S. HRG. 111–1197 

THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL 

MINING ON WATER QUALITY IN APPALACHIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2009 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL MINING ON WATER QUALITY 

IN APPALACHIA 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–591 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1197 

THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL 

MINING ON WATER QUALITY IN APPALACHIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 25, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 4 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 9 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Pomponio, John ‘‘Randy,’’ Director, Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Region ... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Sloan, Paul L., Deputy Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation ................................................................................................. 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 86 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 86 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 87 

Huffman, Randy, Cabinet Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ................................................................................................. 89 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 99 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 101 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 108 

Gunnoe, Maria, Organizer, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition ...................... 114 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Palmer, Margaret A., Ph.D., Laboratory Director, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland ......................................................................... 139 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 141 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 184 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 186 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS 

Research papers: 

Human health impacts: 

Health Disparities and Environmental Competence: A Case Study 

of Appalachian Coal Mining ................................................................. 201 

Mortality Rates in Appalachian Coal Mining Counties: 24 Years Behind the Nation ...................................................................................... 207 

Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost ......................................................................................... 215 

Hospitalization Patterns Associated with Appalachian Coal Mining ... 225 

Environmental impacts: 

Water Quality From Underground Coal Mines in Northern West 

Virginia (1968–2000) ............................................................................. 250 

Aquatic Hazard of Selenium Pollution From Mountaintop Removal 

Coal Mining ............................................................................................ 263 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

—Continued 

Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for 

Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of 

Southern West Virginia, 2000–01 ........................................................ 280 

Acid Mine Drainage Control and Treatment .......................................... 304 

The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest ........ 346 

How to Restore Forests on Surface-Mined Land .................................... 355 

Rules and legislation: 

Rules of Tennessee Department of Conservation Division of Surface Mining—Chapter 0400–3–7—Coal ..................................................................... 387 

House Bill 455 .................................................................................................. 403 

Senate Bill No. 1011 ......................................................................................... 406 

Senate Resolution No. 50 ................................................................................. 414 

Resolution regarding Permit SMA#S–3002–07 and NPDES#WV1022202 .. 416 

Statistics: 

Census of Population: 1960 .............................................................................. 417 

1970 Census of Population ............................................................................... 419 

1980 Census of Population ............................................................................... 421 

1990–2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics information on: 

Boone County, West Virginia ................................................................... 427 

Fayette County, West Virginia ................................................................. 429 

Lincoln County, West Virginia ................................................................. 431 

Logan County, West Virginia ................................................................... 433 

McDowell County, West Virginia ............................................................. 435 

Mingo County, West Virginia ................................................................... 437 

Wyoming County, West Virginia .............................................................. 439 

Correspondence: 

January 22, 2009, letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, to the West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection ....................................................................................................... 441 

June 29, 2009, letter from Caterpillar Inc., Cat Global Mining, to Senator 

Cardin and Senator Crapo ........................................................................... 443 

July 2, 2009, letter from Acculab Inc., to Senator Cardin ............................ 445 

Additional testimony: 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., U.S. Representative from the State of New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 447 

U.S. Department of Energy ............................................................................. 449 

West Virginians for Affordable Health Care .................................................. 452 

National Mining Association: 

Written Statement .................................................................................... 464 

GEI Consultants, Inc. ............................................................................... 469 

Mining Community Grassroots Commercial Summary ......................... 474 

Mountaintop Mining Fact Book ............................................................... 477 

Tennessee Mining Association ......................................................................... 486 

Mingo County Redevelopment Authority of Williamson, West Virginia ...... 488 

The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative ....................................... 493 

Coalition for Mountaintop Mining: 

July 3, 2009, letter to Senator Cardin ..................................................... 499 

Comments of Chris Hamilton, Chairman ................................................ 501 

Statement—Mountaintop Mining: Essential to Our Future .................. 504 

Walker-Cat ........................................................................................................ 519 
(1) 

THE IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL 

COAL MINING ON WATER QUALITY IN APPALACHIA 

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Cardin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Alexander, and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, and the Ranking 

Member of our Subcommittee, Senator Crapo, for helping to arrange for today’s hearing. 

This is the first hearing that we have had in the Senate in 7 

years on mountaintop recoveries. So, I think it is an important 

hearing and I want to thank the leadership for moving forward. 

I also want to thank Senator Alexander for his help in arranging 

today’s hearing. 

Let me make a couple of opening comments. First, I think is one 

that is pretty obvious. Coal is important to America. It is an important mineral that we have, and I think this Committee recognized 

its importance last year in the Lieberman-Warner Bill that we 

worked and marked up, providing for coal as a part of our energy 

solution and investing a significant amount of resources into clean 

burning coal. 

The bill that may be on the House floor tomorrow that deals with 

global climate change invests a great deal of resources in coal, recognizing its importance as an energy source to America. 

This hearing is to explore one method that is used in coal mining 

in the United States and to look at its environmental and health 

risks. We are talking about the impact of mountaintop removal coal 

mining on water quality. That is the responsibility of this Committee. 

Now, we have had similar concerns about water quality in other 

types of industries from manufacturing and industrial and agriculture, and I think it is very important that this Committee look 

at the mining practices of mountaintop removal and its impact on 

our water quality in America. 
2 

There will be future opportunities to look at specific bills, including a specific bill that Senator Alexander and I have co-sponsored. 

Mountaintop removal has grown in the Appalachia. It is one 

method. It is primarily limited to Eastern Kentucky and Southern 

West Virginia. We have many environmental concerns concerning 

coal slurry impoundment, which is used in mountaintop removal, 

but coal slurry impoundments are used in other types of activities 

in addition to just mountaintop removal. 

Mountaintop removal involves the complete deforestation of a 

mountaintop. The mountaintop is then systematically removed, 

moving down the mountain. The overburden is then dumped into 

the valley. The impact of this type of activity is dramatic. It is dramatic in regards to issues concerning runoff. Runoff gets filtered in 

a mountain through its vegetation and through its natural contour. 

When that is removed, the types of pollution that are not filtered 

are much more dramatic as a result of runoff issues. 

We have found the disappearance of valley streams. Over 1,700 

miles of stream channels have been adversely impacted by mountaintop removal. Valley streams are critically important to the 

downstream water quality. We have found that, as a result of 

mountaintop removal, that we have toxic contaminants in our 

water supply. There is a public health concern. We find a much 

higher incidence of kidney disease, chronic airway obstruction, pulmonary disease and hypertension, just to mention a few, in those 

communities that are impacted by mountaintop removal. 

And there is the issue about the natural beauty of our Country 

being permanently changed as a result of mountaintop removal. It 

adversely affects the economies of the region as far as tourism, 

property values and alternative uses that could produce economic 

activities in these areas, including one in energy dealing with wind 

energy. 

I am very pleased that we have two panels of experts, one from 

the EPA, the other a group of individuals who are experts in this 

area, to help this Committee understand the impact on our water 

supply caused by mountaintop removal. 

I am very pleased to recognize Senator Alexander, who has been 

a real leader on this issue, and a member of our Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

I want to thank our panels of witnesses for coming before the Water and Wildlife 

Subcommittee today to discuss mountaintop removal coal mining. 

It has been more than 7 years since this Committee last examined the practice, 

and in that time mountaintop removal operations have grown across Appalachia. 

Our hearing will examine the impacts of mountaintop removal on water quality and 

how it affects the quality of life for the thousands of residents living in the Appalachian coalfields. 

So there is no confusion about the subject of today’s hearing, let me be clear: 

(1) Not all coal extraction operations in the Eastern U.S., or even in all of Appalachia, use mountaintop removal techniques to mine coal. 

Mountaintop removal/valley fill operations are largely limited to Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia because 

• of the depth of the coal seams beneath the surface, 

• the topography of the region and 

• the combination of Federal, State and local regulations that permit the practice. 
3 

1Source: EPA Region 3 Power Point presentation on the mountaintop removal process. 

2Office of Surface Mining. 

3Meyer, Judy—Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small 

Streams and Wetlands (2003). 4 Yuan L.L. & Nortno S.S.—Comparing responses of macroinvertebrate metrics to increasing 

stress (2003). Allan J.D.—Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems (2004). Morgan, R.P. & Cushman, S.F.—Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland (2005). 5 Hobert 21 mine in Boone County, WV—10,000 acre footprint. 

6 Bernhardt E.S., et al.—Restoration of U.S. Rivers: a national synthesis (2005). Palmer M.A., 

et al.—Standards for ecologically successful river restoration (2005). 7 Hendryx, M., et al.—Hospitalization Patterns Associated with Appalachian Coal Mining 

(2007). Ezzati M., et al.—The Reversal of Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-Country Mortality Disparities in the United States (2008). West Virginians for Affordable Health 

Care—Early Deaths: West Virginians have some of the Shortest Life Expectancies in the United 

States (2009). 8Department of Energy. American Wind Energy Association. 

Coal extraction operations in the Western United States do not employ mountaintop removal techniques because coal in the west is typically located near the surface. 

(2) There are many adverse impacts associated with coal slurry impoundments beyond their use on mountaintop removal sites. The Committee is concerned with 

these issues but they will not be the focus of this hearing. 

Mountaintop removal coal mining starts with the complete deforestation and removal of all ground level vegetation and topsoil from the top of the mountain. Using 

heavy explosives and excavation equipment, the mountaintop is systematically and 

evenly removed in sections going down the mountain. As the mountain gets shorter, 

the adjacent valley is buried under the ‘‘overburden,’’ the combination of topsoil and 

rock displaced by explosives and excavation equipment. 1

Mountaintop removal coal operations have led to burial or adverse impacts on 

more than 1,700 miles of stream channels. 2 The disappearance of these valley 

streams is a great concern of mine not only because the material used to replace 

the valleys is loaded with toxic contaminants like lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium, but also because these valley fills quite literally remove ephemeral and headwater streams from the landscape. 

These streams are characterized by scientists as ‘‘where rivers are born’’ and are 

vitally important to the health of downstream water quality. 3

Numerous studies have shown that when impacts to the natural landscape of a 

watershed exceed 10 percent, water quality and the biodiversity of aquatic life in 

all waters of the watershed decline. 4 In Southern West Virginia there are watersheds with more than 25 percent of the land impacted by surface mines operations. 

What’s more, the permitting process for these operations have not been taking 

into account the cumulative effect of an entire surface mine operation on downstream water quality. 

What will start as a relatively small operation can expand upwards to 10,000 

acres over a 7- to 12-year span. 5

The vegetation and natural contour of the landscape absorb and slow the flow of 

stormwater through the watershed. Studies have shown that all attempts at remediation and stream construction on reclaimed mine sites have had zero success in replicating natural hydrological features. 6 These remedial streams also contribute to 

the persistent drainage of contaminants from the former mine. 

When coal is referred to as an inexpensive source of energy there are many costs 

associated with the resource that are not taken into account, not the least of which 

is the cost to downstream communities. 

Coalfield residents are saddled with declining property values, spoiled well water 

and soaring insurance rates as mining operations creep closer to their property. 

Several medical studies focused in the region show higher incidence of kidney disease, chronic obstructed pulmonary disease and hypertension among coalfield residents. 7

There is a more environmentally and economically sustainable path Appalachia 

can take. Many counties in Appalachia are seeing economic gains in tourism and 

outdoor recreation activities that are only viable when Appalachia’s unique natural 

features are protected. 

The potential for wind energy development along the mountain ridges of Appalachia would provide infinite economic and energy potential for the region. 8 Like 

tourism, the viability for wind energy development is dependent on the preservation 

of the region’s mountains and valleys. 

There is no denying coal’s significance to the culture and economy of Appalachia. 

However, mountaintop coal mining is a long term assault on Appalachia’s environ-
4 

ment, economy and culture. It needs to stop, and I hope that today’s hearing will 

start us on that path. 

Before I turn to my Ranking Member, I will note that I intend to hold another 

hearing on this subject this fall. It will be a legislative hearing on the Cardin-Alexander bill, S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration Act. This is not the last word, nor 

will it be, until these practices of mountaintop mining and associated valley fills are 

permanently outlawed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank our Ranking Member for letting me have his seat for a little 

while. 

I am glad to be here, Mr. Chairman. I am the Ranking Member 

of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee which is about to have 

its appropriations bill heard upstairs, or downstairs, whichever it 

is. So, I may have to step out for 10 minutes. But I will be back. 

And I have looked forward to this. 

I want to thank Senator Cardin for his leadership. I want to 

thank the witnesses for coming today, especially Paul Sloan, representing Governor Bredesen of our State of Tennessee with whom 

I have talked and who has a strong interest in the Cumberland 

Plateau area of our State and in protecting it and in protecting our 

ridgetops and our mountaintops, both for the natural beauty that 

we enjoy as Tennesseans and for the fact they attract a lot of visitors who kindly leave a lot of their dollars in our State. 

As Senator Cardin said, coal is an essential part of our energy 

future and I would to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could have included 

in the record my article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press from 

March 15th of this year, talking about the importance of coal and 

why we need it. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Senator ALEXANDER. Coal is an essential part of our energy future. But it is not necessary to destroy our mountaintops in order 

to have enough coal. That is why I joined with Senator Cardin to 

make a simple amendment to the Clean Water Act that would end 

the practice of dumping coal mining waste into streams. 

Millions of tourists spend tens of millions of dollars in Tennessee 

every year to enjoy the natural beauty of our mountains, a beauty 

that is for me, and I believe for most Tennesseans, something that 

makes us especially proud to live in our State. 

I may come at this a little differently than some people. Saving 

our mountaintops is important to me, whether we are talking about 

cleaning up air pollution, whether we talking about stopping the 

practice of putting 50-story wind turbines on top of our scenic Appalachian mountaintops, or whether we are talking about stopping 

the practice of blowing off the tops of the mountains and dumping 

the excess waste into our streams. 

People come to Tennessee, and to other parts of Appalachia, to 

see the natural beauty, not to see smoggy air, massive ridgetop 

towers or excess waste piled into streams. That is why I have introduced legislation with Senator Carper of Delaware, for example, 

that would stiffen the requirements for emissions of nitrogen, sulfur and mercury from coal plants. 

And as Ranking Member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and I are talking with Secretary 

Salazar about an energy sprawl and making sure we find appropriate places for the large-scale new renewable energy projects that 

are coming on board in our Country, for example, that we put large 

wind turbines in the middle of Lake Michigan instead of along the 

coast and that we do not put them along scenic ridgetops between 

Georgia and Maine. 

The kind of mountaintop removal that we are talking about 

today, as far as I am aware, does not exist today in coal mining 

practice in Tennessee. It once did. But I would like to make sure 

that it does not start up again. 

The legislation that Senator Cardin and I have introduced and 

which will be considered in due time, does not ban surface mining 

as it is presently practiced in Tennessee, but it does help make 

sure that the beauty of our mountains and our streams are protected for those of us who live there and for our visitors. 

The United States produces 50 percent of our electricity from 

coal. It will continue to need that coal in the future. It is a primary 

source of energy. We need a lot of electricity and we have a lot of 

coal. We do not want to import our energy from overseas. Electricity from coal is cheaper, for example, that from wind and solar, 

and we know how to burn it cleanly, if we would only do it, accept 

for carbon. 

I have called for a mini-Manhattan Project to find ways to capture carbon from coal plants and I have urged Secretary Chu to reserve, if he can, a Nobel Prize in Science for the scientist who discovers a way to capture carbon from existing coal plants. 

So, I look forward to learning today more about the effect of 

mountaintop removal in our entire Country, and the effect that it 

might have in Tennessee if it were to be restarted. 
9 

I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on the issue and for 

chairing this hearing. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

Without objection, Senator Boxer’s, the Chairman of the full 

Committee, opening statement will be included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator Cardin, I would first like to thank you for holding this hearing and for 

your leadership on oversight of mountaintop mining. This is an important issue. 

I also know you are working with Senator Alexander on legislation to stop the 

pollution and harm caused by this destructive practice, and I want to commend both 

of you for your efforts. 

This hearing will explore the impacts of mountaintop mining on our water quality 

and the health and prosperity of Appalachian communities. It is critical that we better understand what impacts these practices have and whether our nation’s laws 

are doing their job at protecting the environment and the citizens’ health. 

Mountaintop mining is one of the most destructive mining practices used today. 

It involves literally cutting the tops off of mountains and dumping the excess rock 

and soil into headwater streams that are critical for flood control, water quality, and 

the health of some of the nation’s most precious ecosystems. 

Mountaintop mining operations have already filled or impacted more than 1,200 

miles of Appalachian streams. And the mining waste associated with these sites can 

include a host of chemicals, including selenium, arsenic, lead, chromium and mercury that can leach into streams and rivers, severely degrading water quality. 

As we will hear from witnesses today, this practice has devastated the environment and harmed communities by displacing residents and ruining the natural resources on which they depend. 

In light of all of the impacts, I believe we have to take a hard look at why such 

a destructive practice is allowed to continue. 

Senator Cardin, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look 

forward to working with you to continue oversight of mountaintop mining and to 

ensure we are protecting our environment and the health of families and children. 

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

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to be able to stay for this whole hearing. I cannot 

do it because, as I think you know, we are still marking up the Defense Authorization Bill and I am the second Ranking Member on 

that. But I thank you for having this. 

I want to welcome Randy Huffman, the Cabinet Secretary from 

West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection. I am 

anxious to read his statement and to hear what position they are 

coming from. 

Let me being by saying that I am concerned by the in-fighting 

among Democrats when it comes to coal. As an example, just look 

at the Memorandum of Understanding on mountaintop mining between the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department 

of the Interior. 

Now, some such as myself, are concerned. The MOU could mean 

economic hardship for Appalachia. But, consider the views of some 

of the radical global warming activists, such as NASA scientist and 

Obama supporter James Hansen. 
10 

He recently criticized President Obama for the MOU. And here’s 

what he said. He said, Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration 

is being forced into a political compromise. It has sacrificed a 

strong position on mountaintop removal in order to ensure the support of coal State legislators for a climate bill. Coal is the lynch pin 

in mitigating global warming and it is senseless to allow cheap 

mountaintop removal of coal while the Administration is simultaneously seeking policies to boost renewable energy. 

And, quoting on further, this is from the Los Angeles Times talking about this conversation, although the environmentalists had expected a new Administration to put the brakes on mountaintop removal, Representative Rahall and other mining advocates have 

pointed out that Obama did not promise to end mountaintop mining and was more open to it than his Republican opponent, Arizona 

Senator John McCain. This was during the Presidential election. 

A review of Obama’s campaign statement, according to the Los 

Angeles Times, shows that Obama had expressed concern about the 

practice without promising to end it. 

So we have a lot of lawmakers that the Los Angeles Times refers 

to who, and this is a quote also from the Times, it says the mountaintop mining is politically sensitive because environmentalists 

were an active force behind Obama’s election and the President’s 

standing is tenuous among Democratic voters in coal States. 

Moreover, the Times writes, Obama needs support from local 

lawmakers for an energy agenda that would further regulate home 

State industries, but halting the mountaintop mining could eliminate jobs and put upward pressures on the energy crisis. I think 

we all ought to understand this. 

So, there is a lot of conflict here, a lot of in-fighting, and there 

is a lot of Beltway fighting on this, so I think that it is very appropriate that you have the Committee hearing. 

I know that the Ranking Member of your Subcommittee, Senator 

Crapo, will be here shortly and I will have to go back to Arms Services. 

Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member 

Crapo for holding today’s hearing on the impacts of mountaintop mining on surface 

and groundwater resources and other indirect impacts in Appalachia. 

I also want to welcome Randy Huffman, Cabinet Secretary for West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, as well as the other witnesses testifying 

today. I look forward to your testimony. And it’s great that so many residents from 

West Virginia traveled to see this hearing in person. Whatever side of the issue 

they’re on, it’s good to see so many citizens engaged in the political process. 

I want to emphasize today the importance of maintaining and protecting America’s natural resources. Federal clean water laws should be followed and enforced 

for the citizens of this Nation, especially those in Appalachia. This is a fundamental 

value we all share. Yet it is not the only value to be considered: ensuring the economic viability of Appalachia, and the families who live there, is equally important. 

I believe these two values are complementary. Put another way, environmental protection can coexist with job creation and economic prosperity for families. 

I’m not sure this view is acceptable among environmental activists. For them, coal 

is evil and must be banned, no matter the cost to families in Appalachia and states 

that depend on it for jobs, for schools, and for energy security. 
11 

I should also note that I’m somewhat concerned by the infighting among Democrats when it comes to coal. As an example, just look at the Memorandum of Understanding on mountaintop mining between the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, 

and the Department of the Interior. Now some, such as myself, are concerned the 

MOU could mean economic hardship for Appalachia. But consider the views of radical global warming activists, such as NASA scientist and Obama supporter James 

Hansen. Hansen recently criticized President Obama for the MOU. Here’s what he 

said: 

‘‘The Obama administration is being forced into a political compromise. It has sacrificed a strong position on mountaintop removal in order to ensure the support of 

coal-state legislators for a climate bill . . . Coal is the linchpin in mitigating global 

warming, and it’s senseless to allow cheap mountaintop-removal coal while the administration is simultaneously seeking policies to boost renewable energy.’’ 

Mountaintop mining has also provoked serious battles within the Obama administration. Consider this: the LA Times recently reported on a ‘‘shouting match in 

which top officials from two government agencies were heard pounding their fists 

on the table . . .’’ 

But that’s not all. Let me quote again from the LA Times story: 

‘‘Although environmentalists had expected the new administration to put the 

brakes on mountaintop removal, [Rep. Nick] Rahall [D-W.Va.] and other mining advocates have pointed out that Obama did not promise to end [mountaintop mining] 

and was more open to it than his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain.’’ 

A review of Obama’s campaign statements, according to the LA Times, shows that 

Obama had ‘‘expressed concern about the practice without promising to end it.’’ 

This gets even more interesting. The Times notes that mountaintop mining ‘‘is politically sensitive because environmentalists were an active force behind Obama’s 

election, and the president’s standing is tenuous among Democratic voters in coal 

states.’’ Moreover, the Times writes, ‘‘Obama needs support from local lawmakers 

for an energy agenda that would further regulate home-state industries, but halting 

mountaintop mining could eliminate jobs and put upward pressure on energy prices 

in a time of economic hardship.’’ 

So, it seems the Administration and its supporters in the environmental community can’t make up their minds about coal and mountaintop mining. It’s not hard 

to understand why. Those ‘‘local lawmakers’’ the LA Times refers to, who are concerned about the future of their communities, are Democrats. Coming from Oklahoma, I would say that Democrats in my home State and in places like West Virginia tend to see coal and energy differently than, say, Speaker Pelosi, Henry Waxman, or the Obama administration. They tend have practical, rather than ideological, views about coal and energy. 

As they see it, coal provides jobs and secures livelihoods for families. Coal also 

is a source of reliable, affordable electricity that powers the economies of West Virginia, Ohio, and much of the Nation. Banning coal or sharply curtailing its use 

makes no sense to people who rely on it every day of their lives. They can’t understand why Democrats in Washington and their friends in the environmental movement think coal is the root of all evil. When they see the likes of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, which would destroy thousands of well-paying jobs for 

hard-working people, or comments from the Secretary of Energy that ‘‘coal is my 

worst nightmare,’’ or from Vice President Biden, who vowed on the campaign trail 

that there would be ‘‘no coal plants here in America,’’ they scratch their heads and 

wonder whether such opinions are grounded in reality. 

As the Democratic leaders in Washington are preparing for the debate tomorrow 

on the disastrous Waxman-Markey bill, and as they continue to fight over whether 

coal should be banned, diminished, or remain central to the Nation’s energy policy, 

the 77,000 hard-working people in Appalachia who work in the mining industry are 

wondering whether they have job security. 

My sincere hope is that the Democrats here in Washington can stop arguing about 

coal and listen to local officials from the heartland. Those officials—again, many of 

them Democrats—do not want to abandon the Clean Water Act and the protections 

it provides to the families who live, work, and play in their communities. They want 

clean water and they should get it. But at the same time, they want the recognition 

that their economic livelihoods matter just the same, both for their communities and 

for the Nation. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. And we all cooperated on scheduling 

this hearing. It was difficult to find a time because of the recess, 

so we know that people will be coming in and out. We may also 

be interrupted by a vote on the floor. So, it is going to be a chal-
12 

lenge and we are going to do the best we can to get in everyone’s 

testimony. 

We are going to start with John ‘‘Randy’’ Pomponio, the Director, 

Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division. The EAID is 

a multi-disciplinary organization with a broad range of regulatory 

and non-regulatory environmental responsibility. The division also 

has the leadership responsibility for environmental planning and 

analysis on environmental data for a better understanding of the 

conditions and trends within the Mountaintop Removal Valley Fill 

Initiative. 

Mr. Pomponio has worked on mountaintop mining permitting 

issues for EPA for more than a decade. 

It is a pleasure to have you with us today. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ‘‘RANDY’’ POMPONIO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INNOVATION DIVISION, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MID-ATLANTIC REGION 

Mr. POMPONIO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. 

I am Randy Pomponio, Director of the Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division in EPA’s Philadelphia Office. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on 

EPA’s efforts to protect and restore water quality and water resources affected by the surface mining of coal, including mountaintop removal and valley fill activities. 

EPA plans to more fully use its authorities under the Clean 

Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to address 

impacts of this type of mining activity on the aquatic and associated forest resources. 

Let me explain why we are so concerned about the issues surrounding ongoing mountaintop mining and similar surface mining 

activities that involve valley fills. 

First, the Clean Water Act sets out goals to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our Nation’s waters, so that they can protect human health and values and support 

the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, as 

well as recreation in and on the water. 

Second, the streams of central and southern Appalachia and the 

forests that play an integral role in the function and quality of 

those streams are very important assets and must themselves be 

protected to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. 

In my written testimony, I quote from a 2003 paper entitled 

Where Rivers Are Born, The Scientific Imperative for Defending 

Small Streams and Wetlands. That paper was written by 11 of the 

Country’s most recognized aquatic experts. They say in their paper 

that the goal of protecting water quality, plant and animal habitat, 

navigable waterways and downstream resources is not achievable 

without the careful protection of headwater streams. 

Third, despite the best efforts of State, local and Federal agencies, too many small streams and wetlands of central and southern 

Appalachia are being buried and polluted. We must do a better job 

of reducing or eliminating site-specific and cumulative impacts associated with these mining activities. 
13 

And, finally, while we continue to be guided by regulatory authorities, I believe we are now at a point where science and policy 

are beginning to converge to reduce the ecological impacts of surface mining practices such as valley fills. 

The EPA is excited to work with other Federal agencies as announced in our joint June 11th Memorandum of Understanding to 

strengthen the regulation and review of these mining activities. 

I would like to share a few facts and then move on to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Valley fills associated with surface coal mining bury streams and 

degrade water quality. Over the years, State and Federal agencies 

have worked hard to address water quality impacts associated with 

valley fills. However, between 1992 and 2002, more than 1,200 

miles of Appalachian streams have been filled at an average rate 

of 120 miles per year. 

Recent studies show that coal mining can result in long-lasting 

impairments to aquatic biota in remaining streams below current 

and past mines. An EPA scientific study published in July 2008 

shows that more than 63 percent of the streams sampled below 

mountaintop coal mining operations exhibit such impairments. In 

some large watersheds, such as the Coal River in West Virginia, 

more than half of the streams are impaired. 

Concentrations of selenium, a heavy metal naturally found in 

rock, can also be elevated in streams draining valley fills. Deformities in fish have been observed downstream of coal mining operations where selenium is a known pollutant. 

Dissolved and particulate organic carbon fuels the food web of 

headwater streams and this nutrient energy cascades downstream. 

Mining operations and associated valley fills essentially rob downstream aquatic communities of this energy source. 

Valley fills associated with surface coal mining can destroy forest, habitat and other important ecosystems. The southern Appalachians are among the richest ecosystems in the United States. 

They represent a bounty of timber, wildlife and recreational assets 

that deserve worldwide recognition. Forests of this area have been 

described as the largest remaining contiguous temperate deciduous 

forest in the world. One area of roughly 13,000 square miles centered in western Virginia contains 144 imperiled species. 

EPA’s 2002 Landscape-Scale Cumulative Impact Study modeled 

terrestrial impacts based on surface permit data. That study basically suggested that, over a 22-year period, nearly 1,189 square 

miles of forest could be removed and cleared. The loss of that forest 

would conservatively equate to the loss of 1.7 million tons per year 

of carbon dioxide sequestration, the equivalent carbon dioxide that 

would be emitted from 300,000 cars. 

Additionally, forests dampen flooding potential and act as natural nutrient sinks. One study estimates that forest cover of 1,189 

square miles provides approximately $138 million per year in nutrient-cycling and waste treatment services. 

Valley fills and associated coal mining should be addressed on a 

cumulative watershed basis. Cumulative impacts are among the 

most critical aspects of regulating and assessing impacts of future 

mines. Rapid cumulative degradation of streams and loss of forest 
14 

habitat may render some watersheds, and indeed entire eco-regions, unable to supply those services. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to 

testify today. EPA understands the importance of domestic coal energy to our energy independence goals and to our Nation’s economy. We want to ensure that this valuable resource is extracted in 

the least intrusive manner to the environment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomponio follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, thank you very much for your testimony and thank you very much for your work. 

I want to start with science, if I might, for a moment. President 

Obama has issued an Executive Order concerning trying to base 

our decisions on good science. What we are trying to find out is 

what good science tells us. Then, we obviously have to make the 

policy judgments. But if it not based upon good science, then everything else sort of falls by the wayside. 

You have made some conclusions as to some of the environmental risks associated with mountaintop removal. I want to know 

how confident you are in the science basis of the public health risk 

and the environmental risk. 

Mr. POMPONIO. I want to give you a bit of a perspective. I am 

a Senior Manager with our Region 3 EPA Office, and, as such, I 

have a number of folks who work for me, some of whom apply their 

skills in the regulatory environment and the Section 404 Program 

that assists in regulating mountaintop mining and valley fill. And 

some of them work in the field to collect environmental data, water 

quality data, and aquatic impact data, to set the science, to set the 

stage for the science, and inform us of what is going on. 

I am very confident in the science that we have in Region 3 and 

across the country that discusses the impacts of valley fill activities 

on streams in central and southern Appalachia. There are a couple 

of reasons for that. The headwaters stream citation that I quoted 

in my prepared remarks strongly states that you cannot achieve 

the goals of the Clean Water Act without protecting headwater 

streams, Eleven scientists commented on that issue, and they cited 

235 references when they did so. It is common knowledge that 

these systems, even these small systems, are necessary networks 

that provide ecological benefits, water quality control, flood control 

and those types of things downstream. 

So, as we look at valley fill activities over the years, we examined 

a lot of referenced information and a lot of studies that had been 

done in the past by recognized scientists. As we evolved in our position on mountaintop mining, we began to notice that, one of the 

things that we really needed to do, is put the period on the end of 

whether or not EPA’s perspective was represented by those studies. 

Many of you may have heard of the Pond-Passmore Study. We 

had our own people go out into the field over a period of a number 

of years and check downstream water quality impacts below valley 

fill operations. And what Pond and Passmore found, and published 

in a peer reviewed journal, was that using the West Virginia method of demonstrating downstream aquatic impacts to insects, which 

is a fairly typical method used by States and the Federal Government, 63 percent of the time downstream of those valley fills water 

quality impacts to the aquatic insects were recognized to a point 

where we perceived that the narrative water quality criteria of the 

State would have been exceeded. 

A different method that Pond and Passmore and others are looking at, the GLIMPSS method, improves the accuracy of such measures. With the GLIMPSS method 93 percent of streams downstream of those valley fills were impacted. 

So, we are very confident in our information. Having said that, 

we have talked to the State of West Virginia’s Deputy Director, 
29 

Randy Hoffman, a colleague of mine, about concerns he has with 

our interpretation of the Science. We have asked the scientific community within EPA to once again review the information that we 

have collected to make sure that it is accurate and of high quality. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for that answer. We will include, 

without objection, the report that you are referring to, Downstream 

effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions 

using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment 

tools. We will include that in the record of the Committee. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator CARDIN. I know that Secretary Huffman will be testifying later and he does call into question as to whether you have 

used broad-based scientific information or one study within the 

agency. I think you have already answered that. This is relying on 

broader scientific information than just one member of your staff. 

Mr. POMPONIO. Yes, it is. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Let me talk about the cumulative 

effect, because I think that is an extremely important point. You 

look at one application, you say, gee, you know, it is only a few 

acres, it does not seem like it could have that much of a long-term 

impact on the environment. 

But you talked in your statement about the cumulative effect 

that we now have. I think in one report it is 1,700, is it miles? I 

know it is a unit. I said in my opening statement, of streams that 

have been affected, we have found thousands of acres being affected and not just a few. Can you talk a little bit more about how 

you need to look at the cumulative impact that an application approval might mean, if we continue at the current pace, what impact 

this has on the environment? 

Mr. POMPONIO. Yes. I am glad that you worded it that way. We 

need to look at the cumulative impact. I do not think that we have 

been doing a good job of doing that at all levels. 

We need to look at cumulative impacts for several reasons. One 

is that there is an integral relationship between the forest and the 

streams in the area. When you lose forest, you lose a lot of the capacity of the streams to process and transfer the organic materials 

that feed the critters downstream. You lose the capacity of the forest to cool the streams. You lose transpiration through the leaves 

to help attenuate flooding problems and those sorts of things. 

These little streams, which some people estimate represent 80 

percent of the water resource in the entire Country, are like capillaries in your blood system. They are what travel through the 

landscape, capture the pollutants, and clean those pollutants, 

through the microorganisms in the streams themselves and 

through sediment filtration in the stream bottom. And we frankly 

do not know where the tipping point is in losing 1 stream, 5 

streams, or even 18 streams in a particular watershed. So, our position is that we need to do a better job with that cumulative impact assessment. 

In some of the watersheds in the region that I deal with, the 

footprint of the mining operations, mountaintop and other surface 

mining, encompass up to 20 to 30 percent of the watershed area. 

That, just to a lay person, would cause one to suggest that there 

needs to be some more rigorous opportunity to take a look at what 

that might mean. Downstream in the creek watershed I believe 

that upwards of half of the streams have been listed on the 303(d) 

list, which is a list of stream miles that do not necessarily meet 

water quality criteria and standards. 

So, as we look at all of these mines and as we look at them one 

by one, we have to ask ourselves, in a particular watershed, can 

the watershed be resilient enough, and have a carrying capacity in 

terms of natural attenuation of problems, to accept that one mine? 

Or can it not accept that one mine? I do not believe we know the 

answers to those questions, and I think we need to do a better job. 
52 

Senator CARDIN. And let me ask you, last, on the issues of forest 

itself, you commented on the importance of the forest cover as it 

relates to the water quality and the environmental conditions generally. We know that on mountaintop removal, the forest is basically destroyed. 

My question is, after you have done mountaintop removal, is 

there an adequate remedial program that can compensate for the 

loss of the forest that was there previous to the mountaintop removals or adequate ways that we can try to compensate for this? 

Mr. POMPONIO. I think that is a two-part answer again. Practices 

in the past that involved compaction of the soil and the distribution 

of non-forest cover plants, did not necessary give one a lot of hope 

for a lot of quick or even mid-term forest recovery. 

I do not quite know about the future. There are different operations now that are learning from the past. They are avoiding soil 

compaction and preserving topsoil, practices that were not common 

previously. I think it still has to be examined as to whether or not 

these methods will actually achieve reforestation. 

Senator CARDIN. And I can appreciate that. I just raise an observation, and that is we do not know where technology will take us. 

I am sure there are going to be remedial efforts that will be effective in dealing with some of the damage that has caused. 

We do know the value of forest. We do know the values of vegetation. Once that is destroyed, it puts you in a very difficult position 

to try to catch up. The remedial programs may help a little bit, but 

when you have eliminated that natural protection, for so many reasons to our environment, including our concerns about carbon emissions, it is difficult to see how you can have an effective policy. 

And the last point on this is runoff. When you flatten the land, 

you certainly make the runoff issues much more complicated to try 

to deal with, with sediment, et cetera. And toxics. It makes it extremely challenging to figure out how the remedial programs could 

possibly compensate for the condition that was there before the removal. 

Mr. POMPONIO. I agree with that. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank you for your testimony. We 

appreciate it very much. As I said in the beginning, this will be a 

continuing effort of our Subcommittee and I think you have given 

us a good start to our work. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. POMPONIO. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We are going to start with the second panel. I 

believe we will be interrupted during that period. I am looking in 

my BlackBerry and it looks like there are votes called at about 4:10 

p.m. But why do we not get started with our second panel. 

On our second panel, we have Paul Sloan, the Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Mr. Sloan oversees the Tennessee regulation of coal mining 

regulations. Tennessee prohibits the practice of valley fills and 

maintains a successful extraction industry. Mr. Sloan can also 

speak to the regulatory reforms on the coal industry that would require better environmental protection. 

Randy Huffman is the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection. West Virginia’s Depart-
53 

ment of Environmental Protection has oversight and regulatory authority of the valley fills associated with mountaintop mining sites 

in that State. 

Maria Gunnoe is a community organizer of the Ohio Valley Environmental Valley Coalition. Mrs. Gunnoe is a property owner in 

Lindytown, West Virginia, whose land has been impacted by the 

nearby mountaintop removal operations. She just received a prestigious 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize for organizing work in 

the coal fields. This prize is given to one person per continent per 

year. She has been the subject of several documentaries and is a 

frequent speaker and advocate for coal field communities. 

And Dr. Margaret Palmer, Laboratory Director, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences. I am particularly pleased that Dr. Palmer has 

joined us. She is well respected in our State of Maryland. The 

broad objective of Dr. Palmer’s research is to understand what controls streams, ecosystems, structures and functions. She specifically 

focuses on restoration ecology and how land use, hydrology and 

geopathology influence the health of running water ecosystems. Dr. 

Palmer is considered an international expert on freshwater systems. 

And with that, we will start with Secretary Sloan. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL L. SLOAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 

Mr. SLOAN. Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity you have given me to testify this 

afternoon. I am Paul Sloan, Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation. 

Coal mining in Tennessee is best considered in the context of the 

rich cultural and natural heritage of the Cumberland Plateau, 

which is part of a 37 million eco-region stretching some 500 miles 

through six states, a region said to be the largest temperate hardwood plateau in the world. 

In Tennessee, the plateau stretches from the Alabama border 

northeast to the Kentucky and Virginia borders. Its watersheds 

drain to the east and west, into the Tennessee River and the Cumberland River, and include significant portions of our 60,000 miles 

of rivers and streams in Tennessee. These two major watersheds 

contain some of the most biologically diverse freshwater streams 

found anywhere in the United States. 

Roughly 600,000 acres of the plateau in Tennessee are public 

lands. Over 600 miles of State scenic highways thread this landscape, connecting more than 80 State and Federal parks, recreational, natural and wildlife management areas, as well as the 

Obed and National Wild and Scenic River and the Big South Fork 

National River and Recreation Area. 

In short, the Cumberland Plateau is an invaluable resource, a 

gem for public recreation and ecological diversity. 

Coal mining on the plateau has been conducted since the early 

1800s. Much of the estimated 50,000 acres of pre-1977 unregulated 

mining has left a legacy of abandoned mine lands that pose ongo-
54 

ing health and safety risks as well as water pollution from sediment and acid mine drainage. 

Approximately 3 million tons are mined per year in Tennessee, 

significantly less than our sister States, West Virginia, Alabama, 

Kentucky and Virginia, and well below our own peak of 11 million 

tons per year in the early 1970s. 

For the past 25 years, mining oversight in Tennessee is under 

SMCRA and has been administered not by the State, but by OSM. 

The State implements the Federal Clean Water Act as well as the 

Tennessee Water Pollution Control Act, which provides that the 

waters of the State are a public trust, that the people of Tennessee 

have a right to unpolluted waters, and that the government has 

the obligation to protect that right. 

In our implementation of the Federal and State mandates, Tennessee does not permit burial of streams for valley fills. There is 

neither sufficient social nor economic justification for such unalterable environmental and ecological insults. In Appalachia, mountaintop removal and water quality are incompatible. 

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen recently signed into law a Responsible Mining Bill that codifies our requirement that all mining 

must maintain a 100 buffer foot on either side of all un-mined 

streams and prohibits mining of coal seems that have a high acidbearing overburden, without demonstrated technology capable of 

properly handling such materials. 

We very much support the purpose and intent of the Appalachian 

Restoration Act to prohibit filling streams with waste materials 

from coal mining and to bring nationwide consistency to this issue. 

We also support the intent of the Clean Water Restoration Act to 

bring consistency and clarity to what are Federal jurisdiction waters in the first place. 

Responsible mining is possible in Appalachia. But only if the regulatory oversight and management are guided by the most current 

information available in order to consistently avoid unnecessary 

impacts. This is why Governor Bredesen has requested OSM to do 

an environmental impact statement in regard to Tennessee coal 

mining. The goal of this request is to have a rigorous, objective 

analysis of all impacts of coal mining on Tennessee’s economy, as 

well as the environment. 

For the same reason, we applaud the recent MOU among EPA, 

the Corps and Interior, calling for an interagency action plan to reduce unnecessary environmental impacts. In support of these efforts, we hope Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service will revisit the 

1996 biological opinion on consultation under the Endangered Species Act, and that EPA will update its 1985 effluent guidelines for 

mining operations. 

In closing, I want to restate my appreciation to the Subcommittee for taking up this issue. As stewards of the public trust, 

both Federal and State government have a high duty to resource 

protection in the mountains of Appalachia. So it is my hope that 

Appalachian mining practices will be limited to those known to be 

compatible with preserving the mountains and streams of this extraordinary area. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sloan follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Secretary Huffman. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY HUFFMAN, CABINET SECRETARY, 

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Secretary HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to represent West Virginia’s concerns in this dialog over mountaintop 

mining. 

Senator CARDIN. Would you just turn your microphone on, if you 

have not? 

Secretary HUFFMAN. I apologize. It says it is on. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Good. 

Secretary HUFFMAN. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today to represent West Virginia’s concerns in this dialog over 

mountaintop mining and its impact on water quality. 

As you know, West Virginia is at the center of the debate, from 

both a regulatory perspective and a geographical perspective, since 

the majority of the Appalachian Highlands where mountaintop 

mining is practiced are located in West Virginia. 

It is important that we first, though, frame the discussion in 

proper context. Mountaintop mining is one of many surface mining 

methods recognized and regulated by the Surface Mining Act. And, 

as the State’s top environmental regulator, it is not something that 

I come here today with the intention of promoting for or speaking 

against. 

What must be understood is that the connection between protecting water quality and the practice of mountaintop mining, is 

not a unique one. Nor is the assumption by many that valley fills 

are only associated with mountaintop mining. 

In fact, the debate cannot be limited to surface coal mining alone. 

Hard rock surface mining, other development activities, and any 

other activity that removes vegetation and breaks rock can be subject to the same types of concerns and issues. 

There are may surface mines that are not mountaintop removal 

by definition which require valley fills. And in fact, in West Virginia, 90 percent of all surface mining activity contains at least one 

fill. And, as you know, 40 percent of our State’s coal production 

comes from surface mining. 

Also, the Clean Water Act and West Virginia’s Water Enforcement Program require the same levels of protection for all mining 

activity, regardless of whether it is mountaintop mining by definition. 

While West Virginia is concerned about losing the opportunities 

associated with mountaintop mining for future economic development, our greatest concerns are the uncertain regulatory climate 

EPA has created and the unintended consequences of their recent 

actions that have the potential to significantly limit all types of 

mining. 

I believe it is important to understand West Virginia’s role in enforcing the Clean Water Act. While West Virginia is concerned 

about the economic impacts that would accompany any policy 

change that reduces coal production, my agency’s role is, and hence 
90 

our primary objective in this discussion is, the protection of our 

water resources. 

The Clean Water Act clearly allows EPA to delegate portions of 

the act to the States and we believe that was Congress’ intent as 

they recognize the States as being better positioned to regulate 

than the Federal Government. 

The DEP in West Virginia has a very effective and progressive 

regulatory program. We have been regulating mining-related impacts to surface and groundwater since we received primacy over 

SMCRA from the Office of Surface Mining in 1981. Our program 

has evolved a great deal since then and continues to grow and 

change as research and technology help us learn more about health 

and environmental impacts from our industrial processes. 

Concurrently with the primacy of SMRCA, we have delegated authority from EPA to oversee the Clean Water Act, section 402, permitting program, and section 401, which is the certification of Federal permits. In fact, before one certification authority, which is the 

EPA’s current challenge to West Virginia’s program, is not delegated by EPA but is delegated to the States by Congress through 

the Clean Water Act itself. 

West Virginia received awards in 2005 and 2007 from the EPA 

for ‘‘outstanding performance in implementing their NPDES program.’’ EPA’s recent inquiry scrutiny over the Army Corps of Engineers’ authority to issue valley fill permits is intended to be a way 

to curb mountaintop mining. EPA has clearly stated this on numerous occasions. 

The problem is, in so doing, the EPA’s selected venue has been 

to attack West Virginia’s 401 certification program. In short, EPA 

is not claiming that West Virginia is failing to enforce Federal law. 

They are wrongly claiming that West Virginia is failing to enforce 

its own rules, which have gone through proper rulemaking channels and which, ironically, EPA has approved as being protective. 

Further, this position by EPA is new. It evolved out of Region 3 

in Philadelphia since January in the absence of a Regional Administrator appointed by President Obama. 

Even as coal’s future is being debated, West Virginia is positioning itself to continue to be an energy producing State. In just 

the past month, Governor Joe Manchin has signed into law three 

pieces of legislation that do just that: one requiring coal burning 

power plants to diversify their energy portfolio to include alternative and renewable energy; the second creates a regulatory 

framework for establishing a permitting program for carbon capture and sequestration; and the third, turning reclaimed surface 

mine lands into a resource that can be used in a post-mining economy. 

I will close with a comment about the latter. West Virginia and 

our Nation needs job and we need coal. Nothing in the debate over 

surface mining is going to change that in the short term. But in 

the long term, as we mine and use a nonrenewable resource, and 

as we develop alternative energy sources, the people that live in 

the steep, narrow terrain of southern West Virginia need the opportunities created by surface mining. 
91 

And as the State’s regulatory agency, the DEP in West Virginia 

needs consistency and clarity from EPA in order to be effective regulators. And right now, we do not have that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Huffman follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it very much. 

Maria Gunnoe. First of all, congratulations on the award that 

you received. That is quite an accomplishment. 

Ms. GUNNOE. Thank you, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA GUNNOE, ORGANIZER, OHIO VALLEY 

ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION 

Ms. GUNNOE. My name is Maria Gunnoe. I am from southern 

West Virginia, Boone County. Boone County is the No. 1 coal producing county in West Virginia, next to McDowell County, and they 

are both equally impoverished. 

Energy that is produced from mountaintop removal coal mining 

is, basically it is bringing temporary jobs. This is temporary energy. And the destruction is permanent. We get what is left. 

I hear a lot of professionals, if you will, defending mountaintop 

removal mining in the name of economic development and that is, 

quite honestly, not true. There is no economic development desired 

if people do not live there. If people cannot live in these areas, 

there is no need for shopping malls. There is no need for infrastructure if people cannot live there. 

Basically, what goes on where we live at, there is a massive 

amount of blasting that goes on around our homes. And this blasting, of course it is unnerving to the people that have to live in 

those conditions, and I am one of those people. What it does to our 

air quality is horrible. Myself and my children actually suffer from 

the causes of the blasting at this mine site. 

My home is located here. This is the top of my house. Our property, we have acreage, a lot of acreage, that covers this area here. 

This is the mine site behind my home. This here is the valley fill. 

There are two ponds at the toe of this valley fill. These ponds are 

to settle out the coal mines that wash through this massive operation. And in 2003, these ponds failed and when they failed, they 

devastated my home. It literally washed away about five acres of 

my land, turned it into a landslide and washed it away. 

At that point, I began organizing in the communities that I live 

in. This is the people that I live around, the people that I grew up 

with. This is a common impact. When you have a valley fill, what 

you have is not only polluted water, but you have a mountaintop 

removal site that is allowing this water to run freely, there is nothing slowing it down, into this valley fill, which has two ponds that 

sit at the bottom of it, and it causes catastrophic flooding. This is 

not only me. This is on people throughout the area I live in. 

The blasting is one nightmare. But the water pollution is horrible. We can live without energy in West Virginia. But we absolutely cannot live without good, healthy, clean water. 

One of the things that I feel compelled to address is jobs. In 

1950, we had 150,000 coal mining jobs in the State of West Virginia alone. Today, we have less than 15,000 coal mining jobs. 

Now, you will hear a lot of difference in those numbers. But, honestly, I am talking about coal miners. I am not talking about the 

people who work in the office. I am not talking about the people 

that work in the janitorial departments. I am talking about the 
115 

coal miners, the people that actually mine coal. There are less than 

15,000. I have heard 12,000. 

But this is not about jobs. The mountaintop removal absolutely 

is not about jobs. Mountaintop removal is a human rights issue. 

Myself and my children have a right, as United States citizens, to 

clean water. And that right is being taken away from us in the 

State of West Virginia. 

And there is no replacing that. You cannot replace my water. 

You can give me city water access, but you cannot replace the 

springs and the streams and the well water that has sustained our 

lives for hundreds of years. There is no replacing that. There is no 

reclaiming the land that has been destroyed. It will never be again 

what it once was. 

We need to decide, as a Country, is it really, can we really keep 

doing this? Can we really keep flattening mountains to produce energy? I say no. Because there are only so many mountains and we 

will run out. We will run out of coal. The USGS suggests that we 

have 20 years of mineable coal left. We need to start making a plan 

right away so that we do not leave our children in area of devastation: no water, no energy and no plan. We need to think about 

what we are doing to our children. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gunnoe follows:] 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

You really do put a face on the issue. A lot of time we hear about 

the people who are affected, and I think your personal story is very 

compelling and I thank you very much for that. 

Dr. Palmer, with your permission, I think we are going to take 

about a 10-minute recess and we will be back. 

The Subcommittee will reconvene in about 8 to 10 minutes. 

There is a vote currently pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate 

and I will return as soon as I can cast my vote. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARDIN. I apologize for the interruption, but we had a 

vote on the Senate floor. I think we will be OK and I will be to 

complete the hearing. 

Dr. Palmer. I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. PALMER, Ph.D., LABORATORY 

DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Ms. PALMER. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am very happy to be 

here. 

I have been researching streams and watersheds for more than 

25 years and, while I am a professor at the University of Maryland, 

I also have a home in West Virginia and my family is from the Appalachian regions of North Carolina. So this is close to my heart. 

There is irrefutable scientific evidence that the environmental 

impacts of mountaintop removal are substantial and they are permanent. Related to this, I want to make three points today. 

First, as you have heard, many beautiful headwater streams 

such as the one in this photograph are destroyed when they are 

buried by fills. Headwater streams are exponentially more important than their size would suggest. In watersheds, they function 

very much like the smallest branches in our lungs that deliver oxygen that nourishes our entire body. Without them we would slowly 

suffocate. 

As headwaters are lost, the cumulative impacts are significant. 

The larger streams and rivers below become unable to support life. 

The second point I want to make is related to the pollution that 

results from the process of mountaintop removal. Chemicals that 

leach from the valley fills are a result of exposure of mine rocks 

to air and water, and this results in the movement of elevated levels of sulfate, aluminum, selenium and many ions into the water 

that permeates the watershed downstream. 

There is a very large body of science documenting this and, in 

fact, Mr. Huffman’s agency, the West Virginia DEP, has a very 

long list of mine-impacted streams on the 303(d) list. And this listing is influenced by contaminants that are in the water, not influenced by those in the stream sediments where they actually are 

largely stored. And, also, the stream sediments are where the fish 

feed and, of course, when we walk in streams, we are walking 

where these contaminants are stored. 

These contaminants move. They extend great distances downstream with toxic effects on organisms. The levels of selenium that 

occur in these systems can cause things like huge curvatures of the 
140 

spine in fish, two eyes on one side of the head; there is no question 

that these levels of contaminants are a problem. Unfortunately, 

they also persist for a very long time even after the mines are not 

active. 

Now, let us talk about Mayflies for a few minutes. We have been 

hearing a lot of people saying, well, is it about bugs? Is it about 

bugs versus people? Well, absolutely not. It is about what the loss 

of Mayflies represents. 

We use rats to test for effects of toxic materials on humans. Well, 

guess what? For aquatic streams, for streams and rivers, we use 

bugs, small bugs that live in the streams. Their loss tells us something is wrong with the streams below valley fills. And I can tell 

you that you would not find a single, credible scientist that would 

refute this fact. I certainly would not allow my children to wade 

and play in streams that have these levels of contaminants. 

The third point I want to make is related to, is there evidence 

that mitigation is actually working? And I am very sorry to say 

that, unfortunately, there is not evidence of that. Attempts to create streams to replace lost ones have been made by trying to make 

ditches with similar structural features to real streams. But there 

are no measurements demonstrating that they function like real 

streams. 

Just as an aside, in scientific jargon, structures are how things 

look and functions are how they work. 

Digging a ditch, adding rocks and diverting water to it does not 

make a living functional stream. No direct measurement of how 

streams function have been provided for streams that are created, 

or ones that are restored, in some cases for full mitigation credit 

after mining. 

Now, just to drive this point home, it is easy to understand the 

difference between structure and function when you think about 

routine health measurements. For example, my husband is a really 

good-looking guy. He is 6 foot 2 inches, he weighs about 185 

pounds which are his ‘‘structural features.’’ But guess what? He 

has really high blood pressure. He is at a high risk of heart disease. Can you imagine a doctor giving him a clean bill of health 

without taking some measurements of how his systems are functioning? His blood pressure, his heart rate, his metabolism of glucose, et cetera. 

So, from a scientific point of view, it is equally unacceptable to 

say a stream is healthy ecologically just because there are rocks in 

it and there is water in it. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman and fellow Senators, mountaintop 

mining first causes permanent environmental impacts. Second, networks of streams that are not directly touched by the mining activities are biologically impaired because the water quality impacts 

permeate downstream great distances. Third, there is no evidence 

whatsoever that mitigation is replacing what is lost. Measurements 

of ecological functions are not even being done. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Palmer follows:] 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Dr. Palmer, and thank all of 

you for your testimony. Let me ask a couple of questions and then 

I will yield to Senator Alexander. 

Dr. Palmer, you make a pretty convincing case in regards to public health and environmental risks associated with the contaminants from mountaintop removal as well as the loss of the headwaters the impact that has had on the environment. 

My question to you is, how effective would remedial programs be 

to mitigate these damages? Are there ways in which we can restore 

the environmental damage caused by these fills? Is there any effective way to reverse this after the damage has been done? 

Ms. PALMER. Well, so far there is no scientific evidence that that 

can be done. I mention that the impacts persist a very long time, 

even after mining has stopped. The U.S. Geological Survey and others have done studies, for example, in watersheds where mining 

has been ceased for a number of years and they are still finding 

high levels, for example, of selenium. In some cases, are talking 50 

years out. 

So, what it means is that you really cannot reverse that, not at 

least in any time span that we can relate to as humans. 

Two forms of mitigation are the ones that I have seen most often: 

attempts to create streams, as I mentioned, by digging a ditch and 

moving water through it; and, attempts to restore streams that are 

nearby. 

When you have taken the entire top of the mountain off, you 

have fundamentally altered the hydrology. Headwater streams are 

supported primarily, or to a large extent, by groundwater inputs. 

When you have a valley fill in, and a flat top mountain, when it 

rains on that mountain, the water moves into the valley fill and it 

actually infiltrates very rapidly. You get a larger discharge out of 

that valley fill than those streams below it have ever experienced. 

It tends to be much more constant. And very little of that, or none 

of that, has passed through the normal groundwater paths that a 

healthy stream would receive. 

Keep in mind that when it rains in a healthy watershed, the 

vegetation, the soil bacteria and those very specific layers of soil 

that are present in these forests help remove contaminants, if there 

are any, in the rainwater. They also supply the water with nutrients. And as that water soaks into the ground, it reaches a point 

and it moves laterally to the headwater streams. That is why they 

say this is where rivers are born. 

So, it is hard to imagine, without geological time passing and 

getting new mountains back, how you could possibly ever replace 

those streams that are lost. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for that answer. 

Secretary Huffman, I want to get to your point about the fact 

that there is more fill than just coming from mountaintop mining. 

I understand that point. I want to know what you think you can 

do in West Virginia to deal with the headwater issue. From your 

testimony, you indicate that is an issue. What can be done in order 

to restore or to preserve the headwater streams that you think is 

effective without denying these permits? 

Secretary HUFFMAN. Well, there has been a lot of activity over 

the past 10 years. We have been through a cycle, at a more lower 
195 

level that is similar to the debate today in the last 1990s and the 

early part of this decade regarding some of these similar type activities. One of the many results of that was an attempt to come 

up with different formulas for reducing the size of the valley fills 

because it was recognized that that was an issue that was growing 

in West Virginia. 

Subsequently, the sizes of the valley fills that are being permitted have shrunk. But I think an unintended consequence of that 

is the number of valley fills has increased. 

There is a lot of work that needs to be done. A lot of the things 

that Dr. Palmer is talking about are currently being researched 

and experimented with and we think that is the nature of environmental regulatory programs and the protection of the environment 

is for the science to continue to be the driver, we agree with that, 

and research dollars need to be invested and solutions sought. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me yield to Senator Alexander. I will have 

a few questions after Senator Alexander is finished. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I apologize 

to the witnesses for, well, when I was Governor I could schedule 

things properly. But the Senate does not work that way, does it? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. Our subcommittee hearing ran and I had to 

be there for it and then we had our vote. So, I will read the testimony that you have sent it and consider it very carefully. It will 

be a part of our record. And this is just the first of our hearings 

on this subject. 

I want to Mr. Sloan, if I may, and if I ask you a question that 

you answered when I was not here, excuse me, but I would like to 

make sure that I get it. 

Am I correct that, as we define it today, the coal mining practices 

in Tennessee do not remove the tops of mountains and place them 

in streams? Is that correct today? 

Mr. SLOAN. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In the past 15 or 20 years, did we have 

mountaintop removal, by that definition? 

Mr. SLOAN. Not by that definition. We did have very limited, our 

staff has gone back some 15 or more so years ago and identified 

one case where we had a mountaintop removal which we would define there as that the mountain was not returned to some proximate contour of the historical contour of the mountain. That does 

not mean that there had not been mountaintop landscapes significantly affected by the mining activity, but not mountaintop removal as we defined it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Would it be possible, under current Federal 

law, for a mountaintop, well, for coal mining, to take excess waste 

and dump it in streams in Tennessee? 

Mr. SLOAN. Boy, that is an interesting question. It is particularly 

interesting for us because we administer both the Federal Clean 

Water Act as well as our own Water Pollution Control Act. And 

under our Water Pollution Control Act, there is no question that 

we do not allow it. 

In administering the Clean Water Act, and particularly the 401 

certification, it would be our, it is a hypothetical, in a way, because 
196 

we are administering both now. But, my thought is that we would 

not certify valley fills under 401 simply because we could not be 

satisfied that there would be no net loss of resources. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But your administration may not be there. 

Will it be there for another year-and-a-half? And would you agree 

that, in order to make sure that we do not have those excess 

wastes put in valley streams again, that we should change the Federal law in the way that Senator Cardin and I have suggested? 

Mr. SLOAN. I would absolutely concur with that. I think for West 

Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, all of Appalachia, all 

those of us who are charged with oversight of environmental laws, 

consistency, clarity, is at a premium. And we do not have it today. 

And there are a number of pieces of legislation, particularly the 

Appalachian Restoration Act, I think, that brings clarify and consistency, and that is very important to us. 

Senator ALEXANDER. We have talked about mining practices in 

Tennessee. But is it not possible, or likely, that mountaintop removal has had some effect on waters that come into Tennessee 

from other States? 

Mr. SLOAN. Very possible. I have to say that certainly we share 

some very important rivers with our neighboring States, one of 

which is Virginia. I am very proud of an MOU that we have with 

Region 3 and Virginia DMME, the Department of Mining, Minerals 

and Energy, as well as Virginia DE, too, which focuses on the 

Clinch and the Powell and the extraordinary aquatics there. 

But it really does take a regional approach. It takes partnership. 

I am delighted that we have it there and we are making, I think, 

some good progress on the relative impacts occurring in the neighboring States. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I remember that, some time ago, when I 

was still Governor, Governor Allen and I did some work together 

on that. 

I have one last question, if I may. Mr. Chairman, most of our 

coal mining in Tennessee is in four upper Cumberland counties 

which are naturally beautifully counties and they have historically 

been among our poorer countries, more low-income families. That 

is changing somewhat now, based on my visits, because of the natural beauty of the area and the parks in the area. People are moving in. Money is coming in, creating more tourism and jobs. 

I know the Governor of Tennessee has talked to me before about 

his interest in evaluating how we can make certain that we have 

appropriate coal mining in the area but, at the same time, we do 

not do anything to damage the natural beauty of the area, not just 

for environmental reasons, but because of the importance of raising 

family incomes by tourism and by bringing people in who buy 

farms and buildup the property tax. 

I think back on the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which 

is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. While it is nearly, 

what is managed, is nearly a wilderness area, all of the incentive 

for it 75 years ago was for economic development. It was a bunch 

of people in the eastern United States who said well, why are all 

these parks out west? We want one, too. We want the tourists. And 

we want their dollars. 
197 

So, what is the Governor’s attitude, and yours, about the importance of maintaining the parks and the natural beauty of the area 

as a way of raising family incomes in the upper Cumberland part 

of Tennessee? 

Mr. SLOAN. I think both the State, as well as the Federal Government, have invested largely in assuring public access and public 

lands on the plateau. I had said earlier that we have roughly 

600,000 acres on the plateau that are public lands. We have over 

80 State and Federal parks and natural areas, including the Big 

South Fork Scenic River and Recreational Area. And 2 years ago, 

the Governor acquired conservation interests in over 130,000 acres 

on the plateau, which is the largest land acquisition for the State 

of Tennessee, and for the enjoyment of the people of Tennessee, 

since the Great Smoky Mountains. 

So, I think that is a value that is held very highly by this administration and by the entire State. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. And you might tell 

the Governor that at the subcommittee meeting that I just went to 

on the Interior Appropriations Committee bill, that the full committee approved another $5 million or so for the purchase of lands 

in upper Cumberland regions. So I would want to make sure that, 

at the same time we dealt with legislation like this, Mr. Chairman, 

that it was not inconsistent with that. 

Thank you for allowing me a little extra time for my questions. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate it very much. 

I just want to follow up on the economic issue for one moment, 

because, in all of our States in the Appalachia, the tourism dollars 

seem to be increasing rather dramatically. It is a beautiful area. I 

live close by and I have been up to Appalachia many times. It is 

a growing industry. We have the numbers and the numbers seem 

to be growing. It seems to me that some of the environmental risks 

and public health risks are counter to the economic opportunities 

of this region. 

Secretary Huffman, one thing that I think I noticed in your testimony, and I just want to challenge if, for a moment, and give you 

a chance to respond. One of the arguments that have been made 

on the fills is the flattening of the mountaintops, particularly as for 

development. It gives you economic development opportunities. And 

yet the studies that I have seen show that there is very little development being done in these lands that are basically being left in 

these conditions. Very little has been developed. I think Mrs. 

Gunnoe has a point about how people do not want to live near 

these areas anyway. 

Do you have any indication about the economic development opportunities associated with this? I think I saw that somewhere in 

your testimony, and I just want to give you a chance because it 

seems like just the opposite is true. 

Secretary HUFFMAN. Well, Senator, that is a very good question. 

Historically, we have not been very good at taking advantage of the 

opportunities that the reclaimed mine land would offer and present 

for the local communities in rural West Virginia. A couple of 

changes recently have taken place that is changing that whole dynamic. 
198 

First of all is the post-mining land uses that are being selected 

now, and this is a trend that has been going on for 5 or 6 years, 

has been to select the forestry reclamation approach. Nearly 80 

percent, I think it is about 78 percent, nearly 80 percent of the 

post-mining land uses that are chosen for all of our surface mining 

activities in the State are what is called the forest or reclamation 

approach. That consists of reestablishing the native hardwood forest. We are basically planting trees. And there is a science to that. 

It is not a matter of sticking a seed in the ground. 

So that has been the vast majority of the reclamation approaches 

that have been taking place recently. Just this last legislative session, in fact it was last week, Governor Manchin signed into law 

a post-mine land use bill that would bring together the local redevelopment authorities and get local buy-in and force them, or require them, to develop a land use master plan for their county as 

it relates to surface mining and ensure that any time there is an 

opportunity to take advantage of a reclamation project on a mine 

site, that that is done in a coordinated fashion. 

Historically, we have not communicated very well. We have not 

done a very good job with that and the Governor recognizes that 

is an issue and we are moving in that direction. 

We are building, if you do not mind me, please stop me if you 

want me to stop—— 

Senator CARDIN. I want you to give as much West Virginia commercial time as you want to take on potential development. And I 

want you to have those reclamation projects and I want to make 

sure our water supply is clean and I want to make sure that we 

deal with the environmental risks here. 

I am going to put into the record a number of studies, to be included in the record, and they show, let me just give you this number, one shows that there have been over 5,800 valley fills in West 

Virginia and Kentucky over the last 10 years. A VA Tech professor 

estimates that less than 1 percent has been reclaimed for economic 

development. I do not know, again, we will look at those specific 

numbers. 

I only raise this because we hear about the economics. All of us, 

Senator Alexander and I, started off by saying coal is an important 

part of America. In West Virginia and Kentucky, there is great potential for economic growth that we think may be hampered by 

mountaintop recoveries. We think that needs to be taken into consideration when the economic argument is made. 

We are here to talk about public safety, the water, et cetera. But 

we hear the economic arguments. And, in some respects, I think if 

you use the economic arguments, it is another reason to stop mountaintop recoveries, because I think you have a much better chance 

of economic growth without that type of activity and the reclamation issues are much more complicated when you have taken off 

the mountaintop. 

I want to ask one more question, to Mrs. Gunnoe, and that is 

that you gave a pretty vivid picture of what you have to live with. 

That picture is certainly very compelling. I want you to tell me 

whether you have experienced a high instance of flash floods or uncontrolled issues as a result of the mountaintop operations near 
199 

you. Have you experienced a difference as a result of these operations? 

Ms. GUNNOE. I have. A tremendous difference. I have lived there, 

first, I have lived there for 41 years. I am 41 years old. I have lived 

there my entire life. And I have watched many rain storms come 

and go. Since the valley fill, it is almost a given. When we get rain, 

we get flooded. 

There have been times that I have had the water raise with no 

rain at all. So, literally, the coal companies, something happened 

back on the mine site, and the water raised. The sun was shining, 

the rain had nothing to do with it. Yes, I was flooded with no rain. 

It definitely changes the entire aquifer, the entire everything. 

The hollow that I live in, literally, you have two mountains that 

come in together, it has changed everything simple because the 

water itself, the increase in the water itself, has washed away the 

bottoms of the mountains. With that, it has allowed the mountains 

to slide in and then wash away again. And then behind it all, you 

have got this huge plug known as a valley fill and it has literally 

devastated every bit of our property in Amalfus Hollow. 

And it continues to do it. It is literally washing away the land 

that I live on. I am the only one that lives in this hollow. I know 

every step of it and I have known every step of it my entire life 

and there is nothing, I mean, even the, I will tell you, the sun 

never did come through my bedroom window all of my life. Since 

they took the mountaintop off, the sun now comes in my bedroom 

window. Now there is a change you would not think about. 

It dramatically changes everything, especially the water flow. 

The water flow takes on a life of its own, if you will. It literally 

meanders and goes wherever it wants to. 

I would like to point out, too, that you have, with a mine site behind me, you have 1,183 acres in one operation and you have 746 

acres in another operation. That is almost 2,000 acres of nothing 

but rock. That does not absorb water. Water runs off of it. And 

when the water runs off on it, it runs off of it in such a way that 

it tears everything in its sight out. Literally, when I was flooded 

in 2003, the floodwaters included live, standing trees. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, once again, we thank you for really putting a face on this issue. 

Mrs. GUNNOE. I appreciate that. 

Senator CARDIN. We hear about the impact, but until you know 

someone who has experienced it first hand, it does not have the 

type of impact that your testimony has had. 

Mrs. GUNNOE. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The only other thing I would say is that I 

am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you emphasized the economic part of 

it. I mean, first, I do not think that any of us need to make any 

apology for enjoying the beauty of the natural outdoors. Nobody in 

east Tennessee does. If you walk down the street and ask people 

why they live there, that is what they will tell you. 

But also, I could go into the Sevier County Chamber of Congress, 

which is close to Butcher Holler where Dolly Parton grew up, and 

that was a poor county before the Great Smoky Mountain National 

Park. If you go in there now and ask this county, which is 80 per-
200 

cent Republican, what their No. 1 chamber of commerce issue is, 

it is clean air. Because they want to have an environment that people will want to come visit and spend their money. 

As I look at the area we are looking at in Tennessee, where we 

have, I mean I know these counties pretty well. It is Claiborne 

County and Campbell County and Anderson and Finchers. Those 

are our big coal producing counties, and those are beautiful places. 

They are beginning to get a lot of the kind of economic development 

around the several State parks in the region and particularly the 

Big South Fork area, which has a lot of horse trails that are not 

allowed in the Smoky Mountain parks. 

You have people moving in, spending money, buying houses, the 

property tax levels are going up and, if you tear up the mountains 

and fill up the streams, why, they will go somewhere else. 

So, I hope that either the Governor or us sometime, Mr. Sloan, 

the Federal Government, can do a relative study of the value of the 

clean water and natural beauty of the area in producing dollars in 

the pockets of people who need higher family incomes. I think we 

have shown that by properly managing it, we can have coal mining 

and natural beauty in our area. I believe we can do that. 

This is very important testimony and all of you have made a real 

contribution to our understanding of this and, as time goes on, we 

will have a chance to consider the legislation Senator Cardin has 

prepared. I am very proud to be a co-sponsor with him of that legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me join Senator Alexander in thanking you 

all for your testimony today. It furthers the record that we have 

on this issue. I know that Senator Boxer is interested in the results 

of this hearing, and other members of the Committee. Without objection, there are other statements from other members of the Committee which will also be made a part of the record. 

And with that, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank 

you all very much. 

[The referenced statements were not received at time of print.] 

[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows. More documents are retained in the Committee’s files.] 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546