DOCSLIB.ORG

One Step Back Toward “Almost Heaven”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
One Step Back Toward “Almost Heaven” One Step Back Toward “Almost Heaven” A Production-Based Proposal for the Elimination of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining in West Virginia Submitted by: Rory McIlmoil In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of: Master of Arts Global Environmental Politics American University Washington, D.C. December 21, 2007 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page I. An Introduction to Mountaintop Removal and Its Impacts on the Land and Communities in Southern West Virginia 3 Overview 3 Economic Drivers of MTR 4 Environmental Impacts of MTR 7 Social Impacts of MTR 10 Economic Impacts of MTR 11 II. An Analysis of Coal Production and Employment in West Virginia 15 Overview 15 Data Collection and Calculation Methods 16 Litigation Battles Related to Surface Mining in Central Appalachia 17 Bragg v. Robertson 17 Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. Martin County Coal Co. and the Army Corps of Engineers 18 Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment v. the Army Corps of Engineers 19 Greater Impact on the Land: Trends in Surface Mine Permitting 21 Analysis: DEP Data 24 Data on Mountaintop Removal Permits 26 Analysis: GIS Mapping 27 Concluding Comments on Trends in Surface Mine Permitting 28 Coal Production 29 Overview of Influences on Production Trends 29 Underground Mine Production 32 Surface Mine Production 33 Final Production Comments 36 Coal Mining Employment 37 Overview – Total WV Mining Employment 38 Coal Mining Employment in Southern West Virginia 39 Price as an Additional Indicator 44 Review of Key Findings and a Viability Analysis for Shifting Production 46 South: Surface-to-Underground Shift 46 Regional: South-to-North Shift 49 iii III. Proposal and Analysis for Shifting Coal Production Away from Mountaintop Removal and Back to Underground Mines 51 Overview 51 Production 53 Production Shift by Mine Type 53 Production Shift by Region 54 Post-Shift Production in Northern West Virginia, by Mine Type 56 Post-Shift Production in Southern West Virginia, by Mine Type 58 Concluding Comments on Production and Viability of the Proposal 60 Employment 61 Overview – pre-Shift Employment Trends 61 Post-Shift Employment 62 Price Impacts of the Proposed Production Shift 70 Concluding Comments on the Policy Proposal 72 IV. Conclusion: Post-MTR Possibilities for Alternative Energy and Economic Development in Southern West Virginia 78 Overview: Moving Forward 78 One Model for Alternative Development: Wind Power 78 Preliminary Case-Study: Coal River Mountain 79 Proposed Surface Mining 79 Coal River Mountain Underground Mines 80 Production Shift Policy Analysis for Coal River Mountain 81 Coal River Mountain Wind Potential 82 Concluding Comments 86 V. Bibliography and List of References 87 VI. Acknowledgements 89 iv LIST OF CHARTS, TABLES AND GRAPHICS Title Page Economic Drivers of MTR Table I: Annual Mine Mouth Prices for West Virginia Coal, by Mine Type (1990-2006) 7 Table II: Annual Mine Mouth Prices for S. West Virginia Coal, by Mine Type (1990-2006) 7 Economic Impacts of MTR Graphic 1: Overlay of Surface Mines onto County-level Poverty Rates, 2000 12 Graphic 2: Overlay of Surface Mines onto County-level Population Change, 2000 12 Graphic 3: Overlay of Surface Mines onto County-level High School Education Rates, 2000 12 Greater Impact on the Land: Trends in Surface Mine Permitting Chart 1: Post-SMCRA Permitting of Surface Mines in West Virginia, post-SMCRA, 1977-2007 22 Chart 2: Strip-Mine Permitting in West Virginia, post-SMCRA, 1977-2007 (non-Litigation years) 22 Chart 3: Strip-Mine Permitting in West Virginia, post-CAA, 1990-2007 23 Chart 4: Strip-Mine Permitting in West Virginia, post-CAA, 1990-2007 (non-Litigation years) 23 Table III: Comparative Permit Data, non-Litigation vs. Litigation Years 24 Table IV: Number of Permits by Acre Range 25 Table V: Comparative Data for the Ten Largest Mines 25 Chart 5: Frequency of Large Permitted Surface Mines, by Area Range, 1990-2007 (non-Litigation Years) 26 Table VI: Comparative Analysis of MTR Permitting 26 Coal Production Chart 6: West Virginia Coal Production by Region, 1990-2006 29 Chart 7: West Virginia Coal Production by Mine Type, 1990-2006 31 Chart 8: West Virginia Underground Coal Production and Operating Mines, by Region, 1994-2006 32 Chart 9: Regional Productivity of Underground Mines, 1994-2006 33 Table VII: Contribution of Mountaintop Removal to Total and southern WV Coal Production 34 Chart 10: Total Coal Production, Southern Production, and Southern Surface Production, 1994-2006 35 Chart 11: Surface Mine Production and Number of Operating Mines, by Region, 1994-2006 35 Chart 12: Surface Mine Productivity vs. Number of Operating Mines, by Region, 1994-2006 36 Coal Mining Employment Chart 13: Coal Production and Employment in West Virginia, by Mine Type, 1990-2006 38 Chart 14: West Virginia Coal-Mining Employment, by Mine Type, and Surface Share of Production, 1990-2006 38 Chart 15: Coal Mining Employment and Production in Southern West Virginia, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 40 Chart 16: The Impact of Surface Mining on Total and Underground Mine Employment in S. WV, 1994-2006 40 v Coal Mining Employment (continued) Chart 17: Avg. Mine Employment and Number of Mines in Southern West Virginia, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 41 Chart 18: Average Mine Employment and Mine Productivity for Southern West Virginia Mines, 1994-2006 42 Price as an Additional Indicator Chart 19: Mine Mouth Price and Mine Productivity for S. West Virginia mines, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 44 Chart 20: Mine Mouth Price and Avg. Mine Employment for S. West Virginia Mines, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 45 Review of Key Findings and a Viability Analysis for Shifting Production Chart 21: Coal Production and Number of Operating Mines in southern West Virginia, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 47 Chart 22: Mine Productivity and Number of Operating Mines in S. West Virginia, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 48 Chart 23: Comparison of Mine Productivity at S. Surface and N. Underground Mines, 1994-2006 50 Production Table VIII: Pre-Shift Production Levels (1000 tons) 53 Table IX: Post-Shift Production Levels (1000 tons) 54 Table X-A: Pre- and Post-Shift Production, North (1000 tons) 55 Table X-B: Pre- and Post-Shift Production, South (1000 tons) 55 Table XI-A: Post-Shift Coal Production by Mine Type, NORTH (1000 tons) 56 Table XI-B: Post-Shift Underground Mining, NORTH 57 Table XI-C1: Post-Shift Viability Analysis, NORTH UNDERGROUND 58 Table XII-A: Post-Shift Coal Production by Mine Type, SOUTH 58 Table XII-B: Post-Shift Underground Mining, SOUTH 59 Table XIII: Summary, Post-Shift Shares of Total Production, 1994-2006 60 Employment Table XIV: Coal Mining Employment, 1990-2006 61 Table XV-A, Post-Shift Employment, UNDERGROUND 63 Table XV-B, Post-Shift Employment, SURFACE 64 Table XV-C, Post-Shift Employment, TOTAL, by Mine Type 65 Table XVI-A1: Avg. Employment Productivity, for Analysis 67 Table XVI-B: Mixed Scenario: 90-93 Surface, 90-98 South Underground, 90-96 North Underground 67 Table XVII-A: Summary of Trends in S. West Virginia Coal Production and Employment, 2004-2006 69 Table XVII-B: Annual Production Shift, Employment Method Benefits 69 vi Price Impacts of the Proposed Production Shift Chart 19: Mine Mouth Price and Mine Productivity for S. West Virginia Mines, by Mine Type, 1994-2006 71 (This chart is duplicated from page 44) Table XVIII: Summary Comparison of Pre- and Post-Shift Coal Prices ($/ton), 2001-2006 71 Preliminary Case-Study: Coal River Mountain Table XIX: Coal River Mountain Permit Data 79 Table XX: Estimates for Coal River Mountain Underground Mines 81 Table XXI: Comparison of Underground and Surface Mining for Coal River Mountain 82 Table XXII: # Wind Turbines per Wind Class, CRM Wind 82 Graphic 4: Wind Potential for Coal River Mountain, and a View of Surrounding MTR 83 Graphic 5: Coal River Mountain Wind Potential and Turbines with Surface Mine Boundary 83 Graphic 6: Overlay of Coal River Mountain MTR boundaries over CRM Wind Potential 84 Graphic 7: Post-Mountaintop Removal, Coal River Mountain and Surrounding MTR Sites 85 Graphic 8: Coal River Mountain 396 MW Wind Farm Composed of 220 Turbines, Mountain Intact 85 vii viii “To know about strip-mining or Mountaintop Removal is like knowing about the nuclear bomb. It is to know beyond doubt that some human beings have, and are willing to use, the power of absolute destruction.” – Wendell Berry1 “They’re blowin’ up my damn home, and they just expect me to sit around like a good little hillbilly and let ‘em do it? If they wanna shut me up, they’re gonna have to kill me, because I ain’t gonna stop fightin’ until I’m lyin’ in the ground. ” -- Maria Gunnoe, Boone County, WV, 2007 “There is no wise answer to strip-mining, but to phase it out as quickly as we can.” -- Reverend Lloyd, 19772 1 Direct quote by Wendell Berry from the Prologue to: Goodell, Jeff, Big Coal, p. xv. (2006) 2 Montrie, Chad. To Save the Land and People: A history of Opposition to Surface Coal-Mining in Appalachia, p. 175. (2003) 2 I. An Introduction to Mountaintop Removal and Its Impacts on the Land and Communities in Southern West Virginia Overview The average American consumes about twenty pounds of coal a day for their electricity.3 One pound of that comes from Mountaintop Removal coal mining. Mountaintop Removal (MTR) is the most destructive method of mining coal being practiced today. It is used most extensively in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia, though in the last decade MTR has extended into the mountains of eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia. As a result, these areas have come to comprise what is known as the Mountaintop Removal region.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landsat and Energy
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Landsat’s Critical Role in Energy Energy is a growing necessity for people worldwide. As the demand for energy grows, Landsat plays an important role in identifying new energy sources and mitigating the human and environmental impact of energy development. Landsat is useful in the energy sector both because of its unparalleled decades-long record of Earth’s land and because of its ability to measure infrared and visible light. With more than 40 years of imagery, decision makers can monitor the environmental impact of mining and energy generation and track ecological recovery after operations end. Landsat’s ability to measure infrared light allows farmers and decision makers to gauge the health of biofuel crops and natural vegetation near dams and mining sites. The infrared and visible measurements together help energy companies identify minerals on Landsat Data for Decision-making the surface when plants are sparse. n Locating oil, natural gas, geothermal vents and uranium deposits Landsat satellites have been collecting n Promoting safety through detection of coal information about the land and helping people mine fires make informed decisions on energy related n Monitoring surface mines and reclamation topics since the 1970s. Landsat and Energy efforts n Managing crops dedicated to producing biofuel n Mitigating ecological impacts from hydroelectric dams ABOUT LANDSAT Landsat satellites provide an unparalleled record of Earth’s varying landscapes. Landsat’s 30-meter resolution is ideal for measuring human impacts on the land. The consistency of Landsat’s digital image data from sensor to sensor and year to year makes it possible to trace land cover changes from 1972 to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • View / Download 3.6 Mb
    Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining on the Mud River, West Virginia: Selenium Accumulation, Trophic Transfer, and Toxicity in Fish by Mariah Christine Arnold Environment Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Richard T. Di Giulio, Supervisor ___________________________ Emily Bernhardt ___________________________ David Buchwalter ___________________________ Heileen Hsu-Kim Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Environment in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 i v ABSTRACT Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining on the Mud River, West Virginia: Selenium Accumulation, Trophic Transfer, and Toxicity in Fish by Mariah Christine Arnold Environment Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Richard T. Di Giulio, Supervisor ___________________________ Emily Bernhardt ___________________________ David Buchwalter ___________________________ Heileen Hsu-Kim An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Environment in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 Copyright by Mariah C. Arnold 2014 Abstract Selenium (Se) is a micronutrient necessary for the function of a variety of important enzymes; Se also exhibits a narrow range in concentrations between essentiality and toxicity. Oviparous vertebrates such as birds and fish are especially sensitive to Se toxicity, which causes reproductive impairment and defects in embryo development. Selenium occurs naturally in the Earth’s crust, but it can be mobilized by a variety of anthropogenic activities, including agricultural practices, coal burning, and mining. Mountaintop removal/valley fill (MTR/VF) coal mining is a form of surface mining found throughout central Appalachia in the United States that involves blasting off the tops of mountains to access underlying coal seams.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Resistance to Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining in Appalachia
    THE FAITH TO SAVE MOUNTAINS: RELIGION AND RESISTANCE TO MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL MINING IN APPALACHIA By JOSEPH DYLAN WITT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 © 2011 Joseph Dylan Witt 2 To my family and the people of Appalachia 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my mother and father, who instilled in me a love of the mountains and a desire to help people in need. I thank the members of my dissertation committee, Bron Taylor, Anna Peterson, David Hackett, and Jack Davis, who provided excellent feedback on my work, helped me articulate my thoughts clearly, and pointed me toward helpful resources for further consideration. I am grateful to my friends in Gainesville and elsewhere, especially Robert Perdue, Elliot Kuecker, and Lucas Johnston, whose support and conversation helped me develop my arguments regarding religion and mountaintop removal and who supported me during the more difficult times in the field and while writing. Finally, I thank the activists and residents of Appalachia who generously gave me their time, fed me, and supported my project. This research was partially funded by grants from the Kentucky Historical Association and a Gibson Dissertation Fellowship, from the University of Florida. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Emanuel Takes Labolt with Him By: Carol E
    Release 3 - HQ-FOI-01268-12 All emails sent by "Richard Windsor" were sent by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Adora Andy/DC/USEPA/US To Richard Windsor 10/06/2010 10:16 AM cc Alisha Johnson, Arvin Ganesan, Betsaida Alcantara, Brendan Gilfillan, David McIntosh, Michael Moats, Seth Oster bcc Subject Re: POLITICO: RAHM TAKES LABOLT !!! Richard Windsor "The boys" ??? ----- Original Messa... 10/06/2010 10:15:39 AM From: Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US To: Adora Andy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David McIntosh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Brendan Gilfillan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alisha Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Moats/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 10/06/2010 10:15 AM Subject: Re: POLITICO: RAHM TAKES LABOLT "The boys" ??? Adora Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: Adora Andy Sent: 10/06/2010 10:13 AM EDT To: Richard Windsor; David McIntosh; Seth Oster; Arvin Ganesan; Brendan Gilfillan; Betsaida Alcantara; Alisha Johnson; Michael Moats Subject: POLITICO: RAHM TAKES LABOLT Emanuel takes LaBolt with him By: Carol E. Lee October 6, 2010 12:00 AM EDT A member of President Barack Obama’s close-knit team is leaving the White House to work for former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral bid in Chicago, POLITICO has learned. Ben LaBolt, a native Chicagoan and one of Obama’s longest-serving press aides, will serve as Emanuel’s campaign’s communications director, according to sources with knowledge of the hire. LaBolt will leave his job as an assistant White House press secretary by the end of October, sources said.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Clean Water Act 402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines
    Review of Clean Water Act §402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States: Findings & Recommendations July 13, 2010 Water Permits Division Office of Wastewater Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20460 Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................... ES I. Summary of EPA Responsibilities Pursuant to the Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Memorandum of Understanding............................................................................ 1 II. Overview of EPA Process to Address §402 Permits ......................................................... 3 III. Findings of the Permit Quality Review.............................................................................. 5 A. Overview of State Surface Coal Mine NPDES Permit Programs ............................. 5 1. Kentucky............................................................................................................ 6 2. Ohio .................................................................................................................... 8 3. Tennessee ........................................................................................................... 9 4. West Virginia................................................................................................... 10 B. General Findings and Preliminary Recommendations ............................................ 12 1. Ambient and Effluent Data...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Journey to End Mountaintop Removal Mining
    VOICES FROM THE DESECRATED PLACES: A JOURNEY TO END MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING Sam Evans* L The History of Mountaintop Removal in Appalachia .......... 523 A. Mountaintop Removal Mining: A Primer ................ 523 B. The Socio-Political Climate in the Coalfields ............ 529 1. The Current Permitting Authorities .................. 529 2. Why Not a Legislative Solution? .................... 531 3. Conflict in the Courts .............................. 531 4. Local Resistance and Green Economics ............. 533 5. Environmental Injustice ............................ 535 6. The Petition: Why "Fill," Why Now? ............... 536 C. A Brief History of Fill ................................. 537 1. The Statutory Significance of Fill ................... 539 2. HistoricalLimits to the Corps' Jurisdiction .......... 540 3. Illegal Permits, Court Challenges, and the Resulting "Effects-Based" Definition of Fill ................... 541 It. The Effects-Based Definition of Fill is Unlawful .............. 543 A. The CWA is Unambiguous: "Fill" Must Be Defined by Reference to the Purpose of the Project ................. 543 B. The Effects-Based Rule Is Unreasonable................. 545 1. Ignoring Their Own Rule: Construction-Related D ischarges ........................................ 546 2. Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council ........................................... 547 C. The Likelihood of Agency Capture ...................... 550 1. The Corps' Susceptibility to Industry Influence ....... 551 2. The Corps' Policy Outcomes ........................ 553 * Law Clerk, United States Magistrate Judge; J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law, 2009. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of his current or former employers. I would like to thank Professors Dean Hill Rivkin and Becky Jacobs of the University of Tennessee College of Law, who supervised the indepen- dent study that produced this Article, for their advice and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stream Protection Rule Puts Coal Profits Above Public Health and the Environment and Defies the Public Interest by Undermining the Federal Rulemaking Process
    PROTECT CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER OPPOSE A RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL ON STREAM PROTECTION RULE he Stream Protection Rule, finalized by the Department of the Interior in December 2016, helps to make sure communities do not get stuck with the horrible consequences of toxic water pollution from industrial Tcoal mining operations. This common sense regulation provides communities with basic information they desperately need about water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations, and includes several important protections for clean water and the health of communities impacted by coal mining. This highly anticipated rule is the first major update to surface mining regulations in 30 years. It provides much needed safeguards to ensure that corporate coal does not profit by polluting local drinking water with toxics, yet some Congressional Republicans have already targeted this commonsense rule to be rolled back using the Congressional Review Act. A resolution of disapproval on the Stream Protection Rule puts coal profits above public health and the environment and defies the public interest by undermining the federal rulemaking process. A CRA attack on this rule should be opposed for the following reasons: 1. An attack on the safeguards in the Stream Protection Rule is an attack on clean, safe drinking water. • Contamination from coal mining operations threatens community water supplies across the country. • In Appalachia, mountaintop removal mining has been responsible for the destruction of 2,000 miles of streams and 2.5 million acres of Appalachia’s ancient forests. In dozens of peer-reviewed studies, mountaintop removal mining has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems among residents living near these sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal in Our Veins
    Coal in Our Veins Coal in Our Veins A Personal Journey Erin Ann Thomas Utah State University Press Logan, Utah 2012 © 2012 by the University Press of Colorado Published by Utah State University Press An imprint of University Press of Colorado 5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C Boulder, Colorado 80303 The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of The Association of American University Presses. The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State College, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State College of Denver, Regis University, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, Utah State University, and Western State College of Colorado. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Printed on recycled, acid-free paper Cover design by Jeanne Goldberg ISBN: 978-0-87421-863-3 (cloth) ISBN: 978-0-87421-865-7 (e-book) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Thomas, Erin Ann. Coal in our veins : a personal journey / Erin Ann Thomas. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-87421-863-3 (cloth : acid-free paper) — ISBN 978-0-87421-865-7 (e-book) 1. Thomas, Erin Ann—Family. 2. Coal miners—Utah—Biography. 3. Coal min- ers—Wales—Biography. 4. Welsh Americans—Utah—Biography. 5. Thomas, Erin Ann—Travel. 6. Coal mines and mining—Utah—History. 7. Coal mines and mining— Wales—History. 8. Coal—Environmental aspects—United States. 9. Coal—Social aspects—United States. I. Title. HD8039.M62U669417 2012 622’.3340922—dc23 2012012249 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched.
    [Show full text]
  • Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Three Contemporary Young Adult Novels Sarah Mawhinney
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Undergraduate Honors Theses Student Works 5-2019 “The iF ght Starts Here:” Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Three Contemporary Young Adult Novels Sarah Mawhinney Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/honors Part of the Appalachian Studies Commons, and the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons Recommended Citation Mawhinney, Sarah, "“The iF ght Starts Here:” Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Three Contemporary Young Adult Novels" (2019). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 484. https://dc.etsu.edu/honors/484 This Honors Thesis - Withheld is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “The Fight Starts Here:” Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Three Contemporary Young Adult Novels Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of Honors By Sarah Mawhinney University Honors Scholars East Tennessee State University April 12, 2019 ______________________________________________ Sarah Mawhinney, Author Date ______________________________________________ Dr. Scott Honeycutt, Faculty Mentor Date ______________________________________________ Dr. Kevin O’Donnell, Faculty Reader Date The trees were lush and large, with holly, mountain laurel, and dogwood filling in the forest floor. As we came over a gentle rise the trees ended abruptly. What lay before us was a scene of unimaginable devastation. We stood on the edge of a flat moonscape two miles across… - Christopher Scotton, The Secret Wisdom of the Earth Table of Contents I. Introduction………………………………..1-9 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Part B of Second Release of HQ-FOI-01268-12 (PDF)
    Release 2 - HQ-FOI-01268-12 All emails sent by "Richard Windsor" were sent by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson 01268-EPA-267 Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US To Richard Windsor 08/21/2009 10:57 AM cc Bob Sussman, Diane Thompson, Gina McCarthy, Lisa Heinzerling, Allyn Brooks-LaSure bcc Subject Re: BNA: EPA Said to Be Nearing Proposal to Limit Stationary Sources' Carbon Dioxide Emissions Ex. 5 - Deliberative Seth Seth Oster Associate Administrator Office of Public Affairs Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-1918 [email protected] Richard Windsor There is little new here. Given all the b... 08/21/2009 10:03:15 AM From: Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US To: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diane Thompson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Heinzerling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/21/2009 10:03 AM Subject: Re: BNA: EPA Said to Be Nearing Proposal to Limit Stationary Sources' Carbon Dioxide Emissions Ex. 5 - Deliberative Gina McCarthy Release 2 - HQ-FOI-01268-12 All emails sent by "Richard Windsor" were sent by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson ----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 08/21/2009 09:32 AM EDT To: Richard Windsor; Diane Thompson Cc: Seth Oster; Lisa Heinzerling; Bob Sussman Subject: Fw: BNA: EPA Said to Be Nearing Proposal to Limit Stationary Sources' Carbon Dioxide Emissions FYI Ex. 5 - Deliberative ---- Forwarded by Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US on 08/21/2009 09:24 AM ----- From: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US To: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
    [Show full text]
  • Winds of Change
    Winds of Change the newsletter of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition September 2008 E Huntington, WV www.ohvec.org More Legal Victories Against Mountaintop Mining Hobet Mining Co. is being forced to pay fines for violating its Clean Water Act Pollution Discharge Permit at its massive mountaintop removal mine in Lincoln County. But, top Division of Environmental Protection officials say that the coal company can pay off part of its fines in boulders. While DEP continues to have over 100 staff vacancies, it is happy to accept rocks as partial payment for Hobet’s contamination of the Mud River area. Scientists say that pollution there is so severe it’s causing fish to grow two eyes on one side of their heads, spine deformities and the potential ecological collapse of the fish habitat in a large recreational reservoir downstream from the mines. The fines are in response to one of our selenium lawsuits, both of which are serving to expose the WV DEP’s cozy relationship with an industry it’s supposed to regulate. The following news articles detail these latest legal developments and also, we hope, will move you to help us demand a better DEP. Take action by visiting Rocks and boulders left lying around after Hobet WWW.OHVEC.ORG and clicking on “Safe Water and a Strong Mining got done rearranging the Mud River. DEP.” downstream, seem to contradict the claim made by some Hobet’s 20 square miles of lopped off mountains Friends of Coal that mountaintop removal (MTR) actually and buried streams, with serious water problems makes the land better.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Cost of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Mapping the Science Behind Health and Economic Woes of Central Appalachia
    THE HUMAN COST of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining MAPPING THE SCIENCE BEHIND HEALTH AND ECONOMIC WOES OF CENTRAL APPALACHIA Compiled by on behalf of iLoveMountains.org “The scientific evidence of the severe environmental and human impacts from mountaintop removal is strong and irrefutable.” Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science ince 2007, peer-reviewed studies by researchers According to the United Health Foundation, in 2011 from more than a dozen universities have concluded Kentucky and West Virginia ranked first and second, that mountaintop removal coal mining contributes respectively, in the nation for the most deaths from cancer. to significantly higher rates of birth defects, cancer, Both are consistently among the 10 states with the highest Scardiovascular and respiratory diseases among individuals rates of respiratory diseases, heart attacks, preventable living in the region where it occurs. hospital visits and premature deaths. In Gallup’s annual poll, West Virginia and Kentucky ranked last and second-to-last Mountaintop removal uses explosives to blast through in overall well-being for four consecutive years. The two hundreds of feet of rock, exposing coal seams and states have the most mountaintop removal coal mining and leaving nearby communities vulnerable to coal dust and are also among the most polluted in the nation. air pollution that contains arsenic, cadmium and other carcinogens. The remaining rock and dirt are pushed into Despite these findings, little has been done to protect adjacent valleys, burying headwater streams and polluting Appalachian communities from the impacts of waterways. mountaintop removal. Based on the broad concurrence of scientific findings in these studies, it’s evident that Exposure to coal-related pollution is significantly higher the trending health and socioeconomic inequalities in in communities near mountaintop removal mines than in Central Appalachia cannot fully be addressed so long as communities where only underground mining occurs.
    [Show full text]