West Virginia Highlands Voice

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/31/judge-chambers-orders-patriot-to-treat-selenium/#comments

Judge Chambers orders Patriot to treat selenium

August 31, 2010 by Ken Ward Jr.

We’re just getting word about a major ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers in the case over selenium pollution from Patriot Coal operations in Southern West Virginia.

Ruling from the bench at a hearing this afternoon, Judge Chambers held Patriot’s Apogee Coal subsidiary in contempt of court for not meeting earlier deadlines to clean up selenium discharges from its Ruffner Mine in Logan County.
…For more read further at http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/31/judge-chambers-orders-patriot-to-treat-selenium/#comments

CONTACT:
Latisha Petteway
petteway.latisha@epa.gov
202-564-3191
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting seven public hearings on the agency’s proposal to regulate the disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.  EPA’s proposal is the first-ever national effort to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.

Each hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. and continue until 9:00 p.m. with a break at noon and 5:00 p.m. local time. The hearings will continue past 9:00 p.m. if necessary.  People who wish for a guaranteed slot to speak must register no later than three business days before each hearing.  Additionally, walk-ins and written comments will be accepted at each hearing. The agency will consider the public’s comments in its final decision.

August 30:           Hyatt Regency, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va
September 2:    Grand Hyatt, 1750 Welton Street, Denver, Colo.
September 8:    Hyatt Regency Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, Dallas, Texas
September 14:  Holiday Inn Charlotte (Airport), 2707 Little Rock Road, Charlotte, N.C.
September 16:  Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.
September 21:  Omni Hotel, 530 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, Pa.
September 28:  Seelbach Hilton, 500 Fourth Street, Louisville, Ky.

To pre-register to speak at the hearings, please call (703) 308-8429 or sign up online at
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-form.htm

The need for national management criteria and regulation was emphasized by the December 2008 spill of coal ash from a surface impoundment near Kingston, Tenn. The proposal will ensure for the first time that protective controls, such as liners and ground water monitoring, are in place at new landfills to protect groundwater and human health.  Existing surface impoundments will also require liners, with strong incentives to close these impoundments and transition to safer landfills which store coal ash in dry form.  The proposed regulations will ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments and promote environmentally safe and desirable forms of recycling coal ash, known as beneficial uses.

EPA has proposed two main management approaches, one of which phases out surface impoundments and moves all coal ash to landfills; the other allows coal ash to be disposed in surface impoundments, but with stricter safety criteria.

More information about the proposed regulation: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule

To view the chart comparing the two approaches: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule/ccr-table.htm

CONTACTS:
EPA: 202-564-7873

DOE: 202-586-4940

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 12, 2010

Interagency report marks an important step forward on administration priority

WASHINGTON –  President Obama’s Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), co-chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), delivered a series of recommendations to the president today on overcoming the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years. CCS is a group of technologies for capturing, compressing, transporting and permanently storing power plant and industrial source emissions of carbon dioxide. Rapid development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race. The report concludes that CCS can play an important role in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while preserving the option of using coal and other abundant domestic fossil energy resources.

In February 2010, the president charged the task force with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.

Charting the path toward clean coal is essential to achieving the administration’s clean energy goals, supporting American jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution.  Already, the United States has made the largest government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history, and these investments are being matched by private capital.  DOE is currently pursuing multiple demonstration projects using close to $4 billion in federal funds, matched by more than $7 billion in private investments, which will begin to pave the way for widespread deployment of advanced CCS technologies within a decade. Ongoing EPA efforts will clarify the existing regulatory framework by developing requirements tailored for CCS, which will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective deployment.

“If we can develop the technology to capture the carbon pollution released by coal, it can create jobs and provide energy well into the future,” President Obama told the nation’s governors when establishing the task force, co-chaired by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

“These recommendations mark an important step forward in combating climate change and strengthening our economy through green jobs – top priorities for this administration,” said EPA Administrator Jackson.  “Consistent with these recommendations, EPA is proactively developing regulations tailored to carbon storage technology that will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective use of the technology. By encouraging efforts to develop clean coal technology we will obtain new tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and make our nation more competitive in the global race for clean energy technology.”

“Around the world countries are moving aggressively on investing in clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Chu. “The U.S. has the ability to develop clean energy innovation here at home. Rather than sending billions overseas to pay for clean technologies, we should invest these dollars here – in America’s workers, industries, and innovations.”

“A diversified energy portfolio, which includes coal, is important for a strong 21^st century American economy,” said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “These recommendations move us toward bringing safe and deployable CCS technologies to the marketplace to help us meet the goal of reducing harmful carbon emissions while continuing to use this energy source.”

The report reflects input from 14 federal agencies and departments as well as hundreds of stakeholders and CCS experts.  It addresses the incentives for CCS adoption and any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, or other barriers to deployment.  The task force also considered how best to coordinate existing federal authorities and programs, as well as identify areas where additional federal authority may be necessary.

The report’s main findings and recommendations include:

• CCS is Viable: There are no insurmountable technical, legal, institutional, or other barriers to the deployment of this technology.
• A Carbon Price is Critical: Widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS is best achieved with a carbon price, but there are market drivers and actions that can and are taking place now, which are essential to support near-term CCS demonstration projects that will pave the way for broader deployment after a carbon price is in place.
• Federal Coordination should be Strengthened: With additional federal actions and coordination, the task force believes our nation can meet the president’s near-term goal and get 5-10 commercial demonstration CCS demonstration projects online by 2016. The report recommends the creation of a standing federal agency roundtable and expert committee to facilitate that goal.
• Recommendations on Liability: The task force conducted an in-depth analysis of options to address concerns that long-term liability could be a barrier to CCS deployment. It concluded that open-ended federal indemnification is not a viable alternative but that four approaches merit further consideration: relying on existing frameworks, limits on claims, a trust fund, and transfer of liability to the federal government (with contingencies). Efforts to improve long-term liability and stewardship frameworks led by EPA, DOE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue in order to provide evaluation and recommendations in these areas by late 2011.

Additional recommendations include setting up an effort by DOE and EPA – in consultation with other agencies – to track regulatory implementation for early commercial CCS demonstration projects and consider whether additional statutory revisions are needed. The report also encourages leveraging existing efforts among federal agencies, states, industry, and NGOs to gather information and evaluate potential key concerns about CCS in different areas of the United States and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy that would include: (1) a broad plan for public outreach targeted at the general public and decision makers; and (2) a “more focused engagement with communities that are candidates for CCS projects, to address such issues as environmental justice.”

Many experts consider CCS an important option as part of a portfolio of strategies – including increased efficiency and greater use of low-carbon energy resources — to help mitigate growing atmospheric CO₂ emissions from human sources.   It can play a major role in reducing GHG emissions globally. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks, such as a cap on carbon pollution, are in place. The administration’s policy and technology initiatives are intended to address these needs.

The full report and the presidential memorandum establishing the task force: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html and http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/ccs_task_force.html

Buckhannon, WV – One of 20 Communities Chosen to Host an Evening of Awareness Raising and Action Against Unregulated Gas Drilling

(Buckhannon, WV) On August 22nd at 3:30p.m., the WV Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, the WV Highlands Conservancy and the WV Rivers Coalition will take part in Josh Fox’s exclusive 20-stop tour of across the United States in a run-up to the September theatrical premiere of his new film Gasland, winner of this year’s Sundance Special Jury Prize.

WV Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, WV Highlands Conservancy and WV Rivers Coalition, all organizations actively working for better regulations surrounding the issue of gas exploration in West Virginia, are organizing the screening event, which will take place at the West Virginia Wesleyan College Performing Arts Center (PAC) on College Ave. on Sunday August 22 at 3:30pm. The PAC is located on College Ave off Rt 20 south of Buckhannon – Turn onto College Ave. across from McDonalds and continue to WVWC campus.

The purpose of this event will be to raise awareness about the potential impacts of this type of natural gas drilling on public health and the environment. Filmmaker Josh Fox will be available for a question and answer session immediately following the screening.

GASLAND tells the story of the effects of the largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history that is sweeping across the United States. The newest drilling technology of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing has unlocked a “Saudia Arabia of natural gas” just beneath us. But is fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination. Drilling around a nearby Pennsylvania town prompted reports that residents are able to light their drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND.

This event is open to the public and donations will be accepted to help defray event expenses. Attendees are encouraged to RSVP to ahussion@wvrivers.org or (304) 637-7201. Please visit http://www.gaslandthemovie.com for details about the tour.

For additional information, please contact:

Julie Archer Shanda Minney
WV Surface Owner Rights Organization West Virginia Rivers Coalition
(304) 346-5891
julie@wvsoro.org sminney@wvrivers.org

Cindy Rank
WV Highlands Conservancy
(304) 924-5802
clrank@hughes.net

Shanda Minney
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
(304) 637-7201
sminney@wvrivers.org

Click here for pdf of the press release

Click here for pdf of the poster

Highlands Conservancy Comments on the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

By Dave Saville and Marilyn Shoenfeld

At the time of the establishment of the Highlands Conservancy in the mid 1960s a “pumped storage” power facility (Davis Power Project) threatened Canaan Valley with inundation. While this wasn’t the only threat to the Highlands that was the impetus for the formation of the group, it was an important one. It was also one that captured the fledgling organization’s interest and it spent the next 40 years in a legal and public relations battle to stop the dam on the Blackwater River.

Since that time, the Highlands Conservancy worked to get Canaan Valley included in the National Wildlife Refuge system. This it was successful at doing and in 1995 Canaan Valley became the Nation’s 500th National Wildlife Refuge. Since that time, we have supported the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge and have heavily invested in volunteer hours and leadership in its protection.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, the federal agency that manages the Refuge, has been working for the past several years to develop a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This is the planning document that will guide the management of the Refuge for the next fifteen years. There are four alternatives that have been developed for the draft CCP, a “No-Action” alternative that would continue current management, a “preferred” alternative, a “conservation” alternative and an alternative that focuses more on public uses.

The Highlands Conservancy’s Public Lands Committee has submitted comments on the draft CCP and has chosen to put forth a series of guiding principles based on the issues rather than endorsing one of the alternatives. Certainly there were elements of all four alternatives we favored. Our comments ask USF&WS to carefully evaluate the consequences of the expansion of human activity and to favor natural processes and to practice conservation and restoration. The following is what WVHC supports:

Minimizing Disturbance. Disturbing soils and exposing them to sunlight causes a large release of the soil’s carbon into the atmosphere, diminishing the soil itself. Disturbed soils increase erosion from wind and water harming waterways and wetlands. We suggest that management activities should always consider using the least disturbing methods for achieving management goals. A carbon budget should be prepared to estimate and document the carbon released into the atmosphere from soil exposing and disturbing activities.

Restoring Natural Succession and Old Growth Conditions. Originally, red spruce and balsam fir forests covered thousands of acres in Canaan Valley. These forests are now gone as a result of logging and fire. We support natural succession and restoration of these natural conditions using non-intrusive and low-impact means. Old growth forests provide a natural mosaic of successional habitats. Management goals should aim to allow the forests to return to such a natural balance. Creating and maintaining artificial habitats through such heavy-handed management actions as clear cutting and mowing should be used only in extreme circumstances where the survival of an important rare species is in jeopardy.

Restoration of Red Spruce Ecosystem. As described in the draft CCP’s Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, restoration of the red spruce ecosystem should be a principle goal. Refuge staff has provided important leadership that has led to the establishment of the Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative (CASRI). CASRI is a multi agency collaborative that is working to restore the red spruce ecosystem on a landscape scale. The Refuge land is a critical component of the historical high elevation red spruce forests that CASRI is working to restore. This collaborative effort is the most exciting and innovative conservation restoration project in West Virginia today. The Highlands Conservancy is proud to be an important contributor and partner in this effort. CVNWR should continue and expand on its work to restore the red spruce ecosystem on the Refuge and continue to provide leadership in its restoration across the mid-Appalachian Highlands.

Limited Vehicular/Motor Access. Roads destroy wildlife habitat and vehicles disturb wildlife and refuge visitors. There is pressure to open more of the Refuge to vehicular traffic for hunter access. We believe that increased vehicular access is not necessary to manage the deer herd. Judicious use of doe permits and season length would be more effective and far less disturbing and intrusive.

Habitat Manipulations Favoring Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. The first priority for wildlife habitat management activities should be directed toward protecting and restoring habitat for rare threatened and endangered species. Preserving habitat for Cheat Mountain Salamander, managing grasslands for sparrow and bobolinks and planting riparian areas to shade streams are examples of management actions we would support to protect important species the Refuge was created to protect.

Hunting as a Management Tool. We support hunting as a tool for managing populations of game animals. In cases where predators are absent and populations are out of balance, special off-trail access for hunters to refuge lands is warranted to achieve management objectives aiming to return wildlife populations to historic numbers. We are opposed to the use of radio telemetry collared dogs to hunt bear. Bear dogs are unnecessary and inhumane. Dogs should not be allowed to hunt, or train to hunt, bears on the Refuge. Hunting of bear can be a valuable management tool to control bear populations but it is not necessary to use dogs to achieve the management goals.

Access for Wildlife Dependent Recreation. We support equal access to Refuge lands for wildlife dependant activities. It is unjust and wrong to allow some recreationists unlimited access to Refuge lands while denying that same access to other equally legitimate recreational activities. The current and proposed policy is discriminatory because it gives some recreational users preferential treatment and restricts others with equally credible and legitimate uses from having the same privileges.

Cooperate with Neighboring Agencies, Local Businesses and Residents. CASRI and the Heart of the Highlands Trail are two excellent examples of what can be achieved through cooperation and collaboration with neighbors.

Minimize Heavy-Handed Habitat Manipulation. The minimum tool rule concept should be applied to minimize disturbance, vehicular and machine use. This important Forest Service rule suggests employing the least disturbing method possible to achieve management objectives. Natural succession and gentle restoration is preferred to mechanized actions such as cutting forests to artificially create and maintain “early successional” forests or mowing grasslands to prevent natural succession.

Reduction of Forest Fragmentation. Historical use and past activities on the lands currently making up the Refuge have left gaps and roads that are fragmenting the Refuge’s forests. Efforts should be made to re-vegetate and reforest these areas to reduce forest fragmentation.

Inclusion and Expansion of the Proposed Research Natural Area. The Research Natural Area, as described in Alternative D, should be established and expanded across the Blackwater River and include all the wetlands to the west.

Prevention and Eradication of Invasive Species. The continuation and expansion of the Refuge’s program to detect, prevent and eradicate invasive species is critical.

Increase Trail Connectivity. It should be the goal of the Refuge to increase trail connectivity on the Refuge and between the Refuge and neighboring lands. We support the idea of a north-south trail on the Refuge that would provide better connectivity between the Town of Davis, the Refuge and Canaan Valley State Park as long as trail construction avoids wetland or grassland areas and stays on old roads on the forested hillsides as much as possible. We support east-west trail connectivity by building a bridge across the Blackwater River to connect the Beall Tract to the Middle Ridge Trail and through the acquisition of the remaining lands in the northern portion of the Refuge purchase Area Boundary to enable the connection of the Brown Mountain Trail to A-Frame Road. We are opposed to an across-the Refuge trail built in the vicinity of the two railroad grades that once crossed the valley’s wetlands. Neither are appropriate place to construct or maintain a trail.

Minimize Impacts But Do Not Close Ski Trails. We have read and support the position of White Grass Ski Touring Center regarding the future use of Three Mile and Powderline Trails. These are important winter access trails that also provide connectivity to adjoining Forest Service and State Park lands. We support research efforts to reduce or mitigate their impacts while keeping the trails open.

Increase Visitor Outreach and Education. Trailhead kiosks, the Visitor Center, volunteer opportunities, special events and programs, naturalist led outings, brochures, press and media work, interpretative trails and signage, traveling displays, native plant gardens, master naturalists programs, adopt-a-trail, research partnerships, etc. are all examples of the amazing visitor services and educational and outreach activities organized by the Refuge staff. We strongly support all these activities and other efforts to better inform and engage the public.

That Bump of Curiosity

by Hugh Rogers

At the front of Dave Elkinton’s history of this organization, after Ken Hechler’s foreword and Dave’s introduction, there’s an undated photograph, “Conservancy Board Members.” It can’t be earlier than 1979, the year Cindy Rank first came on the board. She’s the only one pictured who’s still serving (she was just a kid then). The significant presence over Cindy’s right shoulder is Jeannette Fitzwilliams, a gray-haired Brit who played an important role in our development.

Jeannette was the organizational representative from the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club (PATC), based in Washington- and we were one of her personal projects. She had come to this country after serving with the Royal Air Force in India during World War II. An avid hiker, she took over responsibility for a section of the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park. But she was always looking for new country to explore, and new volunteers to help conserve it. Dolly Sods became one of her favorite places.

As the Highlands Conservancy led the campaign for wilderness designation for the Sods, Otter Creek, and the Cranberry, Jeannette became a go-between who encouraged, instructed, and put up at her house in Arlington those who came to testify before Congressional committees. A few years later, when the Forest Service was compelled to re-survey its roadless areas for other wilderness possibilities-the RARE II process-she wrote a series of articles for the Voice, encouraging citizen comments.

She wrote: “Right now governments everywhere are making an effort . . . to involve the public in the decision making process. If we do not respond, they are going to stop. If Conservancy members respond on Wilderness, then it becomes that much easier when the WVHC wants to take a position on some other issue.”

Jeannette knew government agencies from the inside. She worked for a number of them as an economist, and published influential papers on health and wealth. Eventually, her love of the natural world took over her professional life. She was a co-founder of the Rails to Trails Conservancy and president of the National Trails Council.

The National Trails Act had become law in 1968. Jeannette’s concern was always to give the Act life, and not allow it to become a dead letter. To that end, she urged better cooperation between the federal government and volunteers such as PATC in trail planning. As she testified to a Congressional committee, “Annual vegetation growth and erosion do not accommodate themselves to budget deficits.”

It has been a long time since we heard her resonant voice and enjoyed her stories. She gave up her position on our board in 1989, and PATC’s organizational membership lapsed. Last month, we learned that Jeannette had died at the age of 96.

Coincidentally, the Highlands Conservancy has been urged to emulate the PATC and take responsibility for maintaining some highlands trails. Where is Jeannette’s successor? Who can be persuaded to beat the bushes for volunteers, train them and lead them? This person would not only care about trails, but also enjoy partnering with the overworked recreation specialists at the Forest Service.

The source of Jeannette’s energy and commitment is hinted at in an article she wrote for the Potomac Appalachian way back in 1959. “A Year with the Bushwhackers” chronicled the adventures of the various PATC members who had tried “a new type of trip-leaving Washington after work (eating on the way) the second Friday of every month.” They would backpack into an area, leave the packs in camp for exploratory day hikes, share food and equipment. “Enjoyment, not pound-miles hiked, will be the watchword.”

The idea had come out of a discussion about “gingering up the club.” A core group had agreed that “a well-led hike over a wellscouted and well-maintained trail no longer really satisfied us. . . . In the early days of the club, members had found their challenge in creating the [Appalachian] Trail but that job was finished. We would have to go on and look for ours. Perhaps we could find it by exploring off the beaten track.”

As it happened, in their first year they had not done much real bushwhacking. “However, as the group grows in experience, as we move into country with fewer trails, and as winter approaches so that it is easier to move across country, we hope to do more of it.”

The trail enthusiast yearned to roam off-trail. Now, most of us are happy to rely on “a well-scouted and well-maintained trail,” and our experience inspires support for conserving the country we travel through. Jeannette counted on that. It may be worth adding that fifty years ago, there weren’t as many people in the woods. For many reasons, it’s better if we stay on marked trails.

But a few will be moved to answer Jeannette’s call: “If you want to get to a definite point by the shortest route you will be disappointed in us, but if you have a large bump of curiosity and like to stop and look at things or run down side trails, we hope you will come and join us.”

What we’re hoping for today is that you’ll then want to take the next step: inspired by Jeannette’s example, help keep those trails open so others’ eyes are opened to our public lands.

By Donald S. Garvin, Jr., West Virginia Environmental Council WVEC Legislative Coordinator

While turnout was light for the July 19 public hearing on the WV Department of Environmental Protection’s proposed changes to the state’s Water Quality Standards Rule, some powerful statements were made by those attending.

“Dirty water is expensive water,” Morgantown city councilman and Deputy Mayor Don Spencer told the agency.

Spencer read a resolution from the Morgantown City Council urging DEP to enact strong standards for “total dissolved solids” (TDS) that have recently plagued the Monongahela River and its tributaries.

Last fall, a massive fish kill in Dunkard Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River, was triggered by increased TDS pollution that allowed golden algae to bloom and kill most aquatic life in the stream.

TDS is comprised of various salts, such as chlorides and sulfates, that are dissolved in water. These pollutants can be dangerous to aquatic life, can make water used in drinking supplies taste and smell bad, and can also make water unfit for industrial uses. Extremely high TDS levels can impair human health.

In West Virginia high levels of TDS can come from a variety of sources, including coal-mining discharges and the disposal of fluids from large-scale oil and gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation. The Morgantown area is located in the heart of both of these industrial activities.

Ted Armbrecht, a member of the state Environmental Quality Board, reminded DEP that water is an essential element for economic development in the state.

“Water is the resource of the 21st century, and we have it,” Armbrecht said.

He urged DEP to reconvene the stakeholders group initiated by EQB to develop limits on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous in WV rivers and streams. These nutrients are the primary cause of algal growth now plaguing our streams and are contributing to the pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay.

Also at the hearing, I presented a brief summary of the “group” comments submitted in writing by a coalition of environmental organizations. Signing on to those comments were the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, West Virginia Sierra Club, West Virginia Environmental Council, Mountaineer Chapter of Trout Unlimited, West Virginia Citizen Action Group, and the League of Women Voters of West Virginia.

Several industry representatives and lobbyists also attended the public hearing, but not one of them spoke. It seems obvious to me that industry is reluctant to have their opposition to protective water quality standards reported by the press.

Now that the public comment period is over, DEP will consider all the comments it has received and prepare the final rule for filing with the Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State will then forward the rule to the Legislature where it will first be considered by the Joint Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, and then sent on to the full Legislature for its consideration during the 2011 regular session.

So the battle for strong, protective water quality standards is just beginning.

By Cindy Rank

The energy capitals of the country are reeling with the mad dash for MORE, MORE, MORE energy, electricity, power, and, and, and…

.. And mother earth’s supposed allies in federal and state government are either blindsided or overwhelmed. While we citizens are either dazzled, dazed, dumbfounded, or just darn angry !

As for me, things are happening at such a frenetic pace that I personally find it hard to breathe, much less think or focus enough to put two sentences together in understandable fashion. So, with apologies to Voice readers accustomed to more reasoned presentations of facts and questions, I beg your indulgence to allow me to vent a bit.

First, let us consider gas drilling into the deep Marcellus shale formation.

My apologies [again] for placing this first, but as the Organizational Representative of FOLK (Friends of the Little Kanawha) on the Board of Directors of the WV Highlands Conservancy I feel compelled to put my backyard first.

We are currently being swamped with Marcellus horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

Where oh where did this come from? … And, ever more important, where is this taking us?

The concept of mountaintop removal brought phenomenal engineering technologies to the Appalachian ridges well before any state or regulatory agency could respond with adequate regulation and guidance to protect the earth and her children (animal: terrestrial and aquatic, vegetable: forests and plains, and human: communities and culture) as the environmental laws of the 1970’s meant to protect them.

Longwall mining machines and technologies are holding those agencies hostage as well. much to the dismay of communities and to the dismal impacts to the water resources where that mining is occurring.

And now we have the 21st Century version of gas drilling overtaking all that is good and holy up and down the ridges and valleys of the Appalachian region – i.e. from New York State through Pennsylvania and into West Virginia and parts of Ohio as well.

What it includes: Drill holes some ten thousand feet deep [~7,000 ft down vertically and 3-4,000 ft horizontally] . Then fracing (pressure fracturing the tight shale rock) with some 2,000,000-6,000,000 (2-6 million) gallons of water [mixed with chemicals and sand] . Then catching and disposing of at least some 1/3 of that frac water [now heavily laced with brine and naturally occurring radioactive material from the drilling process itself].

WOW!

For those of us along the Little Kanawha River it means our roads being torn up, traffic problems on those narrow roads and noise and drill sites lit up like Christmas trees, but also massive amounts of water being withdrawn from the headwaters we fought so hard to protect in the late 1970’s and early ’80’s.

It’s hard enough to accept the sometimes 5 acre well sites [at least twice the size of those 1980 well sites we abhorred] that accommodate up to 6 horizontal well bores. But the horror stories of these deep wells gone wrong due to pressure in the vertical well casing or cement, or the actual fracture of rock strata that allow for migration of gas from a variety of layer of the earth below to enter and foul our wells, springs and streams, or some other unexpected OOPS! event, ..we all are nervous and seeking answers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is conducting a study of this hydrofracing process especially as it is being applied in the new deep and horizontal well drilling into tight shales such as the Marcellus. [Hydraulic fracturing has been used for maybe 60 years in vertical well drilling, but this new, expanded use is presenting additional concerns due to the SCALE of the drilling now being done.]

Affected citizens in New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are flocking to EPA hearings where input is being given.

At least two WV Highlands Conservancy members (Sue Braughton and myself) were among the many citizens (some 130+) who commented at the Canonsburg hearing July 22, 2010.

Phew !

Second, What of EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) and that agency’s recent proclamation concerning mountaintop removal and valley fill mine permits ?

As much as I appreciate and am ever grateful for those within the agency who have recognized for more than a decade that mountaintop removal and valley fill strip mines are abhorrent . and cause impacts well beyond the letter and intent of our nation’s environmental laws (primarily Clean Water Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)), I must admit the results of the Enhanced Coordinated Review and Permitting leaves me frowning.

Of the permits held up by EPA due to unanswered, unjustified reasons for advancing those permits which are obviously creating an unacceptable cumulative impact to water resources within and outside of the mining permit areas, several have been granted that make me more than slightly nervous.

The Hobet 45 permit – part of the now nearly 15,000 acre/ 25 square mile Hobet 21 complex overlapping the Boone/Lincoln County line and the Mud, Big Ugly and Little Coal River watersheds, as well as the Pine Creek permit in the Spruce drainage of the Little Coal River have been given the green light by EPA and are either granted or awaiting approval by the Corps.

Reading the mine development plans for these permits has been like a hot dagger to my heart. Granted valley fills per se have been eliminated. But, instead of leaving some semblance of the sides of valleys to subsequently fill, these new permits appear to allow mining everything clear to the valley floor then putting it all back together again like silly putty or building castles in the sand.

The wonders of engineering are to provide appropriate configurations of compacted rock within the backfilled area that roughly replicate the perched aquifers so many of us rely on to feed our springs and headwater streams through periods of draught and dry weather.

For the Corps’ part, the agency is to write a more comprehensive guidance about mitigation and re-establishing both form and function in re-created streams in backfilled ‘mine-through’ areas of permits ..

Margaret Palmer, Bruce Wallace, Ben Stout and others have argued eloquently in one courtroom hearing after another about the lack of function in these recreated streams even if water actually does eventually flow over rock and newly created riffle.

The ecosystems and bugs and leaf litter and critters large and small that make headwater streams the ecological treasures that they are have yet to be re-created or re-introduced anywhere and so it appears even the most sympathetic EPA to date is still allowing permits on a wing and a prayer that the future will be different with a few tweaks here and there.

THIRD, The U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM for short) has agreed with their sister agencies, EPA and CORPS, to do something within its program to address the issues arising from litigation these past dozen years and to address the controversial stream buffer zone rule rarely enforced then totally decimated in the eleventh hour of the Bush Administration.

Transparency is the new watchword of OSM as well as the other agencies. Unfortunately, most transparent of all is the buffer zone rule itself which has all but disappeared amid a morass of nice sounding words and sincere suggestions that better CHIAs (Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessments), more careful evaluation of the mine plans and a variety of other tweaks of the Surface Mine Act is all that is required to rein in the destructive mining known as mountaintop removal/valley fill mining.

I have little hope that the public meetings being held as I write this article will provide much more than what OSM has already provided… But I suppose miracles can happen.

FOURTH: THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS) — I’d like to leave this section blank, because that’s pretty much what we’ve gotten from the Corps these past thirty years, but duty bound I should at least elaborate a bit.

Dropping the Nationwide Permit #21 for coal mining activities is a welcome recognition of how these permits have heretofore been used to allow the large, non-”minimal” impact on streams of valley fills and huge strip mines. (Judge Goodwin recognized that years ago here in southern West Virginia, but our neighboring states will now have to at least partially mend their ways.)

From earlier tales of how the agency (i.e. Corps) “just oozed into” this permitting for mining operations and have since moved to more recent permit adjustments, I feel the Corps has been dragging its regulatory feet with regard to mining.

The agency has recently been convinced/coerced into compiling a guidance for working in streams that is meant to provide adequate guidance for ‘mitigation’ that will lead to re-creating viable headwater streams, stream energies and functions similar to those that have been destroyed, mined-through, buried or temporarily impacted.

FINALLY: PATH —- I grew up in Pittsburgh when the bridge to nowhere was being built… To me the PATH 765 kV transmission line is a path to nowhere, a blighted blip upon the land and hearts of our people and a speed bump in the road to the real path to a visionary future where West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and so many other states are no longer so beholdin’ to coal fired energy production that we are willing to sacrifice our souls for the plentiful black-gold.

*******

And, so for now..

I lay me down to sleep and pray the lord our world to keep.. ‘Cause we surely aren’t doing such a hot job after all.

…Wonder if that lord prefers streams ‘filled’ with waste rock…or ‘re-created’ from scratch and leftover mountain parts?

By Chip Chase and Laurie Little

Chip Chase and his wife Laurie Little, proprietors of White Grass Ski Touring Center and Café. Photo courtesy of Diane Hinkle, Foundation Development Director for the Tucker Community Foundation. The Tucker Community Foundation serves as a source for local charitable giving and social investment. It is a tax-exempt public charity serving thousands of people who share a common concern – sustaining and improving the quality of life in the Tucker County region. You can learn more about the Tucker Community Foundation by visiting http://tuckerfoundation.whatsupwv.com/about/

We helped support the WV Highlands Conservancy in the 1970’s and became aware of Canaan Valley and pumped storage project battle. [Davis Power Project] We relocated our ski and restaurant business from Virginia there in the early 1980’s and have maintained and leased cross country and snowshoe trails on the Kelly Elkins and Graham tracts since 1981.

Chip Chase, owner and founder of White Grass was well read on the subject of Canaan and lead discussions in the area as well as in the schools through the tutelage of local experts State Park Naturalist Bill Moore and original Highlands Conservancy founders David and Linda Cooper Elkinton. We led a canoe trip with Congressman Alan Mollohan and family through the north end of the valley paddling up support for the Refuge in the late 80’s. Some of us worked with Dr. Ed Michael, WV wildlife professor in charge of much of the environmental research for the Davis Power Project. Bob Putz, a leading official for the USF&WS brought the (then) Director of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, John Turner and family, to Canaan one Christmas to XC ski and we guided them atop Weiss Knob just before the first purchases and again added some personal influence toward the successful formation of the Refuge.

We continued our access agreement along the Kelly Elkins tract with the Conservation Fund and were told we had to abandon several trails and mileage when the Fish and Wildlife took possession of the property the following year. At the same time we requested continuation of our established Gateway to the Refuge snowshoe hikes we had been leading into the Harr tract. We expanded the number of free educational tours, offered more varying subjects with expert leadership and have been seeing a growing number of participants ever since. A large effort was undertaken in taking down and cleaning up old rusty fence lines along Freeland Road bordering the original Harr tract as well as helping with other Refuge projects

Our involvement with the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge began in earnest in the early nineties with the initial formation of a Refuge support group. The first meeting was held at Chip Chase’s house with subsequent larger gatherings at the White Grass Ski Center. We appealed to the Tucker County Commission at every meeting for a year until their decision to support was made. We attended and commented at many of the initial community open houses and helped support USFWS biologist Chris Clower and Jim Rawson from the WV DNR.

Chip was one of the first President’s of the Friends of the 500th. Since the beginning we have been one of the strongest and more involved local business supporters. To this day we remain a cooperative neighbor, friend, and strong volunteer force.

As the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge finalizes its Comprehensive Conservation Plan, some of the Highlands Conservancy’s strongest supporters have been chiming in. They include the White Grass Ski Touring Center and Café. This summary of their involvement with the Refuge over the years was a part of its comments on the Draft Plan.

By Dave Cooper

I have gone skiing at Snowshoe in northern West Virginia many times. It’s a really fun place to ski, and probably the best skiing in the eastern United States south of New York. During the weekdays, the prices at Snowshoe are fairly reasonable and the crowds are tolerable. Weekends and holidays are another story.

Snowshoe, unlike most ski resorts, is developed on top of the mountain, not at the base, so anyone driving through scenic, rural, serene Pocahontas County, West Virginia, would never see the resort unless they took the six mile drive to the top of the mountain. Many rural West Virginians might be shocked to see just how massive this resort is: gigantic, shiny new condominium buildings, upscale restaurants and expensive shops spread out for several miles along the top of the ridge. There is also a smaller resort called Silver Creek that is located down the mountain. Silver Creek has a huge lodge, an indoor-outdoor pool and is geared towards families and kids.

Snowshoe is owned by a large corporation called Intrawest, which also operates well-known ski resorts in Canada, Vermont and Colorado such as Steamboat, Whistler, and Stratton. According to an Intrawest website called Snowshoe Homes, “in 1997, their “Forever Wild” vision led to the planning, design and construction of this true multi-season, mountaintop resort village, and a celebration of wilderness adventure on and around the mountain.”

How on earth Intrawest can get away with calling a massive, multi-million dollar ski-condo complex “forever wild” is beyond me. That’s just absurd.

But I wanted to see what Snowshoe was like during the summer. Snowshoe has a lot of events throughout the year, including chili cook-offs, dirt-bike and ATV racing, Jeep Jamborees, bluegrass festivals, and mountain biking. From looking at the websites, I was under the impression that people could mountain bike down the mountain and then take the chair lift back up. But when I arrived on a Wednesday in June, the slopes were all roped off and marked “Closed,” and none of the chair lifts were operating. I went to the office that was supposed to provide information about mountain biking trails and hours of operation for the chair lifts, but the office was closed. I guess I should have done a little more research, but the information on the website was confusing and contradictory.

Many of the shops and restaurants were closed too, and the whole place felt kind of lonely, even desolate. But it was very peaceful and quiet, the view from atop the mountain was beautiful, the weather was absolutely perfect, and the sun was shining, so I set out to explore Snowshoe on my bike.

There are a number of maintenance roads that emanate from the top of Snowshoe, and I had fun riding down them, and looking at the big snow-grooming equipment. I rode through the woods down to Silver Creek following a utility right-of-way, and rode on some of the slopes at Silver Creek, which were also marked “closed.” I ended up riding through some fields of daisies and it was really a lovely experience. There are some dirt trails on the mountain slopes too, and some roads are marked as cycling trails, but without a good trail map or someone to tell me where to go, I mostly fumbled the day. I also saw some of the extreme mountain biking trails along the western slopes, but they were far more difficult than anything I could ride. I guess this is where the experts ride during the four weekend mountain biking events listed on the Snowshoe calendar. There is also a mountain bike park somewhere on the mountain, but I could never find it.

I was intrigued by Intrawest’s efforts to develop a true “multiseason” resort. A major financial goal of ski operators is to build and sell pricy townhomes and condos. I suspect they make more money selling real estate than they do selling lift tickets. But most people are reluctant to buy property that they would only use for a few weeks a year, so Intrawest attempts to market Snowshoe as an all-season resort with fun events throughout the year. There is a swimming pool, and there is also a new suburban-style church, to make people feel right at home. But if you lived on the mountain, where would you go to buy groceries? Pocahontas County is very rural, and there isn’t really a town nearby.

So who buys these all townhomes and condos? Rich doctors and lawyers, who buy them as investments and then rent them out to skiers. I was informed that one large house on the mountain, which could sleep 29 people, rented for $2400 per night. Not per week – $2400 per night!

There are also some really nice, attractive private homes with decks offering spectacular mountain views. The day I was there, only about 20 percent of them seemed to be occupied. I fantasized about rolling out a sleeping pad and spending the night on the deck of one of these unoccupied homes.

It’s a bit of a stretch to call Snowshoe a “village,” and it’s not a community any more than Disneyland is, but I give Intrawest credit for trying. It would be nice if this huge development was really pumping a lot of money into the West Virginia tourism economy, but somehow I suspect that most of the money is actually going to Intrawest.

Is going to Snowshoe in the summer a worthwhile trip? The mountains are beautiful and with the high elevation, the weather is delightful. Perhaps some of the festivals might be fun.

There was a big dirt bike/four wheeling event scheduled for that weekend, and when I rode back to the top of the mountain, they were all starting to rev their motors, so I decided to leave “Forever Wild” and head down to Cass to check out the Greenbrier River Rail- Trail. I will write about that next month. The Mountaintop Removal Road Show

Note: When Mr. Cooper is not mountain biking, he does the Mountaintop Removal Road Show, an educational presentation about mountaintop removal coal mining. See http://www.mountainroadshow.com/ ;
http://www.youtube.com/user/mountainjustice.
For a volunteer presentation in your community, contact him at
608 Allen Ct.
Lexington, KY 40505
(859) 299 5669.
Email: (davecooper928@yahoo.com).

By Frank Young

The Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) would run for over 270 miles from the John E. Amos coalfired power plant in western West Virginia to a massive new transformer substation near Kempton, Maryland.

The path of PATH cuts across several miles of National Forest and National Park property. The National Park Service (NPS) is the lead federal agency charged with conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The National Park Service is currently considering the “scope” of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Park Service’s decision on the “scope” will determine whether the focus of the Environmental Impact Statement is broad or narrow. The coal and power corporations pushing the transmission line would prefer a very narrow scope addressing only the impact of constructing the line within the federal property boundaries (a few miles at most).

Opponents of PATH have pointed out that the transmission line will have extensive environmental impacts, the largest of which are caused by the increased mining and burning of toxic coal that will result if the line is put into operation.

The NPS coordinator for the PATH EIS process announced at a recent Tucker County public scoping meeting that the deadline for public comments on the scope of the PATH EIS will be extended to August 20, 2010.

STOP Path leaders advise that public comments should be concise and clear. Don’t forget to emphasize the fact that the scope of the PATH EIS needs to be expanded to cover the entire almost 300 miles long power line.

Based on past Court rulings, those who argue that NPS must take a “hard look” at all of the environmental impacts of the project and their cumulative effect would seem to be standing on solid legal ground.

We also need to educate the feds about the fact that PATH isn’t needed anyway and that the best alternative for the PATH line is the one in which PATH doesn’t get built.

Public comments on the scope for the PATH related EIS can be sent to:

Morgan McCosh Elmer, Project Manager
NPS Denver Service Center – Planning
12795 W Alameda Pkwy
PO Box 25287
Denver CO 80225
(303) 969-2317
fax: 303-969-2920
Morgan_Elmer@nps.gov

By Dan Berger

Gotta tell you my friends, I am usually the last person that likes the federal government to come in and tell me what I can or cannot do. In fact, I don’t like any governmental entity directing me to do this or not to do that.

But I have once again been sucked into the vortex of working on another conservation issue in our beautiful Grant County. As you may have read or heard there is a proposal to make North Fork Mountain a federal Wilderness designation.

Now, before I go on, I must be honest with you folks and disclose to you that I live in the shadow of North Fork Mountain and own property on the North Fork River. Why does this matter you ask? Well, it appears by my research that in almost all cases, property located adjacent or nearby Wilderness designations eventually increase in value at a higher rate than those next to “regular” national forest lands. A good thing for landowners and property-tax coffers alike.

As a lifelong conservationist and lover of everything outdoors, I investigate land and water issues fairly thoroughly before I get involved. And a proposal to make our beloved North Fork Mountain a Wilderness area is one such time.

When I was contacted by Mike Costello, of the West Virginia Wilderness Coalition, the coordinator for this project, I immediately had numerous questions and concerns. Shocker, eh? To his credit, he didn’t hang up on me, he didn’t cuss at me and he didn’t call me names. All good signs in my book.

Here are some of the questions I asked Mr. Costello and his answers:

1) Me: “Will the Wilderness designation prevent hunting or fishing on North Fork Mountain?”

Him: “No, everyone will be able to continue to hunt and fish as before. Hunting and fishing are important uses to us, as West Virginians, and wilderness on North Fork Mountain doesn’t eliminate the opportunities for these traditions to continue, since all current trails and roads can still be used for access.”

2) Me: “Will this prevent the state from stocking trout up and down North Fork River since the river is one of the proposed boundary lines for the Wilderness area?

Him: “No. Trout stocking will be permitted to continue. And at your request and to alleviate concerns of local residents and businesses that depend on trout fishing, we moved the proposed boundary line so none of the river is in the Wilderness designation.”

3) Me: “Will the Wilderness designation prevent local or federal officials from putting out forest fires that threaten private property?

Him: “No. If the need for fire suppression arises, construction of fire roads, and fire breaks are permitted. The Wilderness Act specifically states that these measures can be taken to suppress fire in Wilderness areas, and managing agencies can engage in this activity when determined necessary, especially if private property and structures or human lives are threatened.”

4) Me: “So, if nothing changes in terms of hunting, fishing or hiking, why does North Fork Mountain need to become a Wilderness designation?”

Him: “It will maintain the area’s unparalleled scenery and permanently protect North Fork Mountain from the uses that threaten to diminish its wild, natural character. In addition, it opens up a significant economic opportunity for Grant County. Wilderness designations have been proven to increase eco-tourism for area communities, creating jobs and increasing revenue for local businesses and governments.”

Now, Mr. Costello is a nice guy, knows his stuff, and appears honest and forthright. Having said that, I did what President Ronald Reagan said about his dealings with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, “Trust but verify.”

So, for verification, I called some of my congressional contacts in Washington, D.C. as well as friends at the U.S. Forest Service. I am proud to report, Mr. Costello wasn’t fibbing on the facts.

From a conservation perspective, I like the idea that if North Fork Mountain is made a Wilderness designation that the federal government can’t sell or lease the land to gas drillers and mining operators. This will prevent fracking chemical spills and other possible destruction associated with those operations. In addition, rare plant and animal life will be preserved and extremely unique rock and land structures will be maintained. And being a Wilderness area protects forever our hunting and fishing way of life in this part of Grant County.

From a business perspective, I strongly believe that Grant County is a terrific tourist gem and is just beginning to see its true potential. If my research on this issue from other parts of the country remains the same for our county, making North Fork Mountain a Wilderness area would help attract even more folks seeking to explore Wild & Wonderful West Virginia. Cha-ching!

This past July 4th weekend, I sat in the North Fork River playing with my 6-year old daughter Shelby, and gave all this Wilderness designation stuff some serious thinkin’ and noodlin’. On occasion I looked up at the cliffs on North Fork Mountain and all its magnificent rock formations and admired their ancient pressurized designs… gigantic rocks seemingly bent by the hand of God. And then I glanced over at Shelby, the love of my life, yeah I decided, North Fork Mountain is worth saving for future generations.

Dan Berger is a lifelong conservationist and outdoorsman and lives in Cabins.

By John McFerrin

In many ways the Summer Board Meeting was more of the same. Beth Little reported that our membership was holding steady. We had a treasurer’s report that showed us not rolling in dough but having enough to keep paying our bills and doing what we are doing.

The Board did get to hear about some exciting things that we are doing. Marilyn Shoenfeld reported on the comments that the made on the management plan for the Canaan Valley Wildlife Refuge (see story on page 1). We talked about the comments that we had made on the proposed changes in the West Virginia water quality standards (see story on p. 3). Frank Young talked about the progress (or lack thereof) of the PATH powerline (see story on p. 10). Cindy Rank talked about the various mining companies who are failing to meet their responsibilities and what we are doing about it. Her story on page 4 covers some of that territory.

We puzzled over an enduring conundrum: if not coal, what? There was general consensus that the mining and burning of coal imposes a terrible cost on the environment. There are new and not so new technologies around that can and will supply electricity. There was discussion of whether we should try to steer public policy toward a particular technology, including the question of whether we would be able to pick the most promising one or the one with the least environmental cost. With such a complex question before us, we made no progress toward an answer.

Volunteers from Brooks Bird Club conducted bird and plant surveys on and near Invenergy’s Beech Ridge wind turbine facility in Greenbrier County during late May and early June. WVHC board member Bob Henry Baber loaned housing accommodations for the birders. In this photo, five past presidents of BBC are present: G. Eddy, T. Fox, D. Fox, J. Whitaker, and C. Ellis. Photo by Jane Whitaker