SYMP 4 -6 - Mountaintop mining: Are current regulations and policies adequate?

Tuesday, August 3, 2010: 10:50 AM
Blrm A, David L Lawrence Convention Center
Margaret A. Palmer, National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland, Annapolis, MD
Background/Question/Methods

Mountaintop mining with valley fills (MTM/VF) is a particularly destructive form of surface mining for coal.  After mining, fForests have not been shown to recover despite extensive reclamation efforts, small streams are lost forever, and contaminants pollute larger streams and rivers below valley fills.  The Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations require that burying streams with discharged materials should be avoided and, if unavoidable, mitigation must render non-significant the impacts that mining activities have on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems.  The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act also imposes multiple requirements to minimize impacts on the land and on natural channels.  Since impacts to natural resources are clearly occurring, extensive “comprehensive mitigation plans” are submitted with coal permit applications.  The applicants generally propose to mitigate by: 1) on-site “creation” of streams on mining sites to replace lost headwater streams buried by valley fills; and 2) off-site “enhancement” of perennial streams. 

Results/Conclusions

Stream creation typically involves digging channels similar in physical form (e.g., width, depth) to un-affected headwater streams on or below valley fills and often in old mine drainage ditches.  Despite the lack of science documenting the feasibility of stream creation – especially on sites such as those subjected to MTM/VFs – the practice has been permitted on many sites.  Further, since creation projects are associated with mined sites, the water source will be contaminated with all the associated biological impairments described in previous talks.  Off-site enhancement of perennial streams can take many forms including re-routing of channels, stabilizing streambanks, or repairing culverts to allow fish passage.   These may provide some environmental benefits but restoration of a perennial stream cannot replace a lost intermittent stream.  Whether on-site ‘creation’ or off-site ‘enhancement’, the method of mitigation accounting does not address how (or if) efforts replace lost ecological structures and functions.  Existing water policies and regulations are clearly failing and/or their enforcement is inadequate. Problematic areas in need of reform or better enforcement will be described and examples provided on why permitting agencies must rely on peer-reviewed and current scientific knowledge rather than giving full deference to their use of “best professional judgment”.

Copyright © . All rights reserved.
Banner photo by Flickr user greg westfall.