The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is releasing a bombshell: A major new guidance document that provides the coal industry and coal-state regulators with “clarity” regarding the permitting of mountaintop removal coal mining.
The biggest step included? EPA is warning that water pollution from these mining operations dangerously increases the electrical conductivity of streams — and setting up a much more rigorous mandate that coal operators and state mining regulators face up to this looming and long-ignored problem. But the new EPA guidance also addresses a host of other issues, from water quality monitoring to environmental justice, that are important to folks who are concerned about mountaintop removal.
As the new guidance document says:
It has been a high priority of this Administration — and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson — to reduce the substantial environmental and human health consequences of surface coal mining in Appalachia, and minimize further impairment of already compromised watersheds.
As scientific evidence grows, EPA has a legal responsibility to address the environmental consequences of Appalachian surface coal mining.
Updated: I have posted audio of today’s EPA press conference call
EPA has a press release, the actual guidance document, a summary of the guidance document, and a Question-and-Answer sheet about that document.
Also, EPA has posted copies of two new studies: A Field-Based Aquatic Life Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams (External Review Draft) and The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (External Review Draft).
The new EPA guidance outlined what it called the “far-reaching legacy” of damage from mining operations in Appalachia:
Recent studies, as well as the experiences of Appalachian coalfield communities, point to new environmental and health challenges that were largely unknown even ten years ago. Since 1992, nearly 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams have been filled at a rate of 120 miles per year by surface mining practices. A recent EPA study found that nine out of every 10 streams downstream from surface mining operations were impaired based on a genus-level assessment of aquatic life.
Another federal study found elevated levels of highly toxic and bioaccumulative selenium in streams downstream from valley fills. These impairments are linked to contamination of surface water supplies and resulting health concerns, as well as widespread impacts to stream life in downstream rivers and streams. Further, the estimated scale of deforestation from existing Appalachian surface mining operations is equivalent in size to the state of Delaware. Appalachian deforestation has been linked to significant changes in aquatic communities as well as to modified storm runoff regimes, accelerated sediment and nutrient transport, reduced organic matter inputs, shifts in the stream’s energy base, and altered thermal regimes. Such impacts have placed further stresses on water quality and the ecological viability of watersheds.
And Lisa Jackson said in the agency’s press release:
The people of Appalachian shouldn’t have to choose between a clean, healthy environment in which to raise their families and the jobs they need to support them. That’s why EPA is providing even greater clarity on the direction the agency is taking to confront pollution from mountaintop removal.
We will continue to work with all stakeholders to find a way forward that follows the science and the law. Getting this right is important to Americans who rely on affordable coal to power homes and businesses, as well as coal communities that count on jobs and a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites.
Regarding the key issue of conductivity (a key measure of the presence of many harmful pollutants, such as chlorides, sulfides and dissolved solids), EPA cites the previous work of agency scientists who found that streams with conductivity of more than 500 microsiemens per centimeter were impaired.
But, EPA has also completed a draft of a new study by the agency’s Office of Research and Development that warns of impacts at even lower levels of conductivity of 300 microsiemens per centimeter.
Based on that study, EPA now says that it believes any mining proposals with predicted conductivity levels of 300 or below are generally okay, while anything above 500 is considered by EPA “to be associated with impacts that may rise to the level of exceedances of narrative state water quality standards.”
What’s that mean for mountaintop removal permitting?
Well, the short version is that EPA may block new permits or demand significant changes in mining plans where mining proposals are projected to cause conductivity downstream to exceed 500.
The slightly more complicated version goes like this:
If water quality modeling for a proposed permit indicates conductivity greater than 500 will result, EPA will assume a violation of water quality standards will occur, that is, unless “based on site-specific data, the state has an alternative interpretation of their water quality standards that is supported by relevant science.”
And if modeling suggests conductivity will end up between 300 and 500, then EPA “should work with the permitting authority to ensure that the permit includes conditions that protect against conductivity levels exceeding 500.”
Further, if a new mine is proposed in an area where streams already exceed 500 — which could include many parts of West Virginia’s coalfields where there has already been significant mining — EPA “will coordinate with the permitting authority on a site-specific basis to ensure these new discharges will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.”
And to be clear, EPA indicates these are issues that — as WVDEP Secretary Randy Huffman has argued to federal officials — are best handled during state reviews of Clean Water Act water pollution permits, as opposed to Clean Water Act “dredge-and-fill” permits handled by the Corps of Engineers. But EPA is also being clear about what it expects out of the states:
At a minimum, should the record indicate that a reasonable potential exist, based on site- or receiving-water-specific information, the permitting authority must demonstrate in the administrative record, based on site- or receiving-water-specific information, how the permit implements the narrative water quality standards in a manner that is consistent with the CWA, and Regions are encouraged to review such a record carefully.
UPDATED:
Administrator Jackson told reporters:
Let me be clear. This is not about ending coal mining. This is about ending coal mining pollution.
But Jackson also noted (citing the Hobet 45 permit, where stream impacts were cut in half and most of the coal still able to be mined) that the EPA guidance is going to force coal operators to rethink how they mine:
… We expect this guidance to change behaviors, to change actions, because if we keep doing what we have been doing, we’re going to see continued degradation of water quality.
… Minimizing the number of valley fills is a very, very key factor. You’re talking about no or very few valley fills that are going to be able to meet standards like this.
The intent here is to tell people what the science it telling us, which is it would be untrue to say that you can have numbers of valley fills, anything more than say, very minimal valley fills and not expect to see irreversible damage to stream health. That’s just the truth. That’s the science of it.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Here’s the text of EPA’s news release:
EPA Issues Comprehensive Guidance to Protect Appalachian Communities From Harmful Environmental Impacts of Mountain Top Mining
Guidance provides additional clarity and ensures stronger protection at projects in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a set of actions to further clarify and strengthen environmental permitting requirements for Appalachian mountaintop removal and other surface coal mining projects, in coordination with federal and state regulatory agencies. Using the best available science and following the law, the comprehensive guidance sets clear benchmarks for preventing significant and irreversible damage to Appalachian watersheds at risk from mining activity.
Mountaintop removal is a form of surface coal mining in which explosives are used to access coal seams, generating large volumes of waste that bury adjacent streams. The resulting waste that then fills valleys and streams can significantly compromise water quality, often causing permanent damage to ecosystems and rendering streams unfit for swimming, fishing and drinking. It is estimated that almost 2,000 miles of Appalachian headwater streams have been buried by mountaintop coal mining.
“The people of Appalachia shouldn’t have to choose between a clean, healthy environment in which to raise their families and the jobs they need to support them. That’s why EPA is providing even greater clarity on the direction the agency is taking to confront pollution from mountain top removal,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We will continue to work with all stakeholders to find a way forward that follows the science and the law. Getting this right is important to Americans who rely on affordable coal to power homes and businesses, as well as coal communities that count on jobs and a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites.”
EPA’s Actions:
· Improved Guidance and Clarity: EPA is communicating comprehensive guidance to its regional offices with permitting responsibility in Appalachian states. The guidance clarifies existing requirements of the Section 402 and 404 Clean Water Act permitting programs that apply to pollution from surface coal mining operations in streams and wetlands. The guidance details EPA’s responsibilities and how the agency uses its Clean Water Act (CWA) authorities to ensure that future mining will not cause significant environmental, water quality and human health impacts. EPA also expects this information will provide improved consistency and predictability in the CWA permitting process and help to strengthen coordination with other federal and state regulatory agencies and mining companies.
· Strong Science: EPA is making publicly available two scientific reports prepared by its Office of Research and Development (ORD). One summarizes the aquatic impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills. The second report establishes a scientific benchmark for unacceptable levels of conductivity (a measure of water pollution from mining practices) that threaten stream life in surface waters. These reports are being published for public comment and submitted for peer review to the EPA Science Advisory Board.
· Increased transparency: EPA is creating a permit tracking Web site so that the public can determine the status of mining permits subject to the EPA-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Enhanced Coordination Procedure (ECP).
A growing body of scientific literature, including previous and new studies performed by EPA, show significant damage to local streams that are polluted with the mining runoff from mountaintop removal. To protect water quality, EPA has identified a range of conductivity (a measure of the level of salt in the water) of 300 to 500 microSiemens per centimeter. The maximum benchmark conductivity of 500 microSiemens per centimeter is a measure of salinity that is roughly five times above normal levels. The conductivity levels identified in the clarifying guidance are intended to protect 95 percent of aquatic life and fresh water streams in central Appalachia.
EPA will solicit public comments on the new guidance. The guidance will be effective immediately on an interim basis. EPA will decide whether to modify the guidance after consideration of public comments and the results of the SAB technical review of the EPA scientific reports.
The EPA guidance identifies improvements in mining practices and operations that will reduce adverse impacts on water quality. EPA will continue to work with coal companies that are interested in modifying their projects to reduce their environmental footprint and prevent harm to water quality and human health. Earlier this year, EPA approved the Hobet 45 permit in West Virginia. Working with the mining company, EPA was able to reduce stream impacts by almost 50 percent and minimize mine runoff into surface waters. Those changes helped permanently protect local waters, maximize coal recovery and reduce costs for the operators.
In contrast, EPA recently proposed to significantly restrict or prohibit mountaintop mining at the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, W. Va. Attempts at dialogue with the company failed to ensure a significant decrease of environmental and water quality impacts from the project. The Spruce No. 1 mine, as proposed, would bury more than seven miles of headwater streams, directly impact 2,278 acres of forestland, and degrade water quality in streams adjacent to the mine. The project was permitted in 2007 and subsequently delayed by litigation.
EPA’s guidance offers recommendations to its regions on the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to surface coal mining projects permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps is separately announcing plans for rulemaking to expand the scope of NEPA review. EPA is supportive of this effort and will work closely with the Corps.
After months of steps, the EPA has finally taken a leap to protect America’s mountains and drinking water from mountaintop removal coal mining. This is a clear response to resounding public opposition to the devastating mining practice.
The EPA is finally flexing its full authority under the clean water act to curtail valley fills and protect the health of our waterways from irreversible damage. Coal operators and state mining regulators will have to contend with this rigorous mandate.
The EPA has confirmed what science tells us, that mountaintop removal is harming water resources and public health in real and measurable ways, which is why these new guidelines should apply to existing mining permits not just new ones.
Moving forward, I urge the EPA to take holistic measures to end this devastating practice once and for all. We cannot end mountaintop removal coal mining pollution without ending mountaintop removal all together. The EPA has and must use its authority under the clean water act to stop this devastating practice.
Is there a place to read the new guidance document in it’s entirety?
It’s here:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/appalachian_mtntop_mining_detailed.pdf
Reactions are coming in, and I’ll post them here in the comments section. Here’s something from the Rainforest Action Network:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today A major new guidance document that provides the coal industry and coal-state regulators with “clarity” regarding the permitting of mountaintop removal coal mining. This comes just days after the EPA blocked the Clean Water Act permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, the largest mountaintop removal permit in West Virginia history. Following is a statement by Amanda Starbuck of the Rainforest Action Network.
“After months of steps, the EPA has finally taken a leap to protect America’s mountains and drinking water from mountaintop removal coal mining. This is a clear response to resounding public opposition to the devastating mining practice.
“The EPA is finally flexing its full authority under the clean water act to curtail valley fills and protect the health of our waterways from irreversible damage. Coal operators and state mining regulators will have to contend with this rigorous mandate.
“The EPA has confirmed what science tells us, that mountaintop removal is harming water resources and public health in real and measurable ways, which is why these new guidelines should apply to existing mining permits not just new ones.
“Moving forward, we urge the EPA to take holistic measures to end this devastating practice once and for all. We cannot end mountaintop removal coal mining pollution without ending mountaintop removal all together. The EPA has and must use its authority under the clean water act to stop this devastating practice.”
Here’s a statement from the Sierra Club:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a bold new policy to protect communities and waterways from the impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining. By setting tough guidance for mining near streams, the EPA will severely limit this most devastating form of coal mining. The EPA also addressed the negative impacts to communities caused by mountaintop removal coal mining.
In response Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune issued the following statement:
“The new policy represents the most significant administrative action ever taken to address mountaintop removal coal mining. Today’s announcement reaffirms the Obama administration’s commitment to science and to environmental justice for the communities and natural areas of Appalachia.
“We also applaud the EPA for recognizing the negative impacts to the communities of Appalachia, who have suffered long enough from the effects of mountaintop removal.
“After years of the coal industry making molehills out of Appalachia’s mountains, these new guidelines will reduce the destruction caused by mountaintop removal, and communities will be able to focus on building a clean energy economy. Tragically, mining companies have already buried close to 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams beneath piles of toxic waste and debris.
“Today’s announcement is a major step toward protecting Appalachia’s natural heritage. If effectively implemented and vigorously enforced, this policy will largely prevent coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams. We call on other agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Surface Mining and the Department of the Interior to follow EPA’s lead and take their own steps to protect the region’s communities and water resources.”
I hope that I am wrong, but this is the beginning of the end for the west virginia surface miner. God help the surface miner for in this press release lie the distruction of their livelyhood! The coalfields are about to explode.
Scott14,
Exactly what in the press release makes you say that? Could you be more specific in what about EPA’s guidance concerns you?
Ken.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., is the first elected official to respond to EPA’s announcement. Here’s what he said:
“Today’s announcement will hopefully now have everyone reading off the same page.”
“I, along with other elected officials, coal operators, the mining community, and environmentalists from West Virginia have been asking for a clearer, concise policy on moving forward with mountaintop mining permits and water quality issues.”
“I am pleased that EPA Administrator Jackson took our concerns about the need to provide clarity very seriously and has responded with these guidelines.”
Ken,
You know the science here pretty well. Is it possible to do MTR and not release these restricted concentrations of ions into adjacent streams? Is there an example of this?
Electrical conductivity is misleading, Electricity is used to measure the resistance of the water (salts). The majority of streams in the world have a conductivity of greater than 500 microsiemens per centimeter. Only mining will be subject to these standards. Farms, highways, subdivisions, new construction of any kind has the potential to exceed these proposed regulations.
Here’s a statement from the National Mining Association:
“America’s coal mining communities are deeply concerned by the impact of policy announced today by EPA on coal mining permits, employment and economic activity throughout Appalachia. This is a sweeping regulatory action that affects not only all coal mining in the region, but also other activities with the potential to impact Appalachian stream quality, according to EPA Administrator Jackson. The policy was announced without the required transparency and opportunity for public comment that is afforded to policies of this magnitude. Nor does the guidance strike a much-needed balance between the economic needs and environmental expectations of the affected workers and local communities.
“EPA continues to point to ‘new science’ that has been found to be both flawed and limited in its findings and application as justification for today’s announcement.
EPA took unprecedented steps to suspend an existing permit less than a week ago that had undergone a five-year, comprehensive environmental impact analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Permits issued under the Clean Water Act affect nearly 80,000 direct coal mining jobs in Appalachia, as well as the coal to power nearly 80 million homes and U.S. steel production, which relies on Appalachian coal for more than 95 percent of the coal it requires for manufacture.
“We urge EPA to give greater thought to the impact on jobs, affordable electricity and U.S. steel production caused by further permitting delays and roadblocks resulting from the agency’s ill-considered policy decisions over the last several days.”
I’m so pleased the EPA is actually doing its job to protect human health and the environment! Why should one industry be exempted from laws that everyone else has to follow?
Alleluia!! Perhaps my daughter and potential grandchildren WILL grow up in Central Appalachia – as I did – with mountains, diverse hardwood forests, and clear running streams… I was almost convinced that wouldn’t be a possibility.
Thanks to Senator Byrd for the part he played in this process.
The EPA has made the decision to protect human health and the future of Appalachia.
The industry needs to understand that it is not ok to poison your neighbor. We need jobs, but not at the cost of stream degradation and negative health impacts. We need to start now rebuilding Appalachia in a way that we all can live well on the land that we love and take care of our families.
Thanks to Lisa Jackson and all of those at the EPA who have listened to us and believed us.
I am not sure where the National Mining Association is getting their data on employment in Appalachia. There are only 38,204 total direct coal mining jobs in Central Appalachia, and 58,745 in all of Appalachia (including North and South along with Central).
Of those, there are a total of 20,943 direct surface mining jobs in all of Appalachia, and only 14,541 direct surface mining jobs in Central Appalachia, not 80,000.
I just wanted to point out that the NMA’s numbers for the potential impact on direct mining jobs is quite high, since EPA’s actions only apply to Appalachia, and most directly Central Appalachia. Their number, 80,000 direct mining jobs, is more representative of the total coal mining jobs across the whole of the US (about 87,000).
Source, 2008 data: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table18.html
Additionally, metallurgical coal (for steel production), is mostly mined underground, not at surface mines. And Central Appalachia provides 50% of national metallurgical coal production, not 95% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coaldistrib/2008/o_08state.pdf).
Finally, at an average household consumption on the east coast (where most of the coal from Central App is consumed) of 13,500 kilowatt-hours per year, and an average net heating content of 2,500 kilowatt-hours per ton (after taking into account efficiency losses at the power plant and with transmission), and with 119 million tons of coal produced by surface mining in Central Appalachia in 2008….
Those 119 million tons don’t provide electricity for 80 million homes. They provide electricity for 22 million homes.
Eric,
For reference, what is the conductivity of a pristine mountain stream? Wiki says even drinking water ranges from 5-500 microseimens/cm. It seems to me a better metric would be to measure concentrations of ions especially specific harmful ions like Cu2+, Se2+, Fe3+ or As3+,or to correspond ion concentration directly with Na+ concentration via a simple flame test.
Im saying Ken that if you believe that conductivity is caused by elevated solids and you believe Josh then yes the WV surface miner is in big trouble. Remember when the prestine dunkerd creek was killed by a alge bloom. Those suspended solids were blamed on a treated water discharge from a Deep mine. So maybe all mining is in deep trouble!
I agree with Eric, as I’ve asked many times. Tha epa states, their not “aware” of other scientific studies demonstrating similar water quality impacts associated with “other”types of development. I suggest the epa require the same stringent guidlines for other development as they do mining. If “other” development were scrutinized as thoroughly as mining maybe epa would be “aware”.
Josh,
The EPA proposed decision on the Spruce Mine said that “background” conductivity in that watershed ranged from 50 to 100 microsiemens per cm.
and Watcher, Certainly, mining is more highly regulated that timbering is in West Virginia … but I’ve seldom run across any industry that doesn’t complain that it is the most highly regulated activity around and try to deflect attention over to something else.
Ken.
Watcher that is absolutely not true. Greg Pond (EPA) just this month published a study comparing stream habitat, water quality parameters and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages between sites impacted by surface mining and residential development in eastern KY. surface mining effects are distinguishable from residential development both in physical habitat scores and biotic integrity scores that are a composite of aquatic insect taxon richness abundance and diversity. incidentally, the entire order was absent below a majority of the surface mining sites and conductivity is strongly negatively correlated with the biological integrity of the site.
there is more literature than you could care to ponder regarding the relationship between land use and benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality. there is no content to this criticism that they are only “aware” of part of the picture.
Trout streams in western NC are routinely 8-25 microsiemens. The geology is different and varies even between streams but to say that the “majority of streams throughout the world have a conductivity more than 500 microsiemens” is misleading. It could be true, I’ve never heard that before but I’m skeptical. Sedimentary and karst landscapes have streams with higher conductivity anyway but generalizations like “majority of the streams throughout the world” aren’t relevant.
Much of the latent long term contribution to conductivity appears to be sulfates percolating from fill materials and not necessarily the heavier ions associated with metals and acid mine drainage from disturbed seams or pavements.
Scott the Dunkard Creek thing is interesting. the role of solids vs algae will never be assured since that kind of forensics are a long ways off in streams. but if you take the press release at face value and you believe that these effects are real, does that make you have second thoughts about advocating for the industry? I’ve not read the release very thoroughly and not even looked at the supporting material but it seems to be a science based effort right?
The EPA’s decision reminds me of some words from Winston Churchill: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
This is a VERY hopeful step forward on an administrative, regulatory front. It does not, for an instant, however, alleviate the need to eliminate Mountain Removal legislatively.
Big thanks go out to Administrator Jackson and her team, as well as to the President, himself. Administrator Jackson never could’ve made such a decision without the full backing of the POTUS.
Here’s a statement from Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia:
“EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson contacted me today before those new guideline proposals were released. DEP staff and I are reviewing the information the EPA provided today to evaluate its impact.
“I believe the EPA has a responsibility to work with each state to find the balance between the jobs, the economy and the environment, of which we all want to be stewards. This nation needs the coal West Virginia has been able to produce for many, many years. As we go through this transition to the fuel of the future, I believe we can find better ways to mine and use coal, but we are looking for a good partnership in Washington to make that possible.
“We are pleased that the EPA is working to clarify its regulations and keeping us informed of their proposals, however, we also understand these new guidelines are subject to a public comment period. We will make sure our voices are heard loud and clear during this public comment period to ensure the regulations are reasonable and attainable.”
Ken,
Will other industries and developments be subject to these requirements? How about mining in areas other than appalachia? I am getting ready to review the overall document, but have not yet had the time. One of the things that bothers me is that things which have never been regulated in the past will now be used as a basis for denying permits in the future. Selenium is an example of this. Proof is starting to come in that special handling plans for selenium material works when properly done. It can be prevented, but it can not be cheaply cured. It is quite possible that fill designs which minimize conductivity can be constructed, but we’ll never get the chance to implement due to a presumption of guilt.
How do the streams with high conductivity but low toxicity (as you remember the epa sampled in the other report we discussed.) get accounted for?
Thanks
AFC
Bob, I think that Winston Churchill quote fits perfectly here.
Ken, do these new guidelines have any effects on current permits or current mine sites undergoing reclamation? Or does it mostly affect the permitting process?
Jason
I have read Greg Pond’s study. The study was completely biased from design. He started out to prove that conductivity impairs streams and found data that supports that idea. Then he omitted data that contradicted his theory. Well that didn’t work either, so he designed a new protocol that disregarded tolerant species in order to prove his theory. So instead of the report concluding that in stream ponds cause a shift if benthic communities and result in a net gain in aquatic diversity the report concluded that intolerant species are harmed by conductivity. Since the sample locations were chosen downstream of mining, mining must cause harm to bugs. That must be why they call them Intolerant?
I am fine with any regulation that preserves the environment, but national regulations should be applied nationally. Regulations that are focused on one industry in one section of the country have to be politically motivated not environmentally motivated. If the proposed standards were to be applied thought the nation to all construction the public outcry would be enormous. This new arbitrary standard will not only apply to Mountain Top Mining, but all mining. The overall effect of enforcing water quality standards on streams in and around West Virginia will shift mining out west where regulations are far less stringent. Therefore, not only will we be burning higher sulfur coal but we will be paying transportation costs. This doesn’t seem very environmentally conscious. I guess that’s ok since any one working in the Mining Industry or support industries such as Food Service, Retail, Schools, Healthcare, Construction, etc. will either be on welfare or relocated.
armored face conveyor,
Please forgive me for not yet knowing all the answers to your questions … I have not reviewed all of the material EPA released today.
I can say that, my understanding is that these guidelines for now apply to mining. At some point, I believe the plan is EPA would write recommended water quality standards for conductivity which would be adopted by the states and would then apply to all sorts of activities, not just mining.
I don’t know the answer to your question re: conductivity with low toxicity.
You may have a point regarding regulating things now which were not regulated in the past — but taken too far, that means we can’t regulate any new threats to the environment, public health or safety … and of course, the industry and its friends at regulatory agencies have known about the conductivity issue for some time and avoided dealing with it in any meaningful way.
Eric,
I don’t believe your theory works very well — just because a proposed regulation affects only one industry in one region doesn’t mean on its face that the regulation is based only on some political motivation … it might just be that the particular activity in that particular region has been found to be causing big problems — and in fact, that’s the case here.
I appreciate all the comments so far, and I especially thank everyone for keeping it respectful thus far … and I’m glad we don’ t have too much cheer-leading one way or the other. I’m much more interested in substantive questions like AFC’s and thoughts on what these guidelines mean and don’t mean.
Ken.
Eric, I read the Pond KY mayfly paper. Let’s see. Go to 92 routine headwater monitoring sites as part of your agency’s Clean Water Act assessment requirements (that is alot of streams by the way), then sample the animals living there, determine the dominant landuse, calculate statistics on the animal community, compare the communities across the landuse types to explain patterns of animals extirpation to help better inform management decisions as required under Clean Water Act. To control for confounding landuse combinations according to your study objectives (e.g., other industrial, agriculture, active logging), only omit sites that do not fit into the goal of the study’s landuse categories (BTW, this is not a ‘biased’ approach” and might be based on how many “other” sites you had to perform statistics), then report the results. My take was that the results were so compelling that any one could duplicate it unless industry biologists cherry picked their sites (which I still dont think would find anything different). One must stratify landuse types (mining vs. residential) in order to make informed conclusions about the impacts. So I dont see where you think the study was “biased”. To me the study pointed to adverse impacts from poor residential planning too. Have you been to the streams or other streams like those studied in KY or WV? Where is your supporting data to back up your accusations against another scientist? Sounds like you have vested interest ($$) and that biases your ability to analyze and interpret data.
Jason, No I dont have second thoughts about advocating for a industry that has been very good to my family. As I look at my twins, I think heavens for MTR and the opportunities that it provides for them. I really couldnt care less if waterways got so conductive that you could put a light bulb in the river and it lit up!
It sure seems like an April Fools Day joke to me.I don’t want to overreact but it sure seems to be the end for all Appalachian coal mining, and maybe many Appalachian land uses. I guess that I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if any redesigned mining can occur that would meet these standards but without valley fills I don’t see much mining happening at all.
There’s a lot of good questions posed here and I too would certainly like to know what it means for existing operations. Is there any realistic chance to successfully contest these EPA actions legally or legislatively?
Some might see some balance of jobs and the environment with this guidance but I do not see any. To me it looks like a good time to short WV and Appalachia, and the democratic party.
Scott14,
Thanks as always for reading and for offering the comments from your perspective as a surface miner.
I’m not sure how to respond to someone who indicates who doesn’t care about one set of values — protecting water quality — and only cares about the other set of values involved in these kinds of decisions. I’m overstating your position, I’m sure, because you’ve indicated previously on Coal Tattoo an interest in environmental protection … You just don’t in this case today extend that to caring about a water pollution measure that the science indicates has harmful effects.
Of course, our system is set up to care about many different points of view and many different values — and from what I know of West Virginians, they care about both a strong economy and a health environment, including good water quality.
Perhaps you’re overstating your point, too, and you really would care if conductivity in your local streams reached the point you describe.
In any event, in response to Casey — it’s probably way too soon to answer many of your questions:
– Biologists will certainly go over EPA’s new data carefully, and some consensus will emerge about whether they are right about the 300 to 500 figures.
– Engineers will look at what EPA is suggesting and decide what sorts of mining plans might and might not work.
– Lawyers will have to look at whether this action by EPA can be successfully challenged (or supported).
There’s much yet to discuss on this, and I continue to welcome respectful comments from all sides.
Ken.
I guess Scott14′s post pretty much sums up the industry position.
As to Armored’s question about the regs. Some of the applications will be local to West Virginia because of cumulative effects–there is so much mine disturbance the problem is greater. Keep in mind that regulatory changes written to benefit the Appalachian surface coal industry have been used elsewhere in justify fill permits. Most notably, the Supreme Court sided with a gold mine in Alaska last year, allowing that mine to dump tailing’s into a mountain lake–the company acknowledges that this will kill everything in the lake. That permit was based on the Bush fill rule, a rule written with Appalachian coal in mind.
If anybody missed it, my effort to sum all of this up for our print edition is online now at:
http://wvgazette.com/News/201004010814
Other coverage from The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575158032996638508.html
Reuters:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0113390020100401
The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/science/earth/02coal.html
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/01/obama-administration-mining
The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040102312.html
The National Journal:
http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/epa-puts-controls-on-mountaint.php
W.Va. Public Broadcasting:
http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=14218
The Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD9EQEAI81
The Charleston Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.com/News/201004010554
Please feel free to post links to other coverage.
Ken.
This is really, really good news!
Mountaintop removal has ruined so many, many lives. I just met a man in Roanoke, VA, who had to move from his home in Boone County several years ago because the mine was coming. He told me that his was the 8th generation that lived in that hollow.
Hopefully this decision will slowly but surely bring deep mining back to the region. Hopefully this will allow the people of the Coal River Valley to put wind turbines on their mountain and have clean, permanent jobs.
I just finished reading the memo and it doesn’t seem to affect operations that already have all of their permits unless they are applying for renewel or expansion. It seems to deal with issuing permits and monitoring mine sites the applications meet new, more strict, water quality standards.
Ken, As reader of this blog I just must say that it’s a good day for WV. If I’m correct the statute says that all waters of the state are drinkable, fishable and swimmable. My creek is all the above an I wish to keep it that way.
Lexington Herald Leader coverage
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/01/1206686/new-guidelines-could-reduce-streams.html
I agree that these regulations should be applied nationally, as should any statutory clarifications of the Clean Water Act, such as S696 or HR 1310. Limiting these restrictions geographically will only make these problems migrate elsewhere, and there are already several cases in Alaska, Arizona, and Montana where water quality is suffering via Section 404c (Dredge and Fill) activities.
But I applaud EPA for taking stringent and prudent action to address these most egregious violations of the Clean Water Act occurring in Appalachia.
Earlier there was a comment about why the mining industry was being held to a higher standard regarding conductivity (i.e., mining, roads, subdivisions, farms). But you must consider some facts.
WV streams are naturally dilute (conductivity below 50). The exception would be streams with limestone or karst geology like that in Opequon Creek near Martinsburg where the norm would be around 275.
Human activities like farms, roads, development can and do elevate conductivity above 500. However, these are often fleeting acute elevations above 500. But mining often elevates conductivites above 500 permanently, thus creating a chronic situation.
My 2 cents.
I have worked with communities to conduct several “heart and pulse” assessments of water quality throughout Appalachia-notably a series of what we call the “Big Dip” studies in the Upper Kentucky, the Upper Big Sandy, and Upper Cumberland headwaters.
Over the past four years we’ve basically stuck a probe into every trickling first-order stream we can can find over a 33-county region; and in the 1602 observations made since 2006, 898 of them (~56% have been above the 500 micromhos level. Of these, 397 samples (or ~24.8%) had conductivity readings above 1,000 micromhos.
I want to emphasize that while the nature of the data collection does not allow me to make direct links between the observed conductivity readings and upstream land use. My point here is that high conductivity is widespread and ubitquitous in the region, and not concentrated or limited to just a few areas.
Lance, I hope that you understand that permits have to be renewed every five years and that mining operations typically amend a permit or add a new adjacent permit to continue the business. Therefore these changes appear to me to have a huge negative effect on current mining and will leave billions of dollars of investment stranded, not unlike a taking. Not the type of thing that invokes business confidence in the federal government.
Plus Appalachian deep mines require valley fills too so coal mining will be shifting back to the Illinois basin and the growth of PBR mining will continue. That is until the party in power puts the screws to coal fired electrical generation. I guess some readers view these changes as good for future generations but I do not.
Since underground mining utilizes more man power than MTR, perhaps this will improve the employment picture in WV.
Eric Hydrobiologia does publish rebuttals. I assume your paper pointing out the flaws in the Pond study is forthcoming? I don’t see the flaws you are pointing out.
For one, claiming that the reduction of entire orders of intolerant insects is an increase in biological diversity is tortuous logic.
If surface mining is not the cause of these patterns (e.g. absence of the entire order of mayflies at nearly half of the mined sites, or the failure of biological integrity to reach attainment for the assigned land use) and Pond cherrypicked the data as you claim, then you have made a simple empirical prediction that would be easy to verify.
Pond found that 90% of surface mined sites were in non-attainment for state narrative water quality standards. You say he’s making that sort of thing up. What is the true ratio?
I am interested to see if the EPA is truly out to protect the waters in the area and do something about the Timber and gas industries as well!! Lets not forget there are still communities in Sothern WV that put human waste straight into some of these same waters.
I hope that the EPA works with these companies to allow for them to operate and comply with the standards. We need the jobs since we have done a poor job preparing for life after mining.
In the Pond 2010 Hydrobiologia study we have been discussing, conductivities were reported for the sites in the 4 different land use categories.
Reference (n=44)= minimum 16, maximum 159, mean 51
Residential (n=14)= minimum 37, maximum 582, mean 242
Residential/Mined (n=14)= minimum 266, maximum 1288, mean 585
Mined (n=20)= minimum 161, maximum 2390, mean 940
Can anyone please explain how these data were “cherrypicked”?
One thing’s for sure – it’s going to be an interesting summer.
The new EPA conductivity study, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=220171 includes some figures for background conductivity, and it shows a median number in Southern West Virginia of 72.
Ken.
I missed this yesterday, but here’s a statement from Rep. Nick Rahall:
“While EPA’s effort to more clearly articulate the criteria it wants to impose on proposed coal mining operations in Appalachia is appreciated, I continue to have a fundamental concern with the agency treating coal mining in this region differently than any other industrial activity in the United States. The Clean Water Act should be applied evenly and equally throughout the country, as has been done so in the past. EPA is departing from that practice and I strongly disagree with it creating a separate set of standards and criteria for Appalachian coal mining.”
Industry – any industry – has veered way off the track of ethical responsibility when it insists and demands that they must be allowed to ignore the laws of the land.
[...] was tweeting away this morning with comments from Gov. Joe Manchin about yesterday’s big EPA announcement of new water quality guidelines. Here’s the one that caught my [...]