I heard on the radio this morning how the friends of coal are having a membership drive. It was clear to point out that a couple of cities have committed to being the friends of coal. One of those being Mabscott, West Virginia.

Needless to say the entire news story irritated me on a few different levels. One of those being it was covered with such enthusiasm as to inform the listener as to who the station itself is friends with. Another, that an entire city government commits itself to the side of basically what is an activist movement. If that is not alienating residents - I don’t know what is. If that is not bias in the government - I don’t know what is. Let me tell you what support the friends of coal are really looking for. They are looking to support their bankroll, cash cow, money machine - whatever you want to call it. You think they give a rats behind about national security? They can tell you that and then snicker while raking in the dough. They will ride the national security train all the way to the bank.

Let me tell you what I am doing and what I am going to do.

At the top of the list - the Stop MTR blog will be moving to it’s own domain. I apologize for moving two blogs on you but with the instability with Blogger I thought it important. The Stop MTR blog is moving for reasons above and beyond Blogger. I plan to make the site a lot more dynamic with a photo gallery and forum attached. The theme will also be a little different. Instead of Blogging for Appalachia it will be Friends of Appalachia. I decided to go that route because once the site is up and running I’m going to have a Friends of Appalachia drive. The likes of which the friends of coal have never seen.

Don’t touch that dial because it is sure to be an interesting summer in the battle for Appalachia.

Posted by Denny

When I wrote the posts Into The Headwaters, I had some pictures I wasn’t able to show because I had no clue what it was.

The only thing I knew for sure - West Virginia was sporting a new form of whitewater.

This weekend a friend and I were exploring some of the roads on Bolt Mountain when we ran across this small water basin.

The next photo you can click on for full size. I know sodium carbonate is used to control the ph levels in the water from mine drainage. But how far out can the ph be when the water runs white with a ph adjuster. At the bottom of the mountain from the water basin are houses that still use well water. After reading the warnings on this bag - I’d be afraid to drink it. Especially since it is in a more concentrated form at the headwaters.

That’s not even to mention the fact that the whole downstream ecological system for these creeks depend heavily on a proper ph level. Exact same principal as a fish tank. If the ph goes to far one way or the other your fish start dying.

Posted by Denny

Picture this…

You have worked your entire life in the coal mines. On your meager retirement you plan to live out your life in the peace and quiet of the mountains. You have a comfortable house with a wooden fence. You have a well dug by your grandfather that is thirty feet deep and taps into water that taste better than bottled water - no comparison. You have a nice little garden in the same spot year after year providing fresh vegetables all summer with enough to can to last through the winter. You want for nothing because there is nothing else you truly need.

You know all of your neighbors by name and you are comfortable with that. You cry with them at the passing of a loved one and you laugh with them at weddings. You live in a peaceful community. A community in every sense of the word.

And then one afternoon you hear and feel an explosion. Your windows rattle and your grandmothers portrait falls from over the mantle crashing to the floor. The frame, as old as the picture it contained, suddenly ruined. You thank God it’s over and wonder of it’s origin. You think, although tragic, you can get another frame for the photo but in the meantime you hang it back on the wall - most likely saying a little prayer for the disrespect.

But then it happens again the next day… and the next… and the next. You get tired of picking up the picture so instead you just lay it on the mantle and think what is the use in buying another frame - the walls no longer hold pictures. For the first time in your life, you are afraid. The coal industry has moved in and they are here to take the mountains.

There is nothing you can do to stop the daily earthquakes. There is not a house built in West Virginia able to withstand daily concussions. Most of these houses in the hollows are older than the residents who reside within. They were built to withstand the weather not daily bombardment.

All of the sudden your world has gone to hell in a handbasket and there is nothing you can do to stop it. If you want pictures on your walls then you have to anchor them with screws on all four corners. Forget about the garden because the new floods will wipe it and the well out. In most cases the coal industry has taken from you in one way or another already, be it your health or that of a loved one. Now they are there to finish you off by taking all that you have left - your independence, forcing you into a world of unfamiliarity. A world where you used to be able to provide for yourself but now you have to rely on the system.

You rent some small apartment somewhere, hang grandmothers wrinkled portrait on the wall, and hope life ends sooner than you originally hoped. Everything you know is gone. Even the old cemetery that contained grandma herself. You look out the kitchen window at the apartment building across the street and try to picture the old apple tree in the backyard that was still in full bloom in your mind. You remember family reunions in the hollow. Kids playing in the creek, plenty of good food, plenty of laughing - all gone.

Instinctively you reach for a light switch that is already in the off position. You don’t want to contribute to another losing everything because - coal keeps the lights on.

We are so lucky to have coal.

Posted by Denny

The transmission line project (that is detailed in the below article) has constantly been pushed on the people of the mountains by those wishing to provide more energy to city dwellers. I, for one, am disgusted that we are expected to sacrifice our rural vistas (and, ultimately our mountains through the increased demand for coal) just so people in metropolitan areas can continue to live so extravagantly. Turn out the lights, for Christ’s sake. How about one big screen tv instead of three.

As rural dwellers, we accept certain inconveniences to live in “God’s country.” Let the city dwellers do the same. You live in the city. You may have rolling black outs. It’s an “inconvenience” so that you can experience all the “conveniences” of city life.

We all know that if these power lines go through, energy from the rural areas will be drained to provide even more energy to the increasingly power hungry city dwellers. Historically, we have been the peripheral region that provides energy to the more powerful population centers. It remains that way.

The cherry on top, however, is how we are going to be expected to pay MORE in our energy bills to subsidize this!! OUTRAGEOUS! If constructed, we should be paid for the decimation of our land and not have to foot the bill to supply even more electricity to maintain the unsustainable lifestyles of the metropolitan areas.

http://www.wvgazette.com/latest/200803230145

March 23, 2008
Dominion purchase silences power line critic

McLEAN, Va. — The owners of a planned power plant in rural Warren County were among the chief opponents of a proposed 65-mile, $243 million high-voltage transmission line through Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania that has drawn scorn from some environmentalists and preservationists.
That was until Dominion Resources Inc., the transmission line’s chief proponent, bought the rights to the Warren County project lock, stock and barrel for an undisclosed price.
Just before the purchase was announced, Silver Spring, Md.-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. rescinded its opposition to the power line, surprising environmental groups. The company’s withdrawal came just days before a crucial regulatory hearing in Virginia that could determine whether the line gets built.
Dominion says the purchase was completely legitimate — the kind of thing it does all the time as it seeks to increase its generating capacity.
Opponents say it was a thinly veiled means of buying off its opponents.
“It’s like the New York Yankees. If you can’t beat ‘em, buy ‘em,” said Bob Lazaro, spokesman for the Piedmont Environmental Council, referring to the Yankees’ propensity for using their big budget to sign away other teams’ top stars.
Opponents of the transmission line were pleased when CPV sided with them in West Virginia, where the multistate line also would extend. CPV had argued that the power line wasn’t necessary because the region’s electricity needs could be met locally by projects including the 600-megawatt natural gas power plant planned for Warren County.
CPV had been similarly critical of the line in a filing to Virginia’s State Corporation Commission. But it formally withdrew its opposition before the Feb. 25 SCC hearing.
On March 4, Dominion announced it had bought the rights to the Warren County project.
While the facts are not in dispute, opponents of the line question Dominion’s motivation in buying the project and CPV’s motivation in withdrawing its testimony.
Dominion says it is “absolutely not accurate” to insinuate that the purchase was done to silence competition to the power line.
Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle said the Richmond-based company makes such purchases all the time. For example, it recently announced plans to buy a planned power plant in Southwestern Virginia.
What’s more, federal regulations establish a firewall between Dominion’s transmission business, which delivers electricity, and its generation business, which creates electricity. As a result, Norvelle said, those on the transmission side of the company who argued the case for the power line had no idea that Dominion was negotiating a purchase of the CPV project.
CPV’s Chris Ganley, who been in charge of the Warren County project, said the company still opposes the transmission line.
He said CPV pulled its testimony because it is a company with limited resources, and it had already spent a lot of time and money battling the power line in West Virginia. Ganley said that if the line is defeated in West Virginia, the Virginia case will be moot because the line must run through both states as well as Pennsylvania.
Ganley declined to comment on whether the terms of the sale to Dominion required CPV to withdraw its opposition at the Virginia hearing.
He said the negotiation over the Warren County project began in September, when privately held CPV approached Dominion. The companies did not release the financial terms of the deal.
Piedmont’s Lazaro said CPV’s testimony was an important part of the overall opposition case. CPV had planned to begin operations near Front Royal by 2010, and a 600-megawatt plant would provide significant additional capacity. (A 600-megawatt plant would increase Dominion’s generation capacity in the Virginia-Carolina region by 3.4 percent.)
Dominion, meanwhile, has made no commitment on when it would have the Front Royal plant up and running, and Lazaro said it’s now easier for the large energy company to argue that the transmission line is needed to bring additional capacity to the mid-Atlantic from the Midwest.
Norvelle countered that studies have shown that the transmission line is necessary even if the Front Royal plant is operating.
“To suggest that this single power station would alleviate the need (for the transmission line) is incorrect,” he said.
High-voltage transmission lines like the one sought by Dominion are often controversial, particularly among those who live along the line’s path. In this case, the line pitted Dominion — a company with $15.7 billion in operating revenue last year and one that wields enormous clout within Virginia — against a group of well-organized land owners in rural Virginia hunt country who have been effective in fighting off development.
Many of those currently active with the Piedmont Environmental Council are veterans of the battle more than 10 years ago to prevent Disney Corp. from building a large theme park in the region.
The transmission line as a whole would run 240 miles through West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia and would cost more than $1 billion to build. Dominion and others say the line is needed to help feed the region’s growing demand for electricity, and warn that blackouts are possible as soon as 2011 if the region does not increase its transmission network.
Those opposed to the line cite several factors. Some are concerned that the lines, which will run between towers as tall as 12 stories high, will butcher scenic vistas in the northern Virginia Piedmont. Others say that more should be done to encourage conservation rather than trying to build more power plants and transmission lines.
Finally, opponents say the line itself isn’t really needed, but that Dominion is simply looking for better access to cheap electricity generated by low-tech coal-fired power plants in the Midwest.
He said CPV pulled its testimony because it is a company with limited resources, and it had already spent a lot of time and money battling the power line in West Virginia. Ganley said that if the line is defeated in West Virginia, the Virginia case will be moot because the line must run through both states as well as Pennsylvania.
Ganley declined to comment on whether the terms of the sale to Dominion required CPV to withdraw its opposition at the Virginia hearing.
He said the negotiation over the Warren County project began in September, when privately held CPV approached Dominion. The companies did not release the financial terms of the deal.
Piedmont’s Lazaro said CPV’s testimony was an important part of the overall opposition case. CPV had planned to begin operations near Front Royal by 2010, and a 600-megawatt plant would provide significant additional capacity. (A 600-megawatt plant would increase Dominion’s generation capacity in the Virginia-Carolina region by 3.4 percent.)
Dominion, meanwhile, has made no commitment on when it would have the Front Royal plant up and running, and Lazaro said it’s now easier for the large energy company to argue that the transmission line is needed to bring additional capacity to the mid-Atlantic from the Midwest.
Norvelle countered that studies have shown that the transmission line is necessary even if the Front Royal plant is operating.
“To suggest that this single power station would alleviate the need (for the transmission line) is incorrect,” he said.
High-voltage transmission lines like the one sought by Dominion are often controversial, particularly among those who live along the line’s path. In this case, the line pitted Dominion — a company with $15.7 billion in operating revenue last year and one that wields enormous clout within Virginia — against a group of well-organized land owners in rural Virginia hunt country who have been effective in fighting off development.
Many of those currently active with the Piedmont Environmental Council are veterans of the battle more than 10 years ago to prevent Disney Corp. from building a large theme park in the region.
The transmission line as a whole would run 240 miles through West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia and would cost more than $1 billion to build. Dominion and others say the line is needed to help feed the region’s growing demand for electricity, and warn that blackouts are possible as soon as 2011 if the region does not increase its transmission network.
Those opposed to the line cite several factors. Some are concerned that the lines, which will run between towers as tall as 12 stories high, will butcher scenic vistas in the northern Virginia Piedmont. Others say that more should be done to encourage conservation rather than trying to build more power plants and transmission lines.
Finally, opponents say the line itself isn’t really needed, but that Dominion is simply looking for better access to cheap electricity generated by low-tech coal-fired power plants in the Midwest.

Posted by Shirley Stewart Burns, Ph.D.

Changing Habitats!

Matthew Burns © March 21, 2008

The effects of mountaintop removal on the environment have brought about many changes to the landscape and to the various habitats in the areas where this practice takes place. There are many aspects of these changing habitats that run the gamut from forest fragmentation to complete and total obliteration of native hardwood forests. When these factors are compounded with the rampant soil erosion and eutrophication, a toxic combination of serious long-term impacts are left in the wake of MTR in the coalfields region. Outlined in this argument are but a few of these aspects.

When looking at habitat changes, one of the first aspects to look at is erosion brought about by the initial land disturbances. Studies have shown that the erosion rate of one acre of a strip mine is equivalent to five acres of timbered forestland or ten acres of farmland. Another study of a partially stripped watershed showed an erosion rate of 5.9 tons/acre per year. Juxtapose that with the typical 0.7 tons/acre per year in an unimpacted watershed. A study conducted in the late 1960s showed that in the Bolt Mountain area of Raleigh County, WV, 97% of the erosion in the watershed was attributed to areas that were strip mined, even though these strip-mined areas covered only 6.4 percent of the entire watershed.

Even with these startling statistics, mountaintop removal mining permits have steadily increased in size over the past decade or so. In fact, the granting of one permit could currently transform thousands of acres of hardwood forests into grasslands. In addition, in the permitting process, the WV DEP acts like it has blinders on, that is to say they only look at the proposed area to be impacted, not the surrounding areas, so it is quite common to find many back to back permits leading to a continuous MTR operation covering several thousand acres. With this increase in contiguously permitted sites, the erosion rates in these watersheds will certainly increase. Since soil is one of the most precious resources in southern West Virginia, the MTR permitting process certainly merits closer, more comprehensive scrutiny by state regulatory agencies.

To illustrate the widespread impacts of MTR on the Coal River watershed, I’ll use the following example. In 1997, the WV DEP was having a hard time finding any part of the Coal River watershed to use as a “control” group for their study. To be a control group, an area had to have little or no human impacts in its watershed. In their findings, they noted that it was “virtually impossible” to find any area in the watershed that was not impacted by coal mining, or other forms of human induced disturbance. Looking at the above picture showing the permitted and mined areas of Boone County, there is little doubt that it was quite an endeavor to find an unimpacted area of Coal River.

Along with the increased erosion and the subsequent changes in stream ecosystems downstream of MTR operations, the negative impacts are exacerbated by high concentrations of heavy metals and minerals that allow only the most pollutant-tolerant fish and insect species to exist in them. In many man-made streams on and below MTR sites, agricultural fertilizer is added to the stream channel in an effort to simulate a healthy stream system. However, this only leads to eutrophication that causes, among other things, the clogging of these streams with plant growth. In areas below these artificial streams, gone are the native, ecologically sensitive invertebrate species that have adapted to these streams over countless millennia. Also gone from these altered streams is the Brook Trout, the state fish of West Virginia.

Aside from the multiple changes in water quality and the species that live therein, MTR also transforms mixed hardwood forest habitats into those more commonly found in the mid-western US. This transformation causes the eradication of many native woodland species. This is where the term forest fragmentation comes into play. Whereas large undisturbed forests are contiguous, when they are broken up by disturbances, the forest becomes fragmented. When more and more of these disturbances occur in a given area, the forest ceases to be contiguous, and becomes more of a checkerboard of woodlands interspersed with disturbed areas. In short, MTR operations increase forest fragmentation. To cope with the changes, many woodland species that require contiguous forests for survival are either annihilated or forced to relocate. As more and more of the landscape becomes altered by MTR, the remote possibility that these native species can relocate is further reduced. After all, to where would these species move? Nearly every area of the region has been impacted by some effect of MTR.

Many native woodland species are replaced with non-native species; species that didn’t originate in these habitats but find they can thrive in these newly created habitats. Many non-native species are considered nuisance species, and many of them prey on the remaining native species that have somehow managed to maintain populations in these areas. Looking at the above picture of the widespread MTR operations in Logan County, it gives you a sense of the widespread forest fragmentation, a primary factor in the loss of native species diversity.

However, it should be noted that not all species that inhabit reclaimed sites are non-native. There are a few instances of native, habitat-generalist species that have experienced population growth in areas with MTR operations. White-tailed deer for one, can readily adapt to a number of habitats. However, the nutrient-poor vegetation that does grow on these reclaimed sites typically causes these deer to be of inferior quality and of inferior health. Also important in this scenario, is the greatly reduced mast trees on which whitetails rely on as a primary food source throughout the winter months. What does this mean for hunters…well, don’t expect finding a trophy buck in these areas! Even though historically, the southern WV counties have produced the majority portion of trophy bucks for the region, the loss of habitat/food resources due to MTR may have relegated this accomplishment to the past.

With the recent human safety and wildlife health concerns of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in White-Tailed Deer, one can imagine it is only a matter of time before this epizootic inflicts the marginally healthy population of whitetails on/around reclaimed MTR sites. CWD is already a problem in the overpopulated deer herds of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, so it is already here in the state. It is not a stretch to believe that CWD could easily find its way to the southern coalfields, especially with the increasingly poor health of the deer populations now located there.

In addition to the white-tailed deer, some small mammal populations also thrive on reclaimed MTR sites; however, they tend to be of the Peromyscus family, which is commonly known as the deer mouse family. A study looking at tree regrowth on reclaimed strip mined area’s noted that the success of hardwoods on stripped land was reduced due to substantial damage inflicted by these increased rodent populations. With these increased populations of rodent species and the poor quality (and highly compacted) soils on reclaimed MTR sites, you can sense my disbelief in the coal industry propaganda that reclaimed MTR sites will again see mature forest habitats in “just a few years”.

Also, with the increased populations of rodent species on reclaimed MTR sites, one can logically assume there would be a subsequent increase in vector borne diseases in the area’s surrounding these sites. In recent years, it has become known that members of the Peromyscus family are carriers of the hantavirus in the western U.S. Does this sound like a group of species that we, as a state, should be “welcoming” by creating a more suitable habitat? Even though this scenario has the potential to negatively impact human health, few studies have been conducted on these impacts so we are left to wonder what the repercussions will be. I am aware of only one study that was conducted in this area of study but as far as I know, the results were never released to the public. Looking at the above photo of Mingo County and the MTR operations there, it certainly gives reason for concern about the spread of disease caused by increased rodent populations.

With the greater rodent populations, the southern coalfields have experienced a population explosion of coyotes, especially since the rapid expansion of MTR. This can be directly attributed to the coyote exploiting this readily available and increasingly abundant food source. However, coyotes don’t just eat these vast populations of mice, they also target many forms of livestock, including poultry, sheep, goats, as well as the occasional family pet. The growing populations of coyotes have the potential to negatively impact the already struggling agricultural industry of southern WV.

Many native small mammal species, even if they are somehow able to adapt to the changing habitat conditions are hit with a double whammy when you look at the role of fluctuating temperatures on reclaimed MTR sites. In the native hardwood forests, the tree canopy, leaf litter and vegetative undergrowth all work in conjunction to buffer temperature variations. When this mature forest is removed during MTR, also gone is the temperature buffer, leaving these “reclaimed” sites with severe temperature fluctuations that make the land uninhabitable by all but a few species. In short, even if some species were able to adapt to the drastically altered habitat, they would still have to overcome the temperature fluctuations.

Addressed here are but a few examples of the changing habitats of the southern West Virginia coalfields that are a result of mountaintop removal coal mining. There are multiple facets of this issue, and all of these facets are connected. The above examples should be put into the context of the overall environmental impacts of MTR to adequately understand the issue. These examples are only meant to illustrate a few of the more blatant changes in the species composition of the southern West Virginia coalfields, this argument is not intended to contain an exhaustive list of changes wrought upon the land by MTR.

For more information, read “Bringing Down the Mountains: The Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining on Southern West Virginia Communities” by Dr. Shirley Stewart Burns. You can find out more information about Dr. Burns book at:

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Down-Mountains-Mountaintop-Communities/dp/1933202173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964316&sr=8-1

Also, visit the websites of:

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition at www.ohvec.org

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy at www.wvhighlands.org

Coal River Mountain Watch at http://www.crmw.net/

Matthew Burns ©March 2008

What is the one thing I could do to convince you coal is good for America’s future? The answer - convince you that we can clean it. Convince you we can remove the carbon.

The friends of coal’s propaganda machine rides heavily on the back of “clean” coal technology that has not been proven in power plants but has been proven to be highly expensive to try and implement. Let’s try to forget about the extraction of coal for a bit and think about the burning of coal. In other words - let us assume the people of Appalachia are worthless and expendable and that mountaintop removal is a good thing. With that in mind - what is the next big hurdle for king coal? Capturing the carbon emissions from the burning of coal, or cleaning it.

There are numerous articles out there relating to clean coal technology so I’m not even going to try to explain it to you. Simple terms, in my understanding - it is the process of capturing carbon emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels. Coal is the largest carbon emitter and Co2 is the largest contributor to global warming. Coal Capture and Storage

First of all, we are still assuming mountaintop removal is a good thing. Since I am going to tell you it is a good thing then it must be, so we will just move on. Now that I have convinced you of that, I’m going to convince you clean coal is the only way to go but unfortunately I don’t have any proof of that either. So instead I’ll shout it to every person I see or speak to and eventually it won’t matter if it is true or not.

Right here in the Appalachia’s we are creating one of the worst environmental disasters ever swept under a rug and we are getting away with it. How are we getting away with it? Well - I have already convinced you mountaintop removal was a good thing and I am in the process of telling you about our salvation - clean coal technology. How can you not believe me? I told you. So it must be true.

—

I’m going to tell you what I wish. I wish the general public was more investigative and a lot less gullible. Read up on clean coal technology. President Bush sings clean coals praises - definitely read up on it. The coal industry spouts clean coal technology - it should be taken apart with a fine toothed comb. Walker Machinery - let’s pull their business license and then see how long they stand behind a smoke screen.

—

From Wikipedia (Clean Coal Technology) - “There are no coal-fired power plants in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, so the process is theoretical and experimental and thus a subject of feasibility or pilot studies. It is has been estimated that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial-scale clean coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) are commercially viable and widely adopted.”

From Wikipedia (Coal Capture and Storage) - “Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a plant with CCS by about 11-40%.”

“Various forms have been conceived for permanent storage of CO2. These forms include gaseous storage in various deep geological formations (including saline formations and exhausted gas fields), liquid storage in the ocean, and solid storage by reaction of CO2 with metal oxides to produce stable carbonates.”

—

Forgetting everything above - let us say for one second we were pumping this carbon in the ground. Now let’s go back to a statement I made in an earlier post - anything man made will eventually fail. I’m wondering what will keep the carbon there forever? And how will the industry prove it stays? I guess we could wait and see if global warming escalates. I know I won’t worry about it if a business making a fortune from coal tells me everything is just fine. Will you?

—

‘Clean’ Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That.
By Jeff Biggers
Sunday, March 2, 2008 - Washington Post

Posted by Denny

In the battle against mountaintop removal coal mining, sometimes the fight has to be taken outside the coalfield boundaries. Although the destructive practice of mountaintop removal occurs in the Appalachia’s, the coal from MTR coal mining is used across the country. In order for us to support stopping mountaintop removal coal mining we must directly support renewable energy resources wherever they can be found.

Enter stage left - Cape Wind, Massachusetts.

“Cape Wind is proposing America’s first offshore wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. Miles from the nearest shore, 130 wind turbines will gracefully harness the wind to produce up to 420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy. In average winds, Cape Wind will provide three quarters of the Cape and Islands electricity needs.” From - Cape Wind - Energy For Life

“Coal accounts for just 15 percent of New England’s electricity, so even Cape Wind, which would use offshore wind turbines to supply power equal to three-quarters of Cape Cod’s demand, would not stop much of the devastation of Appalachia. But activists such as Janet Keating and Chuck Nelson of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition hope that Cape Wind will usher in a whole new era of energy production that lessens the nation’s dependence on coal. The country gets 50 percent of its power from coal, the biggest carbon emitter among fossil fuels.” From - The Boston Globe - Devastation at 3,000 feet

“No matter where you live, voicing your support for Cape Wind is important. Wind power is one of the most promising clean energy sources we have, and if we can harness it in Massachusetts — over the objection of a few powerful, moneyed interests — we can set a great precedent for the country.” From - Environment America

—

In my opinion -

As a coalfield resident and a person extremely concerned with mountaintop removal coal mining - I couldn’t wait to throw my support behind a wind farm miles from the shore with a favorable 2,000 page environmental impact statement. I’d like to read a 2,000 page environmental impact statement of mountaintop removal coal mining. Unfortunately, I don’t believe 2,000 pages would even scratch the surface of MTR. I can pretty much guarantee any dialog after the study was complete did not have the word favorable included.

I can’t help thinking about the people against this project. If they could only see where some of their energy comes from now.

this…

OR

this…

combined with this.

Impact statements aside - which one do you think would be better for the environment?

—

TAKE ACTION!!
Please take a minute to tell the U.S. Mineral Management Service that you want to see Cape Wind built. They’re taking comments from the public right now, and this is one of the last major hurdles for us to cross to finally realize the promise of clean, local energy from Cape Wind. All Together Now, For Cape Wind!

This post copied in part from the BackWoods Drifter blog.

—

Bringing Down the Mountains:
The Impact of Mountaintop Removal Surface Coal Mining on Southern West Virginia Communities, 1970-2004

by Shirley L. Stewart Burns

Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History.

“In 1970, 45,261 West Virginia jobs were supplied due to coal mining and 143,132,284 tons of coal were produced. Thirty-two years later, in 2002, 15,377 people were employed by the coal companies and together they produced 163,896,890 tons of coal.“

“Surface mines destroyed people’s lives on a whole different level, and left them virtually helpless to stop it. Mountaintop removal mines polluted streams and filled in valleys. Some of these valley fills are among the largest man-made earthen structures in the world.“

“The massive machines on mountaintop removal sites have ensured that more coal can be obtained with less human labor and greatly increased productivity.The expansion of mountaintop removal in West Virginia since its inception in the 1970s has grown at an accelerated pace from forty-four permits covering 9,800 acres throughout the 1980s to the granting of permits covering 12,540 acres in a nine-month period in 2002 alone.“

http://kitkat.wvu.edu:8080/files/4047/Stewart_Burns_Shirley_dissertation.pdf

Shirley is also the author of the book with the same name as her dissertation and it can be found at Amazon. Bringing Down The Mountains - The Book

—

I would like to welcome two new co-authors to this blog and to the blogging community - Matthew Burns, a Wildlife Management Specialist, and his wife Shirley Stewart Burns, PhD. As one can tell from the dissertation above and the article below, Shirley and Matthew are no strangers to the battle against mountaintop removal coal mining. I am very happy to welcome them to our community.

On Thursday, March 13, 2008, the people of West Virginia were graced with some news that proved to be music to our ears. Stephanie Timmermeyer, the Chief of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, resigned. Why was she so despised, especially by the residents of the coalfields? Because she was a coal lackey’s lackey. From day one she represented coal interests while supposedly representing the people of the State of West Virginia. To illustrate her blatant coal industry bias, when she was a law student, she authored a controversial law review titled, “So You Want To Ban Mountaintop Mining? You May Have To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is”. You can read the full, convoluted text of this “gem” at the following link:

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/people_in_action/2003/08_26/timmermeyer.pdf

Yes, folks, the sad reality of it is even after that blatant piece of propaganda, Ms. Timmermeyer was appointed to the head of the WV DEP. How, you might ask, could a person with such biased views, who had graduated law school less than 2 years prior to her appointment, be appointed to a post that is supposed to uphold and enforce the environmental regulations of the state? In West Virginia, it is easy to get such a post if you have the right connections and if you are pro-coal. Many concerned citizens preferred Patrick McGinley, a WVU environmental law professor with nearly 30 years of experience under his belt, to head the DEP. Instead, the Wise administration appointed a fledgling lawyer whose only prior experience was as an industry consultant and for a brief time, an industry lawyer. (Profile: Environment is a priority for Wise, says new DEP chief, Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette, 4/14/03.)

I won’t delve too deep into Ms. Timmermeyer’s role in the “dismissal” of Matt Crum, the former director of Mining and Reclamation at the WV DEP, whom many of the coalfield residents found to be a reasonable person to deal with. But, the powers that be felt that Crum was getting too chummy with the “radical environmentalists” in the ever-growing MTR movement. Timmermeyer simply cited differences in “management style” and told the press that Crum was an “at will and pleasure employee” of the state, so she didn’t have to give a reason for his dismissal. (State Forces Out West Virginia’s Mining Reclamation Chief, August 23, 2003, Charleston Gazette, Ken Ward, Jr.) So you can clearly see that from the get-go, Ms. Timmermeyer was “looking out” for the people of the state, starting with getting rid of one of the most effective and competent members of the DEP.

Upon taking the helm of the DEP, Ms. Timmermeyer had a backlog of fifty or so mining permits. Many of these were in a backlog because the former Mining and Reclamation director Crum wasn’t satisfied that safety concerns were adequately addressed. Still, less than six months after taking over, Timmermeyer bragged to the press that she was proud to say that there was now no backlog of pending permits (this, of course, would include MTR permits)! (The Charleston Gazette, February 19, 2005, Saturday, “Timmermeyer touts faster mine permitting” By Ken Ward Jr.)
As a result of the fast, less scrutinized mine permitting process of the DEP, the issue of the “migrating” property lines at the Goals Coal Facility behind the Marsh Fork Elementary School came to light. (for more information on this saga, see Ken Ward’s “Mining the Mountains” series during July 2005 at www.wvgazette.com/news/Mining+the+Mountains) I’m sure that this instance of “departmental oversight” is just scratching the surface of the interesting information that will eventually come out in the future regarding this speedy mine approval process now adopted by the DEP. With such swift approval one thing is evident, those pending permits were practically rubber stamped by the Timmermeyer-led DEP, and it would appear that little or no investigative review was conducted on them. It has long been known that time is money in the coal industry, and now that a coal lackey was heading the DEP, it was certain that very little time would be exercised by the DEP in the mine approval process.

During the tenure of Timmermeyer, it was becoming evermore apparent that the DEP was an extended arm of the coal industry. It operated in blatant disregard of the laws, and in total disrespect of the concerns of the citizens of the coalfields. One just needs to look into the continuing saga of Ed Wiley and Marsh Fork Elementary to see this. When Ed confronted Gov. Joe Manchin about school children getting sick and the deplorable conditions at Marsh Fork Elementary, which was brought about by the Goals Coal facility located immediately behind the school. Governor Manchin was on record as saying that he would do “everything humanly possible” to ensure the students were safe, the governor, also a grandfather, said that he did not know if he would want his grandchildren attending Marsh Fork Elementary. (DEP approves Massey Permits near school, Charleston Gazette,7/1/05;Raleigh Man Ends Capitol Sit-in, Charleston Gazette, Ken Ward, Jr., 7/5/05.)

So, in early July 2005, Ed Wiley felt compelled to do a sit in at the state capitol, and refused to leave until Gov. Manchin came out and answered some of his questions, such as “why Massey Energy’s profits are more important than these kids’ health and safety?”. At first, Manchin refused to meet with Ed but later reconsidered when Ed began to get media coverage from all over the state. Sensing a media nightmare, Gov. Manchin met with Ed Wiley, and soon found out that Ed was there for results, and no amount of Manchin’s infamous slick-talking, political double-speak was going to satiate Ed’s thirst for justice. After the meeting, Manchin ordered the DEP to investigate Marsh Fork Elementary. The DEP complied, and a few days later they walked through the school and commented to each other that everything looked fine. They reportedly took no dust samples, no water samples, they didn’t talk to any of the children or parents there They more or less dismissed the whole affair. With so little attention paid to detail, it begs the question if these people were inherently incompetent, or if they were following orders from a Division superior. A few days after Ed’s meeting with Manchin, a permit for a second silo, to be located even closer to the school was approved, then rescinded, and then eventually re-approved. Many legal wranglings ensued. When the new school year opened in late August 2005, Marsh Fork Elementary opened as usual, with no apparent change in safety procedures. Through all of these political maneuvers, Manchin deferred to the DEP expertise, and the DEP deferred to Manchin. Once again, the clear losers were the residents of the coalfields. (for more information on this saga, see Ken Ward’s “Mining the Mountain” series during July 2005 at www.wvgazette.com/news/Mining+the+Mountains)

One of the most egregious issues to come about during the Timmermeyer reign at the DEP was the whole settlement of more than 200 violations by Massey Energy. These violations resulted from a number of black water spills and a whole cacophony of environmentally devastating practices that accompany MTR operations. For a paltry sum of $1.4 million, Timmermeyer settled all of these violations with Massey (including Massey’s subsidiaries). (Massey to pay $ 1.4 million in settlement with agency, Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette, 1/7/06; MINING: W.Va. to settle hundreds of Massey violations for fraction of cost, Greenwire, 2/27/06)
These violations certainly cost the State, which the responsibility then fell to for the ultimate payment of these legacy costs, more than $1.4 million. If the DEP, headed by Timmermeyer, had not rolled over for Massey Energy, it is reasonable to believe that the state could have shared in the $20M fine by the federal government for Massey’s violations of the Clean Water Act. The federal government also secured an additional $10M for streamside restoration in the areas most impacted by these violations. (Fines to Force Change, Feds Say: $20M Penalty Against massey in Settlement, Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette, 1/19/08; see also Massey Energy Company Clean Water Act Settlement at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/massey.html)

Had Timmermeyer not sold out the state of West Virginia for a paltry $1.4M, then it is reasonable to believe that the WV DEP could easily have gotten a piece of this piece, or even a pie of their own! Joe Lovett of The Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment discussed the settlement in the following statement:

“If the state had brought this action, this money would be going into state coffers instead of to the federal government,” said Joe Lovett, a lawyer for the citizen groups. “DEP has the primary responsibility for enforcing the Clean Water Act permitting program, and this should have been something the DEP and the Manchin administration did, instead of allowing the federal government to do it.”

But no, with the settlement with Massey, Timmermeyer’s DEP completely released Massey from responsibility for their actions.
So, good riddance to those who portray themselves as upstanding leaders of West Virginia even while selling out its residents. It is no great surprise that many of the citizens of the State of West Virginia, and even Appalachia as a whole, breathed a great sigh of relief upon hearing of the resignation of Stephanie Timmermeyer. Now, we face the future with both optimism and apprehension, and we wonder whom the Manchin Administration will now appoint to this vital post.

By Matthew H. Burns ©15 March 2008