Mountaintop mining consequences

Science

Volumn 327, Issue 5962, 2010, Pages 148-149

  Palmer, M A ^a,b   Bernhardt, E S ^c   Schlesinger, W H ^d   Eshleman, K N ^a   Foufoula Georgiou, E ^e   Hendryx, M S ^f   Lemly, A D ^g   Likens, G E ^d   Loucks, O L ^h   Power, M E ⁱ   White, P S ^j   Wilcock, P R ^k  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CARY INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^f WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^k JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYDROGEN SULFIDE; NITROGEN; PHOSPHORUS; SULFATE; FRESH WATER;

ECOREGION; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; LAND USE CHANGE; MINING; RECLAIMED LAND; REGULATORY APPROACH; TOPSOIL; WATER QUALITY;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; FLOODING; FOREST; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; SOIL COMPACTION; SURFACE MINING; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; COAL MINING; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; POLICY; UNITED STATES; WATER POLLUTANT;

APPALACHIANS;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; COAL MINING; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; FEMALE; FRESH WATER; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; MALE; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 74249112094     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1180543     Document Type: Short Survey

References (35)

1. World Coal Institute, www.worldcoal.org
2. K. L. Saylor, Land Cover Trends: CentralAppalachians [U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, DC, 2008]; http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/eco69Report.html.
3. MTMNF refers to surface mining operations that remove coal seams running through a mountain, ridge, or hill; it may also refer more broadly to large-scale surface mining, including area or contour mining in steep terrain that disposes of excess rock in heads of hollows or valleys with streams.
4. Debates are conspicuous because of recent high-profile federal court cases [e.g., (33)], widely publicized exchanges between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the ACOE over permitting decisions, advocacy by nongovernmental organizations, and protests by miners.
5. J. L. Meyer et al., J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43, 86 (2007).
6. J. D. Allan, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 257 (2004).
7. This 5 to 10% issue is based on studies done on many nonmining types of land-use change. Thus far, EPA has not done mining-specific studies on this "threshold" issue (percentage of watershed mined versus impacts on streams) despite many calls for such data.
8. T. L. Negley, K. N. Eshleman, Hydrol. Process. 20, 3467 (2006).
9. B. C. McCormick, K. N. Eshleman, J. L. Griffith, P. A. Townsend, Water Resour. Res. 45, W08401 (2009).
10. J. R. Ferrari, T. R. Lookingbill, B. McCormick, P. A. Townsend, K. N. Eshleman, Water Resour. Res. 45, W04407 (2009).
11. K. S. Paybins et al., USGS Circular 1204 (2000); http://pubs.water.usgs. gov/cird204/.
12. G. J. Pond, M. E. Passmore, F. A. Borsuk, L. Reynolds, C. J. Rose, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27, 717 (2008).
13. K. J. Hartman et al., Hydrobiologia 532, 91 (2005).
14. J. I. Sams, K. M. Beer, USGS Water Res. Report 99-4208 (2000); http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir-99-4208.pdf.
15. N. F. Caraco, J. J. Cole, G. E. Likens, Nature 341, 316 (1989).
16. S. B. Joye, J. T. Hollibaugh, Science 270, 623 (1995).
17. M. E. van der Welle, J. G. Roelofs, L. P. Lamers, Sci. Total Environ. 406, 426 (2008).
18. EPA, Stream Chemistry Report, part 2 (EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, 2002); http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pdf/appendices/d/stream-chemistry/ MTMVFChemistryPart2.pdf.
19. A. D. Lemly, Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Hazard Evaluation and Water Quality Criteria (Springer, New York, 2002).
20. EPA, Mountaintop MiningNF Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, 2005); http://www.epa.gov/region3/ mtntop/index.htm.
21. J. M. Conley, D. H. Funk, D. B. Buchwalter, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 7952 (2009).
22. S. McAuley, M. D. Kozar, USGS Report 5059 (2006); pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/ 5059/pdf/sir2006-5059.pdf.
23. M. K. Ghose, S. R. Majee, Environ. Monit. Assess. 130, 17 (2007).
24. M. Hendryx, M. M. Ahern, Public Health Rep. 124, 541 (2009).
25. Mining industry and government organizations recently signed a statement of intent to promote reforestation approaches that improve reclamation [see, e.g., (34)]; however, adoption of recommendations is voluntary. Reforestation of a mined site to premined conditions has not been demonstrated.
26. J. A. Simmons et al., Ecol. Appl. 18, 104 (2008).
27. P. Emerson, J. Skousen, P. Ziemkiewicz, J. Environ. Qual. 38, 1821(2009).
28. B. Y. Amichev, A. J. Burger, J. A. Rodrigue, For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 1949(2008).
29. P.A. Townsend et al.Remote Sens.Environ. 113, 62 (2009).
30. EPA and ACOE, Fed. Regist. 73, 10 (2008).
31. U.S. District Court, Civil Action No. 3:05-0784, transcript, vol.3, pp. 34-45; http://palmerlab.umd.edu/MTM/US-DistricLCourt-Civil-Action-Official- transcript-Volume-lll.pdf.
32. A. P. Chikkatur, A. D. Sagar, T. L. Sankar, Energy 34, 942 (2009).
33. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition et al. vs. U.S. ACOE et al., case 07-1255.
34. Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, www.arri. osmre.gov/FRApproach.shtm.
35. This is contribution no.4368 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.