Coal Companies Destroying, Not Restoring Mountains
Posted July 27, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming
I own a pick-up truck that my neighbors sometimes borrow. One neighbor, who usually uses the truck to haul away lawn debris, always returns the truck in meticulous condition. No matter how often I tell him not to bother, he insists on topping off the tank and washing the truck before returning it to my driveway.
Another neighbor is just the opposite. He sees my truck in purely utilitarian terms and feels no compunction to tread gently with it. Like a battered rental, he typically returns it worse for wear, and although I can't be sure I think he's the reason why my reasonably well-maintained pickup now sports a small crack in the windshield, a dime-sized dent in the bumper and scratches on the tailgate.
As bad as a banged up truck may be, consider what happens when perfectly good mountains get blasted, bulldozed, mined and later "restored" by coal companies in Appalachia.
You see, with few exceptions federal law requires mining companies to put strip mine sites back the way they were prior to mining -- the term is "approximate original contour" (OAC). But the Charleston Gazette reports that an investigation by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining found that the vast majority of so-called reclaimed mining sites in West Virginia were left much lower in elevation than the original mountains. In the most extreme example in the OSM study, a mine operator left the land more than 200 feet lower than required by the permit. (Similar agency studies are currently underway in Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee.)
The AOC standard stems from the 1977 federal Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, which requires that mine operators put rock and dirt back so that the site "closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining." Variances to this are allowed in some cases where mining companies propose post-mining plans for schools, factories, commercial sites or public parks.
Unfortunately, lax enforcement by state and federal environmental officials means that the mountaintop removal reclamation rarely results in reshaping the mountain to its approximate original state. Nor does much post-mining economic development ever actually occur on the flat land that was formerly mountain top. The Gazette story quotes attorney Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, telling Congress in 2007 that:
"The post-mining land is in isolated mountain areas, the land is unstable for building and it will no longer support native vegetation. In short, mountains and valleys have been changed dramatically in contour so that they resemble no surface configuration on Earth and the land is useless for development."
Lovett also points the finger at OSM officials for thumbing their noses at federal requirements, essentially letting industry "create monstrous valley fills and sawed off mountains that more closely resemble the surface of the moon than our lush, green hills."
That's a good line -- and so true. But the most telling soundbite in the story goes to Tom Clarke, the mining and reclamation director at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, who soft-pedals OSM's damning report. He says on-the-ground reclamation problems cited by OSM "might be considered within the acceptable range of tolerance, considering you are sculpting the ground with a bulldozer, not Michelangelo doing Venus de Milo or something."
I'd certainly think twice about loaning Mr. Clarke my truck keys.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
John Watts — Jul 28 2009 07:43 AM
The coal companies only care about one thing and one thing only, PROFIT!
RT
www.anon-web-tools.tk
j jeffries — Jul 28 2009 09:57 AM
The WV government was bought & paid for long ago by the coal companies. They'll continue to do whatever they want, for as long as they want to, until coal is no longer used for anything and/or it's gone, neither of which will happen in my lifetime.
Logi Cal — Jul 28 2009 10:52 AM
If I may summarize: these companies are destroying the planet. Yet they also have the power to restore the mountain. How is that destroying the planet?
I wonder how much better the coal workers lives are from the trade of their time & labor for a paycheck...bet infinitely better.
Greg — Jul 28 2009 11:15 AM
We need to help these greedy coal companies turn into wind energy companies. There is 10x more potential energy on those mountains in the form of wind. The US doesn't even use the coal that is dug out of WV, VA, TN. Its all shipped to China because there is too much sulfur in eastern US coal. I say ban it altogether, give federal funding to these companies to help buy wind turbines, along with local support and involvement and these communities will be better off than ever. Right now, the land is detroyed, the environment is polluted, the coal goes to China, and the profits go to NY. The local economy and people get nothing but ruined vista's, and contaminated water. We must change the current system
Tim Stinson — Jul 28 2009 11:28 AM
Why is anyone shocked that the coal companies are up to no good? It's been going on for much too long. On August 1, 1921 detectives from the Baldwin-Felts agency killed Matewan Police Chief Sid Hatfield, who had been a long-time supporter of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and their efforts to unionize the mines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
The coal companies' fiction of higher wages for everyone in the state has always been the argument they use to get whatever they want, including the less labor-intensive mountaintop removal instead of deep mining. However, West Virginia is the second poorest state in the United States of America, with a per capita income of $16,477 (2000). Where did all that money go from coal mining? To the out of state mine owners, of course, who wouldn't be caught dead living in the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_locations_by_per_capita_income
Eric Dempsey — Jul 28 2009 11:40 AM
Whats tough is coal companys (and all mining companies) cannot control the price they recieve for their product. This is done by the stock market and it leaves a very small profit margin per ton of coal and no company is going to give their profit away to make a mountian 'look the way' it used to. Imagine what it would cost to rebuild a mountain several hundred feet higher. They already have to jump through many enviromental hurdles to prevent coal contamination which is the most impaortant part of enviromental protection.
Rob Perks — Jul 28 2009 11:54 AM
I'm glad to see such lively yet respectful dialogue on my blog post. This issue is certainly complex in terms of the local environmental and economic impacts. But I think people should think twice about viewing this extreme strip mining as simply an acceptable cost of doing business. First, you have to see it to appreciate the sheer devastation. Safe to say that Americans would not stand for this scale of destruction in the Rockies, the Adirondacks, the Blue Ridge or other of our country's "purple mountain majesties." This is not like breaking eggs to make an omelet; when you tear down a mountain you simply cannot recreate it -- a man-made mountain simply cannot replace or restore what nature created over 400 million years. And it's not just the environment, this reckless mining is harming local residents living in the valleys below -- polluting the air they breathe and the water they drink, damaging their homes and depressing their property values, and generally ruining their quality of life. MTR is rogue mining, pure and simple, and it needs to be properly outlawed. We must end it, not mend it.
Engineer — Jul 28 2009 02:25 PM
Removing coal from a mountain causes the mountain's volume to decrease in proportion to the volume of coal removed. Thus, to restore the mountain to its original contours would require digging up a proportionate amount of dirt, rock, or coal from another site, and transporting it the the restoration site. Unfortunately, that would only move the contour problem to another location, rather than solving it.
Thus I would suggest that the more important priority would be to restore the abandoned coal mine to a topography and soil level capable of supporting local vegetation and preventing sediment runoff, rather than attempting to restore the original contours.
Thomas B — Jul 28 2009 08:52 PM
The goal should be first and foremost to ban mountaintop removal. Then to stop the export of coal to China.
Unearthing hydro-carbons for combustion is archaic.
Television Spy — Jul 28 2009 09:33 PM
Coal is a horrible resource to still be using, I know China is still the #1 consumer of it because they're used for heating and they create a lot of pollution that drifts eastward towards the Western coast of America (LA and contributes something like 30% of their pollution).
Guy Gordon — Jul 29 2009 03:31 AM
Let me get this straight:
The land in question was a remote mountain top, which was flattened. And *now* it's unsuitable for development??? Exactly what kind of development was it suitable for before? A shopping mall?
There are plenty of things wrong with the mining industry. This sort of nonsense just makes the anti-mining position look weaker.