Mountaintop Removal Mining (MTR) and the Hydrologic Effects on Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems

Background [1]

• Mountaintop removal (MTR) mining removes coal too shallow for traditional mining

Steps of MTR:• Clearing of vegetation and topsoil• Surface rock blown off• Excavation• Dumping Waste, • Reclamation by Valley Fill (VF)

• MTR is the dominant driver of land cover change in Central Appalachia- 1.2 million acres affected

• Due to MTR Central Appalachia has highest rates of earth movement

Ashley Sharp, Alex Abbott, Devin Kohn, David Pogoreski, Gina Testaaksharp@mtu.edu•Michigan Technological University, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Houghton MI

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank: Michigan Technological University, The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Joe Wagenbrenner, Molly Cavaleri, Samantha Mosier, and Carol Asiala.

Hydrologic Effects[2] [3]

• VF buries headwaters of streams

• Water drainage from VF is higher in pH, alkalinity, ion concentrations, sulfate concentrations and toxicity

• Weathering of mine spoils leaches heavy metals into aquatic systems

• Loss of vegetation contributes to higher runoff and erosion rates

Coal sludge storage pond in Tennessee

Sources[2] Bernhardt, Emily S., Lutz, Brian D., King, Ryan S., Fay, John P., Carter, Catherine E., Helton, Ashley M., Campagna, David, and Amos, John. 2012. How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environmental Science and Technology. 46 8115-8122. DOI 10.1021/es301144q[1] Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E.S., Schlesinger, W.H., Eshelman, K.N., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Hendryx, M.S., Lemly, A.D., Likens, G.E., Loucks, O.L., Power, M.E., White, P.S., Wilcock, P.R. 2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science. 327:148-149.[3] Zegre, Nicholas P., Miller, Andrew J., Maxwell, Aaron, and Lamont, Samuel J. 2014. Multiscale analysis of hydrology in a mountaintop mine-impacted watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 50(5): 1257-1272. DOI 10.1111/jawr.12184.

• Higher streamflow, base flow, peak flow, and runoff in mined catchments

• Coal sludge stored in ponds at high risk of flooding or embankment failure

Mountaintop Removal Mining (MTR) and the Hydrologic Effects on Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems

Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts[1]

• Reduces topological complexity, carbon sequestration and forest productivity

• Conversion of landscapes to open surface mines may “shift faunal assemblage”

Ashley Sharp, Alex Abbott, Devin Kohn, David Pogoreski, Gina Testaaksharp@mtu.edu•Michigan Technological University, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Houghton MI

Future Considerations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank: Michigan Technological University, The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Joe Wagenbrenner, Molly Cavaleri, Samantha Mosier, and Carol Asiala.

Unsustainable Regulations[3]Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts[2]

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) is a forest interior species of concern

Carolina Wren (Thyrothorus ludovicianus) had a positive response to mineland habitats

• Introduction of mineland or shrubland/grassland onsets decline of forest birds

Solutions• Use bird “guilds” when making management

decisions

• Management should be focused on amount of land cover in forest, core forest, and shrubland/grassland types

Sources• [1] Becker, Douglas A., P.B. Wood, M.P. Strager, C. Mazzarella. 18 December 2014. Impacts of

mountaintop mining on terrestrial ecosystem integrity: identifying landscape thresholds for avian species in the central Appalachians, United States. Landscape Ecology 30:339-356. DOI 10.1007/s10980-014-0134-8

• [3] Bernhardt, Emily S., M.A. Palmer. 2011. The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, 1223:39-57. DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05986.x

• [2]Hitt, Nathaniel P., D.B. Chambers. 30 June 2014. Temporal changes in taxonomic and functional diversity of fish assemblages downstream from mountaintop mining. Freshwater Science, 33(3): 915-926. DOI: 10.1086/676997

• Regulations require that watersheds must be “returned to a semblance of their former shape”

• The ecology of reclaimed mines is vastly different from the original untouched habitat

• Regulatory assessments focus on physical structures as opposed to ecological functions

• Mitigation credit can be awarded for watersheds that appear to fulfill ecological functions, regardless ability to function properly

• Regulations for mitigation of effects of MTR need to be evaluated and improved

• Management needs to focus on the long-term sustainability of watersheds

• Reclaimed VF does not protect or restore aquatic biodiversity

• Overall decrease in species richness (49%) abundance (80%) and Shannon’s diversity index (24%) at exposed sites

• Fish assemblages decrease by up to 50%

• According to USEPA fish communities are consistently degraded by MTR/VF

• Lose intolerant stream macroinvertebrates in catchments with as little as 2.2% affected by mines

Stream polluted by runoff from MTR/VF