sign in sign up
<<
Home , Coal mining, Powder River Basin, Produced water, Water pollution, Water quality

A Network Publication Volume 15 | Number 1 - 2005

Mines lay to the nation’s Impacts of on Rivers By Paul Koberstein, Editor, Cascadia Times

ther than , almost everything we . More than 66,500 documented sources of O consume or manufacture in this country mine drainage in have polluted an contains dug from the ground. estimate 17,000 km of streams. In addition to these Many of these products improve our , chemical disturbances, building, mine site providing for transportation, and household and strip mining have impaired the products. Yet extracting from mines poses physical of streams adjacent to mining sites serious, long-term threats to neighboring through channelization or sedimentation. communities and waterways. The combined effect of chemical and physical Mines release dangerous substances such “Hardrock minerals” refer to stressors on stream as , , copper, cyanide, “locatable” in rock, such as is a decline or that are harmful to , , and uncommon in health— and humans. Many also leak varieties of sand, stone and gravel loss of (fish, into waterways, killing almost every living claimed and developed under the General of 1872. But macroinvertebrates, thing downstream. not all mining is hardrock. Coal, oil, algae). Acid Mining The has yet to address the , potash, , Drainage (AMD) has impacts of mining in any comprehensive sulphur and other nonmetalliferous eliminated fish way. Most mining operations are governed minerals are considered “leasable” completely from some minerals. Common varieties of sand, by the General Mining Law, which has not rivers and streams, and stone, gravel and other rocks are others support only a been amended or updated since 1872. The considered “salable” minerals. mining industry must comply with the Leasable and salable minerals have few acid tolerant . Clean and Clean Air Acts, National their own sets of laws, The water in the rivers is Act, state and impacts. acidic and in the worst polluted streams can reclamation standards where they exist, Source: USDA, Wildland – Issue 4 / Winter 2005 and federal and state statutes relating to cause skin irritation to the handling and disposal of certain toxic people who , as well as other laws. Critics, however, argue inadvertently enter the water. The river stains concrete that these general environmental requirements are not floodwalls red and the bed of many streams are a solid adequate to assure reclamation of mined areas. crust of orange or white. The corrosive acid also attacks culverts and bridge abutments, resulting in a shorter than normal span for those types of Since the early 1900s, coal mining in the Appalachian . region has contaminated streams with acidic waters and metallic sediments. According to the U.S. EPA, Hardrock Mines runoff and drainage from both active and inactive Thousands of historical hardrock (gold, copper and coal mine sites are contaminating mid-Atlantic zinc) mines exist across the Western United States. streams with acidic and metallic waters and Mine dumps, tailing piles and unmined

cont. on page 4 NATIONAL OFFICE CONTENTS 520 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1130 • Portland, OR 97204-1511 503/241-3506 • fax: 503/241-9256 1 Impacts of Mining on Rivers [email protected] • www.rivernetwork.org by Paul Koberstein D.C. OFFICE 3814 Albemarle Street NW • Washington, D.C. 20016 202/364-2550 • fax: 202/364-2520 3 From the President [email protected] 5 Coal Mining: Bringing the Mountains Down VERMONT OFFICE 153 State Street • Montpelier, VT 05602 by Margaret Janes 802/223-3840 • fax: 802/223-6227 [email protected] 8 CASE STUDY: Cleaning Up Abandoned Coal Mines on Decker Creek by Evan Hanson River Network is a national, nonprofit 9 Hard Rock Mining: organization whose mission is to help The Golden Age of River Conservation by Bonnie Gerstring people understand, protect and restore 11 CASE STUDY: Protecting the Red River rivers and their watersheds. from by Brian Shields 13 Voices from the Field RIVER NETWORK BOARD OF TRUSTEES Clarence Alexander Dianne Dillonridgley 18 Guidelines for Aggregate Mining Catherine Armington Don Elder Adrienne T. Atwell George S. Hawkins 19 Strategies for Fighting CBM Sally Bethea Paul Paryski by Steve Jones David Borden Elizabeth Raisbeck William G. F. Botzow, II Marc Taylor 21 CASE STUDY: Coalbed Rob R. Buirgy Laurene von Klan Development Threatens Native Prairie River Kimberly N. Charles James T. Waring, Chair by Jill Morrison Jim Compton, Trustee Emeritus James R. Wheaton 22 Resources & References RIVER NETWORK STAFF 23 River Network Partnership Matthew Burke Andrea Korsen Michael Curnes Katherine Luscher River Voices is a forum for information exchange among river and watershed Geoff Dates Margaret McCoy groups across the country. River Network welcomes your comments and sugges- tions. River Network grants permission and encourages sharing and reprinting of Steve Dickens Deb Merchant information from River Voices, unless the is marked as copyrighted. Please Don Elder Pat Munoz credit River Network when you reprint articles and send the editor a copy. Jean A. Hamilla Susan Schwartz Additional copies and back issues are available from our national office. Gayle Killam James P. Sullivan Editors: Katherine Luscher, Gayle Killam Karli Kondo Wendy Wilson Editorial Assistance: Jean A. Hamilla Alanna Woodward Design & Layout: Greer Graphics

2 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 From the President

ver the past two hundred years, few things have been more O harmful to more watersheds than irresponsible mining and drilling practices. credit: Collection Network © River Nineteenth century in California and Oregon ruined thousands of streams, destroying habitat and leaving a toxic legacy that lingers in many streams to this day. Coal mining in Appalachia turned thousands of streams black for decades and left acid drainage that still makes it impossible for many to support aquatic life. Hardrock mining in most of the Rocky Mountain states and many others produced runoff that rendered streams unfit to be a public drinking . Poorly sited and poorly regulated oil and gas drilling, like many of the activities already mentioned, harmed both surface 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-stream gravel mining operations, actually destroyed not just streams’ beneficial uses, but streams themselves, by drastically altering their physical characteristics. Modern regulations and social norms have led to the elimination of some of the worst mining and drilling practices and to significant improvement of many of the rest. Still, it will take many decades to finish doing what we can to deal with the legacy of two centuries of irresponsible mining and drilling practices. It will also take time to improve the operation of ongoing operations to the point that they have negligible impact. In the meantime, we must also address new practices, such as coalbed methane drilling and “mountaintop removal” coal mining, that dwarf most previous drilling and mining activities in scale, scope and potential impact. When I first began my watershed conservation work, I often felt that we were working against overwhelming odds. Over time, however, I learned that with science, law and public opinion on our side, there was virtually nothing we could not accomplish. With this issue of River Voices we hope to make it easier for the watershed protection community to solve some of the most daunting problems affecting our waters today.

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 3 Impacts of Mining on Rivers, cont.

cont. from page 1 deposits can than spilled into , rivers and contaminate the Acid drainage is a major streams. Unfortunately in the challenge to be addressed…It surrounding , the industry has been estimated to cost watershed when between…$2-35 billion to convinced the Corps of Engineers weathering of remediate in North America. that this was not necessary. exposed minerals Source: Mining Engineering, December 1998 causes acid drainage What Can Be Done? and metals-enriched As citizens, we have tools provided waters. According to the U.S. EPA, mine by the and other state and waste has contaminated more than 40 federal laws that are helping to address percent of the headwaters of western these problems. In , citizens watersheds. forced their state to limit selenium discharges in scores of mining National Other hardrock Elimination System mines produce (NPDES) permits. Citizens also won a gypsum, uranium, landmark lawsuit in 2003 when a federal molybdenum, judge prohibited West Virginia from

rdt V. Stockman/www.ohvec.orgCredit: gravel and exempting mining activities from phosphate, and complying with antidegradation rules. can pose significant hazards In , citizens won another major as well. A victory in January 2005 when a federal molybdenum judge ruled that the Corps’ permit for the mine in central Wyoming coalbed methane operators was Mountaintop coal illegal. As the judge ruled, “[m]ineral mining in southern Idaho, located within critical habitat for West Virginia endangered wild Chinook salmon, has been resources should be developed responsibly, producing acid drainage at least since 1987. keeping in mind those other values that are so important to the people of Wyoming Coalbed Methane Mining such as preservation of Wyoming’s unique The extraction of methane from Wyoming’s and lifestyle.” An estimated coal beds has caused significant damage in 12,000 to 15,000 producing gas wells in the Powder River Basin. Coalbed methane Wyoming won’t be affected by the ruling, operators water from to get at but an additional 35,000 planned wells the methane. The Army Corps of Engineers could be. issued a dredge and fill permit under Section As this issue of River Voices reveals, massive 404 of the Clean Water Act allowing the loopholes in the law or outright violations discharge of 1.4 trillion gallons of water still frustrate citizen efforts to protect their containing high levels of sodium, arsenic, own watersheds all across the country. Yet, iron, barium and into the as we’ll see, the Clean Water Act and other Powder River and its tributaries over the By the year laws empower them to take needed action. 2000 CBM projects’ life. Unique fish and aquatic accounted for communities in Wyoming’s streams are Paul Koberstein is co-founder and editor of approximately threatened by the polluted water. Ranchers Cascadia Times. Paul began his career in 7.5% of natural have seen their lands flooded, their water Wisconsin, and was a reporter for The Oregonian gas production rights eliminated and their fields poisoned. from 1981 through 1992. He has won numerous in the U.S. state, regional and national journalism awards. In other river basins, the polluted water www.times.org Source: USGS (2000) must be reinjected into the ground rather

4 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 Coal Mining Bringing the Mountains Down

aria Gunnoe has lived all her life 1,200 miles of streams (more than half the by Margaret Janes M in the southern mountains of length of the ) with mining Senior Policy Analyst central Appalachia near the town waste and have leveled over 1,500 square Appalachian Center for the Economy & of Bob White in Boone County, West miles of forested mountainous the Environment Virginia. Both her Cherokee and (approximately the area of the entire state Appalachian heritage taught her to value and of Rhode Island). The federal government care for the bountiful natural world around estimates that this damage is likely to her. As children, she and her brother earned double over the next ten years. money catching bait to sell to local MTR and associated valley fills in central fisherman. They spent their summers along Appalachia constitute the greatest the river and in the forested mountains near moving activity in the United States. Nearly their home, hunting for “molly moochers” 20% of the landmass of some southern (mushrooms), picking berries and fishing. West Virginia counties has already been Growing up, she knew in the back of her flattened by surface mines, converted to mind that was taking a toll useless scrubland, and will remain unable to on the streams and near her home. support the growth of trees for hundreds of Then several years ago the destruction of years. mountaintop removal came right to Maria’s front door. Torrential waters, Coal Mining and the Clean Water Act exacerbated by mining and timber from these huge mines is operations, tore through her front yard, supposed to be regulated through two killed her dog, destroyed her barn, and major Clean Water Act (CWA) permits: a converted her driveway into a raging river. water pollution discharge permit (NPDES Maria resolved to fight back and discovered permit) and a permit allowing mining she was one of many coalfield residents no waste to be dumped into streams (404 longer willing to pay the price of our permit). Some of the worst water pollution nation’s thirst for “cheap energy.” She caused by coal mining operations could be learned that mountaintop removal coal moderated if such permits complied with mining was destroying central Appalachia, existing laws. taking a devastating toll. However, every permit issued in West The Devastation Virginia and that we have analyzed over the past several years fails to Mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR) comply with state and federal CWA laws. destroys the environment on a scale that is According to a former West Virginia unprecedented in this country’s history. Coal permitting chief, not a single permit companies actually blast hundreds of feet off complies with all CWA requirements. the tops of mountains—literally removing entire mountain ranges—and then dump Water Pollution Discharge millions of tons of resultant “waste” into Permits and Antidegradation adjacent valleys, burying streams and anything else in the way. Vast, flattened The backbone of the CWA is the NPDES moonscapes now replace what had permit, but control of coal mining previously been vibrant and ecologically pollution through NPDES permits became productive regions. problematic in the early 1980s when the federal government established minimum Large-scale coal mining operations in central water pollution control technologies for Appalachia have permanently buried over coal mines. These “technologies” amounted cont. on page 6

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 5 Coal Mining, cont.

cont. from page 5 to little more than digging holes in the Clean Water Act’s antidegradation ground to catch contaminated run off and provisions was an issue in our initial legal letting nature take its course. Incredibly, challenge of MTR. In 2001, after years of federal guidelines for limits on specific from the Center and other do not apply when it , so environmental groups, West Virginia finally runoff from mining operations is nearly instituted an antidegradation plan. Not unregulated at the very time when mines are surprisingly, this plan exempted numerous most likely to pollute—during rainfall. activities from CWA antidegradation review, including some related to MTR. This weak federal leadership leaves a lot of That long list of exemptions became the room for mischief when states actually issue basis of our national precedent-setting NPDES permits for coal mining. Only antidegradation lawsuit victory in 2003, through submitting numerous comments, when a federal judge prohibited West appealing permits and publishing a report Virginia from exempting most of the critiquing West Virginia’s Clean Water Act activities cited in the complaint. compliance record, have we convinced West Antidegradation regulations have finally Virginia to issue more protective NPDES been implemented in the state, leading to permits for hundreds of mining discharges. dramatic changes in NPDES permits for For example, our first legal victory against new coal mines and other activities. MTR (in partnership with Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and many coalfield residents The Coal Industry and groups) led to a broad federal study of and Standards its impacts, which among other things The coal industry has not been silent as revealed toxic levels of selenium coming environmental advocates have become Mountaintop from MTR mines with valley fills. Eleven increasingly successful in tightening water removal/valley coalfield streams were eventually listed on fill coal mining discharge permits. “King Coal” still rules in in southern West Virginia’s impaired stream list because West Virginia and, with a chokehold on the West Virginia in of selenium pollution. Through numerous state’s legislature, is proceeding to unravel May 2003 comments, letters and a high profile mining water quality standards—the foundation of permit appeal, we protective NPDES permits. One by one, forced West Virginia to standards for iron, manganese, aluminum limit selenium and selenium—all important to coal—have discharges in scores of become targets for the industry’s “creative mining NPDES science” and political maneuvers on both permits. The next the state and federal levels. For example, the challenge is to compel U.S. EPA in a politically tainted move has the state to actually recently initiated changes to the federal monitor and enforce selenium standard. Leading scientists say those permits. the proposed change is “fatally flawed” and States are required to will allow up to 40 percent of fish to die.

rdt V. Stockman/www.ohvec.orgCredit: weigh and balance the public welfare against 404 Permits private gain when The other major CWA permit required for issuing CWA permits. coal mines is meant to control the filling of West Virginia’s failure streams with mining waste. The federal to comply with the government has generally required stream

6 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 fills to have a constructive purpose, such as a 404 permits that housing development or shopping center — require site-specific and specifically not be used for waste environmental disposal. scrutiny and seek public input on In our Kentucky MTR legal victory, the judge each activity. applied that principle to ban most valley Predictably, the fills—federal agencies had been ignoring the Bush law for years. Clearly, coal companies were administration using streams strictly for waste disposal and appealed this not for any constructive purpose. The decision. The appeal notoriously conservative 4th Circuit Court of will be heard in the Appeals eventually overturned that ruling, 4th Circuit but the Bush Administration had already sometime in 2005. reacted quickly and dramatically to our Meanwhile, we filed initial victory by changing the definition of an identical legal “fill” to include waste material. This gave the challenge of the green light to continued approval for coal Credit: Center Appalachian Corps’ illegal use of companies to bury large sections of streams the nationwide with coal waste. In response, Christopher permit in its three Kentucky districts. Large mountaintop Shays (R-CT) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ) removal mines, like introduced the Clean Water Act Protection the one pictured Endnote above, loom over Act of 2003, which would prohibit the As powerful industries continue to attack small communities dumping of mine waste into streams by predisposing them key environmental laws and use “creative to devastating reasserting that waste material cannot be science” to promote self-serving . Maria used to fill streams. Congress has not taken environmental policies, it becomes Gunnoe’s home is action on the bill. located in a small increasingly important for citizens to valley like this one. Nearly all of the MTR valley fills authorized advocate for environmental protection. in West Virginia and Kentucky prior to July State and federal environmental agencies of 2004 were illegally rubber-stamped by the are not up to the task because they lack Army Corps of Engineers through a funding, staff, expertise and political streamlined permitting process called support. Polluters frequently take advantage Nationwide Permit #21. The Nationwide of these agency gaps by providing the data program was intended to allow quick or expertise needed to establish policy permitting for minor stream disturbances favorable to industry. As advocates, we need that would have only a minimal impact, both to join Maria Gunnoe and arm ourselves individually and cumulatively, in a with the facts and the law to counterbalance watershed. The Corps’ abuse of Nationwide the self-serving influence of the coal barons 21 was based on the conclusion that burying and other corporate polluters who intend to 1200 miles of streams has only a minimal rob us of a sustainable future. and inconsequential impact on Central The Appalachian Center is a regional law and Appalachia’s rivers and streams. policy center providing legal and policy assistance free of charge to low-income individuals, grass- In July 2004, we won a legal challenge of the roots organizations and local communities in Corps’ abuse of nationwide permits in MTR precedent-setting litigation designed to protect the operations in West Virginia. This victory environment and the health of central Appalachia. forced mining companies to seek individual www.appalachian-center.org

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 7 CASE Cleaning up Abandoned Coal Mines STUDY in the Deckers Creek Watershed

by Evan Hanson eckers Creek drains about 64 (DEP) and federal Natural Resources West Virginia D square miles of scenic West Conservation Service (NRCS) each pledged Rivers Coalition Virginia hills and small towns to contribute $5 million toward acid mine www.wvrivers.org before joining the Monongahela River in drainage remediation in the watershed. DEP Morgantown, home of West Virginia is allocating money from the Abandoned University. Since 1995, Friends of Deckers Mine Trust Fund, which originates Creek has been working to clean up the from a per-ton tax on mined coal. In the creek, which still suffers from acid mine first such project of its kind in West drainage from old abandoned coal mines. Virginia, NRCS is applying Public Law 566 Many parts of the creek are nearly devoid of funds toward acid mine drainage life due to the iron, aluminum and remediation. In the past, PL 566 funds have manganese discharged from the acid- been used to build dams. producing Upper Freeport coal seam. Abandoned coal mines are considered to be The organization has nonpoint sources of several ongoing pollution; therefore, DEP programs designed to has started allocating Clean characterize the Water Act Section 319 problem and to find funds (for nonpoint source solutions. Through our pollution control) to help Clean Creek Program, clean up these sites in the we monitor thirteen Deckers Creek watershed sites across the and in other parts of the watershed each quarter state. for water , Earthworks Credit: One more funding source each fall for fish and has proven essential: the each spring for benthic federal Office of Surface macroinvertebrates. We Mining offers grants of up then publish annual to $100,000 to watershed State of the Creek groups to help pay to clean reports to track changes A dead bird in an acidic pond at the Yerington Mine in Nevada. up water pollution from over time and to help abandoned mines. In 2004, Friends of target remediation funds toward the most Deckers Creek secured its first of these important priorities. Watershed Cooperative Agreements, and We also chair Deckers Creek Restoration this year we plan to apply for several more. Team meetings that include Friends of Even in a watershed as small as Deckers Deckers Creek, state and federal agency staff, Creek, it has taken years to collect enough university researchers and local officials. At information to identify the impaired these meetings, we coordinate our cleanup segments and to find all of the abandoned efforts and agree on priorities and coal mine discharges that cause these appropriate technologies for each site. These impairments. It takes just as long to develop meetings allow us to avoid duplication of the partnerships needed to build effort and find new ways to leverage scarce momentum for a cleanup, and it takes funding. patience to work with agencies to make the We’ve been fortunate that the West Virginia funding flow. Department of Environmental Protection

8 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 Hard Rock Mining The Golden Age of River Conservation

lthough mining often conjures snowmelt or rainfall can leach metals, like by Bonnie Gerstring A images of a crusty old miner arsenic, copper, cadmium, and zinc, Earthworks with a pickaxe, modern mining out of the excavated rock. If left www.earthworksaction.org is no longer a pick and shovel affair. Instead, unmanaged, contaminated water can seep large corporations use toxic chemicals, into or be carried blasting agents and earth moving equipment downstream. These metals may play havoc capable of altering entire . with fish, causing anything from chronic Consequently, today’s mines generate reproductive failure to outright fish-kills. enormous volumes of waste—more than any Metals are generally harmful to humans, other extraction industry. For wildlife and sometimes livestock as well. example, only 0.00004 % of all the raw materials used in the gold mining process Release of become a final product (refined gold)—the Processing rest (99.99996%) is waste. Chemicals Much of this waste, which is stored in vast Another frequent piles or behind large impoundments, water quality contains minerals, such as arsenic, cadmium, impact results from copper, zinc or mercury that are harmful to the release of fish, wildlife and humans. According to the processing EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, hardrock chemicals (e.g., mining is the nation’s top toxic polluter, with cyanide, sulfuric 1.3 billion pounds of toxics released in 2002 acid, etc.). For alone. So, it’s not surprising that mining example, cyanide is often results in significant impacts to water often used in gold quality. Here’s how it happens: mining to dissolve the tiny particles of Acid Mine Drainage gold from the Acid mine drainage is the proverbial surrounding rock. Pandora’s box. It occurs when sulfide These chemicals Credit: Earthworks minerals, unearthed during mining, are can enter streams exposed to and water to form from spills, leaks, processing pond Acid mine drainage from an sulfuric acid. The acid then leaches other overflows, impoundment failures and metals out of the surrounding rock. It is a pipeline breaks. Spilled cyanide from a at Fisher Creek, deadly combination. If it isn’t captured and mine has appeared in the water supplies of treated, it may drain into nearby streams and adjacent homes. rivers or seep into groundwater. For Clean Water Act example, acid mine drainage from the The Clean Water Act is a critical tool for Summitville mine in Colorado destroyed all any concerned citizen. Here are a few aquatic life in 18 miles of the Alamosa river. different ways to use the CWA to better Not all mines generate acid. When it does protect water in your region from the occur, acid mine drainage is generally a impacts of mining. severe, long-term problem, continuing for hundreds or even thousands of years. Discharge Permits (NPDES) Just about every part of a mine (e.g., open Metals pit, waste rock pile, impoundment, Even if a mine isn’t acid-generating, pipes, processing ponds, etc.) is considered cont. on page 10

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 9 Hardrock Mining, cont. cont. from page 9 a point action. If the agency does not take action source and against a polluter, citizens can invoke the requires an “citizen-suit” provision of the CWA. This NPDES allows individuals or organizations to file discharge suit against the company after providing a permit, if it 60-day notice to the company and agency to discharges to give them an opportunity to take action. surface The two primary types of citizen suits are: water 1) for mines that are discharging pollution

rdt ..EPA U.S. Credit: (streams, in violation of the amounts allowed in the rivers, permit; or 2) for mines that are discharging etc.). A mine without required permits. is also Acid mine drainage required to obtain a permit, if it discharges Impaired Waters List collection pond at the to groundwater that feeds directly to surface The Clean Water Act requires each state to Summitville compile a list, called the 303(d) list, of all site in Colorado. water (i.e., if it is hydrologically connected). This is more difficult to prove, but most water bodies that are already too polluted to courts have upheld this requirement. The meet various basic beneficial uses (e.g., public has at least 30-days to comment on a swimming, drinking, , etc.). The list draft permit before the final discharge includes a description of each water body, permit is issued. This is an important the problem (s) and the type of opportunity to weigh in with site specific activity that caused the pollution. The state information. is then required to develop a cleanup plan for these impaired streams. In the Citizens should be particularly wary of meantime, the permitting agency should mines that claim to be “no-discharge” not issue a new permit to any operation facilities. Mines often develop problems over that would contribute more of the same EARTHWORKS time, resulting in water quality impacts that pollutant. For example, a mine should not is a national were not predicted at the time of permitting. be issued a discharge permit, if it would organization Thus, it’s important to ensure that extensive discharge arsenic into a stream that has dedicated to monitoring is included in any mine’s protecting been listed as an impaired stream on the discharge permit so that impacts can be communities and 303(d) list due to arsenic pollution. This the environment caught as early as possible. decision was issued in U.S. District Court in against the adverse Even for mines with discharge permits, it’s Montana (Friends of the Wild Swan v. U.S. impacts of mining. important to regularly “watchdog” the EPA, et al., CV 97-35-M-DWM, District of For assistance with mine’s monitoring reports (usually Montana, Missoula Division). mining issues, submitted monthly) to determine whether To learn more about mining or to do contact the the amount of pollution reported exceeds Washington D.C. something to combat mining’s impacts to the amount allowed in the permit. If so, office at clean water, go to www.bettermines.org 202/887-1872, citizens can initiate a complaint, and the and join Westerners for Responsible Mining the Missoula, permitting authority is required to —a campaign to better protect the Montana office at investigate and provide a written response. environment from the adverse impacts of 406/549-7361, Citizen’s Suit mining. or the Reno, Nevada office at Too often it takes citizen action to get 775/324-6115. government agencies to take enforcement

10 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 CASE Protecting the Red River STUDY from Acid Mine Drainage

ince its inception in 1988, In response to the efforts of Amigos Bravos, by Brian Shields S Amigos Bravos has been active the U.S. EPA re-issued an NPDES discharge Executive Director on mining issues. This activity permit to Molycorp in 2000 for discharges Amigos Bravos www.amigosbravos.org has focused on the pollution of the Red River to the Red River. This permit required the from numerous tailings spills and other company to collect and treat over 7,000 tons consequences of operations at the Molycorp of pollutants annually discharged into the molybdenum mine in Questa, New river. Mexico—the largest hardrock mine on the The permit addressed Amigos Bravo’s Río Grande watershed. position that acid mine drainage (AMD), Amigos Bravos’ successful campaign to originating from the 328 million tons of resuscitate the Red River—once a blue- waste rock sitting next to the Red River, ribbon trout —has required a two- must cease. The acid mine drainage, which pronged effort focused on the federal Clean consists of aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, Water Act and New Mexico state ground chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, water regulations. molybdenum, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, and , migrates Short-term Goal through groundwater to seeps that Amigos Bravos believed that the first step in discharge directly into the Red River. The restoring the Red River was to stop acid mine Red River below the Molycorp mine is New drainage Mexico’s most heavily originating at the metal-polluted river. Molycorp molybdenum According to EPA’s mine from calculations, the new entering the river. NPDES permit would Since 1988 eliminate 15,220,205 Amigos Bravos pounds per year of has participated metals, sulfide and in numerous total dissolved solids regulatory from discharges into hearings and filed the Red River. This is a two lawsuits to total of 7,601 tons of make that case. pollutants that will no longer be accumulating In 1995, Amigos Bravos sued Molycorp (a annually in the Red River. This pollution subsidiary of UNOCAL) for acid mine does not stop at the Red River, but migrates drainage under the citizens’ provision of the into acequias—which provide water for Clean Water Act. With a team of experts, crops, kitchen gardens and livestock—and Amigos Bravos fought Molycorp in and out eventually to the Río Grande, a proposed of hearings in which the mine persistently future source of for denied their responsibilities and covered up Albuquerque and Santa Fe. their role in the degradation of the Red River. In 1998, Amigos Bravos sued the EPA Long-Term Goal for not fulfilling its mandatory duty, and The second step in restoring the Red River those actions bore fruit. is to stop acid mine drainage from being created. This can only be done by

cont. on page 12 Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 11 Protecting the Red River, cont.

cont. on page 11 reclaiming the 328 million tons of waste rock piles in such a way that and snow do not reach the highly mineralized crushed rock. Unfortunately, the NPDES permitting process deals only with the interception and treatment of polluted water, not with stopping pollution from happening in the first place. At the same time that EPA issued the NPDES permit to Molycorp, Amigos Bravos was working with two New Mexico State agencies with statutory authority to require the eventual restoration of the mine to protect water quality after the mine

closes—which could be 40 years Colorado Pueblo, AIRPHOTO, Credit: from now. On January 15, 2002 Amigos Bravos, Molycorp, the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, and the New Mexico Environment Department reached agreement regarding Aerial view of the Molycorp mine Molycorp’s closeout plan under three • the establishment of a Technical separate permits—a mining permit and two Review Committee to offer the groundwater discharge permits. The three public and State and Federal agencies permits required the issuance of financial the opportunity of reviewing assurance bonds totaling $157 million to ongoing plans and studies at the cover the costs of clean-up. mine; The permits also established some • a revision of the permit if wildlife is precedent-setting concessions not required being negatively impacted; and by state law—including: • partial reclamation of the open pit. • the withdrawal of 2,247 acres from future mining; Given these successes, Amigos Bravos is now focused on ensuring that the permits • the immediate start of reclamation are enforced and that outstanding issues instead of waiting until the mine affecting the Red River are addressed. One closes—Molycorp has committed to of those issues includes the possibility of spend a minimum of $3 million a improving water quality on the Red River year on reclamation activities; by finding ways to augment flows through • a large and comprehensive mine water. revegetation test plot program that creates 100 acres of test plots;

12 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 Mining is an complex issue affecting river and watershed conservation FIELD THE FROM VOICES organizations throughout the country. Mining, from hardrock to coal and from gravel to , is threatening the quality of our waters. Below are a few examples of how organizations are addressing various types of mining occurring in their watersheds.

The Kentucky Waterways Alliance (KWA) has been involved recently in several mine-related water issues.We regularly comment on new mine discharge permits—working to try to strengthen permit limits and biological monitoring requirements.We have identified several permits in which the state 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 or instream impoundments.The majority of 404 valley fill permits in Kentucky are general or nationwide permits (NWP 21) and do not involve public notice, opportunity for comments, a public hearing or an Environmental Impact Statement. In January 2005, KWA joined Kentucky Riverkeeper and Kentuckians for 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 permits alone 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 been severely impaired by the effects of coal mining. Of key importance at this point in time is the The Taku River is the largest unprotected status of the Surface Mining Control and and undeveloped watershed on North Reclamation Act. This federal program is America’s Pacific .The river is running on an extension until June 30, 2005 threatened by a proposal to re-open the and is the program that taxes each ton of coal closed Tulsequah Chief mine and to build a produced today to address the pollution of 100-mile access road through this virtually pre-regulated mining of yesterday (before roadless watershed. On January 5, 1977). It is extremely important that this 2005, the Canadian federal government program be renewed. issued a draft approval and we are now trying to beat that back. Friends of the Cheat (WV) www.cheat.org The Stikine/Iskut region is seeing growth in mineral exploration, as well as threats from oil and gas exploration and coalbed methane development.Two major mines, Galore Creek and Red Chris, are AMD&ART has been working with the citizens already in the planning stages.The Galore of a small coal mining town,Vintondale, Creek project is especially worrisome Pennsylvania to artfully transform 35 acres of because it calls for a major industrial access mine-scarred land that includes an acid mine road down the Stikine River. drainage discharge into a community asset, the AMD&ART Park. Using an interdisciplinary The situations here are very similar in that collaborative approach, the Park combines mining companies want road access into wild community history with innovative science, areas, and these are likely to foster design and art to create a new town additional development beyond the mine the center that includes an AMD treatment system, access roads are being proposed for. habitat and public recreational area. Transboundary Watershed Alliance AMD&ART (PA) (AK/YT) www.amdandart.org www.riverswithoutborders.org

cont. on page 14

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 13 cont. from page 13 Water pollution violations continued to occur at the 3M due to inadequate management facilities and limited The Idaho Conservation League works erosion controls. Members of the Stony extensively with our members and local Brook-Millstone Watershed communities to protect human health and the Association documented these violations, environment from the potentially harmful testified at various state and local hearings, impacts of mining. Current “hot” issues in Idaho and pressured the NJ Dept. of Environmental are: 1) proposals for new mines, including the Protection (NJDEP) for remediation and Atlanta mine, a large cyanide heap leach mine enforcement. In May 2003, the NJDEP issued upriver from Boise and the Treasure Valley; 2) an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) efforts to reform Idaho’s mining laws to ensure citing 11 violations for stormwater runoff, and that mines are appropriately bonded to cover a fine for $99,120. reclamation and closure costs; and 3) protecting In January 2004, after receiving the necessary human health from toxic pollution—for instance, approvals from state, county and local offices, we are currently working to protect southern 3M began construction of five stormwater Idaho streams from toxic mercury emissions to retention basins, connecting channels and the the air from mines in Nevada. Mercury can settle regrading, capping and vegetating a 60-acre out from the air and poison our waters. mineral fines pile. 3M proposed to complete Idaho Conservation League (ID) these actions in June 2005. www.wildidaho.org The Association continues to monitor the streams and work with 3M, NJDEP, Township and County officials, and local residents to ensure that appropriate stormwater control measures are implemented under a NJPDES Stormwater Permit. Peat mining is also an issue of concern. Stony Brook Millstone We have had some major issues with peat Watershed Association (NJ) mining impacting our rivers. http://www.thewatershed.org Downeast Salmon Federation (ME) www.mainesalmonrivers.org

Abandoned mine drainage (AMD) is the third leading cause of impairment in the Schuylkill Watershed and the leading cause of impairment in its headwaters. Over 158 identified abandoned mine discharges contribute to the impairment of 222 miles of stream according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.The low pH (high acidity), low dissolved oxygen and high of metals from these discharges create an aquatic environment in which the many macroinvertebrates 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 this water chemistry resulting from AMD.The impacts of metal loadings from AMD are seen from the headwaters all the way to Philadelphia where the Schuylkill River is a major source of drinking water for over 1.5 million people.Through the Schuylkill Action Network, many organizations, including Schuylkill Headwaters Association and the Philadelphia Water Department, have partnered to address AMD issues. Current activities include acquiring of grant funding for the implementation of AMD treatment projects and monitoring to quantify the impact of AMD on the Schuylkill and evaluate the water quality benefit derived from the implementation of treatment projects. Philadelphia Water Department - Office of Watersheds (PA)

VOICES FROM THE FIELD http://www.phila.gov/water/protect.html

14 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 VOICES FROM THE FIELD THE FROM VOICES

The Rivers of Colorado Water Watch Network’s monitoring network has provided data to determine the impacts of hard rock mining and some gravel mining in We surveyed the economic Colorado, set restoration targets and impacts of gravel mining at several evaluated restoration demonstration mines on the lower 27 miles of technologies.The results of the monitoring the Great Miami River in efforts include: determining the extent of southern Ohio.We found that if impact; determining restoration targets or you live along the river within one clean up goals; testing the effectiveness of mile of a gravel operation, your demonstration treatments, such as the house is on average worth effectiveness of different wetland material $16,725 less than its equivalent and size to removed elevated metals.The farther away. Also, the total primary lesson learned in these efforts is reduced value of property near that the clearer the monitoring objectives gravel mines is about $2.8 million, and/or questions are before the monitoring resulting in a tax revenue loss of is implemented, the easier it is to produce $119,000 a year to local clear and specific results. governments. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CO) Mine operations have a low http://wildlife.state.co.us/riverwatch assessed land value of $12,800 an acre versus $30,800 an acre for residential communities nearby. Gravel chew up county roads at high cost.While In Crested Butte source watershed a necessary, mining should stay away coalition, including state and federal agencies, from rivers—it degrades surface is asking EPA to put the site on the National and , disturbs Priorities List.The mine is discharging zinc and recreation and quality of life and cadmium impairing aquatic life.We are also damages habitat. People don’t like suing the Service/BLM for issuing a the noise, lights, dust, commotion patent without a presently marketable and the moonscape scenic deposit.This is the first case a patent is being damage to the streams. appealed by anyone other than a competing Rivers Unlimited (OH) mining company. www.riversunlimited.org High Country Citizens’ Alliance (CO) www.hccaonline.org

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 bedload movement in mountain streams. In her modeling work, she produces a graphic that looks like a piece of graph paper laid over the channel bed. At each intersection of the graph, there are values in the model for things such as size, velocity, and other parameters.Then she can add things like restoration structures in the channel, vanes, or gravel vortex samplers, and see how the deposition of material changes.This is very useful for us because we are trying to do restoration of a channelized creek with very high bedload. Gravel mining has not been good for fish habitat in the creek, and the Department of Fish and just curtailed the operation, which is causing more deposition in other areas, and further eroding the walls of this entrenched channel. Plumas Corporation (CA) http://www.plumascounty.org

cont. on page 16

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 15 cont. from page 15 Prairie Rivers has been actively involved in the For the past ten years Friends of the Kaw coal mining issue in , particularly with has fought to end in-river sand and gravel mining respect to the impact these activities have on or in the Kansas River because of the water quality. A few years ago, while fighting an physical degradation it causes the stream bed NPDES permit for a coal mine in Vermilion and banks and the loss of natural habitat. County, we discovered that coal mines in Illinois Because of our vigilance, five applications for were—under Illinois —exempted from new dredging permits in a pristine section of the several key provisions of the Clean Water Act. river have been either denied or withdrawn and Working with the and Policy the number of dredging operations on the river Center we fought these exemptions, securing a have been reduced from eighteen in 1996 to ruling from U.S. EPA that stipulated they were in twelve in 2005. Although the State of Kansas has fact a violation of federal law. As a result, all taken the first step by beginning a NPDES permits for coal mines in Illinois now go comprehensive study of degradation of the to U.S. EPA for review and approval to ensure Kansas River to quantify the primary causes, the they comply with federal law.The outcome, battle is far from won as the second step to recent NPDES permits for coal mines are some study and make recommendations on the future of the strongest we have seen. of in-river dredging is yet to be approved. Prairie Rivers Network (IL) Friends of the Kaw (KS) www.prairierivers.org www.kansasriver.com

There is a traditional “rule” that any Hawaiian We are in the midst of challenging a may take up to 25 river rocks for use in proposed mine by Kennecott near the constructing an imu or pit oven. I assume the headwaters of one of Michigan’s most “konohiki” or supervisor of the ahupua’a or of pristine rivers.The Salmon Trout this specific resource of the ahupua’a guided River has the last naturally reproducing the selection and minimized the disturbance population of Coaster Brook Trout on to the stream bed.Today, folks still take some the South shore of Superior, in part of these rocks for that purpose but there isn’t because the watershed is almost totally much enforcement. Certainly the state lacks undeveloped.There is a lot of opposition personnel or expertise in this area. locally, but in general, Kennecott’s agenda seems to be moving forward quickly. Hanalei Watershed Hui (HI) www.hanaleiwatershedhui.org Central Lake Superior Watershed Partnership (MI) www.superiorwatersheds.org Environment Law Foundation and the Western Mining Action Project represent the Karuk Tribe of California in a suit against the U.S. Forest Service.The suit arises out of the Forest Service’s decision to allow After watching industrial mica suction dredging, mechanized sluicing and other forms mining companies destroy a of gold mining in the Klamath and Six Rivers National sensitive cultural site for nearly four Forests without environmental review.The operations decades, Picuris Pueblo, a small harm several including the coho Native American community and steelhead.The complaint specifically alleges located 25 miles to the south of violations of the Endangered Species Act, the National Taos, filed an aboriginal title claim in Act, the National Environmental state court in order to stop the Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Forest Service destruction.The mine’s proposed Organic Administration Act of 1879 and the U.S. Forest Services closeout plan Administrative Procedures Act.The case will be allowed the corporation to walk decided on the administrative record. away from a large open pit because the vertical mine scar Environmental Law Foundation (CA) would create raptor habitat. www.elflaw.org VOICES FROM THE FIELD Picuris Pueblo, (NM)

16 RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 VOICES FROM THE FIELD THE FROM VOICES In 2003, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership needed to address aggregate mining in our watershed. A review of that effort and recommended advocacy were printed in our September 2003 Watershed Watcher, which can be found at www.crwp.net/Newsletters.htm. Below are “CRWP Guidelines 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 its mission to protect and improve the surface and groundwater resources and the natural systems of the Cannon River Watershed. Given that the demand for aggregate has increased far beyond projections especially in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and that the Cannon River Watershed has rich deposits of both gravel and limestone within close proximity to this area; and Given that the Cannon River Watershed is targeted for large-scale mining operations that have the potential to have significant impact on the surface and ground waters and the natural systems which the Cannon River Watershed Partnership is committed to protecting; The Board of Directors of the Cannon River Watershed Partnership requests that the following issues and standards be addressed in creating and/or updating mining and extraction policies and in issuing permits for mining and extraction operations: • The quality and quantity of water discharged from mining and extraction operations should be regulated as part of any permit in compliance with the antidegradation policies of the Federal Clean Water Act. • The standard of “no additional pollution discharge ”applied to the lower Cannon River under the designation as an “Outstanding Value Resource Water” should be applied to all natural or manmade tributaries in the Cannon River Watershed. • The minimum setback of 300 feet required by the Minnesota Legislature for the “Wild and Scenic” designated segment of the lower Cannon River should be applied to all natural or manmade tributaries in the Cannon River Watershed. • Permitting of mining and extraction operations should be based on knowledge of the potential for degradation to the groundwater and resources that are vital to our communities and economy. • All permits for mining and extraction operation should be contingent upon continual monitoring for degradation of potentially affected with a baseline of information on these water resources determined before permits are issued. • Mining and extraction operations should not be allowed to artificially raise or lower the groundwater table beyond the perimeter of the mine site. • Mining and extraction operations should not significantly increase or decrease base flows into surface waters so as to threaten naturally occurring fish, wildlife, or aquatic life. • Water discharged from mining and extraction operations into surface waters should be restricted to assure that increased flow will not exacerbate instream erosion nor cause downstream degradation. • Mining and extraction operations should be conducted in a manner that assures that the site will be reclaimed within a reasonable period of time as productive farmland, lakes, naturally functioning , woodlands, or building sites.

Volume 15, Number 1 • RIVER VOICES 17 Coalbed Methane Mining Strategies for fighting cbm

by Steve Jones here are many problems with The quality of CBM wastewater (also Watershed t coalbed methane (CBM) referred to as “produced water” in the Protection Program development. While it is a good industry) varies considerably with the coal Attorney source for much-needed , the seam in which it is found. In some basins, Wyoming impacts of developing that gas can be the quality of the water is bad enough that Outdoor substantial. If not managed properly, it is quite clear, even to industry, that it Council significant damage to landscapes, including must be reinjected rather than foisted upon rivers and streams, can the surface lands, rivers and occur. streams. But this has not been the case in the Powder Wyoming has become the River Basin, where industry poster child for bad CBM has been unwilling to management. For concede the point. The instance, the proposed primary problems identified alternative in the Powder with CBM produced water River Basin Environmental quality in the Powder River Impact Statement for CBM Basin are and development revealed sodicity.

these astonishing impacts: USGS Credit: 1) the disposal of 1.4 Salinity is the potential for trillion gallons of water accumulation of soluble salts into the rivers and streams in the root zone of . of the basin over the High salinity makes water project’s life, 2) 17,000 less available to and at miles of new roads, 3) 20,000 miles of new very high levels the plants may suffer direct pipelines, 4) 5,300 miles of new utility lines, damage. Waters are not suitable for 5) over 200,000 acres of soils and vegetation with an electrical conductivity to be stripped bare, 6) 500 to 1,200 surface (EC) greater than 2,250 micro ohms per discharge facilities for the water and 7) centimeter, but in areas with restricted 1,800 to 4,000 waste pits to drainage of soils (typical of the Powder handle CBM produced water. River Basin), anything higher than 1,200 is problematic. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) value of water is the ratio of sodium to and . The SAR value, often referred to as “sodicity,” affects plant production by slowing infiltration and the permeability of soils. The SAR values for water at 6 to 8 are the upper threshold before infiltration and permeability problems will affect existing agricultural uses.

18 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 Attempts to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) A good way to check for violations is to to stop some of the pollution occurring in review the permit file, and pay particular the Powder River Basin have met with at attention to the monitoring reports. This least some success. But industry may be could also be a violation of the Clean Water learning the terrific advantage of getting the Act, and as such could be brought as a bureaucrats on your side. There can be no in federal district court. question that the existing Administration’s Challenge issuance of individual federal energy policy has encouraged the BLM and dredge and fill permits. Under Section 404 the U.S. EPA (and other federal agencies) to of the Clean Water Act, before any person “get the gas out.” can conduct a dredge and fill operation in a Possible avenues that environmental groups river or stream, they must first obtain a have used (or are considering) for attacking permit from the U.S. Army Corps of this alliance of government and industry Engineers (except in Michigan and New include the following: Jersey—where those states have primacy to issue most 404 permits). For CBM Challenge issuance of National Pollutant operations, often the CBM drillers put a Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dam across a drainage to hold back the permits. Under Section 402 of the Clean nefarious CBM produced water. Those4 Water Act, every discharge permit issued by dams require dredge and fill permits. a state (that has been granted primacy for handling the NPDES permit program) Challenge the issuance of general dredge must go through a public comment period. and fill permits. The Army Corps of A permit can be objected to by any Engineers is in the habit of issuing “general concerned citizen and challenged if the permits” to ease its work load. General agency issues it. This challenge is often permits (also known as “Nationwide before an administrative hearing body, but Permits” if they apply nationally) allow sometimes must be1 filed directly before permittees to proceed with dredge and fill state court, depending on what the state law operations without the necessity of may require. obtaining individual dredge and fill permits from the Corps. This is allowed under the File civil suits for discharging pollution Clean Water Act only where the without a discharge permit. This would be environmental impacts are similar in nature an obvious violation of the CWA, as long as and are minimal. WOC brought a it is a discharge to waters of the United successful challenge to such a general States. This option is often not available, permit in Wyoming.5 See Wyoming since CBM operators are usually savvy Outdoor Council v. U.S. Army Corps of enough to get a discharge permit. But see Engineers, 351 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Wyo., Northern Plains Resource Council v. 2005) Fidelity Exploration and Development Co., 2325 F.3d 1155 (C.A.9 (Mont.), 2003). Petition the state rule-making agency for tougher water quality standards applicable File civil suits to enforce NPDES permits. to CBM discharges. Of particular concern Once an NPDES permit is issued, if its are salinity (measured as electrical terms are not complied with by the conductivity or specific conductance) and permittee, an action can be brought sodicity (measured as SAR [sodium against the permittee for failure to comply. adsorption ratio]).

6cont. on page 20 3 Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 19 Coalbed Methane Mining, cont.

cont. from page 19 Ask EPA to establish new Get streams declared off limits. The aim limitations guidelines, that are technology- here is, even if you can’t keep out CBM based, for CBM discharges. It is quite discharges altogether, maybe there are some apparent that CBM discharges are sui rivers or streams where you can demonstrate generis (e.g., unique) and have different that they are too precious, too clean, too problems than conventional oil and gas outstanding to let the CBM drillers despoil it discharges. There is already an unpublished with their pollution. This worked in report from U.S. EPA that identifies Wyoming, at least for a while, with the treatment prior to discharge (using reverse , which is quite pristine and osmosis techniques), as well as reinjection would be significantly degraded if massive methods, as technologically feasible for amounts of CBM pollution were to be CBM produced water. See the U.S. EPA discharged into11 the river. Your allies in this study, which can be found at fight may be downstream water irrigators or 7www.northernplains.org. a downstream state that does not want to have the upstream state’s water pollution Petition the U.S. EPA to withdraw the foisted upon it. permitting program from a state for failure to administer the NPDES permit program Get a downstream state to insist that the properly (due to failures in monitoring, upstream state to stop polluting. As enforcement, compliance with CWA required by the CWA, a downstream state requirements, etc.). This can often force the can object to any NPDES permit issued by a state agency in question to “shape up” and state on the ground that it will affect the demonstrate to the U.S. EPA that it is trying quality of the stream in the downstream to enforce the Clean Water Act in its state. state. If a downstream state objects to the issuance of a permit, the U.S. EPA Get the U.S. EPA to write water quality Administrator can block the issuance of any standards for the state.8If the U.S. EPA state-issued permit that is outside the recommends changes to state water quality guidelines and requirements of the Clean standards—a triennial review process must Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. §1342(d)(2). occur every three years—and the State fails to comply with that recommendation, the In12 large measure, environmental Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. EPA to organizations often find themselves involved promulgate water quality standards for the in a rear-guard action, trying to enforce State. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c). existing laws, in the face of an increasing governmental determination to look the 9Object to Use Attainability Analyses other way. Administrative appeals and (UAA). Use Attainability Analyses have been litigation are the main tools, but not the used to downgrade a particular stream only ones. There is a need, moreover, to be segment to a lower use classification that strategic and try to cover the field in a would afford less protection for the stream, sweeping fashion, that will have a large making it easier for CBM drillers to impact on the problem. Ultimately, discharge pollution without having to treat environmental organizations will face an the water. Typically in Wyoming, this has uphill battle, but one well worth taking on, resulted in downgrading many streams from considering the massive environmental Class 3 (protected for aquatic life) to Class 4 impacts of the development contemplated (appropriate for industrial use and livestock by CBM drillers. watering).10 But these UAAs may be challenged, if appealed in a timely fashion.

20 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 CASE Coalbed Methane Development STUDY Threatens Native Prairie River

he Powder River is one of the last We fought for enforcement of the Clean by Jill Morrison T free flowing prairie rivers in the Water Act—from the simple requirement Powder River Basin Resource Council United States. European that industry test for more than four Community Organizer immigrants characterized the Powder River pollutants in the discharge water, to www.powderriverbasin.org as “a mile wide and an inch deep, too thin to submitting a petition to the Environmental plow and too thick to drink.” Dr. Daniel Protection Agency to revoke the Wyoming Gustafson, a stream ecologist based in permitting authority. Bozeman, Montana, described the Powder For the last three years, we have reviewed River as, “the best interior big, sandy river CBM discharge permits that are issued each on the continent.” The Powder River month, protesting those that we feel are ecosystem is remarkable in that it still most harmful to waterways and aquatic supports an intact native aquatic ecosystems. community. Several species are so rare that they are listed by Wyoming Game and Fish We hired specialists to analyze the impacts as species of concern, and some have been that large volumes of CBM discharge water considered for protection under the will have on fisheries and vegetation in the Endangered Species Act. Powder River and her tributaries. One conclusion of a study by Confluence Threatening the Powder River and the land Consulting found that “[e]valuations of and water around her are the rich reserves of conditions in the Powder River provided coal that underlie the Powder River Basin— cause for concern for the persistence of this the source of one of the most extensive rare and special ecosystem.” The report coalbed methane gas (CBM) developments provided impetus for the Wyoming Game in the country. Over the next ten years the and Fish Department to conduct their own Bureau of predicts that analysis of the aquatic life in the river, 51,000 CBM wells (35,000 new wells) will be which has led to badly needed limits on producing, and discharging as a “waste CBM discharges. product,” several million barrels of water per day. In order to release the methane from Finally, we work closely with ranchers and the coal, the coal seam must be “dewatered,” landowners along the Powder River and her as water pressure prevents methane from tributaries, to document damage to soils migrating. During the dewatering , and vegetation in order to limit the enormous volumes of water, averaging damaging CBM discharges flowing into the nearly 15,000 gallons per day per well, are river. As a part of this effort, we organized a discharged into dry stream beds or watershed monitoring group along Clear reservoirs. This torrent of produced water Creek (the primary tributary of the Powder) causes erosion, stream sedimentation, to gather critical baseline data before CBM vegetation death and water quality development occurs in that watershed, in degradation. The primary contaminants are the hopes of keeping the stream pristine. salinity, arsenic, barium, manganese, iron, aluminum and radium 226. The state and federal government have turned a blind eye to the problems this The Powder River Basin Resource Council booming industry has created. The and the Wyoming Outdoor Council have solutions continue to lie in the hands of the taken the lead on this issue, working people who are fighting to protect what will continuously over the past five years to rein ultimately be our Powder River legacy. in the development and stop the damage from CBM water discharges.

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 21 Resources & References

The Center for Science and Public Participation provides objective research, education and technical advice to grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, regulatory agencies, businesses and indigenous communities on issues, especially those related to mining. www.csp2.org/

Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral development in the United States and worldwide. Numerous publications, reports and articles are available online. The Toxics Release Inventory gives citizens www.earthworksaction.org/ information about toxic releases in and around their communities.With this information MiningWatch Canada is a pan-Canadian initiative citizens can encourage mining companies to supported by environmental, social justice,Aboriginal and reduce their toxic releases and/or agree to more labor organizations from across the country.It addresses vigorous oversight of their mines. the urgent need for a coordinated public interest response www.epa.gov/tri/ to the threats to , water and air quality, fish and wildlife habitat and community interests posed by Westerners for Responsible Mining is an irresponsible mineral policies and practices in Canada and alliance of western (and non-western) residents around the world. and organizations who cherish our rural www.miningwatch.ca/ communities, landscapes and resources. They are dedicated to protecting communities, water The Office of Surface Mining’s mission is to carry out the resources and special places from the adverse requirements of the Surface Mining Control and impacts of irresponsible mining practices and a Reclamation Act in cooperation with States and Tribes. OSM lack of corporate accountability in the hardrock prepares an annual report that describes the oversight of mining industry. State programs and describes coal mining activities www.bettermines.org/wrm/ nationally. The report—available online at: www.osmre.gov/rep.htm—includes the states that regulate The Appalachian Center for the Economy & coal mining activities and other useful information. the Environment is a regional law and policy www.osm.gov/ organization. The Center works together with individual citizens and grassroots citizens’ The Powder River Basin Resource Council is committed groups to clarify, analyze and act on the to the empowerment of people through community environmental and economic issues that affect organizing. They have a webpage specific to the addressing communities. the impacts of Coalbed Methane Gas mining. www.appalachian-center.org/ http://www.powderriverbasin.org/ The Wyoming Outdoor Council is Wyoming’s SkyTruth is a nonprofit organization that uses remote largest statewide conservation organization and sensing and digital mapping to educate the public and the state’s leading advocate for natural resources policymakers about the environmental consequences of conservation and environmental protection. human activities—such as mining, and to hold WOC’s work encompasses a broad range of corporations and governments to higher standards of conservation issues that affect Wyoming’s accountability around the globe. environmental integrity: public lands protection, www.skytruth.org/ state environmental policy, wildlife and its habitat, oil and gas development, mining and The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of , watersheds and rivers and 1977 can be viewed online at: nuclear and toxic wastes. www.osmre.gov/smcra.htm www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/

22 River Network • RIVER VOICES • Volume 15, Number 1 LET RIVER NETWORK HELP YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD ABOVE WATER.

Join the River Network Partnership and connect to the information and resources you need to stay afloat! • Access our River Source Information Center with the 1-800 hotline: Let us help you research a particular issue and put you in touch with the necessary contacts and resources through one-on-one consultations. • Log onto our Partner-only website: Browse the updated postings of funding sources, upcoming events and trainings, and download river clipart. • Receive the myriad of Partner benefits, including subscriptions to River Voices and River Fundraising Alert, a copy of the Directory of Funding Sources for River and Watershed Conservation Organizations, and a copy of either Starting Up: A Handbook for New River and Watershed Organizations or How to Save a River…and more!

www.rivernetwork.org SIGN ME UP! Annual Partner Dues are only $100 ❑ 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.

Volume 15, Number 1 • River Network • RIVER VOICES 23 520 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1130 Portland, Oregon 97204-1511

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED