Does mountaintop removal make flooding worse?
With all of the flooding hitting Southern West Virginia, some of the discussion will certainly turn to whether mountaintop removal coal-mining makes flooding worse.
I thought I would post a couple of resources to help people as they think about such issues.
Now, it’s difficult without a lot more site-specific information to say that a particular flood was made worse by mountaintop removal. But in general, there’s little question that such large-scale land disturbance makes flooding more likely and makes floods that do occur worse. (Of course, other large-scale land disturbance does the same — but this is a blog about coal mining, so we’ll talk about that here).
After the big floods in 2001, I did a couple of stories that might be interesting to read in coming days.
First, this one, which detailed the findings of government studies of the question of how mountaintop removal impacts flooding. You can read the actual studies I based the story on by going to the EPA mountaintop removal site here, and looking for Appendix H.
I also did this story, about how the state Department of Environmental Protection had resisted efforts to force coal operators to do more detailed reviews that would help pinpoint the potential flood impacts of strip mining.
12 comments
The real issue is performance standard of having to minimizing disturbance to the hydrologic balance.
Whether the surface coal mining and reclamation operations did or did not increase flooding, low flows or other changes is not a performance or permitting violation — it’s not taking proper actions to minimize those impacts.
That opens up the gambits on what the “knowledge and abilites” of the particular registered professional engineer who certified the plans and the soundness of his determinations in appling his/her knowledge and abilities.
If his/her determinations were made using unsupportable projected post-mining infiltration rates, final slopes, run-off periods, etc.; only then is there a potential violation. For there to actually be violation, another qualified registered professional engineer has to be able to successfully contest those determinations (based upon the certifying engineer’s knowledge and abilities, not on his/her own knowledge adn abilities), in legal proceedings and/or before the state professional engineers board. (Good luck on finding another engineer will to expose themselves to risk of losing their own professional license if they are unsuccessful in such proceedings.)
816.41 - Hydrologic - balance protection.
(a) General. All surface mining and reclamation activities shall be conducted to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, to assure the protection or replacement of water rights, and to support approved postmining land uses in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved permit and the performance standards of this part. . . .
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/816-41-hydrologic-balance-protection-19696362
As Bob Dylan famously wrote: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.
Can’t blame God, blame surface mining.
I doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out yet it will be debated until the second coming.
Increases in runoff due to deforestation have been documented at the Hubbard Brook experimental forest in New Hampshire. One such study is at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1970/WR006i004p01124.shtml
Other relevant published research from this ecosystem is at http://www.hubbardbrook.org/pubs/pub_search.php
[…] For more information about the increase in flooding caused by mountaintop removal, read this. […]
[…] Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. reminds readers of his blog “Coal Tattoo” about the studies that have been done: Now, it’s difficult without a lot more […]
[…] Charleston Gazette's Ken Ward Jr. reminds readers of his blog "Coal Tattoo" about the studies that have been done: Now, it’s difficult without a lot more site-specific […]
[…] In anticipation that recent events would renew discussion about whether mountiantop removal mining worsens flooding in the coalfields, Ken Ward Jr. wrote about the issue on his blog, the Coal Tattoo. […]
How could Mountaintop Removal mining NOT worsen flooding?? Removal of all the natural water absorbing structures - trees, leaves, groundcover plants, mulched soil, topsoil, upper stratas of rock - and the burial of the natural water channels are always involved in a MTR operation. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to see the dramatically increased flood potential. Any industrial entitity that labels our magnificent hardwood forests “overburden,” and who has little regard for mountain ecosystems which have existed since before human history has absolutely NO right to speak of the current flooding as “as act of God.”
[…] Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. reminds readers of his blog “Coal Tattoo” about the studies that have been done: Now, it’s difficult without a lot more […]
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/99/99apprvr/ar7-6.pdf
RECHARGING APPALACHIAN AQUIFERS USING WATERSHED SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL
Their own words condemn them but in their argument for a method solution to the damages of MTR, they readily admit to species extinction, loss of human life, a 40% water loss in Appalachia, damage to the tourism industry, flooding, etc, etc and their solution is to form craters on tops of mountains at old MTR sites to catch water. If the URL does not show up on this post, do a search for the title of the paper above.
Leave a Comment