mountain top mining Science magazine

8/10/2019 mountain top mining Science magazine

1/6

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5962/148/DC1

Supporting Online Material for

Mountaintop Mining Consequences

M. A. Palmer,* E. S. Bernhardt, W. H. Schlesinger, K. N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-

Georgiou, M. S. Hendryx, A. D. Lemly, G. E. Likens, O. L. Loucks, M. E. Power,P. S. White, P. R. Wilcock

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Published 8 January 2010, Science327, 148 (2010)

DOI: 10.1126/science.1180543

This PDF file includes

Figs. S1 and S2

Tables S1 to S3References


2/6

Mountaintop Mining Consequences. M.A. Palmer et al.Supporting Online Material

1

Figure S1. (Left) Aerial view of a southern West Virginia (WV) mountaintop mining site with valleyfills. [photo by Paul Corbit Brown] (Right) Perennial streams below a Kentucky valley fill (top)[photo by Ken Fritz] and a WV valley fill (middle) [photo by Jack Webster] show visible pollutionfrom trace metals. Unimpacted perennial streams such as this one in WV have generally clearwater and are without metal deposits on the streambed such as those in the two photos above(bottom) [photo by Jack Webster].


3/6


4/6


2

West Virginia stream condition index (WVSCI) scores were calculated using family level identification ofmacroinvertebrates, which is why there are more records for WVSCI scores than there are for genuslevel counts within each category. Determinations of tolerance were made by staff of the WVDEPaccording to WV stream condition index (S3) guidelines. Excerpted from that document (p. A-5):Tolerance of a taxon is based on its ability to survive short- and long-term exposure to organic

pollution. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) weights each taxon in a sample by its proportion ofindividuals and the taxons tolerance value. Following the basic framework established by Hilsenhoff(S4), tolerance values were assigned to individual taxa on a scale of 0-10, with 0 identifying those taxaleast tolerant (most sensitive) to stressors, and 10 identifying those taxa most tolerant (least sensitive)to stressors. Tolerance values compiled by USEPA (S5) and Merritt and Cummins (S6) were used forthis analysis.

Total number of records

by SO42concentration (mg/liter)

0-50 50-100 100-200 200-500 >500

Chemical constituents

Sulfate concentrations 666 92 100 134 66Total Aluminum 652 90 100 133 66Total Iron 653 90 99 134 66Total Manganese 650 90 100 133 65Total Selenium 358* 37 41 53 42

Benthic invertebrates

# of Insect Genera 600 84 90 119 55# of Intolerant Genera 600 84 90 119 55# of Mayfly Genera 586 70 77 98 53

WVSCI Score 666 92 100 134 66

*One outlier removed

Table S3. Statistical results for regressions between stream SO4concentrations and Al, Fe, Mn,Se, and biotic metrics presented in Figure 1 and described in S2.

Regression with SO4 Adjusted R2 Pvalue

Aluminum 0.95 0.003Iron 0.89 0.010Manganese 0.998


5/6


3

Figure S2. Impacts of seleniumemanating from MTM/VF impacted streams of the Mud Riverecosystem, West Virginia has bioaccumulated in food webs up to 4x the toxic level; it causesteratogenic deformities in larval fish such as those shown here Below: two eyes on one side of thehead; right: spinal curvature (S7).

References

S1. K. S. Paybins, T. Messinger, J. H. Eychaner, D. B. Chambers, M. D. Kozar, U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 1204, http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/circ1204/ (2000).

S2. J.I. Sams, K.M. Beer. U.S. G.S. Water Resources Report 99-4208 (2000).http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir_99-4208.pdf

S3. Gerritsen, J., J. Burton and M. Barbour. 2000. A Stream Condition Index for West VirginiaWadeable Streams. Report commissioned by U.S. EPA Region 3 Environmental ServicesDivision,and U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology, Office of WaterAvailable online athttp://www.littlekanawha.com/536_WV-Index.pdf

S4. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin No. 132.

S5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1990 (DRAFT). Freshwater MacroinvertebrateSpecies List Including Tolerance Values and Functional Feeding Group Designations for Use inRapid Bioassessment Protocols. EA Report No. 11075.05. Prepared by EA Engineering, Science,and Technology for US EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

S6. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins, editors. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of NorthAmerica, 2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.


6/6


4

S7. Lemly, A.D. 2008. Aquatic hazard of selenium pollution from coal mining. Pages 167-183 in G.B.Fosdyke, (Ed). Coal Mining: Research, Technology, and Safety. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,NY.

S8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Coal Mac, Phoenix 5 Mine. February 12, 2007.

S9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Keystone Industries, Rush Creek Mine. January 28, 2008.

S10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Independence, Twilight Mine for individual 404 permit issued March 7, 2008.

S11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Loadout LLC, Nellis Mine. April 16, 2008.

S12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Hobet, Mine 22 for individual 404 permit issued August 1, 2008.

S13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Record of Decision forAppalachian Fuels for individual 404 permit issued October 1, 2008.

S14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Regulatory Branch. Combined DecisionDocument for Alex Energy, South Surface Mine for individual 404 permit issued November 26,2008.

mountain top mining Science magazine

Documents

Transcript of mountain top mining Science magazine