Role of Soil Health in Maintaining Environmental Sustainability of Surface Coal Mining

Abstract

Mountaintop coal mining (MCM) in the Southern Appalachian forest region greatly impacts both soil and aquatic ecosystems. Policy and practice currently in place emphasize water quality and soil stability but do not consider upland soil health. Here we report soil organic carbon (SOC) measurements and other soil quality indicators for reclaimed soils in the Southern Appalachian forest region to quantify the health of the soil ecosystem. The SOC sequestration rate of the MCM soils was 1.3 MgC ha(-1) yr(-1) and stocks ranged from 1.3 ± 0.9 to 20.9 ± 5.9 Mg ha(-1) and contained only 11% of the SOC of surrounding forest soils. Comparable reclaimed mining soils reported in the literature that are supportive of soil ecosystem health had SOC stocks 2.5-5 times greater than the MCM soils and sequestration rates were also 1.6-3 times greater. The high compaction associated with reclamation in this region greatly reduces both the vegetative rooting depth and infiltration of the soil and increases surface runoff, thus bypassing the ability of soil to naturally filter groundwater. In the context of environmental sustainability of MCM, it is proposed that the entire watershed ecosystem be assessed and that a revision of current policy be conducted to reflect the health of both water and soil.

Open‐cut mining impacts on soil abiotic and bacterial community properties as shown by restoration chronosequence

“…This recovery trend is generally consistent with that reported for physicochemical properties in other postmining chronosequences (Sourkova et al ; Banning et al ; Claassens et al ; Urbanova et al ; Li et al ). In particular, the consistency in recovery period for TC (36 years) between this and other studies (Sourkova et al ; Acton et al ) could have significant compliance implications for mine managers in Queensland, who are often committed to restoring the predisturbance ecosystem conditions within the tenure of a mining land lease, which is often less than 30 years (Ngugi & Neldner ).…”

The Overlooked Terrestrial Impacts of Mountaintop Mining

“…Overall, forest reclamation on previously mined land has not been successful in initiating forest succession toward a trajectory that is likely to reproduce the premining forest community (Holl 2002, Zipper et al 2011. Soil loss has been an important factor limiting the success of forest reestablishment and succession following mountaintop mining (Acton et al 2011, Zipper et al 2011). Reclamation of mountaintop mining sites follows protocols developed under the SMCRA, which was passed into law in 1977.…”

“…Reclamation of mountaintop mining sites follows protocols developed under the SMCRA, which was passed into law in 1977. The SMCRA protocols advocated heavy compaction (with machinery) of the reclaimed surface using the available overburden (rather than topsoil) to reduce the likelihood of slope failure (e.g., landslides; Acton et al 2011, Zipper et al 2011. Therefore, the soil environment of reclaimed sites was not conducive to the successful reestablishment of the premining forests that occupied Note: Interior was defined as 90% forest in a 330 × 330-meter square window.…”

Systematic review of community health impacts of mountaintop removal mining

“…The excess rock (i.e., mine spoil) is often pushed into adjacent valleys (i.e., valley fill). The air, water, and soil in the surrounding area are impacted by these mining practices and contamination due to MTR mining has the potential to adversely impact human health in the surrounding community (Acton et al 2011; Palmer et al 2010; Simmons et al 2008). Exposures associated with MTR mining include PM, PAHs, metals, and other potentially harmful substances (Palmer et al 2010).…”