Mountaintop removal for coal hurts water quality and harms fish, study says
WASHINGTON — In West Virginia's Appalachian Mountains, fish are vanishing. The number of species has fallen, the populations of those that remain are down, and some fish look a little skinny.
A new government study traces the decline in abundance to mountaintop removal, the controversial coal-mining practice of clear-cutting trees from mountains before blowing off their tops with explosives.
When the resulting rain of shattered rock hits the rivers and streams that snake along the base of the mountains, minerals released from within the stone are changing the water's chemistry, the study said, lowering its quality and causing tiny prey such as insects, worms and invertebrates to die.
“We're seeing significant reductions in the number of fish species and total abundance of fish downstream from mining operations,” said Nathaniel Hitt, a research fish biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey's office in Kearneysville, W.Va., and one of the study's two authors.
Hitt and his co-author, Doug Chambers, a biologist and water-quality specialist in the Charleston, W.Va., office of the USGS, took a 1999 study of the Guyandotte River basin's fish populations by Penn State researchers to compare them over time.
In one of the sample areas, the Mud River watershed, which contains the largest tributary of the Guyandotte River, at least 100 point source pollution discharge permits associated with surface mining have been issued, the study said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.