Impacts of Mining on Rivers - River Network1 Impacts of Mining on Rivers by Paul Koberstein 3 From the President 5 Coal Mining: Bringing the Mountains Down by Margaret Janes 8 CASE

Volume 15 | Number 1 - 2005A River Network Publication

cont. on page 4

Mines lay waste to the nation’s rivers

Impacts of Mining on RiversBy Paul Koberstein, Editor, Cascadia Times

ther than food, almost everything weconsume or manufacture in this countrycontains minerals dug from the ground.Many of these products improve our lives,

providing for transportation, energy and householdproducts. Yet extracting resources from mines posesserious, long-term threats to neighboringcommunities and waterways.

Mines release dangerous substances suchas arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, zincor mercury that are harmful to fish,wildlife and humans. Many also leak acidinto waterways, killing almost every livingthing downstream.

The United States has yet to address theimpacts of mining in any comprehensiveway. Most mining operations are governedby the General Mining Law, which has notbeen amended or updated since 1872. Themining industry must comply with theClean Water and Clean Air Acts, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, statereclamation standards where they exist,and federal and state statutes relating tothe handling and disposal of certain toxicwastes, as well as other laws. Critics, however, arguethat these general environmental requirements are notadequate to assure reclamation of mined areas.

Coal MiningSince the early 1900s, coal mining in the Appalachianregion has contaminated streams with acidic watersand metallic sediments. According to the U.S. EPA,runoff and drainage from both active and inactivecoal mine sites are contaminating mid-Atlanticstreams with acidic and metallic waters and

Osediments. More than 66,500 documented sources ofcoal mine drainage in Appalachia have polluted anestimate 17,000 km of streams. In addition to thesechemical disturbances, road building, mine siteconstruction and strip mining have impaired thephysical habitat of streams adjacent to mining sitesthrough channelization or sedimentation.

The combined effect ofchemical and physicalstressors on streamecosystems is a declinein ecosystem health—loss of biodiversity (fish,macroinvertebrates,algae). Acid MiningDrainage (AMD) haseliminated fishcompletely from somerivers and streams, andothers support only afew acid tolerant species.The water in the rivers isacidic and in the worstpolluted streams cancause skin irritation topeople who

inadvertently enter the water. The river stains concretefloodwalls red and the bed of many streams are a solidcrust of orange or white. The corrosive acid alsoattacks culverts and bridge abutments, resulting in ashorter than normal life span for those types of

infrastructure.

Hardrock MinesThousands of historical hardrock (gold, copper andzinc) mines exist across the Western United States.Mine dumps, tailing piles and unmined mineral

“Hardrock minerals” refer to“locatable” materials in rock, such asmetals, uranium and uncommonvarieties of sand, stone and gravelclaimed and developed under theGeneral Mining Law of 1872. Butnot all mining is hardrock. Coal, oil,gas phosphate, potash, sodium,sulphur and other nonmetalliferousminerals are considered “leasable”minerals. Common varieties of sand,stone, gravel and other rocks areconsidered “salable” minerals.Leasable and salable minerals havetheir own sets of laws, regulationsand impacts.

Source: USDA, Wildland Waters – Issue 4 / Winter 2005

2 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1

NATIONAL OFFICE520 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1130 • Portland, OR 97204-1511503/241-3506 • fax: 503/[email protected] • www.rivernetwork.org

D.C. OFFICE3814 Albemarle Street NW • Washington, D.C. 20016202/364-2550 • fax: 202/[email protected]

VERMONT OFFICE153 State Street • Montpelier, VT 05602802/223-3840 • fax: 802/[email protected]

RIVER NETWORK BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Clarence AlexanderCatherine ArmingtonAdrienne T. AtwellSally BetheaDavid BordenWilliam G. F. Botzow, IIRob R. BuirgyKimberly N. CharlesJim Compton, Trustee Emeritus

Dianne DillonridgleyDon ElderGeorge S. HawkinsPaul ParyskiElizabeth RaisbeckMarc TaylorLaurene von KlanJames T. Waring, ChairJames R. Wheaton

RIVER NETWORK STAFFMatthew BurkeMichael CurnesGeoff DatesSteve Dickens Don Elder Jean A. HamillaGayle KillamKarli Kondo

Andrea KorsenKatherine Luscher Margaret McCoyDeb MerchantPat MunozSusan SchwartzJames P. SullivanWendy WilsonAlanna Woodward

River Voices is a forum for information exchange among river and watershedgroups across the country. River Network welcomes your comments and sugges-tions. River Network grants permission and encourages sharing and reprinting ofinformation from River Voices, unless the material is marked as copyrighted. Pleasecredit River Network when you reprint articles and send the editor a copy.Additional copies and back issues are available from our national office.

Editors: Katherine Luscher, Gayle Killam

Editorial Assistance: Jean A. Hamilla

Design & Layout: Greer Graphics

River Network is a national, nonprofit

organization whose mission is to help

people understand, protect and restore

rivers and their watersheds.

CONTENTS1 Impacts of Mining on Rivers

by Paul Koberstein

3 From the President

5 Coal Mining: Bringing the Mountains Down

by Margaret Janes

8 CASE STUDY: Cleaning Up Abandoned

Coal Mines on Decker Creekby Evan Hanson

9 Hard Rock Mining:

The Golden Age of River Conservationby Bonnie Gerstring

11 CASE STUDY: Protecting the Red River

from Acid mine Drainageby Brian Shields

13 Voices from the Field

18 Guidelines for Aggregate Mining

19 Strategies for Fighting CBM

by Steve Jones

21 CASE STUDY: Coalbed Methane

Development Threatens Native Prairie Riverby Jill Morrison

22 Resources & References

23 River Network Partnership

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 3

From the President

cred

it:©

Riv

er N

etw

ork

Colle

ctio

n

ver the past two hundred years, few things have been moreharmful to more watersheds than irresponsible mining anddrilling practices.

Nineteenth century gold mining in California and Oregon ruinedthousands of streams, destroying habitat and leaving a toxic legacy thatlingers in many streams to this day. Coal mining in Appalachia turnedthousands of streams black for decades and left acid drainage that still makes itimpossible for many to support aquatic life. Hardrock mining in most of theRocky Mountain states and many others produced runoff that rendered streamsunfit to be a public drinking water supply. Poorly sited and poorly regulated oiland gas drilling, like many of the activities already mentioned, harmed bothsurface and ground water in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico,Colorado, Pennsylvania and Alaska, to name just a few of the hardest-hit states.Some practices, such as the least responsible surface coal mining and in-streamgravel mining operations, actually destroyed not just streams’ beneficial uses, butstreams themselves, by drastically altering their physical characteristics.

Modern regulations and social norms have led to the elimination of some of theworst mining and drilling practices and to significant improvement of many ofthe rest. Still, it will take many decades to finish doing what we can to deal withthe legacy of two centuries of irresponsible mining and drilling practices. It willalso take time to improve the operation of ongoing operations to the point thatthey have negligible impact. In the meantime, we must also address newpractices, such as coalbed methane drilling and “mountaintop removal” coalmining, that dwarf most previous drilling and mining activities in scale, scopeand potential impact.

When I first began my watershed conservation work, I often felt that we wereworking against overwhelming odds. Over time, however, I learned that withscience, law and public opinion on our side, there was virtually nothing wecould not accomplish. With this issue of River Voices we hope to make it easierfor the watershed protection community to solve some of the most dauntingproblems affecting our waters today.

O

than spilled into lands, rivers andstreams. Unfortunately in thePowder River Basin, the industryconvinced the Corps of Engineersthat this was not necessary.

What Can Be Done?As citizens, we have tools provided

by the Clean Water Act and other state andfederal laws that are helping to addressthese problems. In West Virginia, citizensforced their state to limit seleniumdischarges in scores of mining NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits. Citizens also won alandmark lawsuit in 2003 when a federaljudge prohibited West Virginia fromexempting mining activities fromcomplying with antidegradation rules.

In Wyoming, citizens won another majorvictory in January 2005 when a federaljudge ruled that the Corps’ permit for theWyoming coalbed methane operators wasillegal. As the judge ruled, “[m]ineralresources should be developed responsibly,keeping in mind those other values that areso important to the people of Wyomingsuch as preservation of Wyoming’s uniquenatural heritage and lifestyle.” An estimated12,000 to 15,000 producing gas wells inWyoming won’t be affected by the ruling,but an additional 35,000 planned wellscould be.

As this issue of River Voices reveals, massiveloopholes in the law or outright violationsstill frustrate citizen efforts to protect theirown watersheds all across the country. Yet,as we’ll see, the Clean Water Act and otherlaws empower them to take needed action.

Paul Koberstein is co-founder and editor ofCascadia Times. Paul began his career inWisconsin, and was a reporter for The Oregonianfrom 1981 through 1992. He has won numerousstate, regional and national journalism awards.www.times.org


Impacts of Mining on Rivers, cont.

cont. from page 1 deposits cancontaminate thesurroundingwatershed whenweathering ofexposed mineralscauses acid drainageand metals-enrichedwaters. According to the U.S. EPA, minewaste has contaminated more than 40percent of the headwaters of westernwatersheds.

Other hardrockmines producegypsum, uranium,molybdenum,gravel andphosphate, andcan posesignificant hazardsas well. Amolybdenummine in central

Idaho, located within critical habitat forendangered wild Chinook salmon, has beenproducing acid drainage at least since 1987.

Coalbed Methane MiningThe extraction of methane from Wyoming’scoal beds has caused significant damage inthe Powder River Basin. Coalbed methaneoperators pump water from aquifers to get atthe methane. The Army Corps of Engineersissued a dredge and fill permit under Section404 of the Clean Water Act allowing thedischarge of 1.4 trillion gallons of watercontaining high levels of sodium, arsenic,iron, barium and manganese into thePowder River and its tributaries over theprojects’ life. Unique fish and aquatic plantcommunities in Wyoming’s streams arethreatened by the polluted water. Ranchershave seen their lands flooded, their waterrights eliminated and their fields poisoned.

In other river basins, the polluted watermust be reinjected into the ground rather

Acid drainage is a majorchallenge to be addressed…Ithas been estimated to costbetween…$2-35 billion toremediate in North America.

Source: Mining Engineering, December 1998

By the year2000 CBMaccounted forapproximately7.5% of naturalgas productionin the U.S.

Source: USGS (2000)

Credit:V.Stockman/w

ww.ohvec.org

Mountaintop coalmining in southern

West Virginia


aria Gunnoe has lived all her lifein the southern mountains ofcentral Appalachia near the town

of Bob White in Boone County, WestVirginia. Both her Cherokee andAppalachian heritage taught her to value andcare for the bountiful natural world aroundher. As children, she and her brother earnedmoney catching bait to sell to localfisherman. They spent their summers alongthe river and in the forested mountains neartheir home, hunting for “molly moochers”(mushrooms), picking berries and fishing.

Growing up, she knew in the back of hermind that surface mining was taking a tollon the streams and forests near her home.Then several years ago the destruction ofmountaintop removal came right to Maria’sfront door. Torrential flood waters,exacerbated by mining and timberoperations, tore through her front yard,killed her dog, destroyed her barn, andconverted her driveway into a raging river.Maria resolved to fight back and discoveredshe was one of many coalfield residents nolonger willing to pay the price of ournation’s thirst for “cheap energy.” Shelearned that mountaintop removal coalmining was destroying central Appalachia,taking a devastating toll.

The Devastation Mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR)destroys the environment on a scale that isunprecedented in this country’s history. Coalcompanies actually blast hundreds of feet offthe tops of mountains—literally removingentire mountain ranges—and then dumpmillions of tons of resultant “waste” intoadjacent valleys, burying streams andanything else in the way. Vast, flattenedmoonscapes now replace what hadpreviously been vibrant and ecologicallyproductive regions.

Large-scale coal mining operations in centralAppalachia have permanently buried over

1,200 miles of streams (more than half thelength of the Mississippi River) with miningwaste and have leveled over 1,500 squaremiles of forested mountainous terrain(approximately the area of the entire stateof Rhode Island). The federal governmentestimates that this damage is likely todouble over the next ten years.

MTR and associated valley fills in centralAppalachia constitute the greatest earthmoving activity in the United States. Nearly20% of the landmass of some southernWest Virginia counties has already beenflattened by surface mines, converted touseless scrubland, and will remain unable tosupport the growth of trees for hundreds ofyears.

Coal Mining and the Clean Water ActWater pollution from these huge mines issupposed to be regulated through twomajor Clean Water Act (CWA) permits: awater pollution discharge permit (NPDESpermit) and a permit allowing miningwaste to be dumped into streams (404permit). Some of the worst water pollutioncaused by coal mining operations could bemoderated if such permits complied withexisting laws.

However, every permit issued in WestVirginia and Kentucky that we haveanalyzed over the past several years fails tocomply with state and federal CWA laws.According to a former West Virginiapermitting chief, not a single permitcomplies with all CWA requirements.

Water Pollution Discharge Permits and AntidegradationThe backbone of the CWA is the NPDESpermit, but control of coal miningpollution through NPDES permits becameproblematic in the early 1980s when thefederal government established minimumwater pollution control technologies forcoal mines. These “technologies” amounted

Coal Mining

Bringing the Mountains Down

M by Margaret Janes

Senior Policy AnalystAppalachian Centerfor the Economy &the Environment

cont. on page 6


to little more than digging holes in theground to catch contaminated run off andletting nature take its course. Incredibly,federal guidelines for limits on specificpollutants do not apply when it rains, sorunoff from mining operations is nearlyunregulated at the very time when mines aremost likely to pollute—during rainfall.

This weak federal leadership leaves a lot ofroom for mischief when states actually issueNPDES permits for coal mining. Onlythrough submitting numerous comments,appealing permits and publishing a reportcritiquing West Virginia’s Clean Water Actcompliance record, have we convinced WestVirginia to issue more protective NPDESpermits for hundreds of mining discharges.

For example, our first legal victory againstMTR (in partnership with Trial Lawyers forPublic Justice and many coalfield residentsand groups) led to a broad federal study ofits impacts, which among other thingsrevealed toxic levels of selenium comingfrom MTR mines with valley fills. Elevencoalfield streams were eventually listed onWest Virginia’s impaired stream list becauseof selenium pollution. Through numerouscomments, letters and a high profile mining

permit appeal, weforced West Virginia tolimit seleniumdischarges in scores ofmining NPDESpermits. The nextchallenge is to compelthe state to actuallymonitor and enforcethose permits.

States are required toweigh and balance thepublic welfare againstprivate gain whenissuing CWA permits.West Virginia’s failureto comply with the

Clean Water Act’s antidegradationprovisions was an issue in our initial legalchallenge of MTR. In 2001, after years ofpressure from the Center and otherenvironmental groups, West Virginia finallyinstituted an antidegradation plan. Notsurprisingly, this plan exempted numerousactivities from CWA antidegradationreview, including some related to MTR.That long list of exemptions became thebasis of our national precedent-settingantidegradation lawsuit victory in 2003,when a federal judge prohibited WestVirginia from exempting most of theactivities cited in the complaint.Antidegradation regulations have finallybeen implemented in the state, leading todramatic changes in NPDES permits fornew coal mines and other activities.

The Coal Industry and Water Quality StandardsThe coal industry has not been silent asenvironmental advocates have becomeincreasingly successful in tightening waterdischarge permits. “King Coal” still rules inWest Virginia and, with a chokehold on thestate’s legislature, is proceeding to unravelwater quality standards—the foundation ofprotective NPDES permits. One by one,standards for iron, manganese, aluminumand selenium—all important to coal—havebecome targets for the industry’s “creativescience” and political maneuvers on boththe state and federal levels. For example, theU.S. EPA in a politically tainted move hasrecently initiated changes to the federalselenium standard. Leading scientists saythe proposed change is “fatally flawed” andwill allow up to 40 percent of fish to die.

404 PermitsThe other major CWA permit required forcoal mines is meant to control the filling ofstreams with mining waste. The federalgovernment has generally required stream

Credit:V.Stockman/w

ww.ohvec.org

Mountaintopremoval/valleyfill coal mining

in southernWest Virginia in

May 2003

Coal Mining, cont.

cont. from page 5


Large mountaintopremoval mines, likethe one picturedabove, loom oversmall communitiespredisposing themto devastatingfloods. MariaGunnoe’s home islocated in a smallvalley like this one.

fills to have a constructive purpose, such as ahousing development or shopping center —and specifically not be used for wastedisposal.

In our Kentucky MTR legal victory, the judgeapplied that principle to ban most valleyfills—federal agencies had been ignoring thelaw for years. Clearly, coal companies wereusing streams strictly for waste disposal andnot for any constructive purpose. Thenotoriously conservative 4th Circuit Court ofAppeals eventually overturned that ruling,but the Bush Administration had alreadyreacted quickly and dramatically to ourinitial victory by changing the definition of“fill” to include waste material. This gave thegreen light to continued approval for coalcompanies to bury large sections of streamswith coal waste. In response, ChristopherShays (R-CT) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ)introduced the Clean Water Act ProtectionAct of 2003, which would prohibit thedumping of mine waste into streams byreasserting that waste material cannot beused to fill streams. Congress has not takenaction on the bill.

Nearly all of the MTR valley fills authorizedin West Virginia and Kentucky prior to Julyof 2004 were illegally rubber-stamped by theArmy Corps of Engineers through astreamlined permitting process calledNationwide Permit #21. The Nationwideprogram was intended to allow quickpermitting for minor stream disturbancesthat would have only a minimal impact, bothindividually and cumulatively, in awatershed. The Corps’ abuse of Nationwide21 was based on the conclusion that burying1200 miles of streams has only a minimaland inconsequential impact on CentralAppalachia’s rivers and streams.

In July 2004, we won a legal challenge of theCorps’ abuse of nationwide permits in MTRoperations in West Virginia. This victoryforced mining companies to seek individual

404 permits thatrequire site-specificenvironmentalscrutiny and seekpublic input oneach activity.Predictably, theBushadministrationappealed thisdecision. The appealwill be heard in the4th Circuitsometime in 2005.Meanwhile, we filedan identical legalchallenge of theCorps’ illegal use ofthe nationwidepermit in its three Kentucky districts.

EndnoteAs powerful industries continue to attackkey environmental laws and use “creativescience” to promote self-servingenvironmental policies, it becomesincreasingly important for citizens toadvocate for environmental protection.State and federal environmental agenciesare not up to the task because they lackfunding, staff, expertise and politicalsupport. Polluters frequently take advantageof these agency gaps by providing the dataor expertise needed to establish policyfavorable to industry. As advocates, we needto join Maria Gunnoe and arm ourselveswith the facts and the law to counterbalancethe self-serving influence of the coal baronsand other corporate polluters who intend torob us of a sustainable future.

The Appalachian Center is a regional law andpolicy center providing legal and policy assistancefree of charge to low-income individuals, grass-roots organizations and local communities inprecedent-setting litigation designed to protect theenvironment and the health of central Appalachia.www.appalachian-center.org

Cred

it:Ap

pala

chia

n Ce

nter


Cleaning up Abandoned Coal Mines

in the Deckers Creek Watershed

eckers Creek drains about 64square miles of scenic WestVirginia hills and small towns

before joining the Monongahela River inMorgantown, home of West VirginiaUniversity. Since 1995, Friends of DeckersCreek has been working to clean up thecreek, which still suffers from acid minedrainage from old abandoned coal mines.Many parts of the creek are nearly devoid oflife due to the iron, aluminum andmanganese discharged from the acid-producing Upper Freeport coal seam.

The organization hasseveral ongoingprograms designed tocharacterize theproblem and to findsolutions. Through ourClean Creek Program,we monitor thirteensites across thewatershed each quarterfor water chemistry,each fall for fish andeach spring for benthicmacroinvertebrates. Wethen publish annualState of the Creekreports to track changesover time and to helptarget remediation funds toward the mostimportant priorities.

We also chair Deckers Creek RestorationTeam meetings that include Friends ofDeckers Creek, state and federal agency staff,university researchers and local officials. Atthese meetings, we coordinate our cleanupefforts and agree on priorities andappropriate technologies for each site. Thesemeetings allow us to avoid duplication ofeffort and find new ways to leverage scarcefunding.

We’ve been fortunate that the West VirginiaDepartment of Environmental Protection

(DEP) and federal Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) each pledgedto contribute $5 million toward acid minedrainage remediation in the watershed. DEPis allocating money from the AbandonedMine Land Trust Fund, which originatesfrom a per-ton tax on mined coal. In thefirst such project of its kind in WestVirginia, NRCS is applying Public Law 566funds toward acid mine drainageremediation. In the past, PL 566 funds havebeen used to build dams.

Abandoned coal mines are considered to benonpoint sources ofpollution; therefore, DEPhas started allocating CleanWater Act Section 319funds (for nonpoint sourcepollution control) to helpclean up these sites in theDeckers Creek watershedand in other parts of thestate.

One more funding sourcehas proven essential: thefederal Office of SurfaceMining offers grants of upto $100,000 to watershedgroups to help pay to cleanup water pollution from

abandoned mines. In 2004, Friends ofDeckers Creek secured its first of theseWatershed Cooperative Agreements, andthis year we plan to apply for several more.

Even in a watershed as small as DeckersCreek, it has taken years to collect enoughinformation to identify the impairedsegments and to find all of the abandonedcoal mine discharges that cause theseimpairments. It takes just as long to developthe partnerships needed to buildmomentum for a cleanup, and it takespatience to work with agencies to make thefunding flow.

Dby Evan Hanson

West VirginiaRivers Coalition

www.wvrivers.org

CASE STUDY

Credit:Earthworks

A dead bird in an acidic wastewater pond atthe Yerington Mine in Nevada.


lthough mining often conjuresimages of a crusty old minerwith a pickaxe, modern mining

is no longer a pick and shovel affair. Instead,large corporations use toxic chemicals,blasting agents and earth moving equipmentcapable of altering entire landscapes.Consequently, today’s mines generateenormous volumes of waste—more than anyother resource extraction industry. Forexample, only 0.00004 % of all the rawmaterials used in the gold mining processbecome a final product (refined gold)—therest (99.99996%) is waste.

Much of this waste, which is stored in vastpiles or behind large impoundments,contains minerals, such as arsenic, cadmium,copper, zinc or mercury that are harmful tofish, wildlife and humans. According to theEPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, hardrockmining is the nation’s top toxic polluter, with1.3 billion pounds of toxics released in 2002alone. So, it’s not surprising that miningoften results in significant impacts to waterquality. Here’s how it happens:

Acid Mine DrainageAcid mine drainage is the proverbialPandora’s box. It occurs when sulfideminerals, unearthed during mining, areexposed to oxygen and water to formsulfuric acid. The acid then leaches othermetals out of the surrounding rock. It is adeadly combination. If it isn’t captured andtreated, it may drain into nearby streams andrivers or seep into groundwater. Forexample, acid mine drainage from theSummitville mine in Colorado destroyed allaquatic life in 18 miles of the Alamosa river.

Not all mines generate acid. When it doesoccur, acid mine drainage is generally asevere, long-term problem, continuing forhundreds or even thousands of years.

Metals LeachingEven if a mine isn’t acid-generating,

snowmelt or rainfall can leach metals, likearsenic, copper, cadmium, lead and zinc,out of the excavated rock. If leftunmanaged, contaminated water can seepinto groundwater or be carrieddownstream. These metals may play havocwith fish, causing anything from chronicreproductive failure to outright fish-kills.Metals are generally harmful to humans,wildlife and sometimes livestock as well.

Release ofProcessingChemicalsAnother frequentwater qualityimpact results fromthe release ofprocessingchemicals (e.g.,cyanide, sulfuricacid, etc.). Forexample, cyanide isoften used in goldmining to dissolvethe tiny particles ofgold from thesurrounding rock.These chemicalscan enter streamsfrom spills, leaks, processing pondoverflows, impoundment failures andpipeline breaks. Spilled cyanide from amine has appeared in the water supplies ofadjacent homes.

Clean Water ActThe Clean Water Act is a critical tool forany concerned citizen. Here are a fewdifferent ways to use the CWA to betterprotect water in your region from theimpacts of mining.

Discharge Permits (NPDES) Just about every part of a mine (e.g., openpit, waste rock pile, tailings impoundment,pipes, processing ponds, etc.) is considered

Hard Rock Mining

The Golden Age of River Conservation

A

Acid minedrainage from anabandoned mineat Fisher Creek,Montana

Cred

it:Ea

rthw

orks

by Bonnie Gerstring

Earthworkswww.earthworksaction.org

cont. on page 10


a pointsource andrequires anNPDESdischargepermit, if itdischarges tosurfacewater(streams,rivers, lakesetc.). A mineis also

required to obtain a permit, if it dischargesto groundwater that feeds directly to surfacewater (i.e., if it is hydrologically connected).This is more difficult to prove, but mostcourts have upheld this requirement. Thepublic has at least 30-days to comment on adraft permit before the final dischargepermit is issued. This is an importantopportunity to weigh in with site specificinformation.

Citizens should be particularly wary ofmines that claim to be “no-discharge”facilities. Mines often develop problems overtime, resulting in water quality impacts thatwere not predicted at the time of permitting.Thus, it’s important to ensure that extensivemonitoring is included in any mine’sdischarge permit so that impacts can becaught as early as possible.

Even for mines with discharge permits, it’simportant to regularly “watchdog” themine’s monitoring reports (usuallysubmitted monthly) to determine whetherthe amount of pollution reported exceedsthe amount allowed in the permit. If so,citizens can initiate a complaint, and thepermitting authority is required toinvestigate and provide a written response.

Citizen’s Suit Too often it takes citizen action to getgovernment agencies to take enforcement

action. If the agency does not take actionagainst a polluter, citizens can invoke the“citizen-suit” provision of the CWA. Thisallows individuals or organizations to filesuit against the company after providing a60-day notice to the company and agency togive them an opportunity to take action.The two primary types of citizen suits are:1) for mines that are discharging pollutionin violation of the amounts allowed in thepermit; or 2) for mines that are dischargingwithout required permits.

Impaired Waters ListThe Clean Water Act requires each state tocompile a list, called the 303(d) list, of allwater bodies that are already too polluted tomeet various basic beneficial uses (e.g.,swimming, drinking, fisheries, etc.). The listincludes a description of each water body,the problem pollutant(s) and the type ofactivity that caused the pollution. The stateis then required to develop a cleanup planfor these impaired streams. In themeantime, the permitting agency shouldnot issue a new permit to any operationthat would contribute more of the samepollutant. For example, a mine should notbe issued a discharge permit, if it woulddischarge arsenic into a stream that hasbeen listed as an impaired stream on the303(d) list due to arsenic pollution. Thisdecision was issued in U.S. District Court inMontana (Friends of the Wild Swan v. U.S.EPA, et al., CV 97-35-M-DWM, District ofMontana, Missoula Division).

To learn more about metal mining or to dosomething to combat mining’s impacts toclean water, go to www.bettermines.organd join Westerners for Responsible Mining—a campaign to better protect theenvironment from the adverse impacts ofmining.

EARTHWORKSis a nationalorganizationdedicated to

protectingcommunities andthe environment

against the adverseimpacts of mining.

For assistance withmining issues,

contact theWashington D.C.

office at 202/887-1872,

the Missoula,Montana office at

406/549-7361,or the Reno,

Nevada office at775/324-6115.

Credit:U.S.EPA

Acid mine drainagecollection pond at theSummitville Superfund

site in Colorado.

Hardrock Mining, cont.cont. from page 9


Protecting the Red River

from Acid Mine Drainage

CASE STUDY

In response to the efforts of Amigos Bravos,the U.S. EPA re-issued an NPDES dischargepermit to Molycorp in 2000 for dischargesto the Red River. This permit required thecompany to collect and treat over 7,000 tonsof pollutants annually discharged into theriver.

The permit addressed Amigos Bravo’sposition that acid mine drainage (AMD),originating from the 328 million tons ofwaste rock sitting next to the Red River,must cease. The acid mine drainage, whichconsists of aluminum, cadmium, cobalt,chromium, copper, fluoride, iron,molybdenum, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc,sulfates and total dissolved solids, migratesthrough groundwater to seeps thatdischarge directly into the Red River. TheRed River below the Molycorp mine is New

Mexico’s most heavilymetal-polluted river.

According to EPA’scalculations, the newNPDES permit wouldeliminate 15,220,205pounds per year ofmetals, sulfide andtotal dissolved solidsfrom discharges intothe Red River. This is atotal of 7,601 tons ofpollutants that will nolonger be accumulating

annually in the Red River. This pollutiondoes not stop at the Red River, but migratesinto acequias—which provide water forcrops, kitchen gardens and livestock—andeventually to the Río Grande, a proposedfuture source of drinking water forAlbuquerque and Santa Fe.

Long-Term GoalThe second step in restoring the Red Riveris to stop acid mine drainage from beingcreated. This can only be done by

ince its inception in 1988,Amigos Bravos has been activeon mining issues. This activity

has focused on the pollution of the Red Riverfrom numerous tailings spills and otherconsequences of operations at the Molycorpmolybdenum mine in Questa, NewMexico—the largest hardrock mine on theRío Grande watershed.

Amigos Bravos’ successful campaign toresuscitate the Red River—once a blue-ribbon trout fishery—has required a two-pronged effort focused on the federal CleanWater Act and New Mexico state groundwater regulations.

Short-term GoalAmigos Bravos believed that the first step inrestoring the Red River was to stop acid minedrainageoriginating at theMolycorpmolybdenummine fromentering the river.Since 1988Amigos Bravoshas participatedin numerousregulatoryhearings and filedtwo lawsuits tomake that case.

In 1995, Amigos Bravos sued Molycorp (asubsidiary of UNOCAL) for acid minedrainage under the citizens’ provision of theClean Water Act. With a team of experts,Amigos Bravos fought Molycorp in and outof hearings in which the mine persistentlydenied their responsibilities and covered uptheir role in the degradation of the RedRiver. In 1998, Amigos Bravos sued the EPAfor not fulfilling its mandatory duty, andthose actions bore fruit.

S by Brian Shields

Executive DirectorAmigos Bravoswww.amigosbravos.org

cont. on page 12


reclaiming the 328 million tons ofwaste rock piles in such a way thatrain and snow do not reach thehighly mineralized crushed rock.Unfortunately, the NPDESpermitting process deals only withthe interception and treatment ofpolluted water, not with stoppingpollution from happening in thefirst place.

At the same time that EPA issuedthe NPDES permit to Molycorp,Amigos Bravos was working withtwo New Mexico State agencies withstatutory authority to require theeventual restoration of the mine toprotect water quality after the minecloses—which could be 40 yearsfrom now.

On January 15, 2002 AmigosBravos, Molycorp, the New MexicoMining and Minerals Division, andthe New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment reached agreement regardingMolycorp’s closeout plan under threeseparate permits—a mining permit and twogroundwater discharge permits. The threepermits required the issuance of financialassurance bonds totaling $157 million tocover the costs of clean-up.

The permits also established someprecedent-setting concessions not requiredby state law—including:

• the withdrawal of 2,247 acres fromfuture mining;

• the immediate start of reclamationinstead of waiting until the minecloses—Molycorp has committed tospend a minimum of $3 million ayear on reclamation activities;

• a large and comprehensiverevegetation test plot program thatcreates 100 acres of test plots;

• the establishment of a TechnicalReview Committee to offer thepublic and State and Federal agenciesthe opportunity of reviewingongoing plans and studies at themine;

• a revision of the permit if wildlife isbeing negatively impacted; and

• partial reclamation of the open pit.

Given these successes, Amigos Bravos isnow focused on ensuring that the permitsare enforced and that outstanding issuesaffecting the Red River are addressed. Oneof those issues includes the possibility ofimproving water quality on the Red Riverby finding ways to augment flows throughrecycling mine water.

cont. on page 11

Protecting the Red River, cont.

Credit:AIR

PHOTO,Pueblo,Colorado

Aerial view of the Molycorp mine


VOIC

ES F

ROM T

HE F

IELD

Mining is an complex issue affecting river and watershed conservationorganizations throughout the country. Mining, from hardrock to coaland from gravel to peat, is threatening the quality of our waters. Beloware a few examples of how organizations are addressing various typesof mining occurring in their watersheds.

The Kentucky Waterways Alliance (KWA) has been involved recently in several mine-relatedwater issues.We regularly comment on new mine discharge permits—working to try to strengthenpermit limits and biological monitoring requirements.We have identified several permits in which thestate did not properly identify the receiving streams’ uses and or impairments.

KWA has also commented on several US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits for valley fill orinstream impoundments.The majority of 404 valley fill permits in Kentucky are general or nationwidepermits (NWP 21) and do not involve public notice, opportunity for comments, a public hearing or anEnvironmental Impact Statement. In January 2005, KWA joined Kentucky Riverkeeper and Kentuckiansfor the Commonwealth in a suit to stop the Corps from issuing NWP 21 permits in Kentucky.

Since December 2002, the Corp had issued at least fifty-four new NWP 21 in Kentucky.These permitsalone authorized 191 valley fill operations and would have buried over 35 miles of Kentucky streams.

Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Inc. (KY)www.KWAlliance.org

The Cheat River watershed has beenseverely impaired by the effects of coal mining.Of key importance at this point in time is thestatus of the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act. This federal program isrunning on an extension until June 30, 2005and is the program that taxes each ton of coalproduced today to address the pollution ofpre-regulated mining of yesterday (before1977). It is extremely important that thisprogram be renewed.

Friends of the Cheat (WV)www.cheat.org

The Taku River is the largest unprotectedand undeveloped watershed on NorthAmerica’s Pacific Coast.The river isthreatened by a proposal to re-open theclosed Tulsequah Chief mine and to build a100-mile access road through this virtuallyroadless wilderness watershed. On January 5,2005, the Canadian federal governmentissued a draft approval and we are nowtrying to beat that back.

The Stikine/Iskut region is seeing explosivegrowth in mineral exploration, as well asthreats from oil and gas exploration andcoalbed methane development.Two majormines, Galore Creek and Red Chris, arealready in the planning stages.The GaloreCreek project is especially worrisomebecause it calls for a major industrial accessroad down the Stikine River.

The situations here are very similar in thatmining companies want road access into wildareas, and these roads are likely to fosteradditional development beyond the mine theaccess roads are being proposed for.

Transboundary Watershed Alliance(AK/YT)

www.riverswithoutborders.org

AMD&ART has been working with the citizensof a small coal mining town,Vintondale,Pennsylvania to artfully transform 35 acres ofmine-scarred land that includes an acid minedrainage discharge into a community asset, theAMD&ART Park. Using an interdisciplinarycollaborative approach, the Park combinescommunity history with innovative science,landscape design and art to create a new towncenter that includes an AMD treatment system,wetland habitat and public recreational area.

AMD&ART (PA)www.amdandart.org

cont. on page 14


VOIC

ES F

ROM T

HE F

IELD

Water pollution violations continued to occurat the 3M Quarry due to inadequatestormwater management facilities and limitederosion controls. Members of the StonyBrook-Millstone WatershedAssociation documented these violations,testified at various state and local hearings,and pressured the NJ Dept. of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP) for remediation andenforcement. In May 2003, the NJDEP issuedan Administrative Consent Order (ACO)citing 11 violations for stormwater runoff, anda fine for $99,120.

In January 2004, after receiving the necessaryapprovals from state, county and local offices,3M began construction of five stormwaterretention basins, connecting channels and theregrading, capping and vegetating a 60-acremineral fines pile. 3M proposed to completethese actions in June 2005.

The Association continues to monitor thestreams and work with 3M, NJDEP, Townshipand County officials, and local residents toensure that appropriate stormwater controlmeasures are implemented under a NJPDESStormwater Permit.

Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association (NJ)

http://www.thewatershed.org

The Idaho Conservation League worksextensively with our members and localcommunities to protect human health and theenvironment from the potentially harmfulimpacts of mining. Current “hot” issues in Idahoare: 1) proposals for new mines, including theAtlanta mine, a large cyanide heap leach mineupriver from Boise and the Treasure Valley; 2)efforts to reform Idaho’s mining laws to ensurethat mines are appropriately bonded to coverreclamation and closure costs; and 3) protectinghuman health from toxic pollution—for instance,we are currently working to protect southernIdaho streams from toxic mercury emissions tothe air from mines in Nevada. Mercury can settleout from the air and poison our waters.

Idaho Conservation League (ID)www.wildidaho.org

Abandoned mine drainage (AMD) is the third leading cause of impairment in the SchuylkillWatershed and the leading cause of impairment in its headwaters. Over 158 identified abandonedmine discharges contribute to the impairment of 222 miles of stream according to the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection.The low pH (high acidity), low dissolved oxygen and highconcentration of metals from these discharges create an aquatic environment in which the manymacroinvertebrates and other bugs associated with healthy aquatic ecosystems simply cannot survive.The large brook trout population native to this area is also severely impacted and limited by thiswater chemistry resulting from AMD.The impacts of metal loadings from AMD are seen from theheadwaters all the way to Philadelphia where the Schuylkill River is a major source of drinking waterfor over 1.5 million people.Through the Schuylkill Action Network, many organizations, includingSchuylkill Headwaters Association and the Philadelphia Water Department, have partnered to addressAMD issues. Current activities include acquiring of grant funding for the implementation of AMDtreatment projects and monitoring to quantify the impact of AMD on the Schuylkill and evaluate thewater quality benefit derived from the implementation of treatment projects.

Philadelphia Water Department - Office of Watersheds (PA)http://www.phila.gov/water/protect.html

Peat mining is also an issue of concern.We have had some major issues with peatmining impacting our rivers.

Downeast Salmon Federation (ME)www.mainesalmonrivers.org

cont. from page 13


cont. on page 16

In Crested Butte source watershed acoalition, including state and federal agencies,is asking EPA to put the site on the NationalPriorities List.The mine is discharging zinc andcadmium impairing aquatic life.We are alsosuing the Forest Service/BLM for issuing apatent without a presently marketabledeposit.This is the first case a patent is beingappealed by anyone other than a competingmining company.

High Country Citizens’ Alliance (CO)www.hccaonline.org

VOIC

ES F

ROM T

HE F

IELD

Plumas Corporation is currently involved in a study, funded by CalFed for about$125,000, with the Desert Research Institute. Dr Jennifer Duan is modeling bedloadmovement in mountain streams. In her modeling work, she produces a graphic thatlooks like a piece of graph paper laid over the channel bed. At each intersection of thegraph, there are values in the model for things such as particle size, velocity, and otherparameters.Then she can add things like restoration structures in the channel, vanes, orgravel vortex samplers, and see how the deposition of material changes.This is veryuseful for us because we are trying to do restoration of a channelized creek with veryhigh bedload. Gravel mining has not been good for fish habitat in the creek, and theDepartment of Fish and Game just curtailed the operation, which is causing moredeposition in other areas, and further eroding the walls of this entrenched channel.

Plumas Corporation (CA)http://www.plumascounty.org

We surveyed the economicimpacts of gravel mining at severalmines on the lower 27 miles ofthe Great Miami River insouthern Ohio.We found that ifyou live along the river within onemile of a gravel operation, yourhouse is on average worth$16,725 less than its equivalentfarther away. Also, the totalreduced value of property neargravel mines is about $2.8 million,resulting in a tax revenue loss of$119,000 a year to localgovernments.

Mine operations have a lowassessed land value of $12,800 anacre versus $30,800 an acre forresidential communities nearby.Gravel trucks chew up countyroads at high cost.Whilenecessary, mining should stay awayfrom rivers—it degrades surfaceand groundwaters, disturbsrecreation and quality of life anddamages habitat. People don’t likethe noise, lights, dust, commotionand the moonscape scenicdamage to the streams.

Rivers Unlimited (OH)www.riversunlimited.org

The Rivers of Colorado Water WatchNetwork’s monitoring network hasprovided data to determine the impacts ofhard rock mining and some gravel mining inColorado, set restoration targets andevaluated restoration demonstrationtechnologies.The results of the monitoringefforts include: determining the extent ofimpact; determining restoration targets orclean up goals; testing the effectiveness ofdemonstration treatments, such as theeffectiveness of different wetland materialand size to removed elevated metals.Theprimary lesson learned in these efforts isthat the clearer the monitoring objectivesand/or questions are before the monitoringis implemented, the easier it is to produceclear and specific results.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CO)http://wildlife.state.co.us/riverwatch

16 RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1

cont. from page 15

VOIC

ES F

ROM T

HE F

IELD

Environment Law Foundation and the WesternMining Action Project represent the Karuk Tribe ofCalifornia in a suit against the U.S. Forest Service.Thesuit arises out of the Forest Service’s decision to allowsuction dredging, mechanized sluicing and other formsof gold mining in the Klamath and Six Rivers NationalForests without environmental review.The operationsharm several endangered species including the cohoand steelhead.The complaint specifically allegesviolations of the Endangered Species Act, the NationalForest Management Act, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Forest ServiceOrganic Administration Act of 1879 and theAdministrative Procedures Act.The case will bedecided on the administrative record.

Environmental Law Foundation (CA)www.elflaw.org

For the past ten years Friends of the Kawhas fought to end in-river sand and gravel miningor dredging in the Kansas River because of thephysical degradation it causes the stream bedand banks and the loss of natural habitat.Because of our vigilance, five applications fornew dredging permits in a pristine section of theriver have been either denied or withdrawn andthe number of dredging operations on the riverhave been reduced from eighteen in 1996 totwelve in 2005. Although the State of Kansas hastaken the first step by beginning acomprehensive study of degradation of theKansas River to quantify the primary causes, thebattle is far from won as the second step tostudy and make recommendations on the futureof in-river dredging is yet to be approved.

Friends of the Kaw (KS)www.kansasriver.com

Prairie Rivers has been actively involved in thecoal mining issue in Illinois, particularly withrespect to the impact these activities have onwater quality. A few years ago, while fighting anNPDES permit for a coal mine in VermilionCounty, we discovered that coal mines in Illinoiswere—under Illinois regulation—exempted fromseveral key provisions of the Clean Water Act.Working with the Environmental Law and PolicyCenter we fought these exemptions, securing aruling from U.S. EPA that stipulated they were infact a violation of federal law. As a result, allNPDES permits for coal mines in Illinois now goto U.S. EPA for review and approval to ensurethey comply with federal law.The outcome,recent NPDES permits for coal mines are someof the strongest we have seen.

Prairie Rivers Network (IL)www.prairierivers.org

There is a traditional “rule” that any Hawaiianmay take up to 25 river rocks for use inconstructing an imu or pit oven. I assume the“konohiki” or supervisor of the ahupua’a or ofthis specific resource of the ahupua’a guidedthe selection and minimized the disturbanceto the stream bed.Today, folks still take someof these rocks for that purpose but there isn’tmuch enforcement. Certainly the state lackspersonnel or expertise in this area.

Hanalei Watershed Hui (HI)www.hanaleiwatershedhui.org

We are in the midst of challenging aproposed mine by Kennecott near theheadwaters of one of Michigan’s mostpristine rivers.The Salmon TroutRiver has the last naturally reproducingpopulation of Coaster Brook Trout onthe South shore of Lake Superior, in partbecause the watershed is almost totallyundeveloped.There is a lot of oppositionlocally, but in general, Kennecott’s agendaseems to be moving forward quickly.

Central Lake Superior WatershedPartnership (MI)

www.superiorwatersheds.org

After watching industrial micamining companies destroy asensitive cultural site for nearly fourdecades, Picuris Pueblo, a smallNative American communitylocated 25 miles to the south ofTaos, filed an aboriginal title claim instate court in order to stop thedestruction.The mine’s proposedU.S. Forest Services closeout planallowed the corporation to walkaway from a large open pitbecause the vertical mine scarwould create raptor habitat.

Picuris Pueblo, (NM)

Volume 15, Number 1 • RIVER VOICES 17

VOIC

ES F

ROM T

HE F

IELD

In 2003, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership needed to address aggregate mining in ourwatershed. A review of that effort and recommended advocacy were printed in our September2003 Watershed Watcher, which can be found at www.crwp.net/Newsletters.htm. Below are “CRWPGuidelines for Aggregate Mining within the Cannon River Watershed.”

Cannon River Watershed Partnership (MN)www.crwp.org

Guidelines for Aggregate Mining within the Cannon River Watershed

The Cannon River Watershed Partnership is comprised of 500 members dedicated to supporting itsmission to protect and improve the surface and groundwater resources and the natural systems ofthe Cannon River Watershed.

Given that the demand for aggregate has increased far beyond projections especially in the TwinCities metropolitan area and that the Cannon River Watershed has rich deposits of both gravel andlimestone within close proximity to this area; and

Given that the Cannon River Watershed is targeted for large-scale mining operations that have thepotential to have significant impact on the surface and ground waters and the natural systems whichthe Cannon River Watershed Partnership is committed to protecting;

The Board of Directors of the Cannon River Watershed Partnership requests that the followingissues and standards be addressed in creating and/or updating mining and extraction policies and inissuing permits for mining and extraction operations:

• The quality and quantity of water discharged from mining and extraction operations shouldbe regulated as part of any permit in compliance with the antidegradation policies of theFederal Clean Water Act.

• The standard of “no additional pollution discharge ”applied to the lower Cannon River underthe designation as an “Outstanding Value Resource Water” should be applied to all natural ormanmade tributaries in the Cannon River Watershed.

• The minimum setback of 300 feet required by the Minnesota Legislature for the “Wild andScenic” designated segment of the lower Cannon River should be applied to all natural ormanmade tributaries in the Cannon River Watershed.

• Permitting of mining and extraction operations should be based on knowledge of thepotential for degradation to the groundwater and surface water resources that are vital toour communities and economy.

• All permits for mining and extraction operation should be contingent upon continualmonitoring for degradation of potentially affected water resources with a baseline ofinformation on these water resources determined before permits are issued.

• Mining and extraction operations should not be allowed to artificially raise or lower thegroundwater table beyond the perimeter of the mine site.

• Mining and extraction operations should not significantly increase or decrease base flows intosurface waters so as to threaten naturally occurring fish, wildlife, or aquatic life.

• Water discharged from mining and extraction operations into surface waters should berestricted to assure that increased flow will not exacerbate instream erosion nor causedownstream degradation.

• Mining and extraction operations should be conducted in a manner that assures that the sitewill be reclaimed within a reasonable period of time as productive farmland, lakes, naturallyfunctioning wetlands, woodlands, or building sites.

The quality of CBM wastewater (alsoreferred to as “produced water” in theindustry) varies considerably with the coalseam in which it is found. In some basins,the quality of the water is bad enough thatit is quite clear, even to industry, that itmust be reinjected rather than foisted upon

the surface lands, rivers andstreams. But this has notbeen the case in the PowderRiver Basin, where industryhas been unwilling toconcede the point. Theprimary problems identifiedwith CBM produced waterquality in the Powder RiverBasin are salinity andsodicity.

Salinity is the potential foraccumulation of soluble saltsin the root zone of soils.High salinity makes waterless available to plants and at

very high levels the plants may suffer directsalt damage. Waters are not suitable forirrigation with an electrical conductivity(EC) greater than 2,250 micro ohms percentimeter, but in areas with restricteddrainage of soils (typical of the PowderRiver Basin), anything higher than 1,200 is

problematic.

The sodium adsorption ratio(SAR) value of water is theratio of sodium to calciumand magnesium. The SARvalue, often referred to as“sodicity,” affects plantproduction by slowinginfiltration and thepermeability of soils. The SARvalues for water at 6 to 8 arethe upper threshold beforeinfiltration and permeabilityproblems will affect existingagricultural uses.


here are many problems withcoalbed methane (CBM)development. While it is a good

source for much-needed natural gas, theimpacts of developing that gas can besubstantial. If not managed properly,significant damage to landscapes, includingrivers and streams, canoccur.

Wyoming has become theposter child for bad CBMmanagement. Forinstance, the proposedalternative in the PowderRiver Basin EnvironmentalImpact Statement for CBMdevelopment revealedthese astonishing impacts:1) the disposal of 1.4trillion gallons of waterinto the rivers and streamsof the basin over theproject’s life, 2) 17,000miles of new roads, 3) 20,000 miles of newpipelines, 4) 5,300 miles of new utility lines,5) over 200,000 acres of soils and vegetationto be stripped bare, 6) 500 to 1,200 surfacedischarge facilities for the water and 7)1,800 to 4,000 infiltration waste pits tohandle CBM produced water.

by Steve Jones

WatershedProtection

ProgramAttorney

WyomingOutdoorCouncil

Coalbed Methane Mining

Strategies for fighting cbm

t

Credit:USG

S


cont. on page 20

12

3

4

56

Attempts to use the Clean Water Act (CWA)to stop some of the pollution occurring inthe Powder River Basin have met with atleast some success. But industry may belearning the terrific advantage of getting thebureaucrats on your side. There can be noquestion that the existing Administration’senergy policy has encouraged the BLM andthe U.S. EPA (and other federal agencies) to“get the gas out.”

Possible avenues that environmental groupshave used (or are considering) for attackingthis alliance of government and industryinclude the following:

Challenge issuance of National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES)permits. Under Section 402 of the CleanWater Act, every discharge permit issued bya state (that has been granted primacy forhandling the NPDES permit program)must go through a public comment period.A permit can be objected to by anyconcerned citizen and challenged if theagency issues it. This challenge is oftenbefore an administrative hearing body, butsometimes must be filed directly beforestate court, depending on what the state lawmay require.

File civil suits for discharging pollutionwithout a discharge permit. This would bean obvious violation of the CWA, as long asit is a discharge to waters of the UnitedStates. This option is often not available,since CBM operators are usually savvyenough to get a discharge permit. But seeNorthern Plains Resource Council v.Fidelity Exploration and Development Co.,325 F.3d 1155 (C.A.9 (Mont.), 2003).

File civil suits to enforce NPDES permits.Once an NPDES permit is issued, if itsterms are not complied with by thepermittee, an action can be broughtagainst the permittee for failure to comply.

A good way to check for violations is toreview the permit file, and pay particularattention to the monitoring reports. Thiscould also be a violation of the Clean WaterAct, and as such could be brought as acitizen suit in federal district court.

Challenge issuance of individual federaldredge and fill permits. Under Section 404of the Clean Water Act, before any personcan conduct a dredge and fill operation in ariver or stream, they must first obtain apermit from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (except in Michigan and NewJersey—where those states have primacy toissue most 404 permits). For CBMoperations, often the CBM drillers put adam across a drainage to hold back thenefarious CBM produced water. Thosedams require dredge and fill permits.

Challenge the issuance of general dredgeand fill permits. The Army Corps ofEngineers is in the habit of issuing “generalpermits” to ease its work load. Generalpermits (also known as “NationwidePermits” if they apply nationally) allowpermittees to proceed with dredge and filloperations without the necessity ofobtaining individual dredge and fill permitsfrom the Corps. This is allowed under theClean Water Act only where theenvironmental impacts are similar in natureand are minimal. WOC brought asuccessful challenge to such a generalpermit in Wyoming. See WyomingOutdoor Council v. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 351 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Wyo.,2005)

Petition the state rule-making agency fortougher water quality standards applicableto CBM discharges. Of particular concernare salinity (measured as electricalconductivity or specific conductance) andsodicity (measured as SAR [sodiumadsorption ratio]).


cont. from page 19

78

910

11

12

Coalbed Methane Mining, cont.

Ask EPA to establish new effluentlimitations guidelines, that are technology-based, for CBM discharges. It is quiteapparent that CBM discharges are suigeneris (e.g., unique) and have differentproblems than conventional oil and gasdischarges. There is already an unpublishedreport from U.S. EPA that identifiestreatment prior to discharge (using reverseosmosis techniques), as well as reinjectionmethods, as technologically feasible forCBM produced water. See the U.S. EPAstudy, which can be found atwww.northernplains.org.

Petition the U.S. EPA to withdraw thepermitting program from a state for failureto administer the NPDES permit programproperly (due to failures in monitoring,enforcement, compliance with CWArequirements, etc.). This can often force thestate agency in question to “shape up” anddemonstrate to the U.S. EPA that it is tryingto enforce the Clean Water Act in its state.

Get the U.S. EPA to write water qualitystandards for the state. If the U.S. EPArecommends changes to state water qualitystandards—a triennial review process mustoccur every three years—and the State failsto comply with that recommendation, theClean Water Act authorizes the U.S. EPA topromulgate water quality standards for theState. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c).

Object to Use Attainability Analyses(UAA). Use Attainability Analyses have beenused to downgrade a particular streamsegment to a lower use classification thatwould afford less protection for the stream,making it easier for CBM drillers todischarge pollution without having to treatthe water. Typically in Wyoming, this hasresulted in downgrading many streams fromClass 3 (protected for aquatic life) to Class 4(appropriate for industrial use and livestockwatering). But these UAAs may bechallenged, if appealed in a timely fashion.

Get streams declared off limits. The aimhere is, even if you can’t keep out CBMdischarges altogether, maybe there are somerivers or streams where you can demonstratethat they are too precious, too clean, toooutstanding to let the CBM drillers despoil itwith their pollution. This worked inWyoming, at least for a while, with theTongue River, which is quite pristine andwould be significantly degraded if massiveamounts of CBM pollution were to bedischarged into the river. Your allies in thisfight may be downstream water irrigators ora downstream state that does not want tohave the upstream state’s water pollutionfoisted upon it.

Get a downstream state to insist that theupstream state to stop polluting. Asrequired by the CWA, a downstream statecan object to any NPDES permit issued by astate on the ground that it will affect thequality of the stream in the downstreamstate. If a downstream state objects to theissuance of a permit, the U.S. EPAAdministrator can block the issuance of anystate-issued permit that is outside theguidelines and requirements of the CleanWater Act. See 33 U.S.C. §1342(d)(2).

In large measure, environmentalorganizations often find themselves involvedin a rear-guard action, trying to enforceexisting laws, in the face of an increasinggovernmental determination to look theother way. Administrative appeals andlitigation are the main tools, but not theonly ones. There is a need, moreover, to bestrategic and try to cover the field in asweeping fashion, that will have a largeimpact on the problem. Ultimately,environmental organizations will face anuphill battle, but one well worth taking on,considering the massive environmentalimpacts of the development contemplatedby CBM drillers.


he Powder River is one of the lastfree flowing prairie rivers in theUnited States. European

immigrants characterized the Powder Riveras “a mile wide and an inch deep, too thin toplow and too thick to drink.” Dr. DanielGustafson, a stream ecologist based inBozeman, Montana, described the PowderRiver as, “the best interior big, sandy riveron the continent.” The Powder Riverecosystem is remarkable in that it stillsupports an intact native aquaticcommunity. Several species are so rare thatthey are listed by Wyoming Game and Fishas species of concern, and some have beenconsidered for protection under theEndangered Species Act.

Threatening the Powder River and the landand water around her are the rich reserves ofcoal that underlie the Powder River Basin—the source of one of the most extensivecoalbed methane gas (CBM) developmentsin the country. Over the next ten years theBureau of Land Management predicts that51,000 CBM wells (35,000 new wells) will beproducing, and discharging as a “wasteproduct,” several million barrels of water perday. In order to release the methane fromthe coal, the coal seam must be “dewatered,”as water pressure prevents methane frommigrating. During the dewatering phase,enormous volumes of water, averagingnearly 15,000 gallons per day per well, aredischarged into dry stream beds orreservoirs. This torrent of produced watercauses soil erosion, stream sedimentation,vegetation death and water qualitydegradation. The primary contaminants aresalinity, arsenic, barium, manganese, iron,aluminum and radium 226.

The Powder River Basin Resource Counciland the Wyoming Outdoor Council havetaken the lead on this issue, workingcontinuously over the past five years to reinin the development and stop the damagefrom CBM water discharges.

We fought for enforcement of the CleanWater Act—from the simple requirementthat industry test for more than fourpollutants in the discharge water, tosubmitting a petition to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to revoke the Wyomingpermitting authority.

For the last three years, we have reviewedCBM discharge permits that are issued eachmonth, protesting those that we feel aremost harmful to waterways and aquaticecosystems.

We hired specialists to analyze the impactsthat large volumes of CBM discharge waterwill have on fisheries and vegetation in thePowder River and her tributaries. Oneconclusion of a study by ConfluenceConsulting found that “[e]valuations ofconditions in the Powder River providedcause for concern for the persistence of thisrare and special ecosystem.” The reportprovided impetus for the Wyoming Gameand Fish Department to conduct their ownanalysis of the aquatic life in the river,which has led to badly needed limits onCBM discharges.

Finally, we work closely with ranchers andlandowners along the Powder River and hertributaries, to document damage to soilsand vegetation in order to limit thedamaging CBM discharges flowing into theriver. As a part of this effort, we organized awatershed monitoring group along ClearCreek (the primary tributary of the Powder)to gather critical baseline data before CBMdevelopment occurs in that watershed, inthe hopes of keeping the stream pristine.

The state and federal government haveturned a blind eye to the problems thisbooming industry has created. Thesolutions continue to lie in the hands of thepeople who are fighting to protect what willultimately be our Powder River legacy.

Coalbed Methane Development

Threatens Native Prairie River

T by Jill Morrison

Powder River BasinResource CouncilCommunity Organizer

www.powderriverbasin.org

CASE STUDY


Resources & ReferencesThe Center for Science and Public Participationprovides objective research, education and technicaladvice to grassroots groups, non-governmentalorganizations, regulatory agencies, businesses andindigenous communities on natural resource issues,especially those related to mining.www.csp2.org/

Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated toprotecting communities and the environment fromthe destructive impacts of mineral development inthe United States and worldwide. Numerouspublications, reports and articles are available online.www.earthworksaction.org/

MiningWatch Canada is a pan-Canadian initiativesupported by environmental, social justice, Aboriginal andlabor organizations from across the country. It addressesthe urgent need for a coordinated public interest responseto the threats to public health, water and air quality, fishand wildlife habitat and community interests posed byirresponsible mineral policies and practices in Canada andaround the world.www.miningwatch.ca/

The Office of Surface Mining’s mission is to carry out therequirements of the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act in cooperation with States and Tribes. OSMprepares an annual report that describes the oversight ofState programs and describes coal mining activitiesnationally. The report—available online at:www.osmre.gov/rep.htm—includes the states that regulatecoal mining activities and other useful information.www.osm.gov/

The Powder River Basin Resource Council is committedto the empowerment of people through communityorganizing. They have a webpage specific to the addressingthe impacts of Coalbed Methane Gas mining.http://www.powderriverbasin.org/

SkyTruth is a nonprofit organization that uses remotesensing and digital mapping to educate the public andpolicymakers about the environmental consequences ofhuman activities—such as mining, and to holdcorporations and governments to higher standards ofaccountability around the globe.www.skytruth.org/

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 can be viewed online at:www.osmre.gov/smcra.htm

The Toxics Release Inventory gives citizensinformation about toxic releases in and aroundtheir communities. With this informationcitizens can encourage mining companies toreduce their toxic releases and/or agree to morevigorous oversight of their mines.www.epa.gov/tri/

Westerners for Responsible Mining is analliance of western (and non-western) residentsand organizations who cherish our ruralcommunities, landscapes and resources. They arededicated to protecting communities, waterresources and special places from the adverseimpacts of irresponsible mining practices and alack of corporate accountability in the hardrockmining industry.www.bettermines.org/wrm/

The Appalachian Center for the Economy &the Environment is a regional law and policyorganization. The Center works together withindividual citizens and grassroots citizens’groups to clarify, analyze and act on theenvironmental and economic issues that affectcommunities.www.appalachian-center.org/

The Wyoming Outdoor Council is Wyoming’slargest statewide conservation organization andthe state’s leading advocate for natural resourcesconservation and environmental protection.WOC’s work encompasses a broad range ofconservation issues that affect Wyoming’senvironmental integrity: public lands protection,state environmental policy, wildlife and itshabitat, oil and gas development, mining andmine reclamation, watersheds and rivers andnuclear and toxic wastes.www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/


SIGN ME UP!Annual Partner Dues are only $100

LET RIVER NETWORK HELP YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD ABOVE WATER.

Join the River Network Partnership and connect to the informationand resources you need to stay afloat!

• Access our River Source Information Center with the 1-800 hotline: Let ushelp you research a particular issue and put you in touch with the necessarycontacts and resources through one-on-one consultations.

• Log onto our Partner-only website: Browse the updated postings of fundingsources, upcoming events and trainings, and download river clipart.

• Receive the myriad of Partner benefits, including subscriptions to RiverVoices and River Fundraising Alert, a copy of the Directory of Funding Sourcesfor River and Watershed Conservation Organizations, and a copy of eitherStarting Up: A Handbook for New River and Watershed Organizations orHow to Save a River…and more!

❑ Organizational Partner ❑ Agency/Tribal Partner ❑ Individual Partner

Name Phone ( )

Org/Agency E-mail

Address

City State Zip

❑ My check is enclosed

Please charge my credit card: ❑ VISA ❑ MasterCard

Card# Exp. Date

Signature/Name on card:You will receive your initial set of Partner materials, including your choice of: (check one)

❑ How to Save a River ❑ Starting Up: A Handbook for New River and Watershed Organizations❑ River Talk! ❑ Listening to Watersheds ❑ Testing the Waters

Please make your check payable to River Network and return this form to: River Network, 520 SW 6th Ave., Suite 1130, Ptld., OR 97204-1511 Phone: 503/241-3506

River Network works to support you and your needs. We provide training and technical assistance to our Partner groups. River Network does not promote legislation or represent your organization in legal matters.

www.rivernetwork.org

520 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1130Portland, Oregon 97204-1511

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Documents

Impacts of Mining on Rivers - River Network1 Impacts of Mining on Rivers by Paul Koberstein 3 From the President 5 Coal Mining: Bringing the Mountains Down by Margaret Janes 8 CASE