[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, [email protected].
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]