not mention the previous assessments and studies that have been done by the EPA, by other federal agencies and by other others. Why?
Studying and restudying instead of deciding and acting is not change.
(Just because the curtains are moving on the stage doesn’t mean something will come from it.)
What’s to “study”? The horses are so far out of the barn on the necessiity of another study it makes a mockery of any EPA or other fed. study results. By the time all is said and then not done (except for destroying WVa and screwing up its water table) WV will be as beautiful as a drive along I-70 through Kansas in the winter.
legally i suppose they could “study” their litigation options.
they could “study” exactly whose palms are getting greased to prevent the application of the law.
they could probably “study” the failure of the ESA legal machinery to stop the MTR process.
but yeah bruce you nailed it. perhaps the most interesting thing to “study” would be the psychology of the folks who think that MTR is a good thing. preferably double blinded captive study.
I agree with your Mr Mooney this has been studied more than 6th grade math. The fact is If stream restoration is done properly it works. I have been involved with several permits that have raised streams and they work. Our site is presently restoring a stream that includes 15 ponds and 12 waterfalls in a 2 mile section. While I was a critic when I first heard we were going to try this. I was pleasently surprised that it works. I figured that the water would go straight through the fill but it dosent. Ducks love this stream now and it isnt even finished. 2 beavers have made there home in the head pond and have even raised the dike 2 feet, the only problem with them is they keep cutting down our trees we planted. Everyone needs to remember that wild life knows no politics. They love habitat, and food sources. If mine sites can restore the land to include these inhanced habitats and food sources i.e hard wood trees and wild vegetables. Then how do people say it dosent work. The epa are some smart people they will see the results work.
scott hydraulic engineers may be able to construct a functional ditch but they have absolutely no idea what “restored” means from a biological perspective. stream restoration is at present mostly a field of dreams.
“Build it and they will come”. Except we don’t really know what “it” is and who “they” are, and most of they time they can’t get there anyway. But if you use mallard ducks as your biological criteria then hey maybe you have a point. I’ve sampled the insects of some of these “ponds” and we are talking about 15 species where once there would have been 100.
Scott 14,
I commend Consol for going beyond what was required of it — per what you have indicated.
Even more, I commend you for providing comments — the more points of view and involvement, the better.
Things are much better than what they were in the 1970s. Many who are now involved don’t appreciate the great efforts made by those who preceeded them. Here’s a for instance:
http://groups.google.com/group/bob-mooney/web/jim-branscome-activist
Also, these are some photos that I had taken in the 197os:
http://tinyurl.com/Crescent-OH (1979)
http://tinyurl.com/Muskrat-BelmontCty-OH (1975)
http://tinyurl.com/Muskrat-Creek-2 (upstream)
(Note that white car is also in the right edge of the second photo.) By the way: This was a stream “restoration” by Consol.
[…] harrassment, by keeping it under the radar a little bit. The Obama EPA is quietly launching a major scientific review of the environmental impact of mountaintop coal mining on streams and rivers in Appalachia, according to the blog at the Charleston […]
[…] harrassment, by keeping it under the radar a little bit. The Obama EPA is quietly launching a major scientific review of the environmental impact of mountaintop coal mining on streams and rivers in Appalachia, according to the blog at the Charleston […]
Leave a Comment