Strip mining & water quality.

EPA finds no mayflies near mining
By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer

Federal government scientists have found that mountaintop removal is eliminating mayflies in the creeks downstream from large mining operations, according to a new study being published later this year.

Mayflies are short-lived aquatic insects that are considered an important part of the food web. They are especially vital for fish such as trout, bass and catfish.

Two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts drew this conclusion as they continued research started as part of a broad federal study of mountaintop removal prompted by a citizen lawsuit.

"We collected more data at more sites and we continued to see this pattern, and at some sites, they are just not there," said Margaret Passmore, an environmental scientist with the EPA's field office in Wheeling.

When they mature in the spring, mayflies can make up 30 percent to 60 percent of individual insects in streams. Because of their numbers - and because they are very sensitive to pollution - they are good indicators of impacts on aquatic life and overall water quality, Passmore said.

The findings not only indicate mountaintop removal is harming aquatic bugs, but also show large-scale mining is damaging overall water quality downstream from valley fills.

“These are very significant findings,” said Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. “It’s unfortunate that while agency scientists were collecting data showing the harm that these mines are causing, agency regulators were arguing that valley fills cause no harm.”

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200806111567

Out of curiousity Frank, has there been any studies of reclaimed sites to determine if the mayflies are coming back?

ziggy wrote:EPA finds no mayflies near mining
By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer

Federal government scientists have found that mountaintop removal is eliminating mayflies in the creeks downstream from large mining operations, according to a new study being published later this year.

Mayflies are short-lived aquatic insects that are considered an important part of the food web. They are especially vital for fish such as trout, bass and catfish.

Two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts drew this conclusion as they continued research started as part of a broad federal study of mountaintop removal prompted by a citizen lawsuit.

"We collected more data at more sites and we continued to see this pattern, and at some sites, they are just not there," said Margaret Passmore, an environmental scientist with the EPA's field office in Wheeling.

When they mature in the spring, mayflies can make up 30 percent to 60 percent of individual insects in streams. Because of their numbers - and because they are very sensitive to pollution - they are good indicators of impacts on aquatic life and overall water quality, Passmore said.

The findings not only indicate mountaintop removal is harming aquatic bugs, but also show large-scale mining is damaging overall water quality downstream from valley fills.

“These are very significant findings,” said Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. “It’s unfortunate that while agency scientists were collecting data showing the harm that these mines are causing, agency regulators were arguing that valley fills cause no harm.”

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200806111567

Well now Ziggy, that was an interesting 'read', ........ but, ....... me thinks it was "heeeeeavily biased" in support of the Environmentalists who ....... very muchy hateeeee MTR'ing.

And the reason I say that is, the ......

Young mayfly nymphs live in freshwater, and absorb oxygen from the water through their gills. The adults fly.

Mayfly nymphs are only found in very clean water containing lots of oxygen.

The adults live around freshwater.

As nymphs, they walk on the sediment, and occasionally swim. They often hide under rocks.

As adults, they can fly.

Feeding - they eat: Mayfly nymphs are herbivores. They eat water plants and tiny algae.

The adults do not feed, and only live for a day or so.

They are eaten by: water spiders, newts, damselfly and dragonfly nymphs, frog and newt tadpoles when they are in their nymph stage. When they grow into adults, they are eaten by dragonflies, birds and fish. The fish pluck them from the surface of the water.

Reproduction - they undergo incomplete metamorphosis.

The nymphs may take from 2 months to 2 years (depending on species) before they swim to the water surface and shed their nymphal skin or ‘shuck’ and emerge as the winged fly. You can see them in spring.

Many Mayfly nymphs emerge as winged adult flies in May - hence the name "Mayfly".

The adults only live for a day - just enough time to lay their eggs in water. They don't even have time to feed.

http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/invert/mayfly.html

Ziggy, as you should readily be able to see, via my high-lighted text, ....... your article doesn't really "jive" with the scientific facts about Mayflies.

Zigster, if there is not enough rainwater to keep those streams flowing ..... ALL YEAR ROUND, ......... the Mayfly larvae/eggs WILL NOT survive from one year to the next.

cheers

Zigster, if there is not enough rainwater to keep those streams flowing ..... ALL YEAR ROUND, ......... the Mayfly larvae/eggs WILL NOT survive from one year to the next.

One of the effects of strip mining is that formerly year-round streams often become intermittent streams- like Cool Spring Branch of Tuppers Creek I told you about a few weeks ago.

When the rainwater runs off the tree-less, top-soiless, hard-packed post strip mining land like a cow peein' on a flat rock, instead of soaking into the ground to be discharged into streams gradually, then yes, the hydrology is changed. And that is one of the dynamics we see going on in streams below valley fills.

Sheeesh, that doesn't matter if all the appropriate permits were issued, Ziggy. If all the permits are in place the streams and the mayflies and the fish and the people all just have to suck it up.

Can I expect an answer to my question Frank?

Aaron wrote:Out of curiousity Frank, has there been any studies of reclaimed sites to determine if the mayflies are coming back?

I do not know.

The mayfly studies referenced in yesterday's Gazette article were done by the EPA under terms it agreed to several years ago in a settlement agreement of a citizen lawsuit against that agency.

So if they started studying mayflies several years ago, then they should have study reclaimed mine sites as well. After all, wouldn’t that make sense? I mean, for all you know, mayflies may very well be gone from a stream for a year or so but once the ecosystem has a chance to adjust, they could return just as easily as they disappeared. Right!!!

You made a statement about year round streams becoming intermittent streams. So how many streams have become intermittent as a result of mountain top mining? And do you have data to back up the numbers?

Are there any instances where an intermittent stream has returned to a year round stream? And how was the annual precipitation measured before and after the fill? Were there any instances of these streams becoming intermittent during periods of prolonged drought?

ziggy wrote:

Zigster, if there is not enough rainwater to keep those streams flowing ..... ALL YEAR ROUND, ......... the Mayfly larvae/eggs WILL NOT survive from one year to the next.

One of the effects of strip mining is that formerly year-round streams often become intermittent streams- like Cool Spring Branch of Tuppers Creek I told you about a few weeks ago.

When the rainwater runs off the tree-less, top-soiless, hard-packed post strip mining land like a cow peein' on a flat rock, instead of soaking into the ground to be discharged into streams gradually, then yes, the hydrology is changed. And that is one of the dynamics we see going on in streams below valley fills.

Zig, from that post it appears you have learned more on this Forum that those so called "experts" think they know.

Now for your next lesson. Read the following:

Mayflies are short-lived aquatic insects that are considered an important part of the food web. They are especially vital for fish such as trout, bass and catfish.

Two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts

Now Zig, do you know what's wrong with "that picture"?



.

Aaron wrote:So if they started studying mayflies several years ago, then they should have study reclaimed mine sites as well. After all, wouldn’t that make sense? I mean, for all you know, mayflies may very well be gone from a stream for a year or so but once the ecosystem has a chance to adjust, they could return just as easily as they disappeared. Right!!!

You made a statement about year round streams becoming intermittent streams. So how many streams have become intermittent as a result of mountain top mining? And do you have data to back up the numbers?

Are there any instances where an intermittent stream has returned to a year round stream? And how was the annual precipitation measured before and after the fill? Were there any instances of these streams becoming intermittent during periods of prolonged drought?

You ask lots of questions, to some of which, as far as I know, we do not have answers. But you focus on "reclamation".

So what is "reclamation"? How do we know when a mined area has been "reclaimed"? When the former WV Division of Forestry Director opined that it would take centuries for hardwood trees to be re-established on MTR mining sites, then Governor Underwood forced him into retiremnet by threatening to fire him for saying so.

Surface mining is subject to state and federal reclamation requirements, but adequacy of the requirements is a constant source of contention. Unless reclaimed, surface mining can leave behind large areas of infertile waste rock (i.e. it generates 75% of industrial waste in Spain).[citation needed]

In the United States, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 mandates reclamation of surface coal mines. Reclamation for non-coal mines, is regulated by state and local laws, which may vary widely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Mining#Strip_mining

When the former topsoil ends up at the bottom of a valley fill, and all that's left on top is hardpacked subsoils and rock, is that "reclamation"?

ziggy wrote: When the former WV Division of Forestry Director opined that it would take centuries for hardwood trees to be re-established on MTR mining sites, then Governor Underwood forced him into retiremnet by threatening to fire him for saying so.

Well now Zigster, how long has it been since I-79 cut a swath up through the middle of WV from Charleston to the Pa border?

And just why is the DOH having to keep busy cutting all those trees and brush from that once barren Right-of-Way?


>

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So if they started studying mayflies several years ago, then they should have study reclaimed mine sites as well. After all, wouldn’t that make sense? I mean, for all you know, mayflies may very well be gone from a stream for a year or so but once the ecosystem has a chance to adjust, they could return just as easily as they disappeared. Right!!!

You made a statement about year round streams becoming intermittent streams. So how many streams have become intermittent as a result of mountain top mining? And do you have data to back up the numbers?

Are there any instances where an intermittent stream has returned to a year round stream? And how was the annual precipitation measured before and after the fill? Were there any instances of these streams becoming intermittent during periods of prolonged drought?

You ask lots of questions, to some of which, as far as I know, we do not have answers. But you focus on "reclamation".

So what is "reclamation"? How do we know when a mined area has been "reclaimed"? When the former WV Division of Forestry Director opined that it would take centuries for hardwood trees to be re-established on MTR mining sites, then Governor Underwood forced him into retiremnet by threatening to fire him for saying so.

Surface mining is subject to state and federal reclamation requirements, but adequacy of the requirements is a constant source of contention. Unless reclaimed, surface mining can leave behind large areas of infertile waste rock (i.e. it generates 75% of industrial waste in Spain).[citation needed]

In the United States, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 mandates reclamation of surface coal mines. Reclamation for non-coal mines, is regulated by state and local laws, which may vary widely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Mining#Strip_mining

When the former topsoil ends up at the bottom of a valley fill, and all that's left on top is hardpacked subsoils and rock, is that "reclamation"?

Focus Frank and try to answer the valid questions I ask you!

I understand if you don't have the answer for the reclaimed mine sites but if you're going to claim that MTR is making intermittent streams out of former year round streams, then you should have the numbers to back those claims up.

I understand if you don't have the answer for the reclaimed mine sites but if you're going to claim that MTR is making intermittent streams out of former year round streams, then you should have the numbers to back those claims up.

I saw the effects of strip mining on stream hydrology with my own eyes when I was growing up in northerrn Kanawha County.

I don't have to have a degree in geology to know the difference between water falling on an absorbent surface versus water falling on a hard-packed surface. But if you have a degree in hydrology and/or geology, tell us how what I observe is not possible.

So that means no you have nothing to back up your claims and your statements are based on your own personal biased opinions.

Perhaps you could get with one of the fringe organizations and come up with some sort of answer for a very valid question.

Or perhaps you could keep spouting your tripe and show your true agenda Frank.

Which will it be?

Total Perennial (year-round) Stream Under Valley Fill Footprint in Feet
WVA (1985-1999) 37,489 (7.1 m)

From Table III.K.5-1, Page 47, here: http://wvgazette.com/static/series/mining/reports/EIS/III.K.pdf

From Page 50 of the same report:

"Figure III.K.5-5 shows that, from 1985 through 1999, the average segment of intermittent and perennial streams impacted under the valley fill footprint has generally increased during the period from a low of 686 feet in 1987 to a high of 4,594 feet in 1998. Five hundred and fifty-five (59 percent) of the 945 valley fills approved during the period impact either intermittent or perennial streams. The figure also suggests that while the number of valley fills impacting streams has varied greatly during the period, the actual segment of intermittent and perennial streams impacted under the valley fill footprint has generally increased.
The total intermittent and perennial stream impacts in West Virginia is 945,069 feet, or 179.0 miles. The yearly average of stream impacts under the valley fill footprint is 63,005 feet, or 11.9 miles."
---------------------------------

And those figures are just for the stream segments totally buried under valley fills. Again, Total Perennial (year-round) Stream Under Valley Fill Footprint in Feet WVA (1985-1999) 37,489 (7.1 m)

Aaron wrote:I understand if you don't have the answer for the reclaimed mine sites but if you're going to claim that MTR is making intermittent streams out of former year round streams, then you should have the numbers to back those claims up.

ziggy wrote:Total Perennial (year-round) Stream Under Valley Fill Footprint in Feet
WVA (1985-1999) 37,489 (7.1 m)

From Table III.K.5-1, Page 47, here: http://wvgazette.com/static/series/mining/reports/EIS/III.K.pdf

From Page 50 of the same report:

"Figure III.K.5-5 shows that, from 1985 through 1999, the average segment of intermittent and perennial streams impacted under the valley fill footprint has generally increased during the period from a low of 686 feet in 1987 to a high of 4,594 feet in 1998. Five hundred and fifty-five (59 percent) of the 945 valley fills approved during the period impact either intermittent or perennial streams. The figure also suggests that while the number of valley fills impacting streams has varied greatly during the period, the actual segment of intermittent and perennial streams impacted under the valley fill footprint has generally increased.

The total intermittent and perennial stream impacts in West Virginia is 945,069 feet, or 179.0 miles. The yearly average of stream impacts under the valley fill footprint is 63,005 feet, or 11.9 miles."---------------------------------

And those figures are just for the stream segments totally buried under valley fills. Again, Total Perennial (year-round) Stream Under Valley Fill Footprint in Feet WVA (1985-1999) 37,489 (7.1 m)

Ziggy, what you posted did not address or answer Aaron's question.

And if I understand it correctly, "valley fill footprint" means nothing more than "linear feet of valley fill".

Thus, it appears you just cited some meaningless piffle datum on ...... the comparison of yearly linear feet of new "valley fill" in respect to whether it occurred on an "intermittent or a perennial stream".

But now Ziggy, I'm curious as to how they determine what sections (portions) of said "valley fills" impact the two different stream types.

I mean like every stream in West Virginia orignates as an intermittent stream (unless its origin is a spring and/or artesian source) ....... and these only become perennial streams at quite some distance from the farthest, highest point of their "drainage area".

And Zig, if it is a perennial stream whose source is artesian, it doesn't matter if the ground is barren or lush with flora ......because the water is coming from 100+- miles away.

And ps, Zig, ..... another question for you.

If, ..... "Five hundred and fifty-five (59 percent) of the 945 valley fills approved during the period impact either intermittent or perennial streams", ....... then what kind of streams did the remaining 41% of valley fills impact?

.

Sam's right Frank. You didn't answer my question. If you guys are claiming what you stated, shouldn't you have te resources to back it up?

Aaron wrote:Sam's right Frank. You didn't answer my question. If you guys are claiming what you stated, shouldn't you have te resources to back it up?

Aaron, they didn't claim anything, ....... they "implied" gawd awful terrible things ..... and leave it up to the public's imagination to "create" facts that they honestly believe for themselves.

No for iinstance, take Ziggy's comment, to wit:

the stream segments totally buried under valley fills.

Stream segment ........ totally buried, ............ GIMME A BREAK.

There ain't no way in hell ya can ...... bury a stream, or a part of a stream or a segment of a stream ........ unless ya put in a big assed culvert and cover it over with rocks and/or dirt.

Burying a stream via a valley fill ...... is akin to getting rid of a hole in the ground by digging it out, ..... or getting rid of a mountain by covering it over with dirt.

And anyone who attempts to "bury a segment" of a stream ...... will only succeed in building a dam.

So yes, I actually believe, ....... that Ziggy actually believes ...... that those MTR'ers are actually killing those streams and burying them alive.



.

And anyone who attempts to "bury a segment" of a stream ...... will only succeed in building a dam.

Unless it is the top segment.

I know valley fills mess up the insect life for miles downstream.

The fish get pretty hungry.

TerryRC wrote:And anyone who attempts to "bury a segment" of a stream ...... will only succeed in building a dam.

Unless it is the top segment.

HORSEFEATHERS ....

A stream, brook, beck, burn or creek, is a body of water with a detectable current, confined within a bed and banks. Stream is also an umbrella term used in the scientific community for all flowing natural waters, regardless of size. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream

You will just create a pond or lake up-grade from that top segment of "flowing natural waters"

TerryRC wrote:I know valley fills mess up the insect life for miles downstream.

The fish get pretty hungry.

"YES", and so do devastating floods, ...... reguardless of whether there are any valley fills in the area. To wit:

My valley - South Branch Valley, West Virginia

But on November 5, 1985, my valley was changed almost irrevocably. Fueled by a 10-inch rain far up the hollows, the flood came with little warning. Confined i narrow valleys, the waters raged with such force that they twisted rails and scoured farmland until mostly rocks remained. Forty-seven people died along wit thousands of animals. More than 1,500 homes and 181 businesses were gone, and 4 bridges were destroyed in 29 counties.

The 1985 torrent broke all records and left its mark indelibly imprinted on the South Branch Valley.

High waters swept the streams clean of shade-giving trees, filled pools with silt, and eliminated channels where trout lurked in hot weather. Destruction wa so complete on the North Fork that trout stocking was stopped and fishermen ignored this once-lovely river.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n9-10_v100/ai_16123383/pg_3

And TRC, down in the southern coal fields of MTR'ing, ....... other than maybe a few minnows and creek chubs, ....... just what species of fish are there there in those small streams .... that "get pretty hungry"?

Care to elaborate on that?

.

Zigster, if there is not enough rainwater to keep those streams flowing ..... ALL YEAR ROUND, ......... the Mayfly larvae/eggs WILL NOT survive from one year to the next.

Should I bother to explain a little about mayfly ecology and how they deal with ephemeral streams (of course the MTR people fill in first and second order streams, also) or would it be a waste of my time?

"YES", and so do devastating floods, ...... reguardless of whether there are any valley fills in the area. To wit:

So, because it happens occasionally by meteoroligical events combined (likely) with poor land management, we should let the coal companies do it willy-nilly?

Make some sense, man!

And TRC, down in the southern coal fields of MTR'ing, ....... other than maybe a few minnows and creek chubs, ....... just what species of fish are there there in those small streams .... that "get pretty hungry"?

Care to elaborate on that?

Perhaps I will. I'm just trying to decide if it is worth the effort.

In the southern coal fields, not too much, I'm afraid.

That isn't the case with the rest of the state.

TerryRC wrote:Zigster, if there is not enough rainwater to keep those streams flowing ..... ALL YEAR ROUND, ......... the Mayfly larvae/eggs WILL NOT survive from one year to the next.

Should I bother to explain a little about mayfly ecology and how they deal with ephemeral streams (of course the MTR people fill in first and second order streams, also) or would it be a waste of my time?

"YES", and so do devastating floods, ...... reguardless of whether there are any valley fills in the area. To wit:

So, because it happens occasionally by meteoroligical events combined (likely) with poor land management, we should let the coal companies do it willy-nilly?

Make some sense, man!

And TRC, down in the southern coal fields of MTR'ing, ....... other than maybe a few minnows and creek chubs, ....... just what species of fish are there there in those small streams .... that "get pretty hungry"?

Care to elaborate on that?

Perhaps I will. I'm just trying to decide if it is worth the effort.

In the southern coal fields, not too much, I'm afraid.

That isn't the case with the rest of the state.

Now that sure was an enlightening post.

And there in you were telling me to ........ "Make some sense, man!"



.

TerryRC wrote:Perhaps I will. I'm just trying to decide if it is worth the effort.

In the southern coal fields, not too much, I'm afraid.

That isn't the case with the rest of the state.

Considering that the bulk of the MTR sites are in southern WV, where is it affecting the fishies?

Aaron wrote:Sam's right Frank. You didn't answer my question. If you guys are claiming what you stated, shouldn't you have te resources to back it up?

Yes. And I must concede that I do not have the resources to back it up.

The example I cited at Cool Spring Branch of Tuppers Creek in the 1950s - 1960s was not a valley fill type of strip mining operation. It was the then more predominate surface mining method of ripping open the side of the mountain, taking out the coal that was exposed, then "punch nining" with augers to get to coal further back into the mountain. There was no pretense of reclamation- not even revegetation with grass- and a 75 foot or so highwall was left after the operation was abandoned.

And so I retract my assertion of perennial streams becoming intermittent streams below valley fills. That still may sometimes be so- but I am unable to substantiate it just now.

I'm not questioning that MTR does harm to waterways. I question the ability of waterways to rejuvenate themselves over time if it does happen and the severity of it happening.

I base this on the Cuyahoga River catching on fire numerous times from the 1860's including this one in in 1969...



...vs. today when fishing has once again returned to the river even though it is still used as a major transportation thoroughfare.



The fire in the first picture is being fought off the same bridge the barge in the second is traveling under.