Shaina+Singer's+Project

**The Environmental and Social Effects of Mountaintop Mining** Shaina Singer AMH3930H - The Farmer, the King, and the Natural World Spring 2012 Semester University of Central Florida Drs. Lester and Walker

**Mining practices:**

There are two basic types of coal mining. The first is underground mining. These are the mines that involve digging deep shafts down into the earth to access the coal buried within the side of a mountain. These mines are either operated by miners, the likes of which wear the helmets with mounted flashlights and carry around canaries, or a “continuous miner,” a giant tunnel boring machine. The second is mountaintop mining. Mountaintop mining (MTM) is a method of surface mining, which works best for extracting shallow coal deposits. Mountaintop mining is synonymous with surface mines, and refers to these types: mountaintop removal, contour mining, and area mining. This method works best in areas with steep terrain and shallow coal deposits, conditions characteristic of Central Appalachia. This includes the areas of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and assorted areas in eastern Tennessee. It is cheaper and less labor intensive than underground mining, and it is also more of a controversial environmental issue.

**History of Coal in Appalachia:**

The mining industry first began in Appalachia in the 1800’s and dominated the United States coal market for 100 years. It died down during the 1970s when coal seams, that were thicker and closer to the surface, were discovered out west. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was revised to restrict sulfur dioxide emissions, and since Appalachian coal seams are low in sulfur, this gave Eastern coal mining a new start. (Mitchell, 2006)

**Current methods:**

To access the underlying coal, first the trees. Then the layers of rock and dirt above the coal seam are blasted out with explosives, and must be removed. This layer of rock is called the overburden.  As the seams of coal are being removed with draglines, large bucket excavators, the overburden gets moved somewhere out of the way. According to a pamphlet by the National Mining Association, this excess rock is usually placed over previously mined areas, or in “engineered fill areas.” According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, website, this constitutes taking the overburden and making piles in an adjacent valley. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Once all of the coal has been removed, the area gets a final regrading, or leveling, and shaping. Then the companies must revegetate the area. They do this by adding in a layer of topsoil, and seeding it with vegetation, usually grass or seedlings, conducive to the surrounding environment. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">These lands are then used for reforestation, farmland, or development.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">(images courtesy of [])

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Environmental Effects:**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In a brief outline, the EPA notes ("Mid-atlantic mountaintop mining," 2011) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">that from studies of over 1200 stream segments affected by mountaintop mining and valley fills, there were the following environmental issues: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- An increase in minerals such as zinc, sodium, selenium, and sulfate, in the water which may negatively impact fish, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Occurrences of covered up streams, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Created wetlands, that were of little actual value, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Fragmented forests, which according to ecologists disrupt the dense food webs that existed previously. This also takes its toll on the native species and allows for invasive species to move in and take over. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Packed dirt to prevent mountainside erosion. This in turn slows tree regrowth. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Loss of native species habitat, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Unidentified environmental costs, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">- Social, economic, and heritage issues.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Proponents / Legislation**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Historically:** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In the congressional records of April 22, 1977, Harry F. Byrd Jr., a Virginia senator presented amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 that would add some leniency to the rules. Originally, to mine the steep terrain, operators were required to restore the land to “approximate original contour.” Byrd argued that this was not practical because it is uncertain whether the original contour is the best form to return to, especially considering erosion.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">“Where the mining operation will remove an entire seam or seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain…creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining, and capable of supporting post mining uses in accord with the requirements of this subsection, the requirements of restoring the mined area to approximate original contour as provided in subsection 415(b)(3) of this section shall not apply where - S6271 (A) the reclaimed area will be suitable for an agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or public use (including recreational facilities),” <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">("Congressional record april 22, 1977," 1977).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Here Byrd’s legislation got passed allowing for a leniency in the contour requirements, if they land could be used for an economic purpose. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">I agree with the point Byrd was making, if they’re going to partake in mountaintop mining, restoring the land to its original contour would be much more difficult and labor intensive. With all the drilling and scraping done to the face of the mountain, not only would then need to bring fill back in, but lots would need to be done in order to prevent erosion. The costs of restoring the mountain after mining would be enough to counteract the efficiency and effectiveness of MTM, and in this sense, coal mine operators are making an economically rational decision looking for alternatives. This of course is working off of the premise that the coal companies will continue these non-environmentally friendly practices and we should cater towards them. After all, many of our nation’s power plans are coal powered as we have yet to find a more efficient, cheap fuel source. We’re straddling an issue of wanting inexpensive and abundant power to run our lives, and our desire to preserve the environment and the other species which call it home.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Present:**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The National Mining Association (NMA) is a non-profit trade association, or lobbyist group, formed in 1995 as the result of a merger between the National Coal Association and the American Mining Congress. Their mission is “to create and maintain a broad base of political support for the mining industry and to help the nation realize the economic and national security benefits of America's domestic mining capability.” ("Mountaintop mining fact," 2009)

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">They make an argument in favor of the coal industry, on both the economic impact as well as the restorative impact they are making on the environment. According to their numbers, there are 14,000 surface coal miners working in the Appalachian region of a total 125,000 coal miners in the United States. Because no industry stands alone, mining lends itself to the creation of other jobs, at a ratio of about 3.5 peripheral jobs for every mining job, providing almost 6000 jobs in Appalachia. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In regard to their environmental impact, the NMA makes it clear that they are complying with all of the federal regulations set in terms of slope stability and “post-mining land use” requirements. They seed the region and prepare it for whatever final land use requirements are stated in their permits.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">It is my opinion that, while they say they are reverting the area to be used for some sort of economically productive function after they are done mining, it is still rather unknown as to the definite environmental impact the mines had in the first place. It is very clear that the geography of the locale has changed. There are no longer mountain peaks, and small streams are becoming clogged and changing the water flow patterns. The world is flattening out to become more productive. It's nice that they are proud of following federal regulations, but I feel like that is setting the bar low. The people in the Federal government aren't necessarily scientists, they don’t understand the complexities of the environment. It’s good to have regulations, but what if they’re arbitrary, and simply holding to them is leaving lasting damage, and is not enough to maintain healthy complex ecosystems. In addition, the pamphlet mentions how the elk prefer the post-mining revegetated sites to other areas, and how they reintroduced blight resistant Chestnut trees to 1.2 million acres in Kentucky. Maybe they don't realize how narrow a view they are holding of the natural world. It’s nice that the elk like the reclaimed surface mines, and that their numbers are flourishing, but what effect does this have on the larger food web? The EPA paper mentioned how grassland birds and snakes were more common on the mine lands, but amphibians were not <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">("Mid-atlantic mountaintop mining," 2011) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Opponents:**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Mountain Justice is an activist organization dedicated to trying to “save our mountains, streams and forest from greedy coal companies.” They are advocates of nonviolent protests, and raising awareness for the detrimental effects to the environment produced by the practice of mountaintop mining. They claim that by blasting off the tops of mountains, coal companies are ruining “water producing mountains” turning the peaks of the Appalachians into plateaued and barren wastelands <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">("Who we are," ) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">. This portrayal is a stark opposite from the National Mining Association’s rosy picture of the reclamation and revegetation projects. Though their main front is mountaintop mining, the Mountain Justice organization takes a stance of rejecting all “dirty, dangerous energy sources” that are owned and controlled by large industrial <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">and political powers. They have a point; blasting the tops off mountains is no small thing. It's a very clear demonstration of how we are carving up the face of our planet. We're chopping off our globe's features.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Then there are the stories of the individuals <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(Mitchell, 2006) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">and families who had to leave their homes because a blast mine was coming to town, and those that tried to take on the coal corporations and weather the coal dust storm. There have been generations of local, small town history and heritage that has been blasted away, and it's all for the sake of inexpensive fuel.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Conclusion: What's to be done?**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">I believe this comes down to priorities. Would people rather look at a low number on their electrical bill, or take the initiative and stop scarring our country with such explosive rhinoplasty? On the one hand, Appalachian coal is "cleaner" (than other coal) and abundant, but on the other, the environmental and aesthetic costs of accessing it are very high. Thanks to technology we already live in a small world, we should collectively consider what we are doing before we make it a flat one as well. That is why I feel it is important to our society that we have activist organizations such as Mountain Justice, to make sure we don't get swept up in the commercial tides of exploiting inexpensive fuels.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Works Cited:**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> McQuaid, J. (2009, January). Mining the mountains. // Smithsonian Magazine //, Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Mining-the-Mountain.html?c=y&page=1

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> Mitchell, J. (2006, March). When mountains move. // National Geographic magazine //, Retrieved from http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">// Mountaintop mining fact book //. (2009, March). Retrieved from http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/mtm.pdf

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> U.S Congress, (1977). // Congressional record april 22, 1977 //. Retrieved from website: http://www.osmre.gov/congress/leghistory/records/042277.pdf

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> U.S Environmental Protection Agency, (2011). // Mid-atlantic mountaintop mining //. Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/index.htm

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;"> U.S Environmental Protection Agency, (2012). // Mountaintop mining/valley fill process //. Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/process.htm

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">// Who we are //. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mountainjustice.org/who_we_are/index.php