    [Senate Hearing 111-1197]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 111-1197

                   THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL
                    MINING ON WATER QUALITY IN APPALACHIA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JUNE 25, 2009

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                       Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex            officio)
        officio)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JUNE 25, 2009
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee..     4
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California,
      prepared statement.............................................     9
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     9

                                   WITNESSES

    Pomponio, John ``Randy,'' Director, Environmental Assessment and
      Innovation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-
      Atlantic Region................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Sloan, Paul L., Deputy Commissioner, Tennessee Department of
      Environment and Conservation...................................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    86
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................    86
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    87
    Huffman, Randy, Cabinet Secretary, West Virginia Department of
      Environmental Protection.......................................    89
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    99
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................   101
            Senator Inhofe...........................................   108
    Gunnoe, Maria, Organizer, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition....   114
        Prepared statement...........................................   116
    Palmer, Margaret A., Ph.D., Laboratory Director, Chesapeake
      Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland..................   139
        Prepared statement...........................................   141
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........   184
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........   186

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

    Research papers:
        Human health impacts:
            Health Disparities and Environmental Competence: A Case
              Study of Appalachian Coal Mining.......................   201
            Mortality Rates in Appalachian Coal Mining Counties: 24
              Years Behind the Nation................................   207
            Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value
              of Statistical Life Lost...............................   215
            Hospitalization Patterns Associated with Appalachian Coal
              Mining.................................................   225
        Environmental impacts:
            Water Quality From Underground Coal Mines in Northern
              West Virginia (1968-2000)..............................   250
            Aquatic Hazard of Selenium Pollution From Mountaintop
              Removal Coal Mining....................................   263
            Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic
              Characteristics for Headwater Streams in the
              Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern West
              Virginia, 2000-01......................................   280
            Acid Mine Drainage Control and Treatment.................   304
            The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior
              forest.................................................   346
            How to Restore Forests on Surface-Mined Land.............   355

    Rules and legislation:
        Rules of Tennessee Department of Conservation Division of
          Surface Mining--Chapter 0400-3-7--Coal.....................   387
        House Bill 455...............................................   403
        Senate Bill No. 1011.........................................   406
        Senate Resolution No. 50.....................................   414
        Resolution regarding Permit SMA#S-3002-07 and NPDES#WV1022202   416

    Statistics:
        Census of Population: 1960...................................   417
        1970 Census of Population....................................   419
        1980 Census of Population....................................   421
        1990-2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics information on:
            Boone County, West Virginia..............................   427
            Fayette County, West Virginia............................   429
            Lincoln County, West Virginia............................   431
            Logan County, West Virginia..............................   433
            McDowell County, West Virginia...........................   435
            Mingo County, West Virginia..............................   437
            Wyoming County, West Virginia............................   439

    Correspondence:
        January 22, 2009, letter from the U.S. Department of the
          Interior, National Park Service, to the West Virginia
          Department of Environmental Protection.....................   441
        June 29, 2009, letter from Caterpillar Inc., Cat Global
          Mining, to Senator Cardin and Senator Crapo................   443
        July 2, 2009, letter from Acculab Inc., to Senator Cardin....   445

    Additional testimony:
        Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., U.S. Representative from the State
          of New Jersey..............................................   447
        U.S. Department of Energy....................................   449
        West Virginians for Affordable Health Care...................   452
        National Mining Association:
            Written Statement........................................   464
            GEI Consultants, Inc.....................................   469
            Mining Community Grassroots Commercial Summary...........   474
            Mountaintop Mining Fact Book.............................   477
        Tennessee Mining Association.................................   486
        Mingo County Redevelopment Authority of Williamson, West
          Virginia...................................................   488
        The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative............   493
        Coalition for Mountaintop Mining:
            July 3, 2009, letter to Senator Cardin...................   499
            Comments of Chris Hamilton, Chairman.....................   501
            Statement--Mountaintop Mining: Essential to Our Future...   504
        Walker-Cat...................................................   519

      THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL MINING ON WATER QUALITY IN
                                   APPALACHIA

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Cardin
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Alexander, and Inhofe.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, and the Ranking
    Member of our Subcommittee, Senator Crapo, for helping to
    arrange for today's hearing.
        This is the first hearing that we have had in the Senate in
    7 years on mountaintop recoveries. So, I think it is an
    important hearing and I want to thank the leadership for moving
    forward.
        I also want to thank Senator Alexander for his help in
    arranging today's hearing.
        Let me make a couple of opening comments. First, I think is
    one that is pretty obvious. Coal is important to America. It is
    an important mineral that we have, and I think this Committee
    recognized its importance last year in the Lieberman-Warner
    Bill that we worked and marked up, providing for coal as a part
    of our energy solution and investing a significant amount of
    resources into clean burning coal.
        The bill that may be on the House floor tomorrow that deals
    with global climate change invests a great deal of resources in
    coal, recognizing its importance as an energy source to
    America.
        This hearing is to explore one method that is used in coal
    mining in the United States and to look at its environmental
    and health risks. We are talking about the impact of
    mountaintop removal coal mining on water quality. That is the
    responsibility of this Committee.
        Now, we have had similar concerns about water quality in
    other types of industries from manufacturing and industrial and
    agriculture, and I think it is very important that this
    Committee look at the mining practices of mountaintop removal
    and its impact on our water quality in America.
        There will be future opportunities to look at specific
    bills, including a specific bill that Senator Alexander and I
    have co-sponsored.
        Mountaintop removal has grown in the Appalachia. It is one
    method. It is primarily limited to Eastern Kentucky and
    Southern West Virginia. We have many environmental concerns
    concerning coal slurry impoundment, which is used in
    mountaintop removal, but coal slurry impoundments are used in
    other types of activities in addition to just mountaintop
    removal.
        Mountaintop removal involves the complete deforestation of
    a mountaintop. The mountaintop is then systematically removed,
    moving down the mountain. The overburden is then dumped into
    the valley. The impact of this type of activity is dramatic. It
    is dramatic in regards to issues concerning runoff. Runoff gets
    filtered in a mountain through its vegetation and through its
    natural contour. When that is removed, the types of pollution
    that are not filtered are much more dramatic as a result of
    runoff issues.
        We have found the disappearance of valley streams. Over
    1,700 miles of stream channels have been adversely impacted by
    mountaintop removal. Valley streams are critically important to
    the downstream water quality. We have found that, as a result
    of mountaintop removal, that we have toxic contaminants in our
    water supply. There is a public health concern. We find a much
    higher incidence of kidney disease, chronic airway obstruction,
    pulmonary disease and hypertension, just to mention a few, in
    those communities that are impacted by mountaintop removal.
        And there is the issue about the natural beauty of our
    Country being permanently changed as a result of mountaintop
    removal. It adversely affects the economies of the region as
    far as tourism, property values and alternative uses that could
    produce economic activities in these areas, including one in
    energy dealing with wind energy.
        I am very pleased that we have two panels of experts, one
    from the EPA, the other a group of individuals who are experts
    in this area, to help this Committee understand the impact on
    our water supply caused by mountaintop removal.
        I am very pleased to recognize Senator Alexander, who has
    been a real leader on this issue, and a member of our
    Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

              Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Maryland

        I want to thank our panels of witnesses for coming before
    the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee today to discuss
    mountaintop removal coal mining.
        It has been more than 7 years since this Committee last
    examined the practice, and in that time mountaintop removal
    operations have grown across Appalachia. Our hearing will
    examine the impacts of mountaintop removal on water quality and
    how it affects the quality of life for the thousands of
    residents living in the Appalachian coalfields.
        So there is no confusion about the subject of today's
    hearing, let me be clear:
        (1) Not all coal extraction operations in the Eastern U.S.,
    or even in all of Appalachia, use mountaintop removal
    techniques to mine coal.
        Mountaintop removal/valley fill operations are largely
    limited to Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia because
         of the depth of the coal seams beneath the surface,
         the topography of the region and
         the combination of Federal, State and local regulations
    that permit the practice.
        Coal extraction operations in the Western United States do
    not employ mountaintop removal techniques because coal in the
    west is typically located near the surface.
        (2) There are many adverse impacts associated with coal
    slurry impoundments beyond their use on mountaintop removal
    sites. The Committee is concerned with these issues but they
    will not be the focus of this hearing.
        Mountaintop removal coal mining starts with the complete
    deforestation and removal of all ground level vegetation and
    topsoil from the top of the mountain. Using heavy explosives
    and excavation equipment, the mountaintop is systematically and
    evenly removed in sections going down the mountain. As the
    mountain gets shorter, the adjacent valley is buried under the
    ``overburden,'' the combination of topsoil and rock displaced
    by explosives and excavation equipment. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Source: EPA Region 3 Power Point presentation on the
    mountaintop removal process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mountaintop removal coal operations have led to burial or
    adverse impacts on more than 1,700 miles of stream channels.
    \2\ The disappearance of these valley streams is a great
    concern of mine not only because the material used to replace
    the valleys is loaded with toxic contaminants like lead,
    arsenic, mercury and selenium, but also because these valley
    fills quite literally remove ephemeral and headwater streams
    from the landscape.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Office of Surface Mining.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These streams are characterized by scientists as ``where
    rivers are born'' and are vitally important to the health of
    downstream water quality. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Meyer, Judy--Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative
    for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands (2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Numerous studies have shown that when impacts to the
    natural landscape of a watershed exceed 10 percent, water
    quality and the biodiversity of aquatic life in all waters of
    the watershed decline. \4\ In Southern West Virginia there are
    watersheds with more than 25 percent of the land impacted by
    surface mines operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Yuan L.L. & Nortno S.S.--Comparing responses of
    macroinvertebrate metrics to increasing stress (2003). Allan J.D.--
    Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream
    ecosystems (2004). Morgan, R.P. & Cushman, S.F.--Urbanization effects
    on stream fish assemblages in Maryland (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What's more, the permitting process for these operations
    have not been taking into account the cumulative effect of an
    entire surface mine operation on downstream water quality.
        What will start as a relatively small operation can expand
    upwards to 10,000 acres over a 7- to 12-year span. \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Hobert 21 mine in Boone County, WV--10,000 acre footprint.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The vegetation and natural contour of the landscape absorb
    and slow the flow of stormwater through the watershed. Studies
    have shown that all attempts at remediation and stream
    construction on reclaimed mine sites have had zero success in
    replicating natural hydrological features. \6\ These remedial
    streams also contribute to the persistent drainage of
    contaminants from the former mine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Bernhardt E.S., et al.--Restoration of U.S. Rivers: a national
    synthesis (2005). Palmer M.A., et al.--Standards for ecologically
    successful river restoration (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When coal is referred to as an inexpensive source of energy
    there are many costs associated with the resource that are not
    taken into account, not the least of which is the cost to
    downstream communities.
        Coalfield residents are saddled with declining property
    values, spoiled well water and soaring insurance rates as
    mining operations creep closer to their property.
        Several medical studies focused in the region show higher
    incidence of kidney disease, chronic obstructed pulmonary
    disease and hypertension among coalfield residents. \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Hendryx, M., et al.--Hospitalization Patterns Associated with
    Appalachian Coal Mining (2007). Ezzati M., et al.--The Reversal of
    Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-Country Mortality
    Disparities in the United States (2008). West Virginians for Affordable
    Health Care--Early Deaths: West Virginians have some of the Shortest
    Life Expectancies in the United States (2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is a more environmentally and economically
    sustainable path Appalachia can take. Many counties in
    Appalachia are seeing economic gains in tourism and outdoor
    recreation activities that are only viable when Appalachia's
    unique natural features are protected.
        The potential for wind energy development along the
    mountain ridges of Appalachia would provide infinite economic
    and energy potential for the region. \8\ Like tourism, the
    viability for wind energy development is dependent on the
    preservation of the region's mountains and valleys.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Department of Energy. American Wind Energy Association.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is no denying coal's significance to the culture and
    economy of Appalachia. However, mountaintop coal mining is a
    long term assault on Appalachia's environment, economy and
    culture. It needs to stop, and I hope that today's hearing will
    start us on that path.
        Before I turn to my Ranking Member, I will note that I
    intend to hold another hearing on this subject this fall. It
    will be a legislative hearing on the Cardin-Alexander bill, S.
    696, the Appalachia Restoration Act. This is not the last word,
    nor will it be, until these practices of mountaintop mining and
    associated valley fills are permanently outlawed.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank our Ranking Member for letting me have his seat for a
    little while.
        I am glad to be here, Mr. Chairman. I am the Ranking Member
    of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee which is about to
    have its appropriations bill heard upstairs, or downstairs,
    whichever it is. So, I may have to step out for 10 minutes. But
    I will be back. And I have looked forward to this.
        I want to thank Senator Cardin for his leadership. I want
    to thank the witnesses for coming today, especially Paul Sloan,
    representing Governor Bredesen of our State of Tennessee with
    whom I have talked and who has a strong interest in the
    Cumberland Plateau area of our State and in protecting it and
    in protecting our ridgetops and our mountaintops, both for the
    natural beauty that we enjoy as Tennesseans and for the fact
    they attract a lot of visitors who kindly leave a lot of their
    dollars in our State.
        As Senator Cardin said, coal is an essential part of our
    energy future and I would to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could have
    included in the record my article in the Chattanooga Times Free
    Press from March 15th of this year, talking about the
    importance of coal and why we need it.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection.
        [The referenced article follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Alexander. Coal is an essential part of our energy
    future. But it is not necessary to destroy our mountaintops in
    order to have enough coal. That is why I joined with Senator
    Cardin to make a simple amendment to the Clean Water Act that
    would end the practice of dumping coal mining waste into
    streams.
        Millions of tourists spend tens of millions of dollars in
    Tennessee every year to enjoy the natural beauty of our
    mountains, a beauty that is for me, and I believe for most
    Tennesseans, something that makes us especially proud to live
    in our State.
        I may come at this a little differently than some people.
    Saving our mountaintops is important to me, whether we are
    talking about cleaning up air pollution, whether we talking
    about stopping the practice of putting 50-story wind turbines
    on top of our scenic Appalachian mountaintops, or whether we
    are talking about stopping the practice of blowing off the tops
    of the mountains and dumping the excess waste into our streams.
        People come to Tennessee, and to other parts of Appalachia,
    to see the natural beauty, not to see smoggy air, massive
    ridgetop towers or excess waste piled into streams. That is why
    I have introduced legislation with Senator Carper of Delaware,
    for example, that would stiffen the requirements for emissions
    of nitrogen, sulfur and mercury from coal plants.
        And as Ranking Member of the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and I are talking with
    Secretary Salazar about an energy sprawl and making sure we
    find appropriate places for the large-scale new renewable
    energy projects that are coming on board in our Country, for
    example, that we put large wind turbines in the middle of Lake
    Michigan instead of along the coast and that we do not put them
    along scenic ridgetops between Georgia and Maine.
        The kind of mountaintop removal that we are talking about
    today, as far as I am aware, does not exist today in coal
    mining practice in Tennessee. It once did. But I would like to
    make sure that it does not start up again.
        The legislation that Senator Cardin and I have introduced
    and which will be considered in due time, does not ban surface
    mining as it is presently practiced in Tennessee, but it does
    help make sure that the beauty of our mountains and our streams
    are protected for those of us who live there and for our
    visitors.
        The United States produces 50 percent of our electricity
    from coal. It will continue to need that coal in the future. It
    is a primary source of energy. We need a lot of electricity and
    we have a lot of coal. We do not want to import our energy from
    overseas. Electricity from coal is cheaper, for example, that
    from wind and solar, and we know how to burn it cleanly, if we
    would only do it, accept for carbon.
        I have called for a mini-Manhattan Project to find ways to
    capture carbon from coal plants and I have urged Secretary Chu
    to reserve, if he can, a Nobel Prize in Science for the
    scientist who discovers a way to capture carbon from existing
    coal plants.
        So, I look forward to learning today more about the effect
    of mountaintop removal in our entire Country, and the effect
    that it might have in Tennessee if it were to be restarted.
        I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on the issue and
    for chairing this hearing.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        Without objection, Senator Boxer's, the Chairman of the
    full Committee, opening statement will be included in the
    record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

                 Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
                          from the State of California

        Senator Cardin, I would first like to thank you for holding
    this hearing and for your leadership on oversight of
    mountaintop mining. This is an important issue.
        I also know you are working with Senator Alexander on
    legislation to stop the pollution and harm caused by this
    destructive practice, and I want to commend both of you for
    your efforts.
        This hearing will explore the impacts of mountaintop mining
    on our water quality and the health and prosperity of
    Appalachian communities. It is critical that we better
    understand what impacts these practices have and whether our
    nation's laws are doing their job at protecting the environment
    and the citizens' health.
        Mountaintop mining is one of the most destructive mining
    practices used today. It involves literally cutting the tops
    off of mountains and dumping the excess rock and soil into
    headwater streams that are critical for flood control, water
    quality, and the health of some of the nation's most precious
    ecosystems.
        Mountaintop mining operations have already filled or
    impacted more than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams. And the
    mining waste associated with these sites can include a host of
    chemicals, including selenium, arsenic, lead, chromium and
    mercury that can leach into streams and rivers, severely
    degrading water quality.
        As we will hear from witnesses today, this practice has
    devastated the environment and harmed communities by displacing
    residents and ruining the natural resources on which they
    depend.
        In light of all of the impacts, I believe we have to take a
    hard look at why such a destructive practice is allowed to
    continue.
        Senator Cardin, I want to thank you again for holding this
    hearing, and I look forward to working with you to continue
    oversight of mountaintop mining and to ensure we are protecting
    our environment and the health of families and children.

        Senator Cardin. I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking
    Republican on the full Environment and Public Works Committee,
    Senator Inhofe.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to be able to stay for this whole hearing. I
    cannot do it because, as I think you know, we are still marking
    up the Defense Authorization Bill and I am the second Ranking
    Member on that. But I thank you for having this.
        I want to welcome Randy Huffman, the Cabinet Secretary from
    West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection. I am
    anxious to read his statement and to hear what position they
    are coming from.
        Let me being by saying that I am concerned by the in-
    fighting among Democrats when it comes to coal. As an example,
    just look at the Memorandum of Understanding on mountaintop
    mining between the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Department of the Interior.
        Now, some such as myself, are concerned. The MOU could mean
    economic hardship for Appalachia. But, consider the views of
    some of the radical global warming activists, such as NASA
    scientist and Obama supporter James Hansen.
        He recently criticized President Obama for the MOU. And
    here's what he said. He said, Mr. Chairman, the Obama
    administration is being forced into a political compromise. It
    has sacrificed a strong position on mountaintop removal in
    order to ensure the support of coal State legislators for a
    climate bill. Coal is the lynch pin in mitigating global
    warming and it is senseless to allow cheap mountaintop removal
    of coal while the Administration is simultaneously seeking
    policies to boost renewable energy.
        And, quoting on further, this is from the Los Angeles Times
    talking about this conversation, although the environmentalists
    had expected a new Administration to put the brakes on
    mountaintop removal, Representative Rahall and other mining
    advocates have pointed out that Obama did not promise to end
    mountaintop mining and was more open to it than his Republican
    opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain. This was during the
    Presidential election.
        A review of Obama's campaign statement, according to the
    Los Angeles Times, shows that Obama had expressed concern about
    the practice without promising to end it.
        So we have a lot of lawmakers that the Los Angeles Times
    refers to who, and this is a quote also from the Times, it says
    the mountaintop mining is politically sensitive because
    environmentalists were an active force behind Obama's election
    and the President's standing is tenuous among Democratic voters
    in coal States.
        Moreover, the Times writes, Obama needs support from local
    lawmakers for an energy agenda that would further regulate home
    State industries, but halting the mountaintop mining could
    eliminate jobs and put upward pressures on the energy crisis. I
    think we all ought to understand this.
        So, there is a lot of conflict here, a lot of in-fighting,
    and there is a lot of Beltway fighting on this, so I think that
    it is very appropriate that you have the Committee hearing.
        I know that the Ranking Member of your Subcommittee,
    Senator Crapo, will be here shortly and I will have to go back
    to Arms Services.
        Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Oklahoma

        I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Cardin and
    Ranking Member Crapo for holding today's hearing on the impacts
    of mountaintop mining on surface and groundwater resources and
    other indirect impacts in Appalachia.
        I also want to welcome Randy Huffman, Cabinet Secretary for
    West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection, as well
    as the other witnesses testifying today. I look forward to your
    testimony. And it's great that so many residents from West
    Virginia traveled to see this hearing in person. Whatever side
    of the issue they're on, it's good to see so many citizens
    engaged in the political process.
        I want to emphasize today the importance of maintaining and
    protecting America's natural resources. Federal clean water
    laws should be followed and enforced for the citizens of this
    Nation, especially those in Appalachia. This is a fundamental
    value we all share. Yet it is not the only value to be
    considered: ensuring the economic viability of Appalachia, and
    the families who live there, is equally important. I believe
    these two values are complementary. Put another way,
    environmental protection can coexist with job creation and
    economic prosperity for families.
        I'm not sure this view is acceptable among environmental
    activists. For them, coal is evil and must be banned, no matter
    the cost to families in Appalachia and states that depend on it
    for jobs, for schools, and for energy security.
        I should also note that I'm somewhat concerned by the
    infighting among Democrats when it comes to coal. As an
    example, just look at the Memorandum of Understanding on
    mountaintop mining between the EPA, the Army Corps of
    Engineers, and the Department of the Interior. Now some, such
    as myself, are concerned the MOU could mean economic hardship
    for Appalachia. But consider the views of radical global
    warming activists, such as NASA scientist and Obama supporter
    James Hansen. Hansen recently criticized President Obama for
    the MOU. Here's what he said:
        ``The Obama administration is being forced into a political
    compromise. It has sacrificed a strong position on mountaintop
    removal in order to ensure the support of coal-state
    legislators for a climate bill . . . Coal is the linchpin in
    mitigating global warming, and it's senseless to allow cheap
    mountaintop-removal coal while the administration is
    simultaneously seeking policies to boost renewable energy.''
        Mountaintop mining has also provoked serious battles within
    the Obama administration. Consider this: the LA Times recently
    reported on a ``shouting match in which top officials from two
    government agencies were heard pounding their fists on the
    table . . .''
        But that's not all. Let me quote again from the LA Times
    story:
        ``Although environmentalists had expected the new
    administration to put the brakes on mountaintop removal, [Rep.
    Nick] Rahall [D-W.Va.] and other mining advocates have pointed
    out that Obama did not promise to end [mountaintop mining] and
    was more open to it than his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen.
    John McCain.''
        A review of Obama's campaign statements, according to the
    LA Times, shows that Obama had ``expressed concern about the
    practice without promising to end it.''
        This gets even more interesting. The Times notes that
    mountaintop mining ``is politically sensitive because
    environmentalists were an active force behind Obama's election,
    and the president's standing is tenuous among Democratic voters
    in coal states.'' Moreover, the Times writes, ``Obama needs
    support from local lawmakers for an energy agenda that would
    further regulate home-state industries, but halting mountaintop
    mining could eliminate jobs and put upward pressure on energy
    prices in a time of economic hardship.''
        So, it seems the Administration and its supporters in the
    environmental community can't make up their minds about coal
    and mountaintop mining. It's not hard to understand why. Those
    ``local lawmakers'' the LA Times refers to, who are concerned
    about the future of their communities, are Democrats. Coming
    from Oklahoma, I would say that Democrats in my home State and
    in places like West Virginia tend to see coal and energy
    differently than, say, Speaker Pelosi, Henry Waxman, or the
    Obama administration. They tend have practical, rather than
    ideological, views about coal and energy.
        As they see it, coal provides jobs and secures livelihoods
    for families. Coal also is a source of reliable, affordable
    electricity that powers the economies of West Virginia, Ohio,
    and much of the Nation. Banning coal or sharply curtailing its
    use makes no sense to people who rely on it every day of their
    lives. They can't understand why Democrats in Washington and
    their friends in the environmental movement think coal is the
    root of all evil. When they see the likes of the Waxman-Markey
    global warming bill, which would destroy thousands of well-
    paying jobs for hard-working people, or comments from the
    Secretary of Energy that ``coal is my worst nightmare,'' or
    from Vice President Biden, who vowed on the campaign trail that
    there would be ``no coal plants here in America,'' they scratch
    their heads and wonder whether such opinions are grounded in
    reality.
        As the Democratic leaders in Washington are preparing for
    the debate tomorrow on the disastrous Waxman-Markey bill, and
    as they continue to fight over whether coal should be banned,
    diminished, or remain central to the Nation's energy policy,
    the 77,000 hard-working people in Appalachia who work in the
    mining industry are wondering whether they have job security.
        My sincere hope is that the Democrats here in Washington
    can stop arguing about coal and listen to local officials from
    the heartland. Those officials--again, many of them Democrats--
    do not want to abandon the Clean Water Act and the protections
    it provides to the families who live, work, and play in their
    communities. They want clean water and they should get it. But
    at the same time, they want the recognition that their economic
    livelihoods matter just the same, both for their communities
    and for the Nation.

        Senator Cardin. Thank you. And we all cooperated on
    scheduling this hearing. It was difficult to find a time
    because of the recess, so we know that people will be coming in
    and out. We may also be interrupted by a vote on the floor. So,
    it is going to be a challenge and we are going to do the best
    we can to get in everyone's testimony.
        We are going to start with John ``Randy'' Pomponio, the
    Director, Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division. The
    EAID is a multi-disciplinary organization with a broad range of
    regulatory and non-regulatory environmental responsibility. The
    division also has the leadership responsibility for
    environmental planning and analysis on environmental data for a
    better understanding of the conditions and trends within the
    Mountaintop Removal Valley Fill Initiative.
        Mr. Pomponio has worked on mountaintop mining permitting
    issues for EPA for more than a decade.
        It is a pleasure to have you with us today. Thank you very
    much.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN ``RANDY'' POMPONIO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
        ASSESSMENT AND INNOVATION DIVISION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                 PROTECTION AGENCY MID-ATLANTIC REGION

        Mr. Pomponio. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Subcommittee.
        I am Randy Pomponio, Director of the Environmental
    Assessment and Innovation Division in EPA's Philadelphia
    Office.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee
    on EPA's efforts to protect and restore water quality and water
    resources affected by the surface mining of coal, including
    mountaintop removal and valley fill activities.
        EPA plans to more fully use its authorities under the Clean
    Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to address
    impacts of this type of mining activity on the aquatic and
    associated forest resources.
        Let me explain why we are so concerned about the issues
    surrounding ongoing mountaintop mining and similar surface
    mining activities that involve valley fills.
        First, the Clean Water Act sets out goals to restore and
    maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our
    Nation's waters, so that they can protect human health and
    values and support the protection and propagation of fish,
    shellfish and wildlife, as well as recreation in and on the
    water.
        Second, the streams of central and southern Appalachia and
    the forests that play an integral role in the function and
    quality of those streams are very important assets and must
    themselves be protected to achieve the goals of the Clean Water
    Act.
        In my written testimony, I quote from a 2003 paper entitled
    Where Rivers Are Born, The Scientific Imperative for Defending
    Small Streams and Wetlands. That paper was written by 11 of the
    Country's most recognized aquatic experts. They say in their
    paper that the goal of protecting water quality, plant and
    animal habitat, navigable waterways and downstream resources is
    not achievable without the careful protection of headwater
    streams.
        Third, despite the best efforts of State, local and Federal
    agencies, too many small streams and wetlands of central and
    southern Appalachia are being buried and polluted. We must do a
    better job of reducing or eliminating site-specific and
    cumulative impacts associated with these mining activities.
        And, finally, while we continue to be guided by regulatory
    authorities, I believe we are now at a point where science and
    policy are beginning to converge to reduce the ecological
    impacts of surface mining practices such as valley fills.
        The EPA is excited to work with other Federal agencies as
    announced in our joint June 11th Memorandum of Understanding to
    strengthen the regulation and review of these mining
    activities.
        I would like to share a few facts and then move on to
    answer any questions you may have.
        Valley fills associated with surface coal mining bury
    streams and degrade water quality. Over the years, State and
    Federal agencies have worked hard to address water quality
    impacts associated with valley fills. However, between 1992 and
    2002, more than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been
    filled at an average rate of 120 miles per year.
        Recent studies show that coal mining can result in long-
    lasting impairments to aquatic biota in remaining streams below
    current and past mines. An EPA scientific study published 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.
        Concentrations of selenium, a heavy metal naturally found
    in rock, can also be elevated in streams draining valley fills.
    Deformities in fish have been observed downstream of coal
    mining operations where selenium is a known pollutant.
        Dissolved and particulate organic carbon fuels the food web
    of headwater streams and this nutrient energy cascades
    downstream. Mining operations and associated valley fills
    essentially rob downstream aquatic communities of this energy
    source.
        Valley fills associated with surface coal mining can
    destroy forest, habitat and other important ecosystems. The
    southern Appalachians are among the richest ecosystems in the
    United States. They represent a bounty of timber, wildlife and
    recreational assets that deserve worldwide recognition. Forests
    of this area have been described as the largest remaining
    contiguous temperate deciduous forest in the world. One area of
    roughly 13,000 square miles centered in western Virginia
    contains 144 imperiled species.
        EPA's 2002 Landscape-Scale Cumulative Impact Study modeled
    terrestrial impacts based on surface permit data. That study
    basically suggested that, over a 22-year period, nearly 1,189
    square miles of forest could be removed and cleared. The loss
    of that forest would conservatively equate to the loss of 1.7
    million tons per year of carbon dioxide sequestration, the
    equivalent carbon dioxide that would be emitted from 300,000
    cars.
        Additionally, forests dampen flooding potential and act as
    natural nutrient sinks. One study estimates that forest cover
    of 1,189 square miles provides approximately $138 million per
    year in nutrient-cycling and waste treatment services.
        Valley fills and associated coal mining should be addressed
    on a cumulative watershed basis. Cumulative impacts are among
    the most critical aspects of regulating and assessing impacts
    of future mines. Rapid cumulative degradation of streams and
    loss of forest habitat may render some watersheds, and indeed
    entire eco-regions, unable to supply those services.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity
    to testify today. EPA understands the importance of domestic
    coal energy to our energy independence goals and to our
    Nation's economy. We want to ensure that this valuable resource
    is extracted in the least intrusive manner to the environment.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pomponio follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Well, again, thank you very much for your
    testimony and thank you very much for your work.
        I want to start with science, if I might, for a moment.
    President Obama has issued an Executive Order concerning trying
    to base our decisions on good science. What we are trying to
    find out is what good science tells us. Then, we obviously have
    to make the policy judgments. But if it not based upon good
    science, then everything else sort of falls by the wayside.
        You have made some conclusions as to some of the
    environmental risks associated with mountaintop removal. I want
    to know how confident you are in the science basis of the
    public health risk and the environmental risk.
        Mr. Pomponio. I want to give you a bit of a perspective. I
    am a Senior Manager with our Region 3 EPA Office, and, as such,
    I have a number of folks who work for me, some of whom apply
    their skills in the regulatory environment and the Section 404
    Program that assists in regulating mountaintop mining and
    valley fill. And some of them work in the field to collect
    environmental data, water quality data, and aquatic impact
    data, to set the science, to set the stage for the science, and
    inform us of what is going on.
        I am very confident in the science that we have in Region 3
    and across the country that discusses the impacts of valley
    fill activities on streams in central and southern Appalachia.
    There are a couple of reasons for that. The headwaters stream
    citation that I quoted in my prepared remarks strongly states
    that you cannot achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act
    without protecting headwater streams, Eleven scientists
    commented on that issue, and they cited 235 references when
    they did so. It is common knowledge that these systems, even
    these small systems, are necessary networks that provide
    ecological benefits, water quality control, flood control and
    those types of things downstream.
        So, as we look at valley fill activities over the years, we
    examined a lot of referenced information and a lot of studies
    that had been done in the past by recognized scientists. As we
    evolved in our position on mountaintop mining, we began to
    notice that, one of the things that we really needed to do, is
    put the period on the end of whether or not EPA's perspective
    was represented by those studies.
        Many of you may have heard of the Pond-Passmore Study. We
    had our own people go out into the field over a period of a
    number of years and check downstream water quality impacts
    below valley fill operations. And what Pond and Passmore found,
    and published in a peer reviewed journal, was that using the
    West Virginia method of demonstrating downstream aquatic
    impacts to insects, which is a fairly typical method used by
    States and the Federal Government, 63 percent of the time
    downstream of those valley fills water quality impacts to the
    aquatic insects were recognized to a point where we perceived
    that the narrative water quality criteria of the State would
    have been exceeded.
        A different method that Pond and Passmore and others are
    looking at, the GLIMPSS method, improves the accuracy of such
    measures. With the GLIMPSS method 93 percent of streams
    downstream of those valley fills were impacted.
        So, we are very confident in our information. Having said
    that, we have talked to the State of West Virginia's Deputy
    Director, Randy Hoffman, a colleague of mine, about concerns he
    has with our interpretation of the Science. We have asked the
    scientific community within EPA to once again review the
    information that we have collected to make sure that it is
    accurate and of high quality.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for that answer. We will include,
    without objection, the report that you are referring to,
    Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing
    biological conditions using family- and genus-level
    macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. We will include that in
    the record of the Committee.
        [The referenced document follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. I know that Secretary Huffman will be
    testifying later and he does call into question as to whether
    you have used broad-based scientific information or one study
    within the agency. I think you have already answered that. This
    is relying on broader scientific information than just one
    member of your staff.
        Mr. Pomponio. Yes, it is.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Let me talk about the cumulative
    effect, because I think that is an extremely important point.
    You look at one application, you say, gee, you know, it is only
    a few acres, it does not seem like it could have that much of a
    long-term impact on the environment.
        But you talked in your statement about the cumulative
    effect that we now have. I think in one report it is 1,700, is
    it miles? I know it is a unit. I said in my opening statement,
    of streams that have been affected, we have found thousands of
    acres being affected and not just a few. Can you talk a little
    bit more about how you need to look at the cumulative impact
    that an application approval might mean, if we continue at the
    current pace, what impact this has on the environment?
        Mr. Pomponio. Yes. I am glad that you worded it that way.
    We need to look at the cumulative impact. I do not think that
    we have been doing a good job of doing that at all levels.
        We need to look at cumulative impacts for several reasons.
    One is that there is an integral relationship between the
    forest and the streams in the area. When you lose forest, you
    lose a lot of the capacity of the streams to process and
    transfer the organic materials that feed the critters
    downstream. You lose the capacity of the forest to cool the
    streams. You lose transpiration through the leaves to help
    attenuate flooding problems and those sorts of things.
        These little streams, which some people estimate represent
    80 percent of the water resource in the entire Country, are
    like capillaries in your blood system. They are what travel
    through the landscape, capture the pollutants, and clean those
    pollutants, through the microorganisms in the streams
    themselves and through sediment filtration in the stream
    bottom. And we frankly do not know where the tipping point is
    in losing 1 stream, 5 streams, or even 18 streams in a
    particular watershed. So, our position is that we need to do a
    better job with that cumulative impact assessment.
        In some of the watersheds in the region that I deal with,
    the footprint of the mining operations, mountaintop and other
    surface mining, encompass up to 20 to 30 percent of the
    watershed area. That, just to a lay person, would cause one to
    suggest that there needs to be some more rigorous opportunity
    to take a look at what that might mean. Downstream in the creek
    watershed I believe that upwards of half of the streams have
    been listed on the 303(d) list, which is a list of stream miles
    that do not necessarily meet water quality criteria and
    standards.
        So, as we look at all of these mines and as we look at them
    one by one, we have to ask ourselves, in a particular
    watershed, can the watershed be resilient enough, and have a
    carrying capacity in terms of natural attenuation of problems,
    to accept that one mine? Or can it not accept that one mine? I
    do not believe we know the answers to those questions, and I
    think we need to do a better job.
        Senator Cardin. And let me ask you, last, on the issues of
    forest itself, you commented on the importance of the forest
    cover as it relates to the water quality and the environmental
    conditions generally. We know that on mountaintop removal, the
    forest is basically destroyed.
        My question is, after you have done mountaintop removal, is
    there an adequate remedial program that can compensate for the
    loss of the forest that was there previous to the mountaintop
    removals or adequate ways that we can try to compensate for
    this?
        Mr. Pomponio. I think that is a two-part answer again.
    Practices in the past that involved compaction of the soil and
    the distribution of non-forest cover plants, did not necessary
    give one a lot of hope for a lot of quick or even mid-term
    forest recovery.
        I do not quite know about the future. There are different
    operations now that are learning from the past. They are
    avoiding soil compaction and preserving topsoil, practices that
    were not common previously. I think it still has to be examined
    as to whether or not these methods will actually achieve
    reforestation.
        Senator Cardin. And I can appreciate that. I just raise an
    observation, and that is we do not know where technology will
    take us. I am sure there are going to be remedial efforts that
    will be effective in dealing with some of the damage that has
    caused.
        We do know the value of forest. We do know the values of
    vegetation. Once that is destroyed, it puts you in a very
    difficult position to try to catch up. The remedial programs
    may help a little bit, but when you have eliminated that
    natural protection, for so many reasons to our environment,
    including our concerns about carbon emissions, it is difficult
    to see how you can have an effective policy.
        And the last point on this is runoff. When you flatten the
    land, you certainly make the runoff issues much more
    complicated to try to deal with, with sediment, et cetera. And
    toxics. It makes it extremely challenging to figure out how the
    remedial programs could possibly compensate for the condition
    that was there before the removal.
        Mr. Pomponio. I agree with that.
        Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank you for your testimony.
    We appreciate it very much. As I said in the beginning, this
    will be a continuing effort of our Subcommittee and I think you
    have given us a good start to our work.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Pomponio. You are welcome. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. We are going to start with the second
    panel. I believe we will be interrupted during that period. I
    am looking in my BlackBerry and it looks like there are votes
    called at about 4:10 p.m. But why do we not get started with
    our second panel.
        On our second panel, we have Paul Sloan, the Deputy
    Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and
    Conservation. Mr. Sloan oversees the Tennessee regulation of
    coal mining regulations. Tennessee prohibits the practice of
    valley fills and maintains a successful extraction industry.
    Mr. Sloan can also speak to the regulatory reforms on the coal
    industry that would require better environmental protection.
        Randy Huffman is the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia
    Department of Environmental Protection. West Virginia's
    Department of Environmental Protection has oversight and
    regulatory authority of the valley fills associated with
    mountaintop mining sites in that State.
        Maria Gunnoe is a community organizer of the Ohio Valley
    Environmental Valley Coalition. Mrs. Gunnoe is a property owner
    in Lindytown, West Virginia, whose land has been impacted by
    the nearby mountaintop removal operations. She just received a
    prestigious 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize for organizing
    work in the coal fields. This prize is given to one person per
    continent per year. She has been the subject of several
    documentaries and is a frequent speaker and advocate for coal
    field communities.
        And Dr. Margaret Palmer, Laboratory Director, Chesapeake
    Biological Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for
    Environmental Sciences. I am particularly pleased that Dr.
    Palmer has joined us. She is well respected in our State of
    Maryland. The broad objective of Dr. Palmer's research is to
    understand what controls streams, ecosystems, structures and
    functions. She specifically focuses on restoration ecology and
    how land use, hydrology and geopathology influence the health
    of running water ecosystems. Dr. Palmer is considered an
    international expert on freshwater systems.
        And with that, we will start with Secretary Sloan.

      STATEMENT OF PAUL L. SLOAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE
               DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

        Mr. Sloan. Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity you have given me to testify this
    afternoon. I am Paul Sloan, Deputy Commissioner of the
    Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
        Coal mining in Tennessee is best considered in the context
    of the rich cultural and natural heritage of the Cumberland
    Plateau, which is part of a 37 million eco-region stretching
    some 500 miles through six states, a region said to be the
    largest temperate hardwood plateau in the world.
        In Tennessee, the plateau stretches from the Alabama border
    northeast to the Kentucky and Virginia borders. Its watersheds
    drain to the east and west, into the Tennessee River and the
    Cumberland River, and include significant portions of our
    60,000 miles of rivers and streams in Tennessee. These two
    major watersheds contain some of the most biologically diverse
    freshwater streams found anywhere in the United States.
        Roughly 600,000 acres of the plateau in Tennessee are
    public lands. Over 600 miles of State scenic highways thread
    this landscape, connecting more than 80 State and Federal
    parks, recreational, natural and wildlife management areas, as
    well as the Obed and National Wild and Scenic River and the Big
    South Fork National River and Recreation Area.
        In short, the Cumberland Plateau is an invaluable resource,
    a gem for public recreation and ecological diversity.
        Coal mining on the plateau has been conducted since the
    early 1800s. Much of the estimated 50,000 acres of pre-1977
    unregulated mining has left a legacy of abandoned mine lands
    that pose ongoing health and safety risks as well as water
    pollution from sediment and acid mine drainage.
        Approximately 3 million tons are mined per year in
    Tennessee, significantly less than our sister States, West
    Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky and Virginia, and well below our
    own peak of 11 million tons per year in the early 1970s.
        For the past 25 years, mining oversight in Tennessee is
    under SMCRA and has been administered not by the State, but by
    OSM. The State implements the Federal Clean Water Act as well
    as the Tennessee Water Pollution Control Act, which provides
    that the waters of the State are a public trust, that the
    people of Tennessee have a right to unpolluted waters, and that
    the government has the obligation to protect that right.
        In our implementation of the Federal and State mandates,
    Tennessee does not permit burial of streams for valley fills.
    There is neither sufficient social nor economic justification
    for such unalterable environmental and ecological insults. In
    Appalachia, mountaintop removal and water quality are
    incompatible.
        Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen recently signed into law a
    Responsible Mining Bill that codifies our requirement that all
    mining must maintain a 100 buffer foot on either side of all
    un-mined streams and prohibits mining of coal seems that have a
    high acid-bearing overburden, without demonstrated technology
    capable of properly handling such materials.
        We very much support the purpose and intent of the
    Appalachian Restoration Act to prohibit filling streams with
    waste materials from coal mining and to bring nationwide
    consistency to this issue. We also support the intent of the
    Clean Water Restoration Act to bring consistency and clarity to
    what are Federal jurisdiction waters in the first place.
        Responsible mining is possible in Appalachia. But only if
    the regulatory oversight and management are guided by the most
    current information available in order to consistently avoid
    unnecessary impacts. This is why Governor Bredesen has
    requested OSM to do an environmental impact statement in regard
    to Tennessee coal mining. The goal of this request is to have a
    rigorous, objective analysis of all impacts of coal mining on
    Tennessee's economy, as well as the environment.
        For the same reason, we applaud the recent MOU among EPA,
    the Corps and Interior, calling for an interagency action plan
    to reduce unnecessary environmental impacts. In support of
    these efforts, we hope Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service
    will revisit the 1996 biological opinion on consultation under
    the Endangered Species Act, and that EPA will update its 1985
    effluent guidelines for mining operations.
        In closing, I want to restate my appreciation to the
    Subcommittee for taking up this issue. As stewards of the
    public trust, both Federal and State government have a high
    duty to resource protection in the mountains of Appalachia. So
    it is my hope that Appalachian mining practices will be limited
    to those known to be compatible with preserving the mountains
    and streams of this extraordinary area.
        Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sloan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Secretary Huffman.

     STATEMENT OF RANDY HUFFMAN, CABINET SECRETARY, WEST VIRGINIA
                 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

        Secretary Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
    represent West Virginia's concerns in this dialog over
    mountaintop mining.
        Senator Cardin. Would you just turn your microphone on, if
    you have not?
        Secretary Huffman. I apologize. It says it is on. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. Good.
        Secretary Huffman. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here today to represent West Virginia's concerns in this
    dialog over mountaintop mining and its impact on water quality.
        As you know, West Virginia is at the center of the debate,
    from both a regulatory perspective and a geographical
    perspective, since the majority of the Appalachian Highlands
    where mountaintop mining is practiced are located in West
    Virginia.
        It is important that we first, though, frame the discussion
    in proper context. Mountaintop mining is one of many surface
    mining methods recognized and regulated by the Surface Mining
    Act. And, as the State's top environmental regulator, it is not
    something that I come here today with the intention of
    promoting for or speaking against.
        What must be understood is that the connection between
    protecting water quality and the practice of mountaintop
    mining, is not a unique one. Nor is the assumption by many that
    valley fills are only associated with mountaintop mining.
        In fact, the debate cannot be limited to surface coal
    mining alone. Hard rock surface mining, other development
    activities, and any other activity that removes vegetation and
    breaks rock can be subject to the same types of concerns and
    issues.
        There are may surface mines that are not mountaintop
    removal by definition which require valley fills. And in fact,
    in West Virginia, 90 percent of all surface mining activity
    contains at least one fill. And, as you know, 40 percent of our
    State's coal production comes from surface mining.
        Also, the Clean Water Act and West Virginia's Water
    Enforcement Program require the same levels of protection for
    all mining activity, regardless of whether it is mountaintop
    mining by definition.
        While West Virginia is concerned about losing the
    opportunities associated with mountaintop mining for future
    economic development, our greatest concerns are the uncertain
    regulatory climate EPA has created and the unintended
    consequences of their recent actions that have the potential to
    significantly limit all types of mining.
        I believe it is important to understand West Virginia's
    role in enforcing the Clean Water Act. While West Virginia is
    concerned about the economic impacts that would accompany any
    policy change that reduces coal production, my agency's role
    is, and hence our primary objective in this discussion is, the
    protection of our water resources.
        The Clean Water Act clearly allows EPA to delegate portions
    of the act to the States and we believe that was Congress'
    intent as they recognize the States as being better positioned
    to regulate than the Federal Government.
        The DEP in West Virginia has a very effective and
    progressive regulatory program. We have been regulating mining-
    related impacts to surface and groundwater since we received
    primacy over SMCRA from the Office of Surface Mining in 1981.
    Our program has evolved a great deal since then and continues
    to grow and change as research and technology help us learn
    more about health and environmental impacts from our industrial
    processes.
        Concurrently with the primacy of SMRCA, we have delegated
    authority from EPA to oversee the Clean Water Act, section 402,
    permitting program, and section 401, which is the certification
    of Federal permits. In fact, before one certification
    authority, which is the EPA's current challenge to West
    Virginia's program, is not delegated by EPA but is delegated to
    the States by Congress through the Clean Water Act itself.
        West Virginia received awards in 2005 and 2007 from the EPA
    for ``outstanding performance in implementing their NPDES
    program.'' EPA's recent inquiry scrutiny over the Army Corps of
    Engineers' authority to issue valley fill permits is intended
    to be a way to curb mountaintop mining. EPA has clearly stated
    this on numerous occasions.
        The problem is, in so doing, the EPA's selected venue has
    been to attack West Virginia's 401 certification program. In
    short, EPA is not claiming that West Virginia is failing to
    enforce Federal law. They are wrongly claiming that West
    Virginia is failing to enforce its own rules, which have gone
    through proper rulemaking channels and which, ironically, EPA
    has approved as being protective.
        Further, this position by EPA is new. It evolved out of
    Region 3 in Philadelphia since January in the absence of a
    Regional Administrator appointed by President Obama.
        Even as coal's future is being debated, West Virginia is
    positioning itself to continue to be an energy producing State.
    In just the past month, Governor Joe Manchin has signed into
    law three pieces of legislation that do just that: one
    requiring coal burning power plants to diversify their energy
    portfolio to include alternative and renewable energy; the
    second creates a regulatory framework for establishing a
    permitting program for carbon capture and sequestration; and
    the third, turning reclaimed surface mine lands into a resource
    that can be used in a post-mining economy.
        I will close with a comment about the latter. West Virginia
    and our Nation needs job and we need coal. Nothing in the
    debate over surface mining is going to change that in the short
    term. But in the long term, as we mine and use a nonrenewable
    resource, and as we develop alternative energy sources, the
    people that live in the steep, narrow terrain of southern West
    Virginia need the opportunities created by surface mining.
        And as the State's regulatory agency, the DEP in West
    Virginia needs consistency and clarity from EPA in order to be
    effective regulators. And right now, we do not have that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Huffman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
    appreciate it very much.
        Maria Gunnoe. First of all, congratulations on the award
    that you received. That is quite an accomplishment.
        Ms. Gunnoe. Thank you, thank you very much.

    STATEMENT OF MARIA GUNNOE, ORGANIZER, OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL
                               COALITION

        Ms. Gunnoe. My name is Maria Gunnoe. I am from southern
    West Virginia, Boone County. Boone County is the No. 1 coal
    producing county in West Virginia, next to McDowell County, and
    they are both equally impoverished.
        Energy that is produced from mountaintop removal coal
    mining is, basically it is bringing temporary jobs. This is
    temporary energy. And the destruction is permanent. We get what
    is left.
        I hear a lot of professionals, if you will, defending
    mountaintop removal mining in the name of economic development
    and that is, quite honestly, not true. There is no economic
    development desired if people do not live there. If people
    cannot live in these areas, there is no need for shopping
    malls. There is no need for infrastructure if people cannot
    live there.
        Basically, what goes on where we live at, there is a
    massive amount of blasting that goes on around our homes. And
    this blasting, of course it is unnerving to the people that
    have to live in those conditions, and I am one of those people.
    What it does to our air quality is horrible. Myself and my
    children actually suffer from the causes of the blasting at
    this mine site.
        My home is located here. This is the top of my house. Our
    property, we have acreage, a lot of acreage, that covers this
    area here. This is the mine site behind my home. This here is
    the valley fill. There are two ponds at the toe of this valley
    fill. These ponds are to settle out the coal mines that wash
    through this massive operation. And in 2003, these ponds failed
    and when they failed, they devastated my home. It literally
    washed away about five acres of my land, turned it into a
    landslide and washed it away.
        At that point, I began organizing in the communities that I
    live in. This is the people that I live around, the people that
    I grew up with. This is a common impact. When you have a valley
    fill, what you have is not only polluted water, but you have a
    mountaintop removal site that is allowing this water to run
    freely, there is nothing slowing it down, into this valley
    fill, which has two ponds that sit at the bottom of it, and it
    causes catastrophic flooding. This is not only me. This is on
    people throughout the area I live in.
        The blasting is one nightmare. But the water pollution is
    horrible. We can live without energy in West Virginia. But we
    absolutely cannot live without good, healthy, clean water.
        One of the things that I feel compelled to address is jobs.
    In 1950, we had 150,000 coal mining jobs in the State of West
    Virginia alone. Today, we have less than 15,000 coal mining
    jobs. Now, you will hear a lot of difference in those numbers.
    But, honestly, I am talking about coal miners. I am not talking
    about the people who work in the office. I am not talking about
    the people that work in the janitorial departments. I am
    talking about the coal miners, the people that actually mine
    coal. There are less than 15,000. I have heard 12,000.
        But this is not about jobs. The mountaintop removal
    absolutely is not about jobs. Mountaintop removal is a human
    rights issue. Myself and my children have a right, as United
    States citizens, to clean water. And that right is being taken
    away from us in the State of West Virginia.
        And there is no replacing that. You cannot replace my
    water. You can give me city water access, but you cannot
    replace the springs and the streams and the well water that has
    sustained our lives for hundreds of years. There is no
    replacing that. There is no reclaiming the land that has been
    destroyed. It will never be again what it once was.
        We need to decide, as a Country, is it really, can we
    really keep doing this? Can we really keep flattening mountains
    to produce energy? I say no. Because there are only so many
    mountains and we will run out. We will run out of coal. The
    USGS suggests that we have 20 years of mineable coal left. We
    need to start making a plan right away so that we do not leave
    our children in area of devastation: no water, no energy and no
    plan. We need to think about what we are doing to our children.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gunnoe follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony. You really do put a face on the issue. A lot of time
    we hear about the people who are affected, and I think your
    personal story is very compelling and I thank you very much for
    that.
        Dr. Palmer, with your permission, I think we are going to
    take about a 10-minute recess and we will be back.
        The Subcommittee will reconvene in about 8 to 10 minutes.
    There is a vote currently pending on the floor of the U.S.
    Senate and I will return as soon as I can cast my vote.
        Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Cardin. I apologize for the interruption, but we
    had a vote on the Senate floor. I think we will be OK and I
    will be to complete the hearing.
        Dr. Palmer. I look forward to your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. PALMER, Ph.D., LABORATORY DIRECTOR,
        CHESAPEAKE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

        Ms. Palmer. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am very happy to
    be here.
        I have been researching streams and watersheds for more
    than 25 years and, while I am a professor at the University of
    Maryland, I also have a home in West Virginia and my family is
    from the Appalachian regions of North Carolina. So this is
    close to my heart.
        There is irrefutable scientific evidence that the
    environmental impacts of mountaintop removal are substantial
    and they are permanent. Related to this, I want to make three
    points today.
        First, as you have heard, many beautiful headwater streams
    such as the one in this photograph are destroyed when they are
    buried by fills. Headwater streams are exponentially more
    important than their size would suggest. In watersheds, they
    function very much like the smallest branches in our lungs that
    deliver oxygen that nourishes our entire body. Without them we
    would slowly suffocate.
        As headwaters are lost, the cumulative impacts are
    significant. The larger streams and rivers below become unable
    to support life.
        The second point I want to make is related to the pollution
    that results from the process of mountaintop removal. Chemicals
    that leach from the valley fills are a result of exposure of
    mine rocks to air and water, and this results in the movement
    of elevated levels of sulfate, aluminum, selenium and many ions
    into the water that permeates the watershed downstream.
        There is a very large body of science documenting this and,
    in fact, Mr. Huffman's agency, the West Virginia DEP, has a
    very long list of mine-impacted streams on the 303(d) list. And
    this listing is influenced by contaminants that are in the
    water, not influenced by those in the stream sediments where
    they actually are largely stored. And, also, the stream
    sediments are where the fish feed and, of course, when we walk
    in streams, we are walking where these contaminants are stored.
        These contaminants move. They extend great distances
    downstream with toxic effects on organisms. The levels of
    selenium that occur in these systems can cause things like huge
    curvatures of the spine in fish, two eyes on one side of the
    head; there is no question that these levels of contaminants
    are a problem. Unfortunately, they also persist for a very long
    time even after the mines are not active.
        Now, let us talk about Mayflies for a few minutes. We have
    been hearing a lot of people saying, well, is it about bugs? Is
    it about bugs versus people? Well, absolutely not. It is about
    what the loss of Mayflies represents.
        We use rats to test for effects of toxic materials on
    humans. Well, guess what? For aquatic streams, for streams and
    rivers, we use bugs, small bugs that live in the streams. Their
    loss tells us something is wrong with the streams below valley
    fills. And I can tell you that you would not find a single,
    credible scientist that would refute this fact. I certainly
    would not allow my children to wade and play in streams that
    have these levels of contaminants.
        The third point I want to make is related to, is there
    evidence that mitigation is actually working? And I am very
    sorry to say that, unfortunately, there is not evidence of
    that. Attempts to create streams to replace lost ones have been
    made by trying to make ditches with similar structural features
    to real streams. But there are no measurements demonstrating
    that they function like real streams.
        Just as an aside, in scientific jargon, structures are how
    things look and functions are how they work.
        Digging a ditch, adding rocks and diverting water to it
    does not make a living functional stream. No direct measurement
    of how streams function have been provided for streams that are
    created, or ones that are restored, in some cases for full
    mitigation credit after mining.
        Now, just to drive this point home, it is easy to
    understand the difference between structure and function when
    you think about routine health measurements. For example, my
    husband is a really good-looking guy. He is 6 foot 2 inches, he
    weighs about 185 pounds which are his ``structural features.''
    But guess what? He has really high blood pressure. He is at a
    high risk of heart disease. Can you imagine a doctor giving him
    a clean bill of health without taking some measurements of how
    his systems are functioning? His blood pressure, his heart
    rate, his metabolism of glucose, et cetera.
        So, from a scientific point of view, it is equally
    unacceptable to say a stream is healthy ecologically just
    because there are rocks in it and there is water in it.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman and fellow Senators, mountaintop
    mining first causes permanent environmental impacts. Second,
    networks of streams that are not directly touched by the mining
    activities are biologically impaired because the water quality
    impacts permeate downstream great distances. Third, there is no
    evidence whatsoever that mitigation is replacing what is lost.
    Measurements of ecological functions are not even being done.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Palmer follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Dr. Palmer, and thank all
    of you for your testimony. Let me ask a couple of questions and
    then I will yield to Senator Alexander.
        Dr. Palmer, you make a pretty convincing case in regards to
    public health and environmental risks associated with the
    contaminants from mountaintop removal as well as the loss of
    the headwaters the impact that has had on the environment.
        My question to you is, how effective would remedial
    programs be to mitigate these damages? Are there ways in which
    we can restore the environmental damage caused by these fills?
    Is there any effective way to reverse this after the damage has
    been done?
        Ms. Palmer. Well, so far there is no scientific evidence
    that that can be done. I mention that the impacts persist a
    very long time, even after mining has stopped. The U.S.
    Geological Survey and others have done studies, for example, in
    watersheds where mining has been ceased for a number of years
    and they are still finding high levels, for example, of
    selenium. In some cases, are talking 50 years out.
        So, what it means is that you really cannot reverse that,
    not at least in any time span that we can relate to as humans.
        Two forms of mitigation are the ones that I have seen most
    often: attempts to create streams, as I mentioned, by digging a
    ditch and moving water through it; and, attempts to restore
    streams that are nearby.
        When you have taken the entire top of the mountain off, you
    have fundamentally altered the hydrology. Headwater streams are
    supported primarily, or to a large extent, by groundwater
    inputs. When you have a valley fill in, and a flat top
    mountain, when it rains on that mountain, the water moves into
    the valley fill and it actually infiltrates very rapidly. You
    get a larger discharge out of that valley fill than those
    streams below it have ever experienced. It tends to be much
    more constant. And very little of that, or none of that, has
    passed through the normal groundwater paths that a healthy
    stream would receive.
        Keep in mind that when it rains in a healthy watershed, the
    vegetation, the soil bacteria and those very specific layers of
    soil that are present in these forests help remove
    contaminants, if there are any, in the rainwater. They also
    supply the water with nutrients. And as that water soaks into
    the ground, it reaches a point and it moves laterally to the
    headwater streams. That is why they say this is where rivers
    are born.
        So, it is hard to imagine, without geological time passing
    and getting new mountains back, how you could possibly ever
    replace those streams that are lost.
        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you for that answer.
        Secretary Huffman, I want to get to your point about the
    fact that there is more fill than just coming from mountaintop
    mining. I understand that point. I want to know what you think
    you can do in West Virginia to deal with the headwater issue.
    From your testimony, you indicate that is an issue. What can be
    done in order to restore or to preserve the headwater streams
    that you think is effective without denying these permits?
        Secretary Huffman. Well, there has been a lot of activity
    over the past 10 years. We have been through a cycle, at a more
    lower level that is similar to the debate today in the last
    1990s and the early part of this decade regarding some of these
    similar type activities. One of the many results of that was an
    attempt to come up with different formulas for reducing the
    size of the valley fills because it was recognized that that
    was an issue that was growing in West Virginia.
        Subsequently, the sizes of the valley fills that are being
    permitted have shrunk. But I think an unintended consequence of
    that is the number of valley fills has increased.
        There is a lot of work that needs to be done. A lot of the
    things that Dr. Palmer is talking about are currently being
    researched and experimented with and we think that is the
    nature of environmental regulatory programs and the protection
    of the environment is for the science to continue to be the
    driver, we agree with that, and research dollars need to be
    invested and solutions sought. Absolutely.
        Senator Cardin. Let me yield to Senator Alexander. I will
    have a few questions after Senator Alexander is finished.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I apologize
    to the witnesses for, well, when I was Governor I could
    schedule things properly. But the Senate does not work that
    way, does it?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Alexander. Our subcommittee hearing ran and I had
    to be there for it and then we had our vote. So, I will read
    the testimony that you have sent it and consider it very
    carefully. It will be a part of our record. And this is just
    the first of our hearings on this subject.
        I want to Mr. Sloan, if I may, and if I ask you a question
    that you answered when I was not here, excuse me, but I would
    like to make sure that I get it.
        Am I correct that, as we define it today, the coal mining
    practices in Tennessee do not remove the tops of mountains and
    place them in streams? Is that correct today?
        Mr. Sloan. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Alexander. In the past 15 or 20 years, did we have
    mountaintop removal, by that definition?
        Mr. Sloan. Not by that definition. We did have very
    limited, our staff has gone back some 15 or more so years ago
    and identified one case where we had a mountaintop removal
    which we would define there as that the mountain was not
    returned to some proximate contour of the historical contour of
    the mountain. That does not mean that there had not been
    mountaintop landscapes significantly affected by the mining
    activity, but not mountaintop removal as we defined it.
        Senator Alexander. Would it be possible, under current
    Federal law, for a mountaintop, well, for coal mining, to take
    excess waste and dump it in streams in Tennessee?
        Mr. Sloan. Boy, that is an interesting question. It is
    particularly interesting for us because we administer both the
    Federal Clean Water Act as well as our own Water Pollution
    Control Act. And under our Water Pollution Control Act, there
    is no question that we do not allow it.
        In administering the Clean Water Act, and particularly the
    401 certification, it would be our, it is a hypothetical, in a
    way, because we are administering both now. But, my thought is
    that we would not certify valley fills under 401 simply because
    we could not be satisfied that there would be no net loss of
    resources.
        Senator Alexander. But your administration may not be
    there. Will it be there for another year-and-a-half? And would
    you agree that, in order to make sure that we do not have those
    excess wastes put in valley streams again, that we should
    change the Federal law in the way that Senator Cardin and I
    have suggested?
        Mr. Sloan. I would absolutely concur with that. I think for
    West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, all of
    Appalachia, all those of us who are charged with oversight of
    environmental laws, consistency, clarity, is at a premium. And
    we do not have it today. And there are a number of pieces of
    legislation, particularly the Appalachian Restoration Act, I
    think, that brings clarify and consistency, and that is very
    important to us.
        Senator Alexander. We have talked about mining practices in
    Tennessee. But is it not possible, or likely, that mountaintop
    removal has had some effect on waters that come into Tennessee
    from other States?
        Mr. Sloan. Very possible. I have to say that certainly we
    share some very important rivers with our neighboring States,
    one of which is Virginia. I am very proud of an MOU that we
    have with Region 3 and Virginia DMME, the Department of Mining,
    Minerals and Energy, as well as Virginia DE, too, which focuses
    on the Clinch and the Powell and the extraordinary aquatics
    there.
        But it really does take a regional approach. It takes
    partnership. I am delighted that we have it there and we are
    making, I think, some good progress on the relative impacts
    occurring in the neighboring States.
        Senator Alexander. I remember that, some time ago, when I
    was still Governor, Governor Allen and I did some work together
    on that.
        I have one last question, if I may. Mr. Chairman, most of
    our coal mining in Tennessee is in four upper Cumberland
    counties which are naturally beautifully counties and they have
    historically been among our poorer countries, more low-income
    families. That is changing somewhat now, based on my visits,
    because of the natural beauty of the area and the parks in the
    area. People are moving in. Money is coming in, creating more
    tourism and jobs.
        I know the Governor of Tennessee has talked to me before
    about his interest in evaluating how we can make certain that
    we have appropriate coal mining in the area but, at the same
    time, we do not do anything to damage the natural beauty of the
    area, not just for environmental reasons, but because of the
    importance of raising family incomes by tourism and by bringing
    people in who buy farms and buildup the property tax.
        I think back on the Great Smoky Mountain National Park,
    which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. While it
    is nearly, what is managed, is nearly a wilderness area, all of
    the incentive for it 75 years ago was for economic development.
    It was a bunch of people in the eastern United States who said
    well, why are all these parks out west? We want one, too. We
    want the tourists. And we want their dollars.
        So, what is the Governor's attitude, and yours, about the
    importance of maintaining the parks and the natural beauty of
    the area as a way of raising family incomes in the upper
    Cumberland part of Tennessee?
        Mr. Sloan. I think both the State, as well as the Federal
    Government, have invested largely in assuring public access and
    public lands on the plateau. I had said earlier that we have
    roughly 600,000 acres on the plateau that are public lands. We
    have over 80 State and Federal parks and natural areas,
    including the Big South Fork Scenic River and Recreational
    Area. And 2 years ago, the Governor acquired conservation
    interests in over 130,000 acres on the plateau, which is the
    largest land acquisition for the State of Tennessee, and for
    the enjoyment of the people of Tennessee, since the Great Smoky
    Mountains.
        So, I think that is a value that is held very highly by
    this administration and by the entire State.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you very much. And you might tell
    the Governor that at the subcommittee meeting that I just went
    to on the Interior Appropriations Committee bill, that the full
    committee approved another $5 million or so for the purchase of
    lands in upper Cumberland regions. So I would want to make sure
    that, at the same time we dealt with legislation like this, Mr.
    Chairman, that it was not inconsistent with that.
        Thank you for allowing me a little extra time for my
    questions.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate it very much.
        I just want to follow up on the economic issue for one
    moment, because, in all of our States in the Appalachia, the
    tourism dollars seem to be increasing rather dramatically. It
    is a beautiful area. I live close by and I have been up to
    Appalachia many times. It is a growing industry. We have the
    numbers and the numbers seem to be growing. It seems to me that
    some of the environmental risks and public health risks are
    counter to the economic opportunities of this region.
        Secretary Huffman, one thing that I think I noticed in your
    testimony, and I just want to challenge if, for a moment, and
    give you a chance to respond. One of the arguments that have
    been made on the fills is the flattening of the mountaintops,
    particularly as for development. It gives you economic
    development opportunities. And yet the studies that I have seen
    show that there is very little development being done in these
    lands that are basically being left in these conditions. Very
    little has been developed. I think Mrs. Gunnoe has a point
    about how people do not want to live near these areas anyway.
        Do you have any indication about the economic development
    opportunities associated with this? I think I saw that
    somewhere in your testimony, and I just want to give you a
    chance because it seems like just the opposite is true.
        Secretary Huffman. Well, Senator, that is a very good
    question. Historically, we have not been very good at taking
    advantage of the opportunities that the reclaimed mine land
    would offer and present for the local communities in rural West
    Virginia. A couple of changes recently have taken place that is
    changing that whole dynamic.
        First of all is the post-mining land uses that are being
    selected now, and this is a trend that has been going on for 5
    or 6 years, has been to select the forestry reclamation
    approach. Nearly 80 percent, I think it is about 78 percent,
    nearly 80 percent of the post-mining land uses that are chosen
    for all of our surface mining activities in the State are what
    is called the forest or reclamation approach. That consists of
    reestablishing the native hardwood forest. We are basically
    planting trees. And there is a science to that. It is not a
    matter of sticking a seed in the ground.
        So that has been the vast majority of the reclamation
    approaches that have been taking place recently. Just this last
    legislative session, in fact it was last week, Governor Manchin
    signed into law a post-mine land use bill that would bring
    together the local redevelopment authorities and get local buy-
    in and force them, or require them, to develop a land use
    master plan for their county as it relates to surface mining
    and ensure that any time there is an opportunity to take
    advantage of a reclamation project on a mine site, that that is
    done in a coordinated fashion.
        Historically, we have not communicated very well. We have
    not done a very good job with that and the Governor recognizes
    that is an issue and we are moving in that direction.
        We are building, if you do not mind me, please stop me if
    you want me to stop----
        Senator Cardin. I want you to give as much West Virginia
    commercial time as you want to take on potential development.
    And I want you to have those reclamation projects and I want to
    make sure our water supply is clean and I want to make sure
    that we deal with the environmental risks here.
        I am going to put into the record a number of studies, to
    be included in the record, and they show, let me just give you
    this number, one shows that there have been over 5,800 valley
    fills in West Virginia and Kentucky over the last 10 years. A
    VA Tech professor estimates that less than 1 percent has been
    reclaimed for economic development. I do not know, again, we
    will look at those specific numbers.
        I only raise this because we hear about the economics. All
    of us, Senator Alexander and I, started off by saying coal is
    an important part of America. In West Virginia and Kentucky,
    there is great potential for economic growth that we think may
    be hampered by mountaintop recoveries. We think that needs to
    be taken into consideration when the economic argument is made.
        We are here to talk about public safety, the water, et
    cetera. But we hear the economic arguments. And, in some
    respects, I think if you use the economic arguments, it is
    another reason to stop mountaintop recoveries, because I think
    you have a much better chance of economic growth without that
    type of activity and the reclamation issues are much more
    complicated when you have taken off the mountaintop.
        I want to ask one more question, to Mrs. Gunnoe, and that
    is that you gave a pretty vivid picture of what you have to
    live with. That picture is certainly very compelling. I want
    you to tell me whether you have experienced a high instance of
    flash floods or uncontrolled issues as a result of the
    mountaintop operations near you. Have you experienced a
    difference as a result of these operations?
        Ms. Gunnoe. I have. A tremendous difference. I have lived
    there, first, I have lived there for 41 years. I am 41 years
    old. I have lived there my entire life. And I have watched many
    rain storms come and go. Since the valley fill, it is almost a
    given. When we get rain, we get flooded.
        There have been times that I have had the water raise with
    no rain at all. So, literally, the coal companies, something
    happened back on the mine site, and the water raised. The sun
    was shining, the rain had nothing to do with it. Yes, I was
    flooded with no rain. It definitely changes the entire aquifer,
    the entire everything.
        The hollow that I live in, literally, you have two
    mountains that come in together, it has changed everything
    simple because the water itself, the increase in the water
    itself, has washed away the bottoms of the mountains. With
    that, it has allowed the mountains to slide in and then wash
    away again. And then behind it all, you have got this huge plug
    known as a valley fill and it has literally devastated every
    bit of our property in Amalfus Hollow.
        And it continues to do it. It is literally washing away the
    land that I live on. I am the only one that lives in this
    hollow. I know every step of it and I have known every step of
    it my entire life and there is nothing, I mean, even the, I
    will tell you, the sun never did come through my bedroom window
    all of my life. Since they took the mountaintop off, the sun
    now comes in my bedroom window. Now there is a change you would
    not think about.
        It dramatically changes everything, especially the water
    flow. The water flow takes on a life of its own, if you will.
    It literally meanders and goes wherever it wants to.
        I would like to point out, too, that you have, with a mine
    site behind me, you have 1,183 acres in one operation and you
    have 746 acres in another operation. That is almost 2,000 acres
    of nothing but rock. That does not absorb water. Water runs off
    of it. And when the water runs off on it, it runs off of it in
    such a way that it tears everything in its sight out.
    Literally, when I was flooded in 2003, the floodwaters included
    live, standing trees.
        Senator Cardin. Well, once again, we thank you for really
    putting a face on this issue.
        Mrs. Gunnoe. I appreciate that.
        Senator Cardin. We hear about the impact, but until you
    know someone who has experienced it first hand, it does not
    have the type of impact that your testimony has had.
        Mrs. Gunnoe. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. The only other thing I would say is that
    I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you emphasized the economic part
    of it. I mean, first, I do not think that any of us need to
    make any apology for enjoying the beauty of the natural
    outdoors. Nobody in east Tennessee does. If you walk down the
    street and ask people why they live there, that is what they
    will tell you.
        But also, I could go into the Sevier County Chamber of
    Congress, which is close to Butcher Holler where Dolly Parton
    grew up, and that was a poor county before the Great Smoky
    Mountain National Park. If you go in there now and ask this
    county, which is 80 percent Republican, what their No. 1
    chamber of commerce issue is, it is clean air. Because they
    want to have an environment that people will want to come visit
    and spend their money.
        As I look at the area we are looking at in Tennessee, where
    we have, I mean I know these counties pretty well. It is
    Claiborne County and Campbell County and Anderson and Finchers.
    Those are our big coal producing counties, and those are
    beautiful places. They are beginning to get a lot of the kind
    of economic development around the several State parks in the
    region and particularly the Big South Fork area, which has a
    lot of horse trails that are not allowed in the Smoky Mountain
    parks.
        You have people moving in, spending money, buying houses,
    the property tax levels are going up and, if you tear up the
    mountains and fill up the streams, why, they will go somewhere
    else.
        So, I hope that either the Governor or us sometime, Mr.
    Sloan, the Federal Government, can do a relative study of the
    value of the clean water and natural beauty of the area in
    producing dollars in the pockets of people who need higher
    family incomes. I think we have shown that by properly managing
    it, we can have coal mining and natural beauty in our area. I
    believe we can do that.
        This is very important testimony and all of you have made a
    real contribution to our understanding of this and, as time
    goes on, we will have a chance to consider the legislation
    Senator Cardin has prepared. I am very proud to be a co-sponsor
    with him of that legislation.
        Senator Cardin. Let me join Senator Alexander in thanking
    you all for your testimony today. It furthers the record that
    we have on this issue. I know that Senator Boxer is interested
    in the results of this hearing, and other members of the
    Committee. Without objection, there are other statements from
    other members of the Committee which will also be made a part
    of the record.
        And with that, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank
    you all very much.
        [The referenced statements were not received at time of
    print.]
        [Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows. More
    documents are retained in the Committee's files.]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]