Surface Mine Reclamation

Surface Mine Reclamation in the Appalachian Coalfields
Surface mining started gaining popularity within Appalachia during the late 1930s. It picked up speed with the onset of World War II to supply fuel for the war effort. From its inception, surface mining in Appalachia has been a hotly debated topic. Sometimes it has lead to violence between supporters and opponents. On the heels of strip mining’s beginnings, various groups of people throughout Appalachia realized the need for some sort of regulation dealing with all aspects of the strip operation. This included reclamation, or what was to be done with the land after it had been mined. Unlike underground mining, strip mining was much more visible to the eye and the problems associated with it were felt by a much wider group of people. Sparking serious debate, the argument over regulation or abolition continues to this day. In this paper, I will focus on reclamation including its history, environmental, social and economical impacts.
I. History of Surface Mine Regulation
The reason I start off with regulation is because without regulation there would not be reclamation and, on the flip side, if strip mining were abolished, there would also be no reclamation. Surprisingly, from our perspective today, West Virginia was the first state to enact regulations on strip mining in 1939. However, it can be understood in the context of protecting underground mining which was West Virginia’s “bread and butter.” Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania soon followed in the early 1940s with legislation of their own. Kentucky had zero strip mining regulations until 1954 (Montrie).
Various groups of people opposed strip mining and supported legislation or abolition of the industry. Farmers decried the loss of prime farm land to toxic strip mines in Ohio and other states. Conservationists rallied against pollution, altered ecosystems and the ruin of aesthetics. Sportsmen, usually a conservative group, lobbied against strip miners for driving off wildlife and destroying pristine hunting grounds. Opposition to strip mining was the most militant of all the state efforts. These efforts included protesting, physically blocking bulldozers, shooting at miners and dynamiting equipment (Montrie). Union and union members would be split over the decision to try to organize strip miners or oppose it since the industry threatened jobs underground. Various grassroots organizations formed to lobby for stricter standards on stripping. These included the AGSLP (Appalachian Group to Save the Land and People), SOK (Save Our Kentucky), both based out of Kentucky, and the SOCM (Save Our Cumberland Mountains) in Tennessee (Montrie). There were also many others formed of various peoples with varied interests, but all with the end goal of tighter regulating or abolishing the strip industry. Many groups still exist today or have merged to form larger groups.
Other than possibly Pennsylvania, weakness and lack of regulation defined the states legislation regarding strip mining. Many bills called for a ban on stripping steep sloped where reclamation was harder, but these never measures never gained ground. Most laws for reclamation called for limiting highwall height, grading spoil piles and planting grass. These measures still left ugly scars and toxic land. State governments in coal regions were rife with politicians who looked out for King Coal’s interests. Usually state programs did not supply a strong enough budget to properly enforce regulations. Most state programs had an abandoned mines reclamation fund, but these funds were usually not used or not sufficient enough to make headway into the vast number of abandoned mines. Money for reclamation came from bonds posted by mining companies before being issued a permit to mine. These bonds were usually set at $100-$500 an acre, depending on the state and law at the time, but were usually not enough to cover reclamation if the site were abandoned. State level legislation was amended through the 1960s, but little changed in the eyes of the opposition. This practice of forfeiting bonds still continues today under new laws. Many bonds were left unclaimed because it was cheaper to pay the bonds than reclaim the land. In a 2004 report from the OSM (Office of Surface Mining), bonds were not sufficient to recover reclamation in 60% of the cases studied. Actual numbers may be closer to 100%. For example, in 2003 89 strip mines forfeited their bonds in Kentucky and 88 of those remain unclaimed (Reece 146-147). Reclamation funds and bonds, even under modern laws like SMCRA, do not cover costs. Harry Caudill, activist, teacher, lawyer and politician, was heavily influential in getting the 1954 Kentucky legislation passed, but it was nowhere near as strong as he wanted it to be (Montrie). However, his book Night Comes to the Cumberland’s was influential in, among other areas, bringing attention to the blight of surface mining on the Appalachian landscape and the problem of local governmental corruption to a national audience.
After 30 years of fighting at the state level, groups opposed to strip mining decided to seek federal intervention to regulate the stripping industry. In the late 1960s to the early 70s, most people lobbied for a federal abolition of strip mining. Ken Hechler, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, was the most outspoken advocate of abolition within the federal government. Although Hechler had wide support from various organizations like AGSLP, his bills usually died in committee or were voted against (Montrie). After ten years of lobbying for abolition of stripping, disillusioned activists slowly gave ground and many groups and people began to hope for regulation. However, President Ford vetoed two regulation bills.
With Jimmy Carter’s rise to the presidency began the era of SMCRA (Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act). This legislation was finally signed into law by President Carter in August of 1977. Even Carter called SMCRA a “watered down bill.” SMCRA outlawed highwalls, instituted AOC (approximate original contour) and established the OSM (Office of Surface Mining) (Eller 165). Kentucky Department of Natural Resources said that reclaimed land must now “be equal to or better than the pre-mining conditions” (Reece 36). Under SMCRA however, coal operators can obtain variances for AOC laws for residential and industrial developments of strip mined sites (Reece 36). In the shadow of former state regulations, lax enforcement of all of these rules and the ease of obtaining permits to ignore them, have let the laws show little changes in reclaimed lands (Ward).
Another problem with SMCRA is that it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Since OSM, created under SMCRA, is under the DOP, the president gets to choose the head of the office. In pro-coal presidencies, this means that SMCRA can become almost insubstantial. This is one reason groups like SOCM urged President Carter to veto the bill. Most groups wanted jurisdiction to reside under the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which would be more likely to strictly implement the law, weak as it was (Montrie). Head’s of the OSM now change as presidents do and it has taken Obama a long time after his election to nominate someone for head of OSM.
The Clean Water Act was also major federal legislation in which parts dealt with surface mining. Passed prior to SMCRA in 1972, the CWA set standards for water quality and polluting streams. Just like SMCRA, it has been amended and weakened. Deputy Secretary of the Interior under President George W. Bush, Steven Griles helped change a key rule they regulated mine pollution in streams in favor of coal companies. Before Griles, a buffer zone of 300 feet existed where mining waste could not be dumped near streams. Although this was routinely ignored, it was something. Under CWA, mine waste and overburden was considered a pollutant, but under Bush it was ruled as a fill material and thus did not apply to CWA regulations (Reece 100-101). Later in the paper, I will talk about why mine waste is a pollutant and should not be dumped anywhere near streams. Obama Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s proposal to reinstate the buffer zone was ruled unconstitutional in August 2009 by a federal judge.
As you can see from above, there has been much controversy over the issue of regulating strip mining. Lax enforcement and weak laws characterize much of the legislation dealing with stripping and reclamation. In 2009, Senators Ben Cardin (MD-D) and Lamar Alexander (TN-R) cosponsored a bill called the Appalachian Reclamation Act. This is essential an act that redefines the buffer zone of the CWA and would essentially end the radical strip mining practice of MTR (Mountaintop Removal), a form of mining that was introduced around the time of SMCRA and which the SMCRA and CWA were not really designed to cover. But if reclamation is getting something back, wouldn’t reclaimed land be fine? Following is a list of arguments against the idea of total restoration and reclamation. Think of it in terms of the new act in committee now: You can’t reclaim a stream buried under tons of rock and rubble. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
II. Ecological Restoration Myths
Throughout my research, I came across some “myths” of restoration proposed by ecologists working together from various places. The myths in the paper were given primarily with examples of wetlands restoration, but one can easily see how they could all apply to reclamation efforts at strip mines in the Appalachian Mountains. These myths point out important points about the problems of reclamation that people have seen, noted and wrote about. They also point to some of the assumptions that many people have made about reclaiming strip mined lands, such as trying to accomplish in a few years what cannot even be understood on a human time scale. Because humanity depends on healthy ecosystems, there may be some dire consequences to the inability to properly reclaim lands. The study notes that “many restorations are not successful either in structure or function when compared with reference ecosystems” (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 1). I will first explain these five myths and show how they fit in with various attempts at strip mine reclamation.
First is the myth of the carbon copy. This myth is the idea that “we can restore or create an ecosystem that is a copy of a previous or ideal state” (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 2). Coal companies usually do not even try for this because they know it to be impossible and it is not a requirement of SMCRA. The authors of the essay note that “the ability to recreate a system resembling pre-disturbance may be difficult, if not impossible.” Once we alter the landscape and natural system that is it. It is gone. Changes in sea level, acidity and altered hydrology from when the system was created, in this case the mountains millions of years ago, alters both structure and function making the exact ecosystem impossible to replicate now (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 3). Changes in the natural way can have unknown consequences resulting in various problems in the future, as can be seen through the phenomenon of global warming. The authors note that the carbon copy myth is used in extractive resources such as mining as justification to mine. Although most ecologists deny the ability to restore lands after more destructive forms of mining (strip mining), the ability is promoted, against hard science, by industries and coal companies (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 4). One up-close look at reclaimed MTR sites will verify the validity of these claims to anyone who looks at the site objectively.
The second myth is that of the field of dreams. This myth is the idea that all you need for reclamation is the physical structure and the “biotic composition and function will self-assemble” (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 4). Here we find that AOC is more than likely based on this myth. “If you build it, they will come.” And who is they? The biotic composition, the native wildlife and plant species of one of the most diverse places on Earth that used to be there before they were drove out and killed. The authors further note that “physical structure does not beget biotic structure, and biotic structure does not necessarily result in similar ecosystem functions” (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 5). Make it look right, stock the animals that use to be there and it still will not guarantee success. The authors go on to note that restored areas are quite different than undisturbed ones. Once again, one can see this just by looking.
The third myth is called fast-forwarding. This is the idea that humans can do what nature took millions of years to do in a little time. By controlling various aspects, such as “dispersal, colonization and community assembly” the time required to rebuild an ecosystem is diminished (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 6). Coal companies want their bond money back as soon as possible so that they can go on to other sites to mine. People want to see green instead of brown and the sooner the better. The authors note that little evidence exists for the validity of this practice, but instead reclaimed land usually requires a lot of time and multiple plantings. Once bond is released, coal companies do not go back to tend reclaimed land. Their responsibility has ended and now it lies on the shoulders of the people who live on or near this land. One way coal companies use fast-forwarding is by planting hardy, non-native and invasive species on the site, which I will talk more about later. The process of hydroseeding lespedeza grass is a form of fast-forwarding, but with little attention paid to the natural species of plants in the area being reclaimed.
The fourth myth is known as the cookbook. Why do coal companies use the same techniques everywhere, even though they have been shown not to really work? Because they assume that the ecological conditions everywhere are the same, the process is known and that is what they have learned. It is also all they are required and officially expected to do, which points back to lax reclamation laws.
The final myth is known as command and control. This is defined as active intervention and unending control. While companies generally do not go back to reclaim land to work on it, sometimes they might be required to fix a problem after inspection. Command and control is fixing the symptom, not the problem (Hilderbrand, Watts and Randle 7). If a slurry dam breaks and floods a valley, they dredge the river. They do not fix the problem, which are weak earthen dams holding thousands of gallons of slurry and the very problem of slurry itself. They do not fix the problem of native species being unable to grow on post-mined land; they plant non-native, invasive species like lespedeza and autumn olive trees.
III. Woodlands, Wildlife and the Environment on Reclaimed Mines
Reclaimed lands have received lots of criticisms on lots of points. Companies argue that the reclaimed lands are as good as or better than what were there before. Coal River Watch volunteers had this to say about improving upon what was there: “To suggest that valueless topsoil substitute seeded with nonnative grasses is an improvement on God’s glory reeks of blasphemy” (Haltom and Webb). Their mention of missing topsoil leads in numerous directions and points to many of the problems with mine reclamation.
Under SMCRA, when applying for a permit, operators must show where topsoil will be kept separate from the “spoil” for replacement during the reclamation phase. However, permits may be obtained, which Erik Reece notes are “handed out like coupons,” if the land will be developed or put to some industrial use. Development and industrial use will be talked about later, but suffice it to say for now that it is one way of getting around preserving topsoil. Furthermore, as stated previously, there is a lack of enforcement and inconsequential fines governing this rule. Even sometimes illegally, topsoil is often dumped into valley fills and buried.
Topsoil is the thin layer of rich dirt on the top that contains thousands of microorganisms and supports plant life. Without the rich topsoil, native species of plants and trees cannot grow. The vast quantities of tree species native to Appalachia specifically rely on this topsoil to thrive. One study in the Coal Valley from 1998-99 showed that grasses and a few ferns had been re-established to create a green cover, but less than two percent of the land had any tree seedlings at all (Loucks). When I took a trip to various mountaintop removal sites, I noticed that most of what I was standing on was rock or hard clay that had been tightly graded.
Although native species cannot usually grow on reclaimed sites, some plants can grow. These are usually the Asian-imported lespedeza grass, which is hydroseeded all over the mountain and valley fills and the autumn olive tree. Lespedeza grass looks ok from above. But when you get right down on it, it is a very sparse, reed-like grass. Between the reeds you can see the blasted gravel that it grows between. The autumn olive tree is a non-native, very invasive species that is outlawed in many states. These are the only trees that will grow on reclaimed sites and even they do no grow well. In my interview with Mr. James Crabtree, I asked about trees. He pointed to what I thought was a fern, about a foot tall and said that was as big as they got. A few of these dotted the landscape, growing among the lespedeza. Some areas were even bare of that (Crabtree, Crabtree and Crabtree). A U.S Forest Service study showed that from 1989-1996, forest growth had declined .3 percent of the previous years, a reduction of 80 percent in annual returns. The famed mixed mesophytic forests of Appalachia are disappearing in the wake of surface mining, especially the clear cutting and topsoil burying of MTR and not returning. The myths above conclude that we do not really have the expertise, or the time, to reclaim the land and restore these forests. Erik Reece boldly asks “In what sense is a grassland monoculture ‘equal to or better than’ a mixed mesophytic forest?” and goes on to state that “the reality is that mountains pitched at a grade as steep as that of the Appalachians cannot be restored” (Reece 36). Science, mentioned above in the myth ideas, backs Reece up.
Erik Reece also notes studies on replanting trees that have been successful, without any topsoil, when planted in uncompacted ground. They also grow much faster (Reece 218). However, without compacting the soil during reclamation, more problems would occur. Even greater runoff, erosion and siltation could be problems exacerbated by not compacting soil. These are already problems that exist in high quantities around reclaimed strip mines. Even though it sounds good, I do not think it is a viable alternative to existing reclamation practices.
The issue and problems with wildlife can also be better understood within the context of topsoil and plants. Strip mining directly affects wildlife in all of its phases; this is why so many sportsmen’s groups got involved early on in the movement for abolition. The mixed mesophytic forests of Appalachia are the home to one of the most varied wildlife populations in the world. Hunting and bird-and-animal watching have always been important for survival and recreation in the region. It draws thousands of tourists each year to preserved wildlife areas like the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Once the forests, the native habitat of all this wildlife, are gone and replaced with non-native species, the animals that aren’t killed by the direct effects of stripping and pollution have nowhere to live. In my interview with Mr. Crabtree, who works for the county highway department, he noted the increased presence of road kill due to animals being driven out of their mountain homes. He also noted the lack of wildlife anywhere when he asks me “What wildlife have you seen up here?” He notes how the mountain we were standing on, now flat and treeless, use to be a prime hunting spot. Now there are very few deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, etc. He also told me that the practice was so destructive and reclaimed lands were so inhospitable that they had to actually bring back in and stock native snakes because they were all gone (Crabtree, Crabtree and Crabtree).
In the late 1990’s 1,500 elk were introduced into the mountains of Eastern Kentucky. The coal industry took the initiative and touted reclaimed mountaintop removal sites as pristine pasture land for ‘free-ranging’ elk (Reece 141). Like deer and other forms of wildlife in Appalachia, elk were once native to the region. They require the habitat and ecosystem that prevailed here for millions of years. David Ledford of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls reclaimed land in Appalachia “pretty inadequate” and estimated that only around 35% of reclaimed land could actually support any fish or wildlife (Reece 141). At the 2006 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation summit “Mine Reclamation for Wildlife” in Louisville, Kentucky, Jon Gassett, interim commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, said: “Coal companies are not going to do good wildlife management on reclaimed land if it costs them anything” (Reece 142). However, one hope that the reintroduction of elk has for the region is getting the sportsmen organized against strip mining and lax reclamation again.
Fish have also been severally affected, even more so after the 2002 Bush administration’s amendment to the CWA. Dr. Margaret Palmer notes fish deaths and deformities due to pollution from strip mines (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works). She notes that these deformities have been seen up to and over 50 years after a mine site has been reclaimed. Many fish contain pollutants that are toxic to humans when ate, especially to pregnant women. Also in 1999, U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II wrote that “the normal flow and gradient of [the] stream is now buried under millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material…if there are fish, they cannot migrate…any life form that cannot acclimate to life deep in a rubble pile [is] eliminated” (Ward). Remember that streams are not uncovered or savable. After reclamation, they are left like this and the fish are either poisoned or gone.
Strip mine reclamation still has other environmental consequences. Ronald D. Eller notes that communities are left with “miles of deserted, treeless plateaus (although not really plateaus, since a plateau is a natural formation), poisoned water tables, and a permanently altered landscape” (Eller 227). Left with here means after reclamation. As mentioned above, once “reclaimed,” companies do not come back nor do they have any responsibility.
Slurry ponds have major environmental impacts post-mining. A slurry pond is the water refuse that is left after coal has been “cleaned.” These ponds are usually on the side of a reclaimed site and are held back by earthen dams. Sometimes these dams break and do irretrievable harm. For example, in 2000 a dam broke near Inez, Kentucky. 250 million gallons of sludge spilled into the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River. It affected water over 100 miles away and was larger than the Exxon-Valdez disaster. “More than 1 million fish and uncounted for other wildlife died” (Thornton). That is not to mention the well known Buffalo Creek flood in West Virginia during 1972. These sludge ponds do not disappear but will be there forever, or until they break. Justin Crabtree told me that when it floods, the sludge gets in public water, but it also contaminates ground water. James Crabtree can no longer use his well water (Crabtree, Crabtree and Crabtree). These sludge ponds are on reclaimed lands. This leads to the next part of the discussion, social effects of strip mine reclamation.
IV. Social Effects of Strip Mine Reclamation
Strip mining has many social effects that people around these sites must deal with. But since I was discussing slurry impoundments, let’s continue talking about water. Slurry and mine waste on reclaimed sites can seep into groundwater. Many remote towns located near strip sites do not have public water. They get water from wells. However, when the groundwater becomes polluted, wells become polluted. The Crabtree family told me they were forced to pay for city water, but that they use to have a perfectly good well. However, when it floods or rains hard, even the public water can turn a murky brown. Mr. Crabtree told me he can get water from his tap and you can watch it separate and turn black in a few minutes (Crabtree, Crabtree and Crabtree). As far as regular water courses, streams and rivers, they told me you cannot eat the fish, the stream always runs brown where it use to be clear and flooding is much more prevalent. Again, the Crabtree’s live a few miles away from reclaimed lands.
The problem of flooding has its roots in the sparse vegetation of reclaimed land. There is nothing left to catch rainwater and the angled slopes of valley fills make it gush forth with much more power and volume than in pre-mining conditions. This flooding can pollute water sources, as mentioned above, as well as cause extensive property and road damage. Mr. Crabtree, who works for the highway department, told me of having to often clean up mudslides caused my increased water after rains that has not been held by the native plants that once use to grow thick on the mountains. The flooding of Buffalo Creek was caused in part by high volumes of rain that overloaded and broke the earthen dams holding back the coal sludge.
Health risks are increasing near strip mined lands, even reclaimed ones. As mentioned above, many people’s drinking water is polluted. The Crabtree’s have to drink bottled water, but many people cannot afford to. Drinking contaminated water, often caused by slurry pounds, has caused numerous health issues like increased rates of cancer. There are also deaths from floods, 125 at Buffalo Creek in 1972, as well as landslides from unstable valley fills. Eleven year old Jimmy Crabtree explained to me that when people drink the water around their house, sometimes it makes them violently sick (Crabtree, Crabtree and Crabtree).
Strip mining and reclamation also has an effect on an area’s culture. Because of the ruined mountains or polluted water, many people that can afford to are forced to leave. It breaks up communities that have existed for over 100 years. There are various stories of people losing places that they heavily identify with through life experiences and family ties. Also, mentioned above, many favored recreations are now impossible to pursue. Activities like hunting, fishing and hiking have taken a major hit due to less desirable space to do them. In Delbarton, where the Crabtree’s live, many people now ride ATV’s because that is all that is left to do on the reclaimed land. Letting people do this, the companies have put the land back to a positive social use. At least that is what they like to claim. Mr. Crabtree, who has lived in the same area his entire life, said they do not do a good job of reclaiming it and wishes it was left the way it was. But what do people do for a living when they aren’t riding ATV’s?
V. Jobs and Industry on Reclaimed Mine Land
One of the main arguments for strip mining is jobs, but whether they really do provide more jobs than alternate work is another argument. They also argue that reclaimed land provides valuable flat land for industry that is in high demand.
Carl Zipper is a professor of crop and soil science at Virginia Tech. He is also director of the Powell River Project, a 1,100 acre demonstration site of reclamation. He argues that strip mining is transforming land into an environmental and economic asset (Thornton). However, this project is what many people call a false façade. Many different coal companies support this project, providing millions of dollars in funding. It is even run by a highly knowledgeable professor from a well respected institution. Larry Bush, a former miner and mine inspector, counters Zipper’s arguments by saying it is a one of a kind showplace for politicians (Thornton). In my experience, this is true. I saw nothing like this kind of reclamation in the remote areas of West Virginia. Zipper also states that 75-80 percent of old mine land is “woods.” I didn’t even see one tree on the four reclaimed mountains that I went up on.
The mine industry has two other poster-child projects that they use to tout the benefits of reclamation. The first of these is the StoneCrest Golf Course in Floyd County, Kentucky. Whenever a coal executive talks about reclamation, this is likely the first place that they mention. To get the proper grass to grow, reclamationists had to import 600,000 cubic yards of dirt, which required about 38,500 double-axle, six-wheel dump trucks (Sloan). I really don’t see them doing this on the over 500 mountaintops that have been removed. However, this is what it took to get enough grass to grow for a golf course. Most people in Floyd County do not play golf.
The next thing a coal executive might tell you about is the Big Sandy Federal Prison in Martin County, Kentucky, which was built on a donated mountaintop removal site. What they might not tell you is that the project went $60 million over budget due to unstable and shifting valley fills that the prison kept literally sinking into. Locals call the prison “Sink Sink” (Sloan). As far as jobs that the prison provides, most people in Martin County do not qualify to work there due to a lack of education. Employment comes mostly from outsiders (The Ashland Daily Independent). Not only do locals get zero benefit from the prison, it also shows that reclaimed land is not a suitable building site unless you are looking for a money sink. Developers will take note of the problems with this prison and be less likely to build on reclaimed sites in the future. On a lighter note, a baseball field was built on one reclaimed site in Grundy, Virginia. It is 235 acres.
The government of Kentucky used $21 of coal severance tax money to create an industrial park on a reclaimed mountaintop outside of Hazard, Kentucky. It then offered a Tampa based company called Sykes millions of dollars in incentives to locate there, with no obligation to remain after their tax breaks expired. The computer call center employed 393 Eastern Kentucky residents at less than $7 an hour with limited benefits. They were touted as a first-class company and espoused the potential of reclaimed lands to provide jobs for locals. As soon as the tax breaks expired in 2003, the company moved to El Salvador. Now the building and industrial park sits empty after millions of dollars were poured into it (Reece 54-55). Thousands of additional acres sit desolate throughout Appalachia with little reclamation because coal companies got waivers by developing additional industrial land. They keep using the same argument, but there seems to be plenty of flat land now build on now, just no businesses to build there.
Reclaimed land is costing states money and jobs. For example, well managed forests can provide $60 an acre in selected timbering as well as an additional $240 an acre from tourism, nutrient cycling and climate regulation services. But due to reduced forest growth in West Virginia, mentioned above, the state is losing $2.66 billion, $800 million of that coming from reduced forest growth alone per annum (Loucks). If there are no jobs after mining, which so far seems to be the case on reclaimed land, what happens when the mining is done? People are out of work. Justin Crabtree told me that people in the town defend strip mining because of jobs, but when all the coal is gone they are left with nothing.
In a 1978 study of reclamation in Appalachia, right after implementation of SMCRA, conclusions were reached that regardless of reclamation efforts, regional residents would still pay a price. After many complicated formulas and test areas, it was also determined that, to make up all the differences from mining and reclaiming, companies would need to an efficient job reclaiming land and also pay charges equal to the social costs of the environmental damage that could not be reclaimed (Randall, Grunewald and Johnson). Today, they still do neither. However, this essay is very dated, but no recent studies of economical impacts have been done. They are sorely needed. Due to the soaring popularity of mountaintop removal, even bigger discrepancies would likely be found.
In conclusion, I have not found reclamation at all to accomplish what it promises. Furthermore, I have found the impracticability that, no matter how hard humans work to restore strip mined lands, that they can never be returned to any semblance of their former condition and diversity. In May 2003, the federal government released a study of the environmental effects of mountaintop removal. Their findings include:
• Between 1992-2002, more than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried or otherwise “directly impacted” by valley fills.
• The region studied lost about 3.4 percent of its forest cover, or more than 380,000 acres
• Past, present, and future mining could destroy 1.4 million acres of forest, or about 11.5 percent of the study area
• Without additional restrictions, another 1,000 miles of streams could be buried or otherwise harmed over the next decade (Ward)
The average American uses over 23 acres of land to provide food, energy, etc. The world-wide norm is a little over 5. Sustainable levels at the current population would be around 4 acres world-wide. We are destroying the acreage we do have to live on through strip mining and other destructive practices. We cannot maintain these levels and practices and survive as a human race. Besides, coal is a finite resource and will not last forever. Why not start phasing it out now, beginning with strip mining, which affects numerous lives and resources. As mentioned above, humans to not have the know-how or the time to reclaim land or improve it. That is why tighter reclamation controls, although they might help, would in the long run be of little use. I call for a complete abolition of strip mining.
 
Works Cited
Crabtree, James, et al. Personal Interview Lance Houser and Tasha Light. July 2009.
Eller, Ronald D. Uneven Ground: Appalachia Since 1945. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2008.
Haltom, Vernon and Bo Webb. "'Reclamation' Is Not What It Seems." The Charleston Daily Mail 9 February 2005.
Hilderbrand, Robert H, Adam C Watts and April M Randle. "The Myths of Restoration Ecology." Ecology & Society (2005).
Loucks, Orie L. "Mine Reclamation Leaves Grass But Not Employment." The Charleston Gazette 18 April 2005.
Montrie, Chad. To Save the Land and People: A History of Opposition to Surface Coal Mining in Appalachia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Randall, Alan, et al. "Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs." Land Economics (1978): 472-489.
Reece, Erik. Lost Mountain. New York: Riverhead Books, 2006.
Sloan, Bob. "Coal Industry's Models of Success Are Just False Fronts." The Lexington Herald-Leader 8 August 2005.
The Ashland Daily Independent. "A Costly Prison." Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition 16 October 2003.
Thornton, Tim. "Mountaintop Removal: Moving the Mountains- Strip Mining By Any Other Name." The Roanoke Times
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "The Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining on Water Quality in Appalachia." 2009.
Ward, Ken Jr. "From Mountaintop to Moonscape." Planning August/September 2005.