West Virginia Highlands Voice

Clean Water rollbacks threaten #1 Potomac River and rivers nationwide

May 15, 2012

Washington, D.C. – With Congress considering drastic cuts to national clean water protections, and rivers nationwide facing threats from natural gas drilling, pollution, and new dams, American Rivers today released its annual list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®. American Rivers named the Potomac River, known as ‘the nation’s river’ as it flows through the capital, the most endangered in the country. While the Potomac is cleaner than it used to be, the river is still threatened by urban and agricultural pollution– and it could get much worse if Congress rolls back critical clean water safeguards.

As our country commemorates the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act this year, the Potomac is emblematic of what’s at stake for rivers nationwide. American Rivers launched a national call to action, giving citizens the opportunity to contact members of Congress and speak up for clean water.

“This year’s Most Endangered Rivers list underscores how important clean water is to our drinking water, health, and economy,” said Bob Irvin, President of American Rivers. “If Congress slashes clean water protections, more Americans will get sick and communities and businesses will suffer. We simply cannot afford to go back to a time when the Potomac and rivers nationwide were too polluted and dangerous to use.”

Before the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, the Potomac was a cesspool of sewage and industrial pollution. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Potomac and rivers across the country are cleaner and safer for drinking, boating, and fishing. But the Potomac is still suffering – a University of Maryland report card has given the river a “D” grade for water quality for the past two years.

“The Clean Water Act is the reason the Potomac River is no longer called a “national disgrace.” Most of the palpable problems are gone; however, there are many emerging threats that can’t be seen. Residents of the Washington D.C. metro area– including the President and Congress– need to realize they are composed mostly of Potomac river water and they need to protect and enforce the laws that safeguard their health,” said Ed Merrifield, President of Potomac Riverkeeper.  “We need strong federal leadership as we redouble our efforts at the local level to achieve the goal of a healthy, clean Potomac,” said Hedrick Belin, President of the Potomac Conservancy. “We look forward to partnering with American Rivers, Potomac Riverkeeper, and others to continue to make progress cleaning up the Nation’s River.  This regional treasure contributes so much to our community’s quality of life, and our neighborhoods deserve healthy, clean streams and creeks.”

“When members of Congress fill a glass of water or drink their morning coffee, that water comes from the Potomac River. It’s time to draw the clear connections between healthy rivers, drinking water, and public health in Washington, DC, and in communities nationwide,” said Irvin.

American Rivers called on Congress to kill any legislation that weakens the Clean Water Act or prevents the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from restoring protections for small streams and wetlands under the Act. American Rivers also called on the Obama Administration to finalize guidance clarifying the scope of the Clean Water Act and issue a rule-making to ensure that all waters get the protections Americans expect and deserve.

Now in its 27th year, the annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers® report is a list of rivers at a crossroads, where key decisions in the coming months will determine the rivers’ fates. Over the years, the report has helped spur many successes including the removal of outdated dams, the protection of rivers with Wild and Scenic designations, and the prevention of harmful development and pollution.

America’s Most Endangered Rivers® of 2012:
#1: Potomac River (MD, VA, PA, WV, DC)
Threat: Pollution
At risk: Clean water and public health

The Potomac is the ‘nation’s river,’ rich in culture and history and the lifeblood of our nation’s capital. The river provides drinking water to more than five million people and offers abundant opportunities for recreation. However, the Potomac is threatened by agricultural and urban pollution that will only get worse if Congress rolls back national clean water protections. If Congress puts polluters before people, our nation’s river — and many other rivers nationwide — will become a threat to public health, unsafe for drinking water, wildlife, or recreation.

#2: Green River (WY, UT, CO)
Threat: Water withdrawals
At risk: Recreation opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat

The Green River is the largest tributary of the Colorado River, and carves some of the most iconic river canyons in the U.S. Thousands of anglers fish its glorious water and thousands of rafters marvel at the river’s majestic canyons each year, generating a robust rural economy across three states. However, a proposal to pump a massive volume of water out of the Green into a 500-mile pipeline across Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range threatens world-class recreation, rural economies, critical fish habitats and the water supply for the lower Colorado River Basin. The Governors of Utah and Colorado must join Wyoming’s Governor Mead in opposing the pipeline and standing up for more efficient, cost-effective water supply solutions.

#3: Chattahoochee River (GA)
Threat: New dams and reservoirs
At risk: Clean water and healthy fisheries

The Chattahoochee River provides drinking water for millions in metro Atlanta, is one of America’s best trout streams, and was recently designated as our country’s first National Water Trail. However, a water war between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida has spurred proposals for costly new dams and reservoirs that would harm water quality, destroy recreation opportunities, and ruin wildlife habitat. The Army Corps of Engineers must deny permits for these reservoirs and state decision makers must embrace more cost effective solutions like water efficiency in order to ensure a reliable water supply and healthy river for generations to come.

#4: Missouri River (IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD, WY)
Threat: Outdated flood management
At risk: Public safety

The Missouri is the nation’s longest river, supplying drinking water, commerce, and recreation, and impacting the safety and well-being of millions. However, the river and its communities suffer from outdated flood management, as evidenced by the massive flooding in 2011. In order to improve public safety, decision makers must prioritize using floodplains and wetlands to absorb and store flood waters, and Congress must fully fund the Missouri River Recovery Program and long term planning studies for the river.

#5: Hoback River (WY)
Threat: Natural gas development
At stake: Clean water and world-class fish and wildlife

The Hoback River is treasured for its sparkling clear water, thriving native trout fishery, and excellent paddling opportunities. Unfortunately, proposed natural gas development threatens the river and local residents with toxic pollution. To ensure the Hoback’s clean water, air quality, scenery, and world-class fish and wildlife are not compromised, the leaseholder must agree to sell or donate its oil and gas leases to a conservation buyer.

#6: Grand River (OH)
Threat: Natural gas development
At risk: Clean water and public health

A State Wild and Scenic River, the Grand is a haven for rare birds and other wildlife and boasts the best water quality of any stream flowing into Lake Eerie. However, natural gas development threatens the river’s clean water and public health. The State of Ohio must strengthen safeguards to ensure natural gas development and the disposal of wastewater does not harm the river, its clean water, and local communities.

#7: South Fork Skykomish River (WA)
Threat: New dam
At risk: Habitat and recreation

The Skykomish is one of Washington’s most popular rivers for fishing, paddling, and scenic beauty. However, a proposed hydropower dam would destroy the wild character of the river’s South Fork, and reduce two spectacular waterfalls to a trickle. Decision-makers should abandon this damaging project and focus on better energy alternatives to ensure those needs are balanced with the need for healthy rivers and a strong outdoor recreation economy.

#8: Crystal River (CO)
Threat: Dams and water diversions
At risk: Fish, wildlife, and recreation

The Crystal River provides essential habitat for fish and wildlife, beautiful vistas and recreation for visitors, and is one of the few remaining free-flowing streams in Colorado. However, new hydropower dams, reservoirs, and water diversions threaten to destroy the river’s unique values. Local water districts should reject the dam proposals and support federal Wild and Scenic River designation for the Crystal River, while embracing more efficient and cost-effective water supply solutions.

#9: Coal River (WV)
Threat: Mountaintop removal coal mining
At risk: Clean water and public health

The Coal River supplies drinking water for local communities, supports fish and wildlife, and boasts a water trail for fishing, boating, and other recreation. However, the river is threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining, which has already buried, poisoned, and destroyed miles of streams in the basin. Congress must restore Clean Water Act protections to the Coal’s headwater streams in order to prevent more destructive mining and permanently safeguard clean water and public health.

#10: Kansas River (KS)
Threat: Sand and gravel dredging
At risk: Public health and wildlife habitat

The Kansas River provides drinking water for 600,000 people and is the state’s most popular river for canoeing, kayaking, and other recreation. However, the river is threatened by sand and gravel dredging, which would cause severe harm to clean water, wildlife, and recreation opportunities. The Army Corps of Engineers must complete a comprehensive study of the impacts of dredging, deny all new permit requests, and plan to end dredging on the Kansas River by 2017.

• Learn more at www.AmericanRivers.org/EndangeredRivers

For the fourth consecutive year, America’s Most Endangered Rivers® is sponsored by The Orvis Company, which donates 5% of their pre-tax profits annually to protect nature.

###

American Rivers is the leading organization working to protect and restore the nation’s rivers and streams. Rivers connect us to each other, nature, and future generations. Since 1973, American Rivers has fought to preserve these connections, helping protect and restore more than 150,000 miles of rivers through advocacy efforts, on-the-ground projects, and the annual release of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®.

Headquartered in Washington, DC, American Rivers has offices across the country and more than 100,000 supporters, members, and volunteers nationwide. Visit www.americanrivers.org, www.facebook.com/americanrivers and www.twitter.com/americanrivers.

Local news on the press release

The Register-Herald, Beckley, West Virginia

http://www.register-herald.com/local/x201101545/Two-W-Va-rivers-on-endangered-list

May 15, 2012

Two W.Va. rivers on endangered list

By Sarah Plummer Register-Herald Reporter

The State Journal

Potomac, Coal named among America’s Most Endangered Rivers

Posted: May 14, 2012 6:09 PM EDT Updated: May 15, 2012 6:22 AM EDT

By Pam Kasey – email

http://www.statejournal.com/story/18389077/coal-river-named-among-americas-most-endangered-rivers

 Coal Tattoo

Coal River again makes ‘most endangered’ list

May 15, 2012 by Ken Ward Jr.

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2012/05/15/coal-river-again-makes-most-endangered-list/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 14, 2012

Contact: Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237, ljudge@earthjustice.org

Joe Lovett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, (304) 645-9006, jlovett@appalmad.org

Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, (304) 924-5802, clrank2@gmail.com

Debbie Jarrell, Coal River Mountain Watch, (304) 854-2182, debbiejarrell@gmail.com

Janet Keating, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, (304) 522-0246, janet@ohvec.org

Sean Sarah, Sierra Club, (330) 338-3740, sean.sarah@sierraclub.org

EPA Strongly Defends Its Veto of One of Largest Mountaintop Removal Mines Ever Proposed

Agency files appeal to persevere in protection of Appalachian waters, communities

Washington, D.C. — On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a notice that it is appealing the U.S. District Court decision that overturned the agency’s veto under the Clean Water Act of the extremely destructive Spruce No. 1 mine, one of the nation’s largest proposed mountaintop removal coal mines.  The appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

On March 23, in a case brought against the EPA by the Mingo Logan Coal Company, the operator of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the coal company’s attack on EPA’s science-based veto decision. Earthjustice and several Appalachian client groups vowed to persist in their fight for clean water, healthy communities, and protections from the most extreme form of energy extraction in this nation. After this court decision, more than 60,000 Americans sent messages to the EPA in support of its veto, urging it to continue exercising and defending its full authority to protect Appalachian citizens from this extremely harmful mining practice.

The following is a statement from West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, and Sierra Club – all of whom are amici curiae (or “friends of the court”), represented by Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates, in support of EPA’s veto:

“We are heartened to see the Environmental Protection Agency press forward in its commitment to enforce the 40-year-old Clean Water Act and to ensure that the full protections of that law are finally brought to Appalachia, where they’ve been ignored for too long.  As EPA’s Spruce veto determination recognized, sound science shows that it is unacceptable for a coal company to destroy more than 2,000 mountain acres and fill over six miles of vital streams with mining waste pollution, and we will continue standing behind EPA’s decision to prevent the irreversible devastation to waterways and communities that the Spruce No. 1 mine would bring.

“The fundamental right of all Americans to safe and clean water was established 40 years ago with the passage of the Clean Water Act. No one in Appalachia or beyond should be forced to live with the water pollution and wholesale environmental destruction that coal companies are wreaking through mountaintop removal mining. We’re glad to see the EPA’s decision to stand up to the coal industry and continue defending the basic right of everyday Appalachian families to clean water.”

ONLINE PRESS STATEMENT: http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/epa-strongly-defends-its-veto-of-one-of-largest-mountaintop-removal-mines-ever-proposed

###

 Earthjustice (www.earthjustice.org) is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment.

http://www.statejournal.com/story/18115108/construction-suspended-on-aes-grant-county-wind-farm

AES Corp. has suspended construction on its New Creek project in Grant County pending the resolution of permitting issues with the Federal Aviation Administration.

“We suspended construction because it didn’t appear we could get this solved in time to put the turbines vertical,” said AES Managing Director Charles Falter. The company is headquartered in Arlington, Va.

AES New Creek is a 160-megawatt wind project located south of Keyser.

Read more…

Friends of the Appalachian Mountains,

The Mountain Justice Summer camp in West Virginia starts next weekend and I hope you will consider joining us. We need people like you to help us end mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia!

You don’t have to be an expert on coal mining or energy issues or Appalachia to participate in our camp – we welcome newcomers to Appalachia and we are a friendly group of people. Our camp is low-cost (sliding scale and no one is turned away if they cannnot afford to pay), its in a historic lodge on top of a beautiful mountain in southern West Virginia – and we even have good food.

Mountain Justice is an non-hierarchical, all-volunteer organization – we don’t have any paid staff, an office or even a fax machine. Heck, we have never had much in our bank account, because we rely solely on donations and volunteers. But we do have a youthful energy that has continued to pump vitality into the anti-mountaintop removal campaign for the past eight years – we have been meeting on a monthly basis since 2004. Mountain Justice is an amazing organization and I’m proud to be part of it.

Mountain Justice Summer Camp is a week-­long program of education, workshops, entertainment, sustainable living techniques and direct action training to prepare people of all ages and from walks of life to join the movement to end mountaintop removal mining (MTR) and to help promote environmental justice for Appalachia and beyond.
Our camp will be at the Appalachian South FolkLife Center near Pipestem WV (Beckley area). Most people will camp in tents but we also have dorm-style cabins with bunk beds and showers. In past years the weather has been glorious for our camps at the Folklife Center, about 70 degrees with a nice steady mountain breeze.

We will teach you about mountaintop removal, underground coal mining, Appalachian cultural awareness, water testing and science, the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), and non-violent direct action training. You will get to see a mountaintop removal mine first hand, and meet some of the amazing local people in West Virginia who are fighting to end it. In the evenings we will feature documentary films, Appalachian and mountain music, plus a square dance and a no-talent show.

Many of the faces in Mountain Justice have changed over the years but our commitment to end mountaintop removal has not wavered. We always welcome new people into the campaign – so I hope you will consider joining us. We need people like you!

To learn more about our camp and to register click here or go to our website www.mountainjustice.org

I hope to see you next week in the mountains of West Virginia!

Also coming up over Memorial Day weekend (May 25-28) is the Heartwood Forest Council in the Allegheny National Forest of north-central Pennsylvania.

Heartwood is a regional network of public forest defense and advocacy grassroots organizations, with member groups in most states where the Eastern Hardwood forests once covered majestic and wild, from the Ozarks to the Appalachians.

The 22nd Annual Forest Council will be hosted by the Allegheny Defense Project (ADP), and held at Camp Olmstead at 316 4th Ave., Warren, PA 16365.

This year’s Forest Council will explore the impacts of Marcellus drilling/hydro-fracking, the Seneca bid to take management of the Kinzua Dam Hydro power rights, coal, solar and wind issues. All of these issues suggest that we think deeper about energy production and consumption in our society and our daily life, as we prepare to reclaim the structures that have led to such tremendous inequity around the globe.

The primary focus or goal of the weekend is to share skills and provide training for activist Forest Watch, and coordinate local and regional forest protection and advocacy. Speakers this year will include Thomas Buchele, the Clinical Professor of Law and Managing Attorney, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (“PEAC”) at Lewis and Clarke Law School who has fought for the protection of public lands for more than 25 years.

To register for the Heartwood Forest Council go to http://www.heartwood.org/forest-council/

Dave Cooper

By Cindy Rank

Our most recent legal challenge involving water pollution from coal mine sites in West Virginia concerns the very first mountaintop removal coal mine in West Virginia – the Bullpush Mountain operation on the Kanawha – Fayette County line above Smithers, WV.

With a permit to mine granted in 1970 to Cannelton Industries, the original acreage was mined by Perry and Hylton, Inc. Bullpush Mountain was leveled and according to the permit the postmining land use was to be a residential community of over 2,000 acres.

Bullpush Mountain Planned Community (Most houses, churches, schools, shopping, medical facilities, and light industry disguised as scraggly, dead grass)

In 2005 this permit area was transferred to and included in a larger permit area held by another company (Jacks Branch Coal Co.). WV DEP granted final bond release for the original acreage four years ago (April, 2008). All coal removal activities have ceased in that area and the mine site has been ‘reclaimed’. Boone East Development Company currently controls and/or owns the previously mined and permitted area.

However, recent water sampling shows high levels of both selenium and conductivity in water discharging from the Bullpush mountaintop removal site and entering Smithers Creek of the Kanawha River not far downstream from Gauley Bridge.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WATER?
So, who is responsible for the water and water quality running through and off this old mine site?

That may seem like a simple question with a simple answer. If you or I have pollution running off our property we are legally responsible.

In the case of mining operations the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy has consistently argued for and urged strong enforcement of both the Surface Mine Act (SMCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) and has often had to resort to litigation in an attempt to hold various coal companies and others accountable for the quality of water coming off mine sites – old and new.

Since at least the late 1970′s when I joined the WV Highlands Conservancy the organization has held repeatedly that mine operators/companies whose activities result in discharges of pollutants (acid mine drainage, iron, aluminum, manganese, selenium, any combination of salts that cause reduction in aquatic life of streams, etc.) are responsible for controlling and treating their discharges to prevent ongoing pollution.

We’ve been to the WV Supreme Court and to Federal Court to affirm our belief that reclamation under Surface Mine Act and the Clean Water Act includes not only putting the land back in stable and usable condition, but also assuring that discharges from those sites don’t pollute our waterways. . And we’ve won.

We’ve gone to court first and foremost to hold the mining companies responsible for clean-up and preventing future violations of permit limits and water quality standards in receiving streams. ..And we’ve won.

We’ve appealed to the WV Environmental Quality Board and gone to federal court to require West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to include appropriate effluent limits in water discharge permits for mining operations .. And we’ve won.

We’ve gone to court to hold the regulatory agency responsible when companies have gone bankrupt or otherwise deserted the mine operations before they were complete, thus forfeiting bonds to the state for its use in completing reclamation as required by law. . And we’ve won.

We’ve gone to court to assure the State of West Virginia will be subject to the requirements of appropriate water discharge NPDES permits at those forfeited mine sites where the state has the responsibility to treat water . And we’ve won.

We’ve gone to court to insist the bond program be strengthened and the bond amounts and reserve bond pool (Special Reclamation Fund) be increased to provide monies sufficient enough for the state to fulfill its legal responsibility performing reclamation at these sites . and we’ve won.

We’ve gone to court to urge the federal Office of Surface Mining to take over the portion of the WV Regulatory Program that enforces the Bonding provisions of the Surface Mine laws. — Well, that one is still pending.

And now with the Bullpush/Boone East Development complaint we are attempting to address another layer of responsibility – the land owner.

As stated above, WV Department of Environmental Protecion released the company from its bond several years ago, but recent water testing has shown an unacceptable amount of selenium and other salts are still discharging from the old mine site property.

We’re now asking the court to enforce the Clean Water Act by requiring the current land owner to control the pollution and to abide by a permit to discharge – a permit that includes effluent limits sufficient to ensure compliance with the state and federal water quality standards.

So, who is responsible for the water coming from mine sites?

It is the belief of the plaintiffs and our attorneys in this lawsuit that assuring that reclaimed mine sites don’t pollute our water resources continues to be a responsibility of the land owner – whether that be the coal company that mined in the first place, or the state in its stead, or whoever maintains ownership after the mining is done.

Post Script re: Post Mining Land Use
Though not an issue in this particular CWA law suit, mention of Bullpush wouldn’t be complete without some further comment about the post mining land use (PMLU) originally planned and permitted for the flattened mountain.

Not unlike the more detailed WV state regulations for the “Homestead” post mining land use delineated in our settlement with WV DEP in the Bragg case back in 1999, the Bullpush plan called for a self contained community with churches, schools, shopping, medical facilities, and light industry.

The Fall 1980 issue of the glossy coal industry magazine Greenlands boasted about Bullpush Mountain and included a layout of the proposed “planned community’. The proposed “planned community” was to cover “over 2000 acres and accommodate 10-12 thousand people.”

[Thanks to Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette for retrieving a scanned copy of the Greenlands article out of his files and providing a link to that article as well as other past articles in his Coal Tattoo blog of April 17, 2012. http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2012/04/17/bullpush-mountain-public-health-and-epa-attacks/.]

Highlands Voice editor John McFerrin served on the 1998 Governor’s (Cecil Underwood) Task Force on Mountaintop Removal Mining. Referring to Post Mining Land Use he repeatedly reminded committee members and wrote again in his minority report of one at the close of the Task Force, that the Surface Mine Act envisioned more detailed development plans and upfront commitments for such “residential” PMLU to be acceptable. Also envisioned as needed for success was accessible infrastructure, roads, electricity, water, and the like as well as proximity to population centers.

If any residential development on a mountaintop removal site could have a realistic chance of succeeding, one might have guessed Bullpush Mountain would be an ideal experiment. Up the mountain but not far from the Kanawha River and Rt 60 that runs along the River, Bullpush is not quite 25 miles from Charleston and just west of Gauley Bridge and the amazing Kanawha Falls where the Gauley joins the New to become the Kanawha River.

It’s interesting to note that the Bull Push Mountain property is still ‘listed’ on the WV Department of Commerce website as available in Fayette County..
http://www.wvcommerce.org/business/siteselector/listing/Bull-Push-Site/10327/default.aspx

But, as Ken Ward reported back in1998, and again in Coal Tattoo April 17th, and apparent to any visitor to Bullpush today, nothing really came of the community planned for Bullpush Mountain.

Even as far back as 1970 the coal industry’s mantra about WV needing more flat land had begun in earnest. If only due to increased media attention about the lack of development on these lands, there are a few more sites that are being developed today. But for the most part, now some 40+ years later, that ‘field of dreams’ continues to grow into many thousands of acres and yet has yielded less reality than fantasy.

[Plaintiffs WV Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and Sierra Club filed the Boone East/Bullpush lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and are represented by Jim Hecker with Public Justice, and by Joe Lovett and Derek Teaney with Appalachian Mountain Advocates.]

~MOTHER~

By Cynthia D. Ellis

She cradled a young miner’s head in her lap. Mortally wounded, his head bashed by a mine detective while on the picket line, he murmured the name of the one he thought he saw, “Mother.” Thus— according to some— did Mary Harris Jones become “Mother” Jones.

Labor activist Mary Jones’s interest in the rights of miners and all working folk came from her childhood. It is alternately said that her family left their native Ireland due to the potato famine—or due to the workers’ rights activities of her father.

Mary had training as a teacher and as a seamstress and spent time working at both. But when her shop and all possessions were lost in the Great Chicago Fire, she turned to labor organizing full time. Mother Jones worked to improve conditions for railroad workers, coal and copper miners, textile and garment workers, brewery bottle washers, street car workers, maids and child laborers. She cofounded the International Workers of the World and lent much of her energy to the United Mine Workers. As the years and list of people and places she helped accumulated, Mother Jones cultivated a matronly manner and antiquated dress; black with lace at collar and cuffs, and sturdy boots beneath; a sweet face and stature of only five feet.

But her speeches and actions were anything but quaint. She had a sharp tongue, ready wit, and a charismatic way. If her “boys” couldn’t be reasoned or cajoled, Mother Jones would unleash scorn and sarcasm. “I have been in jail more than once and I expect to go again. If you are too cowardly to fight, I will fight!” And, “Boys, always remember you ain’t got a damn thing if you ain’t got a union!” In 1902, she was accused, by West Virginia district attorney Reece Blizzard, of being “the most dangerous woman in America.” Doggedly persistent, she returned to the mountain state many times, and was noted for organizing a march of miners’ children through Charleston on September 21, 1912. She was arrested in connection with the Paint Creek/Cabin Creek strike here in that year also and experienced a long house arrest and bout with pneumonia until the publicity forced a Senate investigation of miners’ conditions. That was but one instance of her many detentions and jailings.

The tender feelings of Mother Jones for children and workers had to be influenced by her own deep tragedy. Married at age 24, she was widowed just 6 years later. In 1867 a yellow fever epidemic killed her young husband and took too, every one of their four tiny children. Some of us have seen the moving portrayal of this chapter in her life acted out by Calhoun County artist Jude Binder in her play “Broken Bough.” We’ve watched “Mary” kneel, silently keening, and rocking back and forth as she tries to complete the washing of little bodies and wrapping winding sheets.

Somehow, those deaths, and that devastating fire after she had tried to rebuild her life, served only to make Mary Harris unyieldingly strong, even as she retained a tender heart. She encouraged workers to shape their own fates. “Sit down and read. Educate yourself for the coming conflicts.” Elliot J. Gorn noted, “Working families, Mother Jones argued, possessed vast, untapped powers to fight the corporations that bound them to starvation wages and the corrupt politicians who did the businessmen’s bidding. But only strong, democratic organizations of citizen-activists, she felt, could achieve real egalitarian change.”

She strove on, speaking for the last time at age 85, in 1926, and dying in 1930. At her funeral, with 10-15,000 in attendance, she was lauded by one speaker with these words:

“Wealthy coal operators and capitalists throughout the United States are breathing sighs of relief while toil-worn men and women are weeping tears of bitter grief. The reason for this contrast of relief and sorrow is apparent. Mother Jones is dead.”

One testament to her renown was a recording by Gene Autry of “The Death of Mother Jones.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDVqPxqW0KA

In the present day, celebrations will be held in Ireland by the Cork Mother Jones Commemoration Committee, with speakers from America, primarily on August 1, 2012.

This Mother’s Day season is a fitting time for us to remember or learn about Mother Jones. Like the real mothers of some of us, if she were here, Mother Jones might give us a hug.or a kick in the pants.

By John McFerrin

The Board of Directors of the West Virginia Highlands had its spring meeting at Blackwater Falls State Park on April 22.

We had the usual businessy reports: Frank Young (pinch hitting for the absent Robert Marshall) reported on the state of the treasury. We are 25% of the way through the year and are at about 25% on revenue and at less than 25% on expenses. Cindy Rank relayed a message from the membership secretary that she had had cataract surgery. One eye did fine but there were complications on the other one so she is out of whack right now. She will do a report as soon as she is back in whack. She did report that she has changed the membership form so that getting an electronic Voice is now listed as an option. She also wants to get suggestions for places where she could arrange for bulk distribution of the Voice.

Webmaster Jim Solley reported on the web site. We are going to expand the offerings that are available through the website store by adding a WVHC polo shirt and possibly a WVHC onesie.

Under old business, we discussed endorsing the work of the Potomac Highlands Cooperative Pest Management. Its mission is to eliminate invasive species of plants from public lands. We had had a presentation about it at an earlier meeting and tabled a motion to endorse its work because it used herbicides. There was no great enthusiasm for moving it toward passage and our ambivalence about herbicides remained so we took no action.

The major discussion was about our policy on industrial scale wind energy. Nobody seemed satisfied with the state of our present policy; all seemed to agree that some new policy was needed. The discussion resolved mostly around the process for seeking membership input on the wind policy, although there were some dissenting opinions. The results of the discussion appear in the stories on page 7 of this issue of The Highlands Voice.

In outreach, President Cindy talked about our Facebook page. Ken James, a member in Virginia, had set up a page for us. He had also put up an ad which directs people to that page. Now we have lots of people looking at it. It looks a lot like our web page.

Cindy Rank presented a report on coal, including various litigation in which we are involved.

Frank reported on the PATH transmission line. At the last meeting he had reported that the application has been dismissed and the project is dead. As part of the process, the company had also applied to cross National Park Service and Forest Service land. Those applications have now been dismissed. The only place it is still alive is at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company is trying to keep up the appearance that it is a viable project. It wishes to keep including the expenses of PATH development in its expenses. The larger the expenses the higher rates it can justify.

Beth Baldwin reported on T.E.A.M. and the activities by the long wall mine that plans to undermine a large fraction of Taylor County. The company has clearcut and scraped bare about fifty acres where the mine face and the preparation plant will be. Trucks bringing materials to the area, hauling dirt, etc. are a major irritant. T.E.A.M. is now trying to do a new round of background water testing.

We had reports on both matters legislative and on highways that just referred to articles in the April issue of The Highlands Voice.

In activities only tangentially related to the business of the meeting but directly related to fun, President Ellis held a drawing for the door prize, a copy of Cerulean Blues: A Personal Search for a Vanishing Songbird by Katie Fallon. In a random drawing, Beth Baldwin won. Demonstrating panache previously absent in WVHC presidents, Cindy Ellis closed the meeting with a dramatic reading of The Lorax

By John McFerrin

The United States Department of the Interior has issued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. According to the Department’s press release, these voluntary guidelines are supposed to “help wind energy project developers avoid and minimize impacts of land-based wind projects on wildlife and their habitats. The voluntary guidelines will help shape the smart siting, design and operation of the nation’s growing wind energy economy.”

The Guidelines recognize the threats to wildlife posed by wind turbines. These impacts include threats to “migratory birds; bats; bald and golden eagles and other birds of prey; prairie and sage grouse; and listed, proposed, or candidate endangered and threatened species.”

The Guidelines are supposed to address these threats:

• Collisions with wind turbines and associated infrastructure; loss and degradation of habitat from turbines and infrastructure;
• Fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller segments that may not support sensitive species;
• Displacement and behavioral changes; and
• Indirect effects such as increased predator populations or introduction of invasive plants.

The idea of the Guidelines is to encourage developers to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service early in the planning of the wind farm. The Fish and Wildlife Service can then work with the developer to help plan, site, and develop the operation in a way that helps avoid the threats that are possible at an industrial wind site. The guidelines also provide for data collection, including fatality monitoring, after the wind turbines are installed to determine gather data on how the Guidelines are working.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in this issue because of its general duty to promote and protect the interests of wildlife. More specifically, it is involved because it is supposed to enforce as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. The voluntary guidelines are supposed to help developers identify additional steps, review processes and permits that may be needed to ensure compliance with these acts. If the project may affect one or more species protected by the ESA or their habitat, for example, developers may need to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and apply for an Incidental Take Permit.

The Guidelines also provide Best Management Practices for site development, construction, retrofitting, repowering, and decommissioning.

The Guidelines are voluntary. While having followed them might help a developer who later runs afoul of the law, failing to follow them doesn’t result in anything unpleasant happening to a developer. The Guidelines say:

Adherence to the Guidelines is voluntary and does not relieve any individual, company, or agency of the responsibility to comply with laws and regulations. However, if a violation occurs the Service will consider a developer’s documented efforts to communicate with the Service and adhere to the Guidelines.

The issuance of the Guidelines has produced some controversy; most of it comes from the fact that they are voluntary.

Audubon takes the position that these guidelines are a worthwhile step forward. Its view is that a cooperative approach in planning and siting wind turbines will result in superior wildlife protection than what had been a more combative approach in the past. It describes the Guidelines as “a game-changer and big win for both wildlife and clean energy.”

The American Bird Conservancy is not so sure. It points out that The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that in 2009, the wind industry was killing about 440,000 birds per year. With the Federal Government targeting a 12-fold increase in wind generated electricity by the year 2030, annual bird mortality is expected to increase into the millions absent meaningful changes in the industry. Species of conservation concern appear to be particularly at risk including the Golden Eagle, Greater Sage-Grouse and the endangered Whooping Crane.

The American Bird Conservancy does not think that voluntary guidelines are the way to address these threats. It points out that the guidelines allow companies to decide whether or not they will comply.

They also provide companies with a tool to avoid prosecution under regulatory statutes which are mandatory. Should a developer violate such statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act having consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service during the development of the project would be considered by the Service in determining whether prosecution is warranted.

The ABC finds this discouraging in light of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s past record of reluctance to prosecute. It points to a wind farm in California which is estimated to have killed over 2,000 eagles without any prosecution of anyone.

To download a copy of the final guidelines and for other ackground information on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in wind energy development, please visit http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/.

Board Calls for Opinions Based on Facts

By Wayne Spiggle

“Nearly half of our electricity comes from coal, 30% of that from Appalachia. Mountain top removal has destroyed 500 mountains, a million acres of forest and 2000 miles of streams. The cost to health and the environment comes to 345 billion dollars annually”.– George Beecham, PBS Presents.

I believe we all accept this statement. Multiple studies and factual information stand behind it. Coal mining, particularly by mountain top removal and long wall methodology, is a pox on our mountains that will subvert the health and welfare of generations to come. Recent moves of the Environmental Protection Agency to more carefully control coal combustion pollutants deserve our appreciation and active support.

Many of my friends are convinced that the answer to coal is swaying in the wind. Industrial scale wind advertising has popularized the assumption that wind is environmentally friendly and can replace coal, answering the challenge of global warming.

In an October 2010 briefing for President Obama, then Secretary Larry Summers lays out a scenario that commercial wind can reduce carbon combustion, but the cost to the public is very great. Using the 845- megawatt, $1.9 billion Shepherds Flat project in Oregon as an example, the report cites a public cost of $1.3 billion while the developer “would provide little skin in the game (equity about 10%.)” The briefing calculates 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions through 2033. “Carbon reductions would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies. More than six times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules.)”

Does the government assumption that industrial scale wind can reduce carbon combustion make it so? Some think so and some think not. Members are invited to share what they consider to be verifiable facts on this matter.

And even though the industry says industrial scale wind is “free and clean” does that make it so? The American Bird Conservancy says not. Quoting United States Fish and Wildlife studies the ABC predicts that by year 2020 over one million birds will be slaughtered each year by turbines unless they can be sited where the birds aren’t present. They are petitioning the Federal Government for rule making that will ask for turbine installation to be limited to “bird smart” areas. Others claim that the extraordinary acreage consumed by the installations and transmission infrastructure will change forever what we mean when we sing “The Beautiful WV Hills”. Many discount this as a concern.

The PJM Grid has studied summertime wind in the Highlands and reports a 13% efficiency: “Currently effective class average capacity factors are 13% for wind and 38% for solar units.” –PJM Manual 21, May, 2010: Wind Efficiency as rated by the PJM.

What does that mean for the ability of Appalachian commercial wind to live up to the large amount of electricity generation each existing installation has promised? How many acres of highland forests are we going to lose over the next couple of decades? How should we protect our Highlands?

This is the main question that faces your West Virginia Highlands Conservancy Board. So it is that the board wants more information.

WVHC is a membership organization and we turn to our membership in the process of making policy. We are asking you to say to yourselves, “This is how I feel, but what facts do I have to support how I feel? And please, while this is an opportunity for the Board to be heard by the membership. it is not the place to be mean spirited. Unfortunately, that has happened in the distant past and we all expect it not be repeated. Opinion backed up by verifiable fact will be taken respectfully and seriously.

INDUSTRIAL WIND POWER: WHAT SHOULD THE BOARD DO?

For years the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy has been conflicted about industrial wind power. Although nothing is certain in this debate, it is probably safe to assume that most of us began the discussion wanting to believe that wind power would be good for West Virginia. Coal mining was such a scourge upon the land and water that wind power just had to be better.

Over the years the Board has taken various positions, none of which were entirely satisfactory to anybody. One of the ways to fill The Highlands Voice with letters to the editor is to publish something either strongly favoring or opposing wind power.

One of our organizational members is the Allegheny Highlands Alliance. It is dedicated to, among other things, studying the available evidence on industrial wind power and following that evidence wherever it leads. If it leads to supporting wind power then that is the Alliance’s position. If it leads in the opposite direction, then that is the Alliance’s position. It is probably safe to say that the more the Alliance’s members have studied the issue the more they have moved toward the conclusion that industrial wind power would not benefit West Virginia.

Now the Board is embarking on an effort to arrive at a more satisfactory position on industrial wind power. The accompanying article is a start. Over the next few months the Board hopes to present the evidence on wind power. It hopes that the membership will chime in, offering its own evidence and perspective. Everyone is free to participate through articles, letters to the editor, whatever. At the end of it all the Board hopes to use the information to arrive at a sensible policy on industrial wind power in West Virginia, particularly the West Virginia highlands.

By Casey Rucker

The 5-year West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas II project is past its midway point, with more than 48,000 records submitted and 172 species reported. Many birdwatchers are already familiar with the atlas project, but other nature lovers may not be aware of its importance, or how easy it is to contribute.

The atlas is an attempt to document the locations and abundance of the birds who breed anywhere in West Virginia. The atlas divides the state into blocks, named after and based on USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. Each block is one-sixth of a topo quad, divided in half from side to side and in thirds from top to bottom. West Virginia’s Division of Natural Resources (DNR) designates 469 of the state’s 2,766 blocks as “priority” or “special” in order to narrow observers’ focus to a representative sampling of the state’s habitats. The West Virginia highlands, because of their unusual habitats, sport a high concentration of special and priority blocks.

Observers identify evidence of the “possible”, “probable” or “confirmed” breeding status of each bird they report. Since most birds are seasonal breeders, the DNR has set “safe dates” for each species known to breed in West Virginia. Observations must be made within the safe dates unless the bird was engaged in probable or confirmed breeding activity, such as persistently singing in breeding territory, carrying nest materials or feeding young.

The observations recorded in the atlas will provide science and our society with more evidence of West Virginia’s riches in birdlife. Since this will be the second atlas, it will also provide valuable new data about changes in breeding bird ranges and populations throughout our state. With nearly all bird species suffering population declines, it is important to have as good a record as possible of what we are already losing. Changes in breeding activity can also serve as indicators of climate change. Not only will biologists use the data from the atlas for decades to come, but also land managers, politicians and even plaintiffs in conservation lawsuits. One of the most important ways to protect our wild lands against threats as diverse as windmills, mines and hydraulic fracturing is to document the lands’ biological importance.

Because we have so much bird life to protect in our state, it is vital that we obtain as complete coverage as possible throughout our state. West Virginia’s standing as a treasure trove of avian diversity puts another powerful argument in the hands of local conservationists.

Surveying for the atlas can be personally illuminating too. Last summer, I spent many hours as an atlas volunteer tramping through the recovering forests of the Monongahela National Forest on Canaan Mountian south of Davis and in Blackwater Falls State Park. I found an amazing density and diversity of bird species in those protected lands. In contrast, I also surveyed birds in the Tuscan Ridge development south of Davis. This speculative real estate development devastated a large forested area by building roads and clearing dozens of homesites, only to go bankrupt and abandon the property to foreclosure. I discovered that the invasion of the bulldozers had created a virtual wasteland for birds, practically overnight. It gave me a painful insight into the brainlessness of the unregulated assaults real estate speculators are still making on our forests.

As a birdwatcher for twenty years, the atlas project has also given me a chance to be useful as I pursue a hobby that can be frivolous or even downright selfish. I’m grateful to be able to use the skills I’ve developed while birding for pleasure in the service of science and conservation.

Anyone who has a computer can contribute to the atlas. For instance, it doesn’t take an expert to recognize a robin flying with a worm in its bill, which would constitute a confirmed breeding record. A rarer record would be that Common Merganser with chicks that you saw while kayaking the Cheat, or the pair of Bald Eagles that circled over you on that hike in the Sinks of Gandy. And each record is important, no matter how common the species. Remember the Passenger Pigeon?

It’s easy to use the atlas website, at http://martes.dnr.state.wv.us/BreedingBirdsAtlas/default.aspx. The website provides for easy registration and submission of records, as well as helping identify the block location of your bird sightings. There is also a wealth of information on the website from results so far. If you know someone who already contributes to the atlas, you can also just tell that person about your sighting and make him or her do the work! It takes just a little time and effort to help protect our feathered friends, and along with them the fragile ecosystems of our beloved state.

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations, required by the Clean Air Act, to reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry. The include the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with requirements for several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas industry that currently are not regulated at the federal level.

The Environmental Protection Agency predicts that the new rules will result in a nearly 95 percent reduction in volatile organic compounds emitted from more than 11,000 new hydraulically fractured gas wells each year.

EPA estimates the following combined annual emission reductions when the rules are fully implemented :

• Volatile organic compounds: 190,000 to 290,000 tons;
• Air Toxics: 12,000 to 20.000 tons; and
• Methane 1.0 to 1.7 million short tons [about 19 to 33 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)]

EPA predicts that the volatile organic compounds and air toxics reductions in the rules will improve outdoor air quality, protect against cancer risk from air toxics emissions and reduce health effects associated with exposure to ground-level ozone (smog). Air toxics are pollutants known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.

Exposure to ozone is linked to increased asthma attacks, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and premature death.

The rules also would yield significant reductions in methane, a potent greenhouse gas. EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rule estimates the value of the climate co-benefits that would result from this reduction at $440 million annually by 2015. This includes the value of climate-related benefits such as avoided health impacts, crop damage and damage to coastal properties.

This significant reduction would be accomplished primarily through the use of a proven process – known as a “reduced emissions completion” or “green completion” — to capture natural gas that currently escapes to the air. The rule would also would protect against potential cancer risks from emissions of several air toxics, including benzene.

Flareless or “green” completions reduce flaring and venting of natural gas. Before natural gas and coalbed methane wells begin producing gas for sale, the well bore and surrounding reservoir must be “cleaned up” (i.e., any fluids, sand, coal particles, or drill cuttings within the well bore must be removed). The conventional method for doing this is to pump air down the well bore, which lifts the waste fluids and solids out. The solid and liquid waste materials are then dumped into a pit or tank, and any gas that is removed is flared or vented to the atmosphere. In some flareless or green completions, natural gas, rather than air, is pumped down the well bore to clean it out.

In flareless or green completions the gas that comes to the surface is separated from fluids and solids using a series of heavyduty separators (sometimes referred to as “flowback units”). The water is discharged to tanks to be reused, the sand is sent to a reserve pit, and the gas is either cycled back through the well bore, or sent to a pipeline to be sold rather than vented or flared. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , benefits of this system include the elimination or reduction in venting or flaring of natural gas; sale of the gas and condensate provides the operator with an immediate revenue stream; there is a reduction in solid waste and water pollution; and the system enables safer operating practices.

Green completion systems have a potential cost savings. By using portable equipment to process gas and condensate, the recovered gas can be directed to a pipeline and sold. These truck or trailer mounted systems can typically recover more than half of the total gas produced. Industry results have shown that investment in portable three phase separators, sand traps and tanks can be recovered in 2 years or less.

Some advocates have suggested that West Virginia adopt rules that would require green completion. While West Virginia has not adopted such rules, other states have done so. It is already standard practice in some formations in some states.

EPA estimates that the net cost of compliance with these new rules will be less than zero. Under current practice, a substantial volume of marketable gas either escapes into the atmosphere or is burned. By using “green completion” techniques, companies capture and sell this product. The value of the product is expected to offset the costs of compliance with the new rule. EPA’s analysis of the rules shows a cost savings of $11 to $19 million when the rules are fully implemented in 2015.

The George Washington National Forest is in the process of banning horizontal drilling for gas in the Forest. This is the technique used in tapping the Marcellus shale formation; banning it would effectively ban drilling in that formation.

The Forest is currently nearing the end of the process of revising its forest plan. This is the same process that the Monongahela National Forest went through in the mid 2000s, resulting in the major plan revision of 2006.

In its draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service cited “concerns about the impacts of extensive hydraulic fracturing associated with horizontal drilling on water quality, the unknown potential for developing the Marcellus shale formation on the GWNF, and the limited experience with horizontal drilling in the immediate vicinity of the GWNF.”

The draft Land and Resource Management Plan contained the ban. The public comments submitted on the draft Plan supported it. Approximately 70% of the Virginia residents who commented supported the ban.

The ban is in sharp contrast to the policy of the Monongahela National Forest. At the time of its Plan in 2006, Marcellus shale drilling, hydraulic fracturing, etc. was uncommon if not completely unknown. The Forest Service has declined to modify its Plan to account for the new information contemplating the possibility of Marcellus shale drilling. For more details, see The Highlands Voice, March, 2012, p. 15).

The Forest Service employees for Environmental Ethics has called for a ban on Marcellus shale drilling and the associated hydraulic fracturing in all the national forests where the formation is found. It cites concerns that such drilling “will contaminate surface and subsurface waters, kill forest vegetation and create health hazards for the American public.”

By John McFerrin

The ongoing discussion of mountaintop removal mining routinely contains some version of this exchange: “No more ‘West Virginia Hills.’ They’re flatting our state!” To this the pro mountaintop removal part of the conversation says, “Oh, pshaw, you bunch of Chicken Littles. We’re only doing mountaintop mining on a tiny fraction of the state.”

The conclusion we are supposed to draw from this exchange is that the problem is minor and that the irrational opponents are alarmists. Can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, etc. If mining coal requires breaking the few mountains in this tiny fraction, then we need to just accept it.

The problem with this argument is that the mining is so concentrated. We have mining in a small percentage of the state only because mountaintop removal does not exist in the eastern part of the state and is relatively rare in most of the state. Look at the map on this page. The black blobs are mine sites, either already active or sites for which permits have been issued or are pending Most of Mercer, all of Monroe, all of Summers Counties are free of mining. It you had the entire map, you could see that the farther east you go the less mining there is. Then look at Mingo, Logan, Wyoming, and Boone Counties. Black everywhere.

The “tiny fraction of the state” is another way statistics mislead. If your hair is on fire and your feet are encased in a block of ice you are, on average, a comfortable temperature. If only a few of the fifty five counties are flattened while others are untouched, then mountaintop removal must be trivial.

The thing the map cannot show is that

there are people who live in those counties There are communities there. There are hollows that are, or were, every bit as beautiful as the ones in other parts of the state that we rave about and picture in tourist brochures. There are people there who have every bit as much a right as anyone else to live healthy, peaceful lives. These are not trivial. They deserve more respect than they get now.

The map is based on GIS data from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The actual map that is copied above is much larger. Shrinking it to fit means that much detail is obscured. To see the whole thing, go to the link http://wvhighlands.org/PDFs/Complex-Map.pdf. It is a large (13.64MB) pdf file. There you can see it in more detail, zoom in on certain parts, etc.

By Jim Robbins

Trees are on the front lines of our changing climate. And when the oldest trees in the world suddenly start dying, it’s time to pay attention.

North America’s ancient alpine bristlecone forests are falling victim to a voracious beetle and an Asian fungus. In Texas, a prolonged drought killed more than five million urban shade trees last year and an additional half-billion trees in parks and forests. In the Amazon, two severe droughts have killed billions more.

The common factor has been hotter, drier weather.

We have underestimated the importance of trees. They are not merely pleasant sources of shade but a potentially major answer to some of our most pressing environmental problems. We take them for granted, but they are a near miracle. In a bit of natural alchemy called photosynthesis, for example, trees turn one of the seemingly most insubstantial things of all – sunlight – into food for insects, wildlife and people, and use it to create shade, beauty and wood for fuel, furniture and homes.

For all of that, the unbroken forest that once covered much of the continent is now shot through with holes.

Humans have cut down the biggest and best trees and left the runts behind. What does that mean for the genetic fitness of our forests? No one knows for sure, for trees and forests are poorly understood on almost all levels. “It’s embarrassing how little we know,” one eminent redwood researcher told me.

What we do know, however, suggests that what trees do is essential though often not obvious. Decades ago, Katsuhiko Matsunaga, a marine chemist at Hokkaido University in Japan, discovered that when tree leaves decompose, they leach acids into the ocean that help fertilize plankton. When plankton thrive, so does the rest of the food chain. In a campaign called Forests Are Lovers of the Sea, fishermen have replanted forests along coasts and rivers to bring back fish and oyster stocks. And they have returned.

Trees are nature’s water filters, capable of cleaning up the most toxic wastes, including explosives, solvents and organic wastes, largely through a dense community of microbes around the tree’s roots that clean water in exchange for nutrients, a process known as phytoremediation. Tree leaves also filter air pollution. A 2008 study by researchers at Columbia University found that more trees in urban neighborhoods correlate with a lower incidence of asthma.

In Japan, researchers have long studied what they call “forest bathing.” A walk in the woods, they say, reduces the level of stress chemicals in the body and increases natural killer cells in the immune system, which fight tumors and viruses. Studies in inner cities show that anxiety, depression and even crime are lower in a landscaped environment.

Trees also release vast clouds of beneficial chemicals. On a large scale, some of these aerosols appear to help regulate the climate; others are anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-viral. We need to learn much more about the role these chemicals play in nature. One of these substances, taxane, from the Pacific yew tree, has become a powerful treatment for breast and other cancers. Aspirin’s active ingredient comes from willows.

Trees are greatly underutilized as an eco-technology. “Working trees” could absorb some of the excess phosphorus and nitrogen that run off farm fields and help heal the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In Africa, millions of acres of parched land have been reclaimed through strategic tree growth.

Trees are also the planet’s heat shield. They keep the concrete and asphalt of cities and suburbs 10 or more degrees cooler and protect our skin from the sun’s harsh UV rays. The Texas Department of Forestry has estimated that the die-off of shade trees will cost Texans hundreds of millions of dollars more for airconditioning. Trees, of course, sequester carbon, a greenhouse gas that makes the planet warmer. A study by the Carnegie Institution for Science also found that water vapor from forests lowers ambient temperatures.

A big question is, which trees should we be planting? Ten years ago, I met a shade tree farmer named David Milarch, a cofounder of the Champion Tree Project who has been cloning some of the world’s oldest and largest trees to protect their genetics, from California redwoods to the oaks of Ireland. “These are the supertrees, and they have stood the test of time,” he says.

Science doesn’t know if these genes will be important on a warmer planet, but an old proverb seems apt. “When is the best time to plant a tree?” The answer: “Twenty years ago. The second-best time? Today.”

Jim Robbins is the author of the forthcoming book “The Man Who Planted Trees.” This story previously appeared in The New York Times.