Unusually large 42 inch pipe with coating exposed to extensive weathering

SOURCE ~ WV DEP COMPLAINT # 266 Indian Creek 11-24-23

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I appreciate the conversation with Jason Liddle yesterday afternoon and the explanation that MVP working in the stream is not contrary to the MVP Construction plan to open cut the stream, but that the release of sediment downstream is a saturation that may not be allowable. I look forward to learning more about this after a site visit by WV DEP..

>>> This was the original email sent yesterday, 11-24-23:

TO WV DEP and Others Whom It May Concern:

I have a special attachment to this particular place in Indian Creek because it is where I was baptized in the early 80′s and to see an excavator sitting at the exact spot where that occurred was somewhat sacrilegious to me.

All season plunges into Indian Creek are not uncommon

Maury Johnson,
3227 Ellison Ridge,
Greenville, WV 24945

Conserve & Restore West Virginia Rivers & Streams & Wetlands

Description ~ Join WV Rivers for a Live Legislative Update. We’ll have an in depth discussion on our water policy priorities and what we can expect for the remainder of the 2022 session. A Q&A will follow the presentation.

Time ~ Feb 24, 2022 07:00 PM in Eastern Time

Join WV Rivers for a Live Legislative Update on Thursday, February 24 at 7:00pm on Zoom. We’ll have an in depth discussion on our water policy priorities and what we can expect for the remainder of the 2022 session. A Q&A will follow the presentation.

Register for the Legislative Update Here ASAP

Make a Donation in Support of Conserving & Restoring WV’s Exceptional Rivers & Streams

>>> WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION
3501 MacCorkle Ave SE #129, Charleston, WV 25304
304-637-7201 | wvrivers@wvrivers.org

######++++++######++++++######

SEE ALSO: Week 6 of the WV Legislative Session: Fair Courts, Justice, Water, and more!

Capital Eye V.15 N.6 ~ West Virginia Citizen’s Action Group

In this February 21st edition of the Capital Eye weekly newsletter update:

– Mushroom Session; – Judicial Power Grab Would Weaken West Virginians’ Say-So on the Courts; – Smart Justice Advocacy Day is Almost Here; – Meet Carey Jo; – WVNOW Legislative Action Alert 2.21.22; – Jo’s Fight for Coverage During COVID; – Keeping your Activist Heart Happy: A Series – part 3.

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

SEE ALSO: Legislative Updates WVEC February 18, 2022

GREEN, Volume 32 Issue 6 ~ West Virginia Environmental Council

We just completed week six of the Legislature! Tuesday was the last day to introduce bills in the House and this Monday, February 21, will be the last day to do so in the Senate. We have compiled a list of bills we are watching, both good and bad, and will continue to update this list as we go. We also hosted our virtual E-Day event on Wednesday, and you can find the link to our livestream in the article below. Check out the other articles to see what’s happening!

Microplastics range from 5 mm down to micron sizes

From an Article by Emmie Halter, Cavalier Daily, Univ. of Virginia, November 28, 2021

Microplastic waste has become a serious threat to the ecosystem — plastic pollution in particular has grown exponentially in the past decade within Virginia, leading to disruption of the Chesapeake Bay and other large bodies of water. University researchers explain the significant harm that microplastics can have on the environment, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay, and discuss plans of action to combat this detrimental effect.

Microplastics are categorized as plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in size. These often enter the ocean through sewage systems and infiltrate soil and the air we breathe. Initially, researchers only knew of microplastics as the microscopic particles formed by larger plastic waste that was broken down by the sun. However, new findings have confirmed that microplastics come from the synthetic fibers in clothing and microbeads from cosmetic products, such as face exfoliants.

Research on microplastics is minimal, and as a result, researchers do not know the specific effects microplastics have on the environment. For other environmental issues such as landfill waste, pollution and the lack of fossil fuels, researchers have come up with timelines and proposed action plans — this has not yet been developed for microplastics, however.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce has voiced concerns about the lack of a large-scale and long-term collective database that contains visual survey information of microplastics along coasts and in the open ocean in order to support microplastic research. As a solution, the NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information created the Marine Microplastic Database this year, a publicly accessible and regularly updated collection of global microplastic data from researchers around the world.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed Executive Order 77 in March, which outlines a plan to phase out single-use plastics and reduce solid waste at state agencies. In response to the order, the University created a single-use plastic reduction policy, which began with eliminating plastic waste in dining halls and replacing single-use plastic with sustainable and reusable takeaway containers and compostable silverware. The University is also looking into expanding their composting facilities and minimizing plastic bag use under this initiative.

Similar initiatives have been implemented throughout the nation, and environmental concerns based on plastic pollution have pushed retailers to provide more sustainable bag options, pilot the trend of reusable containers and make plastic straws a rarity. Environmentally-conscious consumers have even boycotted stores that utilize single-use plastics.

Large plastics make their way into the ocean frequently and are easier to remove from the water compared to microplastics, which must be either filtered out of the ocean or entirely prevented from entering the ocean. The existence of plastics in large bodies of water results in a multitude of issues — notably, the disruption of the ecosystem when animals ingest plastics and release toxic gas and foods containing tiny plastics.

Asst. Engineering Prof. Lindsay Ivey-Burden has conducted research in environmental engineering — specifically engineering for a more sustainable future. Ivey-Burden explained further how these unsustainable materials end up in our environment. “When anything with synthetic fibers and polyester goes in the washer, the fibers sort of come out and they form very small micro [and] nano-plastics,” Ivey-Burden said. “And so then that goes into the wastewater system and back into the environment.”

Another way microplastics enter our oceans is through cosmetic products, especially those labeled as exfoliants. Exfoliants contain microbeads, which produce an abrasion towards the skin that removes dead skin cells from the surface of the face. These microbeads easily pass through household water filter systems and travel to large bodies of water.

In Virginia specifically, this affects the coast and its marine life. One of the most common ways microplastics damage the coastal system is through the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. “Microplastics in the water make it much harder for [the oysters] to filter the water — which they’re supposed to do because they’re trying to eat all the algae — and they end up eating a bunch of plastic instead of algae,” Ivey-Burden said.

This leads the oysters to be put under an immense amount of stress. In order to fulfill their nutritional needs, they must filter through much more water in order to consume enough algae due to the alarming algae-plastic ratio present in the bay.

Certain areas of the Chesapeake Bay also serve as hot spots for microplastics, acting as breeding grounds for chemicals and diseases that are picked up by microplastics and transported into the bay. Shorelines and underwater grass beds are the most common hot spots because it is easy for microplastics to settle in these areas. The black sea bass — a local fish commonly served at restaurants in coastal Virginia — is just one of the marine animals that feed near these hotspots and ingest the microplastics.

While studies show that most microplastics do not move to the muscle tissue of fish — the part consumed by humans — scientists are still concerned with the effect of microplastics on human health. It is difficult to determine the individual impacts of these plastics on consumers as we are constantly in contact with microplastics, from bottled and tap water to clothing. Additionally, researchers know very little about the levels of toxicity that can hurt humans as well as how food chain processes may affect the toxicity of plastics.

Environmental and material scientists have been researching the toxicity of plastic materials and the solutions needed to decrease this toxicity to people and the environment. Researchers have explored solutions to microplastic waste, but some of these solutions are costly and may cause further destruction to the environment. Water filtration systems, for example, are one of the most discussed solutions. Filtration systems utilizing magnets, tiny nets and vacuums have all been tested by different researchers, but it is nearly impossible to filter out such small pieces of plastic without filtering out very crucial marine organisms as well.

Robert Hale, microplastic expert and head researcher at the Virginia Institute for Marine Science, explained that implementing a filtration system is not realistic. “There are not just microplastics in the ocean, there are other organisms — especially floating organisms — that will get weeded out too,” Hale said. “There is just no way for these filters to sort effectively.”

Other solutions, such as creating more sustainable clothing, eliminating single-use plastics and establishing filtration systems in washing machines are all viable and would have a large impact on microplastic waste. However, from a cost standpoint, the likelihood that the general public will react favorably to increased taxes as a way to fund initiatives that stop plastic waste is very low. “The cost efficiency of plastic ends up feeding the monster and makes it very difficult for big corporations to increase production costs in order to be more environmentally friendly,” Hale said.

In order to eliminate microplastics, scientists agree that toxic additives that are in plastic waste must first be removed. Assoc. Engineering Prof. David Green has been studying plastic waste for much of his career, specifically plastic as a material and the microscopic properties associated with it. “By trying to remove certain additives that have proven to be toxic — things like car plasticizers, stabilizers and pigments — and making this plastic particle, but trying to design it so that when it gets wet and it gets into the landfill, that it doesn’t degrade off,” Green said.

Green also agreed that general reduction of plastics would help to eliminate microplastics. The elimination of single-use plastics at the University is a plan that, if modeled at other universities across the country, could make a big difference.

#######………………#######………………#######

See Also: Chesapeake Quarterly : Volume 19, Number 2 : Rona Kobell, Hazards, Large and Small, Dec. 2020

Scientists are looking closely at these tiny microplastic hazards and trying to assess their harm and reduce their numbers. Neither is an easy task. In this issue, we explore these dangers invisible to most of us. We’ll also talk about how Maryland Sea Grant is working with high school teachers to help them identify microplastics in labs with their students.

Eagles need clean streams for their fish diet

From an Article by Gustave Axelson, Cornell Chronicle, March 24, 2021

For the past 50 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been assembling counts of bald eagle nests to track the triumphant recovery of America’s national symbol. But in its new bald eagle population report – tabulated with the help of results using eBird data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology – the USFWS found many more eagles than previously thought to exist in the Lower 48 states. A lot more.

The latest USFWS Bald Eagle Population Update report estimates more than quadruple the eagle population noted in the 2009 report, or 316,708 eagles across the contiguous United States. The rising number of bald eagles undoubtedly reflects the continuing conservation success story that stretches back to the banning of DDT in 1972. But it also represents a major advance in using citizen-science powered supercomputing to generate better estimates for the eagle population.

“Working with Cornell to integrate data from our aerial surveys with eBird relative abundance data on bald eagles is one of the most impressive ways the we have engaged with citizen science programs to date,” said Jerome Ford, USFWS migratory birds program assistant director. “This critical information was imperative to accurately estimate the bald eagle population in the contiguous United States, and we look forward to working with Cornell in the future.”

In addition, the new USFWS report estimates 71,467 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the Lower 48 states, which is double the number of eagle nests noted in the 2009 report – and many multitudes higher than the all-time recorded low of 417 known eagle nests in 1963. Back then, the popular use of DDT pesticides after World War II had decimated the eagle population. In 1967, the bald eagle received protection under the predecessor to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Then in 1972, the United States banned DDT.

Thanks to legal protections, captive-breeding programs and habitat protection around nests, the bald eagle population rebounded. The USFWS tracked the recovery through counts from states and by aerial surveys every few years, as pilots from the agency’s Migratory Bird Program flew eagle-counting missions over high-density eagle-nesting areas to count numbers of occupied nests.

But for this latest USFWS report, the federal government collaborated for the first time with the Cornell Lab to augment their aerial surveys with a big-data population model generated by eBird.

The computer science that built the eBird model was powered by citizen science. More than 180,000 birders shared data with the Cornell Lab by uploading eBird checklists – tallies of which bird species they saw, and how many, in a single outing. Cornell Lab scientists then developed a model that uses eBird estimates of relative abundance for bald eagles to generate numbers of occupied nesting territories in the areas that USFWS were not able to cover in their aerial surveys.

“One of our main objectives was to see if population modeling based on eBird data would enhance the survey work the Fish and Wildlife Service was already doing,” said Viviana Ruiz-Gutierrez, assistant director of Cornell Lab’s Center for Avian Population Studies, who supervised the lab’s role in this partnership. “We’re hoping that this will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to track bald eagle populations over a much wider area in the most cost-effective manner in the future.”

And, Ruiz-Gutierrez says, she also hopes those eagle models continue to show positive momentum. Since the USFWS delisted the bald eagle from the ESA in 2007 – a historic moment for species recovery under the act – the number of known occupied nests in the Lower 48 states has more than doubled, according to the latest report.

“It’s a great American conservation success story,” Cornell Lab Center for Avian Population Studies Senior Director Amanda Rodewald said March 24 at a virtual press conference hosted by the USFWS. She thanked the agency for hosting the event to celebrate eagle recovery, and to celebrate the role of citizen science – the thousands of birders who shared their observations to help build the population models.

>>>>>>>>>>……….>>>>>>>>>>……….>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Bald eagle that suffered from lead poisoning, treated, released back to the wilderness, Jeff Morris, WCHS News 8, February 11, 2021

RANDOLPH COUNTY, WV — A bald eagle that was treated after suffering from lead poisoning was released back to the wilderness in Pocahontas County. West Virginia Natural Resources Police report that land owners found the eagle on their property and the bird was unable to fly.

The adult eagle was treated and banded at the Avian Conservation Center of Appalachia in Morgantown and returned to the Upper Shavers Fork area of Randolph County for release.

Police said lead poisoning occurs when eagles ingest lead most likely while scavenging carcasses of other wildlife. When ingested, lead has detrimental effects on the nervous and reproductive systems of eagles. Eagles with lead poisoning may have loss of balance, gasping, tremors and an impaired ability to fly. The birds can die within two to three weeks after ingesting lead.

Comments filed to WV-DEP by 20 organizations on March 4, 2019

Re: 401 Water Quality Certification Program Submitted via: WQSComments@wv.gov

West Virginia Rivers Coalition, on behalf of our members and the 19 organizations signed below, respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed modifications to the West Virginia 401 Water Quality Certification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permits. We oppose the proposed changes to the standard and special conditions, which weaken protections for West Virginia’s rivers and streams.

The public notice of the proposed modifications was inadequate. The public must receive adequate notice of the DEP’s proposed modifications. With the September 2018 NWP 401 Certification proposed modification, the DEP posted the public comment period on the DEP Public Information Office’s news webpage. The January 2019 proposal was not listed on the Public Information Office’s news webpage. Furthermore, there was no record of the public notice posted to the DEP Public Notice Mailing List. The notice was placed on DEP’s 401 Water Quality Certification webpage, but that does not satisfy the public notice requirements.

The modifications may weaken or eliminate protections for every Nationwide Permit as applied in West Virginia. We are adamantly opposed to the proposed revisions to Standard Condition 22, which allows DEP to waive any of the standard or special conditions of the State 401 Water Quality Certification applicable to Nationwide Permits.

This modification is overly broad and vague. It applies to every nationwide permit. It does not provide any specifics regarding guidelines as to when waiving a condition is appropriate. And it does not specify what public process, if any, will be undertaken to ensure that waivers of standard or special conditions will undergo public notice, scrutiny, and comment.

The modification cites Section 401(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)]; however, this section of the Act grants the State the authority to waive a certification if not acted on within a year. It does not give the State the authority to waive special or standard conditions within the certification.

The modifications allows for waivers of Individual 401 Certification under Nationwide Permit 12. We are adamantly opposed to the proposed changes to Nationwide Permit 12 West Virginia 401 Water Quality Certification Special Conditions, appearing under 12.A.

The relevant underlined added language reads:
“The Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, in the Secretary’s sole discretion, reserves the right to require an individual water quality certification for any of the following facilities or impacts:”

This added language changed from the original language:
“Individual State Water Quality Certification is required:”

By making this change DEP opens the door to allow waivers of the Individual 401 Certification. This could be done without any public scrutiny or input, which is unacceptable. The change would cut the public out of any decision making processes.

The Individual 401 Certifications on NWP 12 were subjected to public notice and comment, and stakeholders had the opportunity to seek administrative and judicial review of them. The proposed change enables the state to unilaterally waive those requirements for an individual permit now and deprives stakeholders of the opportunity for public participation or to seek administrative or judicial review.

Moreover, because the special conditions on NWP 12 are now conditions of the nationwide permit itself, DEP does not have the authority under federal or state law to unilaterally waive those requirements for an individual 401 permit.

Exempting dry ditch crossing methods and large rivers from the 72-hour requirement does not consider impacts on aquatic life. The proposed change to the Special Condition C under Nationwide 12 allows for the exemption of the 72-hour crossing time restriction for dry crossing methods and large navigable river crossings. The longer crossing time does not consider the effects on aquatic life. The effect of dewatering the stream bed for prolonged periods on aquatic life was not taken into consideration when proposing this modification.

In its biological opinion for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists dewatering of mussel beds and increased sedimentation as two of the threats leading to the decline of Clubshell mussels. Clubshell mussels are also listed as species of concern for three water crossings on the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Candy Darters are also known to inhabit the Greenbrier and Gauley River Watersheds and were just recently listed under the Endangered Species Act with designated habitat where the Mountain Valley Pipeline proposes to cross the Gauley River and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline proposes to cross the Greenbrier River. The impacts of dewatering the streambed for prolonged periods on species of concern, such as Candy Darters and Clubshell mussels, must be taken into consideration prior to removing the 72-hour requirement.

The change to the 72-hour requirement affects other agency decisions. DEP relied on the 72- hour stream crossing condition when issuing the State General Water Pollution Control Permit for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. On both projects in its response to comments for why an anti-degradation review is not needed, DEP states, “The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this project requires that additional protective measures will be employed at crossings of and in proximity to Tier 3 and trout streams. The additional measures include… stream crossings in these areas will be completed within 72 hours once the crossing has begun…” By exempting large rivers and dry crossing methods from the 72-hour stream crossing condition, DEP would also invalidate the protections afforded streams under the General Stormwater Construction Permit and undermine its own rationale of why an anti-degradation review is unnecessary.

Other state agencies rely on the special conditions included within the Nationwide Permits. WVDNR refers to the condition requiring crossings to be completed in 72 hours in its spawning waiver approvals, and assumes when issuing those waivers that the applicant will comply with the 72-hour restriction. Allowing an exemption to this condition would therefore undermine WVDNR’s spawning waiver approvals. Changing this condition to allow longer crossing durations during which the stream bed is dewatered for prolonged periods would have detrimental effects on aquatic life, especially in areas where WVDNR relied on this rule to allow construction during the spawning season.

Modifications would allow structures that prevent fish movement between upstream and downstream for an undetermined length of time, as long as the structure is not permanent. The proposed modification to Special Condition L under Nationwide 12 would allow temporary structures that prevent fish passage. There is no specific timeframe for how long fish movement can be prevented as long as it is eventually restored. This change could have detrimental effects on fish species, including sensitive species such as the native brook trout and the endangered candy darters.

Fish movement ranges from short daily movements to seasonal migrations. The degree of fish movement depends on water levels, river flows and temperature. Fish need unimpeded movement in a waterway to access seasonal food sources, breeding areas, various habitat types and drought refuges. Structures that prevent fish movement may impact the fish’s ability to find adequate food, escape poor habitat conditions, or reach spawning grounds. Severing the connectivity of aquatic habitat for prolonged periods can prevent fish from migrating to various areas in the stream that are used during their different life stages. Migration barriers have the potential to restrict available habitats, interrupt seasonal movement patterns, and lead to individual losses due to isolation events. Structures preventing fish movement for long periods of time can alter the biology of the stream. These structures may also exacerbate flooding issues during high flow events.

Modifications undermine the Secretary’s position that NWP 12 Special Conditions are needed to prevent impacts. In the Secretary’s letter to staff regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline 401 Waiver, he endorses the conditions put in place by the agency when certifying the 404 permit by stating:

“That 401 Certification had several conditions to ensure that temporary impacts to West Virginia’s waters would be minimized, and mitigation would be provided for permanent impacts. Importantly, during the same period of time that the WVDEP was working on this MVP individual certification, it was also developing special conditions for the reissuance of the USACE nationwide permit… The special conditions West Virginia included in it is certification on the newly reissued Nationwide 12 permit (in April 2017) largely mirrored the conditions that West Virginia had previously placed (in March 2017) on the MVP’s 401 Individual Certification… Because the newly issued Nationwide 12 permit included updated state conditions that were similar to those contained in MVP’s previous individual 401 Certification, WVDEP determined it was unnecessary to repeat them in an Individual Certification. As a result, it waived the 401 Certification…To be clear – by waiving the 401 Individual Certification, we are not abandoning our duty to protect the water quality of West Virginia. In fact, the new Nationwide 12 permit is 401 certified by West Virginia and includes state specific conditions relative to pipelines. Combined with the state Construction Stormwater Permit, we are in a stronger position to effectively regulate all pipeline construction in West Virginia.”

The DEP has previously relied on and endorsed the conditions under the 401 Certification for nationwide permits. It is problematic for DEP to change its course now in what appears to be a move to accommodate non-compliant plans and permits of certain projects.

Proposed modifications do not maintain the water’s designated use as required by law. State water quality standards are the basis for controlling pollutants in West Virginia’s water resources. The standards consist of designated beneficial uses, water quality numeric and narrative criteria, an anti-degradation policy, and other general policies on implementation. The water quality standards and criteria ensure that the beneficial uses are maintained and protected. DEP is mandated by the Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards Rule – Title 47CRS2 to maintain the rivers designated use; including public water supply and recreation. The proposed modifications do not ensure that the waterbodies’ designated uses will be maintained.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline proposes to cross the Gauley and Greenbrier Rivers, and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline proposes to cross the Buckhannon River, rivers that also serve as the source water for public water supplies directly downstream of the crossing locations. Exempting these river crossings from the Special Condition C would put undue hardships on the water treatment facilities by requiring the facilities to filter excess sediment in the source water for a duration of approximately 4 to 6 weeks or longer. The rivers’ designated use would not be maintained as a public drinking water source. Exemptions to the 72-hour condition do not ensure that the beneficial uses will be maintained and protected as required under the Clean Water Act.

The Greenbrier, Gauley, Buckhannon and Elk Rivers are popular recreational destinations for boating, swimming and fishing. The proposed modifications to Special Conditions C and L would impact the recreational use of these rivers. Allowing pipeline construction for an unrestricted duration coupled with impoundments that impede the flow will have detrimental effects on the recreational use of the impacted sections of these rivers. No recreation can occur during construction and the construction could last the majority of the popular recreational season. DEP’s proposed modifications to the special conditions do not maintain the rivers’ designated use for recreation.

The proposed modifications are untimely, unlawful and unnecessary. The DEP issued its recertification of the 401 for nationwide permits in 2017. Nationwide recertification is only necessary every five years. These modifications must wait until the 2022 recertification period. Opening the recertification process prematurely sets a precedent and disrupts the regulatory framework that industry, environmental organizations, state regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders rely on for continuity, transparency and certainty.

DEP has provided no justification for the proposed modifications to ensure that projects will still be able meet the state’s water quality standards. Likewise, the proposed modifications do not protect the rivers’ and streams’ designated uses. DEP cannot lawfully modify regulations without justification simply because the companies are not able to comply.

These modifications are not necessary for DEP to enable a company to use the most environmentally protective methods available. The agency has the authority now to deny large construction projects coverage under nationwide permits and require individual 401 Water Quality Certifications. Instead of following through with the proposed modifications, DEP should use individual 401 Water Quality Certifications to provide stream and wetland protections tailored to each project.

>>> Signed, Angie Rosser, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, plus 19 other organizations

NOTICE:  Water Quality Monitoring Program Underway for Snapshot Day

From the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, September 14, 2016

We are so excited to offer a volunteer opportunity as part of Trout Unlimited’s and WV Rivers’  WV/VA Water Quality Monitoring Program! We are hosting a one day Watershed Snapshot Day for folks to help us collect water quality samples in the Monongahela National Forest (MNF). No prior water quality monitoring experience is needed.  

The event is limited to 35 participants, please register by September 23. 

Register here: http://goo.gl/forms/DiFbNOixn63caLFl1.

Watershed Snapshot Day brings together volunteers from throughout West Virginia to collect water quality data and samples within the Monongahela National Forest (MNF), providing a “snapshot” of water quality conditions within the forest. This data helps establish baseline conditions in advance of any potential development within or adjacent to the forest, including pipelines and shale gas development. Snapshot Day is a great opportunity to meet other volunteers and explore a beautiful part of West Virginia.

Registration begins at 9:45am and the day will wrap-up around 4:30pm. We’ll provide you with an event t-shirt and bagged lunch for the field. We’ll have a BBQ picnic when you get back! 

Here’s How it Works

In the morning, we will assign groups of 2-4 volunteers with their monitoring routes, which will consist of 4-8 sites. We’ll provide detailed directions on how to get to each monitoring location. Before folks start monitoring, we’ll hold a mini-training on the sample collection protocols. The monitoring groups will then fan out to collect data from throughout the MNF. We’ll have dinner ready as groups return. We’ll be meeting at the Stuart Recreation Area right on Shaver’s Fork near Elkins, WV. This is a beautiful part of the state and a great time to visit. 
  
You can find further information and registration instructions here.
 
Please don’t hesitate to call or email Jake Lemon, Trout Unlimited’s Eastern Shale Gas Monitoring Coordinator, if you have any questions, 814-779-3965, jlemon@tu.org.

Marcellus/Utica region streams highly vulnerable

Study indicates gas drilling can impact rivers, streams & wetlands

From an Article by Elizabeth Krapits, Citizens Voice News, November 16, 2015

Depending on where and how it’s done, natural gas drilling does have the potential to impact Pennsylvania’s waterways, an independent study reveals.

Kenneth M. Klemow, professor of biology and environmental science and director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at Wilkes University, was one of the contributors to a new study examining how natural gas development affects surface water, such as creeks, streams and rivers.

In their paper, “Stream Vulnerability to Widespread and Emergent Stressors: A Focus on Unconventional Oil and Gas,” Klemow and five colleagues look at how vulnerable the bodies of water are in the six main shale plays across the U.S., including the Marcellus Shale.

“What we’ve developed is a predictive model,” Klemow said. “We have not proven anything about whether shale gas development is affecting streams or not.”

Watersheds are areas from which all the water beneath it or on it drains into the same place, whether creek, stream, river or lake. Surface water is used for drinking water, recreation, and feeds into fisheries, Klemow said.

Despite the importance of surface water and the fact that natural gas-related activity is increasing, there were no studies on whether the activity might contaminate streams. “That was the impetus, realizing there was a gap in the knowledge,” Klemow said.

In addition to Entrekin, other principals on the paper were Kelly O. Maloney of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Appalachian Research Laboratory in Wellsboro, Tioga County; Katherine E. Kapo of Waterborne Environmental Inc. in Leesburg, Virginia; Annika W. Walters of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming in Laramie; and Michelle A. Evans-White of the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

The scientists pooled their data; Klemow said Wilkes supplied “quite a bit” collected by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

“It was an exercise in going out online and getting whatever data we could about different watershed characteristics,” Klemow said. “For every watershed within the shale plays, we got a whole bunch of data: slopes, soils, type of vegetation, then things like land use.”

The bulk of the work involved using online databases and computer modeling with a geographic information system, or GIS. Klemow said Entrekin and Maloney, the lead authors, were the “GIS gurus,” so they did the bulk of the analysis in terms of crunching the numbers. The other authors provided interpretation and commentary.

What they found

In addition to the Marcellus, the researchers studied the Bakken shale, an oil-rich shale primarily being developed in North Dakota; the Fayetteville shale, a natural-gas shale in Arkansas; the Hilliard and Mowry shales in Wyoming and the oil- and gas-rich Barnett shale in Texas.

The study notes that “The fast pace and wide extent of unconventional oil and natural gas development raises concerns about its ecological effects.”

The researchers looked at the sensitivity of watersheds in the shale regions to impacts, and discovered that, of the six different plays, the Marcellus turned out to have the lowest, Klemow said. The others are in the central or southern part of the country where they don’t get as much rainfall. What makes the Marcellus region more resistant to impact is the fact that it gets a lot more rain than the other shales. But the Marcellus does have steep slopes and fairly loose soils and sediment.

The researchers next looked at exposure, a measure of the degree to which the watersheds could be affected by proximity to potential sources of pollution such as urbanized areas, farm land, coal mining or gas drilling — especially taking into account things like well pad density and access roads.

They found that despite its low sensitivity to impact, the Marcellus Shale has high exposure where drilling is heaviest, in northeastern and western Pennsylvania, Klemow said. A lot of shale gas development has already taken place, as well as many years of agriculture and mining. In the western part of the state there is also conventional oil and gas drilling, he said.

The researchers then took the sensitivity of each shale play, multiplied it by exposure, and came up with its vulnerability score, which is the amount of risk a particular watershed has.

Klemow said Northeastern Pennsylvania has a lot of watersheds classified as being highly vulnerable, mainly because they have high exposure rates.

Where the drilling is and how close it is to streams makes a difference. If you have a gas well that’s three miles away from the nearest stream, the chance of contamination is pretty low, Klemow said. But if it’s 300 feet from a stream, it’s going to be a lot higher. In other words, as Klemow puts it, it’s a highway with a lot of traffic on it, which makes it

“Wouldn’t pipelines raise the exposure level? The answer is, absolutely yes,” Klemow said. “But we couldn’t get any good pipeline data.”

What he hopes the study will lead to is the natural gas industry using best practices — such as being careful crossing streams — and having good regulations in place. It’s like if every motorist on the road drives safely, and there is good police enforcement, there won’t be as many accidents.

“One take-home is, this is now a predictive tool that hopefully regulatory agencies will be interested in, and hopefully the industry will be interested in this,” Klemow said of the study.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

“Make gas drillers pay for using, ruining water”

Letter to the Editor, Morgantown Dominion Post, Page 6-A, August 27, 2015

The 2000 Water Resources Group (a public-private partnership that assists government water officials) predicts that water demand will exceed supply by 40 percent in 15 years.  We are fortunate to live in a state with a plentiful supply.  By comparison, California is in its fourth year of a drought and water rationing is the law.

While our supply is abundant, we cannot take this resource for granted.  With our climate in flux, we should be doing everything we can to protect and preserve our water resources.  According to the West Virginia Water Resources Protection Act, “The waters of the State of West Virginia are claimed as valuable public natural resources held by the State for the use and benefit of its citizens.”  Citizens – that’s us.

So what are we doing with our plentiful and precious water? Besides drinking and recreating in it, we give it away to industry.  Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shales is a water-intensive process.  Every time one of these wells is drilled and fracked, an average of 4 million gallons of water is used.

With approximately 1,200 active wells and more than 3,000 permitted, the gas industry needs a lot of water.  Environment America (a federation of state-based environmental advocacy organizations) estimates that West Virginia has used 17 billion gallons of water for hydraulic fracturing from 2005 – 2013.

In most cases, this water is sucked right out of our rivers and streams.  There are about 155 water withdrawal sites permitted in West Virginia. The water is mixed with a cocktail of chemicals and pumped underground to fracture the shale and permit the escape of natural gas.

Once a gas well has been drilled, the water resurfaces essentially as industrial waste.  This water is too polluted to return it to the rivers and streams from which it was taken.  So instead this toxic water is disposed of in underground injection wells in many cases.

Whey is the natural gas industry allowed to waste our water? These companies do not pay a cent for taking this water from our rivers and streams and ruining it.  It’s only fair that these companies compensate us for its use.  West Virginia citizens should not be required to give away such a vital resource to enhance the profits of gas companies.

It’s time for gas drillers and frackers to pay – even a very modest amount – for the water they take from West Virginians.  You want it? You use it? You spoil it? You should pay for it.

>>> Jim Sconyers, West Virginia Sierra Club, Terra Alta, Preston County, WV

Will you let this happen (again & again)?

It’s Not Water Under the Bridge

Editorial, Morgantown Dominion Post, February 27, 2015

You better believe history has a way of repeating itself. Take for instance our state leaders, and agencies, long history of allowing industry to have its way with our natural resources.

Never mind the collateral damage done to our environment, especially our water resources. At least it was that way until March 8, 2014, or so we thought.

That was the date when the state Legislature unanimously approved Senate Bill 373 in response to a massive chemical spill into the Elk River. That spill contaminated the water supply of 300,000 state residents in a nine-county region resulting in a tap water ban for nearly a week. But soon after that legislation was passed, some warned that protecting our water does not end with passing a bill.

Industry never sleeps and would keep the pressure on government through its well-financed lobby. As one WVU law professor put it at the time, “While you’re not paying attention, they are.” Guess what? We have not been paying attention.

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced legislation to the Senate floor that basically guts SB 373. Though the new legislation — Senate Bill 423 — still requires all above-ground storage tanks to be registered with the state, it drops practically all regulation for about 36,000 of those 48,000 tanks.

The new bill purportedly targets tanks in zones of critical concern and a newly defined zone of peripheral concern to public water intakes, rather than protecting groundwater in general.

What that means is, if you rely on a private groundwater well or other such water supply you had better hope there are no above-ground storage tanks nearby. It also drastically reshapes how many industries need to apply for permits, allowing them to opt out of the separate permit process for their storage tanks if they already fall under some other regulatory tool.

Some have estimated that as a result of this provision, fewer than 100 tanks will be subject to the regular strict inspections.

The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) secretary was quick to point out recently that the bill the governor sought last year — SB 417 — was not as stringent as the one lawmakers ultimately passed. That was the legislation whose opening paragraphs talked about protecting industry, rather than our water resources. It was the one that died a quiet death once the public got a look at it and started to make some noise.

Something tells us the public needs to start making some more noise again — at SB 423. And if they don’t hear you now, you can always get their attention at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.

WVU Distinguished Visitors Lecture:

Prof. Brian Fagan, April 4, 2012, Morgantown, WV

Brian Fagan is emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where he has been on faculty since 1967.  He is author or editor of 46 books and over 100 articles in scientific journals. Three of his books are summarized below.   In his lecture at WVU he presented photographs to feature the topics in his most recent book Elixir: A History of Water and Humankind.

He said that the earth has experienced a 25% increase in global drought since 1990, due to global warming. And, severe to extreme drought conditions are expected to continue to increase.  He expressed concern about rising sea levels which will displace tens of millions of people around the world.  Already there are climatic refugees exposed to hunger, disease and death in many countries.  “Then there is fracking …….”  He said that no one knows the full extent of fresh water depletion that will be caused by the hydrofracking of shales for natural gas development nor the amount of water that will be contaminated.

Elixir: A History of Water and Humankind,  by Brian Fagan 

Book Review, Publication Date:  June 2011.

This book surveys water management, alighting on every continent and chronologically spanning from the advent of irrigated agriculture to the water works of modern cities like Phoenix, Arizona. He critiques the common impression that centralized control of water, such as that which conjured Phoenix into existence or, in ancient times, Roman aqueducts and Chinese canals, is the main theme in the story of humanity’s capture and distribution of water. He favors a bottom-up view, suggesting that local solutions to water problems were consolidated by civilizations, not invented by them. He describes village-scale technologies to support that viewpoint, going into archaeological analysis to underscore how communities such as Bali, the Maya, and Angkor Wat invested their water sources with sacredness. Well might they have ritualized water, for Fagan recounts how science indicts drought as the agent of various civilizations’ downfalls and a forewarning of our own. Supplying intriguing historical background, Fagan well informs those pondering freshwater’s role in contemporary environmental problems. — Gilbert Taylor

The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, by Brian Fagan

Book Description from Amazon, Publication Date: March 3, 2009

This book takes up how the earth’s previous global warming phase reshaped human societies from the Arctic to the Sahara—a wide-ranging history with lessons for our own time. From the tenth to the fifteenth century the earth experienced a rise in surface temperature that changed climate worldwide—a preview of today’s global warming. In some areas, including western Europe, longer summers brought bountiful harvests and population growth that led to cultural flowering. In the Arctic, Inuit and Norse sailors made cultural connections across thousands of miles as they traded precious iron goods. Polynesian sailors, riding new wind patterns, were able to settle the remotest islands on earth. But in many parts of the world, the warm centuries brought drought and famine. Elaborate societies in western and central America collapsed, and the vast building complexes of Chaco Canyon and the Mayan Yucatán were left empty. The history of the Great Warming of a half millennium ago suggests that we may yet be underestimating the power of climate change to disrupt our lives today—and our vulnerability to drought, writes Fagan, is the “silent elephant in the room.”

The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization, by Brian Fagan

Book Description from Amazon, Publication Date: December 29, 2004

Humanity evolved in an Ice Age in which glaciers covered much of the world. But starting about 15,000 years ago, temperatures began to climb. Civilization and all of recorded history occurred in this warm period, the era known as the Holocene-the long summer of the human species. In The Long Summer, Brian Fagan brings us the first detailed record of climate change during these 15,000 years of warming, and shows how this climate change gave rise to civilization. A thousand-year chill led people in the Near East to take up the cultivation of plant foods; a catastrophic flood drove settlers to inhabit Europe; the drying of the Sahara forced its inhabitants to live along the banks of the Nile; and increased rainfall in East Africa provoked the bubonic plague. The Long Summer illuminates for the first time the centuries-long pattern of human adaptation to the demands and challenges of an ever-changing climate-challenges that are still with us today.