The terminology in this page contains definitions for invasion biology terms in common usage today, taken from accessible publications. References for each definition are included. Terminology relates primarily to invasion biology terms with some ecology terms included to clarify language and phrases on linked pages.
Introduction
The need for a clearly defined and consistent invasion biology terminology has been acknowledged by many sources. Definitions of “invasive non-indigenous species have been inconsistent” which has led to confusion in both literature and in popular publications (Williams and Meffe 2005). Also, many scientists and managers feel that there is no firm definition of non-indigenous species, native species, exotic species, “and so on, and ecologists do not use the terms consistently” (Shrader-Frechette 2001). Another question asked is whether current language is likely to promote “effective and appropriate action” towards invasive species through cohesive language (Larson 2005). Biologists today spend more time and effort on invasive species work because of the rapid spread, economic cost, and effects on ecological systems, so the importance of effective communication about invasive species is clear (Larson 2005).
Controversy in invasion biology terms exists because of past usage and preference for certain terms. Even for biologists, defining a species as native may be far from being a straightforward matter of biological classification based on the location or the discipline a biologist is working in (Helmreich 2005). Questions often arise as to what exactly makes a species native as opposed to non native, because some non native species have no known negative effects (Woods and Moriarty 2001). Natural biological invasions, generally considered range expansions, and introductions involving human activities are important and could be considered a normal ecological process (Vermeij 2005). Non-native and native species may be sometimes considered invasive, and these invasions often follow human-induced landscape changes, with subsequent damage to existing landscapes a value judgment (Foster and Sandberg 2004). As a result, many important terms relevant to invasion biology, such as invasive, weed, or transient, include qualities that are “open to subjective interpretation” (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). Sometimes one species can have both beneficial and detrimental effects, such as the mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), which has been widely introduced because of its suppression of larval mosquitoes, although it also has negative impacts on native species of insects, fish and amphibians (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004).
The large number and current complexity of terms makes interpretation of some of the invasion biology literature challenging and intimidating. Exotic, alien, transplanted, introduced, non-indigenous, and invasive are all words that have been used to describe plants and animals that have been moved beyond their native ranges by humans (Williams and Meffe 2005), along with other terms such as foreign, injurious, aquatic nuisance, pest, non native, all with a particular implication. Even the use of what seem to be simple, basic terms to articulate ecological concepts “can confuse ideological debates and undermine management efforts” (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). Attempts to redefine commonly used terms in invasion biology have been difficult because many authors and biologists are particular to a favorite definition (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). Also, the status and identification of any species as an invader, a weed, or an exotic are “conditioned by cultural and political circumstances” (Robbins 2004).
Terminology
Alien species
Less commonly used in scientific literature but often included in population publications, public information displays, and educational literature. This term refers to species that spread beyond their native range, not necessarily harmful, or species introduced to a new range that establish themselves and spread; similar terms include exotic species, foreign species, introduced species, non indigenous species, and non native species (Jeschke and Strayer 2005).
Aquatic nuisance species
Less commonly used in most literature. 1. A nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural or recreational activities dependent on such waters (EPA 1990). 2. Aquatic species that causes economic or environmental harm to humans (Heutte and Bella 2003). 3. An aquatic species with adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g. species that produce toxins that are harmful to humans) or indirectly (e.g. species that infest nature reserves) (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004).
Biological control or biocontrol
1. In general, the control of the numbers of one organism as a result of natural predation by another or others. Specifically, the human use of natural predators for the control of pests or weeds. Also applied to the introduction of large numbers of sterilized males of the pest species, whose matings result in the laying of infertile eggs (Allaby 1998). 2. The release of one species to control another (Carlton 2001). 3. The management of weeds using introduced herbivores (often insects) as biological control agents (Booth et al. 2003).
Biological invasion or bioinvasion
A broad term that refers to both human-assisted introductions and natural range expansions (Carlton 2001).
Biological diversity (See biodiversity)
Used to describe species richness, ecosystem complexity, and genetic variation (Allaby 1998).
Biological control (See Biological pest control)
Control method involving a biological control agent that is a natural enemy of a target pest (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Bioregion (See Ecoregion)
A biological subdivision of the earth’s surface delineated by the flora and fauna of the region (Allaby 1998).
Biota
The plants and animals of a specific region or period, or the total aggregation of organisms in the biosphere (Allaby 1998).
Casual species
This term is becoming less common in usage. A non native species that does not form self-replacing populations (Booth et al. 2003). Similar terms include introduced species, non indigenous species, and non native species.
Chemical control
Control method that employs herbicides to control exotic plants (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Community
Any grouping of populations of different organisms that live together in a particular environment (Allaby 1998).
Cryptogenic species
Species that are neither clearly native nor exotic (Cohen and Carlton 1988).
Cultivar
A variety of a plant produced and maintained by horticultural techniques and not normally found in wild populations (Allaby 1998).
Disturbance
An event or change in the environment that alters the composition and successional status of a biological community and may deflect succession onto a new trajectory, such as a forest fire or hurricane, glaciation, agriculture, and urbanization (Art 1993).
Ecosystem
A discrete unit, or community of organisms and their physical environment (living and non-living parts), that interact to form a stable system (Allaby 1998).
Endemic
A species or taxonomic group that is restricted to a particular geographic region because of such factors as isolation or response to soil or climatic conditions; this species is said to be endemic to the region (Allaby 1998).
Exotic species
This term is commonly used in publications and literature, and is similar to the terms alien species, foreign species, introduced species, non indigenous species, and non native species (Heutte and Bella 2003). Other definitions include: 1. An introduced, non native species, or a species that is the result of direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental introduction of the species by humans, and for which introduction permitted the species to cross a natural barrier to dispersal (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). 2. In North America, often refers to those species not present in a bioregion before the entry of Europeans in the 16th century, or present in later parts of that region and later introduced to an ecosystem by human-mediated mechanisms (Cohen and Carlton 1988).
Fauna
The animal life of a region or geological period (Allaby 1998).
Foreign species (See Introduced species)
A species introduced to a new area or country. Similar terms include alien species, exotic species, introduced species, non indigenous species, and non native species.
Flora
Plant or bacterial life forms of a region or geological period (Allaby 1998).
Habitat
The place, including physical and biotic conditions, where a plant or an animal usually occurs (Allaby 1998).
Herbicide
Pesticide that specifically targets vegetation (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Indigenous (See Indigenous species)
A species that occurs naturally in an area; a synonym for native species (Allaby 1998).
Injurious species
An introduced species that causes economic or environmental harm to humans. Similar terms include aquatic nuisance species, noxious weed, and invasive species (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Intentional introduction
A species that is brought to a new area, country, or bioregion for a specific purpose, such as for a garden or lawn; a crop species; a landscaping species; a species that provides food; a groundcover species; for soil stabilization or hydrological control; for aesthetics or familiarity of the species; or other purposeful reasons (Booth et al. 2003).
Introduced species
This term, along with the terms introduced species and nonindigenous species, is one of the most commonly used terms to describe a plant or animal species that is not originally from the area in which it occurs. This terms means those species that have been transported by human activities, either intentionally or unintentionally, into a region in which they did not occur in historical time and are now reproducing in the wild (Carlton 2001). Similar terms include alien species, exotic species, foreign species, non indigenous species, and non native species.
Invasive species
This term is subject to the most confusion and debate within invasion biology terminology. Generally, this term refers to a subset of plants or animals that are introduced to an area, survive, and reproduce, and causes harm economically or environmentally within the new area of introduction. 1. An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 1999). 2. An adjective for non native or nonindigenous species that have colonized natural areas; 3. Discrimination of nonindigenous species established in cultivated habitats (as ‘noninvasive’) from those established in natural habitats; 4. Nonindigenous species that are widespread; or 5. Widespread nonindigenous species that have adverse effects on the invaded habitat (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). Other definitions include the following: 5. Species that spread beyond their native range, not necessarily harmful, or species introduced to a new range that establish themselves and spread (Jeschke and Strayer 2005). 6. Species that displace native species and have the ability to dominate an ecosystem, or a species that enters an ecosystem beyond its natural range and causes economic or environmental harm (Heutte and Bella 2003).
IPM
Integrated Pest Management. IPM focuses on long-term prevention or suppression of pests. The integrated approach to weed management incorporates the best suited cultural, biological and chemical controls that have minimum impact on the environment and on people (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Manual control
Removal that involves the use of tools such as shovels, axes, rakes, grubbing hoes, and hand clippers to expose, cut, and remove flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, and/or roots from target plants (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Mechanical control
Removal that involves the use of motorized equipment such as mowers, “weed-whackers”, and tractor-mounted plows, disks, and sweepers. Burning is also categorized here (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Native range
The ecosystem that a species inhabits (Booth et al. 2003).
Native species (See Indigenous (ecology)
1. A synonym for indigenous species 2. A species that occurs naturally in an area, and has not been introduced by humans either intentionally or unintentionally Allaby 2005). 3. In North America, a species established before the year 500 (Jeschke and Strayer 2005)
Native weed (invasive native)
A species that is native to an area or bioregion that has increased in number dramatically. In cases of disturbance or change to a landscape, a ruderal species can increase in cover and compete with other native plants, threatening the diversity of a community. In other cases, landscape level changes can cause the increase of the population of a species, such as white-tailed deer in the northeastern part of the United State, which are at the highest levels historically and cause damage to humans, crops, and structures, suffer high disease levels, and pose threats to humans through interactions on roads (Foster and Sandberg 2004).
Naturalized species (
1. A species that was originally introduced from a different country, a different bioregion, or a different geographical area, but now behaves like a native species in that it maintains itself without further human intervention and now grows and reproduces in native communities (Allaby 1998). 2. A non native species that forms self-sustaining populations but is not necessarily an invasive species (Booth et al. 2003).
Niche opportunity
Defines conditions that promote invasions in terms of resources, natural enemies, the physical environment, interactions between these factors, and the manner in which they vary in time and space (Shea and Chesson 2002).
Nonindigenous species
This is a common term used along with non native species and introduced species in current literature and publications; other similar terms include alien species, exotic species, and foreign species. 1. Any species or other viable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organism transferred from one country into another (EPA 1990). 2. A plant or animal that is not native to the area in which it occurs which was either intentionally or unintentionally introduced (Williams and Meffe 2005).
Non native species
This term, along with the terms introduced species and nonindigenous species, is one of the most commonly used terms to describe a plant or animal species that is not originally from the area in which it occurs. Similar terms also include alien species, exotic species, and foreign species. This term has also been defined as: 1. A species whose presence is due to intentional or unintentional introduction as a result of human activity (Booth et al. 2003). 2. A species that has been introduced to an area or bioregion (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Noxious weed
This term is frequently a legal term in state code, denoting a special status of the plant as, for example, prohibited or restricted. 1. Native or non-native plants, or plant products, that injure or cause damage to interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources, public health, or the environment (Heutte and Bella 2003). 2. Implies a species’ adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g. species that produce toxins that are harmful to humans) or indirectly (e.g. species that infest nature reserves) (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). 3. Any species of plants, either annual, biennial, or perennial; reproduced by seed, root, underground stem, or bulblet; which when established is or may become destructive and difficult to control by ordinary means of cultivation or other farm practices (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Pathway (See Path)
1. Used to mean vector, purpose (the reason why a species is moved), and route (the geographic corridor from one point to another) (Carlton 2001). 2. Mode by which a species establishes and continues to exist in a new environment (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Pest
1. An animal that competes with humans by consuming or damaging food, fiber, or other materials intended for human consumption or use, such as an insect consuming a cropfield (Allaby 1998) 2. Synonymous to invasive species (Jeschke and Strayer 2005).
Pesticide
A chemical or biological agent intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate plant or animal life and any substance intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, including insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, herbicides, nematocides, and biocides (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Population
A group of potentially inter-breeding individuals of the same species found in the same place at the same time (Booth et al. 2003).
Prohibited weed
A specific legal term applied to a plant or plant part that may not be brought into a state (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Restricted weed
A specific legal term applied to a plant or plant part that may only be brought into a state in limited quantities (Heutte and Bella 2003).
Ruderal species
A plant associated with human dwellings, construction, or agriculture, that usually colonizes disturbed or waste ground. Ruderals are often weeds which have high demands for nutrients and are intolerant of competition. See also native weed or invasive native (Allaby 1998).
Seed bank
Seeds that become incorporated into the soil (Booth et al. 2003).
Species
A group of organisms formally recognized as distinct from other groups; the taxon rank in the hierarchy of biological classification below genus; the basic unit of biological classification, defined by the reproductive isolation of the group from all other groups of organisms (Allaby 1998).
Tens rule
1. Describes how approximately ten percent of species pass through each transition from being imported to becoming casual to becoming established, and finally becoming a weed (Booth et al. 2003). 2. Ten percent of the introduced species establish themselves in the non native continent and ten percent of these, in turn, spread or are pests although many exceptions to this rule have been noted (Jeschke and Strayer 2005).
Time lag
1. Time between introduction, establishment, and spread of a species (Jeschke and Strayer 2005). 2. The time between when a species is introduced and when its population growth explodes (Booth et al. 2003).
Unintentional introduction
An introduction of nonindigenous species that occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of nonindigenous species in ballast or in water used to transport fish, mollusks or crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes (EPA 1990).
Vector (See Vector (biology)
The physical means or agent by which a species is transported, such as ballast water, ships’ hulls, boats, hiking boats, cars, vehicles, packing material, or soil in nursery stock (Carlton 2001). See also pathway.
Weed
1. A plant in the wrong place, being one that occurs opportunistically on land or in water that has been disturbed by human activities (see also ruderal species and native weed or invasive native), or on cultivated land, where it competes for nutrients, water, sunlight, or other resources with cultivated plants such as food crops. Under different circumstances the weed plant itself may be cultivated for different purposes (Allaby 1998). 2. A native or introduced species that has a perceived negative ecological or economic effect on agricultural or natural ecosystems (Booth et al. 2003). 3. A plant growing in an area where it is not wanted (Royer and Dickinson 1999).
Legal definitions
Invasive species (United States)
Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines this term as an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Introduction (United States)
Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines this term as the intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity.
Native species (United States)
Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines this term as a species with respect to a particular ecosystem that historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem rather than as a result of an introduction.
Nonindigenous species (United States)
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-646, 16 USC 4701-4741) defines this term as any species or other viable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organism transferred from one country into another.
Species (United States)
Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines this term as a group of organisms, all of which have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms.
Unintentional introduction (United States)
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-646, 16 USC 4701-4741) defines this term as an introduction of nonindigenous species that occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of nonindigenous species in ballast or in water used to transport fish, mollusks or crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes.
More Info
Monday, January 5, 2009
Mountaintop removal mining
Mountaintop removal mining (MTR), often referred to as mountaintop mining/valley fills (MTM/VF), is a form of surface mining that involves extreme topographic change to the summit or summit ridge of a mountain. It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States. The process involves the removal of up to 1,000 vertical feet of overburden to expose underlying coal seams. The overburden is often scraped into the adjacent drainage valleys in what is called a valley fill.
Because of its destructive nature, MTR is controversial and is protested by environmentalists, local residents, and others. Controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topographical and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well as from the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal. Proponents of MTR point to its efficiency, job creation, and increase of flat land in areas where there is often little.
History
Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR. Its prevalence expanded further in the 1990's to retrieve relatively low-sulfur coal, a cleaner burning form, which became desirable as a result of amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act that tightened emissions limits on high-sulfur coal processing. With an increasing call for energy independence in the U.S., as well as a growing call for Coal-To-Liquids and "clean coal technologies", MTR has continued to expand into the 2000's.
Occurrence
MTR in the United States is most often associated with the extraction of coal in the Appalachian Mountains, where the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 2,200 square miles (5,700 km2) of Appalachian forests will be cleared for MTR sites by the year 2012.[5] It occurs most commonly in West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky, the top two coal producing states in Appalachia, with each state using approximately 1000 metric tons of explosives per day for the purposes of surface mining. At current rates, MTR in the U.S. will mine over 1.4 million acres (5,700 km²) by 2010, an amount of land area that exceeds that of the state of Delaware.
Process
No vegetation survives MTR, so the land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold or burned. Ideally, the topsoil is removed and set aside for later reclamation. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. Often, the overburden is then pushed into a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill. A dragline excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to an often on-site processing plant and washed. Millions of gallons of waste from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open pools impounded by earthen dams. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators replace the topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) on the site and seed it for revegetation. Dependant on mostly geologic factors the land can sometimes be used afterward for different purposes, such as forestry.
Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in vertical descension of hundreds of extra feet into the earth.
Economics
Just over half of the electricity generated in the United States is produced by coal-fired power plants. MTR accounted for less than 5% of U.S. coal production as of 2001. In some regions, however, the percentage is higher, for example MTR provided 30% of the coal mined in West Virginia in 2006.
Historically in the U.S. the prevalent method of coal acquisition was underground mining which is very labor-intensive. In MTR, through the use of explosives and large machinery, more than two and a half times as much coal can be extracted per worker per hour than in traditional underground mines, and thus greatly reducing the need for workers. The industry lost approximately 10,000 jobs from 1990 to 1997, as MTR and other more mechanized mining methods became more widely used. The United Mine Workers of America has called for additional legal measures to protect communities from the degradation and destruction that results from nearby blasting. The coal industry asserts that surface mining techniques, such as mountaintop removal, are safer for miners than sending miners underground.
Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow easier access to coal than traditional underground mining, and that it is the most cost-effective method of extracting coal. However, the counties that host MTR are often the poorest in Appalachia. For instance, in McDowell County, West Virginia, which produces the most coal in the state, over 37% of residents live below the poverty line. In Kentucky, counties with coal mining have economies no better than adjoining counties where no mining occurs.
A 2008 study from environmental consulting firm Downstream Strategies LLC concluded that wind farm development is a more economic land-use option than mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. The study was commissioned by Coal River Mountain Watch, a group that works to stop mountaintop mining and which encourages the development of wind projects instead. The study calculated that a wind farm consisting of 164 wind turbines and generating 328 megawatts of electricity, would provide over $1.74 million in annual property taxes to Raleigh County. By comparison, the coal severance taxes related to the mountaintop removal mining would provide the county with $36,000 per year.
Legislation in the United States
In the United States, MTR is allowed by section 515(c)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Although most coal mining sites must be reclaimed to the land's pre-mining contour and use, regulatory agencies can issue waivers to allow MTR. In such cases, SMCRA dictates that reclamation must create "a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining."
Permits must be obtained to deposit valley fill into streams. On four occasions, federal courts have ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act by issuing such permits. Massey Energy Company is currently appealing a 2007 ruling, but has been allowed to continue mining in the meantime because "most of the substantial harm has already occurred," according to the judge.
The Bush administration appealed one of these rulings in 2001 because the Act had not explicitly defined "fill material" that could legally be placed in a waterway. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers changed a rule to include mining debris in the definition of fill material, and the ruling was overturned. However, if passed, the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R.2169), a bill in the House of Representatives, would revert this change by specifying that coal mining waste does not constitute fill material, in effect disallowing valley fills.
On December 2, 2008, the Bush Administration made a rule change to remove the Stream Buffer Zone protection provision from SMCRA allowing coal companies to place mining waste rock and dirt directly into headwater waterways thereby affecting downriver areas.
A federal judge has also ruled that using settling ponds to remove mining waste from streams violates the Clean Water Act. He also declared that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to issue permits allowing discharge of pollutants into such in-stream settling ponds, which are often built just below valley fills.
Additionally, a September 2007 survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute found that 65% of Americans oppose the Bush Administration's proposal "to ease environmental regulations to permit wider use of 'mountain top removal' coal mining in the U.S." The study also found that 74% of Americans are opposed to the expansion of MTR coal mining in general, and that 90% of Americans agree that more mining should be permitted only after the United States government has assessed its impacts on safety and the environment.
On 15 January 2008, the environmental advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to end a policy that waives detailed federal Endangered Species Act reviews for new mining permits. The current policy states that MTR can never damage endangered species or their habitat as long as mining operators comply with federal surface mining law, despite the complexities of species and ecosystems. Since 1996, this policy has exempted many strip mines from being subject to permit-specific reviews of impact on individual endangered species.
On May 25, 2008 North Carolina State Representative Pricey Harrison introduced a bill to ban the use of mountaintop removal coal from coal fired power plants within North Carolina. This proposed legislation would be the first of its kind in the United States.
Criticism
Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice that benefits a small number of corporations at the expense of local communities and the environment. Though the main issue has been over the physical alteration of the landscape, opponents to the practice have also criticized MTR for the damage done to the environment by massive transport trucks, and the environmental damage done by the burning of coal for power. Blasting at MTR sites also expels coal dust and fly-rock into the air, which can disturb or settle onto private property nearby. This dust contains sulfur compounds, which corrodes structures and is a health hazard.
Advocates of MTR claim that once the areas are reclaimed as mandated by law, the area provides flat land suitable for many uses in a region where flat land is at a premium. They also maintain that the new growth on reclaimed mountaintop mined areas is better suited to support populations of game animals.
Mountaintop removal coal mining at Kayford Mountain, West Virginia.
Artists have been leaders in the fight against the process of mountaintop removal. Writers and musicians have been particularly active in Kentucky. In April 2005, respected writer and social critic Wendell Berry invited Kentucky writers on a tour of mountaintop removal sites that started a movement that continues to heat up. The attending writers have since contributed writing on the issue to national magazines and newspapers and even created a respected book called Missing Mountains, edited by Kristin Johnason, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary-Ann Taylor Hall. The book contains a foreword by Silas House and an afterword by Berry and is widely used in college courses.
2005 also saw the release of the album Songs For the Mountaintop, a collection of anti-MTR music. In 2007 the band Public Outcry (Silas House, Jason Howard, Jessie Lynne Keltner, Kate Larken, George Ella Lyon, and Anne Shelby) was formed to sing anti-MTR songs. They have performed at universities, festivals, and libraries throughout the region and in 2008 released their first, eponymous album.
Many personal interest stories of coalfield residents have been written; the first, "Lost Mountain" by Erik Reese,was released in 2005. In addition, Penny Loeb (Moving Mountains: How One Woman and Her Community Won Justice From Big Coal) and Michael Shnayerson (Coal River) have also contributed to the anti-mountaintop removal struggle with informative works. To date, Dr. Shirley Stewart Burns, a coalfield native, has written the only academic book on mountaintop removal, titled "Bringing Down The Mountains" (2007), which is loosely based on the 2005 Ph.D. dissertation of the same name. All of these books are critically acclaimed and their authors continue to make a collective effort to give voice to the people of the Appalachian coalfields.
In 2006, cultural historian, Jeff Biggers, published "The United States of Appalachia", which chronicled the historical contributions of Appalachians and their impact on the nation, and examined the role of mountaintop removal in destroying Appalachia's history and cultural significance. Biggers continues to write extensively on the cultural and human costs of mountaintop removal, and the parallel connection between the devastation of the environment and the culture.
In 2007 Ann Pancake released the novel Strange As This Weather Has Been, which has been hailed by critics and received several awards. The book is the first major fiction work about the subject of MTR and was highly critical of the mining practice.
In 2007, a feature documentary titled Mountain Top Removal was completed by Haw River Films. The film features Mountain Justice Summer activists, coal field residents, and coal industry officials. Included in the film are US President George W. Bush and West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, among others. On April 18 2008 the film received the Reel Current award selected and presented by Al Gore at the Nashville Film Festival.
Maria Gunnoe is a community organizer with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition who is concerned about the long-term effects of mountaintop removal coal mining. She is featured in the 2008 documentary film Burning the Future: Coal in America and the 2007 documentary film Mountain Top Removal. In 2006, Gunnoe received the Callaway Award for her organizing efforts in her southern West Virginia community.
Biodiversity
An EPA environmental impact statement finds that streams near valley fills from mountaintop removal contain high levels of minerals in the water and decreased aquatic biodiversity. The statement also estimates that 724 miles (1,165 km) of Appalachian streams were buried by valley fills between 1985 to 2001.
Although U.S. mountaintop removal sites by law must be reclaimed after mining is complete, reclamation has traditionally focused on stabilizing rock formations and controlling for erosion, and not on the reforestation of the affected area. Fast-growing, non-native grasses, planted to quickly provide vegetation on a site, compete with tree seedlings, and trees have difficulty establishing root systems in compacted backfill. Consequently, biodiversity suffers in a region of the United States with numerous endemic species. Erosion also increases, which can intensify flooding. In the Eastern United States, the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative works to promote the use of trees in mining reclamation.
[edit] Sludge ponds
As with other methods of coal mining, processing of the coal mined generates waste slurry (also called coal sludge), which is usually stored in large sludge ponds impounded by an on-site dam. Many coal slurry impoundments in West Virginia exceed 500 million gallons in volume, and can be larger than 7 billion gallons. Such impoundments can be hundreds of feet high and sometimes have close proximity to schools or private residences.
The most controversial sludge dam at present sits 400 yards (400 m) above Marsh Fork Elementary School. On May 31, 2005, 16 people were arrested at Governor Manchin's office for protesting the Governor's refusal to fund the relocation of the school. The leaking (according to CorpWatch) sludge pond is permitted to hold 2.8 billion gallons of coal sludge, and is 21 times larger than the pond which killed 125 people in the Buffalo Creek Flood in 1972.
Kentucky's Martin County Sludge Spill occurred after midnight on October 11, 2000, when a coal sludge impoundment broke through into an underground mine below, propelling 306 million gallons of sludge down two tributaries of the Tug Fork River. The spill polluted hundreds of miles of waterways, contaminated the water supply for over 27,000 residents, and killed all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek.
Because of its destructive nature, MTR is controversial and is protested by environmentalists, local residents, and others. Controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topographical and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well as from the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal. Proponents of MTR point to its efficiency, job creation, and increase of flat land in areas where there is often little.
History
Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR. Its prevalence expanded further in the 1990's to retrieve relatively low-sulfur coal, a cleaner burning form, which became desirable as a result of amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act that tightened emissions limits on high-sulfur coal processing. With an increasing call for energy independence in the U.S., as well as a growing call for Coal-To-Liquids and "clean coal technologies", MTR has continued to expand into the 2000's.
Occurrence
MTR in the United States is most often associated with the extraction of coal in the Appalachian Mountains, where the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 2,200 square miles (5,700 km2) of Appalachian forests will be cleared for MTR sites by the year 2012.[5] It occurs most commonly in West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky, the top two coal producing states in Appalachia, with each state using approximately 1000 metric tons of explosives per day for the purposes of surface mining. At current rates, MTR in the U.S. will mine over 1.4 million acres (5,700 km²) by 2010, an amount of land area that exceeds that of the state of Delaware.
Process
No vegetation survives MTR, so the land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold or burned. Ideally, the topsoil is removed and set aside for later reclamation. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. Often, the overburden is then pushed into a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill. A dragline excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to an often on-site processing plant and washed. Millions of gallons of waste from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open pools impounded by earthen dams. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators replace the topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) on the site and seed it for revegetation. Dependant on mostly geologic factors the land can sometimes be used afterward for different purposes, such as forestry.
Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in vertical descension of hundreds of extra feet into the earth.
Economics
Just over half of the electricity generated in the United States is produced by coal-fired power plants. MTR accounted for less than 5% of U.S. coal production as of 2001. In some regions, however, the percentage is higher, for example MTR provided 30% of the coal mined in West Virginia in 2006.
Historically in the U.S. the prevalent method of coal acquisition was underground mining which is very labor-intensive. In MTR, through the use of explosives and large machinery, more than two and a half times as much coal can be extracted per worker per hour than in traditional underground mines, and thus greatly reducing the need for workers. The industry lost approximately 10,000 jobs from 1990 to 1997, as MTR and other more mechanized mining methods became more widely used. The United Mine Workers of America has called for additional legal measures to protect communities from the degradation and destruction that results from nearby blasting. The coal industry asserts that surface mining techniques, such as mountaintop removal, are safer for miners than sending miners underground.
Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow easier access to coal than traditional underground mining, and that it is the most cost-effective method of extracting coal. However, the counties that host MTR are often the poorest in Appalachia. For instance, in McDowell County, West Virginia, which produces the most coal in the state, over 37% of residents live below the poverty line. In Kentucky, counties with coal mining have economies no better than adjoining counties where no mining occurs.
A 2008 study from environmental consulting firm Downstream Strategies LLC concluded that wind farm development is a more economic land-use option than mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. The study was commissioned by Coal River Mountain Watch, a group that works to stop mountaintop mining and which encourages the development of wind projects instead. The study calculated that a wind farm consisting of 164 wind turbines and generating 328 megawatts of electricity, would provide over $1.74 million in annual property taxes to Raleigh County. By comparison, the coal severance taxes related to the mountaintop removal mining would provide the county with $36,000 per year.
Legislation in the United States
In the United States, MTR is allowed by section 515(c)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Although most coal mining sites must be reclaimed to the land's pre-mining contour and use, regulatory agencies can issue waivers to allow MTR. In such cases, SMCRA dictates that reclamation must create "a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining."
Permits must be obtained to deposit valley fill into streams. On four occasions, federal courts have ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act by issuing such permits. Massey Energy Company is currently appealing a 2007 ruling, but has been allowed to continue mining in the meantime because "most of the substantial harm has already occurred," according to the judge.
The Bush administration appealed one of these rulings in 2001 because the Act had not explicitly defined "fill material" that could legally be placed in a waterway. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers changed a rule to include mining debris in the definition of fill material, and the ruling was overturned. However, if passed, the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R.2169), a bill in the House of Representatives, would revert this change by specifying that coal mining waste does not constitute fill material, in effect disallowing valley fills.
On December 2, 2008, the Bush Administration made a rule change to remove the Stream Buffer Zone protection provision from SMCRA allowing coal companies to place mining waste rock and dirt directly into headwater waterways thereby affecting downriver areas.
A federal judge has also ruled that using settling ponds to remove mining waste from streams violates the Clean Water Act. He also declared that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to issue permits allowing discharge of pollutants into such in-stream settling ponds, which are often built just below valley fills.
Additionally, a September 2007 survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute found that 65% of Americans oppose the Bush Administration's proposal "to ease environmental regulations to permit wider use of 'mountain top removal' coal mining in the U.S." The study also found that 74% of Americans are opposed to the expansion of MTR coal mining in general, and that 90% of Americans agree that more mining should be permitted only after the United States government has assessed its impacts on safety and the environment.
On 15 January 2008, the environmental advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to end a policy that waives detailed federal Endangered Species Act reviews for new mining permits. The current policy states that MTR can never damage endangered species or their habitat as long as mining operators comply with federal surface mining law, despite the complexities of species and ecosystems. Since 1996, this policy has exempted many strip mines from being subject to permit-specific reviews of impact on individual endangered species.
On May 25, 2008 North Carolina State Representative Pricey Harrison introduced a bill to ban the use of mountaintop removal coal from coal fired power plants within North Carolina. This proposed legislation would be the first of its kind in the United States.
Criticism
Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice that benefits a small number of corporations at the expense of local communities and the environment. Though the main issue has been over the physical alteration of the landscape, opponents to the practice have also criticized MTR for the damage done to the environment by massive transport trucks, and the environmental damage done by the burning of coal for power. Blasting at MTR sites also expels coal dust and fly-rock into the air, which can disturb or settle onto private property nearby. This dust contains sulfur compounds, which corrodes structures and is a health hazard.
Advocates of MTR claim that once the areas are reclaimed as mandated by law, the area provides flat land suitable for many uses in a region where flat land is at a premium. They also maintain that the new growth on reclaimed mountaintop mined areas is better suited to support populations of game animals.
Mountaintop removal coal mining at Kayford Mountain, West Virginia.
Artists have been leaders in the fight against the process of mountaintop removal. Writers and musicians have been particularly active in Kentucky. In April 2005, respected writer and social critic Wendell Berry invited Kentucky writers on a tour of mountaintop removal sites that started a movement that continues to heat up. The attending writers have since contributed writing on the issue to national magazines and newspapers and even created a respected book called Missing Mountains, edited by Kristin Johnason, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary-Ann Taylor Hall. The book contains a foreword by Silas House and an afterword by Berry and is widely used in college courses.
2005 also saw the release of the album Songs For the Mountaintop, a collection of anti-MTR music. In 2007 the band Public Outcry (Silas House, Jason Howard, Jessie Lynne Keltner, Kate Larken, George Ella Lyon, and Anne Shelby) was formed to sing anti-MTR songs. They have performed at universities, festivals, and libraries throughout the region and in 2008 released their first, eponymous album.
Many personal interest stories of coalfield residents have been written; the first, "Lost Mountain" by Erik Reese,was released in 2005. In addition, Penny Loeb (Moving Mountains: How One Woman and Her Community Won Justice From Big Coal) and Michael Shnayerson (Coal River) have also contributed to the anti-mountaintop removal struggle with informative works. To date, Dr. Shirley Stewart Burns, a coalfield native, has written the only academic book on mountaintop removal, titled "Bringing Down The Mountains" (2007), which is loosely based on the 2005 Ph.D. dissertation of the same name. All of these books are critically acclaimed and their authors continue to make a collective effort to give voice to the people of the Appalachian coalfields.
In 2006, cultural historian, Jeff Biggers, published "The United States of Appalachia", which chronicled the historical contributions of Appalachians and their impact on the nation, and examined the role of mountaintop removal in destroying Appalachia's history and cultural significance. Biggers continues to write extensively on the cultural and human costs of mountaintop removal, and the parallel connection between the devastation of the environment and the culture.
In 2007 Ann Pancake released the novel Strange As This Weather Has Been, which has been hailed by critics and received several awards. The book is the first major fiction work about the subject of MTR and was highly critical of the mining practice.
In 2007, a feature documentary titled Mountain Top Removal was completed by Haw River Films. The film features Mountain Justice Summer activists, coal field residents, and coal industry officials. Included in the film are US President George W. Bush and West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, among others. On April 18 2008 the film received the Reel Current award selected and presented by Al Gore at the Nashville Film Festival.
Maria Gunnoe is a community organizer with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition who is concerned about the long-term effects of mountaintop removal coal mining. She is featured in the 2008 documentary film Burning the Future: Coal in America and the 2007 documentary film Mountain Top Removal. In 2006, Gunnoe received the Callaway Award for her organizing efforts in her southern West Virginia community.
Biodiversity
An EPA environmental impact statement finds that streams near valley fills from mountaintop removal contain high levels of minerals in the water and decreased aquatic biodiversity. The statement also estimates that 724 miles (1,165 km) of Appalachian streams were buried by valley fills between 1985 to 2001.
Although U.S. mountaintop removal sites by law must be reclaimed after mining is complete, reclamation has traditionally focused on stabilizing rock formations and controlling for erosion, and not on the reforestation of the affected area. Fast-growing, non-native grasses, planted to quickly provide vegetation on a site, compete with tree seedlings, and trees have difficulty establishing root systems in compacted backfill. Consequently, biodiversity suffers in a region of the United States with numerous endemic species. Erosion also increases, which can intensify flooding. In the Eastern United States, the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative works to promote the use of trees in mining reclamation.
[edit] Sludge ponds
As with other methods of coal mining, processing of the coal mined generates waste slurry (also called coal sludge), which is usually stored in large sludge ponds impounded by an on-site dam. Many coal slurry impoundments in West Virginia exceed 500 million gallons in volume, and can be larger than 7 billion gallons. Such impoundments can be hundreds of feet high and sometimes have close proximity to schools or private residences.
The most controversial sludge dam at present sits 400 yards (400 m) above Marsh Fork Elementary School. On May 31, 2005, 16 people were arrested at Governor Manchin's office for protesting the Governor's refusal to fund the relocation of the school. The leaking (according to CorpWatch) sludge pond is permitted to hold 2.8 billion gallons of coal sludge, and is 21 times larger than the pond which killed 125 people in the Buffalo Creek Flood in 1972.
Kentucky's Martin County Sludge Spill occurred after midnight on October 11, 2000, when a coal sludge impoundment broke through into an underground mine below, propelling 306 million gallons of sludge down two tributaries of the Tug Fork River. The spill polluted hundreds of miles of waterways, contaminated the water supply for over 27,000 residents, and killed all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
