Central Appalachia Prosperity Project

CENTRAL APPALACHIA PROSPERITY PROJECT

Phase I

Objective 1: Collect existing research and information instructive for Appalachia

Prepared by:

Rory McIlmoil, Evan Hansen, Anne Hereford, Fritz Boettner

Downstream Strategies 219 Wall Street Morgantown, WV 26505 www.downstreamstrategies.com

Prepared for:

Bill Becker School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver P.O. Box 173364 ‐ Campus Box 142 Denver, CO 80217

Photo credits: Vivian Stockman (mountain top removal site) and Evan Hansen (wind turbines and river).

July 24, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. RELEVANT DEMOGRAPHIC/CENSUS DATA ...... 2

2.1 PEOPLE, BUSINESSES, AND GEOGRAPHY FACTS FOR WEST VIRGINIA AND ITS MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COUNTIES ...... 2 2.2 UNEMPLOYMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA COUNTIES ...... 15 2.3 WAGES IN WEST VIRGINIA COUNTIES ...... 18 2.4 COAL EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES, EMPLOYEES, AND WAGES IN WEST VIRGINIA ...... 20 2.5 LABOR AND UNEMPLOYMENT ACROSS CAPP STATES ...... 25 2.6 POVERTY ACROSS CAPP STATES ...... 37 2.7 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA ...... 48 2.8 APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION COUNTY ECONOMIC LEVELS IN CAPP STATES ...... 51 3. INFRASTRUCTURE MAPS AND/OR DATA SHOWING RAIL, HIGHWAY, ELECTRICITY, WATER, AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 58 4. WIND MAPS, INCLUDING IDENTIFYING GAPS IN RESOURCE MAPS, ISSUES WITH EXISTING MAPS, AND COST ESTIMATES FOR FINER‐SCALE REGIONAL WIND MODELING AND ENERGY POTENTIAL ...... 63

4.1 BACKGROUND ...... 63 4.2 GAPS/ISSUES WITH EXISTING WIND RESOURCE MAPS ...... 65 4.3 RESEARCH NEEDS ...... 67 4.4 CONCLUSION ...... 67 4.5 ANEMOMETERS ...... 68 4.6 REFERENCES ...... 68 5. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND CLIMACTIC CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL FOR METHANE, BIOMASS, AND ENERGY CROPS...... 69

5.1 BIOMASS RESOURCES IN WEST VIRGINIA AND CAPP STATES ...... 69 5.2 AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES ...... 70 5.3 WOOD RESIDUES ...... 71 5.4 DEDICATED ENERGY CROPS ...... 71 5.5 PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE IN WEST VIRGINIA ...... 72 5.6 REFERENCES ...... 77 6. EXISTING MANUFACTURING PLANTS THAT CAN MAKE COMPONENTS FOR GREEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND GENERAL REQUISITES/INCENTIVES FOR ATTRACTING INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPERS TO THE REGION ...... 78

6.1 BACKGROUND ...... 78 6.2 EXISTING MANUFACTURING WITH POTENTIAL TO MAKE RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENTS...... 80 6.3 INCENTIVES AND POLICIES TO DRIVE GROWTH OF GREEN MANUFACTURING ...... 82 6.4 REFERENCES ...... 84 7. EXISTING GREEN INDUSTRIES AND EXISTING GREEN JOBS DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE REGION: TRAINING PROGRAMS, ADVOCACY AND POLICY GROUPS ...... 85

7.1 BACKGROUND ...... 85 7.2 THE PEW STUDY ...... 86 7.3 ADVOCACY/NON‐PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS...... 87 7.4 TRAINING PROGRAMS ...... 88 7.5 SUPPORT/NETWORKING ...... 88 7.6 DEVELOPMENT/INSTALLATION ...... 90 7.7 GREEN INDUSTRY ...... 95 7.8 INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA ...... 96 7.9 REFERENCE ...... 97

8. THE NEED FOR AND EXISTING MODELS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR JOB CREATION IN A RESTORATIVE INDUSTRY ...... 98 9. THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL VALUE‐ADDED OPPORTUNITIES ...... 138 10. EXISTING RETAIL AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND PROXIMITY TO TARGET DEVELOPMENT CENTERS ..... 160 11. AVAILABLE AND RELEVANT PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS ON QUALITY OF LIFE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ESPECIALLY AS RELATED TO COAL), AND MINING PRACTICES ...... 164 12. STRATEGIES AND MODELS FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION ...... 176 13. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL (SMALL‐ AND LARGE‐SCALE) ...... 192 14. ROADBLOCKS TO ECONOMIC TRANSITION INCLUDING POVERTY, LAND OWNERSHIP, EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION, LACK OF OR MISDIRECTED FUNDING, COUNTY‐LEVEL INEFFICIENCIES, HIGHER HEALTH COSTS 276

14.1 POLITICAL ...... 276 14.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ...... 276 14.3 SOCIAL ...... 277 14.4 EDUCATION ...... 278 14.5 REGULATION ...... 278 14.6 GEOGRAPHY ...... 278 14.7 RELIGION ...... 278

iii

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: People, businesses, and geography: West Virginia ...... 3 Table 2: People, businesses, and geography: Boone County ...... 4 Table 3: People, businesses, and geography: Clay County ...... 5 Table 4: People, businesses, and geography: Fayette County ...... 6 Table 5: People, businesses, and geography: Kanawha County ...... 7 Table 6: People, businesses, and geography: Logan County ...... 8 Table 7: People, businesses, and geography: McDowell County ...... 9 Table 8: People, businesses, and geography: Mingo County ...... 10 Table 9: People, businesses, and geography: Nicholas County ...... 11 Table 10: People, businesses, and geography: Raleigh County ...... 12 Table 11: People, businesses, and geography: Wayne County ...... 13 Table 12: People, businesses, and geography: Wyoming County ...... 14 Table 13: West Virginia labor force statistics, annual and monthly comparison ...... 16 Table 14: West Virginia average annual wages by county, 2000‐2008 ...... 18 Table 15: West Virginia coal‐related direct industrial employment, fourth quarter 2008 ...... 20 Table 16: West Virginia coal mining employment figures from various sources ...... 24 Table 17: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for West Virginia counties ...... 25 Table 18: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Kentucky counties ...... 27 Table 19: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Virginia counties ...... 30 Table 20: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Tennessee counties ...... 33 Table 21: Alternative measures of labor underutilization for CAPP states, 2008 ...... 36 Table 22: Poverty in West Virginia counties ...... 37 Table 23: Poverty in Kentucky counties ...... 39 Table 24: Poverty in Virginia counties ...... 42 Table 25: Poverty in Tennessee counties ...... 45 Table 26: Educational attainment in West Virginia, age 25 years and over, 2005‐2007 ...... 48 Table 27: Educational attainment in West Virginia counties, ages 25‐34 years, 2000 ...... 49 Table 28: Criteria for county economic levels of the Appalachian Regional Commission, FY06 ...... 52 Table 29: Number of counties in Appalachian states per economic level in FY06, by state ...... 53 Table 30: County economic status in West Virginia, FY06 ...... 54 Table 31: County economic status for ARC counties in Kentucky, FY06 ...... 55 Table 32: County economic status for ARC counties in Virginia, FY06 ...... 56 Table 33: County economic status for ARC counties in Tennessee, FY06 ...... 57 Table 34: Wind potential in West Virginia ...... 63 Table 35: Estimated biomass resources in CAPP states (thousand tonnes/year) ...... 69 Table 36: West Virginia’s biomass resources (thousand dry tons/year) ...... 70 Table 37: Mill residue uses in West Virginia in 2005 ...... 71 Table 38: West Virginia manufacturing potential to support the wind, solar, and biomass industries ...... 81 Table 39: Populations of cities, towns, and census‐designated places in southern West Virginia located more than 20 miles from large cities ...... 160 Table 40: Existing retail and essential services in the vicinity of Whitesville and Sylvester ...... 163

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: June 2009 unemployment in West Virginia counties ...... 15 Figure 2: County economic status in Appalachia, FY06 ...... 51 Figure 3: West Virginia coal resources ...... 59 Figure 4: West Virginia electrical features ...... 60 Figure 5: West Virginia electrical features with wind classes ...... 61 Figure 6: West Virginia transportation features ...... 62 Figure 7: West Virginia wind speeds at 70 meters height with 200 meter resolution ...... 64 Figure 8: West Virginia wind speeds at 50 meters height with 200 meter resolution ...... 65 Figure 9: Wind resources on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia, with 90 meter resolution, 80 meter hub height .. 66 Figure 10: West Virginia average annual precipitation ...... 73 Figure 11: West Virginia average annual temperature ...... 74 Figure 12: West Virginia average maximum temperature ...... 75 Figure 13: West Virginia average annual minimum temperature ...... 76 Figure 14: Potential renewable sector manufacturing jobs by county population classification ...... 81 Figure 15: Zip codes used for essential services analysis ...... 162

Note: Many portions of this document were cut and pasted directly from government documents, Web pages, and other sources. Due to the length of this report, direct quotations have not been placed within quotation marks. However, sources are clearly noted.

1. INTRODUCTION The Central Appalachia Prosperity Project (CAPP) is a one‐year privately funded initiative to create a plan for the region’s transition to a clean energy economy built on green jobs and industries, healthy communities, protection of natural resources, and restoration of assets that have been depleted or damaged by past activities. Modeled loosely on the Presidential Climate Action Plan, the CAPP plan will contain detailed recommendations for changes in federal, state, regional, and local policies and programs to help the region accomplish this transition.

This report contains partial results for Phase I, the gathering of data and information and the identification of additional research needs. Phase I has six objectives: 1. Collect existing research and information instructive for Appalachia; 2. Identify and engage with key stakeholder groups; 3. Identify federal, state, and local funds, programs, and policies that can help Appalachia transition toward a green economy; 4. Identify and characterize local, state and regional agencies with influence over economic development and energy policy; 5. Identify potential investors and project developers; and 6. Identify data gaps and frame research questions.

This report includes results for Phase I, Objective 1.

Future CAPP phases will perform new research and analysis, draft policy recommendations, generate outreach materials and information, and implement the recommendations.

2. RELEVANT DEMOGRAPHIC/CENSUS DATA A variety of demographic and census data are presented for West Virginia, and a subset of these data are presented for all four CAPP states, including Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee.

2.1 People, businesses, and geography facts for West Virginia and its mountaintop removal counties

Table 1: People, businesses, and geography: West Virginia

Information West Virginia USA

People Population, 2008 estimate 1,814,468 304,059,724 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 0.3% 8.0% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 1,808,345 281,424,602 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.8% 6.9% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.4% 24.5% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 15.5% 12.6% Female persons, percent, 2007 51.0% 50.7%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 94.6% 80.0% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 3.5% 12.8% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.2% 1.0% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.7% 4.4% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z 0.2% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.9% 1.6% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 1.1% 15.1% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 93.6% 66.0%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 63.3% 54.1% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.1% 11.1% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 2.7% 17.9% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 75.2% 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 14.8% 24.4% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 410,781 49,746,248 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 26.2 25.5

Housing units, 2007 882,685 127,901,934 Homeownership rate, 2000 75.2% 66.2% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 12.0% 26.4% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $72,800 $119,600

Households, 2000 736,481 105,480,101 Persons per household, 2000 2.4 2.59 Median household income, 2007 $37,057 $50,740 Per capita money income, 1999 $16,477 $21,587 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 17.1% 13.0%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 40,566 7,601,160 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 583,196 119,917,165 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 4.5% 5.1% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 89,839 20,768,555 Total number of firms, 2002 113,087 22,974,655 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 1.3% 5.2% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 0.4% 0.9% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 1.1% 4.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 0.0% 0.1% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 0.6% 6.8% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 27.7% 28.2%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 18,911,332 3,916,136,712 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 10,924,279 4,634,755,112 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 16,747,900 3,056,421,997 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $9,277 $10,615 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 1,974,851 449,498,718 Building permits, 2007 4,795 1,398,414 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 17,066,594 2,536,629,405

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 24,077.73 3,537,438.44 Persons per square mile, 2000 75.1 79.6 FIPS Code 54 Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54000.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 2: People, businesses, and geography: Boone County

Information Boone County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 24,977 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -2.20% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 25,535 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.10% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 22.40% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 13.60% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 51.40% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 98.20% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.80% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.10% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.60% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.50% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 97.80% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 66.40% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.40% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.40% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 64.00% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 7.20% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 7,404 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 33.8 26.2

Housing units, 2007 11,811 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 78.90% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 4.40% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $63,700 $72,800

Households, 2000 10,291 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.47 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $35,654 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $14,453 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 18.20% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 354 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 6,614 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 19.80% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 749 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 1,076 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 31.60% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 156,269 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $6,088 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 9,623 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 11 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 190,438 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 502.98 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 50.8 75.1 FIPS Code 5 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Charleston, WV Metro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Boone County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54005.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 3: People, businesses, and geography: Clay County

Information Clay County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 10,075 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -2.50% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 10,330 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.30% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 22.70% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 15.10% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 50.40% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 98.00% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.80% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) Z 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) 0.00% Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 1.00% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.40% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 97.60% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 66.00% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.10% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 2.20% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 63.70% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 7.30% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 2,958 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 45 26.2

Housing units, 2007 4,980 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 79.20% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 2.70% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $55,600 $72,800

Households, 2000 4,020 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.55 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $28,630 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $12,021 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 23.80% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 110 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 1,348 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 10.40% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 408 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 556 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 S 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 36,474 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $3,508 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 1,316 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 14 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 72,662 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 342.4 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 30.2 75.1 FIPS Code 15 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Charleston, WV Metro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Clay County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54015.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 4: People, businesses, and geography: Fayette County

Information Fayette County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 46,341 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -2.60% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 47,579 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.00% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.10% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 15.90% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 50.10% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 92.80% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 5.10% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.30% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.60% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 1.10% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.80% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 92.10% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 63.70% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.80% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 2.00% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 68.60% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 10.70% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 12,445 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 28 26.2

Housing units, 2007 22,296 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 77.20% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 7.50% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $50,800 $72,800

Households, 2000 18,945 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.41 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $30,312 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $13,809 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 23.90% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 918 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 10,274 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 4.40% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 1,792 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 2,545 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 26.00% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 207,735 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 352,540 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $7,477 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 32,242 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 80 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 411,728 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 663.93 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 71.7 75.1 FIPS Code 19 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Oak Hill, WV Micro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Fayette County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54019.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 5: People, businesses, and geography: Kanawha County

Information Kanawha County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 191,018 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -4.50% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 200,076 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.00% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.30% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 16.50% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 52.00% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 89.30% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 7.80% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.40% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 1.10% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 1.30% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 1.40% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 88.20% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 62.70% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.40% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 3.10% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 80.00% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 20.60% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 44,009 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 21.9 26.2

Housing units, 2007 95,110 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 70.30% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 17.90% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $80,700 $72,800

Households, 2000 86,226 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.28 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $40,931 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $20,354 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 14.00% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 5,723 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 95,400 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 -1.40% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 9,955 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 13,785 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 S 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 2.00% 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 27.10% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 2,317,389 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 2,883,675 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 2,648,190 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $13,504 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 334,019 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 278 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 2,394,475 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 903.1 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 221.6 75.1 FIPS Code 39 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Charleston, WV Metro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Kanawha County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54039.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 6: People, businesses, and geography: Logan County

Information Logan County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 35,525 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -5.80% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 37,710 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.90% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.40% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 14.30% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 51.40% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 96.20% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 2.70% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.10% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.40% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.60% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.60% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 95.70% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 69.00% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.50% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.40% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 63.10% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 8.80% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 10,952 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 30.2 26.2

Housing units, 2007 17,383 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 76.80% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 8.30% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $62,500 $72,800

Households, 2000 14,880 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.5 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $32,251 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $14,102 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 22.20% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 748 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 10,281 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 10.30% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 1,272 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 1,940 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 43.00% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 81,263 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 143,786 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 432,841 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $11,695 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 29,221 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 4 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 356,864 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 454.21 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 83.1 75.1 FIPS Code 45 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Logan County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54045.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 7: People, businesses, and geography: McDowell County

Information McDowell County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 22,707 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -16.90% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 27,329 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.00% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.10% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 16.10% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 52.20% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 87.80% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 11.20% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.10% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.80% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.60% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 87.20% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 75.70% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.50% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.40% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 50.00% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 5.60% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 10,180 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 32.6 26.2

Housing units, 2007 13,625 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 80.10% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 5.40% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $22,600 $72,800

Households, 2000 11,169 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.42 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $21,903 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $10,174 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 34.70% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 338 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 2,950 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 -21.10% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 542 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 931 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 S 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 19.10% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 106,823 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $4,099 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 5,282 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 3 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 445,440 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 534.72 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 51.1 75.1 FIPS Code 47 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: McDowell County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54047.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 8: People, businesses, and geography: Mingo County

Information Mingo County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 26,352 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -6.70% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 28,253 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 6.70% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 23.00% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 12.80% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 51.60% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 96.30% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 2.40% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.30% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.80% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.50% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 95.90% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 72.10% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.30% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.60% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 59.60% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 7.30% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 8,971 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 29.6 26.2

Housing units, 2007 13,364 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 77.70% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 9.40% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $61,100 $72,800

Households, 2000 11,303 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.49 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $30,139 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $12,445 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 24.90% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 508 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 6,319 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 -7.10% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 911 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 1,415 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 29.90% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 46,429 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 124,854 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $4,502 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 10,930 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 0 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 261,305 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 422.61 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 66.8 75.1 FIPS Code 59 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Mingo County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54059.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 9: People, businesses, and geography: Nicholas County

Information Nicholas County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 26,137 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -1.60% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 26,562 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.50% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 20.60% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 16.60% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 51.00% 50.90% White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 98.70% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.30% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.60% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.60% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 98.10% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 68.30% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.60% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 2.20% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 70.00% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 9.80% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 7,103 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 28.9 26.2

Housing units, 2007 12,882 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 82.80% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 4.90% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $60,100 $72,800

Households, 2000 10,722 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.46 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $38,813 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $15,207 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 18.90% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 612 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 7,608 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 6.70% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 1,307 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 1,796 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 24.80% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 158,706 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 56,121 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 267,385 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $10,136 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 25,984 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 1 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 198,687 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 648.63 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 40.9 75.1 FIPS Code 67 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Nicholas County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54067.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 10: People, businesses, and geography: Raleigh County

Information Raleigh County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 79,357 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 0.20% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 79,220 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.70% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 20.50% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 16.00% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 50.50% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 89.90% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 8.20% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.90% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.80% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 1.10% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 88.80% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 62.40% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.20% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 3.60% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 72.00% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 12.70% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 19,035 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 26.3 26.2

Housing units, 2007 36,914 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 76.50% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 9.20% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $69,800 $72,800

Households, 2000 31,793 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.38 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $37,261 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $16,233 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 16.70% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 1,913 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 28,472 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 14.00% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 3,619 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 5,081 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 3.60% 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 2.20% 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 31.60% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 158,601 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 918,983 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $11,596 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 111,314 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 224 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 766,301 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 606.93 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 130.5 75.1 FIPS Code 81 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Beckley, WV Micro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Raleigh County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54081.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 11: People, businesses, and geography: Wayne County

Information Wayne County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 41,082 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -4.20% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 42,903 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.30% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 21.80% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 15.10% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 50.80% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 98.50% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.30% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.20% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.30% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.70% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.60% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 98.00% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 66.90% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.60% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.50% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 70.50% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 11.90% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 12,356 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 28.3 26.2

Housing units, 2007 19,571 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 78.10% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 6.90% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $70,900 $72,800

Households, 2000 17,239 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.48 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $36,298 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $14,906 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 20.30% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 585 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 7,325 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 -7.50% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 1,737 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 2,217 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 22.60% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) 304,587 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 128,372 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 216,673 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $5,106 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 14,915 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 60 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 316,777 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 505.79 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 84.8 75.1 FIPS Code 99 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Huntington‐Ashland, WV‐KY‐OH Metro Area Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Wayne County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54099.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

Table 12: People, businesses, and geography: Wyoming County

Information Wyoming County West Virginia

People Population, 2008 estimate 23,534 1,814,468 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 -8.50% 0.30% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 25,708 1,808,345 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007 5.50% 5.80% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007 20.50% 21.40% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007 14.50% 15.50% Female persons, percent, 2007 50.90% 51.00%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a) 98.30% 94.60% Black persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.90% 3.50% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.10% 0.20% Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a) 0.10% 0.70% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a) 0.00% Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007 0.50% 0.90% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b) 0.60% 1.10% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007 97.80% 93.60%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 75.20% 63.30% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 0.20% 1.10% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 1.50% 2.70% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 64.30% 75.20% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 7.10% 14.80% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 7,912 410,781 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 35.3 26.2

Housing units, 2007 11,840 882,685 Homeownership rate, 2000 83.30% 75.20% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 4.70% 12.00% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $47,400 $72,800

Households, 2000 10,454 736,481 Persons per household, 2000 2.45 2.4 Median household income, 2007 $30,762 $37,057 Per capita money income, 1999 $14,220 $16,477 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 23.50% 17.10%

Businesses Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 368 40,566 Private nonfarm employment, 2006 3,987 583,196 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006 -3.30% 4.50% Nonemployer establishments, 2006 756 89,839 Total number of firms, 2002 1,149 113,087 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.30% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.40% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 1.10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.00% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.60% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 25.30% 27.70%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA 18,911,332 Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D 10,924,279 Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 127,124 16,747,900 Retail sales per capita, 2002 $5,096 $9,277 Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 9,674 1,974,851 Building permits, 2007 1 4,795 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) 203,858 17,066,594

Geography Land area, 2000 (square miles) 500.88 24,077.73 Persons per square mile, 2000 51.3 75.1 FIPS Code 109 54 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None Source: US Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Wyoming County, West Virginia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54109.html. Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data. NA: Not available. D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. X: Not applicable. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards. Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown. F: Fewer than 100 firms.

2.2 Unemployment in West Virginia counties

Figure 1: June 2009 unemployment in West Virginia counties

Source: Copied from WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. Labor Market Information by West Virginia County, June 2009. Jul 17.

Table 13: West Virginia labor force statistics, annual and monthly comparison Civilian labor force Total employment Total unemployment Unemployment rate (%) June May June June May June June May June June May June County MTR? 09 09 08 09 09 08 09 09 08 09 09 08 Barbour N 6,580 6,700 6,660 5,880 6,080 6,350 700 620 310 10.6 9.3 4.6 Berkeley N 45,360 44,570 46,720 40,830 40,460 44,440 4,530 4,110 2,280 10 9.2 4.9 Boone Y 9,670 9,390 9,670 8,620 8,510 9,240 1,050 880 430 10.8 9.4 4.4 Braxton N 5,960 5,780 6,060 5,380 5,320 5,790 570 470 270 9.6 8.1 4.5 Brooke N 11,070 11,100 11,310 9,690 9,750 10,700 1,390 1,350 610 12.5 12.2 5.4 Cabell N 44,590 43,950 45,630 41,010 40,800 43,770 3,580 3,150 1,860 8 7.2 4.1 Calhoun N 2,860 2,800 2,800 2,430 2,410 2,640 430 390 160 15 13.8 5.6 Clay Y 3,570 3,460 3,570 3,120 3,080 3,340 450 390 230 12.7 11.2 6.3 Doddridge N 2,840 2,770 2,900 2,570 2,560 2,750 270 210 140 9.4 7.7 5 Fayette Y 18,410 17,830 18,560 16,520 16,170 17,720 1,890 1,650 840 10.3 9.3 4.5 Gilmer N 3,100 3,070 3,210 2,850 2,840 3,080 250 240 130 7.9 7.7 4 Grant N 5,160 5,110 5,310 4,580 4,670 5,050 570 440 270 11.1 8.7 5 Greenbrier N 15,250 14,920 15,530 13,730 13,440 14,750 1,530 1,480 790 10 9.9 5.1 Hampshire N 9,230 9,100 9,720 8,440 8,340 9,340 790 750 390 8.6 8.3 4 Hancock N 14,690 14,660 14,960 12,780 12,860 14,120 1,910 1,800 840 13 12.2 5.6 Hardy N 6,540 6,640 6,990 5,890 6,010 6,690 650 630 290 9.9 9.4 4.2 Harrison N 30,670 30,100 31,430 28,230 28,080 30,180 2,440 2,020 1,250 7.9 6.7 4 Jackson N 11,970 11,670 12,280 10,250 10,180 11,690 1,710 1,490 590 14.3 12.8 4.8 Jefferson N 24,250 24,200 25,320 22,250 22,430 24,320 2,010 1,770 1,000 8.3 7.3 4 Kanawha Y 91,530 89,600 94,130 84,560 83,500 90,680 6,970 6,100 3,450 7.6 6.8 3.7 Lewis N 7,460 7,320 7,520 6,810 6,740 7,210 650 580 310 8.7 7.9 4.1 Lincoln N 8,200 8,020 8,190 7,260 7,170 7,780 950 860 410 11.6 10.7 5 Logan Y 13,670 13,410 13,330 12,280 12,260 12,720 1,380 1,150 610 10.1 8.6 4.6 McDowell Y 7,800 7,550 7,410 6,660 6,580 6,940 1,140 970 480 14.6 12.9 6.4 Marion N 25,800 25,590 26,530 23,830 24,080 25,500 1,970 1,510 1,030 7.6 5.9 3.9 Marshall N 14,990 14,700 15,090 13,460 13,350 14,350 1,520 1,350 740 10.2 9.2 4.9 Mason N 10,340 10,100 10,280 8,870 8,820 9,570 1,470 1,280 720 14.3 12.7 7 Mercer N 25,160 24,730 25,610 23,210 23,110 24,550 1,950 1,620 1,060 7.8 6.5 4.1 Mineral N 13,190 13,180 13,740 12,070 12,250 13,110 1,120 940 630 8.5 7.1 4.6 Mingo Y 8,940 8,780 9,220 7,870 7,870 8,770 1,070 910 450 11.9 10.3 4.8 Monongalia N 46,420 47,400 47,790 43,710 45,200 46,230 2,710 2,200 1,570 5.8 4.6 3.3 Monroe N 5,920 5,770 6,020 5,430 5,330 5,750 490 440 270 8.2 7.6 4.5 Morgan N 6,930 6,820 7,180 6,250 6,190 6,800 680 630 380 9.9 9.2 5.3 Nicholas Y 11,070 10,640 10,940 9,950 9,700 10,420 1,120 940 520 10.1 8.8 4.7 Ohio N 21,220 20,870 21,490 19,310 19,150 20,580 1,900 1,720 910 9 8.2 4.2 Pendleton N 3,650 3,610 3,820 3,340 3,330 3,650 310 280 160 8.4 7.7 4.3 Pleasants N 3,220 3,070 3,230 2,800 2,770 3,030 420 290 200 13 9.6 6.1 Pocahontas N 3,520 3,470 3,490 3,010 2,880 3,230 520 590 260 14.7 17.1 7.3 Preston N 14,810 15,140 14,880 13,530 13,990 14,310 1,280 1,150 570 8.6 7.6 3.8 Putnam N 27,470 26,850 28,110 25,310 24,990 27,140 2,160 1,860 970 7.9 6.9 3.4 Raleigh Y 32,820 31,990 33,510 29,700 29,430 32,080 3,130 2,560 1,430 9.5 8 4.3 Randolph N 12,490 12,280 13,050 11,170 11,030 12,340 1,320 1,250 710 10.5 10.2 5.4 Ritchie N 4,570 4,430 4,670 4,080 4,000 4,420 490 430 250 10.7 9.7 5.3 Roane N 5,730 5,570 5,680 4,940 4,850 5,340 790 720 340 13.8 13 6 Summers N 4,720 4,580 4,890 4,280 4,210 4,660 440 370 230 9.3 8.1 4.7

Civilian labor force Total employment Total unemployment Unemployment rate (%) June May June June May June June May June June May June County MTR? 09 09 08 09 09 08 09 09 08 09 09 08 Taylor N 6,980 6,830 7,090 6,330 6,300 6,770 640 530 320 9.2 7.7 4.5 Tucker N 2,980 2,890 2,930 2,600 2,530 2,750 380 360 180 12.8 12.3 6.1 Tyler N 3,660 3,550 3,700 3,180 3,190 3,480 490 360 220 13.3 10.2 5.9 Upshur N 10,390 10,470 10,710 9,390 9,630 10,240 1,000 840 470 9.6 8 4.4 Wayne Y 17,380 17,160 17,790 15,840 15,760 16,910 1,540 1,400 880 8.8 8.2 5 Webster N 3,420 3,300 3,400 2,990 2,920 3,220 430 380 190 12.5 11.5 5.5 Wetzel N 6,380 6,390 6,390 5,470 5,660 5,940 910 730 450 14.3 11.4 7 Wirt N 2,610 2,520 2,540 2,200 2,180 2,380 400 350 150 15.5 13.8 6.1 Wood N 41,220 40,210 41,890 36,870 36,450 39,900 4,340 3,760 2,000 10.5 9.4 4.8 Wyoming Y 8,240 7,990 8,150 7,110 7,060 7,710 1,140 940 450 13.8 11.7 5.5 Statewide 806,600 794,600 823,000 730,700 728,400 786,400 75,900 66,200 36,600 9.4 8.3 4.4 Source: WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. West Virginia Labor Force Statistics by County. www.workforcewv.org/lmi/datarel/drcntylf.htm.

2.3 Wages in West Virginia counties

Table 14: West Virginia average annual wages by county, 2000‐2008 County MTR? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Barbour N $19,693 $20,344 $20,317 $23,420 $23,096 $23,324 $24,665 $26,728 $28,356 Berkeley N $27,964 $28,744 $29,922 $31,308 $32,175 $33,265 $34,688 $35,771 $37,848 Boone Y $35,634 $36,930 $38,157 $37,978 $40,560 $41,736 $44,333 $46,319 $49,665 Braxton N $20,843 $22,034 $22,627 $22,815 $24,530 $25,215 $26,285 $27,128 $28,756 Brooke N $29,658 $29,277 $29,304 $29,216 $33,092 $34,189 $33,065 $33,805 $35,427 Cabell N $26,472 $27,305 $28,045 $28,606 $29,402 $30,689 $32,087 $33,044 $35,034 Calhoun N $20,945 $22,636 $23,112 $23,988 $25,409 $25,136 $26,942 $28,182 $29,845 Clay Y $28,113 $29,688 $30,779 $28,780 $30,375 $30,918 $32,232 $39,634 $35,924 Doddridge N $20,067 $20,619 $21,624 $22,661 $23,606 $23,711 $24,889 $26,030 $27,609 Fayette Y $23,077 $24,130 $24,921 $25,180 $26,031 $26,610 $28,042 $29,360 $31,892 Gilmer N $21,135 $25,237 $23,423 $26,269 $27,056 $27,915 $28,908 $30,699 $32,590 Grant N $24,722 $30,938 $28,292 $31,247 $28,919 $31,610 $31,828 $36,476 $39,517 Greenbrier N $23,352 $23,856 $24,860 $25,368 $26,211 $26,963 $27,759 $29,307 $30,338 Hampshire N $20,945 $21,465 $22,127 $22,312 $23,419 $24,254 $25,434 $25,870 $26,941 Hancock N $30,978 $29,711 $30,247 $30,539 $30,051 $28,792 $29,673 $29,754 $31,520 Hardy N $21,138 $21,951 $22,967 $23,486 $25,149 $24,722 $25,057 $25,825 $26,448 Harrison N $27,070 $28,230 $29,005 $29,881 $31,635 $31,544 $33,586 $34,986 $37,370 Jackson N $27,434 $27,451 $27,725 $29,335 $30,301 $31,156 $32,390 $33,388 $35,028 Jefferson N $22,062 $23,550 $24,770 $25,618 $27,065 $28,454 $29,582 $29,879 $30,768 Kanawha Y $30,155 $31,579 $32,080 $32,694 $33,926 $35,104 $36,419 $38,036 $39,669 Lewis N $22,214 $23,296 $24,178 $24,996 $25,611 $26,659 $27,364 $29,093 $32,281 Lincoln N $21,305 $21,676 $22,483 $22,496 $23,745 $26,662 $28,738 $29,441 $32,186 Logan Y $25,480 $26,732 $27,804 $28,247 $29,534 $30,520 $32,507 $32,945 $36,085 McDowell Y $23,433 $25,539 $25,564 $25,925 $28,133 $30,181 $30,333 $32,144 $37,018 Marion N $25,617 $27,230 $28,011 $28,660 $29,777 $31,176 $32,846 $34,130 $35,999 Marshall N $32,742 $34,713 $34,879 $36,962 $37,877 $38,573 $39,439 $39,787 $41,966 Mason N $29,855 $32,454 $32,243 $31,517 $31,543 $32,537 $36,121 $36,710 $37,929 Mercer N $24,341 $25,190 $25,784 $26,238 $26,750 $27,244 $28,260 $28,829 $30,103 Mineral N $23,190 $24,483 $26,069 $27,058 $27,610 $28,225 $29,563 $31,157 $32,668 Mingo Y $30,641 $31,935 $31,388 $31,065 $32,158 $35,808 $38,185 $40,611 $44,723 Monongalia N $27,551 $28,746 $29,585 $30,702 $31,271 $32,144 $33,099 $34,675 $37,808 Monroe N $23,546 $24,821 $25,104 $25,481 $27,546 $27,583 $29,168 $29,649 $30,326 Morgan N $22,368 $21,931 $23,217 $23,485 $24,200 $24,168 $25,297 $27,928 $28,377 Nicholas Y $22,899 $24,281 $24,670 $25,040 $25,166 $26,553 $27,468 $29,652 $31,895 Ohio N $24,923 $25,876 $26,455 $27,294 $28,188 $29,421 $30,210 $30,711 $32,064 Pendleton N $23,009 $21,861 $22,429 $23,439 $24,135 $25,179 $26,311 $27,969 $30,193 Pleasants N $34,861 $34,879 $35,214 $35,940 $39,319 $37,728 $38,184 $39,036 $40,831 Pocahontas N $20,580 $20,555 $21,275 $22,270 $23,396 $23,899 $24,842 $25,637 $26,376 Preston N $22,047 $23,613 $24,252 $24,746 $25,433 $27,372 $29,124 $30,070 $32,327 Putnam N $29,850 $31,083 $32,538 $33,315 $35,237 $35,809 $38,056 $40,323 $42,015 Raleigh Y $25,740 $27,100 $27,507 $28,019 $29,368 $30,480 $31,885 $33,130 $35,430

County MTR? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Randolph N $21,310 $22,263 $23,037 $23,893 $24,786 $25,079 $26,534 $27,341 $27,993 Ritchie N $22,763 $23,650 $24,185 $24,684 $26,265 $26,539 $27,830 $29,088 $31,613 Roane N $21,576 $21,982 $22,016 $23,078 $24,103 $24,979 $25,740 $26,668 $29,854 Summers N $18,745 $20,103 $20,951 $21,394 $21,047 $21,833 $22,742 $24,032 $25,542 Taylor N $22,058 $22,492 $23,580 $23,954 $24,091 $23,556 $24,280 $25,594 $26,899 Tucker N $18,475 $19,057 $19,410 $20,146 $20,627 $21,638 $22,391 $22,698 $23,242 Tyler N $31,593 $31,826 $32,673 $32,622 $34,750 $35,673 $35,553 $35,809 $37,941 Upshur N $24,033 $25,112 $25,510 $25,917 $26,855 $27,758 $29,372 $30,626 $31,916 Wayne Y $26,445 $27,861 $29,161 $30,203 $32,336 $33,920 $35,162 $37,652 $40,488 Webster N $23,723 $24,410 $24,731 $24,386 $26,521 $28,169 $30,360 $31,694 $33,129 Wetzel N $20,734 $20,940 $21,438 $21,855 $21,772 $22,648 $23,639 $25,368 $25,386 Wirt N $18,253 $18,387 $19,692 $19,808 $20,929 $21,169 $22,082 $22,746 $23,707 Wood N $27,840 $28,287 $28,931 $29,346 $30,579 $30,757 $32,023 $32,833 $34,362 Wyoming Y $26,170 $27,229 $27,309 $27,608 $28,679 $31,903 $34,172 $35,549 $40,112 Statewide $26,890 $27,981 $28,615 $29,284 $30,383 $31,344 $32,724 $34,001 $35,985 Source:WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. West Virginia Average Annual Wages by County 2000-2008. www.workforcewv.org/lmi/EW2008/avwg0009.htm.

2.4 Coal employment categories, employees, and wages in West Virginia

Table 15: West Virginia coal‐related direct industrial employment, fourth quarter 2008

Mean Mean Occupation Number of hourly annual Occupation code Description employees wage wage

Make exact measurements and determine property boundaries. Provide data relevant to the shape, contour, gravitation, location, elevation, or dimension of land or land features on or near Surveyors 17-1022 the earth's surface for engineering, mapmaking, mining, land evaluation, construction, and other 60 $21.88 $45,510 purposes. Median W

Design, plan, or perform engineering duties in the prevention, control, and remediation of Environmental 17-2081 environmental health hazards utilizing various engineering disciplines. Work may include waste 20 $36.47 $75,858 Engineers treatment, site remediation, or pollution control technology.

Determine the location and plan the extraction of coal, metallic ores, nonmetallic minerals, and Mining and Geological building materials, such as stone and gravel. Work involves conducting preliminary surveys of Engineers, Including deposits or undeveloped mines and planning their development; examining deposits or mines to 17-2151 100 $33.01 $68,661 Mining Safety determine whether they can be worked at a profit; making geological and topographical surveys; Engineers evolving methods of mining best suited to character, type, and size of deposits; and supervising mining operations.

Apply theory and principles of environmental engineering to modify, test, and operate equipment Environmental and devices used in the prevention, control, and remediation of environmental pollution, including Engineering 17-3025 30 $19.58 $40,726 waste treatment and site remediation. May assist in the development of environmental pollution Technicians remediation devices under direction of engineer.

Engineering Technicians, Except 17-3029 All engineering technicians, except drafters, not listed separately. 40 $21.06 $43,805 Drafters, All Other

Perform surveying and mapping duties, usually under the direction of a surveyor, cartographer, or photogrammetrist to obtain data used for construction, mapmaking, boundary location, mining, Survey and Mapping or other purposes. May calculate mapmaking information and create maps from source data, 17-3031 10 $26.30 $54,716 Technicians such as surveying notes, aerial photography, satellite data, or other maps to show topographical features, political boundaries, and other features. May verify accuracy and completeness of topographical maps.

Study the composition, structure, and other physical aspects of the earth. May use geological, physics, and mathematics knowledge in exploration for oil, gas, minerals, or underground water; Geoscientists, Except or in waste disposal, land reclamation, or other environmental problems. May study the earth's Hydrologists and 19-2042 80 $50.89 $105,851 internal composition, atmospheres, oceans, and its magnetic, electrical, and gravitational forces. Geographers Include mineralogists, crystallographers, paleontologists, stratigraphers, geodesists, and seismologists.

Mean Mean Occupation Number of hourly annual Occupation code Description employees wage wage

Conduct chemical and physical laboratory tests to assist scientists in making qualitative and quantitative analyses of solids, liquids, and gaseous materials for purposes, such as research Chemical Technicians 19-4031 and development of new products or processes, quality control, maintenance of environmental 40 $18.05 $37,544 standards, and other work involving experimental, theoretical, or practical application of chemistry and related sciences.

Geological and Petroleum 19-4041 No description on file. 60 $18.77 $39,042 Technicians

Security Guards 33-9032 Guard, patrol, or monitor premises to prevent theft, violence, or infractions of rules. 50 $11.64 $24,211

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Construction 47-1011 Directly supervise and coordinate activities of construction or extraction workers. 1,350 $35.52 $73,882 Trades and Extraction Workers

Perform tasks involving physical labor at building, highway, and heavy construction projects, tunnel and shaft excavations, and demolition sites. May operate hand and power tools of all types: air hammers, earth tampers, cement mixers, small mechanical hoists, surveying and Construction Laborers 47-2061 270 $13.48 $28,038 measuring equipment, and a variety of other equipment and instruments. May clean and prepare sites, dig trenches, set braces to support the sides of excavations, erect scaffolding, clean up rubble and debris, and remove asbestos, lead, and other hazardous waste materials.

Operate equipment used for applying concrete, asphalt, or other materials to road beds, parking Paving, Surfacing and lots, or airport runways and taxiways, or equipment used for tamping gravel, dirt, or other Tamping equipment 47-2071 20 $22.59 $46,987 materials. Include concrete and asphalt paving machine operators, form tampers, tamping operators machine operators, and stone spreader operators.

Operate one or several types of power construction equipment, such as motor graders, Operating Engineers bulldozers, scrapers, compressors, pumps, derricks, shovels, tractors, or front-end loaders to 47-2073 2,240 $19.46 $40,477 and other construction excavate, move, and grade earth, erect structures, or pour concrete or other hard surface pavement. May repair and maintain equipment in addition to other duties.

Install, maintain, and repair electrical wiring, equipment, and fixtures. Ensure that work is in Electricians 47-2111 accordance with relevant codes. May install or service street lights, intercom systems, or 1,270 $24.49 $50,939 electrical control systems.

Service Unit Operate equipment to increase oil flow from producing wells or to remove stuck pipe, casing, Operators: oil, gas 47-5013 tools, or other obstructions from drilling wells. May also perform similar services in mining 640 $18.74 $38,979 and mining exploration operations. Include fishing-tool technicians.

Operate a variety of drills--such as rotary, churn, and pneumatic--to tap sub-surface water and Earth Drillers, Except salt deposits, to remove core samples during mineral exploration or soil testing, and to facilitate 47-5021 310 $22.50 $46,800 Oil and Gas the use of explosives in mining or construction. May use explosives. Include horizontal and earth boring machine operators.

Mean Mean Occupation Number of hourly annual Occupation code Description employees wage wage

Explosives Workers, Place and detonate explosives to demolish structures or to loosen, remove, or displace earth, Ordinance Handling 47-5031 rock, or other materials. May perform specialized handling, storage, and accounting procedures. 240 $20.81 $43,285 Experts, and Blasters Include seismograph shooters.

Continuous Mining Operate self-propelled mining machines that rip coal, metal and nonmetal ores, rock, stone, or 47-5041 2,000 $23.09 $48,027 Machine Operators sand from the face and load it onto conveyors or into shuttle cars in a continuous operation.

Operate machinery--such as longwall shears, plows, and cutting machines--to cut or channel Mine Cutting and along the face or seams of coal mines, stone quarries, or other mining surfaces to facilitate Channeling Machine 47-5042 2,030 $20.98 $43,638 blasting, separating, or removing minerals or materials from mines or from the earth's surface. Operators Include shale planers.

Mining Machine 47-5049 All mining machine operators not listed separately. 80 $19.56 $40,685 Operators, All Other

Roof bolters, mining 47-5061 Operate machinery to install roof support bolts in underground mine. 1,100 $23.35 $48,568

Help extraction craft workers, such as earth drillers, blasters and explosives workers, derrick Helpers -- Extraction 47-5081 operators, and mining machine operators, by performing duties of lesser skill. Duties include 1,610 $17.96 $37,357 supplying equipment or cleaning work area.

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Mechanics, 49-1011 Operate machinery to install roof support bolts in underground mine. 370 $30.85 $64,168 Installers, and Repairers

Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related 49-2092 Repair, maintain, or install electric motors, wiring, or switches. 110 $20.67 $42,994 Repairers

Bus and Truck Diagnose, adjust, repair, or overhaul trucks, buses, and all types of diesel engines. Include Mechanics and Diesel 49-3031 60 $15.45 $32,136 mechanics working primarily with automobile diesel engines. Engine Specialists

Mobile Heavy Diagnose, adjust, repair, or overhaul mobile mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment, Equipment 49-3042 such as cranes, bulldozers, graders, and conveyors, used in construction, logging, and surface 540 $19.91 $41,413 Mechanics, Except mining. Engines

Control and Valve Installers and Install, repair, and maintain mechanical regulating and controlling devices, such as electric 49-9012 40 $14.63 $30,430 Repairers, Except meters, gas regulators, thermostats, safety and flow valves, and other mechanical governors. Mechanical Door

Industrial Machinery Repair, install, adjust, or maintain industrial production and processing machinery or refinery and 49-9041 660 $21.26 $44,221 Mechanics pipeline distribution systems.

Mean Mean Occupation Number of hourly annual Occupation code Description employees wage wage

Perform work involving the skills of two or more maintenance or craft occupations to keep Maintenance and machines, mechanical equipment, or the structure of an establishment in repair. Duties may Repair Workers, 49-9042 involve pipe fitting; boiler making; insulating; welding; machining; carpentry; repairing electrical or 1,070 $19.15 $39,832 General mechanical equipment; installing, aligning, and balancing new equipment; and repairing buildings, floors, or stairs.

Maintenance Workers, 49-9043 Lubricate machinery, change parts, or perform other routine machinery maintenance. 230 $21.28 $44,262 Machinery

Help installation, maintenance, and repair workers in maintenance, parts replacement, and repair Helpers--Installation, of vehicles, industrial machinery, and electrical and electronic equipment. Perform duties, such Maintenance, and 49-9098 70 $11.95 $24,856 as furnishing tools, materials, and supplies to other workers; cleaning work area, machines, and Repair Workers tools; and holding materials or tools for other workers.

First-Line Supervise and coordinate the activities of production and operating workers, such as inspectors, Supervisors/Managers 51-1011 precision workers, machine setters and operators, assemblers, fabricators, and plant and system 150 $26.55 $55,224 of Production and operators. Exclude team or work leaders. Operating Workers

Welders, Cutters, Use hand-welding, flame-cutting, hand soldering, or brazing equipment to weld or join metal 51-4121 330 $18.73 $38,958 Solderers and Brazers components or to fill holes, indentations, or seams of fabricated metal products.

First-Line Supervisors/Managers 53-1021 Supervise and coordinate the activities of helpers, laborers, or material movers. 100 $32.30 $67,184 of Helpers, Laborers and Material Movers

First-Line Supervisors/Managers Directly supervise and coordinate activities of transportation and material-moving machine and of Transportation and 53-1031 240 $29.97 $62,338 vehicle operators and helpers. Material-Moving and Vehicle Operators

Drive a tractor-trailer combination or a truck with a capacity of at least 26,000 GVW, to transport Truck Drivers, Heavy and deliver goods, livestock, or materials in liquid, loose, or packaged form. May be required to 53-3032 720 $17.46 $36,317 and Tractor-Trailer unload truck. May require use of automated routing equipment. Requires commercial drivers' license.

Control or tend conveyors or conveyor systems that move materials or products to and from Conveyor Operators 53-7011 stockpiles, processing stations, departments, or vehicles. May control speed and routing of 260 $20.56 $42,765 and Tenders materials or products.

Crane and Tower Operate mechanical boom and cable or tower and cable equipment to lift and move materials, 53-7021 10 $18.46 $38,397 Operators machines, or products in many directions.

Excavating and Operate or tend machinery equipped with scoops, shovels, or buckets, to excavate and load Loading Machine and 53-7032 1,090 $21.72 $45,178 loose materials. Dragline Operators

Mean Mean Occupation Number of hourly annual Occupation code Description employees wage wage

Loading Machine Operate underground loading machine to load coal, ore, or rock into shuttle or mine car or onto Operators, 53-7033 conveyors. Loading equipment may include power shovels, hoisting engines equipped with 170 $21.63 $44,990 Underground Mining cable-drawn scraper or scoop, or machines equipped with gathering arms and conveyor.

Industrial Truck and Operate industrial trucks or tractors equipped to move materials around a warehouse, storage 53-7051 360 $19.25 $40,040 Tractor Operators yard, factory, construction site, or similar location.

Laborers and Freight, Manually move freight, stock, or other materials or perform other unskilled general labor. Include Stock and Material 53-7062 1,500 $15.53 $32,302 all unskilled manual laborers not elsewhere classified. Movers

Machine Feeders and Feed materials into or remove materials from machines or equipment that is automatic or tended 53-7063 20 $12.14 $25,251 Offbearers by other workers.

Gas Compressor and Operate steam, gas, electric motor, or internal combustion engine driven compressors. Transmit, Gas Pumping Station 53-7071 110 $17.00 $35,360 compress, or recover gases, such as butane, nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural gas. Operators

Pump Operators, Tend, control, or operate power-driven, stationary, or portable pumps and manifold systems to Except Wellhead 53-7072 transfer gases, oil, other liquids, slurries, or powdered materials to and from various vessels and 50 $15.93 $33,134 Pumpers processes.

Operate diesel or electric-powered shuttle car in underground mine to transport materials from Shuttle Car Operators 53-7111 830 $21.27 $44,242 working face to mine cars or conveyor.

Load and unload chemicals and bulk solids, such as coal, sand, and grain into or from tank cars, Tank Car, Truck and 53-7172 trucks, or ships using material moving equipment. May perform a variety of other tasks relating to 30 $22.05 $45,864 Ship Loaders shipment of products. May gauge or sample shipping tanks and test them for leaks.

Total 22,770 Source: WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. Comparative Occupational Wages 2008 (4th Quarter). www.workforcewv.org/lmi/ow2008/sector/TOC001.htm

Table 16: West Virginia coal mining employment figures from various sources Direct coal mining Publication employment Surface Underground Year WorkForce West Virginia 22,930 N/A N/A 2008 West Virginia Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training 18,975 5,601 13,375 2008 West Virginia Coal Association 19,213 6,154 13,053 2007 Energy Information Administration 20,049 6,608 13,441 2007 Sources: WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. Occupational Employment and Wages: West Virginia Statewide. www.workforcewv.org/lmi/ow2008/sector/TOC001.htm; West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health Safety and Training. 2009. WV Coal Production & Employment by Month 2008. www.wvminesafety.org/month2008.htm;West Virginia Coal Association. Coal Facts 2008. www.wvcoal.com/docs/coalfacts_08.pdf; Energy Information Administration. 2008. Average Number o f Employees by State and Mine Type. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table18.html. Note: Workforce WV coal employment data may include some contractors. The information was collected more for the purpose of showing what types of jobs are directly related to the mining process.

2.5 Labor and unemployment across CAPP states

Table 17: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for West Virginia counties BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Barbour N WV 6,692 6,372 320 4.8 10.6 23.1 $28,826 Berkeley N WV 45,545 43,404 2,141 4.7 10.0 10.1 $52,566 Boone Y WV 9,398 9,040 358 3.8 10.8 18.2 $35,654 Braxton N WV 5,878 5,582 296 5.0 9.6 22.3 $31,616 Brooke N WV 11,062 10,442 620 5.6 12.5 12.2 $39,601 Cabell N WV 45,023 43,326 1,697 3.8 8.0 19.3 $33,265 Calhoun N WV 2,767 2,582 185 6.7 15.0 22.1 $27,791 Clay Y WV 3,482 3,267 215 6.2 12.7 23.8 $28,630 Doddridge N WV 2,828 2,694 134 4.7 9.4 17.8 $34,145 Fayette Y WV 17,978 17,164 814 4.5 10.3 23.9 $30,312 Gilmer N WV 3,085 2,969 116 3.8 7.9 22.8 $34,355 Grant N WV 5,237 4,968 269 5.1 11.1 14.9 $36,361 Greenbrier N WV 15,095 14,287 808 5.4 10.0 17.9 $33,163 Hampshire N WV 9,443 9,047 396 4.2 8.6 16.3 $36,217 Hancock N WV 14,624 13,779 845 5.8 13.0 12.7 $39,378 Hardy N WV 6,829 6,522 307 4.5 9.9 12.9 $37,336 Harrison N WV 30,725 29,549 1,176 3.8 7.9 18.8 $38,063 Jackson N WV 11,901 11,309 592 5.0 14.3 15.7 $40,978 Jefferson N WV 24,699 23,781 918 3.7 8.3 8.3 $61,219 Kanawha Y WV 91,865 88,686 3,179 3.5 7.6 14.0 $40,931 Lewis N WV 7,346 7,046 300 4.1 8.7 18.7 $34,223 Lincoln N WV 7,979 7,610 369 4.6 11.6 25.2 $30,694 Logan Y WV 13,103 12,571 532 4.1 10.1 22.2 $32,251 McDowell Y WV 7,205 6,787 418 5.8 14.6 34.7 $21,903 Marion N WV 26,142 25,220 922 3.5 7.6 16.0 $38,000 Marshall N WV 14,831 14,094 737 5.0 10.2 16.6 $33,804 Mason N WV 10,005 9,313 692 6.9 14.3 17.9 $34,635 Mercer N WV 25,034 24,047 987 3.9 7.8 21.8 $31,898 Mineral N WV 13,415 12,813 602 4.5 8.5 15.5 $35,929 Mingo Y WV 8,994 8,619 375 4.2 11.9 24.9 $30,139 Monongalia N WV 48,189 46,901 1,288 2.7 5.8 16.4 $40,889 Monroe N WV 5,863 5,608 255 4.3 8.2 14.8 $35,034 Morgan N WV 7,005 6,643 362 5.2 9.9 10.9 $44,162 Nicholas Y WV 10,620 10,141 479 4.5 10.1 18.9 $38,813 Ohio N WV 21,073 20,218 855 4.1 9.0 16.9 $38,757 Pendleton N WV 3,692 3,535 157 4.3 8.4 13.8 $36,019 Pleasants N WV 3,130 2,951 179 5.7 13.0 13.4 $40,539 Pocahontas N WV 3,583 3,329 254 7.1 14.7 15.7 $31,832 Preston N WV 15,095 14,518 577 3.8 8.6 16.5 $35,567

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Putnam N WV 27,429 26,544 885 3.2 7.9 10.2 $49,713 Raleigh Y WV 32,547 31,281 1,266 3.9 9.5 16.7 $37,261 Randolph N WV 12,741 12,060 681 5.3 10.5 19.1 $33,472 Ritchie N WV 4,503 4,259 244 5.4 10.7 17.1 $34,329 Roane N WV 5,503 5,155 348 6.3 13.8 22.8 $30,175 Summers N WV 4,644 4,417 227 4.9 9.3 24.7 $27,021 Taylor N WV 6,929 6,630 299 4.3 9.2 18.0 $34,804 Tucker N WV 2,893 2,711 182 6.3 12.8 16.4 $32,755 Tyler N WV 3,594 3,372 222 6.2 13.3 18.7 $35,271 Upshur N WV 10,676 10,235 441 4.1 9.6 20.3 $34,687 Wayne Y WV 17,541 16,739 802 4.6 8.8 20.3 $36,298 Webster N WV 3,274 3,096 178 5.4 12.5 25.2 $27,521 Wetzel N WV 6,282 5,839 443 7.1 14.3 16.4 $36,397 Wirt N WV 2,461 2,316 145 5.9 15.5 18.7 $36,850 Wood N WV 40,700 38,810 1,890 4.6 10.5 16.4 $39,910 Wyoming Y WV 7,978 7,607 371 4.7 13.8 23.5 $30,762 Statewide WV 806,155 771,805 34,350 4.4 9.4 17.1 $37,057 Sources: WorkForce West Virginia. 2009. "West Virginia Labor Force Statistics by County. www.wvbep.org/bep/lmi/datarel/drcntylf.htm. (2009 June unemployment rates); Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages. www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. (2008 employment data); US Census Bureau. 2009. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Estimates for West Virginia Counties, 2007. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi. (2007 poverty data).

Table 18: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Kentucky counties BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Adair N KY 8,999 8,383 616 6.8 11.4 21.4 $32,643 Allen N KY 8,483 7,888 595 7.0 15.1 18.1 $36,283 Anderson N KY 10,944 10,239 705 6.4 10.1 9.3 $54,819 Ballard N KY 4,201 3,941 260 6.2 9.1 15.9 $39,118 Barren N KY 19,454 18,249 1,205 6.2 12.6 17.8 $38,817 Bath N KY 5,068 4,613 455 9.0 16.0 23.9 $31,740 Bell Y KY 9,512 8,647 865 9.1 12.3 28.8 $23,528 Boone N KY 62,195 58,788 3,407 5.5 9.2 6.2 $66,690 Bourbon N KY 9,708 9,145 563 5.8 9.0 16.1 $41,819 Boyd N KY 22,873 21,513 1,360 5.9 8.8 16.4 $39,640 Boyle N KY 12,696 11,830 866 6.8 11.7 15.9 $41,739 Bracken N KY 4,299 3,990 309 7.2 12.2 15.4 $41,581 Breathitt Y KY 5,643 5,231 412 7.3 10.1 30.0 $25,577 Breckinridge N KY 9,272 8,577 695 7.5 12.2 17.2 $36,621 Bullitt N KY 39,303 36,533 2,770 7.0 11.0 9.9 $49,861 Butler N KY 5,519 5,080 439 8.0 15.0 18.2 $35,676 Caldwell N KY 6,726 6,283 443 6.6 10.4 17.8 $38,009 Calloway N KY 17,817 16,772 1,045 5.9 8.2 17.5 $36,262 Campbell N KY 44,871 42,163 2,708 6.0 9.7 10.0 $51,383 Carlisle N KY 2,269 2,118 151 6.7 8.7 15.7 $36,151 Carroll N KY 5,638 5,216 422 7.5 12.4 15.2 $42,058 Carter N KY 13,415 12,302 1,113 8.3 12.7 19.3 $32,281 Casey N KY 7,194 6,737 457 6.4 10.5 23.6 $27,366 Christian N KY 29,403 26,945 2,458 8.4 11.7 19.0 $37,632 Clark N KY 17,370 16,269 1,101 6.3 10.5 14.8 $46,190 Clay N KY 6,862 6,153 709 10.3 14.1 41.9 $20,999 Clinton N KY 4,729 4,419 310 6.6 9.8 24.1 $25,677 Crittenden N KY 4,039 3,774 265 6.6 11.3 20.1 $33,804 Cumberland N KY 2,939 2,703 236 8.0 13.7 24.0 $26,584 Daviess N KY 47,582 44,849 2,733 5.7 9.7 15.3 $42,586 Edmonson N KY 5,382 4,976 406 7.5 13.4 17.3 $34,449 Elliott N KY 3,167 2,901 266 8.4 12.8 27.4 $27,215 Estill N KY 6,157 5,670 487 7.9 12.7 26.3 $28,797 Fayette N KY 151,379 144,068 7,311 4.8 7.7 15.9 $46,726 Fleming N KY 6,515 6,044 471 7.2 12.7 19.4 $33,815 Floyd Y KY 15,234 14,201 1,033 6.8 10.9 32.9 $26,293 Franklin N KY 24,840 23,390 1,450 5.8 9.0 13.6 $48,025 Fulton N KY 2,675 2,465 210 7.9 13.5 29.4 $28,749 Gallatin N KY 3,950 3,671 279 7.1 12.7 15.3 $42,143 Garrard N KY 7,627 7,125 502 6.6 12.4 16.8 $40,653 Grant N KY 12,751 11,855 896 7.0 12.6 15.6 $42,126 Graves N KY 15,869 14,760 1,109 7.0 10.3 16.5 $36,345 Grayson N KY 11,228 10,098 1,130 10.1 14.1 19.7 $32,905

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Green N KY 5,573 5,139 434 7.8 12.6 17.2 $31,546 Greenup N KY 17,533 16,424 1,109 6.3 9.4 15.2 $40,642 Hancock N KY 4,222 3,975 247 5.9 13.5 13.7 $47,558 Hardin N KY 47,757 44,770 2,987 6.3 10.5 11.2 $47,958 Harlan Y KY 10,046 9,137 909 9.0 11.1 29.3 $25,939 Harrison N KY 9,376 8,788 588 6.3 11.8 14.2 $41,423 Hart N KY 8,290 7,746 544 6.6 10.2 23.3 $30,604 Henderson Y KY 22,804 21,391 1,413 6.2 11.3 12.7 $41,692 Henry N KY 7,854 7,364 490 6.2 10.7 14.6 $44,209 Hickman N KY 2,089 1,939 150 7.2 9.1 18.1 $37,001 Hopkins N KY 23,023 21,295 1,728 7.5 9.6 18.2 $36,611 Jackson N KY 4,128 3,656 472 11.4 17.4 34.1 $25,653 Jefferson N KY 358,176 335,398 22,778 6.4 10.3 14.6 $43,677 Jessamine N KY 22,907 21,643 1,264 5.5 9.1 14.0 $47,324 Johnson N KY 9,546 8,884 662 6.9 10.9 24.4 $32,706 Kenton N KY 84,276 79,251 5,025 6.0 10.0 12.9 $50,734 Knott Y KY 6,316 5,892 424 6.7 10.7 31.7 $27,999 Knox N KY 12,818 11,833 985 7.7 11.8 31.1 $24,881 Larue N KY 7,012 6,550 462 6.6 12.0 15.1 $39,435 Laurel Y KY 26,667 24,921 1,746 6.5 10.2 22.0 $33,244 Lawrence Y KY 5,858 5,349 509 8.7 12.6 25.3 $29,399 Lee N KY 2,699 2,499 200 7.4 12.1 34.9 $24,617 Leslie Y KY 3,536 3,236 300 8.5 13.1 31.0 $26,114 Letcher Y KY 8,783 8,176 607 6.9 10.3 27.0 $29,415 Lewis N KY 5,749 5,210 539 9.4 14.6 28.9 $26,534 Lincoln N KY 10,631 9,831 800 7.5 12.3 20.3 $32,566 Livingston N KY 4,812 4,520 292 6.1 9.6 13.5 $38,732 Logan N KY 12,519 11,722 797 6.4 11.4 16.4 $38,323 Lyon N KY 3,324 3,070 254 7.6 12.3 15.0 $40,082 McCracken N KY 31,462 29,647 1,815 5.8 8.6 14.6 $40,899 McCreary N KY 5,776 5,220 556 9.6 14.1 35.5 $24,293 McLean N KY 4,638 4,308 330 7.1 10.5 16.0 $37,866 Madison N KY 42,768 40,402 2,366 5.5 9.6 18.7 $39,842 Magoffin N KY 4,242 3,776 466 11.0 18.0 31.6 $26,150 Marion N KY 10,403 9,734 669 6.4 13.1 17.8 $38,048 Marshall N KY 14,728 13,787 941 6.4 10.2 12.5 $41,497 Martin Y KY 3,448 3,180 268 7.8 11.2 35.8 $25,841 Mason N KY 8,985 8,457 528 5.9 10.8 19.1 $38,035 Meade N KY 11,758 10,857 901 7.7 12.5 14.4 $45,490 Menifee N KY 2,643 2,384 259 9.8 14.7 27.2 $28,928 Mercer N KY 10,616 9,953 663 6.2 11.6 12.9 $49,529 Metcalfe N KY 4,435 4,124 311 7.0 14.5 23.8 $30,827 Monroe N KY 4,781 4,379 402 8.4 14.6 25.2 $28,266 Montgomery N KY 12,307 11,393 914 7.4 12.3 19.3 $38,870 Morgan N KY 4,949 4,463 486 9.8 14.3 27.1 $28,514 Muhlenberg Y KY 13,567 12,420 1,147 8.5 11.3 20.0 $34,580 Nelson N KY 21,545 19,954 1,591 7.4 12.9 11.3 $46,605

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Nicholas N KY 3,100 2,870 230 7.4 12.2 19.4 $36,080 Ohio N KY 12,634 11,823 811 6.4 10.7 19.4 $38,710 Oldham N KY 27,659 26,099 1,560 5.6 8.3 6.0 $73,632 Owen N KY 5,306 4,960 346 6.5 10.9 15.3 $41,246 Owsley N KY 1,522 1,398 124 8.1 11.2 44.4 $21,189 Pendleton N KY 7,424 6,856 568 7.7 13.1 15.3 $43,822 Perry Y KY 11,152 10,378 774 6.9 11.3 31.4 $30,089 Pike Y KY 25,741 24,229 1,512 5.9 9.9 20.8 $32,382 Powell N KY 5,475 5,000 475 8.7 15.7 25.6 $31,228 Pulaski N KY 27,419 25,579 1,840 6.7 10.2 21.7 $32,368 Robertson N KY 987 926 61 6.2 10.6 22.3 $34,719 Rockcastle N KY 7,262 6,726 536 7.4 14.3 26.8 $29,235 Rowan N KY 12,457 11,711 746 6.0 9.7 24.5 $34,278 Russell N KY 8,383 7,772 611 7.3 11.9 22.3 $28,342 Scott N KY 22,425 21,194 1,231 5.5 10.1 9.4 $57,895 Shelby N KY 21,388 20,147 1,241 5.8 9.6 13.3 $52,871 Simpson N KY 9,466 8,853 613 6.5 13.8 13.9 $43,432 Spencer N KY 9,017 8,340 677 7.5 10.5 7.9 $59,939 Taylor N KY 13,835 13,002 833 6.0 10.7 17.1 $35,012 Todd N KY 5,244 4,866 378 7.2 12.2 18.7 $39,375 Trigg N KY 6,255 5,761 494 7.9 16.2 17.0 $41,286 Trimble N KY 4,383 4,062 321 7.3 11.9 14.5 $43,994 Union N KY 7,660 7,152 508 6.6 12.2 23.1 $40,711 Warren N KY 58,058 54,941 3,117 5.4 10.3 18.0 $42,303 Washington N KY 5,461 5,065 396 7.3 12.9 14.6 $40,614 Wayne N KY 8,605 7,900 705 8.2 13.9 27.0 $28,154 Webster N KY 6,517 6,103 414 6.4 9.7 13.2 $39,923 Whitley N KY 15,316 14,177 1,139 7.4 11.7 27.7 $27,424 Wolfe N KY 2,309 2,077 232 10.0 13.1 36.7 $24,749 Woodford N KY 13,283 12,652 631 4.8 7.8 10.6 $56,840 Statewide KY 2,042,915 1,911,240 131,675 6.4 10.9 17.2 $40,299 Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows. http://stats.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm. (2009 June unemployment rates); Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages. www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. (2008 employment data); US Census Bureau. 2009. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Estimates for Kentucky Counties, 2007. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi. (2007 poverty data).

Table 19: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Virginia counties BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Accomack N VA 19,335 18,375 960 5.0 6.3 16.8 $36,616 Albemarle N VA 52,304 50,746 1,558 3.0 5.3 8.5 $63,619 Alleghany N VA 7,034 6,654 380 5.4 10.5 11.9 $41,530 Amelia N VA 6,722 6,414 308 4.6 8.3 9.1 $52,421 Amherst N VA 15,928 15,263 665 4.2 7.9 12.2 $43,890 Appomattox N VA 7,177 6,849 328 4.6 7.8 12.6 $41,089 Arlington N VA 134,483 131,141 3,342 2.5 4.5 6.5 $92,345 Augusta N VA 38,580 37,197 1,383 3.6 6.9 7.2 $50,887 Bath N VA 2,938 2,822 116 3.9 6.5 8.5 $42,316 Bedford N VA 36,015 34,730 1,285 3.6 6.7 8.9 $53,823 Bland N VA 3,532 3,363 169 4.8 7.7 13.5 $38,175 Botetourt N VA 17,632 17,050 582 3.3 6.7 6.2 $58,744 Brunswick N VA 7,165 6,687 478 6.7 11.4 21.3 $35,160 Buchanan Y VA 8,975 8,520 455 5.1 9.6 21.7 $28,922 Buckingham N VA 7,328 6,967 361 4.9 8.5 19.3 $36,315 Campbell N VA 27,926 26,802 1,124 4.0 7.7 11.6 $43,641 Caroline N VA 14,143 13,448 695 4.9 8.7 9.2 $51,498 Carroll N VA 14,231 13,266 965 6.8 11.2 13.9 $35,823 Charles City N VA 3,875 3,678 197 5.1 9.7 10.6 $48,113 Charlotte N VA 5,517 5,188 329 6.0 9.5 18.1 $34,271 Chesterfield N VA 168,354 162,098 6,256 3.7 7.1 5.8 $69,583 Clarke N VA 8,223 7,941 282 3.4 6.2 6.3 $64,149 Craig N VA 2,582 2,477 105 4.1 7.6 10.3 $48,319 Culpeper N VA 21,162 20,143 1,019 4.8 8.2 8.3 $60,341 Cumberland N VA 4,695 4,467 228 4.9 7.4 14.9 $38,953 Dickenson Y VA 6,043 5,695 348 5.8 9.8 21.3 $29,320 Dinwiddie N VA 13,059 12,458 601 4.6 8.3 11.0 $47,395 Essex N VA 5,686 5,390 296 5.2 8.0 12.1 $43,637 Fairfax N VA 595,805 578,895 16,910 2.8 4.9 4.9 $104,984 Fauquier N VA 37,921 36,649 1,272 3.4 5.4 5.7 $81,404 Floyd N VA 7,257 6,936 321 4.4 7.7 12.9 $39,478 Fluvanna N VA 14,095 13,626 469 3.3 6.1 7.0 $57,038 Franklin N VA 26,957 25,642 1,315 4.9 8.5 11.5 $45,238 Frederick N VA 41,015 39,261 1,754 4.3 8.1 6.6 $64,192 Giles N VA 8,381 7,920 461 5.5 9.6 11.4 $41,186 Gloucester N VA 20,856 20,120 736 3.5 6.4 8.4 $56,123 Goochland N VA 11,291 10,911 380 3.4 7.2 8.5 $74,747 Grayson N VA 7,311 6,834 477 6.5 11.8 17.6 $31,155 Greene N VA 10,668 10,314 354 3.3 6.0 7.4 $58,476 Greensville N VA 4,477 4,229 248 5.5 8.8 19.9 $37,509 Halifax N VA 15,953 14,851 1,102 6.9 12.0 18.6 $32,490 Hanover N VA 55,566 53,640 1,926 3.5 6.9 5.1 $75,046 Henrico N VA 164,967 158,876 6,091 3.7 7.5 8.5 $58,194

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Henry N VA 25,966 23,862 2,104 8.1 15.2 16.1 $35,349 Highland N VA 1,164 1,105 59 5.1 7.6 12.8 $36,521 Isle of Wight N VA 18,835 18,129 706 3.7 6.2 8.3 $58,840 James City N VA 31,715 30,694 1,021 3.2 5.3 5.7 $70,487 King and Queen N VA 3,388 3,230 158 4.7 7.8 12.1 $43,191 King George N VA 9,692 9,199 493 5.1 7.9 6.2 $68,824 King William N VA 8,600 8,271 329 3.8 7.4 6.3 $62,052 Lancaster N VA 5,626 5,305 321 5.7 9.9 12.9 $42,392 Lee Y VA 10,032 9,504 528 5.3 7.4 22.9 $29,365 Loudoun N VA 168,178 163,400 4,778 2.8 5.0 3.0 $107,200 Louisa N VA 16,467 15,758 709 4.3 8.0 9.7 $52,514 Lunenburg N VA 5,604 5,269 335 6.0 10.3 19.3 $33,777 Madison N VA 7,507 7,225 282 3.8 6.4 9.8 $50,135 Mathews N VA 4,494 4,332 162 3.6 5.6 8.1 $54,431 Mecklenburg N VA 13,701 12,798 903 6.6 12.2 16.0 $36,266 Middlesex N VA 5,173 4,975 198 3.8 6.8 12.2 $45,583 Montgomery N VA 45,523 43,660 1,863 4.1 7.1 19.9 $42,029 Nelson N VA 8,074 7,780 294 3.6 6.6 11.4 $46,001 New Kent N VA 9,555 9,202 353 3.7 7.2 5.3 $68,437 Northampton N VA 6,173 5,834 339 5.5 8.5 20.8 $33,950 Northumberland N VA 5,922 5,582 340 5.7 8.7 13.6 $45,085 Nottoway N VA 6,670 6,304 366 5.5 8.4 19.9 $37,276 Orange N VA 15,730 15,007 723 4.6 7.8 8.6 $53,238 Page N VA 11,820 10,988 832 7.0 11.2 12.2 $40,295 Patrick N VA 9,302 8,692 610 6.6 12.6 15.0 $33,583 Pittsylvania N VA 31,221 29,054 2,167 6.9 11.8 12.1 $38,519 Powhatan N VA 14,507 14,017 490 3.4 6.5 5.8 $71,263 Prince Edward N VA 9,733 9,209 524 5.4 8.8 20.3 $36,481 Prince George N VA 14,929 14,287 642 4.3 7.3 9.3 $59,780 Prince William N VA 205,683 198,859 6,824 3.3 5.6 5.0 $86,294 Pulaski N VA 18,237 17,037 1,200 6.6 12.4 14.1 $40,427 Rappahannock N VA 4,316 4,164 152 3.5 5.9 7.8 $60,540 Richmond N VA 3,893 3,694 199 5.1 7.5 17.7 $40,196 Roanoke N VA 49,584 47,992 1,592 3.2 6.1 6.0 $59,060 Rockbridge N VA 11,617 11,133 484 4.2 6.7 10.4 $43,654 Rockingham N VA 41,821 40,404 1,417 3.4 6.4 8.3 $49,346 Russell Y VA 11,889 11,198 691 5.8 11.9 18.4 $33,682 Scott N VA 10,075 9,523 552 5.5 9.5 18.1 $31,044 Shenandoah N VA 20,555 19,597 958 4.7 8.6 9.0 $48,067 Smyth N VA 15,260 14,318 942 6.2 12.5 17.1 $35,970 Southampton N VA 8,059 7,674 385 4.8 8.4 15.0 $43,589 Spotsylvania N VA 66,429 64,156 2,273 3.4 5.8 6.0 $74,374 Stafford N VA 66,222 63,939 2,283 3.4 5.4 4.2 $86,865 Surry N VA 3,790 3,617 173 4.6 7.1 11.0 $45,659 Sussex N VA 4,553 4,285 268 5.9 10.5 20.4 $35,835 Tazewell Y VA 20,836 19,917 919 4.4 8.1 17.8 $34,702 Warren N VA 20,079 19,183 896 4.5 8.0 9.0 $55,262

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Washington N VA 27,361 25,997 1,364 5.0 8.5 14.8 $39,148 Westmoreland N VA 8,899 8,444 455 5.1 7.7 12.4 $47,823 Wise Y VA 18,254 17,415 839 4.6 7.1 21.6 $32,175 Wythe N VA 16,360 15,471 889 5.4 11.5 12.2 $38,032 York N VA 31,392 30,354 1,038 3.3 5.4 4.1 $78,234 Statewide VA 2,893,629 2,785,576 108,053 3.7 7.2 9.9 $59,575 Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows. http://stats.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm. (2009 June unemployment rates); Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages. www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. (2008 employment data); US Census Bureau. 2009. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Estimates for Virginia Counties, 2007. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi. (2007 poverty data).

Table 20: Labor force, unemployment, poverty, and median household income for Tennessee counties BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Anderson Y TN 35,592 33,581 2,011 5.7 10.3 16.1 $42,059 Bedford N TN 22,570 21,084 1,486 6.6 11.5 17.7 $39,792 Benton N TN 7,078 6,473 605 8.5 13.4 17.9 $34,077 Bledsoe N TN 4,879 4,477 402 8.2 13.5 21.3 $34,655 Blount N TN 62,830 59,045 3,785 6.0 10.2 12.0 $47,466 Bradley N TN 47,250 44,304 2,946 6.2 9.5 15.7 $39,362 Campbell Y TN 16,941 15,655 1,286 7.6 13.1 23.9 $31,535 Cannon N TN 6,493 6,023 470 7.2 12.7 15.6 $39,123 Carroll N TN 13,848 12,611 1,237 8.9 15.8 19.1 $36,886 Carter N TN 29,781 27,864 1,917 6.4 9.9 20.1 $32,287 Cheatham N TN 20,472 19,398 1,074 5.2 9.3 9.3 $52,090 Chester N TN 7,851 7,317 534 6.8 10.6 19.1 $37,002 Claiborne Y TN 13,244 12,276 968 7.3 12.0 22.3 $29,822 Clay N TN 3,483 3,117 366 10.5 14.3 23.3 $27,428 Cocke N TN 16,619 15,204 1,415 8.5 12.9 26.6 $29,637 Coffee N TN 25,737 24,164 1,573 6.1 10.7 14.2 $40,738 Crockett N TN 6,399 5,836 563 8.8 12.5 18.0 $34,315 Cumberland N TN 22,873 21,105 1,768 7.7 11.1 17.0 $36,424 Davidson N TN 324,197 307,290 16,907 5.2 8.6 15.2 $46,430 Decatur N TN 5,674 5,202 472 8.3 12.9 18.7 $32,029 DeKalb N TN 10,188 9,525 663 6.5 10.8 17.3 $36,905 Dickson N TN 23,589 22,006 1,583 6.7 11.8 12.4 $45,968 Dyer N TN 17,619 16,320 1,299 7.4 14.8 16.7 $37,925 Fayette N TN 17,717 16,407 1,310 7.4 11.0 13.6 $54,271 Fentress N TN 7,987 7,248 739 9.3 13.0 25.0 $29,915 Franklin N TN 20,063 18,775 1,288 6.4 10.3 11.8 $41,528 Gibson N TN 21,085 19,118 1,967 9.3 14.6 16.5 $34,601 Giles N TN 13,471 12,417 1,054 7.8 14.1 15.0 $37,767 Grainger N TN 10,213 9,416 797 7.8 13.6 19.4 $34,148 Greene N TN 30,370 27,597 2,773 9.1 15.5 19.7 $35,246 Grundy N TN 5,940 5,454 486 8.2 14.1 27.0 $26,844 Hamblen N TN 30,274 28,168 2,106 7.0 12.7 16.9 $37,147 Hamilton N TN 167,561 158,307 9,254 5.5 8.8 13.5 $45,511 Hancock N TN 2,521 2,313 208 8.3 13.7 32.2 $24,375 Hardeman N TN 11,579 10,605 974 8.4 12.2 21.8 $33,780 Hardin N TN 11,909 11,024 885 7.4 12.2 23.0 $32,540 Hawkins N TN 26,759 24,992 1,767 6.6 13.1 16.4 $37,398 Haywood N TN 9,379 8,394 985 10.5 16.7 22.4 $33,007 Henderson N TN 12,178 10,960 1,218 10.0 17.3 15.3 $38,126 Henry N TN 13,877 12,685 1,192 8.6 13.3 15.1 $34,936 Hickman N TN 10,220 9,387 833 8.2 12.7 17.7 $39,925 Houston N TN 3,856 3,549 307 8.0 12.7 18.3 $36,158 Humphreys N TN 9,079 8,330 749 8.2 12.8 14.7 $41,662

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Jackson N TN 4,943 4,523 420 8.5 14.3 21.8 $30,343 Jefferson N TN 24,313 22,619 1,694 7.0 12.3 17.4 $39,580 Johnson N TN 7,304 6,687 617 8.4 12.0 21.9 $30,447 Knox N TN 227,880 216,877 11,003 4.8 8.0 12.8 $45,157 Lake N TN 2,684 2,483 201 7.5 10.4 39.2 $26,521 Lauderdale N TN 10,354 9,086 1,268 12.2 19.2 26.8 $33,840 Lawrence N TN 16,677 15,074 1,603 9.6 14.4 16.2 $35,762 Lewis N TN 5,438 4,896 542 10.0 15.2 17.9 $34,162 Lincoln N TN 17,210 16,391 819 4.8 6.5 13.9 $41,536 Loudon N TN 23,166 21,882 1,284 5.5 9.7 11.1 $48,355 McMinn N TN 24,101 22,049 2,052 8.5 12.6 18.1 $36,934 McNairy N TN 11,608 10,585 1,023 8.8 10.7 19.1 $35,686 Macon N TN 10,625 9,759 866 8.2 12.0 18.6 $35,410 Madison N TN 48,642 45,455 3,187 6.6 15.7 18.8 $41,029 Marion N TN 13,065 12,087 978 7.5 11.8 14.0 $39,059 Marshall N TN 12,553 11,421 1,132 9.0 14.5 13.3 $43,141 Maury N TN 37,397 34,436 2,961 7.9 14.0 12.9 $46,425 Meigs N TN 4,944 4,515 429 8.7 14.8 20.9 $36,876 Monroe N TN 19,007 17,167 1,840 9.7 18.0 17.2 $37,823 Montgomery N TN 67,334 63,196 4,138 6.1 8.9 12.7 $48,536 Moore N TN 3,154 2,983 171 5.4 8.7 11.4 $47,106 Morgan N TN 8,467 7,831 636 7.5 12.0 21.4 $35,026 Obion N TN 15,500 14,429 1,071 6.9 9.8 15.9 $37,889 Overton N TN 10,088 9,195 893 8.9 14.3 20.0 $32,146 Perry N TN 3,056 2,582 474 15.5 24.6 18.2 $33,014 Pickett N TN 1,860 1,660 200 10.8 14.3 18.2 $27,956 Polk N TN 7,074 6,516 558 7.9 12.9 15.4 $34,660 Putnam N TN 35,358 33,111 2,247 6.4 9.7 21.6 $36,131 Rhea N TN 13,350 12,308 1,042 7.8 13.4 18.0 $37,682 Roane N TN 27,168 25,607 1,561 5.7 9.3 16.0 $41,897 Robertson N TN 33,074 31,084 1,990 6.0 10.2 11.6 $50,528 Rutherford N TN 130,934 123,522 7,412 5.7 10.3 11.8 $51,307 Scott N TN 8,515 7,547 968 11.4 18.6 21.1 $30,340 Sequatchie N TN 6,211 5,747 464 7.5 12.5 18.8 $38,683 Sevier N TN 48,454 45,114 3,340 6.9 9.8 12.7 $40,312 Shelby N TN 441,162 411,504 29,658 6.7 9.6 20.1 $44,373 Smith N TN 9,241 8,503 738 8.0 12.8 13.5 $43,701 Stewart N TN 5,824 5,330 494 8.5 12.6 13.6 $44,490 Sullivan N TN 74,358 70,517 3,841 5.2 9.1 15.0 $39,706 Sumner N TN 79,490 74,888 4,602 5.8 10.2 9.4 $51,247 Tipton N TN 28,237 26,037 2,200 7.8 12.4 16.5 $49,893 Trousdale N TN 3,717 3,414 303 8.2 12.4 15.2 $39,212 Unicoi N TN 8,480 7,870 610 7.2 12.1 16.3 $35,042 Union N TN 8,781 8,242 539 6.1 10.9 21.7 $31,779 Van Buren N TN 2,498 2,295 203 8.1 15.0 19.2 $33,993 Warren N TN 17,670 16,215 1,455 8.2 13.3 16.6 $38,210 Washington N TN 61,618 58,246 3,372 5.5 8.6 17.3 $40,267

BLS 2008 June 2009 Median Labor force Employed Unemployed unemployment unemployment Percent poverty household County MTR? State (2008) (2008) (2008) rate % rate (%) all ages (2007) income (2007) Wayne N TN 6,635 5,978 657 9.9 13.0 20.5 $31,281 Weakley N TN 15,615 14,362 1,253 8.0 11.5 18.9 $34,725 White N TN 10,497 9,629 868 8.3 15.6 18.7 $33,654 Williamson N TN 87,319 83,450 3,869 4.4 6.9 5.0 $83,924 Wilson N TN 57,390 54,173 3,217 5.6 9.3 7.2 $60,154 Statewide TN 3,041,285 2,846,100 195,185 6.4 10.8 15.8 $42,389 Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows. http://stats.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm. (2009 June unemployment rates); Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages. www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. (2008 employment data); US Census Bureau. 2009. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Estimates for Tennessee Counties, 2007. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi. (2007 poverty data).

Table 21: Alternative measures of labor underutilization for CAPP states, 2008 State U-1 U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 West Virginia 1.5 2.2 4.4 4.8 5.2 9.1 Kentucky 2.1 3.2 6.3 6.6 7.6 10.8 Virginia 1.2 2.0 4.0 4.1 4.6 7.5 Tennessee 2.2 3.4 6.6 6.9 7.6 11.4 Source: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/lau/stalt08.htm. Last modified date: May 14, 2009. Note: These measures account for the fact that there are varying degrees of employment and unemployment. U-1: persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force. U-2: job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force. U-3: total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate). U-4: total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. U-5: total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers. U-6: total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

2.6 Poverty across CAPP states

Table 22: Poverty in West Virginia counties Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Barbour N 3,476 23.1 980 30.7 639 27.9 $28,826 Berkeley N 9,936 10.1 3,571 14.2 2,020 11.3 $52,566 Boone Y 4,565 18.2 1,339 24.1 880 22.1 $35,654 Braxton N 3,137 22.3 894 31.2 603 28.1 $31,616 Brooke N 2,777 12.2 770 17.5 500 15.2 $39,601 Cabell N 17,535 19.3 4,856 25.7 2,959 22.5 $33,265 Calhoun N 1,582 22.1 416 30.7 281 28.7 $27,791 Clay Y 2,382 23.8 731 32.6 512 32.2 $28,630 Doddridge N 1,264 17.8 414 28.3 262 23.9 $34,145 Fayette Y 10,584 23.9 2,869 30 1,960 29.2 $30,312 Gilmer N 1,467 22.8 329 28.4 223 26.7 $34,355 Grant N 1,746 14.9 534 22.1 350 19.9 $36,361 Greenbrier N 6,066 17.9 1,728 24.5 1,041 20.2 $33,163 Hampshire N 3,606 16.3 1,115 21.8 733 19.4 $36,217 Hancock N 3,779 12.7 1,119 18.7 720 16.7 $39,378 Hardy N 1,737 12.9 536 18 336 15.2 $37,336 Harrison N 12,585 18.8 3,902 26.5 2,476 23.3 $38,063 Jackson N 4,363 15.7 1,298 21.3 854 19.1 $40,978 Jefferson N 4,099 8.3 1,338 10.8 816 9.3 $61,219 Kanawha Y 26,390 14 8,681 21.7 5,409 19.1 $40,931 Lewis N 3,152 18.7 923 26.4 587 23.2 $34,223 Lincoln N 5,584 25.2 1,616 33.3 982 28.6 $30,694 Logan Y 7,754 22.2 2,280 30.6 1,412 26.6 $32,251 McDowell Y 7,854 34.7 2,232 47 1,586 47.2 $21,903 Marion N 8,856 16 2,349 21 1,446 18.2 $38,000 Marshall N 5,357 16.6 1,600 24 1,039 20.6 $33,804 Mason N 4,490 17.9 1,321 24.9 849 22.1 $34,635 Mercer N 13,122 21.8 3,828 30 2,458 26.9 $31,898 Mineral N 4,056 15.5 1,204 20.7 785 18.2 $35,929 Mingo Y 6,615 24.9 2,076 34.2 1,390 32.6 $30,139 Monongalia N 13,101 16.4 2,185 14.2 1,384 12.9 $40,889 Monroe N 1,992 14.8 572 21.2 367 17.8 $35,034 Morgan N 1,762 10.9 559 16 336 12.7 $44,162 Nicholas Y 4,898 18.9 1,357 25.7 883 23.2 $38,813 Ohio N 7,121 16.9 1,809 20.6 1,180 18.6 $38,757 Pendleton N 1,027 13.8 252 16.6 156 14.2 $36,019 Pleasants N 923 13.4 232 16.1 143 12.6 $40,539 Pocahontas N 1,296 15.7 376 23.5 249 20.7 $31,832 Preston N 4,927 16.5 1,517 24.6 924 20.7 $35,567

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Putnam N 5,593 10.2 1,589 12.7 1,027 11.3 $49,713 Raleigh Y 12,610 16.7 4,158 26.1 2,573 22.6 $37,261 Randolph N 5,096 19.1 1,528 26.3 966 23.1 $33,472 Ritchie N 1,752 17.1 502 23.3 328 21.3 $34,329 Roane N 3,445 22.8 967 31.6 643 29.3 $30,175 Summers N 2,860 24.7 751 35 502 32 $27,021 Taylor N 2,801 18 815 25.4 546 22.8 $34,804 Tucker N 1,102 16.4 293 23.2 188 19.5 $32,755 Tyler N 1,655 18.7 475 27.1 327 24.5 $35,271 Upshur N 4,510 20.3 1,444 29.6 930 26.8 $34,687 Wayne Y 8,312 20.3 2,273 25.9 1,486 22.7 $36,298 Webster N 2,351 25.2 712 37.8 484 34.4 $27,521 Wetzel N 2,667 16.4 843 24.1 549 21.6 $36,397 Wirt N 1,078 18.7 340 28.7 228 25.6 $36,850 Wood N 13,842 16.4 4,489 24.6 2,830 21.2 $39,910 Wyoming Y 5,532 23.5 1,606 33.7 1,069 30.9 $30,762 Statewide 302,169 17.1 88,498 23.4 56,406 20.7 $37,057 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1: 2007 Poverty and Median Income Estimates – Counties. Small Area Estimates Branch. Dec.

Table 23: Poverty in Kentucky counties Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Adair N 3,653 21.4 1,221 31.7 790 28.4 $32,643 Allen N 3,361 18.1 1,196 27 788 24.4 $36,283 Anderson N 1,949 9.3 665 12.9 404 10.4 $54,819 Ballard N 1,293 15.9 414 24.3 274 22.6 $39,118 Barren N 7,167 17.8 2,365 25 1,489 22.2 $38,817 Bath N 2,724 23.9 997 36.5 656 33.5 $31,740 Bell Y 8,120 28.8 2,458 38.7 1,662 36.4 $23,528 Boone N 6,897 6.2 2,528 8.3 1,601 7.3 $66,690 Bourbon N 3,136 16.1 974 21.6 664 20 $41,819 Boyd N 7,627 16.4 2,358 23.6 1,512 21.6 $39,640 Boyle N 4,146 15.9 1,343 22.7 801 18.4 $41,739 Bracken N 1,301 15.4 424 20.8 283 19.3 $41,581 Breathitt Y 4,564 30 1,512 45.3 1,027 42 $25,577 Breckinridge N 3,235 17.2 1,040 24.1 701 22.5 $36,621 Bullitt N 7,284 9.9 2,316 13.3 1,472 11.1 $49,861 Butler N 2,364 18.2 783 26.8 506 24.4 $35,676 Caldwell N 2,222 17.8 663 25.2 448 23.1 $38,009 Calloway N 5,786 17.5 1,402 22 898 19.6 $36,262 Campbell N 8,494 10 2,822 13.9 1,756 11.9 $51,383 Carlisle N 800 15.7 264 23.6 166 20.5 $36,151 Carroll N 1,568 15.2 575 22.7 382 21.9 $42,058 Carter N 5,164 19.3 1,847 29.1 1,278 28 $32,281 Casey N 3,763 23.6 1,308 36 866 32.7 $27,366 Christian N 14,101 19 6,871 27.4 4,139 23.4 $37,632 Clark N 5,197 14.8 1,779 21.8 1,040 17.6 $46,190 Clay N 8,993 41.9 2,508 50 1,784 48.2 $20,999 Clinton N 2,279 24.1 756 36.8 492 34.1 $25,677 Crittenden N 1,805 20.1 589 31.3 406 29.4 $33,804 Cumberland N 1,620 24 524 36 362 34.1 $26,584 Daviess N 14,015 15.3 5,103 22.8 3,203 20.2 $42,586 Edmonson N 2,053 17.3 665 26.2 469 24.9 $34,449 Elliott N 1,932 27.4 576 37.9 378 33.5 $27,215 Estill N 3,895 26.3 1,239 36.2 829 33.9 $28,797 Fayette N 42,413 15.9 11,678 19.5 7,044 17.3 $46,726 Fleming N 2,818 19.4 940 27.3 615 24.5 $33,815 Floyd Y 13,487 32.9 4,062 44.4 2,663 41.2 $26,293 Franklin N 6,405 13.6 1,848 17.8 1,167 16 $48,025 Fulton N 1,922 29.4 647 42.8 406 36 $28,749 Gallatin N 1,208 15.3 537 24.5 343 22.6 $42,143 Garrard N 2,839 16.8 939 24.8 631 22.3 $40,653 Grant N 3,882 15.6 1,715 25.5 918 19.1 $42,126 Graves N 6,051 16.5 2,132 24.8 1,401 22.5 $36,345 Grayson N 4,913 19.7 1,686 29.3 1,018 24.5 $32,905

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Green N 1,957 17.2 651 27.8 424 24.8 $31,546 Greenup N 5,571 15.2 1,757 22.5 1,193 20.8 $40,642 Hancock N 1,170 13.7 388 17.7 244 15.2 $47,558 Hardin N 10,478 11.2 4,059 16.4 2,609 15.2 $47,958 Harlan Y 8,975 29.3 2,815 39.9 1,907 37.2 $25,939 Harrison N 2,583 14.2 840 19.9 548 17.7 $41,423 Hart N 4,221 23.3 1,436 33.1 921 29.3 $30,604 Henderson Y 5,642 12.7 2,005 19.3 1,324 18.1 $41,692 Henry N 2,279 14.6 816 21.6 482 17.6 $44,209 Hickman N 864 18.1 279 28.7 179 24.4 $37,001 Hopkins N 8,265 18.2 2,776 26.7 1,848 24.7 $36,611 Jackson N 4,582 34.1 1,328 43 880 39.5 $25,653 Jefferson N 101,567 14.6 34,932 21 22,422 19 $43,677 Jessamine N 6,106 14 2,155 19.2 1,344 16.6 $47,324 Johnson N 5,780 24.4 1,737 32.8 1,153 30.5 $32,706 Kenton N 19,883 12.9 6,605 16.7 4,272 15.3 $50,734 Knott Y 5,324 31.7 1,397 39.5 884 33.2 $27,999 Knox N 9,873 31.1 3,443 42.3 2,341 41.5 $24,881 Larue N 2,028 15.1 673 22.4 448 20.6 $39,435 Laurel Y 12,408 22 4,127 30.2 2,715 27.4 $33,244 Lawrence Y 4,103 25.3 1,247 34.6 815 30.8 $29,399 Lee N 2,342 34.9 658 45.9 446 42.4 $24,617 Leslie Y 3,608 31 937 37.4 646 35.4 $26,114 Letcher Y 6,408 27 1,781 35.3 1,230 34.5 $29,415 Lewis N 3,939 28.9 1,236 39 844 36.8 $26,534 Lincoln N 5,047 20.3 1,666 27.7 1,136 26.2 $32,566 Livingston N 1,273 13.5 386 20.3 249 17.5 $38,732 Logan N 4,372 16.4 1,499 23.3 931 20 $38,323 Lyon N 1,005 15 224 18.3 150 16.1 $40,082 McCracken N 9,227 14.6 3,203 22.4 2,190 21.3 $40,899 McCreary N 6,068 35.5 2,231 52.4 1,488 49.4 $24,293 McLean N 1,536 16 507 23.5 332 20.9 $37,866 Madison N 14,115 18.7 3,983 22.6 2,438 19.5 $39,842 Magoffin N 4,092 31.6 1,359 43.7 915 40.9 $26,150 Marion N 3,168 17.8 1,034 22.9 668 20.9 $38,048 Marshall N 3,829 12.5 1,140 18.4 680 14.8 $41,497 Martin Y 4,145 35.8 1,289 45.5 868 41.7 $25,841 Mason N 3,208 19.1 1,074 28.2 712 25.4 $38,035 Meade N 3,886 14.4 1,241 18.4 823 15.2 $45,490 Menifee N 1,808 27.2 555 38.6 353 35.7 $28,928 Mercer N 2,788 12.9 1,001 19.9 651 17.7 $49,529 Metcalfe N 2,403 23.8 868 36.9 562 33.5 $30,827 Monroe N 2,895 25.2 877 34.5 590 32.4 $28,266 Montgomery N 4,773 19.3 1,510 24.8 858 20.1 $38,870 Morgan N 3,351 27.1 1,021 36.8 655 32.4 $28,514 Muhlenberg Y 5,980 20 1,756 26.3 1,176 24.6 $34,580 Nelson N 4,729 11.3 1,751 16.4 1,054 13.6 $46,605

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Nicholas N 1,310 19.4 409 25.9 234 20.9 $36,080 Ohio N 4,501 19.4 1,585 29.2 1,036 27.3 $38,710 Oldham N 3,113 6 791 6 437 4.3 $73,632 Owen N 1,722 15.3 585 22.2 381 19.7 $41,246 Owsley N 2,002 44.4 552 55 391 54.5 $21,189 Pendleton N 2,278 15.3 731 20.1 475 17.2 $43,822 Perry Y 9,045 31.4 3,138 47.2 1,963 42.1 $30,089 Pike Y 13,406 20.8 3,707 26.6 2,540 24.9 $32,382 Powell N 3,489 25.6 1,228 39.8 806 37.2 $31,228 Pulaski N 12,732 21.7 4,182 31.6 2,686 28.6 $32,368 Robertson N 475 22.3 139 30.2 91 26 $34,719 Rockcastle N 4,374 26.8 1,278 34.8 814 30.5 $29,235 Rowan N 4,774 24.5 1,223 28.7 738 24.5 $34,278 Russell N 3,773 22.3 1,173 32.5 780 30.2 $28,342 Scott N 3,863 9.4 1,469 13.1 880 11.3 $57,895 Shelby N 5,206 13.3 1,672 16.8 946 13.8 $52,871 Simpson N 2,331 13.9 830 20.3 526 17.3 $43,432 Spencer N 1,316 7.9 466 11 300 9.5 $59,939 Taylor N 3,970 17.1 1,241 24.3 851 23 $35,012 Todd N 2,222 18.7 863 27.9 579 26.7 $39,375 Trigg N 2,251 17 808 28.4 441 21 $41,286 Trimble N 1,290 14.5 418 19.6 280 18 $43,994 Union N 3,422 23.1 886 25.7 473 20.2 $40,711 Warren N 17,726 18 5,343 23 3,545 21.9 $42,303 Washington N 1,636 14.6 511 19.7 340 18.2 $40,614 Wayne N 5,504 27 1,849 40 1,221 36 $28,154 Webster N 1,795 13.2 604 19.1 405 18.3 $39,923 Whitley N 10,253 27.7 3,490 39.3 2,449 37.5 $27,424 Wolfe N 2,526 36.7 948 53.4 669 55.3 $24,749 Woodford N 2,542 10.6 755 13.6 488 12.1 $56,840 Statewide 706,947 17.2 231,398 23.6 149,095 21.2 $40,299 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1: 2007 Poverty and Median Income Estimates – Counties. Small Area Estimates Branch. Dec.

Table 24: Poverty in Virginia counties Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Accomack N 6,349 16.8 2,156 25.1 1,458 23.4 $36,616 Albemarle N 7,396 8.5 1,831 9.2 1,143 7.8 $63,619 Alleghany N 1,902 11.9 576 16.8 387 15.4 $41,530 Amelia N 1,145 9.1 358 12.5 236 11.3 $52,421 Amherst N 3,726 12.2 1,072 16.1 689 14 $43,890 Appomattox N 1,772 12.6 557 18 384 16.7 $41,089 Arlington N 13,005 6.5 3,004 8.4 2,027 8.7 $92,345 Augusta N 4,968 7.2 1,494 9.9 982 8.9 $50,887 Bath N 390 8.5 80 10.3 51 8.1 $42,316 Bedford N 5,906 8.9 1,538 10.8 972 9.1 $53,823 Bland N 842 13.5 202 17.5 130 15.3 $38,175 Botetourt N 1,949 6.2 476 7.4 314 6.4 $58,744 Brunswick N 3,125 21.3 834 26.3 605 26.1 $35,160 Buchanan Y 4,913 21.7 1,284 30 903 28.7 $28,922 Buckingham N 2,631 19.3 717 24.2 487 22.3 $36,315 Campbell N 6,028 11.6 1,759 15.3 1,204 14.2 $43,641 Caroline N 2,446 9.2 864 13.3 557 12.3 $51,498 Carroll N 4,033 13.9 1,154 20.3 757 17.7 $35,823 Charles City N 755 10.6 200 15 139 14.2 $48,113 Charlotte N 2,187 18.1 691 26.1 502 26 $34,271 Chesterfield N 17,127 5.8 5,760 7.6 3,799 6.8 $69,583 Clarke N 892 6.3 222 7.4 140 6.2 $64,149 Craig N 528 10.3 159 14.9 109 13.6 $48,319 Culpeper N 3,621 8.3 1,194 10.8 800 10.4 $60,341 Cumberland N 1,432 14.9 473 21.7 330 20.7 $38,953 Dickenson Y 3,382 21.3 866 27.9 587 26.1 $29,320 Dinwiddie N 2,748 11 805 14.2 561 13.3 $47,395 Essex N 1,295 12.1 430 18.5 300 18.1 $43,637 Fairfax N 49,339 4.9 15,039 6.2 9,949 5.7 $104,984 Fauquier N 3,736 5.7 966 6 573 4.9 $81,404 Floyd N 1,883 12.9 487 16 325 14.6 $39,478 Fluvanna N 1,674 7 468 7.9 275 6.7 $57,038 Franklin N 5,704 11.5 1,818 17.3 1,167 15.2 $45,238 Frederick N 4,736 6.6 1,559 8.8 1,012 8 $64,192 Giles N 1,953 11.4 524 14.4 344 12.9 $41,186 Gloucester N 3,179 8.4 1,028 12 687 10.7 $56,123 Goochland N 1,620 8.5 292 7 195 6.4 $74,747 Grayson N 2,801 17.6 694 23.2 497 21.8 $31,155 Greene N 1,309 7.4 473 10.1 319 9.6 $58,476 Greensville N 1,714 19.9 389 19.6 272 21.5 $37,509 Halifax N 6,462 18.6 1,706 22.1 1,080 19 $32,490 Hanover N 4,909 5.1 1,308 5.6 825 4.6 $75,046 Henrico N 24,163 8.5 8,246 11.8 5,397 10.8 $58,194

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Henry N 8,826 16.1 2,990 26.8 1,905 23.6 $35,349 Highland N 313 12.8 67 17.8 45 15.1 $36,521 Isle of Wight N 2,902 8.3 851 10.7 534 9 $58,840 James City N 3,440 5.7 986 7.9 651 6.9 $70,487 King and Queen N 829 12.1 228 16.3 152 15.3 $43,191 King George N 1,384 6.2 450 7.6 282 6.9 $68,824 King William N 981 6.3 328 8.6 206 7.5 $62,052 Lancaster N 1,434 12.9 426 21.5 304 21 $42,392 Lee Y 5,343 22.9 1,556 31.9 1,070 29.3 $29,365 Loudoun N 8,284 3 2,454 2.9 1,467 2.6 $107,200 Louisa N 3,080 9.7 962 13.5 645 12.6 $52,514 Lunenburg N 2,276 19.3 595 25.5 413 25.2 $33,777 Madison N 1,319 9.8 403 13.7 263 12.3 $50,135 Mathews N 723 8.1 190 12.5 133 11.3 $54,431 Mecklenburg N 4,889 16 1,453 23 1,025 22.5 $36,266 Middlesex N 1,259 12.2 359 20.2 242 18 $45,583 Montgomery N 15,836 19.9 1,925 13.6 1,263 12.6 $42,029 Nelson N 1,730 11.4 479 16.2 327 15.2 $46,001 New Kent N 880 5.3 285 7.6 191 7.1 $68,437 Northampton N 2,732 20.8 922 31.5 581 28.4 $33,950 Northumberland N 1,756 13.6 526 23.2 342 20.3 $45,085 Nottoway N 2,785 19.9 798 24.9 553 24 $37,276 Orange N 2,728 8.6 774 10.8 491 9.7 $53,238 Page N 2,912 12.2 899 17.9 608 16.7 $40,295 Patrick N 2,797 15 803 22.1 536 19.7 $33,583 Pittsylvania N 7,281 12.1 2,198 17.2 1,483 15.7 $38,519 Powhatan N 1,451 5.8 382 6.4 251 5.7 $71,263 Prince Edward N 3,449 20.3 919 23.9 621 22.1 $36,481 Prince George N 2,663 9.3 819 11.1 550 9.8 $59,780 Prince William N 17,703 5 7,135 6.8 4,446 6.1 $86,294 Pulaski N 4,753 14.1 1,334 19.8 828 16.6 $40,427 Rappahannock N 561 7.8 165 11.5 112 10.5 $60,540 Richmond N 1,272 17.7 317 21.5 218 21.7 $40,196 Roanoke N 5,313 6 1,492 7.6 954 6.7 $59,060 Rockbridge N 2,213 10.4 564 12.8 367 11.9 $43,654 Rockingham N 5,949 8.3 1,957 11.7 1,252 10.3 $49,346 Russell Y 5,243 18.4 1,476 25.5 991 23.1 $33,682 Scott N 4,033 18.1 942 22.1 636 20.1 $31,044 Shenandoah N 3,602 9 1,086 12.4 764 12.3 $48,067 Smyth N 5,338 17.1 1,410 21.8 914 19.1 $35,970 Southampton N 2,431 15 662 18.8 444 16.9 $43,589 Spotsylvania N 7,118 6 2,473 7.7 1,638 7 $74,374 Stafford N 4,954 4.2 1,706 5.1 1,032 4.2 $86,865 Surry N 775 11 236 15.7 163 14.1 $45,659 Sussex N 1,947 20.4 510 24 349 23.4 $35,835 Tazewell Y 7,640 17.8 2,038 23.5 1,517 24 $34,702 Warren N 3,180 9 1,000 11.4 637 10.2 $55,262

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Washington N 7,589 14.8 1,927 19.1 1,263 17 $39,148 Westmoreland N 2,118 12.4 765 21.4 527 20.3 $47,823 Wise Y 8,333 21.6 2,386 27.8 1,584 25.8 $32,175 Wythe N 3,421 12.2 1,038 17.7 709 16.9 $38,032 York N 2,514 4.1 754 5.3 470 4.1 $78,234 Statewide 739,135 9.9 232,569 12.9 152,581 11.9 $59,575 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1: 2007 Poverty and Median Income Estimates – Counties. Small Area Estimates Branch. Dec.

Table 25: Poverty in Tennessee counties Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Anderson Y 11,695 16.1 3,742 23.5 2,454 21.3 $42,059 Bedford N 7,677 17.7 2,724 24.3 1,758 22.7 $39,792 Benton N 2,870 17.9 1,011 30.9 694 28.1 $34,077 Bledsoe N 2,535 21.3 796 29.8 517 25.8 $34,655 Blount N 14,063 12 4,279 16.5 2,747 14.5 $47,466 Bradley N 14,632 15.7 4,606 21.5 2,953 19.2 $39,362 Campbell Y 9,605 23.9 2,890 33.2 1,973 31.6 $31,535 Cannon N 2,060 15.6 679 22.5 439 19.2 $39,123 Carroll N 5,319 19.1 1,758 28.2 1,109 24.5 $36,886 Carter N 11,244 20.1 3,424 30.3 2,336 28.4 $32,287 Cheatham N 3,601 9.3 1,249 13 775 10.9 $52,090 Chester N 2,887 19.1 851 24 568 21.8 $37,002 Claiborne Y 6,867 22.3 2,086 30.6 1,446 29.4 $29,822 Clay N 1,807 23.3 522 33.4 360 32.1 $27,428 Cocke N 9,282 26.6 3,024 39.9 2,051 37.4 $29,637 Coffee N 7,256 14.2 2,420 19.9 1,623 18.4 $40,738 Crockett N 2,504 18 801 23.5 513 20.5 $34,315 Cumberland N 8,904 17 2,854 27.1 1,756 22.6 $36,424 Davidson N 90,619 15.2 34,502 24.2 20,190 20.7 $46,430 Decatur N 2,067 18.7 640 27.2 422 24.4 $32,029 DeKalb N 3,142 17.3 954 23 661 22.5 $36,905 Dickson N 5,804 12.4 2,172 18.4 1,396 16.5 $45,968 Dyer N 6,207 16.7 2,265 24.8 1,484 22.1 $37,925 Fayette N 4,982 13.6 1,768 19.9 1,176 18.1 $54,271 Fentress N 4,313 25 1,427 36.5 904 31.5 $29,915 Franklin N 4,654 11.8 1,597 18.3 1,051 16.5 $41,528 Gibson N 7,799 16.5 2,776 25.2 1,815 22.8 $34,601 Giles N 4,252 15 1,329 21 887 19 $37,767 Grainger N 4,336 19.4 1,295 26.5 819 23.3 $34,148 Greene N 12,681 19.7 4,098 29.5 2,463 24.5 $35,246 Grundy N 3,800 27 1,381 41 841 34.5 $26,844 Hamblen N 10,270 16.9 3,198 22.5 2,088 21.2 $37,147 Hamilton N 43,440 13.5 14,514 20 8,317 15.9 $45,511 Hancock N 2,107 32.2 601 44.5 404 42.2 $24,375 Hardeman N 5,196 21.8 1,530 26.4 1,018 24.2 $33,780 Hardin N 5,870 23 1,883 33.9 1,259 30.6 $32,540 Hawkins N 9,263 16.4 2,957 23.9 2,017 22.1 $37,398 Haywood N 4,216 22.4 1,380 28.8 918 26.3 $33,007 Henderson N 4,037 15.3 1,371 21.5 893 19.9 $38,126 Henry N 4,688 15.1 1,630 24.7 1,114 23.3 $34,936 Hickman N 3,953 17.7 1,353 25.4 884 22.2 $39,925 Houston N 1,441 18.3 496 26.8 336 25 $36,158 Humphreys N 2,627 14.7 855 21.2 538 18.5 $41,662

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Jackson N 2,310 21.8 668 30.6 437 26.4 $30,343 Jefferson N 8,427 17.4 2,676 24.7 1,678 21.1 $39,580 Johnson N 3,568 21.9 1,030 32.5 707 30.3 $30,447 Knox N 52,793 12.8 14,695 15.9 9,828 14.8 $45,157 Lake N 1,940 39.2 480 41.2 319 38.5 $26,521 Lauderdale N 6,391 26.8 2,424 38.5 1,612 35.8 $33,840 Lawrence N 6,555 16.2 2,288 22.8 1,549 21.4 $35,762 Lewis N 2,021 17.9 694 25.8 474 25.1 $34,162 Lincoln N 4,478 13.9 1,494 20.4 967 18.5 $41,536 Loudon N 4,968 11.1 1,688 17.6 1,052 15.2 $48,355 McMinn N 9,288 18.1 2,762 23.6 1,853 21.6 $36,934 McNairy N 4,795 19.1 1,541 26.2 1,013 24.2 $35,686 Macon N 3,953 18.6 1,342 26.1 836 22.2 $35,410 Madison N 17,459 18.8 5,833 24.3 3,762 22 $41,029 Marion N 3,906 14 1,347 21.9 910 20.4 $39,059 Marshall N 3,836 13.3 1,288 18.6 761 15.2 $43,141 Maury N 10,157 12.9 3,238 16.8 2,188 15.9 $46,425 Meigs N 2,405 20.9 866 32.4 542 26.7 $36,876 Monroe N 7,592 17.2 2,613 25 1,673 22.2 $37,823 Montgomery N 18,950 12.7 7,071 16.2 4,410 14.3 $48,536 Moore N 684 11.4 219 17.7 151 16 $47,106 Morgan N 3,976 21.4 1,222 29 825 26.6 $35,026 Obion N 4,946 15.9 1,640 23.3 1,076 21 $37,889 Overton N 4,139 20 1,189 26.2 744 22.7 $32,146 Perry N 1,366 18.2 469 27.3 305 24.6 $33,014 Pickett N 852 18.2 273 29.5 184 27.4 $27,956 Polk N 2,370 15.4 767 22.5 505 20.4 $34,660 Putnam N 14,467 21.6 4,789 31.4 2,787 26.4 $36,131 Rhea N 5,273 18 1,798 25.9 1,180 24.3 $37,682 Roane N 8,425 16 2,435 22.6 1,702 20.9 $41,897 Robertson N 7,251 11.6 2,703 16.7 1,588 14.2 $50,528 Rutherford N 27,686 11.8 8,734 13.9 4,873 11 $51,307 Scott N 4,570 21.1 1,653 30.6 1,143 30 $30,340 Sequatchie N 2,477 18.8 895 28.8 622 27.7 $38,683 Sevier N 10,495 12.7 3,676 20.1 2,272 17.3 $40,312 Shelby N 179,222 20.1 72,161 29.6 46,371 26.7 $44,373 Smith N 2,516 13.5 921 21.1 592 18.4 $43,701 Stewart N 1,762 13.6 585 20.1 392 18.1 $44,490 Sullivan N 22,627 15 7,017 22.4 4,590 19.8 $39,706 Sumner N 14,132 9.4 4,961 13.4 3,221 12 $51,247 Tipton N 9,334 16.5 3,484 23.7 2,122 19.6 $49,893 Trousdale N 1,148 15.2 378 21.6 230 18 $39,212 Unicoi N 2,842 16.3 809 23.3 520 20.5 $35,042 Union N 4,059 21.7 1,328 30.3 897 28.4 $31,779 Van Buren N 1,023 19.2 322 28.5 220 26.7 $33,993 Warren N 6,493 16.6 2,214 24 1,520 23.2 $38,210 Washington N 19,469 17.3 5,048 20.8 3,191 18.4 $40,267

Poverty Poverty Poverty Median estimate all Poverty percent estimate under Poverty percent estimate ages Poverty percent household Name MTR? Ages all ages age 18 under Age 18 5-17 ages 5-17 income Wayne N 2,945 20.5 859 27.1 566 24.4 $31,281 Weakley N 5,898 18.9 1,645 24.9 1,127 22.9 $34,725 White N 4,584 18.7 1,625 29.2 998 25.4 $33,654 Williamson N 8,254 5 2,430 5.7 1,613 5.1 $83,924 Wilson N 7,609 7.2 2,584 9.9 1,643 8.7 $60,154 Statewide 945,263 15.8 324,562 22.5 206,308 20 $42,389 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1: 2007 Poverty and Median Income Estimates – Counties. Small Area Estimates Branch. Dec.

2.7 Educational attainment in West Virginia

Table 26: Educational attainment in West Virginia, age 25 years and over, 2005‐2007 Selected social characteristics in the United States Estimate Percent

School enrollment Nursery school, preschool 22,109 5.4% Kindergarten 19,867 4.8% Elementary school (grades 1-8) 170,493 41.6% High school (grades 9-12) 91,282 22.3% College or graduate school 106,182 25.9% Total population 3 years and over enrolled in school 409,933

Educational attainment Less than 9th grade 90,315 7.2% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 148,410 11.8% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 526,472 41.9% Some college, no degree 208,006 16.5% Associate's degree 72,063 5.7% Bachelor's degree 128,628 10.2% Graduate or professional degree 83,337 6.6% Total population 25 years and over 1,257,231

High school graduate or higher 81.0% Bachelor's degree or higher 16.9% Source: United States Census Bureau. Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2005-2007. Data Set: 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey, Geographic Area: West Virginia. http://fastfacts.census.gov

Table 27: Educational attainment in West Virginia counties, ages 25‐34 years, 2000 Percent Number Total 9th-12th Some w/college w/college population grade, no High school college, no Associate's Bachelor's Graduate County degree degree (ages 25-34) < 9th grade diploma grad/GED degree degree degree degree Barbour 16.3% 308 1,890 74 234 998 276 113 155 40 Berkeley 19.8% 2,170 10,987 199 1,532 4,721 2,365 541 1,230 399 Boone 14.6% 477 3,267 81 673 1,495 541 182 253 42 Braxton 12.9% 245 1,894 43 352 868 386 103 117 25 Brooke 31.1% 892 2,867 22 120 1,129 704 288 503 101 Cabell 33.2% 4,221 12,703 284 1,279 3,861 3,058 915 2,397 909 Calhoun 12.8% 100 784 65 93 377 149 24 61 15 Clay 11.5% 151 1,308 61 224 676 196 54 78 19 Doddridge 12.6% 95 751 25 203 314 114 36 55 4 Fayette 16.6% 982 5,909 233 889 2,443 1,362 249 584 149 Gilmer 27.5% 220 800 20 126 303 131 70 123 27 Grant 14.0% 209 1,488 55 183 811 230 73 110 26 Greenbrier 21.0% 810 3,857 118 472 1,660 797 239 410 161 Hampshire 12.4% 315 2,539 50 386 1,283 505 84 168 63 Hancock 25.8% 987 3,829 28 318 1,600 896 434 457 96 Hardy 15.8% 263 1,663 42 217 866 275 87 150 26 Harrison 26.7% 2,220 8,320 157 1,167 3,124 1,652 510 1,379 331 Jackson 25.1% 874 3,485 54 270 1,385 902 365 407 102 Jefferson 24.3% 1,339 5,505 80 705 2,253 1,128 317 823 199 Kanawha 32.0% 7,985 24,961 417 2,728 8,590 5,241 1,614 4,765 1,606 Lewis 16.2% 353 2,181 76 275 1,013 464 83 205 65 Lincoln 12.1% 370 3,059 227 583 1,322 557 192 129 49 Logan 16.9% 813 4,810 239 1,024 1,773 961 411 270 132 Marion 29.2% 2,034 6,972 133 667 2,479 1,659 596 1,097 341 Marshall 22.2% 928 4,171 66 430 1,809 938 396 437 95 Mason 18.6% 584 3,135 111 434 1,403 603 220 236 128 McDowell 5.3% 161 3,041 326 889 1,338 327 72 73 16 Mercer 21.4% 1,700 7,945 304 947 3,116 1,878 472 1,020 208 Mineral 24.2% 824 3,408 29 342 1,593 620 374 314 136 Mingo 11.2% 417 3,724 275 762 1,629 641 252 117 48 Monongalia 47.6% 5,540 11,637 142 856 2,789 2,310 600 2,872 2,068 Monroe 12.4% 252 2,040 55 276 1,116 341 100 128 24 Morgan 11.2% 195 1,748 73 248 907 325 80 79 36 Nicholas 14.3% 454 3,178 116 459 1,588 561 125 268 61 Ohio 39.2% 1,993 5,090 37 388 1,595 1,077 391 1,121 481 Pendleton 15.7% 155 987 39 100 509 184 71 72 12 Pleasants 19.7% 186 943 1 56 499 201 101 67 18 Pocahontas 21.3% 228 1,071 29 147 470 197 46 129 53 Preston 17.2% 629 3,647 96 391 1,875 656 153 369 107 Putnam 33.6% 2,317 6,888 115 502 2,253 1,701 515 1,336 466 Raleigh 19.9% 2,123 10,662 332 1,611 4,287 2,309 613 1,188 322 Randolph 19.8% 723 3,653 108 467 1,650 705 110 510 103 Ritchie 16.6% 212 1,275 38 166 560 299 115 84 13

Percent Number Total 9th-12th Some w/college w/college population grade, no High school college, no Associate's Bachelor's Graduate County degree degree (ages 25-34) < 9th grade diploma grad/GED degree degree degree degree Roane 12.6% 224 1,780 40 309 871 336 63 126 35 Summers 12.8% 166 1,300 73 176 655 230 29 124 13 Taylor 20.5% 431 2,103 91 283 845 453 133 226 72 Tucker 13.1% 114 869 23 63 532 137 60 30 24 Tyler 20.0% 232 1,159 33 108 514 272 85 100 47 Upshur 19.0% 520 2,732 51 350 1,340 471 108 311 101 Wayne 21.6% 1,237 5,736 124 896 2,379 1,100 404 627 206 Webster 12.3% 141 1,145 68 201 590 145 40 81 20 Wetzel 17.8% 362 2,036 31 157 1,056 430 193 147 22 Wirt 13.4% 96 717 34 109 327 151 52 30 14 Wood 25.6% 2,782 10,881 162 1,112 3,995 2,830 872 1,580 330 Wyoming 10.5% 321 3,071 153 414 1,699 484 126 160 35 Statewide 24.0% 54,680 227,601 5,958 28,369 91,133 47,461 14,551 29,888 10,241 Source: Lumina Foundation. 2009 West Virginia education attainment by county, ages 25-34, compiled from the 2000 Census. www.luminafoundation.org/research/state_data/west_virginia.shtml

2.8 Appalachian Regional Commission county economic levels in CAPP states

Figure 2: County economic status in Appalachia, FY06

Source: Copied from Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Map1.pdf

Table 28: Criteria for county economic levels of the Appalachian Regional Commission, FY06

FY06 Number of 2001 - 2003, three- economic counties in year average 2002 per capita 2000 Census level Appalachia unemployment rate "market" income poverty rate Alternate criteria

8.3% or more $17,701 or less 18.6% or more have at least twice the US poverty rate and meet Distressed 77 and and or (150% of US) (67% of US) (150% of US) the criteria for one other distressed indicator. 6.9% or more $17,701 or less 15.5% or more meet the criteria of two of the three distressed At-risk 81 and and or (125% of US) (67% of US) (125% of US) level indicators. Transitional 222 All counties that are worse than the national average for one or more indicator but do not meet the criteria of the distressed or at-risk levels. 5.5% or less $21,136 - $26,419 12.4% or less Competitive 22 and and N/A (100% of US) (80 - 99% of US) (100% of US) 5.5% or less $26,420 or more 12.4% or less Attainment 8 and and N/A (100% of US) (100% of US) (100% of US) Source: Appalachian Regional Commission. Undated. Criteria for County Economic Levels, FY 2006. www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Criteria.xls. Data Notes: Indicator threshold values may not calculate to the exact US average breaking point due to rounding. The at-risk level was adopted in FY06 for the purpose of monitoring economic change and planning for investments in potentially distressed counties.

Table 29: Number of counties in Appalachian states per economic level in FY06, by state State Distressed At-risk Transitional Competitive Attainment Total Alabama 5 12 18 0 2 37 Georgia 0 0 29 5 3 37 Kentucky 32 12 7 0 0 51 Maryland 0 0 2 1 0 3 Mississippi 13 6 5 0 0 24 New York 0 0 14 0 0 14 North Carolina 1 6 17 4 1 29 Ohio 4 6 18 1 0 29 Pennsylvania 0 5 41 5 1 52 South Carolina 0 1 4 1 0 6 Tennessee 6 10 32 2 0 50 Virginia 1 7 13 1 1 23 West Virginia 15 16 22 2 0 55 Total 77 81 222 22 8 410 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission. Undated. County economic status designations in the Appalachian Region, fiscal year 2006. http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2934

Table 30: County economic status in West Virginia, FY06 Computed data Percent of US average Economic Unemp. Income Poverty Unemp. Income Poverty status level rate % (PCMI) $ rate % rate % (PCMI) $ rate % County MTR? FY06 2001-2003 2002 2000 2001-2003 2002 2000 Barbour N Distressed 8.8 12,754 22.6 159.5 48.3 182.2 Berkeley N Transitional 4.5 20,269 11.5 80.9 76.7 92.7 Boone Y At-risk 7.5 13,367 22.0 135.6 50.6 177.7 Braxton N Distressed 9.1 11,672 22.0 165.0 44.2 177.6 Brooke N Transitional 5.9 18,114 11.7 107.0 68.6 94.1 Cabell N Transitional 4.8 19,266 19.2 87.8 72.9 155.4 Calhoun N Distressed 15.8 10,293 25.1 286.3 39.0 202.5 Clay Y Distressed 9.3 9,930 27.5 169.7 37.6 222.2 Doddridge N At-risk 4.8 13,983 19.8 87.3 52.9 160.0 Fayette Y At-risk 7.7 13,159 21.7 140.6 49.8 175.0 Gilmer N Distressed 6.4 12,528 25.9 117.1 47.4 209.3 Grant N At-risk 8.5 17,277 16.3 154.1 65.4 131.9 Greenbrier N At-risk 7.4 16,824 18.2 134.4 63.7 147.1 Hampshire N Transitional 5.2 15,606 16.3 93.8 59.1 131.5 Hancock N Transitional 5.3 17,650 11.1 97.0 66.8 89.9 Hardy N Transitional 3.3 16,462 13.1 59.1 62.3 105.6 Harrison N Transitional 5.4 19,610 17.2 98.4 74.2 139.0 Jackson N Transitional 7.6 15,870 15.2 137.6 60.1 123.1 Jefferson N Competitive 3.2 24,180 10.3 58.0 91.5 83.4 Kanawha Y Transitional 4.5 25,170 14.4 82.1 95.3 116.2 Lewis N At-risk 7.1 15,436 19.9 129.5 58.4 161.1 Lincoln N Distressed 9.5 11,328 27.9 171.8 42.9 225.5 Logan Y At-risk 7.2 13,490 24.1 129.9 51.1 195.0 McDowell Y Distressed 9.9 8,296 37.7 179.0 31.4 304.5 Marion N Transitional 6.0 18,232 16.3 108.4 69.0 131.8 Marshall N Transitional 6.3 17,247 16.6 114.5 65.3 133.8 Mason N Distressed 11.9 13,901 19.9 215.4 52.6 161.0 Mercer N At-risk 5.1 16,147 19.7 92.2 61.1 159.4 Mineral N Transitional 7.3 15,747 14.7 131.7 59.6 118.7 Mingo Y Distressed 9.4 12,714 29.7 170.9 48.1 239.6 Monongalia N Transitional 2.7 21,351 22.8 49.1 80.8 184.4 Monroe N Transitional 4.3 14,256 16.2 78.1 54.0 131.1 Morgan N Transitional 3.8 21,100 10.4 68.5 79.9 84.1 Nicholas Y At-risk 7.3 14,569 19.2 132.1 55.1 155.3 Ohio N Transitional 4.0 22,583 15.8 71.8 85.5 127.6 Pendleton N Transitional 4.0 16,854 11.4 72.7 63.8 92.4 Pleasants N At-risk 8.5 16,404 13.7 154.5 62.1 110.7 Pocahontas N At-risk 7.3 15,339 17.1 132.2 58.1 138.5 Preston N Transitional 6.2 15,248 18.3 113.5 57.7 148.0 Putnam N Competitive 4.3 22,232 9.3 77.5 84.1 75.3 Raleigh Y Transitional 5.0 17,472 18.5 90.8 66.1 149.8 Randolph N Transitional 6.4 16,253 18.0 116.4 61.5 145.2 Ritchie N Distressed 8.8 14,321 19.1 159.3 54.2 154.4 Roane N Distressed 11.5 12,046 22.6 208.6 45.6 182.7 Summers N At-risk 7.1 10,116 24.4 128.4 38.3 197.3 Taylor N At-risk 5.3 13,541 20.3 96.9 51.3 164.0 Tucker N At-risk 7.2 14,884 18.1 131.4 56.3 146.6 Tyler N Transitional 6.2 14,316 16.6 113.0 54.2 134.2 Upshur N At-risk 6.4 14,284 20.0 116.7 54.1 161.7 Wayne Y At-risk 6.1 13,988 19.6 110.6 52.9 158.0 Webster N Distressed 7.4 9,902 31.8 134.4 37.5 256.5 Wetzel N Distressed 8.4 16,326 19.8 152.7 61.8 160.0 Wirt N Distressed 12.4 12,744 19.6 225.6 48.2 158.3 Wood N Transitional 5.6 19,310 13.9 102.0 73.1 111.9 Wyoming Y Distressed 6.8 12,483 25.1 122.9 47.2 202.8 Appalachia 5.6 20,422 13.6 100.9 77.3 110.2 United States 5.5 26,420 12.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). County Economic Status in the Appalachian Region, FY 2006. www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Appendix1_Region.xls

Table 31: County economic status for ARC counties in Kentucky, FY06 Computed data Percent of US average Economic Unemp. Income Poverty Unemp. Income Poverty status level rate % (PCMI) $ rate % rate % (PCMI) $ rate % County MTR? FY06 2001-2003 2002 2000 2001-2003 2002 2000 United States 5.5 26,420 12.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Appalachia 5.6 20,422 13.6 100.9 77.3 110.2 Adair N At-risk 5.4 13,408 24.0 98.8 50.8 193.7 Bath N At-risk 7.1 14,190 21.9 129.0 53.7 177.0 Bell Y Distressed 8.2 10,625 31.1 148.3 40.2 251.0 Boyd N Transitional 6.3 19,797 15.5 114.9 74.9 124.8 Breathitt Y Distressed 9.9 10,697 33.2 180.1 40.5 268.4 Carter N Distressed 12.4 12,486 22.3 225.8 47.3 180.2 Casey N Distressed 7.6 12,912 25.5 137.8 48.9 206.4 Clark N Transitional 5.5 22,639 10.6 100.7 85.7 86.0 Clay N Distressed 8.3 8,646 39.7 150.2 32.7 320.8 Clinton N Distressed 7.0 11,549 25.8 126.6 43.7 208.1 Cumberland N At-risk 7.2 11,361 23.8 130.4 43.0 192.4 Edmonson N At-risk 6.9 12,181 18.4 125.1 46.1 148.4 Elliott N Distressed 9.6 9,313 25.9 174.7 35.3 209.4 Estill N Distressed 6.8 12,049 26.4 123.4 45.6 213.6 Fleming N At-risk 5.5 14,083 18.6 100.5 53.3 150.7 Floyd Y Distressed 6.9 12,706 30.3 125.4 48.1 244.5 Garrard N Transitional 4.9 16,430 14.7 88.4 62.2 118.4 Green N Transitional 6.5 12,625 18.4 118.0 47.8 149.0 Greenup N Transitional 6.1 17,149 14.1 111.5 64.9 114.1 Harlan Y Distressed 9.9 10,349 32.5 180.1 39.2 262.5 Hart N At-risk 5.4 12,389 22.4 98.9 46.9 181.1 Jackson N Distressed 5.9 9,339 30.2 107.3 35.4 243.6 Johnson N Distressed 5.9 13,934 26.6 108.1 52.7 214.6 Knott Y Distressed 5.3 10,922 31.1 96.8 41.3 251.0 Knox N Distressed 6.9 12,093 34.8 126.1 45.8 281.4 Laurel Y At-risk 6.2 15,603 21.3 113.4 59.1 171.7 Lawrence Y Distressed 9.0 10,926 30.7 163.1 41.4 248.0 Lee N Distressed 7.7 9,825 30.4 140.7 37.2 245.8 Leslie Y Distressed 6.8 10,215 32.7 123.4 38.7 263.8 Letcher Y Distressed 9.3 12,410 27.1 169.1 47.0 218.9 Lewis N Distressed 11.2 9,788 28.5 202.6 37.0 230.2 Lincoln N At-risk 7.1 13,749 21.1 128.8 52.0 170.8 McCreary N Distressed 11.0 8,105 32.2 199.6 30.7 260.1 Madison N Transitional 4.8 16,888 16.8 86.5 63.9 135.4 Magoffin N Distressed 12.6 10,859 36.6 229.0 41.1 296.0 Martin Y Distressed 7.1 10,427 37.0 128.8 39.5 298.8 Menifee N Distressed 7.4 10,017 29.6 134.5 37.9 239.0 Monroe N Distressed 9.6 12,910 23.4 174.0 48.9 188.7 Montgomery N Transitional 6.1 16,959 15.2 110.7 64.2 122.6 Morgan N Distressed 10.0 10,343 27.2 181.6 39.1 219.9 Owsley N Distressed 5.9 9,075 45.4 106.9 34.4 366.6 Perry Y Distressed 7.1 13,553 29.1 129.4 51.3 235.1 Pike Y At-risk 5.6 14,697 23.4 100.8 55.6 189.2 Powell N Distressed 8.7 13,407 23.5 157.4 50.7 189.6 Pulaski N At-risk 7.0 15,492 19.1 126.5 58.6 154.2 Rockcastle N At-risk 6.5 11,467 23.1 117.3 43.4 186.7 Rowan N At-risk 5.5 14,539 21.3 100.6 55.0 171.7 Russell N Distressed 10.0 12,792 24.3 181.5 48.4 196.2 Wayne N Distressed 7.3 11,686 29.4 131.8 44.2 237.2 Whitley N Distressed 6.6 12,547 26.4 120.0 47.5 213.0 Wolfe N Distressed 8.3 8,951 35.9 151.1 33.9 290.1 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). County Economic Status in the Appalachian Region, FY 2006. www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Appendix1_Region.xls

Table 32: County economic status for ARC counties in Virginia, FY06 Computed data Percent of US Average Economic Unemp. Income Poverty Unemp. Income Poverty status level rate % (PCMI) $ rate % rate % (PCMI) $ rate % County MTR? FY06 2001-2003 2002 2000 2001-2003 2002 2000 United States 5.5 26,420 12.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Appalachia 5.6 20,422 13.6 100.9 77.3 110.2 Alleghany N Transitional 4.9 18,009 10.9 88.5 68.2 87.8 Bath N Competitive 4.9 22,478 7.8 89.7 85.1 62.9 Bland N Transitional 4.6 15,006 12.4 83.5 56.8 99.8 Botetourt N Attainment 2.7 27,835 5.2 48.8 105.4 42.0 Buchanan Y At-risk 7.9 13,622 23.2 143.6 51.6 187.2 Carroll N At-risk 8.6 15,599 13.6 155.3 59.0 109.9 Craig N Transitional 3.4 18,897 10.3 61.7 71.5 82.9 Dickenson Y Distressed 15.8 11,213 21.3 287.2 42.4 172.1 Floyd N Transitional 3.9 17,369 11.7 70.1 65.7 94.7 Giles N Transitional 6.1 16,263 9.5 110.2 61.6 77.1 Grayson N At-risk 9.2 15,051 13.6 167.9 57.0 110.0 Highland N Transitional 2.8 19,762 12.6 50.5 74.8 101.5 Lee Y At-risk 5.4 13,198 23.9 98.2 50.0 193.2 Montgomery N At-risk 3.0 17,603 24.5 54.3 66.6 197.6 Pulaski N Transitional 8.2 19,166 13.1 149.5 72.5 105.7 Rockbridge N Transitional 2.9 19,003 11.5 52.8 71.9 93.0 Russell Y Transitional 6.3 14,013 16.3 114.8 53.0 132.1 Scott N Transitional 5.3 14,004 16.8 95.7 53.0 135.4 Smyth N At-risk 9.3 15,492 13.3 168.5 58.6 107.7 Tazewell Y Transitional 4.8 15,713 15.3 87.3 59.5 123.6 Washington N Transitional 5.8 19,297 12.3 106.0 73.0 99.1 Wise Y At-risk 5.6 13,565 20.2 102.0 51.3 163.5 Wythe N Transitional 7.4 15,621 11.0 133.9 59.1 89.3 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). County Economic Status in the Appalachian Region, FY 2006. www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Appendix1_Region.xls

Table 33: County economic status for ARC counties in Tennessee, FY06 Computed data Percent of US average Economic Unemp. Income Poverty Unemp. Income Poverty status level rate % (PCMI) $ rate % rate % (PCMI) $ rate % County MTR? FY06 2001-2003 2002 2000 2001-2003 2002 2000 United States 5.5 26,420 12.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Appalachia 5.6 20,422 13.6 100.9 77.3 110.2 Anderson Y Transitional 4.2 21,667 13.1 76.5 82.0 106.2 Bledsoe N At-risk 7.3 14,835 18.1 132.1 56.1 146.0 Blount N Transitional 3.9 20,931 9.7 70.1 79.2 78.6 Bradley N Competitive 4.7 21,314 12.2 86.0 80.7 98.7 Campbell Y At-risk 6.0 13,584 22.8 109.4 51.4 184.5 Cannon N Transitional 5.4 18,690 12.8 98.3 70.7 103.2 Carter N Transitional 6.0 14,936 16.9 108.3 56.5 136.2 Claiborne Y At-risk 5.0 14,623 22.6 90.2 55.3 182.3 Clay N Distressed 11.3 14,242 19.1 204.6 53.9 154.5 Cocke N At-risk 7.9 12,879 22.5 143.2 48.7 182.0 Coffee N Transitional 4.6 19,579 14.3 84.5 74.1 115.7 Cumberland N Transitional 5.9 16,302 14.7 107.7 61.7 118.7 De Kalb N Transitional 5.1 16,489 17.0 91.8 62.4 137.5 Fentress N Distressed 9.7 13,250 23.1 175.5 50.2 186.3 Franklin N Transitional 4.4 17,058 13.2 80.5 64.6 106.6 Grainger N At-risk 6.8 14,989 18.7 124.3 56.7 150.9 Greene N Transitional 6.7 17,809 14.5 121.6 67.4 117.2 Grundy N Distressed 6.5 13,037 25.8 118.4 49.3 208.1 Hamblen N Transitional 5.8 19,653 14.4 105.5 74.4 116.1 Hamilton N Competitive 3.6 25,593 12.1 65.6 96.9 97.6 Hancock N Distressed 7.5 8,624 29.4 136.4 32.6 237.3 Hawkins N Transitional 6.0 16,613 15.8 108.9 62.9 127.4 Jackson N At-risk 7.5 14,642 18.1 135.8 55.4 146.2 Jefferson N Transitional 5.8 16,596 13.4 104.9 62.8 108.2 Johnson N Distressed 8.9 10,360 22.6 160.8 39.2 182.2 Knox N Transitional 2.8 25,999 12.6 51.3 98.4 101.7 Loudon N Transitional 4.0 20,731 10.0 72.8 78.5 80.8 McMinn N Transitional 8.1 16,223 14.5 148.0 61.4 116.8 Macon N Transitional 8.0 16,449 15.1 145.7 62.3 122.0 Marion N Transitional 5.7 16,901 14.1 103.6 64.0 114.0 Meigs N At-risk 8.0 14,452 18.3 144.4 54.7 147.9 Monroe N Transitional 7.6 13,839 15.5 138.1 52.4 124.8 Morgan N At-risk 9.9 13,708 16.0 180.1 51.9 129.4 Overton N Transitional 6.5 14,483 16.0 118.2 54.8 129.5 Pickett N At-risk 8.0 11,264 15.6 145.9 42.6 125.7 Polk N Transitional 6.0 16,175 13.0 108.9 61.2 105.4 Putnam N Transitional 4.9 18,767 16.4 88.2 71.0 132.8 Rhea N Transitional 6.0 15,026 14.7 109.1 56.9 118.7 Roane N Transitional 5.1 17,973 13.9 91.9 68.0 111.9 Scott N Distressed 9.9 10,887 20.2 180.1 41.2 163.4 Sequatchie N Transitional 5.3 15,082 16.5 96.2 57.1 133.5 Sevier N Transitional 5.9 20,166 10.7 107.7 76.3 86.2 Smith N Transitional 5.6 18,629 12.2 102.3 70.5 98.7 Sullivan N Transitional 4.9 20,949 12.9 88.3 79.3 104.4 Unicoi N Transitional 6.6 16,184 13.1 119.3 61.3 105.5 Union N At-risk 3.9 13,541 19.6 70.8 51.3 158.5 Van Buren N Transitional 8.0 15,561 15.2 145.5 58.9 123.1 Warren N Transitional 6.8 16,948 16.6 123.4 64.1 134.0 Washington N Transitional 4.8 19,329 13.9 87.7 73.2 112.7 White N Transitional 6.9 13,799 14.3 125.9 52.2 115.2 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). County Economic Status in the Appalachian Region, FY 2006. www.arc.gov/images/programs/distress/fy06report/FY2006_Appendix1_Region.xls

3. INFRASTRUCTURE MAPS AND/OR DATA SHOWING RAIL, HIGHWAY, ELECTRICITY, WATER, AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 3: West Virginia coal resources

Figure 4: West Virginia electrical features

Figure 5: West Virginia electrical features with wind classes

Figure 6: West Virginia transportation features

4. WIND MAPS, INCLUDING IDENTIFYING GAPS IN RESOURCE MAPS, ISSUES WITH EXISTING MAPS, AND COST ESTIMATES FOR FINER-SCALE REGIONAL WIND MODELING AND ENERGY POTENTIAL

4.1 Background

In order to obtain a finer‐scale state‐level wind map than was available from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the West Virginia Division of Energy (WVDOE) commissioned AWS TrueWind Solutions in 2002 to conduct a 200 meter resolution wind resource and energy potential assessment for West Virginia. The resulting TrueWind map and energy estimates are provided in Figure 7 and Table 34.

In sum, using wind measurements at a hub height of 70 meters, and based on a 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbine rating and a minimum Class 4 average annual wind designation (7.0 m/s), AWS TrueWind found that there is a total wind energy resource development potential of 3,830 MW on private lands in West Virginia (AWS TrueWind, 2002). As explained in the following section, due to technology advancements in both the mapping of the wind resource and the design and operation of wind turbines, these estimates are outdated; an updated and finer‐scale modeling of West Virginia’s wind resource and calculation of potential energy generation is needed.

Table 34: Wind potential in West Virginia Development potential (MW) Area With forests and Class Percent of state (square miles) Total parks excluded 1 87.7 21,217 0 0 2 8.7 2,097 0 0 3 2.2 531 15,000 8,500 4 0.7 180 5,400 2,100 5 0.3 83 2,500 800 6 0.3 68 2,000 700 7 0.1 29 880 230

Total, Class 3 and above 25,780 12,330 Total, Class 4 and above 10,780 3,830 Source: AWS TrueWind Solutions (2002).

Figure 7: West Virginia wind speeds at 70 meters height with 200 meter resolution

Source: AWS TrueWind (2002). Note: Wind speeds are at 200 meter resolution and 70 meter hub height.

Newer wind resource assessments have been completed for West Virginia. As shown in Figure 8, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory produced a wind resource map at a 50 meter height with 200 meter resolution.

Figure 8: West Virginia wind speeds at 50 meters height with 200 meter resolution

Source: 2008 wind data from National Renewable Energy Laboratory at 200 meter resolution and 50 meter hub height.

4.2 Gaps/issues with existing wind resource maps

Since AWS TrueWind Solutions conducted their study for West Virginia, mapping technology has advanced significantly, a fact which requires new modeling to be performed. In addition to mapping advancements, the original TrueWind study was conducted at a 200 meter resolution. Such maps are now available for free, and more useful maps provide wind data for resolutions of 100 meters or better. An example of the need for a finer‐scale wind modeling is exemplified by a WindLogics model created for Coal River Mountain in southern West Virginia (WindLogics, 2006). WindLogics is another national wind consulting firm similar to AWS TrueWind.

Requiring a finer‐resolution wind map of Coal River Mountain in order to ascertain the true wind energy potential for the site beyond what was evident in either the NREL or AWS TrueWind maps, WindLogics was commissioned by Appalachian Voices of Boone, North Carolina to conduct a 90 meter resolution map of the mountain. The finer‐ resolution map enabled the modeling of a potential wind farm and calculating the potential energy and economic benefits of a wind farm for the Coal River Mountain site.

Figure 9: Wind resources on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia, with 90 meter resolution, 80 meter hub height

Source: Map copied from Hansen et al. (2008), and based on wind speed data created by WindLogics (2006).

Another issue with existing wind maps for West Virginia is that they are modeled using turbine ratings that fail to generate energy potentials consistent with current technological capabilities. For instance, the AWS TrueWind calculations for West Virginia energy potential were based on a turbine rating of 1.5 MW. Most developers, in the eastern United States, however, are installing 2 MW turbines or higher. Depending on the relative power curves, it can be expected that this fact alone would result in a greater potential energy production from existing wind resources.

Finally, available energy production estimates were calculated for wind resources designated as Class 4 or higher. This also results in an underestimate of existing energy potential from wind development, as many wind developers—based on the fact that taller and more powerful wind turbines are now available—are beginning to develop wind speeds designated at mid‐Class 3 levels (6.5 meters/second and higher). This is significant for the Central Appalachian coalfield region as little of the wind resource in the region is currently designated as Class 4 or higher, yet there is a substantial amount of wind potential designated as falling in the Class 3 to 4 wind speed range. The TrueWind estimates in Table 34support this conclusion. When Class 3 sites are included, West Virginia’s

66 wind potential on private lands more than triples, jumping from 3,830 to 12,330 MW. For these reasons, wind developers pay little attention to the south‐central and southwestern portion of the state. This could possibly be remedied if higher resolution wind maps were available.

One final gap in the available wind data is that there is not a single existing wind model for West Virginia, or any Central Appalachian state for that matter, that provides an estimate of wind energy potential for small‐scale (less than 100 kilowatt) wind energy technologies. Small‐scale wind technologies can take advantage of a range of wind speeds, yet are designed most specifically to harness lower wind speeds (Class 3 and lower). However, there is a vast amount of small‐scale wind energy that can be tapped, resulting in a substantial amount of clean energy being generated and potentially driving the creation of a strong small‐wind based economy.

4.3 Research needs

Two main research needs have been identified: 1. A mapping and analysis of the true existing resource in Central Appalachia at 100 meter resolution or less, and at an 80‐100 meter hub height, with a focus on the coalfields. 2. A comprehensive, fine‐scale study showing the total small‐wind energy resource.

In order to address these research needs, a request has been submitted to a wind resource assessment company for a fine‐scale modeling of the following regions: Central Appalachia, West Virginia, and the southern West Virginia surface mining counties. The request included estimates for both small‐ and utility‐scale wind resources, for the cost of mapping the wind resource, as well as the cost for generating estimates of the potential energy production for both types of wind development. The request was made for a mapping at a 100 meter resolution or better, at an 80 to 90 meter hub height (for the purpose of estimating utility‐scale wind potential), and at a 30 to 50 meter hub height (for the purpose of estimating the small wind energy potential). The request was also made to use existing turbine capabilities. Finally, the southern West Virginia modeling request was made for the following surface coal mining counties: Boone, Clay, Fayette, Kanawha, Logan, McDowell, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Wayne, and Wyoming).

4.4 Conclusion

As interest and investments in wind energy expand and the federal government moves toward regulating carbon emissions related to electricity generation, there is likely to be a rapid increase in the number of wind energy proposals in Central Appalachia. One driving factor that is already proving to increase interest in the region’s wind resources is the availability of both a production tax credit and an investment tax credit at the federal level. These incentives make wind energy more competitive on the electricity market, thus rendering more projects profitable, at least to a greater degree of certainty.

However, the majority of those projects are not being proposed in the coalfields of Central Appalachia, for a number of reasons. The greatest inhibitor of wind development in Central Appalachian coal‐producing counties is the ownership of the land and minerals by absentee landholding companies and coal companies that make a greater profit off of extracting coal than they would from leasing the surface for wind development. The second reason, however, is that existing wind maps fail to present the true wind resource; therefore, developers often pay little attention to the possibility of developing this renewable resource.

For this reason, a more detailed mapping of the region’s wind resource—at varying heights and based on a range of existing technologies—can help spur greater interest in developing the wind resources of the most impoverished and coal‐impacted counties of Central Appalachia.

4.5 Anemometers

An anemometer is used to measure wind speeds in the field. This is often necessary before a wind developer will move forward with a project. Developers will often finance the verification process themselves. However, private landowners may need to install an anemometer on their own property if they are pursuing a wind project that is not of interest to a utility‐scale developer.

The cost for an anemometer has been estimated at $13,000‐$15,000 per 50 meter tower, $2,000‐$4,000 per tower for labor, $100 per month for data analysis, and $10,000‐$20,000 annually for administrative costs (Foley, 2009).

4.6 References

AWS TrueWind Solutions. 2002. Wind Mapping of West Virginia.

Foley, Erik. 2009. Director, Renewable Energy Center, St. Francis University. E‐mail with author McIlmoil. Mar 13.

Hansen, E., A. Collins, M. Hendryx, F. Boettner, and A. Hereford. 2008. The Long‐Term Economic Benefits of Wind Versus Mountaintop Removal Coal on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia. Morgantown, WV: Downstream Strategies. Dec.

WindLogics. 2006. Coal River Mountain Area, West Virginia regional prospecting analysis. Confidential report produced for the BKA Group, LLC.

5. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND CLIMACTIC CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL FOR METHANE, BIOMASS, AND ENERGY CROPS West Virginia and other CAPP states have the potential to generate agriculture‐based renewable energy from methane, biomass, and energy crops. With 12 million acres of forestland and 3.6 million acres of farmland (Wang and McNeel, 2007), West Virginia can produce resources to be used:  as fuel for direct combustion,  in gasified form,  in combined heat and power technologies, or  in biochemical conversions (Milbrandt, 2005).

5.1 Biomass resources in West Virginia and CAPP states

According to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory assessment of biomass resources across the country, West Virginia has by far the lowest estimated resources among the four CAPP states: 2,445 tonnes/year (Milbrandt, 2005) (See Table 35). (The Milbrandt study uses metric tons—“tonnes;” other studies cited in this section use US short tons—“tons”. One tonne is equivalent to 1.102 tons.) Of West Virginia’s biomass resources, virtually all are wood residues from forests and mills.

Table 35: Estimated biomass resources in CAPP states (thousand tonnes/year) West Resource Virginia Kentucky Tennessee Virginia

Agricultural residues Crop residues 32 1,722 1,501 502 Methane Emissions from Manure Management 1 34 20 23

Wood residues Forest residues 1,347 2,055 1,319 2,403 Primary mill residues: Total 807 1,433 1,557 2,147 Primary mill residues: Unused 114 77 153 66 Secondary mill residues 15 52 75 62 Urban mill residues 184 454 614 813

Dedicated energy crops case studies Conservation Reserve Program Lands: Switchgrass 9 1,822 1,375 297 Conservation Reserve Program Lands: Willow or hybrid poplar 7 1,433 1,088 212

Municipal discards Methane emissions from landfills 47 250 274 275 Methane Emissions from Domestic Wastewater Treatment 3 7 9 12

Total 2,445 7,830 6,745 6,535 Source: Milbrandt (2005). Note: Totals may not match due to rounding. Total includes all categories except unused primary mill residues and willow or hybrid poplar. Unused primary mill residues are not included because total primary mill residues are included. Willow or hybrid poplar are not included because switchgrass on the same land is included.

A more recent report presents a more detailed picture of West Virginia’s biomass resources, as shown in Table 36.

Table 36: West Virginia’s biomass resources (thousand dry tons/year) Resource Amount

Agricultural residues Animal manure 663 Corn silage 131 Grass seed residue 101 Solid wood material from the construction and demolition 26 waste Corn stover 11 Switchgrass 4 Wheat straw 4 Short rotation woody crop 3 Soybean residue 2 Subtotal 904

Wood residues Logging residue 1,340 Mill residues 942 Urban tree residues 118 Pallet residues 13 Subtotal 2,410 Source: Wang and McNeel (2007). Note: The total agricultural residues shown in the original source (904) does not match the sum of the individual agricultural residues (944).

5.2 Agricultural residues

The agricultural residue estimates provided above in TABLES X AND Y are very different. Milbrandt estimates that West Virginia has about 32,000 dry tonnes/year of crop residues, compared with 131,000 dry tons/year of corn silage estimated by Wang and McNeel. Considering other crop residues such as corn stover, wheat straw, and soybean residue, would increase the Wang and McNeel estimate even further. West Virginia Department of the Environment’s (WVDOE) estimate of the state’s crop residue—41,000 tons/year—lies in between these studies (WVDOE, 2007).

The manure figures are not comparable; while Milbrandt reports methane emissions from manure management, Wang and McNeel report tons of manure. According to WVDOE (2006), West Virginia’s poultry industry generates 190,000 tons of chicken litter per year, which can be considered an energy resource. WVDOE recommends using litter as an alternative to the use of propane in broiler houses in the winter. The agency also recommends that larger poultry farmers install gasification units or methane generation (WVDOE, 2006).

While litter is a potential energy resource, it is primarily used as fertilizer and can also be used as a feed supplement (Wang and McNeel, 2007).

The West Virginia Environmental Council, in its Citizens Energy Plan, recommends that chicken litter be composted aerobically in production greenhouses. This would generate heat and carbon dioxide, both of which would provide for more optimal growing conditions. Compost created through this process would then be available as a soil amendment (WVEC, 2009).

5.3 Wood residues

West Virginia is predominantly forested, with 78% of its land area covered by forests. Most of this forestland— 88%‐‐is privately owned (Grushecky, 2007).

Although numbers are not provided for every category in the tables above, wood residues can be divided into the following categories: 1. Primary a. Logging residues b. Fuel treatment c. Tree trimming 2. Secondary a. Primary wood processing mill residues b. Secondary wood processing mill residues c. Pulping liquors (black liquor) 3. Tertiary a. Urban wood residues (Wang, Undated)

The wood residues estimates presented by Wang and McNeel roughly match those presented by Milbrandt: 2,410,000 tons/year versus 2,353,000 tonnes/year. WVDOE provides a higher estimate: 4,780,000 tons/year of underutilized wood residues (WVDOE, 2007).

The West Virginia forest products industry includes approximately 140 sawmills, about 300 secondary producers, three large engineered wood producers, and wood products facilities in every county (Grushecky, 2007).

The economic impact of wood products in West Virginia is significant. Including direct, indirect, and induced impacts, the industry is responsible for $4 billion in sales, 29,800 jobs, $703 million in employee compensation, and $45 million in assorted state taxes (Grushecky, 2007).

According to Wang and McNeel (2007), most mill residues are used for fuel; the remaining residues are used for mulch and composite materials (Table 37). The percentage used for boiler fuel has decreased sharply from 65.7% in 1999 (Wang and McNeel, 2007).

Table 37: Mill residue uses in West Virginia in 2005 Use Percentage of mill residues

Fuel uses Pellet fuel 66.7% Boiler fuel 17.5% Subtotal 84.2%

Non-fuel uses Mulch 8.6% Composite materials 7.2% Subtotal 15.8% Source: Wang and McNeel (2007).

5.4 Dedicated energy crops

While agricultural and wood residues can be used to produce renewable energy in multiple forms, dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass or fast‐growing trees can be used as feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels (Capehart, 2008). A side benefit to farmers is that dedicated energy crops can sometimes be grown on land unsuitable for conventional crops. These crops can also help protect farmland against erosion (Milbrandt, 2005).

According to the Center for Business and Economic Research (2006), switchgrass shows particular potential in southern Appalachia because it is native to the region, highly productive, extremely resistant to disease, and able to grow well on marginal soils. A switchgrass analysis has been completed in the CAPP state of Tennessee (Garland, Undated).

As summarized in Table 35 above, Milbrandt (2005) considers case studies in which Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land is planted to dedicated energy crops. In the first scenario, switchgrass is grown; in the second scenario, willow or hybrid poplar is grown. In both scenarios, however, the potential for growing energy crops on CRP land in West Virginia is quite small compared with other CAPP states. The fundamental reason is that West Virginia farmers do not make significant use of CRP. In fact, only 4,264 acres of West Virginia farmland were under CRP as of September 30, 2007 (Farm Service Agency, 2009). Therefore, evaluating the full potential for dedicated energy crops in West Virginia will require an assessment of non‐CRP lands.

One idea under consideration in West Virginia is to grow switchgrass on abandoned mine lands (AMLs). In 2008, West Virginia University received a $550,000 Brownfields award to turn AMLs into fields capable of growing switchgrass and other biofuels. The goal of this project is to develop sustainable energy parks on mine‐scarred lands. Specific tasks include producing an inventory of AMLs suitable for redevelopment into sustainable energy parks, identifying large tracts of mine‐scarred land that can be used for renewable energy production, conducting surveys of potential sites, and engaging affected communities. One comprehensive pilot program will then be selected (Wafle, 2008).

The Wang and McNeel (2007) figures summarized above in Table 36 show the potential for about 4,000 dry tons/year of switchgrass in West Virginia. This is listed as an agricultural residue; it is not clear whether this figure truly represents the potential for switchgrass residue, as opposed to the full potential for switchgrass. The value of 4,000 dry tons/year is less than half of the 9,000 dry tons/year estimated for switchgrass in Milbrandt’s CRP scenario.

5.5 Precipitation and temperature in West Virginia

Figure 10: West Virginia average annual precipitation

Figure 11: West Virginia average annual temperature

Figure 12: West Virginia average maximum temperature

Figure 13: West Virginia average annual minimum temperature

5.6 References

Capehart, T. 2008. Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Nov 7.

Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER). 2006. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Appalachia: Policy and Potential. Marshall University. Prepared for: Appalachian Regional Commission. Aug 28.

Farm Service Agency. 2009. Cumulative CRP Enrollment by County, FY 1986 through FY 2007. www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/public.xls

Garland, C. D. Undated. Growing and Harvesting Switchgrass for Ethanol Production in Tennessee. Tennessee Biofuels Initiative, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, UT. Extension SP‐701a.

Grushecky, S., J. Wiedenbeck, and B. Spong 2008. A Summary of WV Roundwood Markets and Utilization Rates. West Virginia University, Appalachian Hardwood Center and USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station.

Milbrandt, A. 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Technical Report NREL/TP‐560‐39181. Dec.

Wafle, T. 2008. WVU Receives $550,000 EPA Award for Sustainable Energy Parks Project. Press release from West Virginia University National Research Center for Coal and Energy. Sep 10.

Wang, J. Undated. Woody Biomass Resources, Utilization, and Opportunities in West Virginia. West Virginia University, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, Biomaterials and Wood Utilization Research Center.

Wang, J. and J. McNeel. 2007. Biomass and Bioenergy Research Development at West Virginia University. Presented at the 2007 SURA Bioenergy Summit, February 27‐28, 2007, Washington, DC. www.sura.org/commercialization/docs/Feb07_Summit_White_Papers/18‐WVU_BioEnergySURA.doc

West Virginia Division of Energy (WVDOE). 2007. West Virginia Energy Opportunities: A Blueprint for the Future, Resources for Economic Growth and Energy Security.

West Virginia Environmental Council (WVEC). 2009 West Virginia Citizens’ Energy Plan for Economic Opportunities and a Sustainable Future. Third Edition. June www.wvecouncil.org/

6. EXISTING MANUFACTURING PLANTS THAT CAN MAKE COMPONENTS FOR GREEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND GENERAL REQUISITES AND INCENTIVES FOR ATTRACTING INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPERS TO THE REGION

6.1 Background

“Experienced in equipment and components manufacturing, and with substantial infrastructure on the ground, Appalachia may be in a position to engage this growing energy sector and provide local growth in jobs and investment.” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2007)

Across most of Central Appalachia, there seems to be a substantial shortage of existing manufacturing of components for green energy technologies. At the same time, there is significant potential for taking advantage of and expanding the manufacturing capabilities of existing manufacturers in order both to meet the growing demand in the region for renewable energy equipment, and to create new, green jobs in the renewable energy sector. However, even while sitting on vast green energy resources such as wind, solar, and biomass, the region lags far behind in capitalizing on those resources for driving new economic development. For this reason, it seems appropriate to discuss existing and potential renewable energy component manufacturing capability alongside a discussion of the requisites and incentives for attracting investment and developers to the Central Appalachian region.

This analysis will focus primarily on West Virginia, and to a secondary extent Kentucky, while reporting on the green manufacturing potential and related economic benefits for each of the four Central Appalachian states as reported by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) in their 2007 report, “Energizing Appalachia: Global Challenges and the Prospect of a Renewable Future." To understand what opportunities exist for Appalachia and to engage the renewable energy sector, the report “analyzed the region’s potential capacity to manufacture components for the wind, solar, and biomass industries.” In order to calculate the existing number of firms and jobs tied to manufacturing industries with potential to enter the renewable energy sector, the report relied upon a review of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and 2002 US Census Bureau county business pattern data. ARC only selected data for NAICS codes that represented industries that manufacture components having a certain degree of similarity to those used by the wind, solar, and biomass industries, and their analysis “revealed not only the degree of potential (manufacturing) capacity, but also how it is distributed across the region” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2007).

This chapter will begin by providing a survey of known existing companies that have begun manufacturing component parts for use in renewable energy development, and will then discuss relevant results from the ARC’s survey of existing manufacturing capacity with the potential to enter the renewables sector. In order to address how the Central Appalachian states can take advantage of the growth in green technology development, this chapter will then address the opportunities, requisites, and incentives for enabling such growth to occur in the region.

Existing manufacturing involved in making renewable energy components In identifying existing manufacturing in the green technologies sectors related to wind, solar, and biomass production, our survey focused solely on West Virginia. While the other three Central Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee appear to have a greater number of manufacturing companies making component parts for renewable technologies, to varying degrees, West Virginia has very few. While information is available for the two Central Appalachian states with the least coal mining activity (Virginia and Tennessee), there

78 is not a readily accessible listing of existing green manufacturing companies for either West Virginia or Kentucky (Environmental Defense Fund, 2009). For those identified in West Virginia, however, we provide an overview of each company and the parts or equipment they manufacture for use in the construction of renewable energy systems.

Steel of West Virginia, Huntington Steel manufacturing, solar support systems http://swvainc.com/ (304) 696‐8200

Steel of West Virginia is a specialty steel manufacturing plant that has been manufacturing equipment for various industrial purposes in West Virginia for decades. They consider themselves a green company primarily because they have retrofitted their plant in order to be able to recycle waste materials such as old mine rails and parts and scrap metal. They also recycle as much of their waste heat as possible using natural gas reheat furnaces, and they recycle the water they consume for cooling purposes. According to the company, their only hazardous byproduct is steel dust, but they recapture that and sell it for making road‐based materials.

Their Huntington plant is now manufacturing parts for solar energy systems being constructed in the western region of the United States. The component they manufacture is the lightweight part of the frame assembly to which the solar panels are attached. Being a custom steel company, Steel of West Virginia is also capable of potentially manufacturing component parts for wind turbines, such as the tower and turbine blades. According to their president, the company has been approached by a few wind developers, but has yet to be contracted for making turbine parts.

West Virginia Alloys, Alloy Silicon manufacturing, solar photovoltaics http://www.glbsm.com/GlobeMetallurgical/

West Virginia Alloys is a subsidiary of Globe Metallurgical, Inc., which is among the world’s largest producers of silicon metal and silicon‐based allows. The company’s customers include manufacturers of solar photovoltaic cells. West Virginia Alloys uses electric arc furnaces to produce nearly pure silicon. This project allows the company to capture energy from the silicon furnaces and gain an advantage over competitors that typically vent this energy. The company will install waste heat recovery boilers that convert exhaust heat into steam, which in turn will drive a power generator. The resulting energy will offset nearly one‐third of the purchased electricity used in the furnaces, eliminating costs and associated emissions of purchased power. The company takes advantage of, and was likely sited due to, its proximity to West Virginia’s silicon quarry mines. This provides West Virginia Alloys with a competitive advantage for taking advantage of future growth in the solar energy sector.

Tower Logistics, Huntington Wind component manufacturing, turbine installation http://www.tower‐logistics.com/index.php

Tower Logistics is based in Huntington, West Virginia, and according to their Web site has for 130 years provided manufacturing, servicing, and installation of wind turbines, as well as the design and fabrication of major wind turbine components. Given the rapid growth of wind energy development in West Virginia, Tower Logistics is well‐positioned for expanding their manufacturing base, and their location in southern West Virginia offers the potential for creating new economic opportunity for residents of the coalfield counties of Mingo, Logan, Kanawha, and Wayne. It would also appear that their proximity to Steel of West Virginia should provide the potential for developing a wind energy business cluster, thereby creating a competitive advantage on the wind market due to lower costs of production stemming from two companies on the wind supply chain being in such close proximity to each other.

6.2 Existing manufacturing with potential to make renewable energy components

“As a whole, Appalachian counties possess almost 200,000 jobs in manufacturing parts and components that could, with modification, be suited for production of renewable energy components. This also includes almost 3,000 existing manufacturers within the region that possess similar potential to engage the renewable energy industry.” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2007)

According to the ARC (2007), 51,973 jobs spread across 637 manufacturing firms in the four states of the Central Appalachian region could potentially be employed in the manufacturing of component parts for biomass, solar, and wind facilities. The ARC report breaks these numbers down by state and energy sector. Unfortunately, while providing a well‐researched count of the number of firms and jobs, the study does not provide company names. For that reason, this section will only provide the summary results.

As part of our research gap analysis, however, we noted that the Environmental Defense Fund had generated a listing of existing and potential green manufacturing companies operating in both Tennessee and Virginia, but had not yet done so for the other states. For that reason, it must be reiterated that a comprehensive survey and listing is needed of existing manufacturing companies that either already manufacture component parts for developing green energy technologies, or have the capacity to do so.

The advantage that the region has is that there is a significant amount of renewable energy potential in Central Appalachia related to the three primary industries. For instance, AWS TrueWind Solutions (2002) identified 3,830 megawatts (MW) of wind potential on private lands in West Virginia alone. The Institute for Local Self‐Reliance estimates a rooftop solar photovoltaic energy capacity of 6 million megawatt‐hours (MWh) of generation per year (Farrell and Morris, 2008), and the US Department of Energy estimates an annual cellulosic biomass feedstock production for conversion to ethanol of 2.4 million dry tons per year (US Department of Energy, 2009) Overall, these three renewable energy sectors offer significant growth potential that the state could take advantage of, especially in combination with national momentum, incentives, and policy support for growth.

For this reason, knowledge of the location, manufacturing capabilities, and capacity of existing companies within the region that could potentially expand their industries to include the manufacture of renewable energy component parts would prove useful in identifying the connections and partnerships that can be created for maximizing the growth in the state’s and the region’s green manufacturing base, in order to take advantage of the full economic potential offered by existing resources. For the purposes of this chapter, however, based on the lack of available information, we only provide the data included in the ARC (2007) report.

ARC found:  Each of the 13 Appalachian member states have counties with concentrated manufacturing potential of over 100 jobs or over 5 components in each of the three industries considered (wind, solar, biomass).  Several areas of concentrated employment potential exist for each of the three sectors in excess of 1,000 jobs in a single county, including Wood County, West Virginia, which has 2,710 jobs and three establishments producing component parts similar to those needed by the solar photovoltaic industry.  Regionally (across all 13 ARC member states), over 28,000 potential manufacturing jobs exist within economically distressed or at‐risk Appalachian counties (as designated by the ARC).

The following is a breakdown of total potential renewable energy manufacturing employment for ARC member states that lie within the Central Appalachian region:  West Virginia: 9,833 total jobs, 148 total manufacturing establishments (primary sectors: solar, wind)  Kentucky: 7,206 total jobs, 66 total manufacturing establishments (primary sectors: wind)  Virginia: 8,690 total jobs, 68 total manufacturing establishments (primary sectors: biomass)  Tennessee: 26,244 total jobs, 355 total manufacturing establishments (primary sectors: wind)

Table 38 provides a breakdown of the survey results by sector for West Virginia (note: some overlap exists due to some components being available to more than one energy sector):

Table 38: West Virginia manufacturing potential to support the wind, solar, and biomass industries West Virginia Wind Solar Biomass Total Employment 3,688 4,414 2,055 10,157

Establishments 75 40 48 163

Ritchie Wood Hancock County with greatest 1,177 jobs 2,710 jobs 588 jobs employment 3 facilities 3 facilities 2 facilities concentration 1 component 2 components 2 components

283 Employment in ARC 649 123 (instruments and related 1,055 "at-risk" counties (plastics products) (plastics material and resin) products) Source: ARC (2007).

CAPP aims to help develop new economic opportunities in a clean energy economy in the rural areas of Central Appalachia where surface mining occurs. However, none of the counties listed in Table 38 are situated in the southern West Virginia mountaintop removal coal mining region. Instead, these counties are in northern West Virginia where very little surface mining occurs. Also, as shown in Figure 14, very few of the potential green manufacturing jobs estimated to be available in the Appalachian region exist in rural areas. They are predominantly situated in metropolitan and micropolitan areas.

Figure 14: Potential renewable sector manufacturing jobs by county population classification

Source: Copied from ARC (2007).

To conclude, the Appalachian region, and in particular the Central Appalachian region, holds great potential for providing jobs and investment in the renewable energy sector. A total of 51,973 manufacturing jobs could exist in the wind, solar, and biomass renewable energy sectors in the four Central Appalachian states of West Virginia,

Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee. Of those, 4,942 (or 9.5%) could lie within counties designated as “At‐Risk” according to ARC guidelines (ARC, 2007).

The energy resources exist and the manufacturing capabilities are there. A package of policies and incentives is required to attract renewable energy developers and investment to the region. The following section summarizes the pre‐requisites for growth in renewable manufacturing and provides recommendations, as identified by the ARC report, for creating an attractive business atmosphere for the target industries.

Requisites for attracting investment In general, companies and investors are attracted to states and regions that can provide the following (Sloan, 2009):  Proximity to raw materials. One of the greatest assets Appalachia has is a wealth of raw materials. For the solar, wind, and biomass sectors, these include metallurgical coal and natural gas for forging steel, silicon for manufacturing solar photovoltaic cells, and a vast amount of woody biomass and other cellulosic material for creating ethanol.  Demand for the product. This is also an area where Appalachia fares well. Due to its heavy industrial base, the region consumes a vast amount of energy, while per capita electricity consumption ranks among the highest in the nation.  Proximity to the consumer. Transportation and transmission costs are reduced by minimizing the distance a product has to travel to get to the consumer. Doing so allows the energy resource in question to remain competitive with traditional energy sources.  Existence of a skilled workforce. Unfortunately, this is one area where Appalachia lags behind other regions. Lack of political will and enabling policies has resulted in most of the Central Appalachian region, West Virginia in particular, falling behind the rest of the nation in preparing itself for shifts in energy development. One of the most important consequences of that has been a failure to provide the education and training necessary for preparing the region’s workforce to take advantage of that shift. This is one area that will require resources, the development of strategic partnerships, and other efforts.  Favorable tax structures, incentives, and policies. This is another area where most of Central Appalachia is lagging, although in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, there have been recent changes in state policy that provide the necessary impetus for attracting renewable energy industries. West Virginia, on the other hand, has done little to create the necessary economic environment.

6.3 Incentives and policies to drive growth of green manufacturing

“Attempts to transition existing manufacturers to pursue markets in renewable energy will likely differ from outright courting of new manufacturing. Outreach and education programs for manufacturers with the technical capacity to produce renewable energy components, such as those identified in this report, may be an appropriate mechanism to employ.” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2007)

To build upon the existing assets and opportunities that exist in Central Appalachia for driving economic growth in the renewable energy sectors, a strong set of policies and incentives must be put in place that make the region more attractive to investors and developers. ARC provides a comprehensive suite of tools, broken down by strategy, that will help encourage renewable energy development and manufacturing in Central Appalachia.

6.3.1 Financial Incentives Renewable Energy Manufacturers Tax Credits. Such policies offer corporate tax incentives for companies engaged in renewable energy equipment manufacturing. Credits can be applied against gross receipts taxes, manufacturers’ taxes, and extraction taxes, among others, paid by manufacturers of renewable equipment. The breadth and scope of renewable equipment and technologies eligible under such incentives are at the discretion of the instituting body.

Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPSs) and Tax Credit Multipliers for In‐State Manufacturing. Such policies can be included in existing or pending renewable energy requirements and set asides such as RPSs or Renewable Energy Standards (RES) that enable those entities subject to the requirement to receive extra credits toward their requirement by purchasing equipment manufactured in a designated area. Increasing the effective tax incentive for consumers of renewable energy equipment that purchase from an in‐state manufacturer can also be offered to both residential and commercial entities.

Tax Credits or Multipliers for Manufacturing in Distressed Regions. Similar to the previous policy, credit multipliers can be provided to entities subject to RPSs if they purchase equipment manufactured from distressed regions. More immediately, tax credit multipliers can be offered to renewable manufactures that site facilities in regions designated as economically distressed.

Research and Development and “Advanced’” Technology Grants and Loans. Offering grants and low interest loans for entities engaged in innovative research and development or high tech technologies can encourage growth in the industry.

Incubator Programs for Renewable Energy Industries. These programs provide support through education, business services, and even space for entrepreneurs interested in renewable energy technologies in the Appalachian region.

6.3.2 Organizational or Educational Programs Renewable Energy Manufacturing Business Outreach Programs: These can establish or augment existing business and manufacturing education programs to provide education and information on opportunities to transition to or engage renewable energy industries.

Bridging Local Manufacturing with Industry Suppliers and Vendors: By providing a forum or infrastructure, programs can build bridges between the renewable energy industry and regional facilities capable or interested in producing equipment for that industry.

Regional Renewable Energy Industry Consortiums: Consortiums can provide an arena where active industries can enhance coordination in the region. Services to improve upon supply chain management and customer relationship management can also benefit the competitiveness of the region’s renewable energy industries.

6.3.3 Other Support for State and Federal Renewable Energy Policies: Providing or continuing support for state and federal incentives that drive demand or reduce the costs of renewable energy technology and energy production will be important to continue near and long‐term growth in these new industries. RPSs offer certainty for all levels of the renewable energy industry, including equipment manufacturers, project developers and financers, utilities, and consumers. Maintaining and supporting consistent tax credit policy over longer timeframes with established sunset clauses is also important, as evidenced by the cycling passage and expiration of the federal production tax credit for renewable energy.

Production Tax Credits, Grants, and Loans for Cellulosic Ethanol: Tax credits based upon the units of renewable energy produced can encourage ethanol refining facilities to site within a given region. Providing incentives and low‐interest starter loans specific to the cellulosic industry can jumpstart the region in the production of this form of fuel. Grants associated with research and development in the cellulosic arena can also help establish a foundation for the nascent industry in the region, perhaps in association with existing research and educational institutions.

Renewable Fuel Standards: Augmenting the federal Renewable Fuel Standard with passage of a long‐term goal for cellulosic fuel production or consumption in the region can provide for certainty for investors and producers of cellulosic ethanol.

Finally, ARC concludes by stating that “immediate next steps…should involve an in‐depth assessment of the manufacturers identified in this report [none of which are situated in West Virginia]. Beyond their technical capacity to produce components for renewable energy industries, important aspects of their transitional capacity must be gauged. Ownership and management structures must be identified in addition to assessing each establishment’s interest and means to transition production capacity. Additionally, outreach to existing renewable energy industries, particularly those interested in diversifying their supply chain or expanding local energy production can provide important cues for expanding manufacturing capacity within the Appalachian region.” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2007)

6.4 References

Appalachian Regional Commission. 2007. Energizing Appalachia: Global Challenges and the Prospect of a Renewable Future. www.arc.gov/images/reports/2008/energy/ARC_EnerApp_Final_full.pdf. Sept.

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) .2009. Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System. www.arc.gov/search/method/cty_econ.jsp.

AWS TrueWind Solutions. 2002. Wind Mapping of West Virginia.

Environmental Defense Fund. 2009. “Mapping the Green Economy.” Online: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=34065&state=TN.

US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 2009. State Assessment for Biomass Resources. www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/sabre/sabre.php?state=west‐virginia.

Farrell, J. and D. Morris. 2008. Energy Self‐Reliant States: Homegrown Renewable Power. Institute for Local Self‐ Reliance. Nov. www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/energyselfreliantstates.pdf

Sloan, Susan. 2009. American Wind Energy Association. Email exchange with Bill Becker, University of Colorado. Jul 7.

7. EXISTING GREEN INDUSTRIES AND EXISTING GREEN JOBS DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE REGION: TRAINING PROGRAMS, ADVOCACY AND POLICY GROUPS

7.1 Background

This section provides details about various forms of green jobs development occurring in West Virginia. These are development initiatives being pursued and carried out by a host of non‐profit organizations, private businesses, coalitions, foundations, and other advocacy groups (in no particular order). Many have started up only in the last couple of years, reflecting the fledgling but rapidly growing interest in green jobs development and desire to create environmentally just, economically equitable, and sustainable opportunities for creating jobs and generating revenue across southern West Virginia.

The following information includes all known existing green jobs development infrastructure that has yet to be submitted for fulfilling the promised deliverables for Phase I of the Central Appalachian Prosperity Project (CAPP). More specifically, information and contacts regarding existing infrastructure under which a state‐wide and local green jobs training program can be developed was already provided on July 10, 2009. That information included key contacts and organizations with a connection to economic development and workforce training, education, labor, and workforce training advocacy groups. It did not seem necessary to re‐submit the complete list of programs and organizations that currently, or may potentially play a role in green jobs training. However, the key groups we feel should be targeted are the state system of community and technical colleges, the Regional Planning and Development Councils, the local Workforce Development Boards, the local/regional WorkForce West Virginia Career Centers, the local One Stop training centers, and the regional Community Action Partnerships, as well as local governments and economic development authorities.

Similarly, a more extensive list of renewable energy‐related companies and manufacturers has already been provided. However, the following descriptive list is provided here to highlight the more prominent advocacy, support, development, and industrial groups and companies that are playing a strong role in generating clean energy and energy efficiency solutions and creating opportunities for green jobs development across the state.

The movement for developing a green jobs workforce in West Virginia is not being led by the state or even by industry. So far, it is being led by local and regional community and advocacy groups. The same can be said for the creation of sustainable community development opportunities, whether they be related to green jobs or not. The most prominent capital industries that have begun forming in West Virginia are related to residential‐ and commercial‐scale renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, and this is where we see the greatest number of companies arising. While the wind industry in West Virginia is growing rapidly—most prominently in the northern and eastern regions of the state—the appearance of other large renewable energy industries such as solar and biomass has yet to occur. However, given new state and federal legislation that offer tax and policy incentives for renewable energy development and energy efficiency improvements, it is possible that West Virginia will witness growth in the solar photovoltaic, biomass/biofuels, landfill gas, and, possibly, small and low‐impact hydro industries.

7.2 The Pew study

A recent key study from the Pew Charitable Trusts (2009) discusses green jobs growth trends in West Virginia.

Pew Green Economy definition: “A clean energy economy generates jobs, businesses and investments while expanding clean energy production, increasing energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste and pollution, and conserving water and other natural resources…It comprises five categories: (1) Clean Energy, (2) Energy Efficiency, (3) Environmentally Friendly Production, (4) Conservation and Pollution Mitigation, and (5) Training and Support.”

Key Point: “America's clean energy economy has grown despite a lack of sustained government support in the past decade. By 2007, more than 68,200 businesses across all 50 states and the District of Columbia accounted for about 770,000 jobs. By comparison, the well‐established fossil‐fuel sector—including utilities, coal mining and oil and gas extraction, industries that have received significant government investment—comprised about 1.27 million workers in 2007.”

Informative Contribution(s): The study provides a real count of existing and potential clean energy jobs and investments so that “(businesses and policy makers) can track jobs, businesses and investments aimed at both economic growth and environmental sustainability and gauge the effectiveness of public policy choices to support such efforts.”

The study also provides a detailed breakdown of which clean sectors are experiencing the most growth relative to current market shares. For instance, the “Conservation and Pollution Mitigation” sector currently enjoys the greatest share of the clean energy economy, but Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency is the fastest growing sector.

The study provides information on state and regional level policies that will drive growth in the clean energy economy, and has useful maps showing which states participate in each policy area. One of the key initiatives (lacking in Central Appalachia) are regional initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, increase renewable energy generation, track renewable energy credits, and research and establish baselines for carbon sequestration.

West Virginia Breakdown “West Virginia has a small piece of America’s clean energy economy, and is shrinking in annual growth. Clean energy jobs fell 4.1% between 1998 and 2007, while the overall jobs increased by 0.7% in the same time period. It is one of the few states where growth in total jobs outpaced growth in the clean energy economy between 1998 and 2007. Still, the state attracted nearly $6 million in clean technology venture capital and registered 14 patents in the past three years. The clean energy economy in WV represents 0.39% of the overall state economy, placing it in the bottom 10 states.”

Jobs (2007): 3,065 Businesses (2007): 332 Venture Capital Funds (2006‐2008): $5,740,751 Patents (1998‐2008): 14

7.3 Advocacy/Non-profit organizations

Coal River Mountain Watch Sustainable Community Development, various www.crmw.net

Contact: Julia Sendor and Joe Rinehart [email protected] (304) 854‐2182

Coal River Mountain Watch is creating a community economic development program in order to live out our mission of rebuilding sustainable communities. Our three primary areas of focus thus far are the development of wind power, sustainable forestry, and the expansion and marketing of locally produced artisan crafts. We began this effort by conducting interviews and planning a series of community meetings in late August in order to bring together local residents to create a vision for the future of the Coal River Valley. From this on‐the‐ground work, we are connecting community members to each other and to available resources, and working with them to develop a comprehensive and long‐term plan for making their visions a reality.

In regards to our wind efforts, we are continuing our work on the Coal River Wind campaign, through which we have been advocating for a wind farm that would provide an estimated 500 direct, indirect, and induced jobs during the construction phase and 72 total jobs annually during the 20‐25 year operation period. More recently, we have been harnessing the momentum gained from the wind campaign and working with private landowners interested in pursuing the development of community‐owned wind farms. Community‐owned wind would turn landowners into entrepreneurs, thereby creating new jobs and skill‐sets in wind turbine construction and maintenance.

We are also working with landowners and woodworkers to establish sustainable forestry businesses, including building a community wood kiln for selectively harvested timber, expanding the local value‐ added wood products market, and certifying landowners to receive carbon credits for sustainably‐ managed woodland. Finally, we are planning with local artisans to pool their talent and create a crafts business, existing initially as an online endeavor but with the potential for the opening of a small local store.

Once each of these projects gain stable footing, we hope to expand our efforts and connect with areas and groups in southern West Virginia with the goal of creating of locally owned and sustainable businesses and job opportunities. This will help generate local jobs and revenue streams that are more permanent and remain in the community, thereby cultivating a space for residents to determine their own futures. That is the ultimate mission of Coal River Mountain Watch.

Appalachian Community Economics (ACE) Sustainable community development, various http://www.appalachiancommunityeconomics.org/

Contact: Vernon Haltom [email protected] (304) 854‐2182

CRMW co‐sponsored and took part in the Appalachian Community Economics conference in September of 2008. Approximately 115 people from West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and other states came together to learn about sustainable economic models, network with those who are practicing sustainable

methods, and continue working together. In 2009, we will help promote community‐driven economic alternatives and participate in events such as the May 30 sustainability fair in Charleston, WV. We hope to make more community‐accessible the tools of sustainable economic options being offered by such groups as Appalachian Sustainable Development and Mountain Association for Community Economic Development.

7.4 Training Programs

Citizens’ Conservation Corps of West Virginia – Green Programs Green Jobs Training and Weatherization http://www.wvccc.com/index.php

Contact: Savanna Lyons [email protected] (304) 461‐3114

The Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia (CCWV) launched its new Green Programs in 2009, which will provide hands‐on “green” work experiences preparing West Virginians to transition into the green workforce. The program is expected to provide corps‐based work opportunities to corps members, such as retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, reforestation, alternative energy technologies, green construction, and more. Now in its tenth year of operations, the Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia conducts programs throughout West Virginia that provide self‐esteem, educational enhancements, and employment opportunities for both youth and adults through meaningful work experiences. In the past, CCCWV has supervised crew‐based work projects and programs through its Youth and Development Program and Courtesy Patrol, a nationally‐recognized welfare‐to‐work program.

Last year, CCCWV provided 275 youth and adults with paid work experience, education, and training. Its new weatherization program, serving as a pilot for the more extensive green jobs training and apprenticeship program, will cover 12 counties and is expected to launch this summer. One West Virginia non‐profit already working on weatherization hopes to create a new LLC to transition weatherization workers into permanent jobs performing energy efficiency retrofitting for higher‐income private individuals and businesses. For workers trained to do weatherization through stimulus funds, this will reduce their dependence on government weatherization jobs and making their expertise available to a wider section of the public.

7.5 Support/Networking

Fayette Farmers Market Sustainable Agriculture and economic development, food http://www.localharvest.org/farmers‐markets/M19106

Contact: Savanna Lyons [email protected] (571) 344‐0645

The Fayette County Farmers Market is rapidly expanding to sell produce from Fayette County farms. Launched in 2007, the market has responded to popular demand by adding a new weekly location each year, and now has three weekly Fayette County locations throughout the growing season. This market’s expansion is emblematic of a trend of farmers markets expanding throughout West Virginia (# of farmers markets has about doubled in the past 10 years). The farmers market helps local food entrepreneurs get started, localizes the food consumption of Fayette County residents, and the direct‐sales venue encourages farmers to respond to customers’ demands for more sustainable methods of farming. There

are several low‐income farmers who are able to take advantage of this program through economic bad times, augmenting their income. Current seller list has about thirty farmers selling produce through this list with three locations throughout Fayette County.

Because the farmers involved in the market are civic‐minded local entrepreneurs, they open venues for food sales in places where other businesses don’t exist. For example, the Mount Hope Community Farmers Market serves a low‐income community with no grocery stores. The market has a new program, the Young Farmers Program (training the farmers of tomorrow), is encouraging young people to go into farming jobs through workshops, market‐selling opportunities, and by connecting them in mentorships with the WVU Extension Master Gardeners Program. Nearly every county in the state now has a farmers market and many are as active as this one. In the news: “Grant Awards Aimed At Improving State’s Agricultural Resources,” News Release, West Virginia Department of Agriculture. June 4, 2009. http://www.wvagriculture.org/news_releases/2009/6‐ 4‐09‐b.html

Natural Capital Investment Find Renewable energy and energy efficiency, financing and support for new and existing projects http://www.ncifund.org

Contact: Marten Jenkins [email protected] (304) 876‐2815

The NCIF, a Conservation Fund program, is the only non‐profit environmental program with a dual charter to encourage community development as well as traditional water and land conservation. The fund’s area includes economically distressed portions of Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia. A certified community development financial institution, the NCIF works closely with the Appalachian Regional Council and uses its guidelines to determine a community’s eligibility to participate. The NCIF funds expansions, as well as start‐ups. Jenkins says the NCIF has about 20 projects. The fund’s sources for financing include the USDA Rural Development Program, the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and the Calvert Foundation. The ARC has provided about $600,000 in funding for the NCIF since the fund began in 1999. The NCIF loans between $10,000 and $250,000 to its clients. The NCIF also uses grant money to provide approved entire areas with business workshops and works with their individual projects on whatever is keeping them from being efficient and profitable.

Sectors of particular interest include: heritage and recreation‐based tourism, value‐added and sustainable agriculture, water/wastewater treatment, sustainable forestry and forest products, integrated waste management, and recycling. Learn more about our triple bottom‐line approach.

In the news: “Natural Capital Investment Fund Works to Help Economy, Environment,” The State Journal. July 11, 2008. http://www.ncifund.org/node/316

7.6 Development/Installation

Mountainview Solar and Wind Renewable energy and energy efficiency, green buildings and energy system installation http://mtvsolar.com/

Contact: Michael McKechnie [email protected] 304‐258‐4320

Mountain View Builders, LLC is a Construction Solution Provider offering originality and superior craftsmanship in all projects we undertake. In Berkeley Springs, WV, Mountain View Builders builds homes that are comfortable and energy/resource efficient. They have cultivated relationships with environmentally responsible building professionals and can incorporate the following technologies in your new Design/Build Home: geothermal heating, efficient walls/insulation, raidant heating, on‐demand and solar combined‐water‐heating, solar electric, solar hot water heating.

Mountainview Solar and Wind was born from the primary business which is Green building of residential homes. Their main objective is to offer customers more options concerning their energy needs and to produce their own power so as to reduce their carbon footprint and their monthly utility bills. They also do commercial work when the opportunity arises. Mountainview will conduct site analyses for solar and wind potential, and offer everything solar both photovoltaic and thermal applications, small wind generation, geothermal systems, and weatherization along with all aspects of green building from our parent company.

Mountainview Solar and Wind is heavily involved in local business organizations, boards, and private groups in order to spread our message throughout the community. Their service area is a fifty mile radius centered in Berkley Springs, WV, and the do business in four states due to our location. Each state has their own credits, rebates, and net metering laws to offer customers real incentives to do business with them.

Product types are solar electric power systems, wind turbines (small), geothermal energy systems, solar pool heating systems, solar water heating systems, and small wind energy systems. They provide consulting, design, installation and contractor services. To date they have installed PV systems ranging from 300W remote‐power projects to 8 kW grid‐tied systems with battery back‐up.

In the news: “Windmill generates knowledge at Shepherd,” The Herald‐Mail. July 8, 2009. http://www.herald‐mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=226549&format=html

Power In My Backyard (PIMBY) Renewable energy, installation http://www.getpimby.com/

Contact: Matt Sherald [email protected] (304) 704‐5943

Wind and sun offer opportunities for homeowners and businesses to generate their own electricity. PIMBY offers consultation on and installation of wind and solar power systems for homeowners and businesses to generate their own electricity. They focus only on small residential and commercial systems,

and offer system design, installation, construction, site surveys and assessments, contractor services, and maintenance and repair.

Johnson Controls Energy efficiency, buildings http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/us/en.html

Contact: Chris Kaiser [email protected] (412) 337‐2154

We provide solutions for operating buildings effectively and efficiently to increase a building's energy efficiency and operational performance. We mainly offer sales and installation of efficient building products.

Our products and services include HVAC&R equipment and control systems, industrial and commercial refrigeration, fire and security systems and service for commercial, industrial and residential buildings. Our team of over 10,000 front‐line service providers offers service capabilities that extend beyond maintaining control systems and mechanical equipment. And for global corporations, we operate and manage entire facility portfolios to improve business operations, benefit people and lower costs.

FRIEnergy, Inc. Alternative energy development, biomass, wind, and solar http://www.frienergy‐inc.com/what‐we‐do

Contact: Bent Nielson bent@frienergy‐inc.com

FRIEnergy, Inc. is a cutting‐edge alternative energy development company with a finger on the pulse of America. We understand the environmental problems facing the world today and have an understanding of how to solve the current situation. FRIEnergy offers creative methods and solutions to the growing environmental concerns. FRIEnergy offers the following alternative energy solutions: Biomass Energy Generation, Wind Energy Generation, Solar/Photovoltaic Energy Generation

Tower Logistics Wind power, installation equipment http://www.tower‐logistics.com/index.php

Contact: Sales sales@tower‐logistics.com (304) 525‐4116

Tower Logistics is a wind technology, installation and manufacturing company based out of Huntington, West Virginia that has 130 years of providing:  Manufacturing, servicing and installation of wind turbines  Design and fabrication of major wind turbine components  Design, fabrication and assembly for the general industry

One of their products, the Patent Pending Climb‐Assist(TM), is a device aiding a climber to ascend or descend a ladder in structures such as Wind turbines and tall radio towers. The Climb‐Assist is fully controlled by the climber by his movement and not by any other source. While climbing a typical ladder, a

climber must lift 100% of his or her weight. The present invention is a climbing aid that can redistribute the climber's weight so the climber must only carry 50% or less of his or her weight.

LightsON! West Virginia Energy efficiency, buildings www.lightsonwv.blogspot.com

Contact: Brandon Holmes [email protected] (304) 465‐9353

LightsON! West Virginia, LLC was established in March 2007 to develop LEED certified commercial properties and promote green building practices in rural West Virginia. The company is currently overseeing the renovation of the Bellann Building in Oak Hill, WV using green building practices. On completion, The Bellann Building will be the first LEED Certified Existing Building in the State of West Virginia. Overall, LightsON! Is a program aimed at trying to convince businesses to renovate abandoned buildings to get them to meet LEED standards for small businesses. Lights On is focused on opening environmentally responsible buildings for locally owned businesses and reinvigorated the downtowns of small towns.

In the news: “Group wants to make state’s downtown buildings ‘green,’” Beckley Register‐Herald. November 1, 2008. http://www.register‐herald.com/local/local_story_306212918.html

The Power Wagon Green energy and manufacturing http://www.thepowerwagon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

Contact: Nathan Daughtery [email protected] (304) 522‐3006

The Power Wagon is a small business and a United Steelworkers Shop, in Huntington, WV that is owned and operated by Huntington resident Nathan Daughtery. This business builds and maintains rechargable battery‐run generators that come in a 3.5kW and 5.0 kW models. "The Powerwagon" is a brand new, eco‐ friendly battery powered portable power generator which recharges by merely turning the wheels of the hitch‐on trailer that it’s mounted on. The batteries are especially green and sustainable not only because they prevent the heavy use of gasoline, but they charge from your car or truck engine as you drive. The 5 kW model can provide enough power to power a construction site, energy back‐up for a home, power an event, or many other uses. The Power Wagon has been strongly supported by the Carpenters and Mill Wrights Union for use on construction sites and has been praised by Governor Manchin. In the news: “Local Invention, One‐of‐A‐Kind “The Powerwagon” Begins Manufacturing at the Huntington Industrial Center with Grand Opening on Friday,” HuntingtonNews.net. December 5, 2008. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/081205‐staff‐localpowerwagon.html

West Virginia Solar Solar and wind, supply http://www.westvirginiasolar.com/index.htm

Contact: Info [email protected] (304) 677‐9974

West Virginia Solar can supply a system that will dependably pump water utilizing solar power, wind power or a combination of both. Utilizing the most advanced technology available, these systems produce from hundreds to thousands of gallons a day. Typical applications are water for livestock, irrigation, remote home or village water supplies. West Virginia Solar can help you with your design aspects. Normally drop shipped for quick supply to your doorstep! If you need solar in West Virginia, Solar in Maryland, wind power in West Virginia or alternative energy products, WV Solar is the place to come to for the best products and professional design of your new alternative energy system. Product types: Solar Power, Solar Heat Wind Power, Wind Turbines, solar water pumping systems, telecommunications power systems, hydro energy system components, Outdoor Wood Furnaces.

Kinetic Star, Inc. Renewable energy and carbon reduction: Solar, Wind, waste recycling, efficiency http://www.kineticstar.com/

Contact: Greg Henthorne [email protected] (304) 685‐6017

Kinetic Star, Inc. originates and coordinates the development, finance, and operations of energy development projects that result in the creation of carbon credits and renewable energy. Its immediate focus is on the capture and destruction and/or utilization of methane from coal mining and waste disposal industries. They offer consulting and project development services in the areas of waste hear and energy recycling for energy production, and renewable energy development.

SJ Morse Company Sustainable forest products, manufacturer www.sjmorse.com/

Contact: Stephen Morse [email protected] (304) 856‐3423

As a manufacturer of premier quality architectural wood veneer‐faced panels, SJ Morse Company promotes the use of FSC certified wood products, and uses recycled and renewable materials where possible. Based in Capon Bridge, West Virginia, the company is the newest addition to the NCIF portfolio of companies committed to the sustainable use of natural resources.

Panelwrights, LLC Energy efficiency, structural insulated panels http://www.panelwrights.com/

Contact: Al Cobb [email protected] (304) 876‐0265

PanelWrights is a full‐service distributor of Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs). We provide complete SIP packages with quality installations for Residential projects throughout the Mid‐Atlantic region. Our Commercial Division works Nationwide. Structural Insulated panels decrease cooling and heating costs even more than their high R‐rating would seem to indicate, because they form a solid thermal envelope around the structure, uninterrupted by the typical studs, sills or headers. This substantially reduces air infiltration compared with conventional construction techniques. The panels' solid core of insulation also eliminates the convection looping that can occur in the gaps and spaces typical in battery insulation.

JOBS: Just, Open, Businesses that are Sustainable Sustainable economic benefit, biomass http://jobs‐project.org/

Contact: Eric Mathis, Jenny Hudson [email protected] 304‐784‐0864

The Energy Future for Appalachia The JOBS Project promotes proactive solutions to the systemic issues within the coal dependent regions of Appalachia. Our project is concerned with a just transition, one that focuses on the human aspect of legislation which addresses global warming through the development of a “green” economy. We hope to inform the decisions of the federal administration regarding the Appalachian region and to prepare local economies for policies like the cap and trade. Simply put, our focus is job creation for those dependent on the coal industry for survival. The JOBS team investigates opportunities for the development of community wind farms, biomass facilities and other renewable energy resources in the Appalachian region. We also promote federal and state policies which enable technological innovation and sustainable industry to flourish.

A Sustainable Energy Plan Appalachia’s role as a world energy provider can better sustain future generations through models of development in which local residents become centrally invested in energy production. Communities can actively play a role in the implementation and design of sustainable models of harnessing energy from renewable resources. In lessening a national dependence on fossil fuels, integrating small, decentralized power generation is essential. A statewide energy plan that effectively utilizes local resource networks is flexible and able to adapt with, as well as stimulate, innovation. Energy from biomass capitalizes on wasted wood residue, while wind‐generated power utilizes the long stretches of windy highlands throughout the Appalachian region.

JOBS Community Wind Initiative Community wind projects are locally‐owned, utility‐scale wind development projects, which provide individuals and communities a financial and managerial stake in the development of Appalachian wind resources. Community wind development operates financially through local banks, lending institutions and private investors, which in turn collaboratively help finance our projects. Local construction and maintenance workers are trained and employed, and local legal and financial advisors help with the

business planning and contractual aspects of such projects. Participation from the community helps to ensure that wind energy development benefits the local economy.

Biomass is an Abundant Resource in WV West Virginia alone is home to an assortment of biomass resources, including 12 million acres of forest land and 3.6 million acres of farmland. The state’s annual biomass production potential is 3.32 million dry tons (47.06 trillion BTUs). West Virginia could potentially supply power to 543,000 average homes, or provide 61% of the state’s residential electricity needs. Local biomass facilities that operate solely on wood‐waste provide full time employment opportunities and contribute to a growing demand for alternative sources of energy production. Distributed energy models for West Virginia biomass facilities will employ sustainable practices built to accommodate the local energy demand. We are presently measuring the readily available biomass resources throughout the Appalachian region. Central to our biomass development is a commitment to fostering sustainable timbering practices, with attention to FSC standards, and no net increase in timbering.

In the news: “Energy Independence Day planned for coalfield communities,” The Charleston Gazette. May 31, 2009. http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/200906020591

7.7 Green Industry

Steel of West Virginia Steel manufacturing, solar support systems http://swvainc.com/

Contact: Timothy Duke [email protected] (304) 696‐8200

This is a steel manufacturing plant in Huntington that is now manufacturing parts for solar panels plus IBEW is training members to install solar panels. Steel of West Virginia manufactures specialty steel for all sorts of industries, including special rail that goes into magnetic levitation high‐speed rail systems, and the lightweight section part of the frame assembly that solar panels are attached to, for large field PV systems.

At Steel of West Virginia, we want to be your supplier of structural beams, channels and special shape sections. We customize our production to your specific needs. Whether it be chemistry, dimensions or fabrication, we want you to view us as the "can do" company.

Recycles waste metals, old mine rails and parts, scrap metal. Uses natural gas reheat furnaces. Water is recycled. Only hazardous byproduct is dust for making steel, but that is recaptured and sold for road‐ based material. They also have the potential to manufacture steel component parts for wind turbines. Currently does not manufacture turbine parts.

In the news: “Steel of West Virginia – A ‘Green’ Company,” Capacity Magazine. Spring 2009. http://www.capacity‐magazine.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=394

7.8 Industrial wind energy development in West Virginia

Current estimates for potential wind capacity: 3,830 megawatts

Existing wind capacity: 330 megawatts Proposed wind capacity: 461 megawatts

Total existing and ‘under development’: 791 megawatts Percent of projected capacity: 20.6%

Details of existing wind farms:

Name: Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Size: 66 megawatts County: Tucker Developer: Atlantic Renewable Energy Owner: Florida Power and Light

Name: NedPower Mt. Storm Size: 164 megawatts County: Grant Developer: NedPower, Shell Wind Energy, Dominion Energy Owner: Shell Wind Energy, Dominion Energy

Name: NedPower Mt. Storm II Size: 100 megawatts County: Grant Developer: NedPower, Shell Wind Energy, Dominion Energy Owner: Shell Wind Energy, Dominion Energy

Details of wind farms under development

Name: Beech Ridge Wind Farm Size: 186 megawatts County: Greenbrier Developer: Beech Ridge Wind, LLC Owner: Invenergy, LLC

Name: US Wind Force Mt. Storm Size: 150 megawatts County: Grant Developer: US Wind Force, LLC Owner: US Wind Force, LLC

Name: Laurel Mountain Wind Farm Size: 125 megawatts Developer: AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC Owner: AES Corporation

Gamesa Energy’s future proposed wind projects (280 total megawatts)

Name: Dobbin Ridge County: Grant/Tucker Size: 80 megawatts

Name: Stone Steps County: McDowell Size: 60 megawatts

Name: Rich Mountain County: Randolph Size: 80 megawatts

Name: Nicholas County: Nicholas Size: 60 megawatts

7.9 Reference

The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2009. The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America. www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Clean_Economy_Report_Web.pdf. June.

8. THE NEED FOR AND EXISTING MODELS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR JOB CREATION IN A RESTORATIVE INDUSTRY

Carbon Accumulation Potentials of Post‐SMCRA Coal‐Mined Lands

Source of publication/information: C.E. Zipper, J.A. Burger, J.M. McGrath, B. Amichev, Virginia Tech Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences

Publication date: 2007

File name: Carbon_Seq_potential_mined_lands

Web source: www.cses.vt.edu/PRP/Reports_07/Zipper_2007.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Carbon sequestration

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, carbon sequestration

Brief description: This study, conducted by reclamation and reforestation expert Dr. James Burger, "assesses the potential for conversion of lands mined under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to forest for the purpose of sequestering atmospheric C. Research objectives were to determine the suitability of eastern US coal‐mined lands’ soil properties for reforestation and to estimate the potential of these lands to accumulate C if reforested." The study uses Andy Jones' productivity index created for his master's thesis approved in 2005, as well as a general index that builds upon the Jones model to provide a variable mean which the authors felt was more suitable to this study. This is a highly scientific and technical study that may provide a significant contribution to the determination of tree survivability on specific sites, and thus may help prioritize restoration efforts on surface‐mined lands. The C‐accumulation estimates are provided for three differing stand‐types (and thus reforestation models).

Key information I: The study makes a series of assumptions in calculating the carbon‐sequestration potential of restoring surface‐mined lands across Central Appalachia, which are described in more detail in the report: Assumption 1: The forest productivities of mine sites sampled and characterized are representative of those which occur across the Eastern US. Assumption 2: The quantity of Eastern US mined lands that could be available for reforestation and sequestration is on the order of 300,000 ha. This estimate was derived assuming approximately ½ of lands mined and reclaimed under SMCRA could be made available for C sequestration. Assumption 3: Post‐ reforestation C accumulation on planted sites can be estimated using equations 5, 6, and 7 (included in the report). Carbon accumulations on post‐SMCRA mined lands were estimated assuming rotation lengths of 30 years for pines and mixed pine‐hardwood stands, and 60 years for hardwoods, as per Amichev (2007)

Key information II: The assumption that 300,000 ha could be reforested with an appropriate incentive structure over a relatively short time period allows extension of the above to estimate that the cumulative potential of the Eastern US mined‐land resource base to accumulate C if reforested is less than 2 Tg per year, on average over an initial rotation. Assuming that pines and/or mixed stands would be targeted by any such incentive program because of their potential to accumulate C more rapidly than hardwoods, post‐SMCRA mined lands cumulative potential to accumulate C is equivalent to about 0.2% of projected US combustion emissions from coal in 2025, the midpoint of a representative 30‐year rotation beginning circa‐2010 (Table 10). Coal consumption within the eastern mining states that were the subject of this research constituted about 23% of US coal consumption in 2005 (US EIA 2006a). Thus, the estimated potential of mined lands, if reforested with pines, to accumulate C is on the order of 1% of total projected coal‐related emissions from these states.

Other (or key information III): Similar study conducted by the University of Kentucky and North Carolina State University available at: www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq_terr/graves.pdf

West Virginia Code, Chapter 5B. Economic Development Act of 1985. Article 2A. Office of Coalfield Community Development.

Source of publication/information: West Virginia legislative record

Publication date: Accessed July 21, 2009

File name: WV_Code_5B_Off_Coalfield_Comm_Devt

Web source: www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=05b&art=2A#02A

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Economic development

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government, community development, land acquisition

Brief description: This is the official state code relating to the creation of, assignment and administration of duties for, and legislated powers of the West Virginia Office of Coalfield Community Development. It addresses the challenges to and need for creating a diversity of economic opportunities in the coalfields, while failing to address the impacts of surface mining on the socio‐economic status and health of coalfield communities.

Key information I: (c) Where implemented, surface mining operations, particularly mountaintop mining, tend to extract most, if not all, of the recoverable coal reserves in an accelerated fashion. For a state long‐dependent on the employment and revenue coal mining provides, this reality should be sobering and there is no place in which the comprehension of this reality is more crucial than the coalfields of West Virginia. Long‐dependent primarily on mining, this area must plan for a future without coal. The state and its subdivisions have a legitimate interest in securing that future.

Key information II: (f) Surface mining operations, including mountaintop mining, present unique challenges to the coal mining industry and the state and its citizens, especially those living and working in communities that rely heavily upon these methods of mining. This requires that these communities, in conjunction with county commissions; state, local, county and regional development authorities; landowners; civic, community and business groups; and interested citizens develop plans related to the communities' long‐term economic viability.

Other (or key information III): §5B‐2A‐9. Securing developable land and infrastructure. (d) In making a determination of the land and infrastructure needs in the general area of the mining operations, the office shall consider at least the following: (6) The availability of federal, state and local grants and low‐interest loans to finance all or a portion of the acquisition and construction of the identified land and infrastructure needs of the general area. (f) The office may secure developable land and infrastructure for a development office or county through the preparation of a master land use plan for inclusion into a reclamation plan prepared pursuant to the provisions of section ten, article three, chapter twenty‐two of this code. No provision of this section may be construed to modify requirements of article three of said chapter. Participation in a master land use plan is voluntary.

100

Green Jobs and the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

Source of publication/information: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI), Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior

Publication date: June 2009

File name: ARRI, UNEP Appalachia Reforestation, Green Jobs Correspondence

Web source: None available. Document provided by Patrick Angel of the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Green jobs development

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, green jobs, economic development

Brief description: This is ARRI's recent proposal to the Obama Administration calling for federal support for the initiative based on its potential to create green jobs in the Appalachian coalfields, to provide renewable sources of cleaner energy for the nation, and to develop a carbon market that would assist in financing the reforestation of surface‐mined lands.

Key information I: The quantity of mined lands in the Appalachian coal fields that could be available for reforestation and carbon sequestration has been estimated at 741,000 acres. ARRI is in a position to propose to the Obama administration an overarching program to reforest previously reclaimed lands that have been compacted as well as unreclaimed abandoned mine lands as an economic stimulus for Appalachia. The proposal would focus (in part) on: • Green Jobs in economically depressed areas in Appalachia (starting with 230 jobs in 2009–2010 leading to 3,680 jobs by 2014). • A carbon market that would encourage the reforestation of coal mine sites (both abandoned and active) for the purpose of sequestering atmospheric carbon. • Conservation programs similar to the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) of the 1930s in which tree planting, fire fighting, and other conservation projects were undertaken by citizens who entered paid volunteer service for the US government. • Solutions for the problems of forest fragmentation, habitat reduction, flooding, and erosion associated with mining.

Key information II: The plan will address economic and environmental needs that have been plaguing Appalachia for decades. It will include a methodology for the identification and prioritization of mine lands reclaimed without the benefit of proper reforestation. Those mines that are appropriately configured and situated can be planted with fast‐growing woody crops so as to provide a domestic and renewable source of “green energy,” while those in more environmentally sensitive locations can be restored to native forest thus enhancing natural habitat and associated environmental values. The plan will provide an explanation as to how the ‘best management practices’ would be implemented for mitigating the adverse effects of grassland reclamation. The plan will assess the potential for carbon sequestration by planting trees on active and abandoned mine lands, and will offer a description of the organizational structure and funding requirements that would be necessary to support a regional reforestation project. Finally, the project will provide a cost benefit analysis and description of the green jobs that would be created with both paid and volunteer tree planters.

Other (or key information III): N/A

101

Group to study post‐mining land use: Gov. Joe Manchin wants a team of state officials and economic developers to study ways West Virginia can better use former mountaintop removal mine sites.

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette

Publication date: January 2009

File name: PMLU_Cmte_econ_devt_reclamation

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/News/200801231723

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This is an article published in January 2009 following West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin's executive order creating a Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group. Ken Ward critiques the committee and the past failures of generating economic development as a post‐mine land use, and also provides an account of the legal issues surrounding past permitting for surface mines, reclamation requirements, and regulatory oversight failures.

Key information I: Gov. Joe Manchin wants a team of state officials and economic developers to study ways West Virginia can better use former mountaintop removal mine sites. Manchin issued an executive order Wednesday to form a post‐mine land use redevelopment group. The move follows up on comments the governor made two weeks ago in his State of the State address. "The governor wants to do what we can to really get these lands developed," said Carte Goodwin, the governor's general counsel. The 10‐member panel will be headed by Commerce Secretary Kelly Goes and will include Environmental Protection Secretary Stephanie Timmermeyer, Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox and Joe Hatfield, executive director of the West Virginia Housing Development Fund. The group will also include one member each representing the coal industry, state landowners, housing developers, economic development groups, and coal miners. The group must also include one person with experience in environmental advocacy. Manchin also may appoint additional members at his discretion, according to the executive order.

Key information II: Current law already requires coal companies to submit post‐mining development plans in order to obtain strip mining permits unless they plan to return mined land to its approximate original contour, or AOC. But for years the AOC rule was generally ignored, in large part because it was never clearly defined by the state or the federal Office of Surface Mining. As a result, mining operators leveled thousands of acres of Southern West Virginia, for the most part without submitting development plans or following through with post‐mining construction of factories, schools, strip malls, public parks or other community projects. Ten years ago, a series of Gazette articles revealed dozens of illegal permits with post‐mining land uses such as "fish and wildlife habitat" and "grasslands." An OSM study later confirmed those findings, as did a broader federal government examination of mountaintop removal.

Other (or key information III): In his State of the State address, Manchin said mined lands could be used for "renewable energy projects such as biomass, solar and wind." The governor said he was "committed to examining the legal barriers that restrict" such developments. Manchin staffers were unable to explain what those legal barriers are, and later, Department of Environmental Protection mining director Randy Huffman said the problem isn't so much "legal barriers," but a failure by coal companies to come up with valid post‐mining developments.

102

Manchin post‐mining panel to meet

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette.

Publication date: May 2009

File name: KWard_Manchin_postmine_land_use_cmte_to_meet

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/News/200805150721

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This article provides a follow‐up to Ken Ward's January 2009 article (summarized immediately above) discussing the creation of the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group. In this article, Ken Ward critiques the inclusion of various committee members based on their designations as "public members" rather than industry lobbyists.

Key information I: Manchin also appointed five "public members," including West Virginia Coal Association lobbyist Jason Bostic and Paul Hardesty, a lobbyist for several coal companies. The other public members were Timmermeyer, Berkeley County land surveyor Mike Shepp, and Chris Jarrett, the former president of West Virginia‐American Water Co. Commerce Secretary Kelley Goes, the chairwoman of the commission, did not return a phone call Thursday. But Lara Ramsburg, the governor’s communications director, said it is not surprising that coal industry officials were put on the commission. "People who are around coal can bring something to the table," she said. "It's not like they're making regulations. This is an advisory group more than anything else."

Key information II: With little more than a month before its initial report is due, Governor Joe Manchin's new commission on post‐mine development for mountaintop removal sites has scheduled its first meeting.

Other (or key information III): N/A

103

State of West Virginia Executive Department, Charleston Executive Order No. 01‐08 by the Governor

Source of publication/information: Office of Governor Joe Manchin and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

Publication date: January 2008

File name: Gov_Post_mine_land_use_cmte_executive_order

Web source: None, provided by the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This is the executive order signed by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin creating and providing directives for the Post‐Mine Land Redevelopment Committee.

Key information I: WHEREAS, in 1994, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, W. Va. Code § 22‐3‐1 et seq., to expand and enhance the existing statewide surface mining site reclamation program by integrating local communities into the reclamation process and implementing procedures to foster the reclamation of surface areas as contemporaneously as possible with the surface mining operations.

Key information II: WHEREAS, pursuant to section nine, article two‐a, chapter five‐b of the Code of West Virginia, the Office of Coalfield Community Development may secure land and infrastructure for local and county development through the preparation of a “master land use plan” that incorporates the post‐mine land use needs identified by the office, which would include industrial uses, commercial uses, agricultural uses, public facility uses or recreational facility uses.

Other (or key information III): WHEREAS, pursuant to section eight, article two‐a, chapter five‐b of the Code of West Virginia, the Office of Coalfield Community Development shall “determine the community assets that may be developed by a community, county or region to foster its viability when surface mining operations are completed” which may include “water and wastewater services; land that may be developed for housing, commercial development or other community purposes; recreation facilities and opportunities; and education facilities and opportunities.”

104

List of Boards and Commissions Members Detail, West Virginia Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Source of publication/information: Office of Governor Joe Manchin and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

Publication date: January 2008

File name: PMLU_Board_Cmte

Web source: None, provided by the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This is the list of the members of the West Virginia Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Committee.

Key information I: This list includes Paul Hardesty, a lobbyist for coal companies and landowners; Jason Bostic, a lobbyist for the West Virginia Coal Association; Corky DiMarco, a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry; Randy Huffman, Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; Kelly Goes, West Virginia Economic Development Authority; Stephanie Timmermayer, lobbyist for the coal industry and former Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The environmental representative is Constance Lewis.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

105

Initial Recommendations of the West Virginia Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group, to Governor Joe Manchin

Source of publication/information: Office of Governor Joe Manchin and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

Publication date: July 2008

File name: Initial_PMLU_Recs_to_governor

Web source: None, provided by the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This document provides the initial recommendations of the West Virginia Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Committee following their first two meetings.

Key information I: Key Recommendations, Land Use Master Plans: Support the establishment of local redevelopment authorities to serve as the lead agencies to coordinate Land Use Master Plan development and implementation efforts at the local level; Update the following information for the coalfields: current and projected mines, coal seams viable for incidental coal removal, current land uses, list of stakeholders, infrastructure in place, coal reserves, and list of all major landowners.

Key information II: Key Recommendations, Incentives: Investigate the possibility of creating incentives for coal mine operators to participate in development projects proposed in the Plans. For instance, a statutory change could be considered that would require the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to prioritize those mining permits that propose the following post‐mine land uses: bio‐oil crop land, heavy industry, light industry and commercial services, public services, commercial forestry, and residential; Investigate possible tax measures, incentives, and/or waivers or reductions of taxes for land that has been left developable in accordance with a Plan but which has not yet been developed. These incentives could be created for land owners and developers to implement Plans.

Other (or key information III): Key Recommendation, Education: Design education forums and training sessions for coal mine operators, land companies, redevelopment authorities, land developers, local government officials, state agency personnel, and citizens on the possibilities for development of post‐mine land uses and the benefits of the Plans. Key Recommendation, Miscellaneous: Create a new system of income by adding a mandate to the mitigation requirements that a certain dollar amount per linear foot of stream loss be put into an infrastructure fund. The monies would be credited for mitigation required under Section 401 and potentially credited for mitigation required under Section 404 (of the federal Clean Water Act). A committee would be formed by statute that would prioritize the infrastructure projects on a watershed basis.

106

Land Use Master Plan Subcommittee final submission, June 2, 2009

Source of publication/information: Office of Governor Joe Manchin and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

Publication date: June 2009

File name: PMLU_Land_use_master_plan_subcommittee_recs

Web source: None, provided by the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This document provides the final recommendations of the Land Use Master Plan sub‐committee to the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Committee.

Key information I: At this point, we have no further report as we have already provided two reports and those have portrayed our ideas and recommendations. However, we offer the following observations: Effective land use planning must be driven by the local community. The impetus and the leadership must come from within the community even if help to develop the plan itself comes from outside. If the plan is imposed from outside, it is not likely to be implemented. This is true whether or not funding and other resources are provided to the local community.

Key information II: While it is essential that the Governor’s office be involved in the process to ensure that successful post‐mine land use projects are the norm and not the exception, it would be better for legislation to use processes that parallel the existing land use planning statute (Chapter 8a). This isn’t about zoning, which is optional, but about communities taking control of their future.

Other (or key information III): This group was charged with how to improve the chance of a higher and better use on post‐mine lands as we move forward with mining, but as a state, we still haven’t dealt with how to make the hundreds of thousands of reclaimed lands productive.

107

Housing Subcommittee final submission, June 2, 2009

Source of publication/information: Office of Governor Joe Manchin and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

Publication date: June 2008

File name: PMLU_Housing_Subcommittee_Recommendations

Web source: None, provided by the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Group

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Reclamation policy

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning, policy, state government

Brief description: This document provides the final recommendations of the sub‐committee to the Governor's Post‐Mine Land Use Redevelopment Committee.

Key information I: Barriers to Housing Development of Post‐Mine Land sites a. There are a variety of issues that are barriers to the development of post‐mine land sites with the key driver of project viability being market demand. Land/real estate development of any type is driven by the economics of the marketplace. If a market is determined feasible and a developer can obtain site control then housing development can move forward utilizing the existing financing resources available through the private and public sectors. b. The lack of coordination, communication and basic real estate development knowledge within the permitting process is another major obstacle. Within the permitting agencies, staff‐level employees should be required to be trained in basic real estate development finance principles so that they understand the impact of permitting costs and time delays on project feasibility.

Key information II: This proposed pilot program should be designed to guide local redevelopment authorities through the various components needed to identify and market appropriate post‐mine sites for real estate development, with priority given to commercial and residential development, highway and infrastructure construction, or renewable energy projects. This program recognizes that not every post‐mine site is appropriate for real estate investment due to geologic limitations or lack of proximity to market, infrastructure, transportation and employment centers, and provides a framework for identifying those sites which are appropriate for real estate development and a methodology for facilitating the development of those sites in the most efficient manner possible.

Other (or key information III): Certified sites should have the following information available in the site inventory database: Economic Forecast and site‐specific market feasibility study which should be consistent with Master Land Use Plan; survey maps with boundary information; zoning information with neighboring land use information; tax maps and ownership information for both surface and mineral rights; special tax district information, if applicable; water, wastewater, electric, gas, telecommunications in place or engineering/development plan for deploying infrastructure; timeframe for deployment and associated costs; existing and planned transportation infrastructure including road, rail, water (include routes and time to ports), and air (provide commercial service, best routes/services and corporate aircraft capacity); fire ratings; flood zone information/wetlands delineation; EPA Air Attainment status; Environmental Phase I; geologic information including topography, slope; geotechnical information including land soil bearing capability and subsurface information such as sink holes, etc.

108

Annual Evaluation Summary Report for the Regulatory and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Programs Administered by the State of West Virginia for Evaluation Year 2008 (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008)

Source of publication/information: Office of Surface Mining, US Department of the Interior

Publication date: 2008

File name: WV_OSM_AER2008

Web source: http://arcc.osmre.gov/cfo/AER2008FINAL.pdf

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Regulation and reclamation funding

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, policy, state government, funding, environmental impact, restoration

Brief description: This is the 2008 annual evaluation report of the Office of Surface Mining for West Virginia (OSM). It summarizes the status, successes, and shortfalls of the West Virginia regulatory and abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation programs related to coal mining. It provides an overview of the public participation opportunities in the oversight process; the major accomplishments and issues in the West Virginia state regulatory program (in relation to acid mine drainage, bond forfeiture, water supply replacement, acid mine drainage prediction for future mining, slurry impoundments, and litigation); success in meeting the requirements of the federal Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; the financial assistance provided by the OSM to the WVDEP for various purposes; a review of general oversight topic evaluations; and finally, an overview and critique of the AML Program and its implementation on the state level. This is a comprehensive and significant document for gaining a sense of the extent of coal mining‐related issues across West Virginia and for understanding the state and federal regulatory, reclamation and remediation rules and procedures, as well as ongoing legislation regarding surface mining regulation and enforcement.

Key information I: The trend continues of returning more mine sites to a post‐mine land use requiring tree planting. During evaluation year 2008, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) issued 58 new surface mine permits, most of which proposed forestland as the post‐mine land use. All of these permits contain reclamation plans that require the implementation of the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA). Over 3.5 million trees were planted in 2007 on over 5,800 acres of West Virginia mine sites. It is not known how many acres were planted using FRA. Through OSM oversight inspections, it is apparent that some permittees and operators, as well as some state inspectors, are reluctant to implement changes in regulations and permitting requirements with respect to the FRA. Improper selection of growth medium and over‐tracking are still practices on some sites with forestland as the post‐mine land use. WVDEP and OSM provided additional training for their inspectors, managers, and permit review staff regarding the requirements of properly implementing FRA. There were 3,200 acres approved for Phase III bond release in 2007. Two thousand ten acres (85 percent) were planted in trees, broken down by land use as 865 acres of forest, and 1,845 acres of wildlife habitat. Four hundred ninety acres were returned to pasture, rangeland, or light industrial land uses.

Key information II: Special Reclamation Fund. On May 29, 2002, OSM fully approved the State’s Alternative Bonding System (ABS) that included an increase in the special reclamation tax rate from 3 cents per ton of clean coal mined to 14 cents, with 7 of the 14 cents expiring after 39 months; the creation of a Special Reclamation Advisory Council (the Council) to monitor the progress of the ABS in meeting future bond forfeiture reclamation obligations; and removal of the limitation on funding for treating pollutional discharges at bond forfeiture sites. Since 2002, the WVDEP has made significant progress in performing land reclamation and water treatment at many of the existing bond forfeiture sites and expects to complete the remaining unreclaimed forfeiture sites by September 2010.

109

In 2007, the Council developed a report suggesting the Legislature appropriate money to assist in funding a trust fund for water treatment of “future” forfeited sites. However, no action relative to the SRF was taken by the 2007 Legislature. In a 2006 Marshall University report, it was shown that without additional revenues, the Fund would decline to a negative balance by 2017.

Other (or key information III): The WVDEP is working with OSM’s Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, and Technical Applications & Geographical Information System to develop new tools for change analysis in revegetation over long time periods. These techniques will use geo‐referenced historic air photography, modern remote sensing, and georeferenced historic and modern ground photography. Using these non‐standard historic sources allows analysis of change over a 70‐year period. This is particularly useful in reforestation. The WVDEP, OSM, and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) continue to analyze the environmental impact of the use of coal slurry when injected underground. All water quality sampling was completed by June 10, 2008, and the WVDEP is scheduled to finish the study by December 2008.

110

West Virginia Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Plan

Source of publication/information: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation

Publication date: June 2006

File name: WV_State_AML_Plan

Web source: www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=12

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Regulation and reclamation funding

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, policy, state government, funding, environmental impact, restoration, land acquisition

Brief description: This is the West Virginia regulatory program related to abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation and enforcement. It describes the purpose of the state reclamation plan, the criteria for ranking and identifying projects to be funded, coordination of reclamation work, policies and procedures involving land acquisition and management, and the administrative framework for reclamation and oversight.

Key information I: The State of West Virginia enacted the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act which generally reflects the federal act. The AML Fund (“Fund”) was established to pay for the alleviation of land and water problems caused by past coal mining practices. Land and water eligible for expenditures from the Fund are those which were mined for coal or affected by coal mining processes and left abandoned or inadequately reclaimed prior to August 3, 1977, the date of enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Eligible lands for abandoned mine reclamation are located in most of West Virginia's 55 counties.

Key information II: There are statutory mechanisms for reclaiming lands in West Virginia ‐‐ The State AML Program, as discussed above, the Emergency Program, and the Rural AML Program. In addition, there is the Federal Reclamation Program, which is composed of the Appalachian Clean Stream Initiative (ACSI) and the Watershed Cooperative Agreement (WCA), as discussed below.

Other (or key information III): Land Eligible for Acquisition (two key articles): 1. Land adversely affected by past coal mining practices may be acquired with moneys from the State's share of the AML Fund if approved in advance by the Federal Office of Surface Mining. Prior to approval of the acquisition of such land, the state shall find in writing that acquisition is necessary for successful reclamation and that: (a) The acquired land will serve recreation, historic, conservation, and reclamation purposes or provide open space benefits after restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention of the adverse effects of past coal mining practices; and (b) permanent facilities such as a mine drainage treatment plant or a relocated stream channel will be constructed on the land for the restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention of the adverse effects of past coal mining practices. 2. Coal refuse disposal sites and all coal refuse thereon may be acquired with moneys from the Fund by West Virginia if approved in advance by the Federal Office of Surface Mining.

111

Fixing OSM(RE), Part 3: Here's a Solid Plan

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette, Coal Tattoo blog

Publication date: May 2009

File name: CoalTattoo_Fixing_OSMRE

Web source: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/05/18/fixing‐osmre‐part‐3‐heres‐a‐solid‐plan/#more‐ 674

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Regulation and reclamation funding

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, policy, state government, funding, environmental impact, regulatory changes, oversight

Brief description: This is a blog post on Coal Tattoo, owned and operated by Ken Ward, environmental reporter for the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia. The blog post is a posting of a speech by Tom Fitzgerald of the Kentucky Resources Council that provides a blueprint for fixing the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and that offers a critique of the compromises and failures that have plagued the achievement of successful reclamation efforts and oversight of coal mining operations.

Key information I: Going forward, the new Administration needs to address a number of areas where we have lost our way, and have betrayed the promise Congress made to those who live in coalfield communities. Where the law contemplates that the approximate original contour of land be restored both in elevation and configuration, the elevation requirement has been ignored, and significant amounts of spoil material have been disposed of in valley fills that should have been replaced on the mined area. Regulatory clarification is needed that “approximate original contour” means that the reclaimed area should resemble the area before mining in both aspect (or slope) and elevation.

Key information II: Where the 1979 regulations required haulage and placement of the rock and soil in compacted, constructed, engineered fills, OSM weakened the rules to allow end‐dumping and wing‐dumping from the mine bench of excessive amounts of mine “spoil”—the soil and rock removed from above coal seams—into headwater streams. Where the federal regulation provides for 100‐foot stream buffer zones to protect intermittent and perennial streams from adverse effects of mining on water quality and habitat, OSM has allowed the states to adopt disparate rules often ignoring those areas filled by spoil when applying buffer zones. Though Congress directed that “material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area” be prevented, and that disruption to the hydrologic balance in the mined area be minimized, OSM has interpreted that phrase to allow state regulatory authorities to define the term or implement an approved program in a manner that allows the issuance of mining permits to proposed operations even though information in the permit application or otherwise available to the regulatory authority indicates that effluent or groundwater migration from the proposed operation would likely cause or contribute to a violation of one or more applicable water quality standards in a stream, river, or lake down‐gradient from the proposed operation.

Other (or key information III): The new Administration has the tools needed to restore this agency to its potential, and to fulfill Congress’ promise to the citizens of the coalfields. Let us hope that the Administration chooses wisely, and supports the new management of the agency as we try to reclaim what has been lost over these last three decades.

112

AML problems abound, but D.C. keeps money. States owed $1 billion for mine cleanups.

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette.

Publication date: August 2004

File name: WV_Gaz_AML_Problems_Money_2004

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/News/AbandonedPromises/200408150009

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Regulation and reclamation funding

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, policy, state government, funding, environmental impact, bureaucracy

Brief description: This is a 2004 article written by Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia as part of his "Abandoned Promises" series relating to the failures of the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM) regulatory and reclamation programs.

Key information I: As he drives along W.Va. 44 in Logan County, abandoned mine inspector Mike Richardson sees problems everywhere. Over there, a dangerous highwall looms near a school. Up ahead, a coal seam fire smolders underground. Along almost every ridge, Richardson sees old, underground mine portals. Some drain toxic water into streams. Others turn into raging currents when it rains, causing mudslides that threaten homes or public roads...But Richardson and other state mine cleanup officials don’t have enough money to fix everything. As project manager for West Virginia’s emergency Abandoned Mine Land program, Richardson deals with only the most serious messes. Other coalfield states are in the same boat. They have far more abandoned mines to clean up than they have money to spend. It doesn’t have to be this way. Since 1978, coal operators across the country have paid about $7 billion into a fund meant to clean up the nation’s abandoned mines. Today, that fund has an unspent balance of $1.6 billion. Instead of giving that cash to states for reclamation projects, lawmakers and administrators use it to make the federal budget appear more balanced. More than $1 billion of that is money that Congress specifically promised to give back to states.

Key information II: Under the law, states are supposed to automatically receive one‐half of the reclamation taxes collected from their coal operators. This money is known as the “state share.” But lawmakers have never given states anywhere near their share. Last year, for example, states sent $283 million in coal industry taxes to Washington. Washington sent back just $78 million in state‐share AML allocations, according to OSM data. The rest stayed in a bank account in D.C., where state‐share money keeps piling up. Wyoming is owed the most, about $410 million as of June 30. West Virginia is next, with more than $124 million, and Kentucky third, with $121 million. The result? Southern West Virginians know firsthand. Freda Williams lives at Leevale, in the Coal River Valley just east of Whitesville. Williams worries about the two underground mines behind her house. Both are filling up with water. She wonders what will happen when they can’t hold anymore. “We’ve had blowouts here in the hollow and mudslides from time to time,” Williams said.

Other (or key information III): In Mingo County, residents along Neds Branch have seen what happens when an abandoned mine problem gets worse. For years, a huge coal‐waste impoundment loomed on a hillside up a hollow just outside Gilbert. In February 2003, heavy rains caused the impoundment to overflow. Runoff flooded and damaged the road out of the hollow. A dozen families were trapped. By the time Richardson got there, there was an 80‐foot notch down the front of the impoundment. “A piece of the hillside broke off, and the middle went, and the slurry poured out,” he said. Richardson called in some contractors with heavy equipment. They got to work on what would become — eight months and $3.2 million later — the biggest emergency AML project in US history. Now, bright green grass covers the former impoundment site’s carefully sculpted hills.

113

Economic Benefits of Forest Restoration in the Signal Peak Assessment Area, Gila National Forest, Phase I: Framework for Analysis

Source of publication/information: Center for a Sustainable Economy

Publication date: January 2009

File name: Restoration Benefits Final

Web source: www.sustainable‐economy.org/main/news/19

Focus area I: Ecosystem valuation

Focus area II: Restoration economics

Key word(s): forest restoration, forest management, ecosystem services, watershed services,

Brief description: This report proposes a framework for economic evaluation of forest restoration projects from the broad, net public benefits perspective required by Forest Service statutes, rules, and regulations and that considers forest restoration as a form of public investment in natural capital. It is the first of a five phase project, and sets the stage for a subsequent study based on site specific financial and economic data from the local area gathered in part through surveys of regional residents. The report approaches economic valuation from the perspectives of ecosystem services, biological diversity, municipal watershed function, outdoor recreation, and net carbon flux. While its main focus is on fire suppression, the report offers a comprehensive analytical framework for estimating the economic value of conserving a forest, and thus, the economic cost of destroying it.

Key information I: Healthy forests provide many social and economic contributions to the nation, simply by existing as natural ecosystems. Natural resource economists have coined the term “ecosystem services” to describe such contributions. They include important functions such as flood control, purification of water, recycling of nutrients and wastes, production of soils, carbon sequestration, pollination, maintenance of biological diversity, and natural control of pests. They include products such as plants used in manufacturing life‐saving medicines, edible mushrooms, floral greens, and a wide variety of wood products. They include a diversity of uses such as recreation, hunting, and fishing. And they include scenic, aesthetic, and cultural values that are important quality of life factors for nearby communities. Ecosystem service values are considerable, and may outweigh values associated with resource extraction by a factor of 100:1.

Key information II: Forest restoration is an important form of investment in natural capital, and, as such, should be evaluated from a net public benefits framework and not simple calculations of financial efficiency based on comparisons of project expenditures with revenues from the sale of wood products. The duty to consider forest restoration from a net public benefits framework is firmly ensconced in the statutes, regulations, and rules governing management of public forests, and is an essential framework for analyzing any form of public investment.

Other (or key information III): In an environmental economics framework, the economic impact of a public sector policy change, program, or project – in this case, a forest restoration project – is a function of the environmental quality changes that result from that project and the economic values associated with those changes.

114

Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs

Source of publication/information: Randall, et al, Land Economics, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Nov. 1978), pp. 472‐289

Publication date: November 1978

File name: Randallreclaim

Web source: None available

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Restoration economics

Key word(s): mine reclamation, costs and benefits, coal production, regulation, environmental costs, externalities, mining costs

Brief description: This is a study conducted in 1978 following the passage of the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. The study reports the results of previous studies which estimated the benefits from surface mine reclamation in a case study region of Central Appalachia. It then compares the estimates of the benefits of reclamation with reclamation costs. It summarizes the social and environmental impacts of surface mining and uses these to quantify what the economic costs of mining impacts are based on a unique formula. The costs take into account: 1) water pollution, as it affects domestic, commercial and industrial users of water; 2) degradation of life‐support systems for fish, wildlife and recreation resources; 3) increased frequency and intensity of flooding; 4) damage to land, structures and buildings; and 5) aesthetic damages. It then quantifies these costs in two forms: total consumer payment (TCP) and regional willingness to pay (RWP), and calculates costs under the state and federal regulation scenarios.

Key information I: The coal industry visits external costs upon owners of land adjoining the mining site, residents of the mining region, downstream users of water impacted by mining, and nonregional residents who visit the region, may visit the region in the future or may simply suffer disutility from the knowledge that the regional environment is being damaged. As a result of surface mining, private and social costs are unequal. Thus, economic inefficiency is endemic, in the absence of some collective action or redefinition of property rights.

Key information II: The surface mining industry in the region has major environmental impacts. Mining typically takes place on slopes in excess of 20 degrees, and often greater than 25 degrees. The contour mining method is commonly used, and state regulations permit 40 percent of the overburden to be placed beyond the solid bench. While current regulations require that overburden be stabilized, the exposed seam and all acid‐bearing and toxic materials be buried, the bench be revegetated, and run‐off be collected in silt control structures, negative environmental impacts persist. In recent years a mining technique known as mountaintop removal, a remarkably appropriate descriptive term, has become popular in the region. This process leaves a plateau where there was once a sharply peaked mountain, and thus may encourage post‐reclamation land uses of the type for which moderate to large contiguous areas of relatively flat land are preferred.

Other (or key information III): Together, equations [1] and [2] (in this study) are used as a conceptual framework for estimating the costs of environmental damage from surface mining. Resource quality changes are identified and quantified. Then, the changes in the net benefits of each resource‐using activity, resulting from resource quality changes, are identified, estimated, reduced to present value and summed. Given that precautions and treatments to reduce off‐site damage during and after mining and to reclaim mine land cause a reduction in the economic costs of surface mining damage, reclamation benefits are defined as the resulting decrement in external costs, that is, the increment in net social benefits, of surface mining. "If it were technically feasible and required by enforceable regulations to eliminate all external costs except aesthetic damage during the completion of 'perfect' land restoration, unavoidable environmental costs of $5.38 (TCP) and $0.11 (RWP) per ton would remain.”

115

Forest Productivity of Reclaimed Mine Land: A Landowner's Perspective

Source of publication/information: Timothy Probert, Pocahontas Land Company

Publication date: unknown

File name: Landowner_perspective_reforestation_reclamation

Web source: www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/Reforestation/Session%204/4‐11.pdf

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Restoration economics

Key word(s): landowner, absentee landowner, timber production, reforestation value, post‐mine land use, commercial forestry

Brief description: This is a paper written by a forestry management expert employed by Pocahontas Land Company, one of the largest land‐ and mineral‐holding companies in West Virginia. As stated by the author, "The purpose of this paper is to bring your attention to the impact surface mine reclamation has on site productivity and returns on investment...The data used in the case studies is based on two research projects conducted on lands of PLC. The first study contrasts the impact of site productivity and management decisions on the economic returns and timber production." The study provides estimates of economic impact for the landowner and the costs/savings to the coal company of employing various combinations of reclamation techniques. Estimates are provided for each of the reclamation scenarios with respect to tree planting, grading costs, forest productivity, timber yields, and harvest values. This seems to be an honest attempt by a land company forester to argue the economic and environmental benefits of modernizing the reclamation practices used by coal companies in order to promote the highest future economic return for landholding companies.

Key information I: Forestry is the most logical and economical land use for large tracts of reclaimed land in the Appalachians. Most of this land was forested before mining and, whether by design or through natural succession, this land will ultimately return to a forested condition. The author of this paper is involved in forest management for Pocahontas Land Corporation (PLC), a large landholding company, which owns thousands of acres of surface mined land. Pocahontas would like to manage its reclaimed mined land for commercial forests, where it is economically feasible to do so. Timber production is often the only economically feasible land use for large tracts of steep and remote mined land. Furthermore, the economic returns on productive forest land can be very good; however, the key term is “productive forest land.” Unfortunately, in recent years, as landowner interest in managed forest land has increased, it has become increasingly apparent that current reclamation and regulatory practices limit the creation of productive forest land.

Key information II: Each year numerous photographs of award winning reclamation projects are published in various trade magazines. In all cases, these photos depict smoothly contoured surfaces with lush ground cover. For landowners with a long‐term interest in timber production, these award winning reclamation projects represent lost opportunities. The presence of the tall and lush vegetation indicates that no trees are present and probably will not be established until several years after bond release. If trees have been established, they will be severely impacted by thick ground cover competing for sunlight, nutrients, and moisture. For each year the site is used to grow forage species, an additional year will be required if the site is converted to a commercial forest. The smoothly contoured surfaces of award winning reclamation projects indicate compacted surface soils that are not capable of supporting good tree growth once trees are established. The combination of delayed tree establishment and reduced growth rates will drastically reduce landowners’ opportunities to derive future economic benefits from reclaimed mined land.

116

Other (or key information III): The first scenario represents a common situation in the central Appalachians; land is reclaimed as hayland/pasture or wildlife habitat, and the landowner decides to plant trees after release of the reclamation bonds. Trees grow poorly as a result of compaction and harvest value is low. Some trees are lost to the competing ground cover in the year after planting. In the second scenario, the post‐mine land use is forest land and the coal company specifically reclaims the land to maximize forest productivity. Although this type of reclamation is not widespread, it is feasible. A second study, established in eastern Kentucky in 1990, shows that forest productivity and landowner’s return on investment was maximized by selecting an oxidized sandstone spoil, avoiding compaction by eliminating the “tracking in” procedure, and using a tree‐compatible ground cover to control erosion while allowing seedling establishment. In this study, site productivity, tree growth, and value are compared using three degrees of soil compaction, all other factors being equal.

117

An Economic Benefit Analysis for Abandoned Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania

Source of publication/information: Downstream Strategies

Publication date: July 2008

File name: DS_West_Branch_report

Web source: http://downstreamstrategies.com/Documents/reports_publication/AMD_remediation_%20West_Branch_Susque hanna_Jul2008.pdf

Focus area I: Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration economics

Key word(s): abandoned mine lands, coal mining, water quality, economic benefits, restoration

Brief description: This report analyzes and reports on the economic benefits of remediating the pollution effects of abandoned mine lands in the West Branch Susquehanna River (WBSR) watershed in Pennsylvania. The economic analysis examines the economic benefits of remediation in relation to the (green) jobs and economic activity that would result from a remediation program, the economic impact of outdoor recreation, the economic impact of acid mine drainage (AMD) on recreational spending within the target watershed, the aggregate impact of AMD on property values, and the impacts on water supplies. The report also estimates the economic value of remediation based on a willingness‐to‐pay by the affected population. Conclusions are then offered based on the findings.

Key information I: Building upon the initial efforts of the WBSR Task Force, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) predicts a range of costs for remediating the numerous AMD sources in the WBSR watershed (SRBC, 2008). Based on SRBC’s recent calculation, full remediation of AMD pollution in the WBSR watershed may require one‐time capital investments of between $110 and $453 million, along with annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of up to $16 million. The high end of this range could ultimately be reduced if re‐mining or reclamation projects are successfully implemented. To make the most informed decisions possible, policymakers must consider not just the costs, but also the benefits from making investments to protect and restore watersheds. The most obvious benefit of AMD remediation to the local community is that funds are pumped into the local economy to design, build, and maintain treatment systems. A restoration economy with “green‐collar” jobs is then created in which people work toward environmental restoration that supports local communities over the long term.

Key information II: Conclusions: 1) Depending on which technologies are ultimately chosen at each AMD source, remediation expenditures will generate local benefits of up to $616 million for capital expenditures, and up to $23 million per year for O&M. 2) After remediation of the WBSR watershed, an additional $22.3 million in sport fishing revenues could be expected to be generated each year. 3) In Clearfield County alone, the total value lost by owners of the 2,734 parcels within 200 feet of AMD‐impacted streams is $4,077,682, for an average of $2,587 per acre or $1,491 per parcel. 4) More than $11 million has been spent on waterline extensions to bring clean water to 696 residences and five businesses within the WBSR watershed. Remediating AMD across the watershed would open up more plentiful and cheaper source water options for public water systems, and would minimize the need for additional spending on waterline extensions for private residences and businesses. 5) The best estimate of total willingness‐to‐pay for AMD remediation in the watershed was calculated as $73.6 million. Low and high estimates of $18 and $171 million provide a broader range.

Other (or key information III): N/A

118

Coalfield Developers Cite Challenges for Future Growth

Source of publication/information: Pam Kasey, The State Journal (West Virginia)

Publication date: April 2009

File name: StateJournal_Coalfield_PMLU_Development

Web source: http://statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=55746

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Restoration economics

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, redevelopment, economic criteria, challenges to development, planning

Brief description: This is an article published in 2009 that outlines some of the issues facing redevelopment of surface mined lands and the problems inherent in the permitting process. It provides perspectives from a number of stakeholders living and working in southern West Virginia surface mining counties, as well as reactions to the US Environmental Protection Agency's review of mountaintop removal permits.

Key information I: It is often said that there is plenty of flat land in the steep, hard‐to‐develop southern coalfields — that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of previously surface‐mined areas that could be developed. MIke Whitt said it’s not so, and that it has taken development officials a long time to understand that. He used as his example the Mingo County Wood Products Industrial Park. “That used a former reclaimed mine site that we went back into, and the property was not flat — the mining company had had to put it back a certain way,” Whitt said. “The first 40 acres leveled was in‐kind, then we got a grant from Governor (Bob) Wise, we got $3.2 million and created 115 acres adjacent to what we already had and we said, ‘This is not going to work — there just isn’t enough public money available to do it this way.’” This, he said, is why diversifying the economies in the southern coalfields seems to be taking so long. It’s only been in the past decade that development authorities have learned to get involved with mining companies and land‐holding companies when surface mines are very first proposed. And those properties are only now beginning to come available.

Key information II: Economic diversification efforts have not yet made coal a small part of these counties’ economies. In Boone County, the 4,100 or so direct jobs in mining account for 44 percent of the work force. “If surface mining is stopped, it would have a dramatic impact on the economy. There would be so many people filing for unemployment,” Larry Lodato said. Lodato is concerned about any reduction in coal severance taxes. Boone County and its municipalities received $4.6 million in 2007, more than twice as much as next‐highest Logan County. To hear him list the services that depend on that coal severance revenue is to review most of what counties do for their residents: community and senior citizens’ centers, water and sewer infrastructure, courthouse security, parks and recreation, 911 emergency response, recycling and free trash disposal for county residents. In Mingo County, mining directly employs about 19 percent of the work force. “If we lose the jobs and coal severance taxes, I don’t know what we’re going to do for basic public necessities,” Whitt said.

Other (or key information III): Tommy Adkins at Corridor G spoke of retraining for future opportunities. “We’re not looking for a handout from anybody, but if you come in and cut our throat essentially, be prepared to help us somewhat,” he said. “Bringing in white‐collar‐type jobs is not going to be the best fit for this area. But if we’re going to do windmills, they’re not going to run themselves — let’s teach these guys how to do this,” he added. “I do think that maybe there needs to be a more of a look to the retail side of redevelopment in rural areas,” he said, “because right now most of it is directed toward the industrial and commercial side. There’s some funding, low interest, if you’re manufacturing, but there’s not a lot of money made available to the small entrepreneur who wants to do a bed‐and‐breakfast.” Whitt doesn’t believe the flat land that would be provided by one more decade of surface mining would be enough to create broad diversification in the economy beyond coal.

119

Appalachian Clean Streams Program

Source of publication/information: Office of Surface Mining, US Department of the Interior

Publication date: March 2006

File name: OSM's_Watershed_Cooperative_Agreement_Program

Web source: www.wvca.us/wvwn/PowerPoint/OSM's_Watershed_Cooperative_Agreement_Program.ppt Focus area I: Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration funding

Key word(s): surface mining, watershed, streams, Appalachian Clean Streams Program, abandoned mine lands

Brief description: This PowerPoint document summarizes the Appalachian Clean Streams Program, a federal program administered by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in the US Department of the Interior. The purpose of the program is two‐fold: 1) to prevent acid‐mine drainage (AMD) on active mine sites; and, 2) to clean up AMD on abandoned mine lands (AMLs). The program aims to achieve these goals by: 1) expanding public and private partnerships in a cooperative manner; providing financial, programmatic and personnel support to all partners; and, obtaining multiple sources of funding.

Key information I: Funding resources include the AML Grants Program, initiated in 1997 and designed to address pre‐Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act AMD sites. Site selection for this program is a partnering efforts between OSM, the state AML Authority, and private partners. Total OSM funding amounts to $48.65 million since the start of the program, and the program has leveraged an additional $28 million from state and watershed funding sources for a total funding amount of $76.7 million covering 117 projects.

Key information II: Another program that serves the Clean Streams Initiative is the Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program (WCAP), a program that has 8 participating states. WCAP was initiated in 1998 to promote clean‐up of streams and watersheds impacted by AMD through partnership and cooperative agreements. WCAP provides OSM grants for up to $100,000 for the construction of AMD projects. Cumulative funding from the OSM has amounted to $13 million, and total funding has amounted to $52 million to cover 128 projects.

Other (or key information III): West Virginia has received an average of over $1 million per year (between 1997 and 2005) from the AML Grant allocations and a total of $1.62 million for the period of 1999‐2005 from WCAP allocations. Including funding for 2006, West Virginia will have received a total of over $2 million for 25 total projects.

120

Deforestation and Land Degradation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery

Source of publication/information: Oregon State University

Publication date: 2001

File name: Deforestation and Land Degradation

Web source: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/northeast_african_studies/v008/8.1bishaw.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): deforestation, erosion, land degradation, community forestry, sustainable agriculture, policy

Brief description: This report provides a brief look at the causes of deforestation and land degradation in the Ethiopian highlands of northern Africa—due to agriculture and forestry practices—and uses the findings in order to propose alternative land use strategies based on models of agroforestry, social forestry, plantation forestry, and conservation of the remaining forests, in order to promote land recovery. The report is also useful for CAPP because its analysis and recommendations are grounded in similar principles of local participation of natural resource management and long‐term sustainability. The report differs in that its main focus is on restoring the land in conjunction with providing a sustainable provision of food and fuel wood, the demand for which has played a large part in deforestation and land degradation (rather than coal). One telling quote which ties CAPP to this report is this, however: "In general, trees planting through agroforestry and social forestry should be an integral part of rural development programs to provide the community with food, fuel wood, income, and environmental benefits. Increasing public awareness through education about forestry and natural resource conservation is vital for maintaining Ethiopia's remaining natural forests and biodiversity."

Key information I: Ethiopians are facing rapid deforestation and degradation of land resources. Population increases have resulted in extensive forest clearing for agricultural use, overgrazing, and exploitation of existing forests for fuel wood, fodder, and construction materials. Forest areas have been reduced from 40 percent a century ago to an estimated less than 3 percent today. The current rate of deforestation is estimated at 160,000 to 200,000 hectares per year, and fertile topsoil is lost at an estimated rate of one billion cubic meters per yea. Despite the large commitments of scarce resources by both governmental and nongovernmental agencies, however, success in tree planting and conservation has been limited. Current tree‐planting practices result in less than 20 percent tree survival on average nationally.

Key information II: Community forestry has been defined by FAO (1978) as any situation that intimately involves local people in a forestry activity. It embraces a spectrum of situations ranging from woodlots in areas that are short of wood and other forest products for local needs, through the growing of trees at the farm and community level to provide cash crops, and the processing of forest products. Attention should be given to the creation of effective local management organizations to mobilize farmers in the conservation, development, and appropriate use of forests and agroforestry products. Institutional arrangements at the community level are key elements in resource conservation measures such as planning agroforestry and tree planting for field implementation.

Other (or key information III): There are disincentives among farmers for soil conservation measures and afforestation programs. Soil conversation measures take some land out of production, placing more pressure on existing farm‐ and grazing land. Successful long‐term agroforestry and tree‐planting strategies require land tenure systems that guarantee continued ownership of land. As Nair (1990) indicated, the incentive for investing in soil‐ fertility improvement for the future is low unless the benefits accrue to the tree planter. In Ethiopia today, land is still under the control of the government. Unless land is redistributed to individual farmers and they are guaranteed ownership, success in the adoption of agroforestry and tree planting in the highlands is unlikely.

121

Beyond Coal: A Resilient New Economy for Appalachia

Source of publication/information: Dr. John Todd, Damir Doshi and Anthony McInnis

Publication date: 2009

File name: Beyond Coal, A Resilient New Economy for Appalachia

Web source: Unknown

Focus area I: Ecological restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): surface mining, restoration, ecological design, sustainable development, land ownership

Brief description: In the author’s words, "This paper explores ways to make a transition in the region from coal mining to a diversified, durable economy within an ecological framework. The goal is to build a carbon neutral economic foundation through which carbon or CO2 is no longer an atmospheric pollutant but is sequestered in new soils and diverse biological pathways. It would be based on a wide range of activities and industries that would include place based education; restoration of coal lands and the contaminated landscape; detoxification of coal slurry and the regeneration of such natural resources sustainable forestry and agriculture; the implementation of renewable energies; enterprise diversification and allied manufacturing; and the resulting aggregate of regionally specific infrastructures. In envisioning such a future, however, we first have to address the devastation of the past." In doing so, this proposal offers four objectives or "orders of design" that can build upon one another for achieving the overall objective of total ecological and community restoration in the Central Appalachian coalfields.

Key information I: Coal slurry is a major contributor to environmental degradation. It consists of a mixture of minute particles of coal called fines, chemicals, water and waste rock. Normally it is stored in impoundments built in valleys and hollows or pumped underground into abandoned mines. The earthen dams that hold back the impoundments are built from waste materials from mining. Many of the chemicals in the slurry are toxic petrochemicals from coal washing and include polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzopyrene, and other coagulants, flocculants, and surfactants. Such coal wastes release other metals and metalloids through acid mine drainage. The mixture can also contain arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Mining has dammed 2 billion tons of slurry in 700 impoundments.

Key information II: Appalachia needs an economy based upon the larger workings and legacy of nature. Profound economic change requires a new model of development. Such a model must be based upon complex and dynamic systems derived from the workings of nature. Such ecological design integrates all the sub‐elements of the economy and its attendant landscape into a new and coherent whole. It takes into account not only human enterprises, but also the changing nature of all of the ecological subsystems through time.

Other (or key information III): The first stage in restoring our hypothetical former mine site begins with rebuilding the soils. The second stage includes developing sustainable forestry initiatives for timber and bioenergy, agroforestry, and ecological agriculture. The third stage includes developing both a renewable energy infrastructure and manufacturing and processing based on regional natural resources. The final stage in restoring the region will be built on emerging economic diversification. It will involve the transfer of ownership of the land and natural resources to the people who live there, especially those who have had a hand in its ecological transformation.

122

A New Shared Economy for Appalachia: An Economy Built Upon Environmental Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, Renewable Energy and Ecological Design

Source of publication/information: Dr. John Todd, Research Professor, The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources

Publication date: April 2008

File name: jtodd_new_shared_economy full reprt

Web source: http://oceanarks.org/documents/LewisReport2sf.pdf

Focus area I: Ecological restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): surface mining, restoration, ecological design, sustainable development, land ownership, carbon reduction, externalities

Brief description: This is Dr. John Todd's award‐winning report and proposal for restoring Appalachia's land and ecology—while creating a new, sustainable economy—in the coalfields region of Central Appalachia. The report's proposals are based upon an ecological design for restoration, and it examines various strategies for implementing Dr. Todd's ecological design and incorporating it into existing models of restoration and economic development. Most importantly, it offers a completely sustainable and scalable model for achieving the goals of economic diversification, ecological restoration, economic justice and equality, renewable energy development, and the creation of a future beyond coal. It is comprehensive in that it offers recommendations of how to finance the included proposals and how to move toward a community‐driven, locally‐owned economy based on ecological design.

Key information I: This paper, and the ideas contained in it, is predicated on the view that the soil defines society and that creating deep rich soils is at the heart of any effort to build a durable and equitable economy. As a consequence, the paper begins with examining the influence of soils on the fate of societies and explores ways to create fertile soils upon the abandoned rubble of old mine sites. In an increasingly petroleum‐scarce future, contemporary farming will be increasingly at risk and, in many parts of the world, the practice most likely will decline dramatically. To counter this, Dr. Montgomery makes a compelling argument for a strategy of soil creation on a large scale. This would ease our transition to a post‐petroleum era. Additionally, through reduced plowing alone, such a program has the potential to soak up a quarter of the world’s industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

Key information II: If the goal of renewing the land includes establishing forests capable of supporting diverse plants and wildlife, as well as creating a foundation for a forest‐based economy, another critical factor must be taken into account: the depth of the growing media. The media can be comprised of the overburden of rock and dirt cleared from the land. Sometimes the media is siltstone, coal, and shale rubble, which are not particularly suitable for reforestation. However, the depth of the media remains critical. In one study when the depth of the media was only 12 inches, the land yielded only $123/acre after 30 years of tree growth. When the depth was 24 inches thick the land yielded $1,755/acre. When it was 48 inches thick the forest land yielded $3,480/acre of high quality trees (Burger & Zipper, 2002). The return on the investment was 28 times greater with the deeper soils because of the growth of vigorous roots systems. The economic prospects of the new forests could be further increased, perhaps by an order of magnitude, if the methods described earlier to enhance soil development were combined with plantings in media that is at least four feet deep.

Other (or key information III): It has been estimated that between 3.9 –5.8 million hectares (9.6‐14.3 million acres) of energy crops will be required to meet 20% Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) by 2020 (Haq, 2002). This represents about 24‐37% of the land currently in the national Conservation Reserve Program. To

123 support an electrical power generating facility, for example, a 100 MW biomass gasifier operating at 37% efficiency and 80% capacity would require 26,865 hectares of land (66,357 acres) in willow crops. This amounts to 1.3% of the total area within an 80 kilometer (50 mile) radius of the plant (Keoleian &Volk, 2005). By combining biomass with other sources of energy such as wind, there is a very real opportunity for communities and regions to develop their own electrical and fuel supplies. If electrical power generation facilities were combined with bio‐refineries as well as wood based materials manufacturing in Ecological Industrial Parks (EIP), the synergies would go a long way towards stabilizing regional natural resource based economies.

124

Summary: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

Source of publication/information: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior

Publication date: December 2005

File name: ARRI_summary

Web source: http://arri.osmre.gov/CSS/PDFs/Pubs/FRA_No.1.7‐18‐07.Revised.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, forestry reclamation approach, groundcover, soil

Brief description: This is the first in a series of advisories about the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI). ARRI is a cooperative effort by the States of the Appalachian Region with the Office of Surface Mining to encourage restoration of high quality forests on reclaimed coal mines in the eastern USA. ARRI's goals are to communicate and encourage mine reforestation practices that 1) plant more high‐value hardwood trees on reclaimed coal mined lands in Appalachia; 2) increase the survival rates and growth rates of planted trees; and 3) expedite the establishment of forest habitat through natural succession. These goals can be achieved when mines are reclaimed using the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA).

Key information I: Following the implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), regulators focused on stability of landforms created by mining at the expense of restoring forest land capability. This approach was caused by a desire to solve the problems such as severe erosion, sedimentation, landslides, and mass instability caused by pre‐SMCRA surface mining. As a result, excessive soil compaction was common on surface mines, and aggressive ground covers were generally planted. Furthermore, both regulators and mine operators were challenged by the technical complexities of implementing SMCRA in the years following its passage. As a result, reforestation took a back seat. Lastly, some early efforts by mine operators to reforest under SMCRA proved problematic, in part because these efforts were conducted without the benefit of scientific knowledge that is available today; as a result, mine operators and regulators came to believe that post‐mine land uses such as hay and pasture land were easier and cheaper to achieve than forests. These factors and others contributed to a significant loss of forests due to mining across Appalachia. The current reforestation initiative is an effort to increase knowledge and change attitudes about planting trees on surface mines.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

125

Summary: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA)

Source of publication/information: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior

Publication date: December 2005

File name: ARRI_Forestry_Reclamation_Approach

Web source: http://arri.osmre.gov/CSS/PDFs/Pubs/FRA_No.2.7‐18‐07.Revised.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, forestry reclamation approach, groundcover, soil

Brief description: This is the second in a series of advisories about the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI), and summarizes the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) utilized for the ARRI program. The purpose of this Advisory is to describe the FRA, which is considered by state mining agencies and US Office of Surface Mining to be an appropriate and desirable method for reclaiming coal‐mined land to support forested land uses under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)(Angel and others, 2005). The FRA is also supported by members of the ARRI’s academic team, which is drawn from Universities in nine states, and by other groups and agencies.

Key information I: The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) is a method for reclaiming coal‐mined land to forest under SMCRA. The FRA is based on knowledge gained from both scientific research and experience. The FRA can achieve cost‐effective regulatory compliance for coal operators while creating productive forests that generate value for their owners and provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and other environmental services.

Key information II: The FRA can be summarized in five steps (described in greater detail in the summary): 1. Create a suitable rooting medium for good tree growth that is no less than 4 feet deep and comprised of topsoil, weathered sandstone and/or the best available material. 2. Loosely grade the topsoil or topsoil substitute established in step one to create a non‐compacted growth medium. 3. Use ground covers that are compatible with growing trees. 4. Plant two types of trees—early successional species for wildlife and soil stability, and commercially valuable crop trees. 5. Use proper tree planting techniques.

Other (or key information III): N/A

126

Summary: ARRI, Mine Reclamation Process to Enhance Forest Development Through Natural Succession

Source of publication/information: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior

Publication date: July 2007

File name: ARRI_FRA_natural_succession

Web source: http://arri.osmre.gov/CSS/PDFs/Pubs/FRA_No.5.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, forestry reclamation approach, groundcover, soil

Brief description: This is the fifth in a series of advisories released by the Office of Surface Mining about the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. This advisory summarizes the potential for the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) to assist in achieving rapid succession of natural forests. It also examines the factors affecting succession on a mine site, which it identifies as: quality of the rooting medium, groundcover vegetation, tree species mixture, and “other soil and site factors.”

Key information I: In some areas, soils salvaged from the pre‐mining forest floor can be recycled to produce a plant‐growth medium after mining. In these cases, seeds or roots contained in the soil can sprout, establishing species not typically spread by wind or wildlife or where potential seed sources are far away (Wade 1994). For example, at a mine site in Kentucky that was reclaimed using topsoils reclaimed from the adjacent natural forest, 63 species from the natural forest donor site were found on the reclaimed mine site within one year after the soils were spread.

Key information II: Landowners and mine operators are increasingly choosing forest as the post‐mine land use. Compared to conventional reclamation practices, reclamation using the FRA allows more planted seedlings to survive and more species from the surrounding forest to invade the reclaimed mine site. Agencies in the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative states allow both planted trees that survive and invading trees that are compatible with the post‐mine land use to be counted toward the tree‐stocking standard for reclamation success. Reclamation practices that encourage natural succession can help mine operators meet regulatory requirements and achieve prompt bond release while restoring native forests.

Other (or key information III): N/A

127

Draft Summary: ARRI, Tree‐Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

Source of publication/information: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior

Publication date: June 2009

File name: ARRI_FRA_revegetation

Web source: http://arri.osmre.gov/Publications.htm

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration model

Key word(s): reclamation, surface mining, reforestation, forestry reclamation approach, groundcover, soil

Brief description: This is the sixth in a series of advisories released by the Office of Surface Mining about the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. This draft advisory summarizes ways coal companies can achieve good tree survival and restore forest productivity by using tree‐compatible ground covers in order to control erosion and meet federal ground cover standards for reclamation purposes.

Key information I: This publication deals with the Forestry Reclamation Approach’s (FRA) 3rd step; it describes methods for establishing ground cover vegetation to control erosion without hindering survival and growth of planted trees. Those methods include establishing soil conditions to encourage native, volunteer ground cover, and, when necessary, seeding grasses and legumes that will provide minimal competition with growing trees.

Key information II: Using tree‐compatible ground cover with FRA differs from the “grassland reclamation approach” that has been used in past years to establish both hayland/pasture and unmanaged forest. The grassland reclamation approach uses fast‐growing agricultural grasses and legumes to achieve rapid and complete ground cover. In contrast, FRA reclamation uses “tree‐compatible” ground cover to minimize competition with tree seedlings. To establish tree‐compatible ground cover: • use less‐competitive ground cover species, • use lower seeding rates, • use less nitrogen (N) fertilizer, and • accept a less‐dense herbaceous ground cover in the first few years after seeding.

Other (or key information III): Growing trees require essential nutrients in adequate quantities. Weathering overburden releases calcium, magnesium, potassium, sulfur, and many micronutrients, but N and P are often lacking in mine overburden. Successful mine reforestation requires that N and P be supplied in sufficient quantities to support tree growth. If the mine soil used for reforestation incorporates native topsoil in amounts similar to the unmined forests, that topsoil will usually carry sufficient N and P to support tree growth. The term “topsoil,” as used here, means all soil materials that can be removed easily by a dozer, including stumps, roots, and woody debris left behind after timber removal. If topsoil is used as a substitute for fertilization, it is essential that organic materials from the forest soil surface be included because the surface is the most nutrient rich portion of the forest topsoil. The surface materials also include viable seed, so use of fresh topsoil for reclamation will encourage natural revegetation.

128

Coal River's namesake root of problem, some say

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette.

Publication date: November 2004

File name: Cleaning_Up_The_Coal_River

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/News/CoalRiverProblemsandpotential/200411210007

Focus area I: Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration need

Key word(s): coal river, mountaintop removal, flooding, water quality, community impact, fishing

Brief description: This is an article that was part of a 2004 series run in the Charleston Gazette about Coal River that runs through southern West Virginia. It describes the various human impacts on water quality in Coal River, and highlights the impacts of surface mining in the watershed. There are numerous surface mining operations along the length of the Coal, and the cumulative impact on water quality in the river is astounding. This article provides a good description of how that came to be, and how the state perceives and is approaching the problem.

Key information I: Residents here point to repeated blackwater spills from preparation plants, hundreds of miles of streams buried by valley fills and other repeated violations of water pollution rules by the coal operations that line the valley. If anything is killing the Coal River, these residents say, it is the river’s very namesake. And instead of focusing on abandoned mines and residential sewage, residents want to see the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) crack down on the area’s active mining operations. “The mining companies are the biggest polluters, but what’s happening is that the people are being blamed for the pollution,” said Janice Nease, an activist with the group Coal River Mountain Watch. “That’s a plan that goes nowhere,” Nease told DEP officials. “It doesn’t protect us, and it doesn’t clean up our water.”

Key information II: Of the 480 miles the DEP has assessed, only about one‐fifth fully supported their “designated uses,” meaning they were safe for swimming, boating, fishing and for drinking water. DEP officials point to three general pollution problems in the Coal: excessive amounts of toxic metals, serious sedimentation, and unhealthy amounts of fecal coliform bacteria. In its reports, the DEP says the principal source of that pollution for 64 miles of Coal River streams is unknown. For another 64 miles, the DEP says the main source is abandoned coal mines. Timbering, raw sewage and highway runoff each account for 58 miles of impairments, the DEP says. Active mining isn’t listed in the DEP reports. Later, DEP officials released a report that showed nearly half of the 786 water pollution permits in the Coal watershed belong to mining companies. Of the more than 3,100 individual pollution outlets, 85 percent are at mining operations, the DEP report showed.

Other (or key information III): For nearly a decade, John Walls and his family ran the Coal River Canoe Livery. They were running just the sort of tourist business that Skaggs and Currey say could flourish along the Coal. Based just 20 miles from downtown Charleston, the livery offered self‐guided floats down the Little Coal. Walls also organized periodic river cleanups, to collect and haul away debris and streamside litter. He offered discounted prices to customers who collected a bag of trash during their trips. Walls had been exploring the Little Coal for more than 25 years, since his family moved to its banks. “Getting people on the river to see it and appreciate its potential is the best way to keep in clean,” Walls said in a 1995 newspaper interview. But in September 2001, Walls closed the livery’s doors. In a lawsuit, Walls blamed blackwater and sludge spills from Massey Energy’s Independence Coal operations. The suit, filed in September 2002, alleged that the spills “turned the river black with coal dust, and negated all of the efforts [Walls] had made to clean up the river.”

129

Ruling requires DEP to improve mine treatment

Source of publication/information: Ken Ward, Jr. Charleston Gazette.

Publication date: January 2009

File name: Gazette_AMD_WV_Mine_Treatment

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/News/200901150533

Focus area I: Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration need

Key word(s): water quality, acid mine drainage, coal mining, water pollution, funding proposal

Brief description: This is an article published in early 2009 after a US District Court Judge ruled that state officials must improve treatment of acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines across West Virginia in order to ensure that discharges comply with water pollution limits.

Key information I: The lawsuits focus on long‐standing problems with West Virginia's Special Reclamation Fund. The program, required by federal law, aims to clean up coal mines abandoned since passage of the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Mines abandoned before then are covered by a separate program, also mandated by the 1977 law and funded by coal industry taxes. Over the years, the program has never had enough money. Thousands of acres of abandoned mines have sat unreclaimed. Hundreds of polluted streams went untreated. Historically, the fund has been short of money because coal operators had not posted reclamation bonds sufficient to cover the true cost of mine cleanups at sites they abandon. A state tax on coal production was never set high enough to cover the difference.

Key information II: Already, an advisory panel that monitors the reclamation fund has urged lawmakers to increase the coal tax that supports the fund from 14.4 cents per ton to 20.4 cents per ton. Bill Raney, a coal industry representative on that panel, was the only member to vote against the recommendation. Raney could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Other (or key information III): DEP Secretary Randy Huffman learned of Keeley's ruling from a newspaper reporter, and said his agency would likely appeal the decision.

130

Ground‐Water Quality in Unmined Areas and Near Reclaimed Surface Coal Mines in the Northern and Central Appalachian Coal Regions, Pennsylvania and West Virginia

Source of publication/information: US Geological Survey

Publication date: 2006

File name: GW_Quality_UnMined_and Reclaimed_Areas_Penn_WV

Web source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5059/pdf/sir2006‐5059.pdf

Focus area I: Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration need

Key word(s): coal mining, surface mining, groundwater quality, Northern Appalachia, Central Appalachia

Brief description: This study presents findings from investigations conducted between 1996 and 1998 by the US Geological Survey National Water‐Quality Assessment Program. Groundwater quality in 58 wells down‐gradient of reclaimed surface coal mines is compared to groundwater quality from 25 wells in unmined areas (background concentrations) in the bituminous coal fields of the northern Appalachian coal region (high‐sulfur coal region) in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia; and the central Appalachian coal region (low‐sulfur coal region) in West Virginia. The wells were all private domestic supply wells of depths generally less than 250 feet. Groundwater in these wells flows into open‐hole sections in the gently dipping, relatively flat‐lying fractured units of Pennsylvanian age, which may include sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, and coal. The study also examines the spatial and temporal relations and local extent of mine‐drainage constituents in mined areas.

Key information I: Surface mining of coal causes the disturbance of great volumes of coal, overburden rock, and pavement rock that underlies the coal. These disturbances may result in changes in hydrology of the area and expose previously buried rocks to oxygen and water that may result in changes in the quality of groundwater beneath and down‐gradient from mined areas. Common effects include increased concentrations of dissolved sulfate, iron, aluminum, manganese, and other ions and metals that contribute to hardness and acidity and increased suspended solids and turbidity (Rose and Cravotta, 1998). Data collected for this study are summarized in terms of the two most general data groups, groundwater from wells in unmined and mined areas. However, to evaluate the data in a regional sense, the wells in unmined and mined groups were further subdivided into low‐ sulfur coal region and high‐sulfur coal‐region categories. This was done because characteristics of the coal‐bearing rocks that form the aquifers, and thus affect ground‐water quality, have been shown to have significantly different characteristics in previous research.

Key information II: Groundwater down‐gradient of surface coal mines has significantly higher concentrations of sulfate, iron, manganese, aluminum, pH, hardness (calcium and magnesium), turbidity, and specific conductance compared to ground water in unmined areas. In addition, concentrations of zinc and detections of BTEX compounds (in the high‐sulfur region only) were greater down‐gradient of surface coal mines compared to unmined areas. High concentrations of iron and manganese were ubiquitous throughout the study area. Sixty‐four percent of samples down‐gradient of surface mines and 36 percent of samples from unmined areas exceeded the USEPA SMCL of 300 μg/L for iron, and 71 percent of samples down‐gradient from surface mines and 56 percent of samples from unmined areas exceeded the USEPA SMCL of 50 μg/L for manganese.

Other (or key information III): For unmined areas, there are no statistically significant differences between median concentrations of most mining‐related constituents when high‐sulfur and low‐sulfur regions are compared. This generalization holds for sulfate, iron, pH, hardness, calcium, and specific conductance.

131

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Consequences of MTM/VF (Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills)

Source of publication/information: US Environmental Protection Agency

Publication date: 2001

File name: EPA_MTR_EIS_Enviro_Impacts

Web source: www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pdf/III_affected‐envt‐consequences.pdf

Focus area I: Land/Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration need

Key word(s): surface mining, reclamation, policy, state government, funding, environmental impact, community impact, research, reforestation, water restoration, cumulative impact, economic impact

Brief description: This 300+ page document describes in great detail the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining and the construction of valley fills in streams. It was produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency, submitted in 2001 as part of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and included as part of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement approved in 2005. This is a critical document for understanding the nature and extent of the impact Central Appalachian mountaintop removal mining operations on land, forest and water resource, as well as the communities that depend on them. In the report's own words: "This chapter includes a description of the physical setting, Appalachian lotic and lentic aquatic systems, relationship of surface mining and water quality, Appalachian forest communities, Appalachian microhabitats, threatened and endangered species, coal mining methods, mountaintop mine characteristics, excess spoil disposal, and economic information. Supporting information is provided in the appendices." The chapter begins with an in‐ depth description of the history, geography and ecology of the study region.

Key information I: Deep rocky soils with the appropriate chemical composition can be produced through mining and reclamation, and will support forests that are more productive than those supported by the thin natural soils typical of the Appalachian Mountains. However, the mine soils that support good forest growth vary chemically over a more limited range than those that will support a good stand of herbaceous vegetation. Trees are more sensitive than herbaceous vegetation to the negative impacts of excess compaction. Ashby et al., 1984, states that “mine soils with differing contents of coarse fragments may have productivity equal to or greater than pre‐mining soils.” Indeed, a relatively small percentage of soil fines distributed through a matrix of rocky material that is not excessively compacted can function as an excellent substrate for tree growth. The “increased rooting depth on loose mine soils appears to compensate more than adequately for loss of soil volume due to stones.” Additionally, appropriately constructed mine soils may have higher water infiltration rates and lower erosion rates. Ultimately, it is the water and nutrient supplying capacity of the medium that translates into productivity.

Key information II: A cumulative impact study of the length of stream directly impacted within the study area was performed. The stream lengths evaluated were based on the same synthetic stream network as the Office of Surface Mining fill inventory which includes streams located upslope from the USGS blueline streams. This cumulative impact study differed from the previously discussed studies in that the estimate of stream length impacted was based on length of stream filled and length of stream mined through. This study estimated 1,208 miles of direct impact to stream systems in the study area based on permits issued in the last ten years (1992‐ 2002). This amount of filled or mined through streams represents 2.05% of the stream miles in the study area.

Other (or key information III): According to the World Resource Institute (1997), drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into biomass is the only known practical way to remove large volumes of this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Reforestation could potentially achieve significant carbon sequestration. It has been estimated that temperate forests sequester 0.6 to 1.8 tons of carbon per acre per year.

132

OSWER Land Revitalization Program

Source of publication/information: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency

Publication date: November 2008

File name: EPA_Land_Revitalization

Web source: www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/index.htm

Focus area I: Land/Water restoration

Focus area II: Restoration program

Key word(s): contamination remediation, land restoration, water restoration, renewable energy, sustainability, green development, community health

Brief description: This is a brochure outlining the structure, priorities and goals of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program. It provides details on the program's mission and priorities, examples of its work in the 10 covered regions, and contact information for each of the regions.

Key information I: Program Priorities: Promote the cleanup, beneficial reuse, and long‐term stewardship of brownfields and other contaminated properties. Encourage sustainable development, environmentally protective “green” remediation, and ecological enhancements. A major priority is supporting the attainment of the goals included in the Agency’s Strategic Plan. "We promote healthy communities and ecosystems (Goal 4) by incorporating sustainable development techniques into cleanup and land management approaches that will create measurable improvements in community health through green building designs, walkable neighborhoods and mixed‐use development, and by promoting redevelopment practices that reduce stresses on our air, water and land resources. We promote compliance and environmental stewardship (Goal 5) by incorporating green and sustainable practices into the Agency's regulatory programs, particularly by promoting pollution prevention programs and green cleanup approaches."

Key information II: Region 3 Approach: With the University of West Virginia, plans to study the feasibility of growing switchgrass, as a renewable energy source, on mine‐scarred lands.

Other (or key information III): N/A

133

Master's thesis: "Site Quality Classification for Mapping Forest Productivity Potential on Mine Soils in the Appalachian Coalfield Region"

Source of publication/information: Andy Thomas Jones, Master of Science in Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Publication date: May 2005

File name: Site_quality_classification_forest_productivity_reclamation

Web source: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd‐05312005‐094844/unrestricted/ETD_GRAD.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration requirements

Key word(s): surface mining, reforestation, soil characteristics, restoration viability, ecology, forest productivity, productivity index

Brief description: This study is a master's thesis conducted "to create a forest site quality classification system to be used to evaluate the potential productivity of specific tree species on mine soils." As the author notes, the model he created "may be modified for determination of hardwood productivity after validation sites are located," and "the forest site quality classification system proposed here proved practical for mapping a selected mine site, and the maps may be used as a validation test after future reforestation." The study reviews the physical and chemical proeprties of mine soils, asesses existing measurement methods for bulk soil density, assesses mine soil properties and their affect on survival and forest growth on mined sites, and most importantly develops a forest site quality classification for mine soils.

Key information I: Although over three dozen series for mine soils have been formally established, some soil scientists feel that current classes in Soil Taxonomy do not recognize the key features of mine soils and are not adequate for management interpretations (Schafer, 1979; Sencindiver, 1977; Indorante et al., 1992; Scencindiver and Ammons, 2000). Soil series in mined lands are usually based on particle size family, pH, and soil texture. Haering et al. (2005) proposed using rock type in classifying mine soils, and also recognized the importance of drainage class, densic layers, and cambic horizons (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1999). The addition of these criteria would greatly improve the Soil Taxonomy method of mine soil classification due to their importance to forest management. The extreme heterogeneity of mine soils prevents much of the standard USDA mapping techniques and soil criteria from being able to be used in a practical manner for mine soil mapping.

Key information II: FSQC ratings based on field‐measured soil properties can be used to predict potential forest productivity, which will aid in forest management prescriptions. Soil texture, density, and rooting depth were the most influential properties for white pine growth on reclaimed surface mines, with soil density being the most important. Other factors may be more influential on younger sites or on sites for which native hardwoods are the intended forest type. Soil pH and rock fragment content are known to be important for forest productivity on mine soils but were not found to be significant in this study. Electrical conductivity and sandstone content will likely be useful for recently reclaimed mine sites. An evaluation of all soil properties in the model is highly suggested. Furthermore, the model developed is useable for mapping mined landscapes and making management decisions.

Other (or key information III): With surface mining being conducted to great depths, non‐weathered material is brought to the surface and creates soil chemical properties that are foreign to native vegetation. A high pH and soluble salt level are two of the primary differences that result from weathering of these unoxidized rock types. Macro‐ and micro‐nutrient cations are often abundant due to rapid release from the mineral structures and toxicities may occur. The decline of organic matter in mine soils often results in low phosphorus and nitrogen levels, both of which are extremely important to forest productivity.

134

Mountaintop Removal Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement Technical Study: Terrestrial Plant (spring herbs, woody plants) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites

Source of publication/information: US Environmental Protection Agency

Publication date: October 2002

File name: EPA_MTR_Forest_Study

Web source: www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/pdf/appendices/e/handel‐terrestrial/finalreport.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration viability

Key word(s): forest restoration, regrowth, reclamation, plant populations, surface mining, reforestation viability, regulations

Brief description: The objective of this study was to determine the patterns of terrestrial vegetation on areas affected by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills in the southern Appalachian region, and on adjacent, non‐ mined areas. Specific goals were to identify plant species present, determine the relative numbers of species present, record the size class distribution, and to document the pattern of vegetation from toe of slope to top of slope and from forested areas to mined areas. These data will enable investigators to understand the potential for re‐establishment of native vegetation and document the actual change in vegetation since revegetation of the mined sites. Data from adjacent, unmined mature forests were also recorded.

Key information I: These data and other published studies support the conclusion that mining reclamation procedures limit the overall ecological health and plant invasion of the site. Less soil compaction, smaller mining areas, healthy soil profiles, and native plant material all would support a healthier ecosystem return, although full pre‐mining biodiversity may be difficult to achieve. Sites that were reclaimed with pre‐law protocols supported a richer flora than post‐law sites, but this may be attributed to small scale, less compacted mining procedures. They also contained more native plants and represented all age classes unlike the post‐law sites.

Key information II: Herbaceous species were also studied on nineteen transects, in mature forests and on transects adjacent to mined sites. The loss of spring herbs on engineered sites was highly significant compared to forests away from mining activity. Information gathered from this aspect of the study shows that monitoring the forest herbs adjacent to mining activity is an additional useful indicator of environmental impact. The heavy compaction of the artificial slopes created during valley filling also contributes to these slow invasion rates. Additionally, the grassy vegetation mixes usually installed during revegetation are known to hinder the ability of the native plant species to establish. The poor invasion and growth of native vegetation across these study sites support the conclusion that these lands will take much longer than the natural time scale observed in old field succession to return to the pre‐mining forest vegetation.

Other (or key information III): It is important to know the fate of the mined lands after reclamation, to determine the potential for re‐establishment of surrounding native vegetation, and to see if a flora different from the vegetative mix installed upon reclamation can establish. Conditions on mined sites are quite different from the original conditions. It must be understood if mined areas will develop differently from the surrounding forested terrestrial communities. These data are also needed to assess the quality of the habitat for animals. If current reclamation methods are creating different habitat types, this must be known precisely, so that regulatory actions can be created to account for such changes. Office of Surface Mining “reviewers pointed out that the unstated goal in mine reclamation in the Appalachians is to render the land green and stable. Traditionally, attempts are not made to reclaim the ecology or even the land use capability required by law. This report addresses what was accomplished, not what could be. What we see is only what is politically feasible, not technologically possible."

135

Tree Survival on Mountaintop Mines in Southern West Virginia

Source of publication/information: Jeff Skousen, Jim King, West Virginia University Extension Service

Publication date: December 2004

File name: Burger_Tree_Survival

Web source: www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/treesurvl.pdf

Focus area I: Forest restoration

Focus area II: Restoration viability

Key word(s): forest restoration, regrowth, reclamation, surface mining, reforestation viability, regulations, tree survival

Brief description: This is a fact sheet summarizing the results of studies conducted to assess factors influencing tree survival and growth on mountaintop surface mines in West Virginia. The purpose of the studies, it appears, was to determine which species of trees have greater survival rates on surface mined lands, in order to allow coal operators to improve tree establishment and growth, "thereby reducing the chance of failure on permits with commercial forestry post‐mine land uses." The fact sheet provides recommendations for planting plans based on soil characteristics, slope angle and aspect, ground cover, and survivability rates.

Key information I: Recent changes in the West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Rule (38CSR2) have established that commercial forestry is one of only a few agriculturally‐related post‐mine land uses that are acceptable for mountaintop surface mines that seek a variance from returning the land to approximate original contour (AOC). The new regulations have eliminated the past land use options of forestland or woodlands, rangeland, and wildlife habitat for permits receiving an AOC variance. Those coal operators pursuing commercial forestry have fairly strict performance standards. To achieve full bond release, standards require high survival rates of transplanted, commercially valuable tree species and these trees must demonstrate suitable growth over a 12‐ year bonding period after final reclamation.

Key information II: Tree plantations sampled in this study were established in the spring of 1999, spring of 2001, and fall of 2001. No significant difference in survival was found among the three planting dates (varied between 58 to 68% average survival), although, as expected, the older planting had slightly less survival (Table 1). Tree survival varied from 9% to 98% in transects, and averaged 65% across all ages of plantations. Tree heights and basal diameters also varied slightly, with the largest trees on the older plantings.

Other (or key information III): Revegetation of surface mines generally occurs concurrently with reclamation to ensure timely bond release. Erosion control and slope stability are important components of an effective reclamation and revegetation plan. Early establishment of tree seedlings in areas that require reforestation is important to ensure that performance standards, both in terms of tree survival and growth, are achieved within the time frame set by the new regulations.

136

Long‐term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern USA

Source of publication/information: Karen Holl, University of California ‐ Santa Cruz, Journal of Applied Ecology

Publication date: 2002

File name: Long‐term_vegetation_recovery_reclaimed_lands

Web source: http://people.ucsc.edu/~kholl/mining.pdf

Focus area I: Mine reclamation

Focus area II: Restoration viability

Key word(s): surface mining, reforestation, survivability, succession, restoration

Brief description: This is one of the studies cited in and associated with the federal Environmental Impact Statement on Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills that was published in final form in 2005. As stated, "the goals of this study were to determine whether vegetation communities on reclaimed mines approximate those of the surrounding forest, and to evaluate how intensive reclamation practices used to address short‐term erosion and water quality concerns affect long‐term recovery." The results stem from a survey conducted at two different time periods of 15 coal surface mines reclaimed between the years 1967 and 1987. The results of the survey were compared with a reference case characterized by five periodically logged hardwood forest sites. Vegetation community comparisons for tree and herbaceous groundcover species were then made.

Key information I: Most legislative mandates for land reclamation require evaluating the success of such efforts after a relatively short time period, if at all (Holl & Cairns 2002). For example, the success of coal surface mine reclamation efforts in the Southeastern US is usually evaluated after 5 years (McElfish & Beier 1990). Clearly, this time period is much shorter than that of natural succession in hardwood forest in the Southeast. Judging success of reclamation efforts after a short period of time encourages land owners to employ strategies that maximize short‐ term goals, such as providing high ground cover to minimize erosion, rather than restoring a diversity of species.

Key information II: These results concur with a common theme that goals for short‐term and long‐term recovery of highly disturbed sites may conflict. Planting with aggressive non‐native ground cover species to minimize short‐ term erosion may have slowed long‐term recovery on the sites studied. Widespread planting of Pinus strobus has not reduced species richness thus far, but may as the canopy closes. More emphasis should be given to long‐term recovery potential in developing mine reclamation plans, and strategies to further this goal should be tested.

Other (or key information III): Results of this and other studies suggest that coal surface mines in this region can recover a diverse native community fairly quickly, if appropriate site conditions are present. But, it may be much longer than the 35 years of recovery studied before these sites host the entire complement of the local flora. Results of this and other studies suggest a number of management strategies that may facilitate long‐term succession on these sites. First, retention of nearby seed sources is critical to rapid recovery, as few if any native species are planted as part of reclamation efforts in this region. Until the past 5–10 years, most mine sites were relatively small in area, which meant that they were quite near (< 50 m) toa forest that could serve as a seed source. This is probably one reason for the large numbers of plant species recorded on reclaimed mines in this study. Second, a common challenge in reclamation efforts is to balance short‐ and long‐term human and ecological needs. Third, most forest reclamation efforts would benefit from planting a wider variety of tree species.

137

9. THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL VALUE-ADDED OPPORTUNITIES

Economic Impact of Travel on West Virginia 2000‐2006p Detailed State and County Estimates

Source of publication/information: Dean Runyon Associates, prepared for the West Virginia Division of Tourism

Publication date: August 2007

File name: 2006_Travel_Econ_Impact_WV

Web source: http://greenbrierwv.com/images/uploads/documents/2006‐economic‐impact‐study.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Tourism

Brief description: The purpose of this study is to document the economic significance of the travel industry in West Virginia from 2000 to 2006. It provides detailed breakouts of travel spending impacts in terms of earnings, employment and tax revenue for the state, the nine tourism regions, and the 55 counties. To calculate the economic impacts, the authors use their own Regional Travel Impact Model, a proprietary computer model for analyzing economic impacts of travel. The report also provides an estimate of the Gross State Product of the travel industry and compares economic impact measures between tourism and other "export‐dependent" industries.

Key information I: Direct impacts of travel in West Virginia: A summary • Travel spending by all overnight and day visitors in West Virginia was over $3.97 billion in the 2006 calendar year. This is equivalent to $10.9 million dollars per day. • Travel spending in West Virginia has increased by 8.8 percent per year since 2000. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation), travel spending has increased by 5.6 percent over the same period. • Visitors who stayed overnight in commercial lodging facilities spent $1.2 billion in 2006 – or about one‐third of all travel spending in the state. Day travelers who spent substantially on gaming and entertainment spent $1.9 billion, or nearly one‐half the state total. • During 2006, visitor spending in West Virginia directly supported about 44,000 jobs with earnings of $854 million. Travel spending generated the greatest number of jobs in accommodations & food services, and arts, entertainment, recreation. • Local and state tax revenues generated by travel spending were $546 million in 2006 (not including property taxes). Without these government revenues generated travel spending, each household in West Virginia would have had to pay an additional $715 in state and local taxes to maintain current service levels.

Key information II: Travel impacts, in absolute terms, are highest in the state’s most urban area (Charleston metropolitan area in Kanawha County), which offers visitors a variety of commercial lodging accommodations and entertainment facilities. However, the size of the travel industry in relation to the total economy of a locale is more significant in some smaller communities and rural areas of the state, which tend to be more orientated to scenic and outdoor recreational opportunities. For example, in the counties of Greenbrier, Tucker, and Pocahontas the travel industry is an extremely significant component of the total local economy.

Other (or key information III): Approximately 90 percent of all travel‐generated tax receipts accrue to state government in West Virginia. State taxes include the 6 percent state sales tax, the motor fuel tax (current flat rate of $.205 per gallon plus a variable rate equal to 5% of the average wholesale price of motor fuel), income taxes on travel‐generated earnings and travel‐related business income, and state revenue generated through racetrack video lottery and wagering (as levied by the West Virginia Lottery and the West Virginia Racing Commission). Local taxes consist of the Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax, levied by cities and counties. Property taxes are not included.

138

Tourism and the West Virginia Economy

Source of publication/information: Tom Witt, Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research. Prepared for the West Virginia Division of Tourism

Publication date: February 2007

File name: 2006_WV_Tourism_Economy_Report

Web source: www.wvtourism.com/inforeports/Tourism%20and%20the%20West%20Virginia%20Economy%202006%20Final%2 0Copy.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Tourism

Brief description: In 2005 the first report on the comparative performance of tourism and other industries in West Virginia was released by the West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research. This report demonstrated the growth of the tourism sector as measured by gross domestic product and employment relative to other traditional sectors such as manufacturing and mining. The purpose of this 2007 study is to update the 2005 report with a focus on the comparative analysis of various segments of the travel and tourism industry related to other sectors. It also includes economic forecasts of travel and tourism sectors compared to total employment. The report further documents the economic contribution of industries containing different components of the travel and tourism industry with other major industry segments within West Virginia. While not definitive, the comparison allows policy makers to see the relative economic importance of various sectors of the West Virginia economy, including major components of the travel and tourism industry.

Key information I: The leisure and hospitality industry (composed of arts, entertainment, and recreation along with accommodations and food services) annual growth rate exceeded that of mining, durable manufacturing, construction, finance and insurance, educational services, and government. In particular, the arts, entertainment, and recreation growth rates were over six percent annually, a very high rate of growth. The long term forecasts of the leisure and hospitality industry greatly exceed those of mining and durable manufacturing, both of which are forecast to decline, along with construction.

Key information II: Other parts of the industry have also shown considerable growth in recent years. For example, Hatfield‐McCoy Trails has opened over 500 miles of trails in Logan, Mingo, Boone, and Wyoming counties since 2001. Trail user permits have grown from 4,000 in 2001 to an estimated 26,500 in 2006. User permit sales have grown to nearly $750,000 and additional associated private sector investments have resulted.

Other (or key information III): N/A

139

Roadmap for Tourism and Craft

Source of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: July 2003

File name: ARC_Tourism_Summary

Web source: www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=1901

Value‐added sector(s): Tourism, Craft, Cultural Heritage

Brief description: This report is part of a strategic 8‐month planning process undertaken in 2002 to determine how individual states of the Appalachian region can benefit from the tourism and craft industries through multi‐state collaborations. It focuses on the potential of the "creative economy" of tourism and craft, two sustainable industries with the potential for driving substantial economic growth, and analyzes the various markets that can be drawn upon for driving locally‐driven economic growth in Appalachia. It recognizes Craft as Appalachia's main advantage. It also provides a summary of how the Appalachian Regional Commission can help drive the tourism and craft economies, and outlines a 5‐year strategy for success driven by a series of principles, including Principle 2, which states that "The residents, land and traditions define Appalachia's identity." The report concludes with initial recommendations.

Key information I: "Although other businesses, such as manufacturing, mining and other extractive industries, may have once provided the economic engines for the region, tourism and craft present the best direction for the future. No other industries offer such flexibility for growth in all levels of employment, from entry level to professional to part‐time, post retirement. Tourism and craft rely upon unique, indigenous resources and people to sustain local economies. They are not subject to industrial moves across borders or oceans." (5)

Key information II: "The US craft industry continues to grow and is now recognized as a vibrant economic sector. While a myriad of small businesses, the industry is a large network of guilds and membership organizations, schools, suppliers, shops, galleries and publications fostering the artistry and economic sustainability of craft. A national economic impact study of 80,000 craftspeople in 2001, by the Craft Organization Directors Association (CODA), revealed that national craft sales are approximately $13 billion per year. The study showed that the medium household income of full‐time craftspeople is $50,000 per year, 26% above the national median of $39,657. A demographic profile from the study revealed that 79% of craftspeople work in a studio located on or in their residential property, reflecting a major home‐based business component." For West Virginia, a June 2003 Marshall University study on the 'Craft Industry in West Virginia' reports that 2,539 craftspeople in the state generated a direct economic impact of $54 million, with a total economic impact (including the wholesale sector) of over $81 million in 2002.

Other (or key information III): Important quote included in the text of the report, by William Norman, 2003 CEO of the Travel Industry Association of America: "We live in a time when cultural heritage and undeveloped landscapes have become valuable resources. In today's economy, wealth is no longer limited to those who possess mineral or other specific natural resources or to those who can manufacture goods. In other words, the world has finally discovered that the definition of wealth is broader than what extractive resources you possess or what you can make. It now extends to who you are and the place you have the privilege to call home."

140

West Virginia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

Source of publication/information: West Virginia Development Office

Publication date: 2003

File name: WV_SCORP_Recreational_Plan

Web source: www.wvdo.org/community/08.%20Appendix%20III%20‐%202003‐08%20SCORP.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Tourism, Recreation

Brief description: The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is the state’s policy plan for examining the supply and demand for park amenities and resources and particular park‐related development issues. These issues and trends are then translated into proposed actions to redirect the state’s investment in these activities through the administration of its Land and Water Conservation Fund program by the West Virginia Development Office. The five‐year goals of SCORP are to 1) capitalize all funding sources, 2) promote community development, 3) coordinate and encourage preventive health, 4) maintain existing facilities, 5) protect critical natural habitats and restore environmentally‐damaged habitats, and 6) expand technical and educational resources. SCORP includes a detailed demographic and economic analysis in order to provide the backdrop for its proposals. Finally, the report includes a significant survey of resident's desires for community and recreational development, for instance, what facilities and activities they would like to see developed in their own communities. Overall, this is a very substantial and informative report.

Key information I: West Virginia’s traditional economy is based on manufacturing and extractive industries such as coal and timber. The state must continue to shift toward a new economy based on the information age, focusing on knowledge and technology. To move at all, the region must take advantage of its low cost of living and the kind of indigenous cultures and outdoor beauty that can attract young members of what Carnegie Mellon professor Richard Florida calls the “creative class”. This mix of economic and cultural characteristics points to a state and local need for better integrated and sustainable community development endeavors that treat recreation as a strategy rather than a stand‐alone activity for improving the state’s communities.

Key information II: West Virginia is a state of small towns and rural areas. Over 80% of the state’s local governments are cities, towns and villages; however, 72% of these incorporated areas have a population of less than 2,000. Sixty‐eight percent of the state’s incorporated areas lost population to the surrounding unincorporated areas in the last ten years. During the same time period, heritage tourism and scenic byways developments have tried to elevate the state’s scenic, historical, and cultural qualities. Included in these developments are two national heritage areas (the Wheeling National Heritage Area and the National Coal Heritage Area), one state area (Mountaineer Heritage Area), and one proposed area (the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area). Fifteen state and national scenic highways crisscross West Virginia showcasing historic routes, forests, rivers, gorges, and farm country.

Other (or key information III): The climate of the state is both temperate and changeable, with mean annual temperatures of 60‐65 degrees Fahrenheit, relative humidity ranging from 70‐76 percent, and an annual average rainfall of 41‐45 inches. Clear to partly cloudy skies occur on the average of 150‐153 days per year. For water‐ based recreation these figures are warm enough to permit aquatic activities, but not enough to encourage them. A result of the combined effects of runoff from precipitation with the complexity of slopes, soils, vegetation, and typically small permanently flowing streams is a condition where building sites are restricted, water supplies may be limited, and on‐ or near‐site assimilation of organic waste is difficult. Altogether these environmental characteristics provide costly and severe constraints for developing sites for large‐scaled construction, transportation, and utility improvements. However, they have only limited bearing on nature‐based or heritage tourism development.

141

Article: "The Creativity of Rural America"

Source of publication/information: The Daily Yonder

Publication date: May 2009

File name: Creativity_of_Appalachia

Web source: www.dailyyonder.com/creativity‐rural‐america/2009/05/07/2108

Value‐added sector(s): Creative community economies

Brief description: This is an article by Dan Broun of The Daily Yonder, a popular rural online magazine. The article discusses effective ways to measure the true impact of creative enterprises in rural America.

Key information I: Uses a definition of “creativity” to a select businesses that produce and distribute goods and services and for which the aesthetic, intellectual and emotional engagement of the consumer adds value to products in the marketplace. This can range to traditional arts and crafts made by residents to high‐end manufactured products that depend on design for their appeal. In particular, we see the creative economy being made up of: • Individual artists who are the talent and source of creativity • Non‐profit cultural institutions and commercial businesses that take the original ideas of these artists and produce creative goods and services • The businesses and institutions that bring the creative products to the marketplace • The institutions and commercial businesses that depend on creative talent to survive and prosper • The support system that nurtures and sustains the creative economy.

Key information II: Like any economic development effort there are particular challenges that rural areas face in promoting the growth of their creative economy, but there are ways in which these can be addressed. To combat market isolation, arts councils in rural areas and other actors need to be proactive in forming associations that bring artists together. One way to do this is through joint marketing techniques. Handmade in America in Western North Carolina is one of the most successful examples of this approach. Another ways that rural areas can promote their creative economy is through the existing institutions, especially educational ones. Community colleges, which often have a role to play in economic development through customized training for industry, are a natural place to start. But perhaps the most important step that rural areas can take is simply to give the arts and creativity their due as an economic development engine. Chambers of commerce and tourism promotion agencies should see how much creativity can and could contribute to a rural region’s economic growth. If your Chamber is selling a wild ride down your whitewater, perhaps they should also be promoting the local craftsperson down the way.

Other (or key information III): N/A

142

A Community Investment Strategy: Community Forests

Source of publication/information: Community Forest Collaborative and the Trust for Public Land

Publication date: August 2007

File name: CFI_community_forests_report

Web source: www.northernforest.org/downloads/Community_Forests_Report_print.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable forestry

Brief description: The purpose of this report is to describe a flexible and adaptable Community ForestModel (CFM), to present the analysis from research on the value and opportunities of community ownership and management of forestland, to offer experience and learning from five case studies, and to offer recommendations to facilitate expansion of the CFM. The report outlines the CFM, provides findings on the conservation, economic development, and community development value of Community Forests (CFs), lays out recommendations for supporting CFs and finally offers an overview of case studies of successful CF projects.

Key information I: CFs are based on the principles of sustainable development and community‐based natural resource management. They have the potential to be a valuable component in a mosaic of conservation, community and economic development strategies for the region that can result in the conservation of productive forestland and important ecological systems while promoting community vitality and economic well‐being. One of the core principles of sustainable development requires secure rights to natural resources. The field of community‐ based natural resource management, a practice consistent with the principles of sustainable development, presents an expanding portfolio of projects that demonstrate the following: 1) If a community owns or has access to rights to a resource; 2) if a community participates in management decisions affecting the resource and; 3) if a community receives benefits from the value of the resource then the resource will be better managed.

Key information II: CFM secures access and rights to the forest resource at the community level; it promotes community participation in management decisions; it ensures that communities receive value and benefits from the land that can support and reinforce community priorities and economic development objectives; and it secures permanent protection of the conservation values of the forestland. Community Forests can be a valuable component of economic development strategies by expanding the assets of a community. They can create revenue and jobs, protect ecological services, and provide a resource base for economic activity. They can reinforce community development objectives by building social capital and community capacity and can provide support for other community priorities such as education and recreation.

Other (or key information III): N/A

143

West Virginia University Sustainable Forestry Initiative, summary

Source of publication/information: Industries of the Future ‐ West Virginia

Publication date: Ongoing

File name: WVU_Sustainable_Forestry

Web source: www.iofwv.nrcce.wvu.edu/about/projects/forestry/Sustainable_Forestry.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable forestry, land restoration

Brief description: This document summarizes WVU's Sustainable Forestry, a joint program in collaboration with Industries of the Future. The summary focuses mostly on planting plantations for generating softwoods for the pulp and paper industry, and points out a growing interest in hardwood production. Finally, it discusses the potential for developing a "sustainable forestry" program based on reforestation of surface coal mines.

Key information I: West Virginia has 286,400 surface mined acres on 2,008 sites that could be returned to productive use. Most surfaced mined properties have terrain that would enable them in plantation planting. Tree plantations are proposed for multiple reasons: (1) as a way to demonstrate to the forestry industry the energy and dollar savings associated with harvesting of timber from a plantation verses naturally occurring tree growths; (2) the increased production of biomass; (3) as a measure to return land to productive use. Surface mine sites also have haul roads in place, which makes them conducive to eventual timber harvesting.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): Project Contact: Joseph McNeel Chair WVU Division of Forestry (304) 293‐3825 ext. 2471 [email protected]

144

The Forests and Wood Products Sector in Appalachian Kentucky: What We Heard and What We Learned

Source of publication/information: Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED)

Publication date: February 2009

File name: MACED_Forests_and_Wood_Products_Report

Web source: www.maced.org/files/Forests_and_Wood_Products_Report.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable Forestry

Brief description: This is a report summarizing the results of a year‐long discovery process aimed at exploring sustainable economic development practices that offer hope for rural communities and regions. The goal was to learn how people engaged in a specific sector in a particular place viewed the opportunities and challenges with that sector. The first section of the report details what the authors heard from the diverse individuals who they met with — landowners, foresters, primary and secondary wood products producers, individuals engaged in education and economic development. The second section details what was learned from this process — some of the insights the authors gained through their visits. One of the most significant contributions of this report is that it identifies substantial roadblocks to the development of a sustainable forestry industry in the coal‐producing region of eastern Kentucky.

Key information I: "Kentucky and its Appalachian region have large forested areas with diverse and valuable species, making this a very valuable asset in the long‐term. However, its condition is significantly degraded and under threat. Years of poor logging practices, including high grading, have significantly diminished the vigor of the forests. That has made them highly vulnerable to damage from disease, ice storms, droughts, fire and other disturbances. It has also left a lot of low‐quality wood in the forests. Yet the region is heavily forested, particularly in eastern Kentucky, and the data suggest it is experiencing net growth overall. There is some perception that growth is different in different parts of the region — for example, more gain in non‐coal counties than coal counties because of the impacts on the forests of strip mining."

Key information II: "Kentucky’s forestland is overwhelmingly privately‐owned, most often in small plots that are held by families. Southeast Kentucky has the highest percent of forested acres and the fewest acres involved in management. Absentee owners are also prevalent and lack a personal relationship to the land — their ownership is most often associated with coal mining, for which the trees are cleared in the case of strip mining or mountaintop removal (and only sometimes harvested and sold). But some landowners have a profoundly personal connection to their land and a deep commitment to its legacy."

Other (or key information III): "Many see the state and some of the existing companies as having inappropriately discouraged the development or location, in the past, of new companies that would utilize that low‐grade wood. But many see the need to develop those opportunities, including for biofuels and biomass‐based electricity production. It was noted that the coal industry would actively oppose such efforts, and that there are risks and unintended consequences in terms of promoting the harvesting of low‐quality wood without putting into place safeguards for sustainable harvesting."

145

Economic Analysis of the 2006 Wayne National Forest Plan

Source of publication/information: Conducted for the Heartwood Alliance by the GreenFire Consulting Group, LLC

Publication date: May 2008

File name: Heartwood_Wayne_Forest_Econ_Study

Web source: http://heartwood.org/Wayne_Economic_Analysis/

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable Forestry, Ecosystem Services

Brief description: From GreenFire's website: "In 2006, the US Forest Service adopted a "revised" 15‐year land and resource management plan for the Wayne National Forest in Ohio. Under legal requirements in place in 2006, the Forest Service was expected to maximize net public benefits when adopting this plan. Heartwood, Buckeye Forest Council, and others felt that the public was not getting its money's worth in regard to taxpayer funding of the management this national forest and appealed the plan. Those appeals were, for the most part, denied. Heartwood then commissioned GreenFire Consulting Group, LLC in 2008 to analyze whether the Wayne National Forest plan indeed does "maximize net public benefits." The findings of this study indicate that this is not the case. "This report provides valuation estimates for ecosystem services provided by forests, specifically for the Wayne National Forest. It offers a comparison of per‐acre values of ecosystem goods and ecosystem services, then analyzes the impacts of the Forest Service plan for WNF on those ecosystem services. It also analyzes alternative prospects for future employment and incomes, and analyzes roadblocks to sustainable management for the Wayne National Forest.

Key information I: Developing fully the WNF potential for offering highly valued ecosystem services would benefit the economies of the surrounding counties, by making the WNF a much more attractive destination for recreation. Local communities could capitalize on this by promoting themselves for tourism related to wilderness experience and wildlife watching, and attracting people to see extremely rare remnants of old growth forest communities that have all but disappeared from private lands. Local communities could also attract businesses that want employees to have access to a beautiful, healthy, and scenic environment.

Key information II: The Forest Service continues to allow mining and logging on National Forests not because local economies depend on it, but because Congress is willing to provide the appropriations for it. The Forest Service activities that generate the highest (long and short‐term) financial costs on the WNF—prescribed burns, logging, mining, and OHV use—are also the ones that generate the most pollution and that most diminish the capacity of the Forest to provide highly valued ecosystem services related to air, water, climate, recreation, and biodiversity. Therefore, by simply stopping logging, burning and mining, the Forest Service can at once cut short‐term and long‐ term costs considerably (including future costs of mine reclamation, or costs of removing roadbeds that were constructed to facilitate logging), and provide much larger public benefits from ecosystem services.

Other (or key information III): To further enhance the potential of the WNF to provide highly valued ecosystem services, the Forest Service needs to put increased emphasis on mine reclamation, removal of roads and trails, on reclaiming and reforesting areas with highly compacted or eroded soils, repairing damaged stream banks, and restoring wetlands. Forested wetlands and riparian areas have the highest ecosystem values of all forest land, and should therefore receive priority with regard to any necessary restoration work. (Ecosystem services from general forest land are currently valued at $1,476 per acre/per year, from wetlands at $11,568 per year, and riparian buffers at 3,383 per year).

146

Monongahela Wilderness and the West Virginia Economy

Source of publication/information: West Virginia Wilderness Coalition

Publication date: February 2008

File name: Mon_Wilderness_Econ_Study

Web source: http://wilderness.org/content/monongahela‐wilderness‐and‐west‐virginia‐economy

Value‐added sector(s): Ecosystem Services, Tourism

Brief description: This is a brief report conducted for the purpose of estimating the overall economic impacts of the "Wild Monongahela Act" introduced in US Congress by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia. The Act would create four new wilderness areas encompassing 27,141 acres and add nearly 20,000 acres to three existing wilderness acres. This article provides estimates for local economic benefit, for the value of the additional ecosystem services of the additional wilderness designation, and for the impact on the timber industry in the target areas and on payments to local governments for schools. Its overall conclusion is that the protection of the proposed wilderness areas "ensures that recreation and tourism spending, the purchase of housing, and the creation and retention of diverse jobs and income sources will continue in the Monongahela region." Perhaps one of the most significant contributions for CAPP is that the study provides value estimates for ecosystem services.

Key information I: FORESTS and TOURISM VALUE: For West Virginia, (a national study by the Outdoor Industry Foundation) estimates that 61,000 jobs, $272 million in state tax revenue and $4.3 billion in sales are attributable to active recreation in its wonderful, wild land. Economists Loomis and Richardson (2001) estimate that the designation of 10,000 acres of wilderness in the Eastern US generates 11,000 visitor‐days per year, which generate an additional $508,635 in income and 18 jobs in local economies. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Loomis and Richardson (2001) estimate the value of federally designated wilderness areas for watershed protection, carbon storage, climate regulation and waste treatment (nutrient cycling) at $174 per acre per year. At that rate, the Wild Monongahela Act would ensure the continued provision of more than $7 million in ecosystem service value year‐in and year‐out. PROPERTY VALUE and WILDERNESS: In the region surrounding the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, for example, land values are almost 19 percent higher in townships that contain wilderness, while land prices decrease by 0.33 percent with every kilometer (six tenths of a mile) farther from a wilderness boundary (Phillips 2004).

Key information II: Conclusions: • Additional wilderness designation on the Monongahela National Forest will create and secure important scenic, recreational, ecological and economic benefits for West Virginia and the region surrounding the Mon. • The wilderness proposal would not diminish the amount of timber available to the regional timber industry and would promote a healthy and economically valuable mix of uses on this public land. • Federal payments in support of local schools and roads are largely independent of Monongahela National Forest logging levels and would not decline as a result of new wilderness designation.

Other (or key information III): N/A

147

Wealth in Woodlands 2002: Sustainable Microbusiness Options for the Forest Landowner

Source of publication/information: Center for Economic Options

Publication date: 2002

File name: WealthInWoodlands

Web source: www.centerforeconomicoptions.org/documents/WealthInWoodlands.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable forestry, non‐timber forest products, crafts

Brief description: This document was written for the private forest landowners, and provides general information on management, taxes and laws pertaining to managing timberlands. It provides an overview of the economic and inherent value of the forests, issues such as Best Management Practices, conservation easements, timber taxes, West Virginia's Forestry Stewardship Program, and estate planning. It also discusses non‐timber forest economic options for the timber owner, including the cultivation of medicinal and culinary herbs, income from crafts and edibles, mushrooms and slippery elm, aquaculture, ecotourism and wildlife income options. The thrust of the document however is to provide a guide for the development of a sustainable forestry management plan and an overview of how a landowner can gain access to and take advantage of available markets for their timber and non‐ timber forest products.

Key information I: Forests also regulate water flow and prevent flooding. Studies from the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia show that during storms, water flowing out of an area of forestland where all the trees have been cut is nine times greater than out of an uncut forest. The tree roots and canopy mitigate the effects of heavy downpours and absorb much of the rainfall. The roots pick up the water and the canopy evapotranspires it, or discharges it as vapor. One should also note that 70 percent of our storms take place in the summer, when forest canopies are fullest. Our forests filter our air, regulate the climate, and store carbon, which slows global warming. These processes are worth about $150 per acre per year. Trees improve our air quality by filtering out pollutants, producing oxygen, and utilizing carbon dioxide. They also lessen the noise level from highways, factories, and other facilities.

Key information II: Medicinals from natural plants are also extremely popular. Ginseng is the most popular medicinal plant and sells for $250 to $500 per pound. It nets five to seven million dollars for 10,000 West Virginia ginseng diggers. Goldenseal (yellowroot), St. John’s wort, mayapple, black snakeroot, and blue cohosh are just a few of the dozens of forest plants herb collectors harvest to supplement their income. Edible forest foods include maple syrup, walnuts, and hickory nuts. Morels, puffballs, and other edible mushrooms frequently bring higher prices than commercially grown shitakes. Ramps have potential for early spring income. Summer and autumn provide wild fruit crops of strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, serviceberries, elderberries, grapes, pawpaws, and persimmons. These can be sold fresh or as jam, jelly, and preserves. Management of wild plants is critical to ensuring a sustainable population and a stable income, but with all of these options, a little imagination and good marketing can go a long way toward success.

Other (or key information III): West Virginia’s Forest Stewardship Program provides cost‐share assistance for qualifying landowners to perform a variety of conservation practices: reforestation, forest improvement, soil and water protection, riparian and wetland protection, fisheries and wildlife habitat enhancement, and forest recreation enhancement. In addition, the Forestry Incentives Program provides cost‐sharing for tree planting, improving a stand of forest trees including thinning, pruning, cull tree removal, crop tree release, grapevine removal, and site preparation for natural regeneration.

148

Sustainable Timber Harvesting Company: The Lyme Timber Company

Source of publication/information:

Publication date: Ongoing

File name: The Lyme Timber Company

Web source: www.lymetimber.com/

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable forestry

Brief description: The Lyme Timber Company is a New Hampshire Limited Partnership organized in 1976 to invest in timberland and rural real estate for its own account and in partnership with other investors. Lyme specializes in the acquisition and sustainable management of large forestland tracts. An important part of Lyme’s forestland investment strategy is to seek out properties with high conservation value, often in partnership with non‐profit conservation organizations or government agencies. By working to identify and realize value from conservation opportunities—usually by selling restrictions on use that protect the land’s ecological and social values—the Company enhances risk‐adjusted returns on its forestland portfolio. The Company has extensive experience managing and operating timberland throughout the Northeast, Appalachian region, and Lake States of the US.

Key information I: Lyme is guided by the Northern Forest Lands Council's nine principles of sustainability, as follows:  Maintenance of soil productivity.  Conservation of water quality, wetlands, and riparian zones.  Maintenance or creation of a healthy balance of forest age classes.  Continuous flow of timber, pulpwood, and other forest products.  Improvement of the overall quality of the timber resource as a foundation for more value‐added opportunities.  Maintenance of scenic quality by limiting adverse aesthetic impacts of forest harvesting, particularly in high‐elevation areas and vistas.  Conservation and enhancement of habitats that support a full range of native flora and fauna.  Protection of unique or fragile areas.  Continuation of opportunities for traditional recreation.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

149

Wild Ginseng, Ethnography, and the Democratic Prospect

Source of publication/information: Mary Hufford

Publication date: November 2003

File name: Ginseng Region Hufford

Web source: (none)

Value‐added sector(s): Cultural Heritage

Brief description: This is a paper written by Appalachian folklorist, ethnographer and historian Mary Hufford, commissioned by the Fund for Folk Culture, for its Convening on Cultural Conservation, Natural Resource Stewardship, and Sustainable Livelihoods, Santa Fe, NM, November 2003. The article provides an important perspective from which to approach economic development strategies for the Central Appalachian region, as it investigates the nature of the human‐environment connection in the mountains, specifically related to the ethnography and importance (and economic value) of ginseng. The central theme of the article is the importance of preserving the "commons" for sustaining communities and culture in the Appalachian region.

Key information I: Set against the exploitative practices of land speculators and extractive industries in Central Appalachia, the biodiversity of the mountains has formed a critical and commonly held buffer zone or open commons existing between the intimacy of extended family life and the institutionalized economy of the area– providing communities with resources for survival for centuries. Many generations of shared inquiry, knowledge and expertise expressed in stories, song, place names and more underlie a seasonal round of communal land use – which registers a remarkable variety of spring greens, medicinal plants, berries, roots, nuts, and fruits. One of the roots, ginseng, is actually listed as a plant to be monitored under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Positioned at the nexus of international, national, and local commons, ginseng affords a valuable perspective on the politics of cultural heritage and natural resource stewardship and the promise of ethnographic expertise in reclaiming citizen‐based authority.

Key information II: I think that one of the tasks before us is to turn the problem underlying this question on its head: the problem should not be how to put cultural heritage and environmental stewardship back together, but how to keep them from being taken apart in the first place. Categories like “cultural heritage” and “environmental stewardship” imply a distinction between “cultural” and “natural” that does not hold up under close scrutiny. The separation is mounted from a position that some have called “cosmic exile." The separation of nature and culture assumes that nature, or “the world out there” can be viewed in a value‐free, socially unprocessed state. From a position of cosmic exile, one can claim, with certainty, to expunge all social value from something we can then call “the environment.” This claim is no less an article of belief than, say, the assertion that creation is sacred, yet it is widely accepted as more legitimate. This is politics, not science.

Other (or key information III): On the Asian markets, where the root’s efficacy is linked to human longevity, the more wrinkled and humanoid the root, the better. Because of this, wild ginseng commands much higher prices than tame “seng.” In the 1990s diggers were averaging between $300 and $400 per pound for the best wild roots, while cultivated ginseng hovered at $30 per pound. The root’s value in Asian countries has affected the culture and society of Appalachian communities living within the range of wild ginseng by making it an imaginative resource for re‐ordering socio‐economic domains.

150

Landscape and History at the Headwaters of the Big Coal River Valley: An Overview

Source of publication/information: Mary Hufford for Tending the Commons: Folklife and Landscape in Southern West Virginia

Publication date: 1999 to 2008

File name: Hufford_Landscape_and_History_Coal_River

Web source: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/tending/essay5.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Cultural Heritage

Brief description: A historical outline of the Big Coal River Valley. This report ‐ part of a near 20 year project focused on folklife and community‐environment connections in Central Appalachia ‐ provides an introduction to the people, places, species, practices and historical events that shape and exemplify culture and community in the region. This is an important document for informing public and economic policy and initiatives for the region, as it serves as a guide and a sensitivity from which to begin. One of the most important contributions of the report is that it outlines how extractive industries have cyclically and continuously dominated the region, the impact of this cycle on the local and regional economies, and the survival strategies employed by local residents throughout the region's history.

Key information I: During the 1980s and 1990s a struggle over community space and environmental resources centered on the impact of mountaintop removal on nearby communities: cemetery removal; flooding; union busting; undevelopment; and the enclosure of lands heretofore treated as commons for hunting, gathering, fishing, and other communal use. The liberalization of international trade under the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) in 1994 broadened the coal industry’s access to markets, labor, and resources worldwide. The effects of mountaintop removal on environmental resources entwined with other national and international concerns, such as air pollution, water quality, and forest decline precipitated by fossil‐fuel combustion. Tourism and initiatives such as the Coal Heritage Area and Trail gathered impetus as economic strategies for building a post‐coal economy around the state’s scenic resources and cultural and historic landmarks, and plans to develop New River Gorge National River as a tourist destination took shape. Meanwhile, however, beyond the tourist areas, the evolving technology of an earth‐ moving industry carved the mountains into postindustrial landform complexes. On Coal River, a new “Three R’s” was coined: “remove, remove, reclaim.”

Key information II: In this time of economic and social upheaval, the traditional knowledge and skills required for forest farming became assets, keeping the mine workers adequately fed and sometimes providing a means of cash. In that sense, traditional farming helped subsidize the mine economy. Dennis Dickens recalls that some miners ploughed by moonlight. Kenneth Pettry remembers harvesting fruits and nuts from the woods on Peach Tree Creek as a boy and peddling them in the coal camps. Mae Bongalis recalls a communal system of tending and harvesting crops and livestock, and the time she initiated a Polish neighbor into the mysteries of winnowing beans.

Other (or key information III): N/A

151

Seasonal Round of Activities on Coal River

Source of publication/information: Mary Hufford for Tending the Commons: Folklife and Landscape in Southern West Virginia

Publication date: 1999 to 2008

File name: (none, website)

Web source: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/tending/season1.html

Value‐added sector(s): Various

Brief description: The website must be viewed in order to use this resource. This is a graphic and text version showing the "seasonal round" of activities in the southern West Virginia coalfields. It shows the continuing role of the mixed mesophytic forest in community life. Many of these activities rely on common pool resources located in the mountains. The tool was adapted from the graphic by Suzuki Graphics, based on interviews and a field sketch by Mary Hufford.

Key information I: As an example, March would include the following activities: Gardens ‐‐ plowing and planting gardens (onions, greens, peas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, beans, tomatoes); Gathering (domestic) ‐‐ gather maple sap to make syrup, hunt "molly moochers" (morels), dig wild greens (ramps, poke, woolen britches, dock, Shawnee lettuce, lamb's tongue), make sassafras tea; Hunting ‐‐ spring gobblers; Year‐round work ‐‐ construction, mining, logging, teaching, healthcare, services, self‐employment.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

152

The West Virginia Crafts Study: The Impact of Crafts on the State Economy

Source of publication/information: Center for Economic Options

Publication date: 2002

File name: Impacts_of_Crafts_WV_economy

Web source: www.economicoptions.org/CraftsStudyHighlights2.htm

Value‐added sector(s): Crafts

Brief description: From the website: In 2002 the Center for Economic Options, Tamarack, MountainMade.com, Poplar Forest, the West Virginia Arts and Crafts Guild, the West Virginia Department of Culture and History and the West Virginia Small Business Development Center collaborated on this report. The findings help assess the current and potential economic impact of the state’s rich tradition of Arts, Heritage, and Culture through a survey that was mailed to a combined client mailing list. The West Virginia Small Business Development Center received and entered the results and the Center for Business and Economic Research at Marshall University conducted the analysis. The report was used to move forward an Industry of Culture initiative in West Virginia. This report provides a breakdown of the economic impacts of crafts on the state economy. One telling conclusion is that, as the report notes, more than 34% of respondents indicated a desire for additional technical training in their respective disciplines, while 56% reported a need for business disciplines.

Key information I: ∙ The direct impact of the artists and craftspeople working in the state of West Virginia is $54,512,330 annually. ∙ The estimated comprehensive economic impact of the arts and crafts industry, including crafts retailers, organizations and publications is $81,176,908 per year. ∙ The mean age of craftspeople in West Virginia is 54, only modestly older than the average of other working West Virginians. This is consistent with the hypothesis that craft producers typically require higher than average skill sets than that of other workers – skills that are acquired during a prolonged period of time. ∙ The annual household income derived from craft‐related activities was reported to be $13,114. This income provides, on average, 27.5% of the total household income, while 12% or respondents indicated that craft income was the only source of household income. ∙ Approximately 75% of the items produced by West Virginia artists and crafters are sold within West Virginia.

Key information II: ∙ Craft fairs provide the largest source of retail sales, representing 36.9% of total sales. Studio sales account for 34.7%, while commission sales comprise 14% of total retail sales annually. ∙ Woodworkers appear to have the highest average sales at $25,476 per year, followed by artists and craftspeople working in paper ($24,263), leather ($23,500) and fiber/textiles ($22,224). ∙ At approximately $54 million, the crafts industry generates only $13 million less than the personal consumption of fuel oil and coal in West Virginia and only $32 million less than software consumption. However, when consideration is given to the potential comprehensive economic contribution, the crafts industry falls just behind the software industry in West Virginia.

Other (or key information III): N/A

153

Building Sustainable Economies in a Shrinking World, Conference Proceedings

Source of publication/information: Central Appalachian Network (CAN)

Publication date: November 2007

File name: CAN_Sustainable_Econ_Appalachia

Web source: www.cannetwork.org/convening/downloads/Central‐Appalachian‐Network‐Convening‐Publication‐ 2007.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Various

Brief description: This document provides an overview of new, sustainable economic approaches identified as offering viable options for locally beneficial economic development in the Central Appalachian region. The central focus of the project is Community Sustainable Development, "a regional strategy for reducing poverty, increasing community self‐reliance, and mitigating the impacts of climate change and the ever‐increasing demands on our natural resources." This report builds on CANs "Building Sustainable Economies in a Shrinking World," and provides an overview of conference proceedings and discussion topics from the November 2007 CAN conference.

Key information I: Challenges for sustainable development in Central Appalachia: • The political control of the coal and gas industry. • The “good old boy” system of politics that does not benefit many rural people. • Deficits in basic infrastructure such as water and sewer. • Youth migration and brain drain. • Continued overuse and undervaluation of our natural resources. • Lax environmental controls. • Outside ownership of our major industries. • Limitations on local decision making and wealth building. • Linking the educational system to sustainable development discussions.

Key information II: Opportunities for sustainable development in Central Appalachia: • Technology is becoming increasingly available to overcome obstacles like geographic isolation and inability to access services. • Models of innovative, forward‐looking paradigms exist and can be adapted and replicated. • Energy concerns are creating an opportune environment for sustainable development at the local and regional levels. • The high price of oil is stimulating a paradigm shift and the public is paying attention. • Policies such as “net metering” can promote small‐scale renewable energy production. • A diversity of alternative energy sources are being explored, particularly wind, solar, and biomass. • Markets are emerging for “green” products and services. • Buy‐local campaigns are succeeding and the public is interested. • Institutional buyers such as schools and hospitals can serve as the engines to drive and create markets.

Other (or key information III): N/A

154

Building Sustainable Economies in a Shrinking World, Summary Report

Source of publication/information: Central Appalachian Network (CAN)

Publication date: November 2007

File name: CAN_Sust_Devt_II

Web source: www.cannetwork.org/convening/downloads/CAN‐Publication.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Various

Brief description: This is the report that was drafted in a follow‐up to the November CAN conference noted in the document titled "Building Sustainable Economies in a Shrinking World, Conference Proceedings." It outlines the mission and strategies of CAN in supporting and working toward Community Sustainable Development, and describes the opportunities and challenges for achieving the Network's goals in this regard.

Key information I: What’s needed is sustainable development that focuses on regional strategies and integrates economic, environmental and social solutions while addressing policy issues. This approach has the potential to build wealth for local citizens while providing alternatives to the fossil fuel‐based transportation, energy, agriculture and commercial systems that cannot be maintained indefinitely. Until recently, the environment, economy and social equity have typically been segregated and viewed as separate issues that require narrowly targeted interventions. These problems are so complex, however, that our combined experience suggests they require an integrated approach.

Key information II: Community Sustainable Development: Fits within the ecosystem, Adds value to natural capital, while minimizing the carbon footprint, Enhances regional self‐reliance through networks, Is market driven and market shaping, utilizes local catalysts to build capacity, Fosters public policy supporting emerging alternatives.

Other (or key information III): Quote by Paul Hawken, describing natural capital: "Although we usually think of renewable resources in terms of desired materials, such as wood, their most important value lies in the services they provide. These services are related to, but distinct from, the resources themselves. They are not pulpwood but forest cover, not food but topsoil. Living systems feed us, protect us, heal us, clean the nest, let us breathe. They are the “income” derived from a healthy environment: clean air and water, climate stabilization, rainfall, ocean productivity, fertile soil, watersheds, and the less‐appreciated functions of the environment, such as processing waste – both natural and industrial."

155

A Market Analysis of the Tailgate Farmers Markets of Buncombe and Madison Counties

Source of publication/information: Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project

Publication date: December 2005

File name: Market_Analysis_Tailgate_Farmers_Mkts_Western_NC_counties

Web source: www.asapconnections.org/special/research/Individual%20reports/Market%20Analysis%20of%20Tailgate%20Farm ers%20Markets%20of%20Buncombe%20and%20Madison%20Counties.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Local Food Production

Brief description: This is a summary of the results of over 1,400 surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004 in various farmers' tailgate markets within two western North Carolina counties: Buncombe and Madison counties. The summary provides findings related to the customers, per capita spending, demographic characteristics, attitudes and perceptions towards local food, and a general awareness of the "buy local" campaign led by Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project.

Key information I: These markets have significant economic impact to the regional economy. Per capita expenditures averaged $14.18 across both years. At the four markets located within Asheville city limits, the cumulative average weekly sales total during tracking periods in 2003 and 2004 is estimated at $24,120. The total sales at these markets during June, July and August is estimated at over $300,000 per year. The markets also have significant economic impact to the specific communities where they are located. At the Asheville city markets, a significant number of shoppers indicated that the markets brought them to town that day, and resulted in their doing additional shopping in the area. These shoppers spent an additional $14,740 at other businesses in the area on a weekly average. This represents $191,620 in additional economic activity for the city of Asheville during the summer months.

Key information II: Some of the most important findings of this research include the following: 1) Tailgate markets are successful primarily due to loyal repeat customers. 2) A relatively high percentage of first‐time shoppers come to the market each week. 3) The majority of shoppers at any one market live within five miles of that market. 4) Market shoppers get most of their information about markets through personal contacts, local print media, and passing by.

Other (or key information III): Tailgate markets are an outgrowth of roadside produce stands. Even today, in summer months one can often find individual farmers, hobbyist gardeners, or resellers parked on the side of a country road, usually with a crude wooden or cardboard sign advertising availability of fresh produce such as corn, tomatoes and squash. The tailgate market is an expansion of that theme, where multiple producers congregate to sell their produce. Early 20th Century tailgate markets were ad hoc affairs where farmers congregated for company while spending a Saturday morning or Wednesday afternoon waiting for customers to stop and buy. Vendors discovered that by pooling their produce for sale at one location, more customers stopped regularly to buy more individually due to a steady availability and increased variety of produce for sale. The increased traffic more than outweighed the presence of potential competitor vendors.

156

The Infrastructure of Food Procurement and Distribution: Implications for Farmers in Western North Carolina

Source of publication/information: Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project

Publication date: April 2007

File name: Infrastructure_of_Food_Distribution

Web source: www.asapconnections.org/special/research/Reports/Infrastructure%20of%20Distribution%20Final.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Local Food Production

Brief description: This report examines the food industry in the United States and its implications for farmers in western North Carolina who want to grow for and sell to local markets. The first part of the report examines the broad structure of food procurement and distribution. Subsequent sections examine procurement and distribution systems of particular commodity segments (produce, beef, and dairy) and the local infrastructure for direct marketing and food processing. In the context of western North Carolina, this report focuses on the existing infrastructure of food procurement and distribution. Local patterns of distribution are presented as models and are based on current but not complete knowledge of existing systems with the potential to accommodate more local food with further development. Overall the report provides a strong assessment of the challenges and opportunities to the growth of localized food markets (and includes a brief analysis of different produce and meat sectors) in western North Carolina, and its conclusions are instructive for the Central Appalachian region.

Key information I: As a means of food distribution, farmers’ markets provide important urban‐rural linkages, and in eliminating middlemen, enable farmers to command higher prices for their goods. Farmers’ markets have specific infrastructural requirements. Increasing market opportunities for farmers’ markets may also encompass expanding the reach of local markets into low‐income market segments. Current USDA programs like the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program enable program beneficiaries to shop at farmers’ markets for fresh foods. Nationwide the UDSA reports that almost 60 percent of markets participate in farmers market nutrition programs.

Key information II: In western North Carolina, fresh produce reaches consumers through direct markets (farmers’ tailgate markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), roadside stands), local retail outlets (restaurants, grocery stores, specialty food stores, bed and breakfasts), and through institutional outlets including school and hospital cafeterias. Despite various constraints, regionally‐based systems of food procurement and distribution in western North Carolina hold the potential to help local farmers overcome market constraints. Local packing houses, wholesale distributors, farmer cooperatives, systems of backhauling, and a state owned farmers’ market are present in the region and provide viable models for increasing the distribution of local food to local markets. With increasing demand for local food, these systems are potential points of intervention that with further development could create space for smaller local farmers in a tightly integrated market.

Other (or key information III): Overall, the farm value share of the food dollar—the economic return farmers receive for the farm products they sell—decreases as the degree of processing increases and, concomitantly, as the distance between producers and consumers increases. In 1980, out of the $264 billion American consumers spent on food, overall farmers received $82 billion or 31 percent of the total. In 2004, farmers’ share dropped to about 20 percent of the $789 billion spent on food31. The remaining 80 percent was absorbed by middlemen (processors, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers) and reflects value added as labor, transportation, packaging, advertising, and other marketing costs that accrue in transforming farm commodities into food products and meals.

157

Chapter 5: Agriculture and Rural America

Source of publication/information: Presidential Climate Action Project

Publication date: January 2009

File name: PCAP_Ag_Rural_America

Web source: www.climateactionproject.com/docs/pcap/Chapter_5_Agriculture_11_10_08.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Sustainable Agriculture

Brief description: The industrialization of agriculture – fed by the overly specific US subsidy system that supports the growth of two crops, soybeans and corn – has led to over‐working of arable land, the reduction of investment in small farm operations and the loosening of environmental controls that allow a small number of large businesses to generate and dispose of (without oversight) huge amounts of animal waste. These wastes are polluting not only the land but also gulfs, oceans and seas. Organic farming practices require less energy to maintain, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, avoid the use of chemical fertilizers and are more resilient in the face of drought of any kind, including that brought on by climate change

Key information I: Executive Action proposal 1: Direct the USDA to establish a 50‐Year Federal Farm Policy. The Land Institute’s Wes Jackson recently initiated a discussion which recommends the next 10 five‐year Farm Bills be developed to achieve a) no net loss of soil, soil fertility or soil biodiversity; b) net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; c) conservation and detoxification of water supplies; d) minimal nitrogen runoff; e) more profitable farms, more farm families and more vital rural communities; f) healthful food; and g) high yields. They also should achieve the objectives of making rural America the nation’s principal source of renewable energy supply and carbon sequestration services.

Key information II: Executive Action proposal 2: Invest in the New Rural Energy Economy. The president should direct agencies to refocus current federal financial and technical assistance programs toward the objectives stated above, insofar as current law allows. Low‐interest loans offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service should be redirected from greenhouse gas‐creating projects to investments in renewable energy utilities, companies and projects that equip rural America to be the nation’s principal supplier of green energy. Wind farms, solar arrays, projects that capture greenhouse gas‐producing methane and convert it to energy and carbon sequestration projects should receive priority in funding.

Other (or key information III): N/A

158

Growing Local: Expanding the Western North Carolina Food and Farm Economy

Source of publication/information: Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project

Publication date: August 2007

File name: GrowingLocal_NC

Web source: www.asapconnections.org/special/research/Reports/GrowingLocal.pdf

Value‐added sector(s): Local Food Production

Brief description: This 326‐page report provides a comprehensive look at food production, resources and markets in western North Carolina. It "is the culmination of a multi‐year research project funded by the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SSARE) program, a division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), whose goals include advancing knowledge about sustainable farming systems. This research explores: (1) what food and farm products are currently produced in the region; (2) how much of what is produced is also consumed in the region; (3) the potential for increasing local consumption of locally‐produced food and farm products as a way to strengthen the regional farm economy; and (4) where investment of resources or other actions could eliminate barriers currently impeding the purchase of local food." This is a substantial document that provides important information for understanding the potential for growing a local food economy, and the existing programs and incentives available for supporting local food initiatives.

Key information I: Despite strong, measured demand for local food and farm products only a fraction of all food that is consumed locally is currently produced locally, probably less than one percent. This fact is true even for foods that can and are being produced by the region’s farms. On the surface this represents an opportunity for local growers to expand production. More accurately, the disparity between demand for and supply of locally‐ grown food is complicated by the processes involved in moving food from farm to market, processing needs, and state, federal, and local policies that do not support local farms. Expanding local consumption of local farm products will require restaurants, food stores, and other businesses and institutions that serve or sell food to modify food procurement and distribution systems.

Key information II: Recommendations detailed in this report include: Improve outreach efforts for larger scale markets, improve the labeling of local food, provide information and support to growers, advocate for policies that favor local food distribution and sale, help maintain working farmland in the region, identify points of intervention in food distribution and infrastructure systems, expand public education and awareness about local food, expand the Local Food Campaign more fully throughout the region, integrate efforts to promote agriculture with efforts to promote tourism, expand direct market channels, and strengthen partnerships among regional organizations

Other (or key information III): N/A

159

10. EXISTING RETAIL AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND PROXIMITY TO TARGET DEVELOPMENT CENTERS The quality of life in small towns is enhanced with access to retail stores such as hardware, clothing, and grocery stores and other essential services such as medical clinics. These types of businesses also provide local jobs. These small Central Appalachian towns serve as examples of target development centers for CAPP.

To investigate the existing set of retail and essential services available in small West Virginia towns in southern West Virginia, United States Census data were used to select small towns in southern West Virginia counties.1 Within these counties, cities, towns, and census‐designated places (CDPs) listed in the 2000 census were considered. However, it was assumed that residents of population centers within 20 miles of major cities would rely on those cities for essential services.2 Therefore, the population centers considered for an analysis of retail and essential services includes only those further than 20 miles from the cities of Charleston, Huntington, Beckley, South Charleston, Bluefield, and St. Albans. As shown in Table 39, 61 population centers were identified.

Table 39: Populations of cities, towns, and census‐designated places in southern West Virginia located more than 20 miles from large cities County Population center 1990 2000 2007 Boone Danville 595 550 535 Boone Madison 3,051 2,677 2,590 Boone Sylvester 191 195 463 Boone Whitesville 486 520 507 Clay Clay 592 593 565 Fayette Ansted 1,643 1,576 1,578 Fayette Gauley Bridge 691 738 693 Fayette Montgomery 2,449 1,942 1,920 Fayette Powellton CDP 1,905 1,796 - Fayette Smithers 1,162 904 847 Greenbrier Alderson 1,152 1,091 1,071 Greenbrier Fairlea CDP 1,743 1,706 - Greenbrier Falling Spring 191 209 200 Greenbrier Lewisburg 3,598 3,624 3,537 Greenbrier Quinwood 559 435 413 Greenbrier Rainelle 1,681 1,545 1,477 Greenbrier Ronceverte 1,754 1,557 1,509 Greenbrier Rupert 1,104 940 923 Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs 2,779 2,315 2,289 Jackson Ravenswood 4,189 4,031 3,957 Jackson Ripley 3,023 3,263 3,248 Lincoln Harts CDP 2,332 2,361 - Logan Amherstdale-Robinette CDP 2,435 1,785 - Logan Chapmanville 1,110 1,211 1,117 Logan Holden CDP 1,246 1,105 - Logan Logan 2,206 1,630 1,505 Logan Mallory CDP 1,126 1,143 - Logan Man 914 770 697 Logan Mitchell Heights 265 301 275 Logan Mount Gay-Shamrock CDP 3,377 2,623 - Logan Switzer CDP 1,004 1,138 - Logan West Logan 524 418 390 Mason Hartford City 487 519 513 Mason Henderson 549 325 309 Mason Leon 145 132 126

1 For this analysis, southern counties include Boone, Cabell, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming. 2 For this analysis, major cities are considered to be those with population greater than 10,000 according to the 2007 Census Bureau population estimate.

160

County Population center 1990 2000 2007 Mason Mason 1,053 1,064 1,061 Mason New Haven 1,632 1,559 1,517 Mason Point Pleasant 4,996 4,637 4,426 McDowell Bradshaw 394 289 250 McDowell Davy 403 373 340 McDowell Iaeger 551 358 297 McDowell War 1,081 788 654 McDowell Welch 3,028 2,683 2,244 Mingo Chattaroy CDP 1,182 1,136 - Mingo Delbarton 705 474 435 Mingo Gilbert 456 417 393 Mingo Gilbert Creek CDP 1,784 1,582 - Mingo Kermit 342 209 223 Mingo Matewan 619 498 488 Mingo Red Jacket CDP 760 728 - Mingo Williamson 4,154 3,414 3,106 Monroe Peterstown 550 499 492 Monroe Union 566 548 552 Nicholas Craigsville CDP 1,955 2,204 - Nicholas Richwood 2,808 2,477 2,320 Nicholas Summersville 2,906 3,294 3,313 Roane Reedy 271 198 187 Roane Spencer 2,279 2,352 2,190 Wayne Fort Gay 852 819 798 Wyoming Oceana 1,791 1,550 1,418 Wyoming Pineville 865 715 655

It is beyond the scope of this project to inventory essential services in all 61 of these population centers. Instead, we chose three zip codes—25193, 25140, and 25209—that include Sylvester and Whitesville and the nearby communities of Colcord, Naoma, and Rock Creek in Boone and Raleigh Counties. This cluster of small communities, shown in Figure 15, was selected based on the authors’ knowledge of the area as an example of a cluster of small communities large enough to support at least a minimum level of essential services.

Essential services were located by searching online phone directories using keywords to find medical facilities and hardware, grocery, and clothing stores.3 While the three zip codes shown in yellow in Figure 15 were searched, the search results showed facilities and stores in additional zip codes. These additional zip codes are shown in green.

In the vicinity of Whitesville and Sylvester, five medical facilities, three hardware stores, ten grocery stores, and two clothing stores were found. Some stores are listed in more than one category; for example, the Family Dollar and Dollar General stores were both found when searching for hardware, grocery, and clothing stores.

The medical facilities include a national pharmacy chain—Rite Aid—as well as four facilities that provide medical services.

3 Keywords included “pharmacy,” “clinic,” “hospital,” and “doctor” for medical facilities; “hardware” for hardware stores, “grocery” for grocery stores, and “clothing” for clothing stores.

161

Figure 15: Zip codes used for essential services analysis

162

Table 40: Existing retail and essential services in the vicinity of Whitesville and Sylvester

Zip Service Town code Note

Medical facilities Rite Aid Whitesville 25209 Pharmacy

Raleigh-Boone Medical Center Whitesville 25209 Clinics & Medical Centers Physicians & Surgeons, Clinics & Medical Centers, Charitable &

Hygeia Facilities Foundation Whitesville 25209 Nonprofit Organizations Family Practice Internal Medicine Laboratory Ob Gyn Pediatrics

Access Health Clear Fork Colcord 25048 Pharmacy Ultrasonics, Health Centers, Clear Fork Family & General Practice Physicians & Surgeons, Osteopathic

Marsh Fork Clinic - Matt Arvon DO Colcord 25048 Physicians & Surgeons

Hardware stores Flint's Hardware & Builders Sylvester 25193 Family Dollar Store Whitesville 25209 Dollar General Whitesville 25209

Grocery stores Fas Chek Supermarkets Whitesville 25209 Marys Pizza & Grocery Naoma 25140 One Stop Whitesville 25209 Lloyd's Convenient Store Rock Creek 25174 Brooke's Place Whitesville 25209 Miner's Market Wharton 25208 Little General Store Wharton 25208 Gas station Kathy's Inc Colcord 25048 Groceries and restaurant Family Dollar Store See above Dollar General See above

Clothing stores Family Dollar Store See above Dollar General See above

163

11. AVAILABLE AND RELEVANT PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS ON QUALITY OF LIFE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ESPECIALLY AS RELATED TO COAL), AND MINING PRACTICES

The following surveys and local government and political resolutions are relevant to the quality of life, economic development, and coal mining in Central Appalachia.

Mountaintop Removal Mining Research, Appalachian Region: West Virginia and portions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia

Group/Surveyor/Author: Gerstein‐Agne Strategic Communications

Date: May 2008

Focus Location/Region: Central Appalachia

Focus Area(s): Energy, Economic Development

Description: This is a survey commissioned by Appalachian Voices of Boone, NC in 2008. The survey asked respondents a vast series of questions pertaining to their views on energy, the economy, the environment, and on coal’s importance related to each. The purpose of the survey was to gain a deep understanding of the views of the public in each of the four Central Appalachian states as related to mountaintop removal, coal, and the balance between environmental protection and economic development. The survey goes beyond these areas, and stands as the most comprehensive survey of its kind of all those listed in this chapter.

Key Findings: The most significant finding in the opinion of the author of this review relates to the responses to the question, “Would you support or oppose passage of the Clean Water Protection Act is it meant coal companies could no longer mine in (state) using mountaintop removal mining?” The response was 65 in support (44 strongly support) passage of the CWPA, 28 opposed. After presenting arguments for both sides of the mountaintop removal issue, the survey asked the question “do you support or oppose mountaintop removal mining in (state)?” The response was 50 opposed to 38 in support. This question seems to summarize the overall results of the survey.

File Name: Appalachian Voices Appalachia Region Survey Results 050808

Web Source I: N/A (ask Appalachian Voices)

Web Source II: N/A

164

West Virginia Energy/Climate Survey: Most in state do not favor more "subprime" investments in carbon‐based fuels, nuclear power

Group/Surveyor/Author: The CLEAN, Civil Society Institute, Opinion Research Corporation

Date: September 2008

Focus Location/Region: West Virginia

Focus Area(s): Energy, Economic Development

Description: This survey was conducted in September of 2008, right around the time when Massey Energy had notified the public of their intent to begin blasting operations for the first of four surface coal mining permits on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia. The survey ‐ commissioned by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and TheClean.org ‐ aimed to gauge state‐citizen opinion on the pending blasting operations, and on which future sources of energy should be supported and developed within West Virginia.

Key Findings: West Virginia residents oppose blasting the wind farm site at Coal River Mountain. More than three out of five West Virginia residents (62 percent) – including 50 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents – oppose Governor Manchin’s decision against stopping “Massey Energy from using mountaintop removal coal mining to level a section of Coal River Mountain that could have been used for a wind farm …” Only 35 percent of state residents support the Governor’s decision. While 15 percent of state residents strongly support the inaction on Manchin’s part, a much larger 39 percent are strongly opposed to it. West Virginia residents want clean power to get state assistance on a footing that is the same as – or better than – that for coal‐ to‐liquid plants. More than three out of five West Virginia residents would prefer to see West Virginia tax breaks and other incentives for energy companies either (1) divided “between renewable energy, such as wind and solar, and coal‐to‐liquid plants” (49 percent) or (2) focused solely on “support (for) renewable energy such as wind and solar” (27 percent). Only about a quarter (23 percent) support state tax breaks and incentives solely for coal‐to‐ liquid plants. This puts the public at odds with the administration of West Virginia Governor Manchin, who has agreed to give nearly $200 million in state tax breaks and other incentives to developers of a coal‐to‐liquids plant proposed for Marshall County.

File Name: CLEAN_MTR_CRM_survey

Web Source I: http://theclean.org/t‐clean/survey_2008_09_25_wv_release.pdf

Web Source II: N/A

165

Create WV Statewide Survey

Group/Surveyor/Author: CreateWV, Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research

Date: March 2009

Focus Location/Region: West Virginia

Focus Area(s): Community, Economic Development, Government, Education, Energy, Technology

Description: This is a substantial survey covering various areas, and its questions are focused on finding out what West Virginia residents hope to see happen in their own communities and for the state. Results: While West Virginia is often ranked at the bottom of most “new economy” indicators, the Creative Communities team of Vision Shared (www.visionshared.com) wanted to measure the support among typical West Virginians on issues related to new economy growth. The purpose of conducting this survey was to encourage leaders across West Virginia at state and local levels to tune into the voice of West Virginians, who, based on the results of this survey, clearly support new economy policies, programs and initiatives. The survey provides a snapshot of West Virginians' attitudes about technology, education, social diversity, communities and entrepreneurship. More than 1,200 people answered 33 questions.

Key Findings: More than 80 percent supported investments in research and development. Seventy percent said new high‐wage jobs are primarily created by high‐tech industries. The survey also showed that West Virginians believe that tolerance of people of all races, religions and lifestyles is important to the state's future success. Nearly 90 percent of those surveyed said they support efforts by state and local governments to ensure tolerance and diversity. Between 37% and 52% of all age groups surveyed support environmentally friendly or "green" energy policies. State residents also back government initiatives to help communities modernize. Many more important survey questions are included.

File Name: CreateWV_statewide_survey_Jan2009

Web Source I: www.createwv.com/

Web Source II: N/A

166

Rural Democrat, NEW SURVEY RESULTS: Mountaintop Removal

Group/Surveyor/Author: The Rural Democrat

Date: April 2009

Focus Location/Region: Kentucky

Focus Area(s): Mountaintop Removal, Economic Development

Description: An April 2009 online and email survey of Kentucky residents to gauge public opinion on mountaintop removal coal mining in Kentucky. The survey results are broken down by region on the website, and the survey author explains the methodology and breaks down the results. Methodology ‐ 405 participants, 315 of those participants from direct email. This survey is compared to an earlier December 2008 survey, with overall public opinion shifting toward more opposition to mountaintop removal (MTR) between the two periods. This survey is suspect only because 315 participants were part of an email list that is largely conservative, pro‐coal and somewhat pro‐MTR ("only if there is going to be a definite human post‐mine land use").

Key Findings: SURVEY: Do you support MTR?, December 2008: Overall, YES ‐ 62%, NO ‐ 38% Break down: YES, regardless ‐ 49.23%; YES only if there’s post‐mine economic development ‐ 12.69%, NO ‐ 38% NEW SURVEY: Do you support MTR?, April 2009: Overall, YES ‐53%, NO ‐ 47% Break down: YES, regardless ‐ 23%, YES only if there’s post‐mine economic development ‐ 30%, NO ‐ 47%

Demographic breakdowns: YES with economic development: Eastern Kentucky ‐ 63%; Central Kentucky ‐ 46%; Northern Kentucky ‐ 1% (very low number of participants); Western Kentucky ‐ 44% Political Ideology who support MTR: Liberal ‐ 20%, Moderate ‐ 62%, Conservative ‐ 76% Regional Participation: Eastern Kentucky ‐ 64%, Central Kentucky ‐ 19%, Northern Kentucky ‐ 6%, Western Kentucky ‐ 11%

File Name: Rural_Dem_MTR_Survey

Web Source I: http://theruraldemocrat.typepad.com/the_rural_democrat/2009/04/survey‐results‐mountain‐top‐ removal‐opinion‐shifting‐as‐predicted.html#more

Web Source II: N/A

167

Attitudes and Awareness of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Resources in West Virginia

Group/Surveyor/Author: Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research, for the West Virginia Development Office Energy Efficiency Program

Date: November 2006

Focus Location/Region: West Virginia

Focus Area(s): Energy Efficency, Alternative/Renewable Energy

Description: This is an important survey. The Center for Business and Economic Research in partnership with the West Virginia Development Office conducted a telephone survey to gauge the awareness and interest in alternative and renewable energy resources in the State of West Virginia. A total of 432 valid survey responses were obtained. Issues that respondents were asked about included: willingness to pay more for an energy efficient home, state role in promoting renewable energy and willingness to pay more for renewables, attitudes and opinions toward wind power, knowledge of West Virginia electricity and electricity prices and coal's role in the nation's electricity, transportation fuels (from coal and renewables), interest in alternative fuel vehicles, etc. Page 32 gives a breakdown of which counties the respondents live in. Page 33 breaks down respondents by age, page 34 by education level (majority had high‐school or lower, about 55%), page 35 by household income. Interesting respondent comments are included on page 37.

Key Findings: Respondents were asked to consider their willingness to pay more for a new energy efficient home versus a standard home. More than 55 percent of respondents indicated that they were either unwilling to pay any premium (25.9 percent) or were unsure how much they would be willing to pay (29.2 percent). Approximately 12 percent of respondents said they would be willing to pay more than $5,000 for a new energy efficient home over a standard one. Nearly 78 percent of respondents felt that the State should promote the purchases of renewable energy by homeowners and businesses. Nearly 83 percent of those surveyed indicated that the State should promote investments to reduce energy use in homes and businesses. 53.2 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would not be willing to pay any premium for electricity produced by renewable or alternative means. Roughly one‐quarter of respondents indicated willingness to pay more for this type of electricity. 69.2 percent of those surveyed thought that the State should encourage more large‐scale wind farms as an economic development strategy. It should be noted that less than 10 percent were opposed to the statement, leaving 21.5 percent unsure. A slightly higher percentage (70.4 percent) felt that the State should encourage small‐scale wind power for home and business use. 72.5 percent of respondents answered that wind power was beneficial to the State. However, only 64.8 percent felt that their community benefited from wind power. 71.8 percent indicated that they have not seen the windmills at the Backbone Mountain / Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Facility in Tucker County, WV in person. 75.9 percent of respondents indicated that the State should support the production of liquid transportation fuels from coal. 81.5 percent of those surveyed felt that more of our nation’s electricity should come from West Virginia coal. Only 11.3 percent disagreed. Additional findings are included in the original source.

File Name: MARSHALL_Attitudes and Awareness of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Resources in West Virginia edit

Web Source I: www.marshall.edu/cber/research/Attitudes%20and%20Awareness%20of%20Energy%20Efficiency%20and%20Alte rnative%20Energy%20Resources%20in%20West%20Virginia%20edit.pdf

Web Source II: Marshall_Energy_Eff_Alt_Energy_survey_summary (PPT)

168

West Virginia’s Standing Up for Our Communities, Economies, and Mountains: A Compilation of Official Actions from the WV Democratic Party & WV County Commissions in 2008, and 2009

Group/Surveyor/Author: West Virginia Democratic Party, (some) West Virginia Conuty Commissions

Date: 2008 and 2009

Focus Location/Region: West Virginia

Focus Area(s): Mountaintop Removal, Economic Development, Renewable Energy

Description: This document serves as a compilation of actions being taken to show growing opposition on the local and state levels against mountaintop removal coal mining and for cleaner economic development alternatives. The document includes a resolution adopted by the West Virginia Young Democrats, a close vote by the West Virginia Democrats narrowly opposing a ban on MTR, a resolution by Cabell County opposing MTR, a resolution by Fayette County opposing an MTR permit and supporting the tourism industry, a resolution by Jefferson County opposing MTR, and resolutions by both Calhoun County and Gilmer opposing a new high‐voltage transmission line partly because it would increase the demand for MTR coal.

Key Findings: In conjunction with the survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, the passage of county resolutions, and more importantly, the near vote by the state West Virginia Democrats (a powerful political organization) to support a ban on mountaintop removal, shows that there is a growing in‐state opposition to MTR, and that the state and federal elected officials may be misrepresenting true public opinion regarding MTR.

File Name: WV_MTR_energy_econ_Resolution_Compilation

Web Source I: None

Web Source II: N/A

169

Forbes.com list of "America's Greenest States"

Group/Surveyor/Author: Forbes.com

Date: October 2007

Focus Location/Region: National/West Virginia

Focus Area(s): Environmental Pollution, Human Health, Consumption, Waste, Environmental Measures

Description: This document is an article that was published in October of 2007 by Forbes Magazine, and provides their ranking of how "green" each state is. The ranking took into account carbon emissions per capita, the existence/absence/strength of policies promoting energy efficiency, air quality, the number of buildings per capita with the US Green Building Council's LEED certification, total energy consumption, energy consumption per capita, toxic waste per capita, incidence of exceeding federal air and water standards, vehicle miles travelled and the number of alternative fuel and hybrid‐electric vehicles per capita, etc. The calculations relied on data from the American Lung Association, Public Interest Research Group's water assessment, EPA data for hazardous waste, the American Council for an Energy‐Efficient Economy's energy efficiency scorecard and policy analysis, the Energy Information Administration, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Department of Transportation and the Sierra Club.

Key Findings: Topping the list are Vermont, Oregon and Washington. At the bottom of the list are Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Indiana and, at No. 50, West Virginia. As the article states, "All suffer from a mix of toxic waste, lots of pollution and consumption and no clear plans to do anything about it. Expect them to remain that way." For other Central Appalachian states, Virginia ranked 23rd, Tennessee 43rd, and Kentucky 45th. West Virginia (No. 50, Score: 14.2 out of 50): West Virginia posted low scores in every category, notably carbon footprint (fourth highest) and water cleanliness (we ranked it fourth worst). West Virginia has more toxic waste to manage per capita than all but three states. In 2005, it disposed of or released 97.1 million lbs of toxic waste. The state exceeded its Clean Water Act permit levels by an average of 679% in 2005, according to US PIRG. This means the water was frequently grossly tainted.

File Name: Forbes_Greenest_States

Web Source I: www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment‐energy‐vermont‐biz‐beltway‐ cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates.html

Web Source II: N/A

170

Kentucky Energy/Climate Survey: Most in state do not favor more "subprime" investments in carbon‐based fuels, nuclear power

Group/Surveyor/Author: The CLEAN, Civil Society Institute, Opinion Research Corporation

Date: September 2008

Focus Location/Region: Kentucky

Focus Area(s): Energy, Economic Development

Description: This is a survey conducted for the purpose of weighing Kentucky residents' opinions of state and national energy policy, energy production and economic development. It was conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation for The CLEAN and the Civil Society Institute, and is based on the findings of a telephone survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation’s CARAVAN omnibus. The survey was conducted among a sample of 1,006 adults (503 men and 503 women) aged 18 and older living in private households in the Continental United States. Interviewing was completed September 12‐15, 2008. The survey was weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population. The margin of error for surveys with samples of around 1,000 respondents, at the 95 percent confidence level, is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Smaller sub‐groups in any survey will have larger error margins.

Key Findings: The #1 priority identified by the largest number of Kentucky residents is “transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind” (43 percent), with the second most‐popular priority being “increased emphasis on energy efficiency/cutting wasted energy” (30 percent). Few state residents picked nuclear power (7 percent) and “more coal mining” (12 percent) as their top priorities. Half want to see government aid for wind and solar power put on the same or better footing than coal‐fired and nuclear power plants. Between 24 percent and 30 percent of Kentuckians would go further, having the government “shift all or most of them from nuclear power and coal‐fired power plants to energy sources such as wind and solar.” Only about 16 percent of those in Kentucky and one in 10 Americans would “keep the incentives for nuclear power and coal‐fired power the way they are today.” Nearly three out four respondents in Kentucky (78 percent) and 73 percent of Americans would support “a five‐year moratorium on new coal‐fired power plants in the United States if there was stepped‐up investment in clean, safe renewable energy ‐‐such as wind and solar ‐‐and improved home energy‐efficiency standards.”

File Name: KY_Energy_Coal_Survey

Web Source I: www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/092508release_kentucky.cfm

Web Source II: N/A

171

Virginia Survey on Climate Change

Group/Surveyor/Author: Christopher Newport University's Center for Public Policy and the Virginia Environmental Endowment

Date: April 2009

Focus Location/Region: Virginia

Focus Area(s): Global Warming, Energy, Environment, Mountaintop Removal

Description: The environmental attitudes survey of 659 registered Virginia voters was conducted between March 18 and March 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. The survey asked respondents for a general assessment of the state's natural environment and uses a novel question format ‐ the letter grade ‐ as an assessment tool. Respondents =were also asked to look into the future and assess in what state they think the natural environment will be in 10 years. Respondents were then asked about their personal views on the issue of climate change and to describe ways in which their own behavior has changed as a result of concerns about the environment. Finally, respondents were asked about specific environmental issues facing Virginia and about their support for specific policy options.

Key Findings: The survey shows several important things about the public's perception of the natural environment in Virginia. Findings include: • 52.9% of Virginians grade the natural environment in Virginian as either “C”, “D”, or “F.” The average grade is “C.” Two‐thirds of Virginians think the environment will stay about the same or get worse over the next 10 years. • 76.1% of Virginians think global warming is happening, and 29.6% of them have made major changes to their living and shopping habits to help protect the environment. 59.8% have made minor changes to their living and shopping habits. • The most severe environmental problems facing Virginia are the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the mountaintop removal of coal method of mining, according to respondents. The least severe problems are air pollution and pollution of drinking water. • Nearly eight in 10 Virginians think it would be worth paying more for a new car or new home if new cars used less gas and new homes used less energy to heat and cool, but only half support cutting funding for new highway construction to increase funding for rail, transit and other alternatives to driving. A tax credit of up to $500 would encourage about seven in 10 Virginians to make existing homes and buildings more energy efficient, but would only encourage about half of Virginians to purchase a hybrid car. • Virginians respond positively to many, but not all, policy proposals designed to change their behavior in ways that would be beneficial to the state's environment. Support for a “cap and trade” system hovers around 50% unless the money raised by the system goes back to individual people, in which case support goes up to 60%.

File Name: VA_Climate_Survey

Web Source I: http://universityrelations.cnu.edu/news/2009/04_22_09cpp.html

Web Source II:

172

New Energy Economy, Market Research Study

Group/Surveyor/Author: Environmental Defense Fund, Frost & Sullivan

Date: February 2009

Focus Location/Region: National

Focus Area(s): Market Research, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Supply Chains, Energy Economics

Description: This is a telephone‐based survey of business leaders on the topic of renewable energy and energy efficient products and services was conducted by Frost & Sullivan. A total of 500 respondents surveyed in December 2008 are included in this report. The objectives of this market research are: • To gain an understanding about which companies are doing well and those companies that would benefit from new global warming pollution legislation. • To identify companies that have experienced sales increases in the past one to two years and the reasons for those increases. • To identify how companies perceive they would benefit from new global warming legislation.

Key Findings: Findings: The majority of respondents surveyed said their companies provide energy efficient building materials, solar power and heating systems, or wind energy and turbine systems. Companies that provide either solar power and heating systems or wind energy and turbine systems are more likely to have less than 49 employees. Those that provide energy efficient building materials are more likely to have more than 50 employees. Four out of 10 respondents (42%) said their sales (of green and energy efficient products) have increased over the past one to two years and an equal number said that their sales have remained the same (42%). Just 16% of respondents indicated that they have seen a decrease in sales of their green and energy efficient products. Just over half of respondents (52%) from companies in the renewable sector had an increase in sales of their green and energy efficient products. Only one third of respondents from companies in the energy efficiency sector reported an increase in sales in the past one to two years. A higher proportion of respondents whose organizations are manufacturers indicated either a decrease in sales or that their sales have remained the same. One third of respondents whose organizations are installer/contractors said their sales have increased over the past one to two years. The main reasons for the sales increase that respondents gave included more awareness of the benefits of green products, an increase in demand, better products and incentives that are offered by government.

File Name: EDF_new‐energy‐econ‐business‐survey

Web Source I: www.edf.org/documents/9268_new‐energy‐economy‐study.pdf

Web Source II: N/A

173

Zogby Post‐Election Poll: 78% Believe Investing in Clean Energy Is Vital to Boosting US Economy

Group/Surveyor/Author: Zogby International

Date: November 2008

Focus Location/Region: National

Focus Area(s): Global Warming, Voting Issues

Description: This is a survey carried out just before the 2008 presidential election. The Zogby Interactive survey of 3,357 voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 5‐6, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/‐ 1.7 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation. For methodology, contact: Fritz Wenzel, Zogby International Communications Director, 315‐624‐0200 ext. 229 or 419‐205‐0287 or [email protected]

Key Findings: More than three in four voters ‐ 78% ‐ believe investing in clean energy is important to revitalizing America's economy. Of those, 50% said they strongly agree clean energy investment is vital to the nation's economic future. Support for clean energy investment is particularly strong among younger voters ‐ 87% of those age 18‐24 and 80% of those age 18‐29 believe this type of investment is necessary to help improve the US economy. African American voters (94%) and Hispanic voters (84%) also showed overwhelming support for clean energy investment. While the vast majority of Democrats (96%) and independent voters (77%) view clean energy investment as a key means to boost the US economy, more than half of Republican voters (58%) also said the same. 61% said they agree their elected officials should make combating global warming a high priority, an increase from 58% of voters who said the same in 2006. Among young voters age 18‐24, 69% want a greater emphasis put on combating global warming. This was 88% among African American voters (from 78% in 2006) and 73% among Hispanic voters (from 64% two years ago). More than half of independent voters (57%) said voting for candidates who support reducing global warming pollution was important to them in this election, up from 50% of voters in 2006. Among those 18‐24, 70% said a candidate's support for reducing global warming pollution was important to their vote, up from 56% who said the same in 2006.

File Name: Zogby_national_clean_energy_survey

Web Source I: www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1637

Web Source II: N/A

174

The Energy Learning Curve: Coming from different starting points, the public sees similar solutions

Group/Surveyor/Author: Public Agenda and Planet Forward

Date: April 2009

Focus Location/Region: National

Focus Area(s): Energy, Policy, Public Perception/Attitudes

Description: The first Energy Learning Curve report, released in association with Planet Forward, finds the American people reaching common ground on at least 10 major energy proposals, particularly on alternative energy. But the public may not yet be prepared for the tradeoffs and challenges needed to make these proposals a reality. This is the first of a series of reports designed to measure the public's "learning curve" as Americans grapple with the energy challenge. This report is based on interviews with a national random sample of 1,001 adults over the age of 18 conducted between January 15 and January 30, 2009. Over 90 survey questions were included, covering each facet of the “triple threat.” The margin of error for the overall sample is plus or minus four percentage points. Full survey results can be found at the end of this report.

Key Findings: Findings: 1) Right now, a majority of the public sees the price of energy and dependence on foreign oil as troubling problems. Significantly, they also believe the problem won’t go away when the price of energy falls. Climate change, however, is less of a concern; 2) There is substantial consensus on the proposals that the nation should pursue, particularly alternative energy, conservation and incentives to become more efficient. These seem promising to the public, but they may not have realistic assumptions about how quickly and easily these alternatives can be achieved; 3) Just as there’s widespread support on promising ideas, there also seems to be broad agreement on what’s off the table. Anything that increases the cost of driving is soundly rejected by the public. People are willing to change their behavior in many ways, but they don’t want to be forced into it; 4) The public’s knowledge level is low on energy, with significant numbers who do not know some basic facts about how energy is produced. This calls into question how firm the consensus is and how well it will hold up under pressure; 5) Four unique groups emerged during the analysis based on their knowledge and beliefs. Yet there is an opportunity to build consensus on the energy problem.

File Name: PublicAgenda_survey_energy_learning_curve

Web Source I: www.publicagenda.org/reports/energy

Web Source II: N/A

175

12. STRATEGIES AND MODELS FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Coal River Mountain Watch Sustainable Economic Diversification Program Description

Source(s) of publication/information: Coal River Mountain Watch

Publication date: 2009

File name: CRMW_Sustainable_Devt

Web source: none

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): renewable energy, community development, green business, outreach and education

Brief description: This document contains a statement of purpose and intent on the behalf of Coal River Mountain Watch and the Coal River Valley communities to work to ensure that economic transition resulting from the need to move away from coal as a national energy resource, and away from mountaintop removal coal from an ethical standpoint, is led by and beneficial to the coalfield communities. This statement outlines a model for sustainable economic transition and community led development in the Coal River Valley, and serves as a model for communities across the Central Appalachian coalfields.

Key info I: "The Coal River Mountain Watch's Sustainable Economic Development Program will serve as a catalyst for sustainable, community‐based economic development in the Coal River Valley. This transition away from an extractive economy is timely and crucial as the debate over coal's role in America's energy future, especially mountaintop removal coal, heats up in Washington, D.C. and the coalfields. In addition, as federal and state agencies increase support for green economic development, a structured economic diversification program in the coalfields ensures that the support benefits the areas most impacted by the fossil fuel economy. The economic transition and ecological restoration of communities both dependent upon and damaged by MTR can create a prosperous economy that does not force citizens to sacrifice their heritage, health, and environment for short‐ term economic gain. We will support this transition through the following three projects: Renewable energy promotion and construction, green small business promotion, and sustainable outreach and education.

Key info II: Coal River Mountain Watch will work with the Center for Economic Options, the Natural Capital Investment Fund, and the West Virginia Small Business Development Center.

Key info III: N/A

176

Supporting Local Economic Development in Eastern Kentucky: A Dialogue for Action

Source(s) of publication/information: University of Kentucky

Publication date: January 2008

File name: AppCenter_Local_Econ_Devt

Web source: www.appalachiancenter.org/files/Report%20to%20West%20Liberty%20Retreat%20Participants%201‐25‐08.pdf

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): local economic development, asset building, challenges, shared values

Brief description: This document outlines agreed‐upon requirements for achieving truly local and sustainable community development. The document was prepared by participants at a retreat for Kentucky state economic development professionals, and exists as a statement of shared values, strategies, and pathways regarding local economic development.

Key info I: The key agreements on what is necessary for achieving truly local economic development are: 1) Local economic development (LED) is about building on community assets; 2) LED is accomplished via entrepreneurship; LED is accomplished by fostering small business development; 4) LED should be integrated across all sectors of the community, including health, education, the arts, infrastructure, environment, and other contributors to quality of life in communities; 5) LED needs engaged, educated leaders; 6) In LED, business becomes a means to accumulate wealth and make the local way of life more creative, inclusive, and sustainable, now and 20 to 30 years from now; 7) LED is a participatory process which encourages social dialogue; 8) LED is about public‐private partnerships in a defined geographical area; and, 9) In LED at its best, more organizations look for ways to make their actions and investments reinforce the wishes and intentions of the whole community.

Key info II: N/A

Key info III: N/A

177

Appalachia: Turning Assets Into Opportunities, Defining Asset‐Based Economic Development

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: 2004

File name: ARC_Asset‐based_Development

Web source: www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2519

Focus area: Asset‐based development

Key word(s): asset‐based development, regeneration, local assets, sustainability, power, ownership

Brief description: This report by the Appalachian Regional Commission provides an overview of asset‐based development and the elements and goals that define it. It then provides regional examples of successful asset‐ based development projects, and concludes with a discussion of the opportunities for, and challenges to, implementing broad asset‐based development strategies across the ARC region.

Key info I: "Asset‐Based Economic Development can be defined as a strategy that builds on existing resources – natural, cultural and structural to create valued products and services that can be sustained for local benefit. This economic development strategy is gaining prominence nationally because of a desire to minimize impact, maximize return and compete globally. Like other strategies, asset‐based economic development focuses on the positive attributes of an area or business. What makes an asset‐based strategy different is a broad and creative definition of 'positive'. Turning liabilities into revenue generators or developing untapped natural and cultural resources into desired products and services are two major thrusts of the asset‐based economic development process."

Key info II: "The key to asset‐based economic development is focusing on what already exists, rather than inventing or building something new. The process requires innovation and leadership, as well as a vision for the future built by people with an understanding of their past and present. Taking what is and turning it into what can be is the foundation for this strategy. Optimally, asset‐based economic development results in a high impact for users and a low impact on assets. Designed as a holistic approach to growth, asset‐based economic development balances preservation and promotion for enduring prosperity. To paraphrase, the goal is to keep the goose that lays the golden egg healthy and productive. Success in asset‐based economic development depends on long‐term investment and a building‐block process rather than a 'quick fix' approach."

Key info III: "As the nation shifts from manufacturing to a more service‐based economy, communities and businesses must offer value‐added benefits for customers while guarding against overuse of assets and outside ownership. Keeping the tangible and intangible benefits local is important. Asset‐based economic development is measured in the traditional ways: job creation, job retention, per capita income and tax revenues. There are also many indirect benefits of asset‐based economic development: increased community pride, spruced up downtowns, traditions continued, former residents returning to the region, and new activities or public services for citizens."

178

Building Communities in a Shrinking World

Source(s) of publication/information: Central Appalachian Network

Publication date: November 2007

File name: CAN_Sustainable_Development_Model

Web source: www.cannetwork.org/convening/downloads/CAN‐Publication.pdf

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): Central Appalachia, sustainable development, ecosystems, extractive industries, coal, regional strategies, economic alternatives, integrated approach

Brief description: This is a summary document introducing the formation, principles and work of the Central Appalachian Network partner groups situated across the Central Appalachian region. The document argues for an integrated approach to sustainable development and economic transition away from extractive economies, one that 'combines economic, environmental, and social solutions while addressing policy issues.'

Key info I: "There is a direct link between healthy environments and economic security – places with damaged ecosystems tend to be the poorest. The connections between entrenched poverty, environmental degradation and economic dependence on extractive industries like coal and timber produce a perfect storm of challenges that impact Central Appalachia and beyond. Damaged natural systems are unable to provide important services on which we all rely – clean air, water and a stable climate. What’s needed is sustainable development that focuses on regional strategies and integrates economic, environmental and social solutions while addressing policy issues. This approach has the potential to build wealth for local citizens while providing alternatives to the fossil fuel‐ based transportation, energy, agriculture and commercial systems that cannot be maintained indefinitely. Until recently, the environment, economy and social equity have typically been segregated and viewed as separate issues that require narrowly targeted interventions. These problems are so complex, however, that our combined experience suggests they require an integrated approach."

Key info II: CAN defines sustainable development as development that: 1) fits within the community system; 2) adds value to natural capital, while minimizing carbon footprint; 3) enhances regional self‐reliance through networks; 4) is market driven and market shaping; 5) utilizes local catalysts to build capacity; and, 6) fosters public policy supporting emerging alternatives.

Key info III: What CAN supports and works toward: 1) CAN promotes natural resource‐based enterprises, particularly in food and forest products; 2) CAN develops markets and market‐access for environmentally sustainable, locally produced and culturally significant products and designs flexible entrepreneurial networks throughout the region that are stimulating and strengthening small businesses in the arts, culture and natural resources, especially among non‐traditional and limited resource entrepreneurs; 3) CAN’s conservation‐oriented or triple bottom line loan funds capitalize green businesses across the region; 4) CAN’s locally owned, value‐adding infrastructure such as shared‐use commercial kitchens and business incubators enable hundreds of people to go into business for themselves which diversifies rural economies, generates assets and keeps our local communities local; 5) CAN conducts research and analysis to help redirect state‐based economic development spending and practices from support for traditional extraction industries and industrial recruitment, to support for entrepreneurial development and culturally and environmentally appropriate businesses; 6) CAN focuses on the intersection between wealth building and a healthy environment through direct and indirect environmental initiatives; 7) CAN supports policies that: Prioritize the need for long term social, economic and environmental stability and vitality of rural communities; Encourage business development that is sensitive to Central Appalachia’s ecosystems while minimizing the region’s carbon footprint; Emphasize local and regional self‐reliance; and encourage local commerce.

179

Green Jobs and an Appalachian Economic Transition

Source(s) of publication/information: Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED)

Publication date: April 2009

File name: Green Jobs in Appalachia MACED 4_29_09

Web source: none

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): green jobs, economic transition, Appalachia, MACED

Brief description: This document serves as MACEDs draft model for identifying the potential for, pursuing, and achieving an economic transition for a green, clean, community‐owned, and sustainable economy in the coalfields of Appalachia. It outlines a series of strategies for achieving a transition, and provides detailed information on the available challenges and resources for meeting the goals of each strategy. The strategies they focus on are: 1) Increase energy efficiency in homes, buildings and businesses; 2) Expand renewable energy production; 3) Increase sustainable management of forestland and build a sustainable forestry economy; 4) Support expansion of a sustainable local foods system; 5) Invest in environmental remediation of land damaged by mining; and, 6) Expand the region's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

Key info I: Each section provides a series of recommendations for achieving the individual goals, which are perceived as being instrumental to realizing the ultimate goal of transitioning the region's economy away from damaging extractive industries and toward clean, efficient and sustainable models of economic development.

Key info II: An economic transition in Central Appalachia is challenging but achievable. The region has a long history of efforts by non‐profit organizations, community groups and some government agencies to build a different and better economy in the region. The approaches they have tested and incubated in a variety of areas provide the seeds for an economic transition. In sectors as wide‐ranging as arts and culture, housing, entrepreneurship, health care, and child care, there are success stories that have meant new community capacity and the creation of jobs that build upon regional assets or address community needs.

Key info III: N/A

180

Policy Innovations for Sustainable Entrepreneurship

Source(s) of publication/information: Central Appalachian Network

Publication date: February 2005

File name: CEO_Sustainable_Entre_Policy

Web source: www.centerforeconomicoptions.org/documents/PolicyInnovationsforSustainableEntrepreneurship.pdf

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): sustainable entrepreneurship, micro‐business, community development

Brief description: This document provides highlights from the proceedings of a gathering of economic development professionals from the broader Central Appalachian region of Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia in 2005. It summarizes regional work toward encouraging rural entrepreneurship in the region, and examines the challenges and opportunities leaders from individual states have discovered in their experiences. The summary also presents the benefits of locally owned enterprises.

Key info I: "Entrepreneurship is an important viable economic development strategy for Central Appalachia. Research shows that a place‐based, asset‐building approach offers the means to protect and restore the region’s natural assets—including its forests, farmland, rivers, lakes, and mountains—even while increasing their economic value. Most of the region’s new jobs are created by small businesses. Moreover, innovative enterprises in Appalachia create more and higher quality jobs, as well as more spin‐off businesses. For entrepreneurs to succeed, however, states and communities need to remove barriers to their success as well as strengthen the support systems essential to entrepreneurial growth."

Key info II: The five lessons learned: 1) We can build upon Appalachia's assets; 2) Small business is a local issue with local solutions; 3) It pays to invest in innovation; 4) Rural entrepreneurs need regional markets; and, 5) Entrepreneurs need to partner with regional catalysts to get things done. The benefits of locally owned enterprises that CAN members recognize are: 1) Locally owned businesses create long‐term wealth in the community; 2) They do not set up destructive exits from the community that can destroy the local economy; 3) Locally owned businesses offer higher multipliers, because they spend more of their money within the local economy; and, 4) shrinking economies of scale refute the notion that small businesses cannot thrive in a globalized economy.

Key info III: N/A

181

Identifying High Road Economic Development Strategies for Kentucky

Source(s) of publication/information: Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED)

Publication date: January 2007

File name: Identifying_High_Road_Economic_Development_Strategies

Web source: www.highroadinitiative.net/documents/Identifying_High_Road_Economic_Development_Strategies.pdf

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): high road initiative, economic development strategy, failed strategies, economic analysis, sectors and clusters, entrepreneurship

Brief description: This document summarizes the High Road Initiative, an alternative model of economic development to the traditional model historically implemented in Kentucky. The report outlines a series of strategies for economic development that will "allow Kentucky to build on its current strengths while also broadening its economic base."

Key info I: A High Road approach requires pursuing a more diverse set of strategies that put greater emphasis on building the state’s economy from within. Strategies should differentiate by place in recognition of the unique strengths, challenges, and opportunities of Kentucky’s diverse regions. They should contain a more balanced set of functions than just recruitment, including stronger efforts to promote entrepreneurship, raise the productivity of small and existing businesses, and develop the skills and capacities of the workforce. And instead of the traditional spotlight on the branch plants of export‐oriented manufacturers, all parts of the economy should be seen as important and potentially viable.

Key info II: The first strategy identified by MACED is to "Comprehensively support key clusters and sectors." This means "putting greater economic emphasis on supporting key clusters and important sectors that exist or have the potential to exist in the state." MACED employs a previous definition of a cluster as "a group of firms, and related economic actors and institutions, that are located near one another and that draw productive advantage from their mutual proximity and connections."

Key info III: The second strategy identified by MACED is to "Broaden and increase general support of entrepreneurship and small and existing business development." The reason for this strategy, as noted by MACED, is because "diversity breeds new ideas," and "a diverse economy helps an economy weather downturns in particular industries, giving it more long‐term viability."

182

Local action for sustainable economic renewal (Laser): Guide to Community Development

Source(s) of publication/information: Natural Capitalism Solutions

Publication date: 2006

File name: LASERguide

Web source: http://www.natcapsolutions.org/LASER.htm

Focus area: Sustainable community development

Key word(s): community development, revitalization, ownership

Brief description: The goal of LASER is to create wealth — wealth that provides people with long‐term economic security, and that maintains the ability of current and future generations to live healthy and fulfilled lives. Real wealth is inextricably linked to our well‐being, which we enjoy when the full spectrum of our common human needs are satisfied. So understanding all the ways that our communities build their capacity to satisfy human needs with the economic activities we initiate is fundamental to the LASER approach. This guide covers those various ways and provides guidance for taking a step‐by‐step approach to sustainable community development.

Key info I: 1) The vast majority of new jobs are created by small and medium sized firms, not large employers. 2) New markets, jobs, capital, technology, and economic expansion are generated when cities start to produce goods and services that were previously provided by distant exporters. 3) Start‐up, innovative, entrepreneurial enterprises are on the increase in the 21st Century, while many of the large manufacturers that dominated the economies of the 19th and 20th Centuries are declining. 4) Local long‐term wealth creation and economic security are dependent on local ownership of productive capacity; simply receiving wages for employment while the profits are exported to distant corporate centers robs the local economy of the capital it needs to succeed. 5) An over‐reliance on export‐led development will undermine the long‐term economic health of a community. Equal attention must be paid to local needs and markets. Similarly, communities that develop local exchange systems and reduce reliance on the national currency can enhance long‐term local wealth creation. 6) Companies that are not locally owned are much less sensitive to community needs and environmental conditions, and can make communities vulnerable to sudden downturns when one large externally‐owned or managed employer cuts back or goes out of business.

Key info II: Coal River Mountain Watch will work with the Center for Economic Options, the Natural Capital Investment Fund, and the West Virginia Small Business Development Center.

Key info III: N/A

183

Moving Appalachia Forward: Appalachian Regional Commission Strategic Plan 2005–2010

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: October 2004

File name: ARC_Moving_Appalachia_Forward

Web source: http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2296

Focus area: General economic development

Key word(s): economic development, jobs, Appalachia, infrastructure

Brief description: “This strategic plan is a guide for ARC to take targeted and measurable action toward its vision of bringing Appalachia into full economic parity with the nation. It outlines goals and objectives that provide clear guidance for priorities and a basis for annual evaluation. It calls for alignment of resources to maximize results and for performance measurement that ensures the ARC partnership is effective and accountable. It creates a framework for building on past accomplishments to help move Appalachia forward.” Key info I: General Goals 1: Increase job opportunities and per capita income in Appalachia to reach parity with the nation. 2: Strengthen the capacity of the people of Appalachia to compete in the global economy. 3: Develop and improve Appalachia’s infrastructure to make the Region economically competitive. 4: Build the Appalachian Development Highway System to reduce Appalachia’s isolation.

Key info II: To meet its mission, ARC will rely on the following guiding principles: • Promote homegrown solutions. • Create sustainable economic development. • Act as a strategic partner. • Serve as a catalyst for change. • Seed innovation. • Support inclusive local decision making. • Become a clearinghouse for ideas. • Capitalize on existing assets. • Encourage life‐long learning.

Key info III: N/A

184

Sources of Regional Growth in Non‐Metro Appalachia: Vol. 1. Project Background and Prior Research on Economic Growth Paths

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: Revised 2007

File name: ARC_sourcesofgrowth_vol1_full

Web source: http://www.edrg.info/library/economic‐development/sources‐of‐regional‐growth‐in‐non‐metro‐ appalachia.html

Focus area: General economic development, poverty alleviation

Key word(s): economic development, jobs, Appalachia, poverty alleviation, rural economic development

Brief description: “The Sources of Growth project is part of a series of research efforts funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission to improve our understanding of factors affecting economic growth in rural and distressed areas. As stated in the Volume 1 Introduction, “the starting premise of this project is that there can multiple paths that an area can pursue in successfully enhancing job and income creation. They may build on natural resources, cultural resources, human resources, local amenities, institutional facilities or location advantages. The resulting direction of economic growth may involve manufacturing or supply chain development, resource extraction or tourism development, educational development or trade center development.” This research is intended to provide a basis of information that can ultimately be useful for enhancing the effectiveness of policies and tools aimed at improving the region’s economic development.

Volume I provides: study objectives, characteristics of non‐metro Appalachian counties, classification of economic development growth paths, and a synopsis of white paper findings on theory relating to economic development growth paths.”

Key info I: “The Sources of Growth project involved four research undertakings: (1) thematic “white papers” summarizing the distinguishing features of various economic development paths and the theories underlying them, (2) case studies of economic development paths occurring in various non‐metro areas in Appalachia, (3) statistical studies of economic growth factors and the role of spatial relationships in Appalachia’s non‐metro counties, (4) enhancement of tools for assessing local economic growth opportunities.

The series of white papers reviewed existing literature to inform our understanding of the various bases for economic growth, including (a) trade centers, (b) industry concentration clusters, (c) supply chain and dispersal economies, (d) resource‐dependent growth, and (e) asset‐based growth. These are all covered in this report.”

Key info II: (this section copied in whole from pages 34‐35, due to their significance in detailing asset‐based development)

“(E) Implications for Asset‐Based Economic Development. From the discussion above, two important implications stand out for asset‐based development: sustainability and local economy as the main beneficiary.

Sustainability refers to sustaining the asset‐based economic development without over‐extracting the local resources, resulting in environmental deterioration. Success in asset‐based economic development depends on long‐term investment and a building‐block process rather than a quick‐fix approach. An important part of asset‐ based development is to build a foundation, such as infrastructure, for asset‐based development and to enhance the local assets constantly instead of depleting them (ARC 2004).

185

More importantly, how much of the benefit of the economic development can be retained and circulated in the community. Two of the most useful indexes are the local income multiplier and the local employment multiplier. As our earlier analysis exemplifies that coal mine workers suffered from low income when the mining business prospered. More questions should be asked for the sake of the real benefit of the local people. What is the quality of the created jobs? Are the jobs created at the expense of existing local jobs? How much lead time is there before the development can take off from the date of investment? To what extent do the extra jobs trigger multiplier benefits elsewhere in the ARC region? Local planners must fully explore these questions before undertaking the asset‐based development initiatives.

On the execution level, asset‐based development has two levels of implications for local policy, the industrial development level and the community revitalization level (Polenske 2001). On the industrial development side, policies should promote innovation and the evolution of an industrial network based on an evaluation of local assets. Perroux (1988) illustrated this point clearly by defining a growth pole as a set of economic activities that has the capacity to induce the growth of another set of economic activities in an innovative way. On the community‐ side, policies should focus more on building, appreciating, and mobilizing individual and community talents, skills, and assets rather than focusing on problems and needs. Also, the development process is supposed to be led by the community rather than driven by external agencies.

Asset‐based development strategy has the potential to be central to the Appalachian regional development as the area has rich natural, cultural, and human assets “sleeping” in the mountains. Joint government‐community initiatives in the region have the potential in increase opportunities for development to take off through various mechanisms. They may include education‐based, entrepreneurship‐based, resource‐based, culture‐based, or natural‐amenity‐based processes.

A remaining issue for asset based development is access to customer markets. Such access issues hold whether the customers themselves travel to the region to obtain the products (e.g., tourism) or the products are delivered directly to the customers (e.g., wood products). Exhibit 2‐11 illustrates the key issue of topography and transportation links, which can affect the markets available for access to/from a region’s fixed assets.

Case Studies. Examples of natural and cultural asset‐based economic development are shown in the Volume 2 case studies of Southeastern TN and Southwestern NC, and also discussed in the case study of Chautauqua County (NY).”

Key info III: N/A

186

Sources of Regional Growth in Non‐Metro Appalachia: Vol. 2. Case Studies of Local Economic Development Growth Processes

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: Revised 2007

File name: ARC_sourcesofgrowth_vol2_full

Web source: http://www.edrg.info/library/economic‐development/sources‐of‐regional‐growth‐in‐non‐metro‐ appalachia.html

Focus area: General economic development, poverty alleviation

Key word(s): economic development, jobs, Appalachia, poverty alleviation, rural economic development

Volume II presents findings related to growth paths as observed for selected case studies covering manufacturing industry specialization clusters, supply chain‐based development, tourism‐based development, advanced technology development, and diversification from resource‐based economies.”

Key info I: “This volume presents six case studies of local economic development in Appalachia. The study areas range from single counties to multi‐county regions. The case studies document the local context and history of economic development in these areas, in order to illuminate the processes of economic growth and change that have been and are occurring there. All of the case studies focus on non‐metro parts of Appalachia. They were selected to a range of locations and a range of economic growth paths, while also testing the usefulness of economic statistics and spatial linkages in illuminating the economic development situations actually occurring across the region. The focus of these case studies covers all of the growth paths discussed in Volume 1, including trade centers, manufacturing and technology clusters (agglomerations), learning‐based development, amenity‐based development and supply chains. In addition, each case study addresses different examples of spatial linkages with neighboring communities and the role of metro and micropolitan areas.”

Key info II: “Each case study is structured to present the following: 1) Introduction – explanation of why the case study was selected and the types of growth paths that it illustrates 2) Profile – brief description of the area’s economy and its economic history: Composition of economy; Special features or assets; Labor markets: commuting, migration and education; Educational institutions: public and private schools; colleges, vocational training; Entrepreneurship: self‐employed, startups, special services. 3) Evolution of Progress –how regional economy has been changing, related policy interventions and the effectiveness of strategies and actual outcomes: History of interventions, basis for economy, changes over time, business recruitments and closures, supplier development; Plans and strategies: types of plans and/or visions that

187 were pursued; Degree to which any of the place‐specific assets have been exploited; Resources: previous federal grants, subsidies, local foundations, etc. 4) Catalysts of Change – the organizational structures and technical changes that support collaboration: Social capital: civic infrastructure, associations, non‐profits, local leadership, education, external linkages; Physical infrastructure: transportation, broadband and utility enhancement; Politics: strength and interest of state and federal representatives, political access, funding and tax policy; External factors: globalization, logistics technology advances; 5) Lessons Learned –findings that can be useful for application elsewhere: Flexibility in response to unforeseen changes; Role of key players and institutions in leading change. 6) Interviewees – credits to business and economic development representatives who were interviewed (Note: all findings are interpretations of the report authors and not the responsibility of interviewees.)”

Key info III: N/A

188

Sources of Regional Growth in Non‐Metro Appalachia: Vol. 3 Statistical Studies of Spatial Economic Relationships

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: Revised 2007

File name: ARC_sourcesofgrowth_vol3_full

Web source: http://www.edrg.info/library/economic‐development/sources‐of‐regional‐growth‐in‐non‐metro‐ appalachia.html

Focus area: General economic development, poverty alleviation

Key word(s): economic development, jobs, Appalachia, poverty alleviation, rural economic development

Volume III presents findings from a series of econometric modeling and GIS‐based analyses, focusing on roles of spatial adjacency, market access and transportation in determining economic growth and development of trade centers.”

Key info I: “Volume III presents results of four empirical research studies conducted as part of the Sources of Growth project. These studies build directly on the discussion of theory and prior research which are covered in Volume 1, and corroborate some of the case study findings of Volume 2. The prior documents identified a consistent set of location and access factors that affect the economic viability and opportunity of various growth paths. They are summarized in Exhibit 1‐1. Accordingly, all four of the empirical research studies presented here examine an aspect of the relationship between a county’s spatial location or access characteristics and its pattern of economic growth and development. All four also utilize some form of econometric modeling and/or geographic information system to examine these relationships.”

Key info II: “Based on their empirical analysis, S&S, identify several relationships and patterns that affect the economic development status in Appalachian counties:

 Within select types of economic‐bases and specific classes of economic distress a strong relationship exists between the key parameters, such as population, employment, average wages, and per capita income of distressed and transitional counties. The S&S comparison of economic‐bases between the distressed and near‐distressed counties against the more prosperous economies in Appalachia reveals significant disparities in their key parameters.  Regional employment multipliers show a direct (positive) relationship between the level of economic distress and the strength of the economic‐base. In 1996, the average regional multiplier for distressed and near‐distressed counties was 1.79, which is 11 percent lower than the average regional multiplier of 1.99 for

189

all Appalachian counties. Distressed counties with higher values of regional multipliers tend to perform better and have higher economic growth potential than those with lower multiplier values.  The industrial mix of the economic‐bases of distressed and near‐distressed counties is dominated by resource‐oriented, technologically disadvantaged industries, many of which pay relatively low wages, have a low potential for growth of employment, and have little positive effect on local demand. The traditional components of Appalachia’s industrial‐mix are resource‐oriented/extraction industries, such as coal‐mining and agricultural production, where steady declines caused economic distress in affected counties. More dynamic and technologically advanced industries are virtually non‐existent in the distressed areas of Appalachia.  Spatial effects play an important role in shaping the economic‐bases of all economies. The magnitude, direction, and scope of spatial effects for distressed and near‐distressed counties differ from those of other counties in Appalachia. Distressed and near‐distressed counties have very weak local and global economic linkages that lead to their limited economic opportunities and slow growth rates.  The gap between distressed and prosperous counties in Appalachia is widening. On average, socio‐economic parameters, such as population, employment, average wages, and per capita income of distressed and near‐ distressed counties, are growing at a substantially slower rate than they are in the rest of Appalachia. S&S identify four key characteristics as defining patterns of persistent self‐reinforcing economic distress: (1) small size of rural economies, (2) non‐diversified economicbases, (3) stagnant industrial mixes, and (4) weak spatial linkages.”

Key info III: N/A

190

Sources of Regional Growth in Non‐Metro Appalachia: Vol. 4 Economic Development Assessment Tools and Study Conclusions for Identifying Sources of Growth

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: Revised 2007

File name: ARC_sourcesofgrowth_vol4_full

Web source: http://www.edrg.info/library/economic‐development/sources‐of‐regional‐growth‐in‐non‐metro‐ appalachia.html

Focus area: General economic development, poverty alleviation

Key word(s): economic development, jobs, Appalachia, poverty alleviation, rural economic development

“Volume IV provides a description of new and updated tools available to ARC and its Local Development Districts to assess economic development opportunities and potential directions for economic growth.”

Key info I: Exhibit 1‐2. Business Site Location Factors  Suitability of Business Parks, Land and Buildings  Scale and Skills of the Labor Market ‐‐Workforce  Scale and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Consumer Base  Availability and Quality of Infrastructure ‐‐ roads, power, water/sewer, broadband  telecom, intermodal transportation terminals and connections  Access to Markets, as well as to airports, marine ports and intermodal rail terminals  Business Support services & business climate – job training, regulations, business  organizations  Quality of life ‐‐ including climate, arts and culture, recreation, and school quality  Cost of doing business – including labor, utilities, infrastructure and taxes

Key info II: Use of LEAP. The Local Economic Assessment Package (LEAP) is being used by the Appalachian Regional Commission as a means of providing its Local Development Districts (LDDs) and the Appalachian state‐level economic development agencies with both relevant information and diagnostic tools for improving economic development. Adding measures of the current growth path status of local areas, as well as ratings of potential opportunities for pursuing various growth paths will impart new capabilities to the LEAP analysis. Instead of just offering diagnostics and targets in terms of industries, it will also be capable of offering diagnostics and targets in terms of growth paths. By having both capabilities, ARC, the LDDs and the state agencies can be empowered to make more informed and better targeted economic development strategies for local development.

191

13. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL (SMALL- AND LARGE-SCALE)

Evaluation of the Opportunities to Commercialize Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Broiler Litter in the Mid‐ Atlantic Region

Source(s) of publication/information: Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research

Publication date: August 2008

File name: MARSHALL_Bioplex‐Cluster‐Analysis

Web source: www.marshall.edu/cber/research/Bioplex‐Cluster‐Analysis.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Biofuels

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, biofuels, broilers, market, litter

Brief description: This project focuses on broiler production located between West Virginia and the Atlantic Ocean. Broiler growers are concentrated on the Delmarva Peninsula with other significant clusters in West Virginia and Virginia. This report seeks to present conditions under which an anaerobic digester of the size specified above could be economical. How is “economical” defined? For this analysis it is defined two ways. Results are given for: 1) conditions that achieve a pre‐tax internal rate of return of 15 percent and signify the potential for a private investor to profit; and, 2) conditions required to break even and signify the need for subsidy or additional revenue via a tipping fee. The report provides litter stock estimates, analyzes production costs, discusses digestion processes and surveys existing litter processing projects.

Key information I: Thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) is one option for disposing of the harmful and unpleasant qualities of broiler litter while retaining valuable nutrients. Broiler litter in its raw, non‐heat treated state is quite odorous and contains harmful pathogens. TAD accomplishes several objectives for beneficial litter disposal: pathogen destruction, odor reduction and retention of some nutrients.1

Key information II: Over 80 million broilers were sold from WV in 2002, 107,000 tons of litter produced, 5,300 of which were removed for conversion. The main source counties are Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral and Pendleton counties, all in the northern part of the state. Nearly 77,000 tons of fertilizer was also consumed in 2006 in West Virginia. Overall, few growers pay to dispose of their litter in the region although it appears that a market is less established in West Virginia and Virginia, where more growers apply litter to their own land that is not for crop production.

Other (or key information III): The Frye Farm gasification plant in Hardy County, West Virginia removes 3,000 to 3,500 tons per year at 700 to 800 pounds per hour but could get up to 5,300 tons when it reaches capacity of 1,200 pounds per hour. Compared to propane heaters this system has been able to reduce moisture in farm poultry houses, thus reducing the concentration of ammonia in the air and improving bird health

192

Woody Biomass Resources, Utilization, and Opportunities in West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia Univeristy, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources

Publication date: post‐2006

File name: Wang_Woody_Biomass_WV

Web source: www.matricresearch.com/wvbf/040407/9‐Wang.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Biomass

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, biomass, stocks, potential energy

Brief description: This is a presentation created and presented by Professor Wang at West Virginia University. It is a comprehensive survey of woody biomass resources in West Virginia, the supply and demand and utilization of those wood resources, and of existing and potential biomass projects within the state.

Key information I: According to the presentation, a total of 368 million dry tons of woody biomass are available each year, or approximately 2.5 times current in‐state consumption of 142 million dry tons, leaving 190 million dry tons free and unutilized. 78% of the state is forested, for a total of 12 million acres, 94% of which is hardwood (maple, oak, yellow‐poplar, etc).

Key information II: Logging Residue, from a 1995, statewide survey: 101 harvested sites sampled, 504 ft3/acre or 8.4 tons/acre, Pulp wood size residues – 86%, Sawlog size residues – 14%. The tree mix was red oak, mixed hardwood, yellow poplar, and soft‐hardwood. From a 2002 survey of southern WV, 70 sites sampled, with an average tree diameter 7.3 inches and length 20.4 ft, 623.7 ft3/acre or 10.4 tons/acre residues, which is 24% higher than in 1995. The most prevalent species was oak followed by miscellaneous hardwoods, yellow‐poplar, and maple species.

Other (or key information III): 2006 WV Mill Residues: 43,388 tons per week, for a total of 2 million green tons per year, consisting of sawdust – 600,350 tons, chips – 693,700 tons, and bark – 630,650 tons.

193

West Virginia Potential Biofuel Production

Source(s) of publication/information: US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program

Publication date: Accessed July 2009

File name: EERE_WV_Biomass_Potential

Web source: www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/sabre/sabre.php

Renewables/areas covered: Biofuels

Focus area II: Existing/Proposed development

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, biomass, stocks, potential energy, transportation, electricity

Brief description: This is an online interactive database of biofuel resources and potential production that can be used to gather data from any state.

Key information I: For West Virginia, EERE estimates that currently, West Virginia consumes 780 million gallons of gasoline a year, 297 million gallons of diesel. The data also show that 2.4 million tons of cellulosic biomass are produced, along with 100,000 tons of total crop biomass. Further, there is one biodiesel plant in the state producing 3 million gallons per year.

Key information II: Potential production of ethanol = 151 million gallons, replacing 13% of total petroleum use and 0.3% of total diesel use. Potential electricity generation amounts to 663 gigawatt‐hours.

Other (or key information III): N/A

194

Availability of Biomass Feedstocks in the Appalachian Region

Source(s) of publication/information: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Publication date: September 2007

File name: Oak_Ridge_Appalachian_Biomass_Stocks

Web source: www.energywv.org/community/Perlack.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Biomass

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, biomass, stocks, potential energy, transportation, electricity

Brief description: This is a PowerPoint presentation conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on the biomass feedstock availability in the Appalachian region. It updates results and information related to the location of resources on the county scale, on biorefinery siting and logistics, environmental sustainability and feedstock availability. The purpose of the study was to develop a GIS‐based feedstock atlas and quantify sustainable biomass resources in terms of tonnages and costs for meeting various production goals.

Key information I: This report estimates a resource potential of greater than 1.3 billion dry tons.

Key information II: For Environmental sustainability • Maintain water quality/quantity – Dissolved oxygen (Nutrients, sources of BOD) – Sediment loadings – Pesticide loadings – Competing demands • Maintain soil fertility and habitat for native terrestrial biota – Estimate changes in soil loss and degradation – Define suitability of land for feedstocks vs. food – Estimate impacts of land conversion for biomass feedstocks • Avoid increases in net emissions – Reduce CO2 emissions – Enhance carbon sequestration

Other (or key information III): Primary resource in West Virginia consists of logging and other removal residue (1 million dry tons/year), fuel treatment thinnings on forestlands (1.6 million dry tons/year), unused primary mill residues (110,000 dry tons/year), crop residue (4,000 dry tons/year), and perennial energy crops (845,000 dry tons/year).

195

The Prospects for Landfill Gas Projects in West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Downstream Strategies, The Mountain Institute

Publication date: May 2006

File name: Prospects_for_landfill_gas‐to‐energy_WV_May2006

Web source: www.mountain.org/docs/LandfillMethaneReport‐FINAL‐May20061.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Biofuels

Focus area II: Existing/Proposed development

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, landfill gas, methane, electricity, renewable energy

Brief description: This report explores the prospects in West Virginia to economically turn landfill gas (LFG)—an energy‐rich resource now released directly into the atmosphere or flared—into an asset, thereby reducing harmful emissions and providing energy to support local businesses and communities.

Key information I: West Virginia landfills face unique challenges for converting LFG into energy. These challenges can be overcome and projects can be built, given the right mix of financial incentives, local champions, and sound landfill management. Challenges in West Virginia include: • Few open landfills. Only eighteen landfills currently accept waste in West Virginia. Typically, open landfills are the most economical for LFG‐to‐energy projects because gas generation declines after closure. • Small size of landfills. West Virginia landfills are generally small, and therefore LFG generation rates are generally low, making them less attractive energy sources because of the fixed capital costs of installing LFG‐ to‐energy projects. In addition, West Virginia’s small landfills are nearly all exempt from federal regulations that require the capture of LFG. If regulations were to apply, LFG‐to‐energy project costs would only be those above and beyond mandated costs for wells, vents, and flares. • Low price of electricity. Electricity in West Virginia is the third cheapest of all 50 states (Energy Information Administration, 2006). LFG‐to‐electricity projects will only stand on their own if the electricity they produce is as cheap as, or cheaper than, what can be bought from utilities. • Need for incentives. Even though LFG wells and vents must be installed when landfill cells close and some landfills are required to collect and flare their LFG, it will be up to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WVPSC) whether tipping fees and escrow funds could be used to build wells and collection systems that are most compatible with LFG‐to‐energy projects. It is also not clear whether tipping fees and escrow funds could be used for LFG treatment and conversion systems. Incentives will likely be needed for many West Virginia landfills to implement LFG‐to‐energy projects. • Poor communication of financial incentives. Many federal and market incentives could be used to spur the development of LFG‐to‐energy projects; however, these incentives are not widely understood by landfill operators or solid waste authorities. • Lack of state and local incentives. While some states and localities provide incentives for LFG‐to‐energy projects, few incentives were found in West Virginia that might encourage the construction of LFG‐to‐energy projects (See Sections 6.10 through 6.13).

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

196

Biomass and Bioenergy Research Development at West Virginia University

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia University, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources

Publication date: February 2007

File name: WVU_BioEnergy_report

Web source: www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/West_Virginia

Renewables/areas covered: Biomass

Focus area II: Research

Folder name: Biofuels

Key word(s): West Virginia, research, biofuels, biomass, potential energy

Brief description: This is a condensed summary of the biomass resource, use, and potential for energy production in West Virginia, based on findings from West Virginia University researchers.

Key information I: West Virginia, located in the central Appalachian region, has abundant biomass resources. The state of West Virginia is the third most heavily forested state in the US and has 12 million acres of forest land (USDA 2000, Griffith and Widmann 2003). West Virginia also has 3.6 million acres of farmland (USDA/NASS 2006). The state produces 2.41 million dry tons of wood residues per year including 1.34 million dry tons of logging residue, 941,868 dry tons of mill residues, 118,590 dry tons of urban tree residues and 12,716 dry tons of pallet residues (Wang et al. 2006). The state’s annual agriculture residue production is 903,826 dry tons including 101,000 dry tons of grass seed residue, 10,618 dry tons of corn stover, 131,440 dry tons of corn silage, 1,585 dry tons of soybean residue, 3,731 dry tons of all wheat straw, 3,838 dry tons of switchgrass, 2,593 dry tons of short rotation woody crop, 662,780 dry tons of animal manure, and 26,241 dry tons of solid wood material from the construction and demolition waste. The total annual biomass production potential is 3.32 million dry tons in West Virginia, which could produce 47.06 trillion BTUs. The forestry sector produces 72.7% of the total residue biomass in the state while the agriculture sector provides the rest of 27.3%.

Key information II: Of all the chicken litter producers in West Virginia, 33% used all of their litter, 52% used some and 15% used none of it. For the on‐farm litter utilization, the greatest percentage of litter was used as fertilizer (91%) and only 8% was used for feed supplement. For the litter used for fertilizer, an average of 82% was reported for use on grassland and 16% was used on row crops. Among the litter producers, 60% of them sold 76‐100% of their litter as fertilizer. Some research has been conducted for converting hog manure to biofuel (Eddy 2006). However, effective utilization of animal manure needs to be emphasized in the state.

Other (or key information III): West Virginia University (WVU) has developed the “Strategic Initiative for Energy and Environment 2006‐2010” with the overall goals to establish an enabling structure for WVU to effectively address energy and environmental problems of state, national, and global importance, and for WVU to become recognized nationally as one of the leading academic institutions for innovative energy and environmental research, education, and training (WVU 2006). Additionally, the University wishes to broaden its role as a resource to the Nation and the State of West Virginia on energy and environmental issues. The initiative will serve as a foundation and guideline for addressing state, national, and international energy needs and priorities with a focus on fossil fuels. Recognizing that the environment for energy and related environmental issues is dynamic, this plan is intended to be flexible so that the University can respond to changing priorities and emerging opportunities.

197

Energy Efficiency in Appalachia: How Much More is Available, At What Cost, and By When?

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: March 2009

File name: ARC_Energy_Efficiency_in_Appalachia

Web source: www.arc.gov/images/reports/2009/energy/Energy_Efficiency_in_Appalachia.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): energy consumption, energy prices, carbon, lifecycle energy savings, energy efficiency, incentives, building codes

Brief description: The 2006 ARC report Energizing Appalachia: A Regional Blueprint for Economic and Energy Development identified three strategic objectives that support the goal of developing the Appalachian Region's energy potential to increase the supply of locally‐produced, clean, affordable energy, and to create and regain jobs,. Energy efficiency is one of the objectives which support this goal. To more fully articulate this strategic objective, ARC commissioned an assessment of “the potential long‐term energy efficiency gains for the Appalachian Region over current baseline projections from introducing a range of advanced efficiency standards for each energy end‐use sector, and to detail the economic and environmental impacts from the technologies and investment required to attain these objectives.” Energy Efficiency in Appalachia presents the results of this assessment. It addresses several essential questions: How big are the energy‐efficiency resources in Appalachia? How quickly can these energy‐efficiency resources be realized? What policies and programs can most effectively translate these resources into energy savings? What impact will such policies and programs have on jobs and wages in Appalachia?

Key information I: Compared with the rest of the nation, Appalachia spends slightly more of its energy on residential and commercial uses, reflecting both its high reliance on electricity for heating and cooling, and its relatively inefficient building stock. The Region’s energy consumption is expected to grow to 10.1 quads by 2030, a growth of 28 percent over 2006 levels, which is considerably higher than the 19 percent growth forecast for the United States. As is the case nationwide, the EIA projects that coal will increase its share of energy use in the Region as part of the major expansion of coal use that is anticipated in the 2015‐2030 timeframe, if restrictions on CO2 emissions are not legislated. Prior research suggests that residential and commercial consumers in this Region are fairly insensitive to short‐term to increases in the price of electricity. One study concluded that residential and commercial users in Appalachia would need to experience a doubling of electricity prices in order to produce a 15 to 17 percent reduction in electricity consumption. This lack of responsiveness to electricity price changes, which is similar to behavior in other regions of the country and for other fuels, suggests that strong policy interventions will be needed to promote energy‐efficient purchases and practices. Fortunately, smart policies can transform markets for energy products and services, and it is this perspective that is explored in this report.

Key information II: The engineering‐economic modeling conducted in this study indicates that an ambitious package of energy‐efficiency policies implemented throughout Appalachia in 2010 could result in significant energy savings. According to the latest EIA “business‐as‐usual” forecast, Appalachia will require 9.2 quads of energy in 2020 and 10.1 quads in 2030. In contrast, a bold energy efficiency initiative could cut that consumption by 11 percent to 8.2 quads in 2020 and by 24 percent to 7.7 quads in 2030. Such a bold and aggressive initiative could shrink the energy budget required by the Region in 2030 to less than the Region consumed in 2006 – more than offsetting the forecast growth in energy use (Figure ES.1). Dividing the cost‐effective energy‐efficiency resources

198 into fuel types and sectors highlights the prominence of the potential for reduced electricity consumption (Figure ES.2). Taking into account the energy lost in the generation and transmission of electricity as well as losses from “end‐use” equipment such as motors, lighting, and air conditioning, 68 percent of the energy efficiency potential in Appalachia resides in the electricity system. The next largest wedge of energy savings potential comes from motor gasoline consumption by vehicles (17 percent), followed by natural gas savings potential in the commercial, residential, and industrial sectors (12 percent).

Other (or key information III): Economic and Job Impacts In Appalachia, the electric utility and the natural gas sectors directly and indirectly employ about 5.3 and 3.7 jobs, respectively, for every $1 million of spending. But, sectors vital to energy‐efficiency improvements, like construction and manufacturing, utilize 13.3 and 8.3 jobs per $1 million of spending. Once job gains and losses are netted out in each year, the analysis suggests that, by diverting expenditures away from non‐labor intensive energy sectors, the cost‐effective energy policies can positively impact the larger Appalachia economy – even in the early years, but especially in the later years of the analysis as the energy savings continue to mount. An early program stimulus that drives a higher level of efficiency investments can create more than 15,000 net new jobs each year in the first five years of the study, rising to an estimated average of 60,000 net new jobs over the last decade of the analysis. The annual energy bill savings begins with a modest first year benefit of almost $800 million. As the policy portfolio spurs further investment in energy efficiency, the annual consumer energy bill savings rise to more than $27 billion by 2030. These savings directly benefit the consumers who make these investments, but they also help to moderate energy prices for all consumers because they reduce overall demand growth. These investments also increase both wages and Gross Regional Product (GRP) throughout Appalachia.

199

West Virginia Weatherization Assistance Program Statewide Network

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia Governors Office of Economic Opportunity, Weatherization Assistance Program

Publication date: Unknown

File name: Local_Weatherization_Orgs

Web source: www.wvf.state.wv.us/oeo/WVWAPProviders.htm

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Weatherization

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): West Virginia, weatherization, local contacts, community action partnerships

Brief description: This is a document listing the organizational names, contacts and contact information for local weatherization program administrative offices in West Virginia. These are otherwise known as Community Action Partnerships and are distributed throughout the state.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

200

Core Competencies for the Weatherization Assistance Program

Source(s) of publication/information: The Weatherization Trainers Consortium

Publication date: March 2007

File name: WAP core competencies document

Web source: www.waptac.org/si.asp?id=1259

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Weatherization

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): West Virginia, weatherization, training guidelines, program guidelines

Brief description: The Weatherization Trainers Consortium developed this document for the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Weatherization Assistance Program for Low‐Income Persons. The Weatherization Trainers Consortium represents weatherization training centers, independent trainers, state program managers, and state monitors from across the country.

Key information I: The Weatherization Trainers Consortium was formalized and the need identified for a set of core competencies for the various staff positions that implement the Weatherization Program. The Consortium believes this working document can: • Increase awareness of the specialized skills and knowledge that are required to run an effective weatherization program; • Help state and local weatherization agencies hire staff with a strong potential to perform well and prosper in the program; • Serve as a foundation in establishing standardized curricula to ensure the consistent delivery of high‐quality weatherization services nationwide; and • Put upward pressure on salaries to reduce staff turnover.

Key information II: Technical weatherization training for auditors, technicians, and monitors is available from many training centers and independent trainers across the country. Only a few states have developed administrative training for weatherization program managers at the local level. In‐depth administrative training for state weatherization staff is even harder to find outside National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP) conference “newcomer” sessions.

Other (or key information III): N/A

201

Assessing the Economic Impact of Dominion Virginia Power’s Coal‐Fired Power Plant in Wise County, Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Abt Associates, Wise Energy for Virginia

Publication date: January 2009

File name: VA_Efficiency_Econ_Report

Web source: www.abtassociates.com/reports/Economic_Analysis_of_Wise_County_Coal_Plant_1‐22‐09.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Coal

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): Virginia, Wise County, economic development, economic impact, coal‐fired power

Brief description: This study was commissioned to assess the economic impact of a 585 megawatt coal‐fired power plant being proposed for Wise County, VA, of the alternative approach of relying on energy efficiency to offset the electricity needs that would otherwise be met by the Plant (the Energy Efficiency Alternative). This Executive Summary reviews the principal findings from these analyses and key elements of the analytic approach. Specifically, the report examined: 1) The economic impact of the Plant on the Company’s Virginia customers and the broader Virginia economy. These impacts include Gross State Product (GSP) and employment effects in Virginia from (1) DVP’s outlays for construction and operation of the Plant and (2) changes in electricity rates to business and residential customers due to the Plant. 2) The economic impact on Virginia of meeting the electricity needs that would otherwise be served by the Plant via investments in energy efficiency. These impacts again include GSP and employment effects from (a) installing and maintaining the energy efficiency investments and (b) the changes in electricity rates to business and residential customers. Our analyses of the Energy Efficiency Alternative are based on low and medium cost cases, which were developed from an analysis of cost‐effective energy efficiency opportunities in Virginia undertaken by the American Council for an Energy‐Efficient Economy.

Key information I: Overall, our analyses find that the Energy Efficiency Alternative would be less costly than the Plant for ratepayers, and substantially more beneficial to the Virginia economy in terms of Gross State Product (GSP) and job effects. The beneficial effects of energy efficiency are even more pronounced when a likely federal carbon emissions regulatory program is taken into account. For the average Virginia household, which consumes about 1,200 kWh of electricity per month, the rate effects for the mid‐permit cost case are equivalent to an additional cost of $40 ‐ $47 per year for the Plant, versus a savings of $30 ‐ $50 per year for the mid‐permit cost and mid‐efficiency case under the Energy Efficiency Alternative (see Figure ES‐3). Our analyses indicate that the Plant will increase electricity rates for DVP’s Virginia customers in all of the impact years, assuming the requirements of a carbon emissions regulation. By contrast, under the Energy Efficiency Alternative, the total burden to Virginia ratepayers declines.

Key information II: Under the mid‐permit cost carbon emissions regulation case, the increase in Virginia GSP for the Energy Efficiency Alternative ranges from $415 to $435 million in 2012, and increases to a range of $655 to $680 million by 2025. The comparable values for the Plant are approximately negative $50 million in 2012 to a positive $10 million in 2012. Under the low‐permit cost carbon emissions regulation case, the increase in Virginia GSP for the Energy Efficiency Alternative ranges from $380 to $400 million in 2012, and increases to a range of $355 to $375 million by 2025. Comparable values for the Plant are essentially zero in 2012 to an increase of $150 million in 2025.

Other (or key information III): From the standpoint of economic contribution to Virginia, we find that the Energy Efficiency Alternative offers a better approach than the Plant for meeting Virginia’s electricity needs. The Energy

202

Efficiency Alternative is substantially less costly for ratepayers, and substantially more beneficial to the economy in its effects on gross state product and employment. These superior benefits are even more pronounced when a carbon emissions regulation is taken into account. We emphasize that our analysis does not evaluate or presume to know which specific energy efficiency policies/programs or combinations thereof are the best options for Virginia, nor does this analysis intend to suggest that the Commonwealth consider only energy efficiency for meeting future energy needs. In addition, we recognize that material institutional barriers exist to pursuing the Energy Efficiency Alternative. For instance, under typical regulatory structures, utilities often do not have an economic incentive to offer energy efficiency or other demand‐side programs because reduced electricity sales reduce utility revenues and earnings (Kushler et al. 2006).2 However, a number of states and power companies have successfully pursued programs to include energy efficiency as a component of total energy resource planning and thereby reduce the need for new electric generating capacity. In summary, this analysis demonstrates that energy efficiency can contribute a substantial economic gain compared with traditional supply‐side approaches for meeting growing electricity demand and should be considered a priority energy resource as part of any integrated resource planning process.

203

Energizing Virginia: Efficiency First

Source(s) of publication/information: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Synapse Energy Economics

Publication date: September 2008

File name: VaACEEE

Web source: www.aceee.org/pubs/e085.htm

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): Virginia, energy, coal, efficiency, costs and benefits, potential

Brief description: The US EPA funded study "Energizing Virginia: Efficiency First" has estimated that Virginia can meet cut 8% of its electricity needs by 2015 with energy efficiency programs. The report analyzed the energy savings potential across all sectors of Virginia's economy and formulated and analyzed a suite of policy recommendations aimed at the state and local governments that would aid in achieving the energy savings and economic and environmental benefits of achieving the determined benchmark potential.

Key information I: ACEEE suggests that policymakers consider the following suite of eleven policy recommendations: 1. Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) 2. Expanded Demand Response Initiatives 3. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Supporting Policies 4. Manufacturing Initiative 5. State Facilities Initiative 6. Local Government Facilities Initiative 7. Building Energy Codes 8. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards 9. Research, Development & Deployment (RD&D) Initiative 10. Consumer Education and Outreach 11. Low‐Income Efficiency Programs

Key information II: The energy savings from these efficiency policies can cut the electricity bills of customers by a net $500 million in 2015. Net annual savings grow nearly five‐fold to $2.2 billion in 2025. While these savings will require some public and customer investment, by 2025 net cumulative savings on electricity bills will reach $15 billion. To put this into context, an average household will save a net $5 on its monthly electricity bill by 2015 and $20 per month by 2025. These savings are the result of two effects. First, participants in energy efficiency programs will install energy efficiency measures, such as more efficient appliances or heating equipment, therefore lowering their electricity consumption and electric bills. In addition, because of the current volatility in energy prices, efficiency strategies have the added benefit of improving the balance of demand and supply in energy markets, thereby stabilizing regional electricity prices for the future. Investments in efficiency have the additional benefit of creating new, high‐quality “green‐collar” jobs in the Commonwealth and increasing both wages and Gross State Product (GSP). Our analysis shows that energy efficiency investments can create nearly 10,000 new jobs in Virginia by 2025 (see Table ES‐1), including well‐paying trade and professional jobs needed to design and install energy efficiency measures. These new jobs, including both direct and indirect employment

204 effects, would be equivalent to almost 100 new manufacturing plants relocating to Virginia, but without the public costs for infrastructure or the environmental impacts of new facilities.

Other (or key information III): This workforce shortage impacts energy efficiency particularly, since as noted in the economic analysis, energy efficiency tends to be more labor intensive than are supply resources, requiring a trained workforce to identify and implement the efficiency resources whether they are industrial plant process optimization or residential HVAC tune‐ups. The workforce issue represents a key infrastructure challenge that is becoming more widely recognized (NAPEE 2007), so the Commonwealth must address the need to build an adequate workforce to meet the demands of the market. This issue is moving to the forefront in many states seeking to expand energy efficiency, and requires a focused response by state leaders, particularly with universities and community colleges. Leading states like Texas, New York, and California are mobilizing their workforce training infrastructure to begin to develop the energy efficiency experts and technicians needed to meet future market demand. Fortunately, Maryland already has expertise on energy efficiency within the University of Maryland system, which needs to be nurtured and expanded across the state.

205

Impacts of High and Volatile Energy Costs on Energy Intensive Industries: Coping Strategies and Future Research Needs

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia University, Industries of the Future

Publication date: April 2008

File name: WV‐IOF_Energy_Efficiency_Research_Needs

Web source: www.iofwv.nrcce.wvu.edu/events/workshops/2008/workshop_report_7‐8‐08.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): West Virginia, energy costs, energy efficiency, policy, research

Brief description: In response to volatile energy markets, West Virginia University organized a workshop on the impacts of high and volatile energy costs on energy intensive industries. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss successful coping strategies and identify research projects related to this problem. This summary report came out of the workshop. The policy recommendations and issues addressed in this workshop may influence state policy in the future. For that reason, a host of policy recommendations aimed at achieving various energy related goals were offered at the workshop and are presented in this conference/workshop summary.

Key information I: Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University stated that higher energy prices may indeed be part of the solution. In fact, that may be the only thing that will really drive industry to be more efficient. He went on to compare the energy efficiency of various industries in the US to their counterparts in other parts of the world. Professor Lave referenced that industry by industry we are not very efficient with energy since we have historically had among the lowest energy prices in the world. He recommended that the best thing for energy efficiency would be for government to discontinue energy subsidies, allow prices to rise to their natural levels, and let industry respond with appropriate energy efficient designs.

Key information II: Dick Munson of Recycled Energy Development says too much attention on energy efficiency is focused on the demand side (e.g., new types of light bulbs, better insulation, and more efficient appliances) and that the real problem relates to the supply side where the production of electricity and thermal energy are very inefficient. Recycled Energy Development’s business is to recover waste energy, and use it to produce electricity, steam, heat, and other energy needs of the host company. A US Environmental Protection Agency report identified sufficient wasted energy to generate 96 GW, enough to provide almost 20 percent of US electricity demand.

Other (or key information III): Energy efficiency incentives: 1. Change internal reward system to include metrics that reflect energy efficiency 2. Invest in and internally incent R&D projects to reduce energy use and carbon intensity 3. Create an educated workforce with respect to energy use implications 4. Focus on continuous improvement efforts (e.g., lean production, six‐sigma, and total productive maintenance) can contribute to energy savings as by‐product 5. Utilize EPA toolkit to focus specifically on energy waste ( www.epa.gov/lean/energytoolkit/) Recycling and waste reduction: 1. Support efforts to recycle materials for manufactured processes 2. Reduce packaging to reduce waste and weight Energy audits: 1. Conduct self‐assessments of all your energy uses and wastes

206

US Hydropower Resource Assessment for West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Renewable Energy Products Department

Publication date: February 1998

File name: WV_Hydro_Assessment

Web source: http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/wv.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Hydro power

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Hydro power

Key word(s): renewable energy, hydro power, West Virginia, resource estimate

Brief description: The US Department of Energy is developing an estimate of the undeveloped hydropower potential in the United States. The Hydropower Evaluation Software (HES) is a computer model that was developed by the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for this purpose. HES measures the undeveloped hydropower resources available in the United States, using uniform criteria for measurement. The software was developed and tested using hydropower information and data provided by the Southwestern Power Administration. It is a menu‐driven program that allows the personal computer user to assign environmental attributes to potential hydropower sites, calculate development suitability factors for each site based on the environmental attributes present, and generate reports based on these suitability factors. This report describes the resource assessment results for the State of West Virginia.

Key information I: A total of 37 sites (Table 1) have been identified and assessed for their undeveloped hydropower potential in West Virginia. The HES results for individual site capacities range from 3 kilowatts (kW) to 360 megawatts (MW). About 43% of the hydropower sites in West Virginia are greater than 10 MW, and less than 100 MW (Figure 1). The appendices, which included site‐specific information, are not included in this PDF.

Key information II: The non‐modeled undeveloped hydropower potential total for West Virginia was identified as 1,924 MW. The HES results lower this estimate about 40% to 1,149 MW. The greatest reduction in undeveloped hydropower potential, by MW, occurs at sites that have some type of developed impoundment or diversion structure, but no hydropower generating capability (W/O category). These sites have a HES‐modeled undeveloped hydropower potential of about 1,002 MW, a 595‐MW reduction in the estimated undeveloped hydropower potential (Figure 2).

Other (or key information III): Total undeveloped hydropower potential = 1,924.3 megawatts (MW) nameplate potential, 1,149 MW modeled potential (actual). Most sites fall within the 10‐100 MW range.

207

Review of Low Impact Hydropower Institute Application for Certification Summersville Hydroelectric Project Gauley River, Nicholas County, West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Publication date: January 2005

File name: LIHI Certification Report_Gauley_hydro_plant 011805

Web source: www.lowimpacthydro.org/application‐details.aspx?id=19

Renewables/areas covered: Hydro power

Focus area II: Existing/Proposed development

Folder name: Hydro power

Key word(s): hydro power, low‐impact hydro power, West Virginia, Gauley River, Army Corps, renewable energy

Brief description: This report reviews the application submitted by Gauley River Power Partners, Inc. (GRPP or applicant) to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) for Low Impact Hydropower Certification for the Summersville Hydroelectric Project (project or hydroproject) on the Gauley River, in Nicholas County, West Virginia.

Key information I: The project reservoir is Summersville Lake, which the ACOE manages for flood control, low‐flow augmentation, and recreation. The dam was authorized by Congress in 1938. It was originally constructed in conjunction with two other dams to control flood waters in the Kanawha basin, a 12,300‐square‐mile area located in three states. The dams operated as a system, control flows into the Ohio River.

Key information II: The Summersville Project meets LIHI’s eight environmentally rigorous Low Impact criteria addressing river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed health, endangered species protection, cultural resources, recreation use and access, and whether or not the dam itself has been recommended for removal. Summersville successfully completed LIHI’s application process, which includes a public comment period, review by an independent technical consultant, consultations with state and federal natural resource agencies, and evaluation by the LIHI Governing Board, including leaders in the river conservation and renewable energy fields.

Other (or key information III): As operated by the ACOE, the dam regulates water levels in the reservoir and downstream flows. Changes in discharge rate are scheduled not to exceed 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) per hour or cause changes in water surface elevations downstream of the dam greater than 1 foot per hour. A minimum flow of 100 cfs is provided at all times.

208

Feasibility Assessment of the Water Energy Resources of the United States for New Low Power and Small Hydro Classes of Hydroelectric Plants

Source(s) of publication/information: US Department of Energy

Publication date: January 2006

File name: DOE_US_Hydro_report_2006

Web source: http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/main_report_appendix_a_final.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Small hydro

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Hydro power

Key word(s): hydro power, small hydro, low energy hydro, Central Appalachia

Brief description: This report details state‐by‐state energy potential for new low power and small hydro classes of hydroelectric plants. The gross power potential of the sites estimated in the previous study was refined to determine the realistic hydropower potential of the sites using a set of development criteria assuming they are developed as low power (less than 1 mean annual megawatts—MWa) or small hydro (between 1 and 30 MWa) projects. The methodologies for performing the feasibility assessment and estimating hydropower potential are described. The results for the country in terms of the number of feasible sites, their total gross power potential, and their total hydropower potential are presented. The spatial distribution of the feasible potential projects is presented on maps of the conterminous US and Alaska and Hawaii. Results summaries for each of the 50 states are presented in an appendix. The results of the study are also viewable using a Virtual Hydropower Prospector geographic information system application accessible on the Internet at: http://hydropower.inl.gov/prospector.

Key information I: In the present study, the water energy resource sites that were identified in the prior study were evaluated to determine the feasibility of their development using a set of feasibility criteria. These criteria considered site accessibility, load or transmission proximity, and land use or environmental sensitivities that would make development unlikely. Water energy resource sites that met the feasibility criteria were designated as feasible potential project sites. It was assumed that only a low power (<1 MWa) or small hydro (≥1 MWa and ≤30 MWa) plant would be installed at the site.

Key information II: The study reports that West Virginia holds a total low power and small hydro energy potential of 484 MWa. Kentucky has a total potential of 518 MWa, Virginia has a total potential of 418 MWa, and Tennessee has a total potential of 655 MWa. The total Central Appalachian energy potential for low power and small hydroelectric power plants is 2,075 MWa.

Other (or key information III): N/A

209

Economic Development Potential of Conventional and Potential Alternative Energy Sources in Appalachian Counties

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: June 2006

File name: ARC_Econ_Devt_Energy_Sources_full

Web source: www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=3108

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): energy, renewable energy, economic development, economic impact, Appalachia, supply chains, industrial base

Brief description: This report examines the economic development potential of all energy resources in Appalachia. Part one explores a set of scenarios that are used by researchers to develop estimates of the job impacts of various energy consumption and production profiles. This data and analysis provides a foundation to discuss the potential economic impacts of these developments. Part two examines the geographic distribution of a range of non‐ renewable and renewable energy resources within the Appalachian Region, and provides county‐level maps for each energy source across the region. Part three examines in more detail the industrial base of sectors supplying the biomass, wind energy and solar sectors in the Region. Part four identifies industry and supply‐chain opportunities and offers recommendations. Another goal of the report is to consider what opportunities exist in the pursuit of energy independence and CO2 reductions for local, state, regional and national economies.

Key information I: The picture of growth in employment from changes in renewable energy industries is decidedly different from that of fossil fuels. Growing evidence suggests considerable job development potential from the expansion of alternative energy sectors. Kammen et al. (2004) summarized recent reports about job potential from alternative energy industry expansion, highlighting the significant growth potential of wind, solar, and biomass industries (Table 3). Several of these studies suggest that renewable energy creates more jobs than other sources of energy.

Key information II: Table 6: Location of Employment by State, Sectors that Generate Inputs for Wind Energy‐ related Products (page 41) ‐‐ estimates that there are currently 3,270 jobs in West Virginia related to manufacturing inputs for wind development. 17,332 wind manufacturing‐related jobs in Kentucky, 20,201 jobs in Virginia and 28,407 jobs in Tennessee. Table 10 on page 47 provides the same information for solar power‐related sectors, reporting that there are a total of 5,132 solar power‐related jobs in West Virginia currently, predominantly in plastics material and resin manufacturing. Summary quote: "Assuming that an increase in the production of energy employing wind and solar technologies would produce demand for inputs from existing suppliers, states in Appalachia would be expected to experience growth of demand and expansion of employment in response to this development."

Other (or key information III): This report provides great resource maps, showing county‐level resource potential across the Appalachian region for each energy source considered. For about half of the counties in southern West Virginia, the report shows at least moderate wind speeds available for development. In relation to the wind‐ related job creation structure, the report notes that "Job creation related to wind energy developments looks something like a pyramid; 70% of the potential job creation is in manufacturing the components, 17% in the installation, and 13% in operations and maintenance.

210

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Appalachia: Policy and Potential

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission and the Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research

Publication date: July 2006

File name: Marshall_U_ARC_Renewables_and_Efficiency_FINAL_REPORT

Web source: www.arc.gov/images/energy/index.html

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): energy efficiency, renewable energy, wind, solar, energy projects, energy intensity, electricity generation, policies

Brief description: This is one of the most important documents for the CAPP study. This report serves as a substantial review of renewable energy and energy efficiency potential in Appalachia. Chapter I of the report provides a detailed overview of Renewable Energy potential in Appalachia, including estimates of energy potential by source (wind, solar, biomass, small hydropower). Chapter II reviews state policies and financial programs promoting RE & EE in the region. Chapter II examines the state of technology and manufacturing in Appalachia related to RE&EE. Chapter IV looks at hydrogen‐based fuels research and development, including solar hydrogen production. Chapter V surveys existing examples of corporate energy efficiency and renewable energy projects across the ARC region. Finally, Chapter VI provides an overview of energy intensity in Appalachia.

Key information I: The harnessing of the power of the wind to produce electricity is significantly undeveloped in the Appalachian region. Overall, this resource appears to be the greatest potential source of renewable power for the eastern US The electricity production potential within the boundaries of the ARC region is difficult to isolate from the non‐Appalachian areas of these states although for several states, notably Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Tennessee, the greatest wind potential is found in their mountain regions.

Key information II: The Appalachian region has only moderate to low solar capability due to its geography and resulting cloud cover and cooler temperatures. Nonetheless, solar energy still has potential for both thermal use and electricity generation using photovoltaic (PV) panels. Solar’s best potential in the eastern US, including Appalachia, is likely to be for residential application, where subsidies are necessary to induce even modest adoption. In Georgia and South Carolina, where (solar) potential is best [and where much of Central Appalachian surface‐mined coal is burned for electricity], this resource could provide up to half of the average household demand. However, because solar capability is higher in summer than in winter its potential favorably coincides with the highest electricity loads of the year.

Other (or key information III): Estimated electricity generation capability allows comparison of solar capability in the ARC region. The grids in the following figure show ranges of KWh/m2/day for a three kilowatt (KW) AC system. Grids in the Appalachian region could generate between 4,200 KWh per year represented by a brown grid in Maryland or Pennsylvania, and 6,900 KWh represented by a yellow grid in Georgia, depending on if the PV panels were fixed tilt or had two‐axis tracking. The report also estimates wind potential at 3,830 MW, and biomass potential at 2.45 million tons of production per year, mostly from forest residues and mills.

211

Appalachian Coalfield Delegation, Position Paper on Sustainable Energy, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 15th Session

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Coalfield Delegation to the United Nations

Publication date: April‐May 2007

File name: CSD_position_paper_FINAL

Web source: www.datacenter.org/reports/csdpositionpaper.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): sustainable energy, coalfields, communities, coalition, united nations, economic development, mountaintop removal, impacts

Brief description: This is a position paper drafted and presented to the United Nations in 2007 by the Appalachian Coalition for Just and Sustainable Communities, which included Appalachian Voices, Clearfork Community Institute, Coal River Mountain Watch, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and Save Our Cumberland Mountains. The Coalition's mission was to "expose the true cost of coal on (their) communities and the human rights violations being committed by the fossil fuel industry locally and globally, with the purpose of stopping current abuse and preventing future harm," and to "call upon the Commission to recommend an aggressive transition to energy conservation, energy efficiency, and just, renewable energy production."

Key information I: The citizens of Appalachia and fossil fuel extraction regions around the world possess a wealth of experiential knowledge, both qualitative and quantitative. However, regulatory frameworks, decision and policy‐making processes of the United Nations are generally dominated by academic, government, business and “expert” perspectives and have largely failed to include the voices of citizens impacted by extraction within the debate on sustainable energy. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development must seek to internalize‐ at every step of the decision making process on sustainable energy ‐ the voices of those who have paid the most significant price for a fossil fuel energy economy; their lived experiences are their expert credentials.

Key information II: In the past decade, mountaintop removal surface mining has devastated many Appalachian communities. The Appalachian Coalfield Delegation comes before this body to demand that any definition or implementation of sustainable energy oppose so called clean coal or alternative coal technologies. No matter how “cleanly” the coal is burned it still destroys homelands, watersheds, communities and even lives. We share our stories in the first section of this paper and directly through our participation in CSD 15.

Other (or key information III): Summary of Recommendations for CSD 15: 1) Oppose mountaintop removal and other similarly destructive extraction processes; 2) Adopt definitions for a common language of sustainability; 3) Encourage rapid renewable energy development and conservation; 4) Oppose non‐renewable energy development.

212

Energy Self‐Reliant States: Homegrown Renewable Power

Source(s) of publication/information: The New Rules Project

Publication date: November 2009

File name: energyselfreliantstates

Web source: www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/energyselfreliantstates.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind, Solar, Biomass, Transportation

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): energy development, renewable energy, energy self‐reliance, electricity generation, transportation, sustainability

Brief description: This report provides a conservative study and answer to the question: how much energy could be generated by states tapping into their own renewable resources? The report examined this question by analyzing, state‐by‐state, the potential for renewable electricity and transportation fuel production. It admits a shortfall in omitting building heating from its analysis, and states that that building heating amounts to 30% of a state's energy use. It seems that the data used in the report is valid and indeed conservative as numerous sources of available energy generation were not considered, such as microhydro. Finally, there is a great chart on page 12 comparing the economic impact of wind power between locally‐owned wind and wind development owned by absentee landholders.

Key information I: A national renewable energy policy should reflect the unique distribution of these energy sources. Wind and solar and, to a lesser extent, biomass, can be found in abundance in virtually all parts of the country. A federal policy that focuses on harnessing local renewable resources for local markets could dramatically expand the number of communities and states economically benefiting from the use of renewable fuels while minimizing the transportation‐related environmental impact of moving energy products long distances.

Key information II: The study reports that West Virginia can produce 7 billion kilowatt‐hours per year by developing its wind resource, and that doing so will result in 21% of the in‐state electricity sales from wind power. This is consistent with the 2002 estimate by AWS TrueWind Solutions that there exist 3,830 megawatts of wind potential on private lands in West Virginia. This study reports that WV can generate 6 billion kWh from full development of its rooftop solar PV resources, accounting for 17% of the state's electricity sales. So between wind and solar power, West Virginia can achieve a minimum of 38% of its electricity consumption from renewables, and the study does not consider the additional potential from hydropower or biomass for electricity. It does however estimate that there is enough biomass production potential to account for 94% of the state's transportation fuel demand.

Other (or key information III): The potential is clear – most states can be energy independent by relying on their homegrown, renewable resources. At least twenty‐one could satisfy 100 percent of their electricity needs from in‐ state renewable energy. At least seventeen could satisfy 50 percent of their gasoline demand with domestic biofuels. If electricity becomes a major transportation fuel, twenty‐seven states could meet their entire demand for automobile fuel with renewable biofuel. This report’s estimates may be considered very conservative, since it does not consider non‐rooftop solar or offshore wind. Moreover, it doesn’t examine their potentially significant renewable electricity sources (such as high and low temperature geothermal and microhydro).

213

Yes We Can: Southern Solutions for a National Renewable Energy Standard

Source(s) of publication/information: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Publication date: February 2009

File name: SACE_Renew_Energy_Potentials_Southeast

Web source: www.cleanenergy.org/images/stories/serenewables022309rev.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Policy

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, self‐sufficiency, energy efficiency, electricity generation, national standards

Brief description: This is a report by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy outlining the potential for the Southeast region states to collectively meet their electricity needs from renewable energy sources at stepwise levels until 2025. The Southeast region includes the CAPP states of Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee.

Key information I: The Southeast has the ingenuity and renewable energy resources to become more prosperous and energy independent. Utilities across eleven Southeastern states can tap homegrown clean energy resources to meet a significant percentage of electric power demands. Our analysis of renewable energy estimates in the region show sufficient resources to fulfill an aggressive national mandate for renewable energy, which include: enough power, today, to serve approximately 5% of retail electric sales in the Southeast; more than 15% of near‐term forecast electricity demand by 2015. If utilized today, these resources would represent about 29% of today’s retail sales; ample, diverse and widely distributed renewable energy resources so utilities and state regulators will have flexibility in choosing the solutions that are in the public interest; with energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy could meet 30% or more of the Southeast’s need for electric power; and, one day, renewable energy and energy efficiency may be able to meet nearly all electricity demand.

Key information II: According to the report, Kentucky can meet 39% of its electricity sales from renewable energy by 2025 (compared to 3% today), Tennessee ‐ 44% (compared to 8% currently), and Virginia 31% by 2025, but 179% in the long‐term if it develops its offshore wind resources (compared to 3% today. To achieve this, the report notes that KY, TN and VA have a total biomass potential of approximately 19,000 megawatts, a total solar energy potential of 130,000 megawatts, and a total wind potential of approximately 131,000 megawatts (including Virginia's offshore wind resource, this would be 38,000 total without the offshore wind resource). For geothermal, the report estimates a total three state energy potential capacity of just under 150,000 megawatts.

Other (or key information III): The Southeast will need to look to offshore wind and ocean energy to meet a goal of 25% by 2025, and a variety of coastal energy projects are already underway. For example: University of North Carolina is studying the feasibility of wind energy in the state’s sounds, South Carolina is studying the feasibility of offshore wind energy in state waters, Georgia is studying regional transmission infrastructure for ocean‐based renewable energy.

214

Letter from Lisa Daniels of Windustry to Van Jones, Council on Environmental Quality

Source(s) of publication/information: Windustry

Publication date: May 2009

File name: Windustry_Wind model ‐ economic

Web source: None, provided by Lisa Daniels

Renewables/areas covered: Community wind

Focus area II: Policy

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, policy, small wind, community‐owned wind, local economic development, ownership

Brief description: This is a letter from Lisa Daniels of Windustry to the Council on Environmental Quality, seeking clarification of provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act related to the Production Tax Credit, Investment Tax Credit and the Department of Treasury cash grant program. Her concern is the impact of the three policies on community participation, ownership and potential benefits of wind power development.

Key information I: Community Wind projects are locally‐owned, utility‐scale wind development projects, providing benefits to the local community above and beyond land lease payments and an increased tax base. Such projects offer communities an opportunity to have a direct financial and managerial stake in the development of their local wind resources. Community participation allows more dollars to remain in those local communities: For example, local banks and lending institutions help to finance the project; local construction and maintenance workers are trained and employed; and local legal and financial advisors help with the business planning and contractual aspects of the project Such participation greatly broadens local support for wind development.

Key information II: The US Government Accountability Office (2004) found that Community Wind models created twice as many jobs and three times the economic impact to the local community. Similarly, a study by the University of Minnesota at Morris (2006) concluded that three times as many jobs were created and local economic impact was five times greater than corporate ownership. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2009) reviewed a number of previous studies and found that anywhere from 1.1 to 3.1 times the jobs were created with the greatest increase during the operations period of the project, which is about 20‐25 or more years. These reports show the powerful economic development potential of Community Wind.

Other (or key information III): The Recovery Act addresses what has been a barrier to successful development of Community Wind projects. It allows individuals to access the federal renewable energy incentives. Historically the Production Tax Credit, the most significant financial incentive for wind energy, has only been utilizable by large corporations. The economic crisis has sidelined these entities, bringing wind development to a standstill. The Recovery Act now creates the opportunity for local participants to spearhead renewable energy development. In carrying out the policy intent, the Treasury implementation guidelines need to confirm the applicability of the incentives to projects involving farmers, ranchers, small businesses, tribes, schools, municipalities, and communities. For the continued growth of a sustainable and widely‐accepted clean energy industry and economy, it is critical that the rules regarding the alternative incentives in the Recovery Act be clarified to ensure that the opportunities are available to local community participants during this important transition.

215

An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the East Kentucky Power Cooperative Region

Source(s) of publication/information: The Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies

Publication date: July 2009

File name: EKPCGreenJobsReport

Web source: www.kftc.org/our‐work/stop‐smith/EKPCGreenJobsReport.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic impact

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, energy efficiency, economic development, weatherization, jobs creation, eastern Kentucky, wind, solar, hydro

Brief description: This report, released in 2009 as a response to the proposed construction of a 250+ megawatt coal‐fired power plant in Kentucky, analyzes the potential economic impact in terms of jobs, revenue and economic output of pursuing an alternative strategy depended on developing the target region's renewable energy resources and investing in energy efficiency measures. This is the first study of its kind for the Central Appalachian region and it makes well‐researched calculations in relation to economic impact and job creation. One significant contribution of the study is to estimate economic impacts related to development of various hydropower resources.

Key information I: As an alternative to building the proposed Smith #1 plant, an investment in a combination of energy efficiency, weatherization, hydropower and wind power initiatives in the East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) region would generate more than 8,750 new jobs for Kentucky residents, with a total impact of more than $1.7 billion on the region’s economy over the next three years. This alternative approach would meet the energy needs of EKPC customers at a lower cost than the proposed coal plant. Unlike projected economic activity that would result from construction of a new coal‐burning power plant, investing in renewable energy, efficiency and weatherization would result in jobs and benefits across the region rather than in a smaller geographic area around the site of the proposed coal burning power plant. Over a three year period of construction and implementation, energy efficiency and weatherization initiatives would create nearly $1.2 billion in economic activity and more than 5,400 jobs. The development of small scale hydropower generation at 20 sites in the region would create more than $500 million in economic activity and more than 3,300 jobs.

Key information II: By comparison, EKPC projects that the construction of the Smith #1 plant would create up to 700 construction jobs during the estimated three year construction phase. There would be 60 positions at the Smith #1 plant once it is operational.18 Construction jobs and plant operation positions would likely be concentrated in the area immediately surrounding the plant site in Clark County. Additionally, the Smith #1 plant would only begin to generate construction jobs once the full permitting process is completed.

Other (or key information III): Residents in every one of the sixteen distribution cooperatives would see job creation and economic activity as a result of this strategy.

216

Rural Power: Community‐Scaled Renewable Energy and Rural Economic Development

Source(s) of publication/information: The New Rules Project

Publication date: August 2008

File name: Community_Energy_Economic_Devt

Web source: www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/ruralpower.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Community energy

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): biofuels, wind, solar, distributed generation, community energy, renewable energy, economic development, policy

Brief description: This report examines the current impact of renewable energy on rural communities and identifies existing and potential policies that could dramatically expand the economic benefit this new sector can bring to these communities. The next 20 years could generate as much as $1 trillion in new renewable energy investment in rural America. The report is a policy roadmap for states and the federal government that would redesign policies to encourage a highly decentralized and dispersed renewable energy industry that is significantly locally owned. Doing so would multiply the number of rural areas that benefit from burgeoning renewable energy industries, and would create a sustainable asset whose wealth and revenue will largely remain in revived local communities and regions.

Key information I: In the past decades, rural areas have experienced significant population loss along with an exodus of jobs from extractive industries and agriculture. Employment has shifted to services or the public sector. Figure 2 shows population loss for counties, classified by their dominant industry. Over half of farming‐dependent counties and nearly a third of mining‐dependent counties lost population from 1980‐90 and from 1990‐2000. Recently, sharply rising commodity and mineral prices have changed the rural economic dynamic, at least for the short run. Rapidly increasing demand for renewable energy is offering many rural areas the possibility of a long term revitalization.

Key information II: Renewable energy resources provide the opportunity for a more sustainable economic foundation for rural areas than do extractive industries or scenic resources. Renewable energy is a sustainable resource: it never runs out. Thus it is unlikely that communities depending on renewable energy will suffer the boom and bust cycle communities depending on mineral or fossil fuels. Renewable energy can be harvested and used locally or regionally, therefore keeping more dollars in the local and regional economy. Renewable energy collection has very few economies of scale. Modest sized generators supplying local markets can compete well with large generators supplying distant markets. Modestly scaled renewable energy enables local ownership. Local ownership multiplies the benefit renewable energy brings to rural communities. For example, a landowner who leases land for wind generation makes one‐tenth as much as a landowner who owns the wind turbine.

Other (or key information III): Several studies have investigated the difference between local‐ and absentee owned wind turbines and all have found substantial increases in net economic benefits when turbines are locally owned, both in jobs and in total economic output. The first benefit of local ownership is a substantial increase in employment. As seen in Figure 23, most economic models found that nearly twice as many local jobs – in financing, maintenance, etc. – were created when turbines were locally owned than when they were controlled by an absentee owner. Part of the impact of a locally owned project is the economic activity created when owners

217 finance their share of project costs at a local or community bank. A 20 MW wind farm costs around $40 million (July 2008). Borrowing 60% to finance the project at 8.5% interest would provide the bank with $550,000 per year in profit above the rate the bank paid to borrow the money. The benefits to local owners of wind turbines are substantially greater than when landowners lease their land to an absentee wind farm developer. While a typical lease payment on a 1.5 MW turbine is around $5,000 per year, ownership in a wind project can net a farmer in excess of $30,000 per year in the first 10 years of the project (for the land lease and management service payments) and $120,000 per year in the final 10 years.

218

West Virginia Solar Measurements for the cities of Charleston, Huntington, and Elkins

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: None

File name: WV_solar_measurements

Web source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/WV.PDF

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Measurements

Folder name: Solar power

Key word(s): solar, radiance, measurements, technology, renewable energy

Brief description: This is a brief report on annual solar measurements for select cities in West Virginia, modeled based on varying solar collecting and power generation technologies. The data provided give monthly solar radiation measurements for four different types of collectors and at four different tilt angles for each type of collector. These include flat‐plate photovoltaic collectors at a fixed tilt, 1‐axis tracking flat ‐plate collectors with a north‐south axis, 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collectors, and direct beam solar radiation for concentrating collectors. Each data sheet also provides average climate conditions at the various sites.

Key information I: The greatest solar energy potential based on radiation was found in the cities of Charleston and Huntington using a 1‐axis tracking flat‐plate collector with a north‐south axis tilted at both latitude and latitude minus 15 degrees. This collector type and tilt resulted in an annual average radiance of 5.4 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

219

Kentucky Solar Measurements for the cities of Covington, Lexington, and Louisville

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: None

File name: KY_solar_measurements

Web source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/KY.PDF

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Measurements

Folder name: Solar power

Key word(s): solar, radiance, measurements, technology, renewable energy

Brief description: This is a brief report on annual solar measurements for select cities in Kentucky, modeled based on varying solar collecting and power generation technologies. The data provided give monthly solar radiation measurements for four different types of collectors and at four different tilt angles for each type of collector. These include flat‐plate photovoltaic collectors at a fixed tilt, 1‐axis tracking flat ‐plate collectors with a north‐ south axis, 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collectors, and direct beam solar radiation for concentrating collectors. Each data sheet also provides average climate conditions at the various sites.

Key information I: The greatest solar energy potential based on radiation was found in the city of Louisville and Huntington using a 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collector. This collector type and tilt resulted in an annual average radiance of 6.0 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day. However, in both Lexington and Covington, the greatest measurements occurred using a 1‐axis tracking flat‐plate collector with a north‐south axis tilted at both latitude and latitude minus 15 degrees. For these two cities, this collector type resulted in an annual average radiance of 5.6 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

220

Virginia Solar Measurements for the Cities of Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, Roanoke, and Sterling

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: None

File name: VA_solar_measurements

Web source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/VA.PDF

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Measurements

Folder name: Solar power

Key word(s): solar, radiance, measurements, technology, renewable energy

Brief description: This is a brief report on annual solar measurements for select cities in Virginia, modeled based on varying solar collecting and power generation technologies. The data provided give monthly solar radiation measurements for four different types of collectors and at four different tilt angles for each type of collector. These include flat‐plate photovoltaic collectors at a fixed tilt, 1‐axis tracking flat ‐plate collectors with a north‐ south axis, 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collectors, and direct beam solar radiation for concentrating collectors. Each data sheet also provides average climate conditions at the various sites.

Key information I: The greatest solar energy potential based on radiation was found in the city of Lynchburg and Huntington using a 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collector. This collector type and tilt resulted in an annual average radiance of 6.6 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

221

Tennessee Solar Measurements for the Cities of Bristol, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: None

File name: TN_solar_measurements

Web source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/TN.PDF

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Measurements

Folder name: Solar power

Key word(s): solar, radiance, measurements, technology, renewable energy

Brief description: This is a brief report on annual solar measurements for select cities in Tennessee, modeled based on varying solar collecting and power generation technologies. The data provided give monthly solar radiation measurements for four different types of collectors and at four different tilt angles for each type of collector. These include flat‐plate photovoltaic collectors at a fixed tilt, 1‐axis tracking flat ‐plate collectors with a north‐south axis, 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collectors, and direct beam solar radiation for concentrating collectors. Each data sheet also provides average climate conditions at the various sites.

Key information I: The greatest solar energy potential based on radiation was found in the city of Memphis and Huntington using a 2‐axis tracking flat‐plate collector. This collector type and tilt resulted in an annual average radiance of 6.6 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

222

Bluefield State College, West Virginia ‐‐ Annual Solar Radiance Data Reports

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: Various

File name: none

Web source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/new_data/confrrm/bs/

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Measurements

Folder name: Solar power

Key word(s): solar, radiance, measurements, technology, renewable energy

Brief description: This website provides a database of monthly and annual solar radiance measurements at Bluefield State College for the years 1997 ‐ 2008. The data in each annual report is broken down by day and hour.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

223

Wind Energy: Today and Tomorrow

Source(s) of publication/information: Capacity Magazine, Patrick Mann, West Virginia Wind Working Group

Publication date: Spring 2009

File name: Capacity Magazine_WV_Wind_Power_patrick_mann

Web source: www.capacity‐magazine.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=383

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Existing/Proposed development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, West Virginia, wind farms, renewable energy

Brief description: This is an article written by Patrick Mann of the West Virginia Wind Working Group, outlining the potential economic and environmental benefits of wind power development in West Virginia. Mann also discusses the criticisms of wind energy and provides an overview of existing and proposed wind farms in the state.

Key information I: At present, West Virginia has two wind energy facilities in operation. The Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, which runs along Backbone Mountain in Tucker and Preston counties, began operating in 2002. FPL Energy operates the 44‐turbine facility. The 66‐megawatt capacity of this facility can provide electricity sufficient for 20,000 residences. The Ned Power Mount Storm project in Grant County became fully operational in December 2008. Shell Wind Energy and Dominion Resources jointly own this facility, which involves 132 turbines or 264 megawatts. The site for this facility includes abandoned surface mining land and can provide sufficient electricity to power approximately 80,000 homes.

Key information II: Several other wind energy projects are pending. US Wind Force and the Edison Mission Group are developing a project in western Grant County. Permitted by the Public Service Commission in 2002, this project will involve as many as 150 megawatts of electricity. Invenergy is developing a project in northwestern Greenbrier County. The Beech Ridge project will involve 124 turbines or 186 megawatts. The PSC issued an order in 2007 approving the project under certain conditions, including the monitoring of bird and bat mortality. Several groups challenged the project, which is now back before the commission again. The PSC conducted a public hearing on the project in October 2008, but has not issued a final order regarding it. In November 2008, the Public Service Commission approved the proposed Laurel Mountain project in Randolph and Barbour counties. AES is developing this 65 turbine, 125‐megawatt project and anticipates commencing commercial operations in 2010. In addition, developers have expressed interest in possible projects in Grant, McDowell, Mineral, Nicholas, Pendleton and Tucker counties.

Other (or key information III): At present, West Virginia has 330 megawatts of wind energy generation. The PSC has approved another 461 megawatts of generation. Based on models developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, each 1,000 megawatts of wind energy development in West Virginia will generate, over a 20‐ year period, a total economic benefit of $1 billion, with 3,100 temporary construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs.

224

Wind Mapping of West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: AWS TrueWind Solutions, West Virginia Development Office

Publication date: Fall 2002

File name: Truewind 2002

Web source: None, provided by the West Virginia Division of Energy

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, wind potential, West Virginia

Brief description: This is a document showing the PowerPoint slides of a presentation to the West Virginia Division of Energy in 2002 by AWS TrueWind Solutions. TrueWind had been contracted to conduct a statewide wind mapping of West Virginia and provide an estimate of the amount of existing wind potential.

Key information I: Using advanced atmospheric models and a high spatial resolution of 200 meters (10 acres squares), TrueWind Solutions was able to better identify wind sites along West Virginia's ridges, thereby reducing development risk.

Key information II: The TrueWind study showed that there existed 3,830 megawatts of utility‐scale wind potential in West Virginia on private lands. The calculation was based on the wind mapping study, on the use of a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine for the model, on a 70 meter hub height, and on a wind classification of Class 4 and higher wind speeds. Since this study was conducted, wind developers are now developing mid‐Class 3 wind sites and using 2 megawatt, 90 meter hub height turbines. Based on this, if the wind potential were re‐calculated, it is expected that West Virginia's wind potential would exceed 5,000 megawatts.

Other (or key information III): N/A

225

Economic Benefits, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Reductions, and Water Conservation Benefits from 1,000 Megawatts (MW) of New Wind Power in West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: October 2008

File name: NREL_wv_wind_benefits_factsheet

Web source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44276.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind energy, economic benefits, investments, West Virginia, taxes, jobs

Brief description: This is a two‐page summary of findings describing the estimated economic benefits, carbon reduction potential, and water conservation benefits from investing in and installing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power in West Virginia. It calculates direct, indirect, induced and total economic impacts related to landowner payments, local property tax revenue, construction jobs and output, and operations phase jobs and output.

Key information I: We forecast the cumulative economic benefits from 1000 MW of development in West Virginia to be $1.0 billion, annual CO2 reductions are estimated at 3.3 million tons, and annual water savings are 1,763 million gallons. In 2004, the average West Virginia resident emitted approximately 49.4 tons of CO2 from electricity consumption. As a state, West Virginia ranked 3rd in per capita electricity sector CO2 emissions.

Key information II: Wind power brings economic development to rural regions, reduces water consumption in the electric power sector, and reduces greenhouse gas production by displacing fossil fuels. Drivers of economic benefits include the use of local construction companies, the presence of in‐state component suppliers, local wage structures, local property tax structures, and operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures. The projected benefits for West Virginia could be greatly increased by the development of a local wind supply, installation, and maintenance industry within the state.

Other (or key information III): Based on the AWS TrueWind assessment of West Virginia's wind resource potential, and extrapolating from the economic benefits estimates provided by NREL, the total economic benefits of developing all of West Virginia's wind resource of 3,830 megawatts of utility‐scale wind would amount to $3.83 billion in total economic output and revenue, nearly 12,000 new jobs during construction, and over 1,500 new permanent jobs related to operations and maintenance. Developing and in the future, replacing, that amount of wind energy would result in a vibrant wind industry in the state of West Virginia.

226

Wind Energy Projects in West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Citizens for Responsible Wind Power

Publication date: April 2006

File name: WVHC_Wind_Power_appeals

Web source: www.wvhighlands.org/VoiceText%20PDFs/VoiceApr06%20P18.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impacts

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, opposition, West Virginia, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, wildlife impacts, ecological sensitivity

Brief description: This is a short critique of West Virginia's wind energy policies presented by one of the wind opposition groups in West Virginia. It opens with a short overview of the group’s arguments against wind power and legislative attempts to curb wind development, and then provides a status of project impacts, oppositional actions and environmental impacts of existing and proposed wind projects in the state.

Key information I: Overview of current operating, certified, or proposed industrial wind turbine projects With no responsible rules or regulations in place, and our scenic mountains, local property owners, and the economies of local communities threatened, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE WIND POWER, INC. and its associated local organizations are appealing PSC certificates, conducting law suits, providing information, and doing everything we can think of to keep these turbine developments from being built. See details and links at www.responsiblewind.org

Key information II: West Virginia still has no firm regulations and enforcement procedures related to industrial wind development ‐No state or federal statues regulate wind developments. ‐WV PSC licenses them and has “siting” regulations that ask a lot of questions but set no standards. ‐WV PSC has no provisions for enforcement after certifying a project. ‐US Fish and Wildlife Service has “recommended” standards.

Other (or key information III): Some comments from the document related to various wind projects: 1) Backbone Mountain: Word is that on foggy mornings right now (spring migrations), birds and bats litter the ground under the turbines, as reported to United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The county is still trying to get company to pay tax bill as mandated. 2) Mt. Storm: While Public Service Commission pre‐construction conditions of certification have not been met, land prep activities—logging, core drilling, etc.‐‐have been underway on construction site since Xmas. Complaints have been filed with PSC but no action from them. Survey stakes site turbines within ¼ mile or less of homes. WV DEP water discharge permit was granted after above activities commenced and despite the fact that application included only 81 acres of whole project (area 1). Neither environmental considerations as required under NPDES or high potential for release of acid mine drainage during construction‐‐not considered as part of water discharge permit. Citizens for Responsible Wind Power has appealed permit to CEQ.

227

Virginia Environmental Groups Back Wind Farm

Source(s) of publication/information: Richmond Times‐Dispatch

Publication date: June 2009

File name: VA_Envtl_Groups_Back_Wind_Farm

Web source: www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/energy/article/B‐WIND09_20090608‐220002/272666/

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental support

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, support, coal‐fired power plants, Virginia, clean energy development, Central Appalachia

Brief description: This is an article in the Richmond Times‐Dispatch in 2009 reporting on the support coming from environmental groups working in the southwest Virginia region for a proposed 150 megawatt wind farm to be built by Dominion Power and BP Energy. The same groups are fighting against mountaintop removal coal mining in the area, as well as against a proposed coal‐fired power plant in Wise County, VA.

Key information I: A coalition of environmental groups opposed to Dominion Resources Inc.'s coal‐fired power plant in Wise County said they support the utility company's proposal for a wind farm in the county. Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Sierra Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center and The Clinch Coalition joined in backing the Mill Creek wind project in Wise. Four of the groups ‐‐ Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Sierra Club‐‐ are opposing Dominion's Virginia City coal plant in court.

Key information II: Although the coal power plant is under construction, a challenge to the facility's air permit is set for trial in July. "We appreciate the support we're receiving for our proposed wind‐energy project in Wise County," said Dominion spokesman Ryan Frazier. "The support has been broad, coming from the environmental community, the coal industry, and county citizens and elected officials," Frazier said. "BP Wind Energy and Dominion believe Mill Creek would be a great asset to the county and the region."

Other (or key information III): N/A

228

Energizing Appalachia: Global Challenges and the Prospect of a Renewable Future

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian Regional Commission

Publication date: September 2007

File name: ARC_EnerApp_Final_full

Web source: www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=3292&print=yes

Renewables/areas covered: Wind, Solar, Biomass

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): renewable energy, Appalachia, energy industry, solar, wind, biomass, potential manufacturing capacity, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, challenges to diverse ownership

Brief description: This is a useful 2006 report conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission. It analyzes the market and development activity and potential for three renewable energy sources: wind, solar and biomass. It then analyzes the potential manufacturing capacity by energy sector and state and concludes with policy recommendations for supporting the expansion of renewable energy development and manufacturing capacity within the region. The appendices provide good information on existing renewable manufacturing, cluster concentrations for manufacturing and total state manufacturing potentials.

Key information I: To understand what opportunities exist for Appalachia to engage the renewable energy sector, this report analyzed the region's potential capacity to manufacture components for the wind, solar and biomass industries. Analysis reveals not only the degree of potential capacity, but also how it is distributed across the region. As a whole, Appalachian counties possess almost 200,000 jobs in manufacturing parts and components that could, with modification, be suited for production of renewable energy components. This also includes almost 3,000 existing manufacturers within the region that possess similar potential to engage the renewable energy industry. Regionally, over 28,000 potential manufacturing jobs exist within economically distressed or at‐risk Appalachian counties.

Key information II: Challenges to Industry Growth: Absentee ownership structures alter the flow of resources into and out of the communities producing the feedstocks as well as the fuel. The current trajectory for development of ethanol suggests that large industry will continue to dominate this sector unless other priorities are considered. The shape of this emerging sector will depend on the social organization of the involved corporations, regulatory bodies, federal initiatives, environmental organizations, farmers and commodity groups. The future bioeconomy will depend, to a great degree, on the resolution of social, environmental, and economic impacts of biofuel production. Given the growing recognition of environmental impacts of agriculture and concern about the effects of agricultural restructuring on rural livelihoods and communities, the landscape and social changes possible in a transition to increased production of energy feedstocks from agriculture deserve further examination. In particular, it is relevant to ask whether such production will support or undermine economic and environmental sustainability.

Other (or key information III): In summary, the results of this report indicate that there is substantial potential to produce components for the rapidly growing renewable industries of wind, solar and biomass energy. The nature of the industry suggests that sub‐component manufacturing may be an achievable near‐term goal for the economic growth in the region. Medium‐term potential for growing locally‐based renewable firms exists as well, although the consolidating nature of the industry suggests this requires substantially more support from agencies such as State government and the Appalachian Regional Commission. Finally, long‐term potential to become a

229 significant biofuel energy producer may exist. Each of these opportunities will deliver much‐needed growth to the region, from a set of industries that show the potential to continue rapid growth into the future.

230

The Impact of Strip‐Mining on Existing Wind Resources

Source(s) of publication/information: Coal River Mountain Watch

Publication date: 2008

File name: Impact_Stripping_onWind

Web source: None, provided by Coal River Mountain Watch

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind, mountaintop removal, sustainability, economic development

Brief description: This is a brief overview of existing literature and research showing the impact of surface mining on potential wind resources. It was developed as part of the Coal River Wind campaign (www.coalriverwind.org), and undermines arguments by the coal industry and political leadership in West Virginia that developing wind power as a post‐mine land use is a viable option.

Key information I: Gamesa Energy, when they have presented to the Public Energy Authority and the WV Wind Working Group, mentioned that pre‐mining wind construction requires an 8 foot hold for building the concrete turbine base, whereas constructing turbines on post‐mine lands would require holes 30‐40 feet deep, and that this change makes most projects "economically unfavorable," due to the higher cost of having to dig each hole deeper.

Key information II: Also, any reduction in ridge altitude from strip‐mining will result in a diminishing, to some degree, of the wind resource (wind speeds in Appalachia are weaker at lower altitudes), which means a diminishing of the number of turbines and total energy production, and thus a diminishing of the potential jobs and tax revenues that would be generated. It’s better to leave the mountain alone and build the wind farm, because those benefits could theoretically last forever, whereas the coal does not.

Other (or key information III): If you have a mountain with Class 4 to Class 7 winds, and can produce 328 MW of energy on that mountain over a span of about 32 linear miles of ridgeline, and then you destroy that mountain and reduce the wind resource to say Class 4 to Class 5 winds along 14 linear miles – you now need to expand that wind project across a greater amount of land in order to generate the 328 MW you could have generated on the intact mountain.

231

Is the Answer to the Region's Energy Needs Blowing in the Wind?

Source(s) of publication/information: Bristol Herald Courier

Publication date: March 2009

File name: Answer_blowing_in_wind

Web source: http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/is_the_answer_to_regions_energy_needs_blowing_in_the_wind /22323/

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Energy development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind, energy demand, Appalachia

Brief description: This is an article exploring the significance of proposals to develop wind farms in the coalfields of southwest Virginia.

Key information I: Coal is central to this region’s past and part of its future, but a new future is taking shape on the strip‐mined ridges in the heart of the Central Appalachian coalfields. Even as a budding, $1.8 billion coal‐fired power plant rises skyward on one end of Wise County, a field of wind turbines proposed for land on the Virginia‐ Kentucky line is signaling this region’s potential for a shift toward green energy.

Key information II: The sites in Wise County, being studied for up to 150 megawatts of wind power, are on the ridges along Black Mountain: Bluff Spur and Nine Mile Spur. A public informational meeting on the project is scheduled Thursday at Mountain Empire Community College in Big Stone Gap. In Tazewell County, the proposed site is on East River Mountain between Bluefield and Tazewell, where 60 to 100 megawatts of wind‐power generation could be built along several miles of ridgeline. The companies have bought 2,600 acres for the project there. Construction of the turbines could begin as early as 2012¸ Madden said. But first, the projects must dodge at least three potentially fatal flaws: Is there enough wind? Are there environmental obstacles? Is the land itself, where mining has occurred underground, stable enough to support 50 to 100 wind turbines that weigh as much as 150 tons each? Yearlong studies already are under way to answer all three questions.

Other (or key information III): Luntsford said the region’s future lies not just in energy, but in tourism—a development goal shared by Spearhead Trails, a regional recreation authority that wants to create a network of trails in Southwest Virginia. Jack McClanahan, chairman of that authority, said the trails could wind through the same property where the turbines are built – and help bring money into the town by attracting visitors. “It’s hard to imagine, but all these small towns … in the early to mid‐1900s, there were thousands of people in these coal towns,” McClanahan said. “This [Appalachia] was the hub for the theater, for the banking, and you couldn’t drive here on a Saturday night. You couldn’t drive here for the people walking on the street. And, we’re hoping these trails can help revitalize the economy here.” “It’s time that we came into the future instead of living in the past,” Dillon said. “And even though there’s a lot of coal here still, it’s going to be a thing of the past.”

232

An Assessment of Potential Collision Mortality of Migrating Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia Big‐eared Bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) Traversing Between Caves ‐‐ NedPower Mount Storm Wind Project, Grant County, West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc.

Publication date: April 2004

File name: mountaineer_bat_fatalities

Web source: www.west‐inc.com/reports/finalbatsupplement.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impact

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind turbines, bat fatalities, ecological sensitivity, bat migration, roosting

Brief description: This is the second of two studies conducted examining the potential for bat fatalities stemming from the proposed (and now existing) 264 megawatt Ned Power Mt. Storm Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia. This study examines the potential collision mortality for migrating Indiana and Virginia big‐eared bats.

Key information I: Based on results of our review, we believe that construction and operation of the wind plant would not likely result in collision mortality of either migrating Indiana bats or Virginia big‐eared bats traversing between caves. This determination was based on the following: 1. No Indiana bat or Virginia big‐eared bat fatalities have been documented at the nearby Mountaineer wind project, indicating little risk to these species of wind power development on high‐elevation ridges in the mid‐ Atlantic region. 2. No Indiana bat fatalities have been documented during post‐construction mortality studies at existing wind plants in West Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont, all of which are located near Indiana bat hibernacula. 3. Likewise, no Indiana or Virginia big‐eared bats have been killed at communication towers located within the range of these species, where 92 published accounts of avian (as well as some bat) mortality are available. This information indicates that these species are not highly susceptible to collision with tall structures. 5. Although numerous caves used by Virginia big‐eared bat occur in the region, 95% of these caves occur south of the proposed project area and bats could commute between these caves without crossing the Mount Storm project area. It therefore seems very unlikely that the Mount Storm project area would pose any threat to Virginia big‐eared bats that traverse between caves.

Key information II: The timing of bat mortality at the Mountaineer Project is typical of that found at other US wind plants. Although a few individuals were found in the spring and early summer (Appendix B), virtually all of the mortality occurred from mid‐August through the end of September (Figure 2), during the time period that bats are migrating from breeding areas to hibernacula in the US or wintering areas in Mexico and South America. Some mortality likely began earlier than August 18, when the first search of the Fall migration season took place. Ninety‐ eight bats were found during the first search, and many of these likely collided with turbines during the preceding several days. The data from the Mountaineer Project support previous conclusions that migrating bats are at most risk of turbine collision and that resident, breeding or foraging bats have low risk of collision mortality.

Other (or key information III): The Virginia big‐eared bat differs from the other species in that it is non‐migratory and seldom moves far from its home cave; however, it will occasionally move between cave roosts (Kunz and Martin 1982). The longest movement known in Kentucky and West Virginia was 40 miles (Barbour and Davis 1969).

233

Biological Assessment for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia Big‐eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) ‐‐ NedPower Mount Storm Wind Project, Grant County, West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc.

Publication date: 2004

File name: mountaineer_bat_fatalities_II

Web source: www.west‐inc.com/reports/final_ned_power_bat_ba.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impact

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind turbines, bat fatalities, ecological sensitivity, bat migration, roosting

Brief description: This is the first of two studies conducted examining the potential for bat fatalities stemming from the proposed (and now existing) 264 megawatt Ned Power Mt. Storm Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia. This study serves as a biological assessment for the federally endangered Indiana and Virginia Big‐eared bats.

Key information I: Based on results of a habitat survey, information obtained on the ecology and habitat of the two endangered species, data on bat use of the project area, and current information on bat interactions with wind turbines, the BA concluded that construction and operation of the project would not likely affect either species. Although several factors were taken into consideration before making the “no affect” determination, two of the primary factors were that (1) habitat within the project area is not suitable breeding or foraging habitat for either species, and (2) available information on species composition of bats killed at other wind plants in the US indicated that long‐distance, non‐hibernating bats including the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and silver‐haired bat (Lasionycterus noctivagans) were most prone to collisions with wind energy facilities and that neither migrating Indiana bats or Virginia big‐eared bats traversing between caves would be highly susceptible to collision mortality.

Key information II: In winter, Indiana bats hibernate in caves and abandoned mines throughout areas dominated by karst (an area characterized by limestone and associated sinkholes and caves). In summer, many males remain near hibernacula, but females migrate to other areas where they form maternity colonies in trees (Clawson 2002). Due to significant population declines, the Indiana bat was listed as an endangered species in 1967. The major source of the decline is thought to be human disturbance of hibernating bats in caves and mines (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), although changes in summer habitat may also be a factor. Land use practices that change the extent and quality of forests may have both negative and positive effects (Clawson 2002).

Other (or key information III): Although the relationship between collision mortality and behavior associated with non‐hibernating long‐distance migratory bats versus dispersing bats that do hibernate is not well‐understood, bat mortality data at all US wind plants show that the non‐hibernating long‐distance migrants suffer much higher mortality than species that travel much shorter distances between hibernacula and summer breeding areas. Available data indicate that the risk of collision mortality is likely much lower for Indiana bats than the foliage roosting long‐distance migratory species. Even if, in the unlikely case a “migrating” Indiana bat were to collide with a turbine at an existing US wind plant, our review indicates that this would be an exceptional event not likely to occur with any frequency or indicate a likely adversely affect of the project on the species.

234

Invenergy: Beech Ridge Wind Farm Update

Source(s) of publication/information: Invenergy, LLC

Publication date: September 2007

File name: Copy of Groberg1

Web source: www.energywv.org/community/WindConferences.html

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Property tax

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): West Virginia, Invenergy, Greenbrier wind farm, renewable energy, property tax, business and occupation tax, state law

Brief description: This is a presentation created by Invenergy, LLC, a wind energy company that has applied for and recently received a permit to construct a 186 megawatt wind farm in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The central purpose of this presentation was to provide information about the proposed wind farm, and to provide an analysis of the economic impact of a proposed change in state law regarding the state Business and Occupation Tax. The proposed (and later approved) change was to increase the percentage of generation capacity that could be taxed on wind farms from 5% to 12%. The presentation also analyzes the property tax system, which was also changed through changes in state law in 2007. The original proposals supported by Governor Manchin would have negatively impacted wind investment in the state. The final bill, however, raised taxes to a level where greater tax benefits now accrue on the state and local levels, but investment attraction has remained steady and even increased since the passage of the bill.

Key information I: Business & Occupation Taxes: Applies to Industries Regulated by PSC, Based on nameplate capacity, Base rate of $22.78 per kilowatt, Note: $20.70 rate for coal plants using desulfurization technology

Key information II: Property Taxes Under S.B. 441: Capped percentage of wind facility assigned salvage value at 79%, Impact varies depending on percent of facility costs originally eligible for salvage valuation, Should result in wind paying more property taxes per MWh than coal

Other (or key information III): N/A

235

West Virginia Wind Working Group Presentations

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia Division of Energy

Publication date: Ongoing

File name: None

Web source: www.energywv.org/community/WindConferences.html

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Various

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): West Virginia, wind development, property values, wildlife impacts, economic benefit, all

Brief description: This is a website dedicated to providing information that has been presented to West Virginia state officials regarding wind development in the state.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

236

Promoting Wind Energy Production through the Tax Code

Source(s) of publication/information: Pew Center on Climate Change

Publication date: May 2009

File name: Pew_WV_Wind_Tax_and_Devt

Web source: www.pewclimate.org/print/4148

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Economic benefit

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): West Virginia, wind energy, energy development, tax code, legislation

Brief description: This is a rundown by the Pew Center of West Virginia's tax laws as they relate to wind development.

Key information I: The legislation, which amends Chapter 11 of West Virginia Code, designates wind turbines for property tax purposes as “pollution control facilities,” which are taxed at a lower rate than electric generation equipment, setting the property tax on utility‐owned wind turbines at five percent of assessed value. It also lowers the B&O tax from taxing forty percent of a turbine's capacity, as applies to other forms of power generation, to taxing five percent (now back up to 12 percent) of a turbine's capacity if that turbine is powered primarily by wind.

Key information II: West Virginia has long been a major miner, supplier, and consumer of coal. In 1999 coal‐ generated electricity accounted for 98 percent of West Virginia's electric supply, with hydroelectric, petroleum, and gas composing the rest. The state's electric generation industry emits 93, 424, 000 tons of CO2 a year, which makes it the seventh highest emitter in the country. It is also the highest emitter of sulfur dioxide and ninth highest for nitrogen oxide. Coal is not West Virginia's only resource, however. The Department of Energy estimates that if fully developed, wind power could provide the state with 6, 000, 000 MWh a year, or twenty‐three percent of its annual electricity usage. Wind company representatives cite strong high‐ridge wind resources, proximity to the electric grid, and the sparse population of West Virginia as incentives to locate wind power there.

Other (or key information III): As West Virginia does not have a deregulated electricity market, however, most of the wind power generated there will be exported to other states in the PJM West Grid, which comprises parts of Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The state will thus receive the economic benefits of having the wind farms located within its borders, but its residents will not be purchasing wind power.

237

West Virginia Senate Bill 441

Source(s) of publication/information: West Virginia State Legislature

Publication date: March 2007

File name: WV_SB_441_Wind_Taxes

Web source: www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=11&art=6A

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Property tax

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): West Virginia, wind energy, energy development, tax code, legislation

Brief description: This is Senate Bill 441 amending the West Virginia state tax code as it relates to wind power.

Key information I: §11‐6A‐5a. Wind power projects. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, a power project designed, constructed or installed to convert wind into electrical energy shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (b) Each wind turbine installed at a wind power project and each tower upon which the turbine is affixed shall be considered to be personal property that is a pollution control facility for purposes of this article and, subject to an allocation of the value of project property determined by the Tax Commissioner in accordance with this section, all of the value associated with the wind turbine and tower shall be accorded salvage valuation: Provided, That the portion of the total value of the facility assigned salvage value in accordance with this section shall, on and after the first day of July, two thousand seven, be no greater than seventy‐nine percent of the total value of the facility. All personal property at a wind power project other than a wind turbine and tower shall not be accorded salvage valuation and shall not be considered to be personal property that is a pollution control facility. For purposes of this section, "wind turbine and tower" is limited to: The rotor, consisting of the blades and the supporting hub; the drive train, which includes the remaining rotating parts such as the shafts, gearbox, coupling, a mechanical brake and the generator; the nacelle and main frame, including the wind turbine housing, bedplate and the yaw system; the turbine transformer; the machine controls; the tower; and the tower foundation.

Key information II: ARTICLE 13. BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX. (2) New generating units. ‐‐ If a new generating unit, other than a peaking unit, is placed in initial service on or after the effective date of this section, the generating unit's taxable generating capacity shall equal forty percent of the official capability of the unit: Provided, That the taxable generating capacity of a county‐ or municipally owned generating unit shall equal zero percent of the official capability of the unit and for taxable periods ending on or before the thirty‐first day of December, two thousand seven, the taxable generating capacity of a generating unit utilizing a turbine powered primarily by wind shall equal five percent of the official capability of the unit: Provided further, That for taxable periods beginning on or after the first day of January, two thousand eight, the taxable generating capacity of a generating unit utilizing a turbine powered primarily by wind shall equal twelve percent of the official capability of the unit.

Other (or key information III): §11‐13‐2p. Credit against tax based on the taxable generating capacity of a generating unit utilizing a turbine powered primarily by wind. For taxable periods beginning on or after the first day of January, 2008, a credit shall be allowed against tax imposed by this article and calculated based on the taxable generating capacity of a generating unit utilizing a turbine powered primarily by wind. The total credit shall be equal to the amount of qualified contractually agreed contributions as defined in this section. The amount of total credit shall be reduced each year by the amount of credit annually applied to reduce tax under this section.

238

Gamesa Wind Activity in West Virginia

Source(s) of publication/information: Gamesa Energy

Publication date: October 2008

File name: Gamesa_Framel_II

Web source: www.energywv.org/community/WindConferences.html

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Existing/Proposed development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, existing, proposed, West Virginia, renewable energy, surface mining

Brief description: This is a PowerPoint of a presentation Gamesa Energy ‐ headquartered in Spain with a national office and manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania ‐ gave to the 2008 West Virginia Wind Working Group. It covers existing and potential wind development in the state, the challenges to wind development in the state, and the reasons why developing wind farms is attractive for West Virginia.

Key information I: West Virginia has many of the components for a successful wind farm: Good wind resource on ridge‐tops, available transmission, existing permitting regime, landowner support, community group support.

Key information II: Projects under development: Beech Ridge (186MW), Liberty Gap (100MW), US Wind Force Mt. Storm (150MW), Laurel Ridge (125MW) ‐‐ total of 561 megawatts of wind energy under development and 330 megawatts existing. Gamesa developments in West Virginia: Rich Mountain, Randolph County (80MW); Dobbin Ridge, Grant/Tucker Counties (80MW); Stone Steps, McDowell County (60MW); Nicholas, Nicholas County (60MW)

Other (or key information III): Challenges to wind farms in West Virginia: Organized local opposition groups; construction ‐‐ some of the windiest sites are the most remote or have been surface mined; environmental ‐ birds, bats, and threatened or endangered species; lengthy process for project approval.

239

Community Supported Wind Power

Source(s) of publication/information: Mother Earth News

Publication date: June 2009

File name: MothEarthNws_Community Supported Wind Power

Web source: www.motherearthnews.com/print‐article.aspx?id=131828

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Community wind

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, small wind, community‐supported wind, local ownership, economic benefits

Brief description: This article provides a substantial overview of community‐owned wind power. It offers an explanation of the reasons why community wind is so successful in many European countries, and also of what are the roadblocks to community wind in the Unites States—most notably the control over the power grid by corporate utilities that prefer to own the energy coming into their grid. The article also provides examples of ownership models that are working on North America, specifically in Canada.

Key information I: Perhaps you’d like to have a wind turbine in your back yard, but for one reason or another, your property just isn’t a good location. Don’t despair, because someone else in your community might have an excellent site to put one or more turbines, where the wind always seems to blow. And if you can attract enough support from area residents, you may be able to install a medium to large‐scale, locally owned wind turbine project that can benefit everyone in the community. Impossible? Not at all. In fact, this strategy has been used successfully for many years in Europe and is the foundation of the Danish wind industry, long recognized as a world leader in wind energy.

Key information II: There were three key components to the Danish wind initiative: 1. Laws to allow wind power developers to connect to the electrical grid. 2. The legal requirement that utilities purchase the wind‐generated electricity. 3. A guaranteed fair price.

Other (or key information III): OK, if community supported wind is such a great idea, why aren’t there more successful examples in North America? Unfortunately, in the absence of a coherent national energy policy, the rules and regulations governing community wind (and other local renewable energy) projects vary considerably from state to state, making it difficult to offer a simple, one‐size‐fits‐all approach for success. In most states, there’s a regulatory environment and approval process that does virtually nothing to encourage these types of projects. For the most part, community wind isn’t even on the radar screen of most regulators, and the high cost of the approval process (often $100,000 to $500,000 or more in zoning approval charges, permitting fees and other miscellaneous costs) halts most community based initiatives before they even get started. Plus, federal energy production tax credits (PTC) for wind farms favor large‐scale corporate projects that are beyond the means of local communities.

240

American Recovery and Re‐investment Act (2009 Stimulus Package): How it helps with small wind

Source(s) of publication/information: SkyStream

Publication date: 2009

File name: small_wind_ARRA_stimulus_overview

Web source: www.windenergy.com/news/stimulus_overview.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Small wind

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, small wind, recovery act, financing, policy

Brief description: This pamphlet provides a brief overview of how the 2009 Recovery Act provides financial support for the purchase and installation of small wind energy systems.

Key information I: On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Re‐ investment Act of 2009. With a significant emphasis on renewable energy technology deployment and job expansion, the bill improved upon the 2008 small wind tax credit by removing “cost caps.” This change allows consumers and small businesses to deduct from their tax liability 30 percent of the installed cost of a wind turbine. Additionally, businesses will have the option of receiving their credits in the form of cash grants.

Key information II: The stimulus package allows for a 30 percent tax credit on the total cost of multiple units. There is no cap on the percent tax credit. Businesses may qualify for a grant from the US Treasury in lieu of a tax credit. Businesses can also apply for a grant from the US Treasury and rather than a tax credit, receive a cash grant. The details are still being worked out but should be in place by April or May (2009).

Other (or key information III): N/A

241

AWEA Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study

Source(s) of publication/information: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Publication date: 2009

File name: 09_AWEA_Small_Wind_Global_Market_Study

Web source: www.awea.org/smallwind/pdf/2008_AWEA_Small_Wind_Turbine_Global_Market_Study.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, markets, small wind

Brief description: This report provides an overview of the small wind market in the United States. It discusses current small wind market status, growth potential and projections, state information, potential market factors, jobs and investment, and displacement of carbon dioxide. It also provides a profile of small wind manufacturers and manufacturing trend. It then compares small wind growth and costs to those of solar photovoltaics, and finishes with an analysis of the global small wind market.

Key information I: The US market for small wind turbines – those with capacities of 100 kW and under – grew 78% in 2008 with an additional 17.3 MW of installed capacity. This growth is largely attributable to increased private equity investment that allowed manufacturing volumes to increase, particularly for the commercial segment of the market (systems 21‐100kW). The still‐largest segment of the market, residential (1‐10kW), was likewise driven by investment and manufacturing economies of scale, but also by rising residential electricity prices and a heightened public awareness of the technology and its attributes.

Key information II: Commercial‐sector customers have found difficulty securing financing for the typically more expensive turbines in this market, and have found Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) to be a more attractive financing method. Commercial PPAs enable businesses, schools, governments, and utilities to consume renewable electricity while avoiding high capital costs and risks associated with owning the generating equipment.

Other (or key information III): Average prevailing wind speed is the second most significant factor in a turbine’s rate of return on investment, behind only financial incentives (see also “Costs” in the 2008 study). Several private‐ sector companies have developed more advanced technologies in recent years to identify geographic regions with the greatest average wind speeds, and the US Department of Energy released a Funding Opportunity Announcement in 2008 calling for the development of a consumer‐friendly “site analysis tool” to benefit distributed wind technology. These new tools could help future small wind installations be more productive and offer consumers more predictability on their investment.

242

Wind, solar could bring down other fuel needs

Source(s) of publication/information: Ronald Grimm, Op‐Ed Commentary, Charleston Gazette

Publication date: March 2009

File name: Grimm_Gazette_Wind_Solar_WV

Web source: www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/200903210419

Renewables/areas covered: Wind, Solar

Focus area II: Energy development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): fuel consumption, West Virginia, wind, solar, mountaintop removal

Brief description: This is an Op‐Ed commentary by West Virginia resident and electrical engineer Ronald Grimm. He addresses mountaintop removal and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation by developing solar and wind energy resources within the state. This Op‐Ed is a response to an earlier Op‐Ed by an opponent of wind development who had argued that wind power development in West Virginia would destroy the mountaintops while providing very little of the state's energy generation.

Key information I: Putting our heads in the sand (of OPEC oil countries) and stripping our mountains of their coal is not the way to meet the future electrical generation needs of our country...we need to come together as a state, and quit giving in to special interest groups and their biased and self‐serving opinions aimed solely to help a very select number of residents. Our future depends on it.

Key information II: Peak loads are met by increasing in‐house capacity when available and using jet‐pack turbines at most generating stations as peak suppliers only. They consume huge amounts of jet fuel for their power output, but they are small and produce large amounts of energy for short periods. This is why having another source, such as wind or solar, that can operate during the peak times, is hugely cost saving and allows these alternatives to come into their own. The daily peak demand starts increasing around 6 a.m. and peaks about 10 a.m. local time and maintains that peak amount until approximately 8 p.m. Wind and solar peaks are available during these peak demand hours offsetting the highest cost timeframe. Wind is slightly different. The greatest amount of wind is from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily.

Other (or key information III): Wind power, like all forms of energy production, is intermittent, but it is time to make wind a real part of the solution. Wind farm costs are similar to a large fossil fuel or nuclear generating station, but the redundancy of multiple wind generators lessens the impact of the loss of one large fossil fuel or nuclear generator for maintenance. Maintenance outage times for wind units are measured in hours, days and weeks rather than the months and years it can take with fossil fuel‐ or nuclear‐powered large generating stations.

243

An Examination of the Regional Supply and Demand Balance for Renewable Electricity in the United States through 2015

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: March 2009

File name: NREL_RenEn_Supply_and_Demand

Web source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45041.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): wind, solar, renewable energy, supply and demand, growth, incentives, projections, regional

Brief description: As noted by the report: "This report examines the balance between the demand and supply of new renewable electricity in the United States on a regional basis through 2015. It relies on estimates of renewable energy supplies compared to demand for renewable energy generation needed to meet existing state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies in 28 states, as well as demand by consumers who voluntarily purchase renewable energy. The analysis examines two supply scenarios: 1) a business as usual (BAU) scenario based on current growth rates in renewable energy supply in each region and 2) a market‐based scenario that differs only in an assumed higher overall level of wind energy development nationally (based on estimates from BTM Consult and referred to as “high wind case”). This analysis uses results from a recent study by DOE (DOE 2008) that presents a scenario of 20% wind energy penetration by 2030 to apportion the wind energy capacity by region.

Key information I: In some regions where current and future shortfalls are shown in the analysis, barriers to development of renewables have played a role. For example, barriers to siting and permitting renewable energy projects, including offshore wind, have limited the development of new renewables in some regions. Furthermore, the load‐serving entities subject to RPS requirements particularly in restructured electricity markets – such as in New England and the Mid‐Atlantic – have been hesitant to enter into long‐term contracts for renewable energy supplies, limiting the ability of renewable energy projects in the region to obtain financing. However, these issues may be addressed in the future, because a number of states have recently adopted policy changes to alleviate these problems. For example, Massachusetts requires the default service providers to sign 15‐year contracts (DSIRE 2009). If these policies succeed and the barriers are removed, the rate of renewable energy development will likely accelerate above historical rates in these regions.

Key information II: The study reports an average capacity factor for wind development in the Mid‐Atlantic region of 28% for the years 2002‐2006 (this includes West Virginia) and 29% for the Southeast region (which includes Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia). In the footnotes, the report lists a capacity factor of 33% for 'biomass solids,' 68% for landfill gas, and 40% for small hydroelectric ‐ all potential renewable energy sources for Central Appalachia. The study projects a doubling to tripling of installed wind capacity from 2009 to 2015, which would drive the formation of a strong wind industry in all regions. This includes a near five‐fold increase in total installed renewable energy capacity in the mid‐Atlantic region and more than a tripling in the Southeast region. These are all estimates under the Business‐as‐Usual case, and they improve substantially under the "High Wind" case. Finally, estimating compliance demand needs through 2015, the report estimates that under Renewable Portfolio Standards, the Mid‐Atlantic region will require new renewable energy capacity in the amount of 22,140 gigawatt‐ hours by 2015. However, the study projects a supply deficit based on projections of demand by 2015 from between 9,000‐15,000 by 2015.

244

Other (or key information III): A more policy‐driven approach to addressing potential shortfalls is expanded REC trading across regional seams. 24 The Environmental Tracking Network of North America (ETNNA) is convening a national dialogue, the goal of which is to address the technical issues associated with interregional REC trading. If successful, ETNNA’s efforts will create a foundation where it will be possible to trade RECs among regions; the actual practice will likely depend on the state rules for eligible renewable resources for their RPS (not addressed by ETNNA). At least in the near term, a surplus in one region would most likely be large enough to satisfy internal shortages in neighboring regions. For example, if states adopted broader geographic eligibility regions – which would relax deliverability requirements – excess supplies in the upper Midwest could be used to achieve compliance in New England and the Mid‐Atlantic, and perhaps take advantage of lower‐cost resources. However, such trading may come at the expense of interest on the part of states in driving more local economic development, which is often a goal of state‐level RPS requirements.

245

Pathway to a Low‐Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Abatement Cost Curve

Source(s) of publication/information: McKinsey and Company

Publication date: 2009

File name: PathwayToLowCarbonEconomy_FullReportA

Web source: www.worldwildlife.org/climate/WWFBinaryitem11334.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): greenhouse gas reductions, abatement costs, energy comparison, efficiency, renewable energy, reforestation, greenhouse gas abatement

Brief description: This study "builds upon an earlier version of the global greenhouse gas abatement database conducted by McKinsey (and others). The current report incorporates updated assessments of the development of low‐carbon technologies, updated macro‐economic assessments, a significantly more detailed understanding of abatement potential in different regions and industries, and assessment of investment and financing needs in addition to cost estimates, and the incorporation of implementation scenarios for a more dynamic understanding of how abatement reductions could unfold. The report also provides a deeper understanding of greenhouse gas abatement economics. Its purpose is to provide an objective and uniform set of data that can serve as a starting point for corporate leaders, academics, and policy makers when discussing how best to achieve emission reductions."

Key information I: This quote is repeated from the larger following quote, for the purpose of emphasizing the point. For the purpose of incentivizing cost‐efficient the report suggests "Addressing the potential in Forestry and Agriculture, primarily located in developing economies, linking abatement to overall development...To address (developing regions') emissions, policy makers will need to design effective local policies that change the work practices of literally hundreds of millions of small farmers and forest workers, and that fit within the context of the overall development agenda of the concerned regions."

Key information II: The four main policy‐related recommendations offered in the report include: 1) Regulation to overcome the market imperfections that prevent net‐profit‐positive opportunities from materializing, e.g. through technical norms and standards; 2) Establishing stable long‐term incentives to encourage power producers and industrial companies to develop and deploy greenhouse gas‐efficient technologies; 3) Providing sufficient incentives and support to improve the cost efficiency of promising emerging technologies; 4) Addressing the potential in Forestry and Agriculture, primarily located in developing economies, linking abatement to overall development.

Other (or key information III): The chart on page 7 shows degraded land restoration, pastureland afforestation and degraded forest reforestation as two of the cheapest options for greenhouse gas abatement, as well as with the most abatement potential (degraded forest reforestation in particular). The chart on page 44 provides an overview of 'capital intensity by abatement measure,' and also shows that per ton CO2 reduced, degraded forest reforestation provides one of the cheapest and most effective measures for greenhouse gas abatement.

246

Sierra Club Landfill Gas Task Force, Preliminary Report to the Board

Source(s) of publication/information: Sierra Club

Publication date: February 2009

File name: SC landfill‐gas‐preliminary‐report‐Feb‐09

Web source: None, provided by the Sierra Club directly.

Renewables/areas covered: Landfill Gas

Focus area II: Environmental impacts

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): landfill gas, renewable energy, greenhouse gases, waste management

Brief description: This is a report conducted by the Sierra Club Landfill Gas to Energy Taskforce (LFGTE), and it evaluates whether LFGTE facilities decrease of increase net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This report is likely to have influenced the Sierra Club's position on landfill gas facilities as a carbon abatement energy development strategy, and it provides somewhat of a scientific and lifecycle analysis for informing its conclusions. The report is informative for CAPP because given that there are numerous landfills within the Central Appalachian region, LFGTE projects are gaining increasing attention by developers and local governments as a way to generate jobs and revenue and reduce carbon emissions.

Key information I: We have unanimously concluded that generating electricity from landfill gas increases net GHG emissions. This is clearly the case when considering the fate of new wastes that could be diverted to waste management facilities more appropriate than landfills, and is almost certainly true for wastes already buried in landfills that collect landfill gas and flare it. Our conclusions reinforce existing Sierra Club policy that supports diversion of the organic fraction of our discards from landfills so that uncontrolled methane is not generated in the first instance. They also suggest that, in existing landfills with or without LFGTE facilities, regulations should be significantly strengthened to reduce methane emissions as much as possible.

Key information II: Management practices commonly employed in conjunction with LFGTE systems tend to increase fugitive methane emissions, to shift their timing toward the present (compared with standard landfill gas collection and flaring), and to reduce collection efficiency. In particular, raising the moisture content of the landfill, the “wet cell” method, accelerates the decomposition of wastes, making room for more wastes and increasing the volume and concentration of methane produced. It also shifts methane generation forward in time, which is counterproductive to achieving the near‐term reductions in GHG emissions.

Other (or key information III): Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears the relatively small CO2 reduction benefit that might be achieved by replacing fossil fuel electricity with LFGTE electricity is greatly outweighed by the increase in fugitive methane emissions resulting from altered landfill management practices. That makes LFGTE facilities counterproductive as part of a climate change mitigation strategy.

247

Coal River Mountain wind map

Source(s) of publication/information: WindLogics, Downstream Strategies

Publication date: 2006/2008

File name: large_CRM_map

Web source: None, in‐house

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Resource potential

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): coal river mountain, wind potential, coalfields, mountaintop removal, economic diversification

Brief description: This is a wind map of Coal River Mountain in Raleigh County, West Virginia, created by Downstream Strategies using data from a site‐specific study conducted by WindLogics, a national wind consulting firm.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

248

Help Protect Tazewell County Mountains!!

Source(s) of publication/information: Virginia Wind

Publication date: 2009

File name: Tazewell_Wind_Opposition

Web source: http://vawind.org/#javascript

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impact

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind, opposition, environmental impact, viewshed, economic benefit, Indiana Bat, big‐eared bat, property values

Brief description: This is a brochure advertisement for community opposition to a proposed wind farm in Tazewell County, Virginia. It was created by the Mountain Protection Association, a group created specifically to oppose wind farm proposals along the Virginia ‐ Kentucky line.

Key information I: "International energy companies are planning to bulldoze the ridge‐top of East River Mountain, Burke's garden and other ridges in Tazewell County. They will build roads and waste ponds, and then construct 400‐foot tall wind turbine towers all along the ridges, permanently altering our landscape. We need your help to stop them!"

Key information II: And after we lose our mountains, watch our homes depreciate and endure the loss of our serenity, what do we get?? No new jobs, no new taxes, no lower power bills, no real benefit in our dependency on foreign oil and easing global warming. Initially, the County will receive taxes on the turbine equipment, but as their values depreciate (over a few years to $0) the county will receive $0 in taxes, and no severance taxes on power leaving the county.

Other (or key information III): These roads and concrete platforms will require blasting off the bedrock at the top of the ridge. This is damage that can never be repaired even if the project is abandoned at a later date. The trees and the forest floor will be replaced by compact ground, platforms, and roads which will cause a higher runoff rate from the top of the mountain. This will increase the prospect of flooding when there are heavy rains.

249

The Promise of Wind Embracing America’s Fastest‐Growing Form of Renewable Energy

Source(s) of publication/information: E‐magazine

Publication date: 2008

File name: The Promise of Wind _ Embra..

Web source: www.emagazine.com/view/?4502&printview&imagesoff

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impact

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind potential, energy benefits, climate, coal, environmental benefits, avian impacts

Brief description: This article discusses the growing development of wind energy and prospects for future development, while addressing both the pros and cons of constructing large wind turbines across vast expanses of land. It addresses the economic, environmental and energy benefits and offers an objective look at the environmental impacts in terms of bird and bat fatalities, as well as social illnesses claimed to be caused by low‐ frequency noise, shadow flicker and the direct sounds from the turbines.

Key information I: Estimates by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) show that wind currently generates as much electricity as nearly 30 million tons of coal or 90 million barrels of oil. In 2008, wind displaced about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 5.8 million vehicles off the road. In 20 years, if we reach the industry goal of supplying 20% of our national energy from wind, it will be the equivalent of taking 140 million vehicles off the road. Unlike oil, wind will not pollute our waterways or contaminate our national wildlife refuges. Unlike coal, it doesn’t release mercury into the air or leave permanent, ugly scars across the landscape. And unlike nuclear, there is no spent fuel to bury or protect from terrorist threats. In addition to the obvious environmental benefits, there are other compelling arguments for promoting wind power. First, the resource is huge. “There’s something like 600 gigawatts of wind that can be developed in the US,” says Jim Walker of Enxco, a company that develops wind farms in North America. That’s about 60% of our current electricity consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Key information II: Community—or midsized—wind is also likely to be a significant contributor. This is wind power for smaller investors, such as farmers, ranchers, consumer‐owned utilities, school districts and colleges (see sidebar, “Building Wind Communities”). The beauty of community wind, in addition to being able to take advantage of smaller sites, is that it contributes to a less centralized—and a more secure—model for our energy needs. And small wind will play an important role in a new energy picture. Defined as wind produced by turbines that are rated at 100 kW or less, most are owned by individuals—homeowners, farmers and business owners. Small wind currently contributes 55 to 60 MW of capacity in the US Although that’s a small fraction of what’s coming online from utility‐scale projects, small wind is an attractive option for anyone who wants to fix their energy costs. “Think of it as prepaying for your electrical costs for 25 or 30 years,” says Ron Stimmel, AWEA’s small‐wind advocate. A brand‐new credit for small wind, similar to the one that’s been in place for solar energy, was enacted with the recent energy bill. It gives homeowners back 30% of the total system cost, up to $4,000. The small‐wind turbine market grew by 14% in 2007. Projections for the next couple of decades vary widely. Stimmel says it’s likely to be north of one GW…and even as high as 10.

Other (or key information III): Wind is not without its environmental issues, either. Bird deaths were a big concern early on with fast‐turning turbines and the lattice‐style towers that were attractive nesting places. New tubular tower designs and slower‐turning blades are mitigating the problem. The newest turbines, including those with

250 vertical‐blade designs, run at only 12 revolutions per minute, which make them easier for birds to see and avoid. Turbines kill bats in large numbers, too, though not for the same reason. Bats, already in decline in many regions, play crucial roles with insect control, pollination and seed dispersement. Studies show that most of the bat deaths occur because bats’ lungs expand dramatically when they fly into low‐pressure areas caused by turbine blades. Then the capillaries around the lungs burst, filling the lung sac with blood. Collisions with the blades are less of a concern with bats, thanks to their advanced natural sonar.

251

No Need to Wait: Using Energy Efficiency and Offsets to Meet Early Electric Sector Greenhouse Gas Targets

Source(s) of publication/information: Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Publication date: May 2009

File name: SYNAPSE_Using_EE_and_Offsets_Electric_GHG_Targets

Web source: www.synapse‐energy.com/Downloads/No_Need_To_Wait.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Energy Efficiency

Focus area II: Climate

Folder name: Energy efficiency

Key word(s): energy efficiency, offsets, greenhouse gas, emissions reductions, savings, sequestration

Brief description: This report examines the potential and policy needs for meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets simply from investing in energy efficiency improvements on the state level. It looks at the savings through agricultural offsets examples of successful energy efficiency programs, and addresses issues with energy efficiency. For the purposes of CAPP, this report is useful for examining policy options for helping Central Appalachia reduce its carbon impact, for generating revenue for land restoration efforts, and for estimating the economic costs and benefits of implementing a determined level of energy efficiency efforts specific to each individual state.

Key information I: Removing obstacles to energy efficiency measures, such as how they are evaluated and how some programs are implemented, will ensure that the anticipated level of benefits are achieved. Currently, there are disincentives for utilities and distribution companies to aggressively pursue energy efficiency. For example, utility company profits and rate of return are based on the amount of electricity sold in their service territory. By selling less, companies lower their revenues and profits. There are also other barriers to implementing energy efficiency programs: • Split incentives: This term applies to rental housing and apartment units, where a landlord owns the property and appliances, but does not pay for the electricity. Landlords tend to purchase the least expensive appliances, which consume more energy than slightly more expensive efficient units. • Cream skimming: Some demand‐side management (DSM) programs, especially in their early phases of implementation, have focused on easy, quick‐hit types of measures in order to demonstrate significant savings. For example, compact florescent lights (CFLs) provide very real and cost‐effective savings, but focusing on such a narrow area misses opportunities to achieve substantial and long lasting savings.

Key information II: Forest Sequestration and Carbon Retention Growing forests use CO2 from the atmosphere to produce wood, leaves, roots, and other plant matter. Over time, some of this carbon dioxide is transferred into the soil. A forest can sequester 2 to 10 tons of carbon dioxide per acre as long as it grows, depending on the location, forest type, and growing conditions. By the time a forest reaches maturity, it can hold over 150 tons of carbon dioxide per acre, but stores very little additional CO2. At this point, the forest system is “carbon saturated.” If the forest is harvested, some of the carbon dioxide stored in the biomass transfers back into the atmosphere as waste from forestry and lumber operations as it is either burned or decomposes. Therefore, in a carbon economy, one of the most intuitive ways to store carbon in the biosphere is to simply not cut down old, mature forests. Carbon credits or offsets accrued to avoided deforestation can be difficult to track, but can be an effective storage mechanism.

Other (or key information III): There is Great Potential for US Agricultural and Forestry Offsets Improved domestic agricultural and forestry practices could conservatively achieve about a combined 27% of reduction targets. The most promising opportunities in soil carbon sequestration, forest management, and manure

252 and fertilizer management are being implemented now in several areas across the United States. While these practices are not as mature as those that we analyzed for energy efficiency, our analysis evaluated only those practices which have been adopted in the domestic commercial market.

253

Distributed energy generation and sustainable development

Source(s) of publication/information: Kari Alanne, Arto Saari, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Publication date: October 2004

File name: Distributed energy generation and sustainable development

Web source: http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512286256/article1.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Generation model

Focus area II: Energy development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): distributed energy, sustainable development, energy transition, decentralization, culture change, social embedding

Brief description: As described in the report, this article "first discuss(es) the definitions of a distributed energy system. Then (it) evaluate(s) political, economic, social, and technological dimensions associated with regional energy systems on the basis of the degree of decentralization. Finally, (it) deal(s) with the characteristics of a distributed energy system in the context of sustainability. This article concludes that a distributed energy system is a good option with respect to sustainable development."

Key information I: Conventionally, power plants have been large, centralized units A new trend is developing toward distributed energy generation, which means that energy conversion units are situated close to energy consumers, and large units are substituted by smaller ones [1]. In the ultimate case, distributed energy generation means that single buildings can be completely self‐supporting in terms of electricity, heat, and cooling energy...The basic idea of distributed energy generation is actually not new. The trend can be regarded as part of a historical continuum. A couple of centuries ago, every single house in the far North was equipped with a furnace...Thus, the functions of the society in general were quite decentralized until the ‘first era of decentralization’ was ended by the advance of technology and mass production.

Key information II: A distributed energy system is an efficient, reliable and environmentally friendly alternative to the traditional energy system. The breakthrough of new solutions often seems to be simply a matter of decision‐ making. A positive attitude and a commitment to sustainable development already can be seen both in political definitions and in the opinions of single real estate owners. Readiness to make decisions, however, requires the active promotion of new technology among interest groups, for example, by means of societal embedding. The basic requirement of societal embedding is a thorough understanding about the real essence of new solutions as well as their benefits and drawbacks.

Other (or key information III): In terms of social factors, special knowledge and expertise is required when operating and maintaining energy systems. The required number of staff increases when the functions of an energy system are decentralized. Thusly, local employment can be improved by creating new jobs related to distributed energy generation. This, in turn, causes a need for high quality education. Consequently, positive attitudes towards new energy technologies can emerge among educated people. Therefore, as the number of educated people increases, so does the level of support for distributed energy generation.

254

The Economic Promise of Renewable Energy

Source(s) of publication/information: George Sterzinger, in New Labor Forum

Publication date: June 2007

File name: gsterzinger_NLF_EconProm_RenewEnergy

Web source: www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788087743

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, economic development, manufacturing, reindustrialization, regulations, incentives

Brief description: In this article, George Sterzinger of the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) argues strongly for an aggressive new national energy policy that addresses national security, climate change and other environmental impacts, and the reindustrialization of the domestic economy through rapid deployment of renewable energy development strategies and facilitating policies. He criticizes the fact that these three areas are usually addressed in isolation, but that in order to maximize reductions in CO2 and the economic benefits of achieving those reductions, a comprehensive approach must be taken.

Key information I: Addressing the way in which the energy sector drains the domestic economy of dollars, manufacturing capacity, innovative capability, and jobs—has not really been a part of the debate. Unlike fossil energy, which is discovered, renewable energy is conceived and created in labs and universities, brought to commercial readiness by developers, manufactured as component parts, and assembled into finished products. In the end, renewable energy is manufactured energy.

Key information II: Not a single energy policy initiative has seriously addressed how to develop a domestic renewable industry that would revitalize the manufacturing sector. Over the past decade, our energy policy has been concentrated almost entirely on supporting the development of fossil fuel resources. To the extent renewable energy was supported, it was through a patchwork of state level requirements to install renewable energy projects combined with erratic federal incentives in the form of production tax credits. Absolutely no attention was paid to supporting the development of a full‐fledged renewable industry.

Other (or key information III): There are over 42,000 firms active in the sectors which could manufacture renewable energy components, mostly located in states that have suffered the greatest job losses over the past decade. Unless these sectors develop new manufacturing capacity, they will be unable to supply the necessary parts, causing a supply bottleneck. Moreover, this industry will create two million full time equivalent jobs, and since renewable technologies are new, most of these jobs will require a trained workforce that does not currently exist. Further, efforts to expand domestic manufacturing and workforce development should tie back into the basic research so that the industry that emerges is productive and efficient.

255

North Carolina Economic Developer's Guide to the Renewable Energy Industries

Source(s) of publication/information: Appalachian State University and the North Carolina State Energy Office

Publication date: Spring 2009

File name: Guide_to_RenEn_industries

Web source: www.energy.appstate.edu/docs/devguide_v3.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, energy efficiency, economic development, renewable industries, green jobs, economic recovery, renewable supply chain

Brief description: This publication serves as a guide for understanding the status and potential of the green economy in North Carolina. It is structured as follows: "The Green Economy section includes a review of recent studies highlighting green energy’s economic potential in the state. Selected news briefs from the past year show a variety of NC industries expanding to serve green energy markets. The feature section of Volume 3 is entitled Directions as it provides insight into the state’s economic specialties where economic development efforts could have the greatest impact in counties across the state, and concludes with an overview of how green growth can impact the state’s diverse economic areas." Another section provides pages covering industries involved in green energy technology production in North Carolina, and the last section describes incentives and policies on the state level available for communities and companies to take advantage of.

Key information I: The green economy is today’s growth economy. Since our current economic recession officially began in late 2007, unemployment in North Carolina is well over 10% statewide with some counties experiencing rates in excess of 15%. There is however, an exception to this trend –Industry surveys released in late 2008 by the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA), revealed 2,144 jobs – over 70% of which are manufacturing jobs – at 161 renewable energy and energy efficiency businesses across the state during 2008. Furthermore, these respondents reported an increasing rate of job growth expected in 2009, rising from 18% employment growth last year to 24% in 2009 to reach a projected 2,660 employees at these companies.

Key information II: There is perhaps no better demonstration of green energy’s potential to grow North Carolina’s economy than the success of the Green Business Fund. In its inaugural year, 2008, the Fund received 85 applications from small businesses requesting nearly $7 million in funding to support expansion into green markets. Following the award of only 15% of requests in 2008, the million‐dollar fund is significantly more competitive in 2009 with 299 pre‐proposals submitted in January totaling an estimated request of $25,155,425. The Green Business Fund was authorized in 2007 (GS 143B‐437.4) and was appropriated $1 million per year for FY08 and FY09. Over 80% of the pre‐proposals submitted in 2009 were from for‐profit companies, about 11% were from government agencies and the remainder were from non‐profit organizations. Of the three priority areas, nearly 47% of pre‐proposals were submitted under the area of clean conscious/renewable energy, over 36% were submitted under green building, and about 16% were submitted under biofuels.

Other (or key information III): New jobs from manufacturing renewable energy components will be of greatest benefit to counties where a larger‐than‐average portion of local employment is found in industries with the technical potential, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System, to manufacture products for renewable energy markets. The degree of specialization is calculated using the location quotient technique, comparing county and national employment data from the Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns release for

256 the aggregate renewable energy supply chain industry groups identified in US Department of Energy‐funded renewable energy manufacturing reports prepared by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (www.repp.org).

257

The Environmental Imperative for Renewable Energy: An Update

Source(s) of publication/information: Renewable Energy Policy Project

Publication date: April 2000

File name: REPP_Enviro_Imperative_for_Renewables

Web source: www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/envImp.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Environmental need

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, environmental impact, fossil fuels

Brief description: This is a survey conducted by the Renewable Energy Policy Project of the impacts of various energy sources, including both fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. The survey covers impacts related to air pollution, climate change, land and wildlife, water, and radiation, and compares the impacts between energy sources.

Key information I: The environmental impacts of electricity production weigh most heavily on poor communities and communities of color—terms that in the United States often overlap. In some cases, this situation may reflect a perceived need within the community for economic development at any cost. In others, it may reflect a lack of political influence, a lack of information about environmental risks, or a lack of awareness of alternative development and energy strategies.

Key information II: The report notes that including the effects of mining ‐ both surface and underground ‐ the land‐use impacts of coal equate to 2.18 hectares per megawatt of generation nationally, assuming a national coal‐ fired generating capacity of 314 gigawatts (so approximately 685,000 hectares as of 2000, plus 216,000 hectares for the power plants and associated ash ponds).

Other (or key information III): An accurate comparison of the land, water, air, and climactic impacts of various electricity generation options requires “life cycle” analyses, which examine the effects of producing and transporting fuel, building and subsequently decommissioning facilities, generating power, and treating and disposing of waste. For ease of comparison, some studies translate these diverse impacts into dollars, in keeping with past regulatory practices of attempting to identify the least‐cost resource strategy. Such comparisons are controversial and, to some readers, unsatisfying, since many human health and environmental effects have no clear dollar cost

258

State‐level economic impacts of a National Climate Change policy

Source(s) of publication/information: Pew Center on Climate Change

Publication date: April 2008

File name: state‐level‐economic‐impacts_ghg

Web source: www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/state‐level‐economic‐impacts.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Economic impact

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): climate change, economic impacts, states, federal policy

Brief description: This report "analyzes as a first step, the potential costs of a moderate national cap‐and‐trade policy that seeks to stabilize emissions at the level seen in the year 2000. The objective is to inform the debate about alternative policy options and how these might be expected to impact the types and relative impacts that could be experienced both at the national and regional level."

Key information I: Policy simulations in this report indicate that the level of offsets allowed, the method of allocating permits, and the energy‐intensity of states all have significant impact on the macroeconomic impacts. Results also indicate, however, that the impacts of a moderate GHG policy on the United States would be minimal and exhibit the following broad characteristics: 1) Slight declines in the growth rates of national gross domestic product (GDP) and states’ gross state products (GSP) over the next 15 years—generally on the order of one to two one‐hundredths of a percent per year. 2) Demands for electricity and oil fall modestly (natural‐gas use rises), while energy prices increase slightly. 3) While impacts on manufacturing and electricity generation vary moderately across individual states as a function of states’ energy efficiency and carbon intensities, variation in the effects on states’ household consumption (which have the same overall magnitude as the GSP impacts) depend fundamentally on how the policy is designed and implemented.

Key information II: Along with other aspects of states’ economies such as household energy consumption and emissions of non‐CO2 GHG (mainly from the agricultural, coal‐mining, and natural‐gas industries), the four factors discussed above—allocation, business as usual (BaU) electricity generation, BaU energy intensity, and BaU state output—will largely control how impacts of the GHG policy are spread across the United States. Given that there is substantial variation among states in these features of their economies, it is to be expected that US‐level results will obscure many changes occurring at the state level. Figure 12 shows the magnitude of GSP change after the policy has been in effect for 10 years. Figure 13 illustrates this change in reference to each state’s projected growth. (For West Virginia the chart shows a growth impact over greater than 0.5% under a scenario where carbon offsets are sold on the market). In other states such as North Dakota and West Virginia, changes in GSP, which appear counterintuitive at first glance, are a function of the additional allowances they are allocated under a distribution scheme based on historical emissions and would tend to be reversed if alternative schemes were used (see Figures 14 and 15).

Other (or key information III): Policy impacts on employment, which reduced overall employment growth in the United States from 1.225 percent a year to 1.215 percent over the 2005 to 2020 time frame, are spread across states in a pattern similar to changes in output revenues (see Figure 19). As shown in Figure 20, in 2020, after 10 years of the policy, employment effects range from essentially zero for states such as California, Florida, and Hawaii to between a quarter of a percent from the BaU projection for energy‐producing states (recall that, in these

259 same states, household consumption spending did not necessarily decline, depending on how allowances are distributed). Trends that might be expected in some energy states, such as Alaska and Colorado, are offset by increases in employment in the natural‐gas industries. In other states that are significant coal producers, such as West Virginia, some labor movements from the energy‐producing industries into other parts of the economy are relatively unaffected by the GHG policy, such as services.

260

Comparing Statewide Economic Impacts of New Generation from Wind, Coal, and Natural Gas in Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: May 2006

File name: NREL_Econ_Devt_Wind_vs_Coal

Web source: www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/38154_econdev_compare_statewide.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind Power

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, economic impacts, coal, natural gas

Brief description: This 2006 report compares the economic impacts of wind, coal and natural gas development. It analyzes the relative impacts in terms of in‐state spending related to the construction, financing, operations and maintenance, fuel extraction and transport, landowner revenue, property taxes, and sales tax portions of energy development and generation, and provides a comparison of discount rates. In presenting the results, it provides state‐specific comparisons for Arizona, Colorado and Michigan. As the report notes, "To reach a fair comparison, spending is calculated based on the same amount of energy generated by each plant—approximately 2,000,000 megawatt‐hours (MWh) per year."

Key information I: The results show that benefits to the three state economies from energy resources vary greatly, depending on specifics of each power plant project and its contracts. For fossil‐fuel‐fired power, dollars spent on fuel are a significant benefit if the fuel is produced in state or transported by in‐state industry and workers, or both. As expected, results show that states are positively impacted by new power generation when local labor is used to install equipment and operate the new energy‐generating facility. Results in all three states show that adding wind facilities will provide a greater economic benefit to the state economy, due in large part to payments for property taxes. Wind pays a proportionally larger share in property taxes because more facilities must be erected to generate equivalent power.

Key information II: Of the various impacts to the state economy involved in power generation over 20 years, each state has varied results that show equivalent generation of wind power will bring the highest direct economic benefit to the state. Tax revenue (especially for wind plants) plays a significant role in the benefits to the state’s economies because a larger tax base makes it possible to provide more funding for public goods, such as parks, roads, and schools. If power plant owners negotiate a deal with localities in which they build so that they are exempt from property and sales taxes, the local economy may benefit from some job creation or fuel sales, but it will not receive what can be very significant property tax benefits over the life of the plant. As shown in the results, much of the labor force for plant construction, as well as for operations, is often brought in from outside each state. When the labor forces for construction or fuel transport come from within the state’s borders, economic impacts can be considerable, regardless of where the fuel is initially extracted. Of course, if coal or gas comes from the same state where the power plant is located, the economy is more likely to benefit from the sale of the fuel.

Other (or key information III): The addition of a new generating facility equivalent to a 270‐MW natural gas plant will have direct economic benefits for a state’s economy. If the fuel of choice is coal or gas, impacts to the economy may be fewer from coal or gas than if the fuel is wind. But natural gas also has a significant impact to the economy if a portion of the natural gas comes from within the state and is transported by state industry. If a big portion of the labor for coal extraction or coal transportation comes from within the state, then coal will bring

261 significant spending to the state (however, according to our assumptions, not as much as wind power would bring for the equivalent amount of energy produced).

262

Cost Estimates for Mid to Large Scale Wind Energy Projects

Source(s) of publication/information: St. Francis University Renewable Energy Center

Publication date: 2007

File name: Wind_system_cost_estimates

Web source: www.francis.edu/uploadedFiles/Renewable_Energy/Resources/Cost_and_Output_Estimates/Cost%20Estimates%2 0for%20Mid%20to%20Large%20Scale%20Wind%20Energy_01.pdf.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Development cost

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): small wind, development cost, renewable energy, community wind

Brief description: This 6‐page briefing provides an example of what a community wind project may cost. Cost information was obtained from market research conducted by St. Francis University's Renewable Energy Center, and is provided based on a range of turbine and project sizes: a 100 kilowatt Northwind turbine, a 600 kilowatt Enertech turbine and a 10.5 megawatt wind farm consisting of five 2.1 megawatt Vestas turbines. The cost estimated take into account the research and measurement costs (including a feasibility study and anemometer installation and operation), manufacturing and transportation costs, site development and labor costs, interconnection costs, legal/permitting/insurance costs, and operations costs. The study also provides a useful description of each cost element at the end of the report.

Key information I: It is important to be aware that the costs contained in the project expense examples contained below will vary greatly based on numerous factors. Some of these variables include the site, number of turbines, pre‐construction work, engineering fees, and interconnection. Also, certain costs contained in the project expense example can fluctuate on a monthly basis and depending on the time of year a project is to begin.

Key information II: The study found that for a 100 kilowatt turbine, total project development cost would amount to $540,875 and operating costs would amount to $11,050 per year. For a 600kW system, development would cost around $2 million and operations approximately $47,400 annually. For a 10.5 megawatt system, development costs would amount to $20.1 million while operations and maintenance would cost $450,500 per year.

Other (or key information III): N/A

263

Email exchange: costs of renting/loaning an anemometer for measuring wind speeds

Source(s) of publication/information: St. Francis University Renewable Energy Center

Publication date: 2008

File name: Erik_foley_anemometer_Loan

Web source: None, email exchange

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Development cost

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): small wind, community wind, wind measurement, development cost, anemometer

Brief description: This is a breakdown of a cost estimate for purchasing and installing a wind anemometer for the purpose of identifying, measuring and/or verifying wind speeds at a given location. The document also provides cost estimates for data analysis and administrative purposes such as permitting and site surveys.

Key information I: Equipment (50 meter tower): $13,000‐$15,000 per tower; labor: $2,000‐$4,000 per tower; data analysis: $100 per month; administrative: $10,000‐$20,000 annually.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

264

2008 Wind Technologies Market Report

Source(s) of publication/information: US Department of Energy

Publication date: July 2009

File name: DOE_2008_Wind_Tech_Report

Web source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/46026.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind energy, wind technology, wind market, renewable energy

Brief description: This is the Department of Energy's most recent annual assessment of wind energy technology and development trends for the United States. It covers trends in installation, within the wind industry, price, cost and performance (generation) trends, and the policy and market drivers of wind development and technological advancement. It concludes with an outlook for the wind industry in coming years. On page 11, the report provides an overview of proposed offshore wind capacity, which currently totals 2,075 megawatts of potential capacity additions.

Key information I: Wind Power Contributed 42% of All New US Electric Generating Capacity in 2008. This contribution is up from 35% in 2007, 18% in 2006, 12% in 2005, and less than 4% from 2000 through 2004. For the fourth consecutive year, wind power was the second‐largest new resource added to the US electrical grid in terms of nameplate capacity, behind natural gas plants, but ahead of new coal.

Key information II: GE Wind Remained the Top Turbine Manufacturer in the US Market, but a Growing Number of Other Manufacturers Are Capturing Market Share. GE captured 43% of US market share (by capacity) in 2008, followed by Vestas (13%), Siemens (9%), Suzlon (9%), Gamesa (7%), Clipper (7%), and Mitsubishi (6%). A number of international turbine manufacturers entered the US market for the first time with installations in 2008, including Acciona (5%), Repower (1%), and Fuhrlander, CTC/DeWind, and AWE (<1% combined).

Other (or key information III): The policy landscape is now more favorable to wind than at any other time in the past decade. At the federal level, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA 2009) extended the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind through 2012. ARRA 2009 also implemented a number of other important policy changes, most notably an option to elect a 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or cash grant in lieu of the PTC, and the expansion and enhancement of a federal loan guarantee program managed by the DOE. At the state level, three new states established mandatory RPS programs in 2008 (Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio), and Kansas did so in May 2009, bringing the total to 29 states and Washington D.C.

265

Wind‐Related Jobs and Economic Development

Source(s) of publication/information: US Department of Energy

Publication date: 2009

File name: Wind_Related_Jobs_and_Economic_Development

Web source: www.20percentwind.org/report/Appendix_C_Wind_Related_Jobs_and_Economic_Development.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Economic development

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind energy, economic development, economic impact, job creation, job displacement

Brief description: This appendix details the economic model used to project the employment and economic development impacts of the 20% Wind Scenario described in Appendix A. Ramping up wind capacity and electricity output from wind would displace jobs and economic activity elsewhere. However, identifying such transfers accurately would be very difficult. Therefore, the impacts cited here do not constitute impacts to the US economy overall but are specific to the wind industry and related industries. The impacts were calculated using the Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) model, based in part on data from the Wind Deployment System (WinDS) model (developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory—NREL). This is the model used by NREL to calculate the estimated economic impacts of 1,000 megawatts of wind development for West Virginia and other states.

Key information I: The combined cost, technology, and operational assumptions in the WinDS model show that an annual installation rate of about 16 gigawatts per year (GW/year) reached by 2018 could result in generation capacity capable of supplying 20% of the nation’s electricity demand by 2030. This annual installation rate is affected by the quality of wind resources selected for development as well as future wind turbine performance.

Key information II: To obtain 20% of US electricity from wind by 2030, changes in the wind power and electricity industries would need to be made. These changes, which are discussed in the body of this report, include advances in domestic manufacturing of wind turbine components; training, labor, and materials for installation of wind farms and operations and maintenance (O&M) functions; and improvements in wind technology and electric power system infrastructure. This appendix covers the output from the JEDI model, which shows the potential employment impacts from this scenario along with other impacts to the United States associated with new wind installations. Under the 20% wind scenario, the wind industry would produce 305 GW/year. By 2020, the economic activity generated from annual operations of the wind turbines would exceed $27 billion/year. The number of wind plant workers alone would grow to more than 28,000/year, and total wind‐related employment would exceed 215,000 workers (see Table C‐4).

Other (or key information III): N/A

266

DK GreenRoots: the economics of wind power

Source(s) of publication/information: DailyKos blog

Publication date: July 2009

File name: DailyKos_The_Economics_of_Wind_Power

Web source: www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/4/749911/‐DK‐GreenRoots:‐the‐economics‐of‐wind‐power

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, economics, energy investment,

Brief description: This is an excellent blog post by an investment banker financing projects in the energy sector. The author used to work for the oil and gas sector, but has developed a large portfolio financing renewable energy projects such as wind farms and solar plants. The post covers wind energy development and generation costs (including a discussion of levelized costs, or average costs over the long run based on energy production), including as related to discount rates used over a 20‐year period. It then covers wind energy prices, price structures, investment risks related to prices, and then moves to the 'value' of wind power ‐ which includes the impacts of wind onto the system not captured by monetary mechanisms. One such value discussed briefly is externalities. The post also addresses the issue of intermittency and provides a unique perspective on how to approach it. The post finishes with a discussion of carbon emissions and supply security. This is a great resource for informing policy‐ proposal structures that may be proposed by CAPP, as it offers a useful source of background information that appears helpful in determining what the most effective policy proposals for supporting wind development may be in Central Appalachia.

Key information I: The problem, as we've seen, is that wind is a price‐taker and, unless producers are able to find long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with electricity consumers at such prices, it is subject to the vagaries of market prices. And when your main burden is to repay your debt, and you don't have enough cash for too long ‐ which means that a bankrupt wind farm will always be a good business to take over; it's just that it may not be a good business to invest in if prices are too volatile...And thus it is not that surprising that the most effective system to support the development of wind power has been so called feed‐in tariffs whereby the wind producers get a guaranteed, fixed price over a long duration (typically 15 to 20 years) at a level set high enough to cover costs. The fixed price is paid by the utility that's responsible for electricity distribution in the region where the wind farm is located, and it is allowed by the regulator to pass on the cost of that tariff (i.e., the difference between the fixed rate and the wholesale market price) to ratepayers. It's simple to design, it's effective and, as we'll see, it's actually also the cheapest way to promote wind.

Key information II: In the case of wind, it is important to note that most of the costs are upfront, i.e. you need to spend money to manufacture and then install the wind turbines (and build the transmission line to connect to the grid, if necessary), but once this is done, there are very few other actual costs: some maintenance and some spare parts now and then. This means that the levelized cost of wind (i.e., the average cost over the long run, when initial investment costs are spread out over the useful life of the wind turbines) is going to be highly dependent on the discount rate, i.e. the hypotheses used to spread the initial cost of investment over each MWh of production over the useful life of the wind turbine, both in terms of duration, and the rate used.

Other (or key information III): The marginal cost of wind is essentially zero, i.e., at a given point in time, it costs you nothing to produce an extra MWh (all you need is more wind). In contrast, the marginal cost of a gas‐fired

267 plant is going to be significant, as each new kWh requires some fuel input: that marginal cost is very closely related to the price of the supply of the volume of gas needed to produce that additional MWh. It is worth emphasizing that "letting the markets decide" is NOT a technology‐neutral choice when it comes to investment in power generation: public funding (such as can be available to State‐owned or municipal utilities) is cheaper than commercial fund of investment: given that different technologies have different sensitivities to the discount rate, preferring "market" solutions will inevitably favor fuel‐burning technologies, whereas public investment would tilt more towards capital‐intensive technologies like wind and nuclear.

268

20% Wind Energy by 2030 Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to US Electricity Supply

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: July 2008

File name: DOE_EERE_20%Wind_by_2030

Web source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Market information

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, renewable energy development, technology, market, integration, siting, environment, manufacturing, labor, environmental impacts

Brief description: This report examines some of the costs, challenges, and key impacts of generating 20% of the nation’s electricity from wind energy in 2030. Specifically, it investigates requirements and outcomes in the areas of technology, manufacturing, transmission and integration, markets, environment, and siting. The modeling done for this report estimates that wind power installations with capacities of more than 300 gigawatts would be needed for the 20% Wind Scenario. Increasing US wind power to this level from 11.6 GW in 2006 would require significant changes in transmission, manufacturing, and markets. This report presents an analysis of one specific scenario for reaching the 20% level and contrasts it to a scenario of no wind growth beyond the level reached in 2006.

Key information I: Coal mining is estimated to disturb more than 400,000 hectares11 of land every year for electricity generation in the United States, and it destroys rapidly disappearing wildlife habitat. In the next 10 years, more than 153,000 hectares of high‐quality mature deciduous forest are projected to be lost to coal mining in West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia, according to the National Wildlife Federation (Price and Glick 2002). Wind development also requires large areas of land, but the land is used very differently. The 20% Wind Scenario (305 GW) estimates that in the United States, about 50,000 square kilometers (km2) would be required for land‐based projects and more than 11,000 km2 would be needed for offshore projects. However, the footprint of land that will actually be disturbed for wind development projects under the 20% Wind Scenario ranges from 2% to 5% of the total amount (representing land needed for the turbines and related infrastructure). Thus the amount of land to be disturbed by wind development under the 20% Wind Scenario is only 1,000 to 2,500 km2 (100,000 to 250,000 hectares)—an amount of dedicated land that is slightly smaller than Rhode Island. For scale comparisons, available data for existing coal mining activities indicate that about 1,700,000 hectares of land is permitted or covered and about 425,000 hectares of land are disturbed (DOI 2004). An important factor to note is that wind energy projects use the same land area each year; coal and uranium must be mined from successive areas, with the total disturbed area increasing each year.

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

269

The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values

Source(s) of publication/information: Renewable Energy Policy Project

Publication date: 2003

File name: wind and property values

Web source: www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Property values

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind power, case studies, property values

Brief description: This study examines the validity of claims that wind development negatively impacts property values. As the report notes, "Wind energy is the fastest growing domestic energy resource. As the pace of wind project development has increased, opponents have raised claims in the media and at siting hearings that wind development will lower the value of property within view of the turbines. This is a serious charge that deserves to be seriously examined. This REPP Analytical Report reviews data on property sales in the vicinity of wind projects and uses statistical analysis to determine whether and the extent to which the presence of a wind power project has had an influence on the prices at which properties have been sold. The hypothesis underlying this analysis is that if wind development can reasonably be claimed to hurt property values, then a careful review of the sales data should show a negative effect on property values within the viewshed of the projects.

Key information I: REPP looked at price changes for each of the ten projects in three ways: Case 1 looked at the changes in the view shed and comparable community for the entire period of the study; Case 2 looked at how property values changed in the view shed before and after the project came on‐line; and Case 3 looked at how property values changed in the view shed and comparable community after the project came on‐line.

Key information II: Although there is some variation in the three Cases studied, the results point to the same conclusion: the statistical evidence does not support a contention that property values within the view shed of wind developments suffer or perform poorer than in a comparable region. For the great majority of projects in all three of the Cases studied, the property values in the view shed actually go up faster than values in the comparable region.

Other (or key information III): N/A

270

Solar Photovoltaic Financing: Deployment on Public Property by State and Local Governments

Source(s) of publication/information: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: May 2008

File name: NREL_solar_PV_financing_govt_deployment

Web source: www.solaramericacities.energy.gov/PDFs/Solar_Photovoltaic_Financing_Deployment_on_Public_Property_by_Sta te_and_Local_Governments.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Solar power

Focus area II: Financing options

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): N/A

Brief description: This document, prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is perhaps the most comprehensive description of solar photovoltaic financing options and structures available.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

271

Renewable Energy Outlook 2030: Energy Watch Group Global Renewable Energy Scenarios

Source(s) of publication/information: Energy Watch Group

Publication date: November 2008

File name: EWG_RenEn_Outlook_2030

Web source: www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2008‐11‐07_EWG_REO_2030_Summary_E.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Various

Focus area II: Energy development

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): energy efficiency, renewable energy, investment structures, development

Brief description: This report examines global renewable energy potential and compares it to projected energy demand to 2030. It uses various scenarios of energy demand and renewable energy development, and based on the fact that development of renewable resources will require massive investment, argues for energy to be consumed in the most efficient manner possible. The report breaks down its analysis into ten focus regions and provides detailed information for each region related to generating capacities by renewable energy source, production projections, and necessary investments based on two variant scenarios. The significance of this report for CAPP is that it analyzes production and investment structures and timelines that may be applicable to implementing the CAPP proposals. As the report notes, "The scenarios in this study are based on the analysis of the development and market penetration of renewable energy technologies in different regions in the last few decades."

Key information I: To avoid an increase in the average global temperature that exceeds a tolerable limit of 1.5 to 2°C, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) must be stabilized at a level of about 420 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 equivalents in this century. This stabilization can only be achieved if global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to less than half of current levels by the middle of this century. As today’s developed countries are the predominant contributors to global GHG emissions, they have to commit themselves to making the first moves toward a clean energy supply and concurrently to reducing their GHG emission by 80% within the same time frame.

Key information II: The annual payments are divided into two fractions called “basic investment” and “advancement investment”, with one proportion (basic investment) being equally distributed to all the renewable energy technologies considered to ensure the necessary technological diversification. The remaining budget (advancement investment) is distributed in relation to the regional potentials of the different technologies. This is done to adapt the introduction of renewable energy technologies to the existing potentials in the related regions. L18The “Renewable Energy Investment Budget”, i.e. the amount of money invested in renewable generating capacities, respects expectations regarding the future economic development of the different regions. Therefore, investment budgets are adapted to the economic situation of any of the regions, which results in stronger economies having higher investment targets for 2030 than weaker ones. Furthermore, rapidly developing economies are assumed to spend more money than slower ones, as they will have to improve their energy supply in any case.

Other (or key information III): N/A

272

Renewable Energy Cost Trends

Source(s) of publication/information: Energy Analysis Office, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Publication date: 2005

File name: renewable_energy_cost_curves_2005

Web source: www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2005.ppt

Renewables/areas covered: Solar, wind, geothermal, bio‐based ethanol

Focus area II: Development cost

Folder name: Renewables and efficiency

Key word(s): renewable energy, development cost trends, technology

Brief description: This is a three‐slide PowerPoint showing renewable energy cost trends to 2025 for five renewable energy sources: solar photovoltaic, concentrating solar power, wind, geothermal and bio‐based ethanol. All resources show declining development costs over time.

Key information I: N/A

Key information II: N/A

Other (or key information III): N/A

273

Wind Energy Teacher's Guide

Source(s) of publication/information: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Publication date: 2003

File name: TeachersGuide

Web source: www.awea.org/pubs/documents/TeachersGuide.pdf

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Education

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): wind energy, education, emissions, calculations, lesson plan

Brief description: This is a short teacher's guide and/or lesson plan related to wind energy created by the American Wind Energy Association. It may be useful for CAPP in providing a resource for generating public educational materials for outreach purposes. It is more than just a basic classroom resource, as it provides information on types of wind turbines, the various components that make up a turbine, what a kilowatt‐hour is and how to calculate energy consumption, information and resources for learning about wind power, feasibility research, power production, emissions calculations and pollution releases. It provides two sets of guides, one for elementary‐level students and one for high‐school level students. At the end of the document there is a useful guide for calculating the amount of emissions and energy consumption related to various energy sources, including coal and wind. The guide also provides a useful directory of information resources to supplement the teacher's guide.

Key information I: Example: Step two: Estimate emissions from generating electricity with the local mix or with the national average utility fuel mix. The students will look up emissions per kWh on the Energy Information Agency (EIA) Web site, or use the emissions spreadsheet provided in appendix B. Look up emissions per kWh, pro‐rate for the local energy mix, and calculate annual emissions from the electricity used by the school. OR Look up the average emissions for the US generating mix and calculate annual emissions from the electricity used by the school if it were to use the US generating mix. Example: for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), look up the line entitled "Annual average CO2 emissions for US generating mix" in the spreadsheet in the Appendix, find the amount‐‐ 1.3506 lb/kWh—and multiply by the number of kWh used by the school in one year.

Key information II: Pounds of CO2 per kWh from coal, 1999 = 2.15 Short tons of SO2 emitted from coal plants, utilities, 1999 (AER 2000, p. 327) = 11,294,000 Pounds of SO2 per kWh from coal, 1999 = 0.0128 Short tons of NOx emitted from coal plants, 1999 (AER 2000, p. 327) = 6,534,000 Pounds of NOx per kWh from coal, 1999 = 0.0074

Other (or key information III): N/A

274

The new coal age

Source(s) of publication/information: The Ecologist

Publication date: March 2008

File name: Ecologist_Coal_and_Wind_in_UK

Web source: www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1855

Renewables/areas covered: Wind power

Focus area II: Environmental impacts: coal

Folder name: Wind power

Key word(s): Wind, coal, environmental impacts

Brief description: This is an article out of the United Kingdom illustrating the clash between coal and wind, and relates directly to the Coal River Wind campaign. On a site where a wind farm was being considered, the local council instead approved one of the largest opencast coal mines in Europe.

Key information I: Wind turbines could have been standing here, turning in the strong winds streaming over the hills. But on the grounds of being noisy and unsightly, Merthyr Tydfil council overturned a planning application for a wind farm on the site of what is to be one of the largest opencast coalmines in Europe. Explosives blasting twice per day, massive machinery will then dig and scrape out an estimated 150 million tonnes of rock to reach the 10.8 million tonnes of coal buried here. With the nearest homes a mere 36m away and four schools within 600m, Merthyr’s residents must wonder how their council defines ‘noisy’ and ‘unsightly’. The £1 per tonne of coal (£10.8 million in total) the council will earn in royalties makes it quite clear where its motivation lies.

Key information II: While local and national government loudly proclaim a commitment to reducing emissions, they aid and abet corporations in the short‐sighted pursuit of profit. It’s a profit paid for by the health and quality of life of the local community, the destruction of the surrounding environment and by wider society due to the climate‐changing impact of an estimated 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. And to think, this could have been a wind farm.

Other (or key information III): N/A

275

14. ROADBLOCKS TO ECONOMIC TRANSITION INCLUDING POVERTY, LAND OWNERSHIP, EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION, LACK OF OR MISDIRECTED FUNDING, COUNTY-LEVEL INEFFICIENCIES, HIGHER HEALTH COSTS This chapter provides a partial list of existing and potential roadblocks to economic transition in the coalfields of Central Appalachia. Depending on a range of factors at play in any given state and on any given level of government, the barriers to economic diversification and transition away from coal may differ. However, many of the roadblocks listed below exist across the study region, as they are part of the overall structure of control and historical economic suppression that has been documented in socio‐economic and political economy studies conducted on the region. These roadblocks are categorized into broad issue‐areas. Some have been drawn from direct quotes from existing research and reports and some are drawn from direct experience and observation.

14.1 Political

 Cronyism and the “good old boy” system of politics does not benefit rural citizens, nor does it promote efforts to change the status quo.  Political control by the coal, natural gas, and chemical industries.  Lack of response by political leaders to shifting realities and economic needs.  Lack of policies and incentives for promoting renewable energy and true economic diversification for the coalfields.  Lack of equal access for citizens to elected officials.  A personal or financial stake in the coal status quo among many local leaders.  Contributions of substantial amounts of money by polluting industries to both political and judicial candidates.  Lack of legislative aides for state elected officials. This is due to lack of funding, and has a profound impact on the ability of state legislators to make informed decisions.

14.2 Economic Development

 Poverty. An impoverished citizenry has little opportunity to invest in a business, earn a higher‐education degree, or provide basic amenities for their families.  Coal has been historically viewed, and continues to be viewed, as a source of potential wealth and economic development, rather than as a cause for economic depression.  “Growth‐centered” and short‐term economic development and poverty alleviation strategies have been the predominant models of development funding decisions and allocations. These are inherently flawed in that they focus money and efforts into projects and areas that offer the best chance of providing a return on investment. Rural areas suffer from lack of funding and focus, because long‐term investments in education, health, and workforce development have not been given sufficient attention.  Rural economic development initiatives are heavily underfunded.  Approximately 25% of all Appalachian counties served by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) remain in the economically distressed category, meaning that they suffer from extreme poverty, low educational attainment, and high rates of unemployment.  Home energy affordability gap: Residents earning a per‐capita income that is 50% below the national poverty line spend over 60% of their annual income on energy consumption.  Top‐down economic development approach and lack of community‐led development. Even the local development districts of the ARC, known as the Regional Planning and Development Councils in West

276

Virginia, are said to follow federal guidance. This prevents economic decision‐making from being informed by local concerns and realities.  The ARC, charged with assisting in the economic development of the Appalachian Region, is inherently flawed in that decisions within the ARC are dominated by the 13 governors that make up its board. The fact that coal‐influenced governors as have been in place in West Virginia are guiding the economic development decisions made within the ARC is problematic at best.  Lack of workforce training. Workforce training programs are short‐sighted, even though they are supposed to address projected employment needs. They are also underfunded.  Uneven revenue generation between competing uses of land. For instance, the surface mining of coal brings far greater revenues to the land owner than sustainable timber harvesting, so the economic decision for the landowner is to surface mine the land for coal.  Land ownership. Land and natural resources is disproportionately owned and the benefits of their use unequally distributed. Concentration of resources and wealth is pronounced in Central Appalachia.  Without financial incentives in place, renewable energy will continue to face challenges from the market dominance of conventional energy sources such as coal. The state Public Service Commission requires utilities to purchase the lowest‐cost fuel for the provision of electricity.  Continued overuse and depletion of natural resources.  Few financial support systems such as low‐interest loans, small business grants, and equitable tax breaks are available to low‐income residents.  Lack of local and sub‐regional markets for the selling of locally crafted goods and locally‐grown produce.  Heavy demand that is currently un‐replaceable for the region’s natural resources. This places intense pressure to continue facilitating the structures that permit the ease of extraction of those natural resources.  Heavy impact on property values from the mining and processing of coal. This has a real economic impact for the residents.  Destruction of land and resources used by local residents for supplementing their incomes as a survival strategy.

14.3 Social

 Outmigration. Due to the lack of economic opportunity in rural communities, those who, by necessity, leave the region in order to pursue education and employment, are less likely to return to the communities they came from. This is commonly referred to as the “brain drain.”  Deficits in basic infrastructure such as clean water and sewage.  Limitations on local decision making and wealth building. While citizens are provided forums through which to address their concerns or opinions, such concerns and opinions are rarely considered in decision making pertaining to land use, education or economic development.  Closing down of local health centers and pre‐educational programs in rural areas. The worse the economic condition becomes in a given area, the fewer services are provided.  Brother against brother. The sense of community is strained and broken due to the fact that the life‐ support systems of some residents such as coal miners are also the systems that are degrading the quality of life for their neighbors.  Criminalization of the citizen rather than the corporation. The system criminalizes “he who steals the goose from the commons,” but “Lets the greater villain loose who steals the commons from the goose.” This adage is most telling through the story of ginseng. Ginseng poachers are heavily criminalized if they gather ginseng out of season. However, the destruction of ginseng habitat by coal companies is allowed.  A polarized and uneducated media.  Loss of culture and ability to continue traditional behaviors and practices due to the destruction of the lands and waters upon which the culture is based.

277

14.4 Education

 School consolidation. This results in students having to travel up to 90 minutes each way to get to school, and has an impact on the family fabric.  Low teacher wages.  Location of educational facilities in areas with heavy environmental pollution.  Poor learning environment.  Lack of access to sufficient public libraries.  Lack of sufficient funding for basic educational needs such as books and technology enhancements.  “Quality teachers produce quality students who graduate with a quality education. But how can West Virginia hope to hold quality teachers when teacher salaries have increased by only 5 percent between 1990 and 2000? Quality teachers are tempted to leave West Virginia, where the average salary is $36,751 when the average salary in Pennsylvania is $50,599; in Maryland is $46,200; in Ohio is $44,029; in Virginia is $41,262; and in Kentucky is $37,847.”

14.5 Regulation

 Lax environmental, social and health controls. This is exemplified by even a cursory look at the competence and leadership within the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, which has historically allowed the extractive industries to circumvent or even blatantly violate laws pertaining to environmental quality.  Unequal surface rights. The surface rights of landholding companies are heavily protected, while those of small private residential surface owners are not.

14.6 Geography

 Regional isolation. Often an explanation made by scholars and the ARC, regional isolation—especially within an increasingly integrated national and global economy structured to benefit the larger population centers—does have some influence over the worsening of economic conditions in rural areas.

14.7 Religion

 Religion does play a role with many residents, who believe that coal is meant to be mined for human benefit.  Religion is exploited by elected officials as a way to create a false connection between their interests and those of the public.

14.8 Roadblocks as identified by the Appalachian Regional Commission

 Challenges to Implementing the ARC Strategic Plan. Several external factors might affect ARC’s ability to achieve its goals. o Economic downturns, which generally hit deeper in the Appalachian Region and last longer, could adversely impact achievement of ARC’s performance goals. o Government regulations and policies could influence ARC efforts to achieve the performance goals. o ARC is a partnership of 13 states and the federal government that works in concert with 72 local development districts. Budget constraints and policy redirection within the Appalachian states and local development districts can hinder the pursuit of ARC goals. o Inconsistent or inadequate funding would impact ARC’s ability to implement its strategic plan. o Unanticipated demographic shifts in the Appalachian Region, such as an increase in population aging and high levels of settlement by people with low educational attainment and language skills, could affect achievement of ARC’s performance goals.

278