By Daniel Terdiman (CNET.net)
GLENROCK, Wyo.--Walking across the former site of the Dave Johnston Mine here, about half an hour outside Casper, you'd never know that over the course of 42 years, 104 million tons of coal was taken out of the ground.
But now, instead of having a heavy carbon footprint--and coal certainly does--these rolling hills have a green footprint. Today, the site is home to a 158-turbine wind farm that produces 237 megawatts of power, enough electricity for 66,800 households for a year.
And what's particularly notable about the site is that while the wind farm is among the newest and most state-of-the-art in the country today, it is also likely the first full-scale wind power project to be installed on the site of a former coal mine.
From 1958 until 2000, the Dave Johnston Mine stretched for 9 miles through this otherwise barren landscape. But in the late 1990s, after the mine's operator, Rocky Mountain Power, determined that it was no longer economical to run it, a full-scale reclamation project began.
Photos: Wind farm rises up from former coal mine
View the full gallery
As part of Road Trip 2009, I visited the wind farm to get a first-hand look at how such a scar on the earth can be successfully converted to a graceful and clean power project.
Read full article here.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Coal Production Down, Unlikely to Rebound Soon
Story by Pam Kasey
The State Journal (WV)
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 ; 06:00 AM
Coal production is in a slump.
“It is occurring,” said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney.
“It’s a function of the economy. They’re not making as much steel, not needing as much electricity,” Raney said. “And it’s a function of the cheap price of natural gas,” he added. “Some (power) plants can switch — and they do.”
Nationwide, coal production is down 5.6 percent year-to-date through July 11, 2009, compared with the same period in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But in West Virginia, production is down 8 percent over the same period.
And in southern West Virginia, it’s down more than 11 percent.
In the northern part of the state, CONSOL Energy, for example, suspended longwall operations at its Blacksville No. 2 mine in June.
The company reassigned workers and stated its intention at that time to restart longwall operations on July 18, but has not done so according to the Dominion Post in Morgantown and admits layoffs are possible.
In the southern part of the state this year, Patriot Coal closed its Jupiter mining complex, idled the Remington complex and Black Oak mine and cut back production at the Wells and Hobet complexes — citing, in part, “soft market conditions.”
The Remington and Black Oak actions alone eliminated an estimated 400 positions.
More commonly though, Raney said, companies are cutting back hours in an attempt to prevent layoffs.
“We have operations moving from six 10-hour days to five 10-hour days or from five 10-hour days to four ... ,” he said. “What they’re wanting to do is to maintain their people, keep them working.”
Even when the economy turns around, it’s going to take time for coal demand and production to rise again. “The stockpiles have been built over the last year at the power plants, the loading facilities, the mines, to almost the maximum extent possible,” Raney said.
In fact, stocks held in April by electric power producers, the largest users of coal, were at their highest point in 10 years.
The State Journal (WV)
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 ; 06:00 AM
Coal production is in a slump.
“It is occurring,” said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney.
“It’s a function of the economy. They’re not making as much steel, not needing as much electricity,” Raney said. “And it’s a function of the cheap price of natural gas,” he added. “Some (power) plants can switch — and they do.”
Nationwide, coal production is down 5.6 percent year-to-date through July 11, 2009, compared with the same period in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But in West Virginia, production is down 8 percent over the same period.
And in southern West Virginia, it’s down more than 11 percent.
In the northern part of the state, CONSOL Energy, for example, suspended longwall operations at its Blacksville No. 2 mine in June.
The company reassigned workers and stated its intention at that time to restart longwall operations on July 18, but has not done so according to the Dominion Post in Morgantown and admits layoffs are possible.
In the southern part of the state this year, Patriot Coal closed its Jupiter mining complex, idled the Remington complex and Black Oak mine and cut back production at the Wells and Hobet complexes — citing, in part, “soft market conditions.”
The Remington and Black Oak actions alone eliminated an estimated 400 positions.
More commonly though, Raney said, companies are cutting back hours in an attempt to prevent layoffs.
“We have operations moving from six 10-hour days to five 10-hour days or from five 10-hour days to four ... ,” he said. “What they’re wanting to do is to maintain their people, keep them working.”
Even when the economy turns around, it’s going to take time for coal demand and production to rise again. “The stockpiles have been built over the last year at the power plants, the loading facilities, the mines, to almost the maximum extent possible,” Raney said.
In fact, stocks held in April by electric power producers, the largest users of coal, were at their highest point in 10 years.
What Ever Happened to AOC?
By Ken Ward Jr.
Charleston Gazette Coal Tattoo Blog
I’m starting to wonder if Clem Guttata at West Virginia Blue just wants to make work for me. He keeps asking good questions about coal, climate change and mountaintop removal, and I can’t help but try to answer them.. His latest was this:
Which local, state, or federal regulatory bodies are responsible for defining and enforcing rules about returning Mountaintop Removal sites to Approximate Original Contour (AOC)? What can be done to force those agencies to do their job?
On one level, the answer is simple: The U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (at least in West Virginia — in other states, it would be their local regulatory authority). Those are the agencies who write the rules. As for how to get them to do their jobs … that’s beyond the scope of one little blog post.
WVDEP officials tried years ago to more clearly define AOC, something they said was needed if they were ever to enforce the rule. But OSMRE stopped the state from doing so, and has repeatedly delayed any plans for a federal rulemaking that would help clarify the term. West Virginia, though, has adopted its own AOC formula, and most experts think that has resulted in a reduction in the size of valley fills that bury streams.
But, as the rest of the W.Va. Blue post points out, this AOC issue is complicated and is a subject worth more explanation, because it gets to part of the heart of the problem with the way mountaintop removal has been regulated in Appalachia.
Read the entire post here.
Charleston Gazette Coal Tattoo Blog
I’m starting to wonder if Clem Guttata at West Virginia Blue just wants to make work for me. He keeps asking good questions about coal, climate change and mountaintop removal, and I can’t help but try to answer them.. His latest was this:
Which local, state, or federal regulatory bodies are responsible for defining and enforcing rules about returning Mountaintop Removal sites to Approximate Original Contour (AOC)? What can be done to force those agencies to do their job?
On one level, the answer is simple: The U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (at least in West Virginia — in other states, it would be their local regulatory authority). Those are the agencies who write the rules. As for how to get them to do their jobs … that’s beyond the scope of one little blog post.
WVDEP officials tried years ago to more clearly define AOC, something they said was needed if they were ever to enforce the rule. But OSMRE stopped the state from doing so, and has repeatedly delayed any plans for a federal rulemaking that would help clarify the term. West Virginia, though, has adopted its own AOC formula, and most experts think that has resulted in a reduction in the size of valley fills that bury streams.
But, as the rest of the W.Va. Blue post points out, this AOC issue is complicated and is a subject worth more explanation, because it gets to part of the heart of the problem with the way mountaintop removal has been regulated in Appalachia.
Read the entire post here.
What Ever Happened to AOC?
By Ken Ward Jr.
Charleston Gazette Coal Tattoo Blog
I’m starting to wonder if Clem Guttata at West Virginia Blue just wants to make work for me. He keeps asking good questions about coal, climate change and mountaintop removal, and I can’t help but try to answer them.. His latest was this:
Which local, state, or federal regulatory bodies are responsible for defining and enforcing rules about returning Mountaintop Removal sites to Approximate Original Contour (AOC)? What can be done to force those agencies to do their job?
On one level, the answer is simple: The U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (at least in West Virginia — in other states, it would be their local regulatory authority). Those are the agencies who write the rules. As for how to get them to do their jobs … that’s beyond the scope of one little blog post.
WVDEP officials tried years ago to more clearly define AOC, something they said was needed if they were ever to enforce the rule. But OSMRE stopped the state from doing so, and has repeatedly delayed any plans for a federal rulemaking that would help clarify the term. West Virginia, though, has adopted its own AOC formula, and most experts think that has resulted in a reduction in the size of valley fills that bury streams.
But, as the rest of the W.Va. Blue post points out, this AOC issue is complicated and is a subject worth more explanation, because it gets to part of the heart of the problem with the way mountaintop removal has been regulated in Appalachia.
Read the entire post here.
Charleston Gazette Coal Tattoo Blog
I’m starting to wonder if Clem Guttata at West Virginia Blue just wants to make work for me. He keeps asking good questions about coal, climate change and mountaintop removal, and I can’t help but try to answer them.. His latest was this:
Which local, state, or federal regulatory bodies are responsible for defining and enforcing rules about returning Mountaintop Removal sites to Approximate Original Contour (AOC)? What can be done to force those agencies to do their job?
On one level, the answer is simple: The U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (at least in West Virginia — in other states, it would be their local regulatory authority). Those are the agencies who write the rules. As for how to get them to do their jobs … that’s beyond the scope of one little blog post.
WVDEP officials tried years ago to more clearly define AOC, something they said was needed if they were ever to enforce the rule. But OSMRE stopped the state from doing so, and has repeatedly delayed any plans for a federal rulemaking that would help clarify the term. West Virginia, though, has adopted its own AOC formula, and most experts think that has resulted in a reduction in the size of valley fills that bury streams.
But, as the rest of the W.Va. Blue post points out, this AOC issue is complicated and is a subject worth more explanation, because it gets to part of the heart of the problem with the way mountaintop removal has been regulated in Appalachia.
Read the entire post here.
Geothermal Energy Potential of Mine Pools Warm Cool Audience at PA’s Abandoned Mine Reclamation & Coal Heritage Conference
This year’s conference was focused around the theme “Challenges and Opportunities in Interesting Times” and was held at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown’s Living and Learning Center. There was a total attendance this year of 168 people, 37 speakers, and 31 vendors over the four day Conference.
This year’s conference began with a tour of abandoned mine discharges in the Stonycreek Watershed on Monday afternoon. Sites visited on the tour ranged from recreational and economic benefits of upstream mine water treatment at Whitewater & Greenhouse Parks, windmills on reclaimed abandoned mine sites, to mine discharges and treatment systems throughout the Stonycreek Watershed. A very moving and solemn visit was also included on the tour to the Flight 93 temporary Memorial Site. The final stop on the tour was at the Windber Coal Heritage Center, where conference attendees learned about the coal mining heritage of Windber and the recent mining disaster at Quecreek.
The presentations began early Tuesday, July 14th. Bob Bastian, State Representative (retired) for Bradford and Somerset Counties, started the day off with some very good advice on how to reach your local representatives and his background growing up around AMD. The 37 speakers gave presentations based on two tracks: Abandoned Mine Reclamation or Coal Mining Heritage. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation presentations varied from topics such as Economic Impact of Abandoned Mine Drainage Cleanup, Geothermal projects, Manganese Oxide Recovery, Manure and Minelands, and panel discussions on funding, technical assistance, and grant writing assistance. The Coal Mining Heritage track had presentations that focused on the History of the Paint Creek Watershed, Taylor Colliery Historic Brownfields Redevelopment, Anthracite Coal Heritage, OSM/VISTAs in PA, and the Johnstown Area Heritage Association.
Tuesday evening was the formal dinner where the Annual Mayfly Award was presented to this year’s recipients: Bob Hedin, Hedin Environmental, and Dr. Art Rose, Emeritus Penn State professor. The Mayfly Award is presented to those who exhibit long term efforts in addressing mine drainage remediation projects in PA and has contributed greatly towards cleaning up PA’s environment from abandoned mine drainage impacts. Another announcement made at the dinner was that Joe Pizarchik from the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation will be appointed the next Director of the Office of Surface Mining by the Obama Administration. PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation also highlighted the AMD Set Aside Program Implementation Guidelines and how watershed groups now must obtain a Hydrologic Unit Plan designation for their watersheds before becoming eligible to receive Set Aside funds. Many more topics of a wide variety were presented and the attention spent by the audience to the details of each of them was great.
Other activities that took place at the conference were Coal Mining Heritage videos after dinner on Tuesday, a Rockband2 competition led by the EPCAMR Staff, and an optional tour Thursday by PA Trout Unlimited, the Clearfield County Conservation District, the West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition, and Cambria County Conservation & Recreation Authority took attendees to AMD Remediation sites in the West Branch of the Susquehanna River (Cambria County).
This years videos were “Hard Coal: Last of the Bootleg Miners” and Centralia “The Town that Was.” The Rockband2 Competition also took place Tuesday evening after dinner where teams competed for prizes.
Robert Hughes-Conference Coordinator-EPCAMR, and Andy McAllister-WPCAMR Watershed Outreach Coordinator were able to convince one of our international attendees to speak; an impromptu international speaker, Gerard Shaw, Corporate Legacy Manager from Canada’s Cape Breton Development Corporation. Robert stated enthusiastically, “Gerard was able to fill in for our opening speaker on Wednesday and talked about Canada’s abandoned mines, submarine mining and reclamation efforts off of the coast of Nova Scotia, and Canada’s interest in geothermal energy potential from mine pools. His presentation was well received and very interesting depicting pictures of the coal mining operations that proceed under the ocean to the length of 8 miles out to sea. Andy and Robert were able to talk to him on the tour and at the Conference to see if he’d like to have an opportunity to give a Canadian perspective on the work that we are doing here in PA and what they are doing up North. It was a good catch”
On Wednesday evening, the Johnstown Area Heritage Association welcomed attendees to a Mixer at the JAHA Discovery Center. The 5 story building was well preserved and many options for the attendees to visit were available during the 3 hour event. A rooftop natural biodiversity native plants garden was exhibited. The Children’s Museum was toured and attendees even were able to go down a large slide normally left for the amusement of children. Historical and cultural displays were abound. The mixer took place on the 5th Floor’s Ethnic Club where attendees gathered and networked around a very rustic mahogany bar.
On behalf of the 2009 AMR Conference Planning Committee, EPCAMR would like to thank everyone who attended this year’s conference, all of our sponsors, particularly, PA DEP, Foundation for PA Watersheds, US Department of Interior-Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, PA Environmental Digest, Gander Mountain-Johnstown Store for their Gander bucks, Gannett Fleming, Mackin Engineering, Trout Unlimited, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, our exhibitors, and vendors-Land & Mapping Services and Lime Doser Consulting. Without any of these people, the conference would not have been possible.
Pictures from the AMD Tours and Conference Happenings have been posted on EPCAMR’s Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/EPCAMR/95647429094) site and all conference presentations will be posted on the www.treatminewater.com website shortly. Hope to see everyone at next year’s conference, Bridging Reclamation, Science, & the Community at the Green Tree Hotel in Pittsburgh from June 5th – 11th, 2010.
The 12th Annual PA AMR Conference will be coordinated in partnership by the PA AMR Conference Planning Committee and the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mining & Reclamation, Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement. Check out the link www.PghMiningReclamationConf.com for further details. The “Science, Community, and Reclamation (SCR)” Session will be particularly geared towards community watershed organizations working on AMD issues.
This year’s conference began with a tour of abandoned mine discharges in the Stonycreek Watershed on Monday afternoon. Sites visited on the tour ranged from recreational and economic benefits of upstream mine water treatment at Whitewater & Greenhouse Parks, windmills on reclaimed abandoned mine sites, to mine discharges and treatment systems throughout the Stonycreek Watershed. A very moving and solemn visit was also included on the tour to the Flight 93 temporary Memorial Site. The final stop on the tour was at the Windber Coal Heritage Center, where conference attendees learned about the coal mining heritage of Windber and the recent mining disaster at Quecreek.
The presentations began early Tuesday, July 14th. Bob Bastian, State Representative (retired) for Bradford and Somerset Counties, started the day off with some very good advice on how to reach your local representatives and his background growing up around AMD. The 37 speakers gave presentations based on two tracks: Abandoned Mine Reclamation or Coal Mining Heritage. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation presentations varied from topics such as Economic Impact of Abandoned Mine Drainage Cleanup, Geothermal projects, Manganese Oxide Recovery, Manure and Minelands, and panel discussions on funding, technical assistance, and grant writing assistance. The Coal Mining Heritage track had presentations that focused on the History of the Paint Creek Watershed, Taylor Colliery Historic Brownfields Redevelopment, Anthracite Coal Heritage, OSM/VISTAs in PA, and the Johnstown Area Heritage Association.
Tuesday evening was the formal dinner where the Annual Mayfly Award was presented to this year’s recipients: Bob Hedin, Hedin Environmental, and Dr. Art Rose, Emeritus Penn State professor. The Mayfly Award is presented to those who exhibit long term efforts in addressing mine drainage remediation projects in PA and has contributed greatly towards cleaning up PA’s environment from abandoned mine drainage impacts. Another announcement made at the dinner was that Joe Pizarchik from the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation will be appointed the next Director of the Office of Surface Mining by the Obama Administration. PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation also highlighted the AMD Set Aside Program Implementation Guidelines and how watershed groups now must obtain a Hydrologic Unit Plan designation for their watersheds before becoming eligible to receive Set Aside funds. Many more topics of a wide variety were presented and the attention spent by the audience to the details of each of them was great.
Other activities that took place at the conference were Coal Mining Heritage videos after dinner on Tuesday, a Rockband2 competition led by the EPCAMR Staff, and an optional tour Thursday by PA Trout Unlimited, the Clearfield County Conservation District, the West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition, and Cambria County Conservation & Recreation Authority took attendees to AMD Remediation sites in the West Branch of the Susquehanna River (Cambria County).
This years videos were “Hard Coal: Last of the Bootleg Miners” and Centralia “The Town that Was.” The Rockband2 Competition also took place Tuesday evening after dinner where teams competed for prizes.
Robert Hughes-Conference Coordinator-EPCAMR, and Andy McAllister-WPCAMR Watershed Outreach Coordinator were able to convince one of our international attendees to speak; an impromptu international speaker, Gerard Shaw, Corporate Legacy Manager from Canada’s Cape Breton Development Corporation. Robert stated enthusiastically, “Gerard was able to fill in for our opening speaker on Wednesday and talked about Canada’s abandoned mines, submarine mining and reclamation efforts off of the coast of Nova Scotia, and Canada’s interest in geothermal energy potential from mine pools. His presentation was well received and very interesting depicting pictures of the coal mining operations that proceed under the ocean to the length of 8 miles out to sea. Andy and Robert were able to talk to him on the tour and at the Conference to see if he’d like to have an opportunity to give a Canadian perspective on the work that we are doing here in PA and what they are doing up North. It was a good catch”
On Wednesday evening, the Johnstown Area Heritage Association welcomed attendees to a Mixer at the JAHA Discovery Center. The 5 story building was well preserved and many options for the attendees to visit were available during the 3 hour event. A rooftop natural biodiversity native plants garden was exhibited. The Children’s Museum was toured and attendees even were able to go down a large slide normally left for the amusement of children. Historical and cultural displays were abound. The mixer took place on the 5th Floor’s Ethnic Club where attendees gathered and networked around a very rustic mahogany bar.
On behalf of the 2009 AMR Conference Planning Committee, EPCAMR would like to thank everyone who attended this year’s conference, all of our sponsors, particularly, PA DEP, Foundation for PA Watersheds, US Department of Interior-Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, PA Environmental Digest, Gander Mountain-Johnstown Store for their Gander bucks, Gannett Fleming, Mackin Engineering, Trout Unlimited, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, our exhibitors, and vendors-Land & Mapping Services and Lime Doser Consulting. Without any of these people, the conference would not have been possible.
Pictures from the AMD Tours and Conference Happenings have been posted on EPCAMR’s Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/EPCAMR/95647429094) site and all conference presentations will be posted on the www.treatminewater.com website shortly. Hope to see everyone at next year’s conference, Bridging Reclamation, Science, & the Community at the Green Tree Hotel in Pittsburgh from June 5th – 11th, 2010.
The 12th Annual PA AMR Conference will be coordinated in partnership by the PA AMR Conference Planning Committee and the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mining & Reclamation, Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement. Check out the link www.PghMiningReclamationConf.com for further details. The “Science, Community, and Reclamation (SCR)” Session will be particularly geared towards community watershed organizations working on AMD issues.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Clean Coal: Competitive Someday, Just Not Today
By Keith Johnson
Wall Street Journal Blogs
As if Big Coal’s protests weren’t enough, here’s another reality check for “clean coal.” Harvard’s Belfer Center just released an analysis of the costs of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants.
The good news? Clean coal could become an economically viable alternative source of energy down the road. The bad news? It’s a long road—and the short term isn’t pretty.
“The Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture,” which examined the economics of trapping carbon emissions from coal-fired plants now and in the future, concludes that making coal plants “clean” will be an expensive undertaking until the technology is mature. Actually storing the stuff underground might cost more money, or might be a source of revenue, depending whether it’s used to juice tired oil fields or just stuck in caves.
Read the entire article here.
Wall Street Journal Blogs
As if Big Coal’s protests weren’t enough, here’s another reality check for “clean coal.” Harvard’s Belfer Center just released an analysis of the costs of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants.
The good news? Clean coal could become an economically viable alternative source of energy down the road. The bad news? It’s a long road—and the short term isn’t pretty.
“The Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture,” which examined the economics of trapping carbon emissions from coal-fired plants now and in the future, concludes that making coal plants “clean” will be an expensive undertaking until the technology is mature. Actually storing the stuff underground might cost more money, or might be a source of revenue, depending whether it’s used to juice tired oil fields or just stuck in caves.
Read the entire article here.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009
By Judy Peterson
http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/greenblog2/blog.html
On July 14th, Congressman Earl Blumenaeur (OR) introduced, The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in Congress. The bill would establish a water protection and reinvestment fund to support investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure.
Today at 2 pm, the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the merits of the legislation.
I believe the nation really needs to get serious about investing in our water infrastructure. Too often we take clean drinking water and even sewage infrastructure for granted. Much of this infrastructure is outdated - an effort to invest in updating it will enable Americans to maintain the quality of life we currently enjoy, provide much needed jobs, plan for the future and protect our rivers and streams.
Join me in following the progress of this legislation - and of course if you are interested contact your representative or senator to inquire about the bill and their position on it. I'll try to provide updates in my blog as well.
Follow Judy's blog at http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/greenblog2/blog.html
http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/greenblog2/blog.html
On July 14th, Congressman Earl Blumenaeur (OR) introduced, The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in Congress. The bill would establish a water protection and reinvestment fund to support investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure.
Today at 2 pm, the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the merits of the legislation.
I believe the nation really needs to get serious about investing in our water infrastructure. Too often we take clean drinking water and even sewage infrastructure for granted. Much of this infrastructure is outdated - an effort to invest in updating it will enable Americans to maintain the quality of life we currently enjoy, provide much needed jobs, plan for the future and protect our rivers and streams.
Join me in following the progress of this legislation - and of course if you are interested contact your representative or senator to inquire about the bill and their position on it. I'll try to provide updates in my blog as well.
Follow Judy's blog at http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/greenblog2/blog.html
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Gas drilling update: WV DEP proposing tougher rules
Charleston Gazette
July 15, 2009
Gas drilling update: DEP proposing tougher rules
By Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer
It’s been a while since we updated readers on the growing concerns about pollution from oil and gas drilling operations in West Virginia (See Gas drilling damage I, Gas drilling damage II and Gas drilling damage III).
But last month, the state Department of Environmental Protection proposed some rule changes that are at least a beginning step toward more closely regulating the biggest concern: Water pollution from the “pit fluids,” the huge amounts of water used to fracture rock and release gas, especially from the wells drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation.
The comment period on the DEP proposal ended last night with a public hearing. I’m told that a ton of industry lobbyists attended, but none of them got up to make public statements. Behind the scenes, though, the industry is strongly opposing the rule changes. Perhaps that will come out today, when the issue is scheduled to be discussed during legislative interim meetings (1 p.m., House Government Organization Committee Room, 215 E).
Among the more significant changes proposed by DEP are:
– Requiring all pits used to store contaminated water from drilling to have synthetic liners to prevent seepage or leaks.
– Forcing operators to remove all solid wastes, including liners, during reclamation of pits and impoundments.
– Adding new design and construction standards for these pits.
– Requiring inspection of the pits by a registered professional engineer.
Don Garvin, lead lobbyist for the West Virginia Environmental Council, said today:
It has been more than 25 years since any significant changes were made to West Virginia’s drilling rules. The state’s regulation of oil and gas well drilling already has many problems, and new exploration using new processes, such as horizontal drilling and large volume fracturing, is creating new kinds of problems that need to be addressed, as well as the need for additional resources to address them.
In Washington, efforts to push for federal regulation of water pollution from gas drilling’s hydraulic fracturing aren’t going so well. ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten, who has been all over this story, reported on Monday that:
Legislators who’ve been pushing a bill to regulate a controversial natural gas drilling process are now calling for further scientific study, a change in tack made under intense lobbying pressure and after a personal request from Colorado’s Democratic governor.
If the lawmakers wait for the results of a study, the bill is unlikely to move forward any time soon.
July 15, 2009
Gas drilling update: DEP proposing tougher rules
By Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer
It’s been a while since we updated readers on the growing concerns about pollution from oil and gas drilling operations in West Virginia (See Gas drilling damage I, Gas drilling damage II and Gas drilling damage III).
But last month, the state Department of Environmental Protection proposed some rule changes that are at least a beginning step toward more closely regulating the biggest concern: Water pollution from the “pit fluids,” the huge amounts of water used to fracture rock and release gas, especially from the wells drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation.
The comment period on the DEP proposal ended last night with a public hearing. I’m told that a ton of industry lobbyists attended, but none of them got up to make public statements. Behind the scenes, though, the industry is strongly opposing the rule changes. Perhaps that will come out today, when the issue is scheduled to be discussed during legislative interim meetings (1 p.m., House Government Organization Committee Room, 215 E).
Among the more significant changes proposed by DEP are:
– Requiring all pits used to store contaminated water from drilling to have synthetic liners to prevent seepage or leaks.
– Forcing operators to remove all solid wastes, including liners, during reclamation of pits and impoundments.
– Adding new design and construction standards for these pits.
– Requiring inspection of the pits by a registered professional engineer.
Don Garvin, lead lobbyist for the West Virginia Environmental Council, said today:
It has been more than 25 years since any significant changes were made to West Virginia’s drilling rules. The state’s regulation of oil and gas well drilling already has many problems, and new exploration using new processes, such as horizontal drilling and large volume fracturing, is creating new kinds of problems that need to be addressed, as well as the need for additional resources to address them.
In Washington, efforts to push for federal regulation of water pollution from gas drilling’s hydraulic fracturing aren’t going so well. ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten, who has been all over this story, reported on Monday that:
Legislators who’ve been pushing a bill to regulate a controversial natural gas drilling process are now calling for further scientific study, a change in tack made under intense lobbying pressure and after a personal request from Colorado’s Democratic governor.
If the lawmakers wait for the results of a study, the bill is unlikely to move forward any time soon.
Coal Industry Flow Chart
By Ken Ward Jr.
Charleston Gazette “Coal Tattoo” blog
10:26 am, July 15, 2009
(click on image to enlarge)
What the heck is this? It’s a coal industry flow chart created by the good folks at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. The Energy Collective post pointed out these interesting bits of information from the chart:
– The sheer size of the US annual coal consumption, over 1.1 billion short tons.
– The US supplies all of its own demand, with a slight export surplus. Given the US’s large reserves, and how often we’re called “the Saudi Arabia of coal”, and how the reserves of those two fuels have been questioned lately, it’s true.
– 92.9% of US coal consumption goes for electricity. Think the coal industry is worried about a push to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation, given the cost and difficulty of widely implementing CCS (carbon capture and sequestration)?
– The US residential sector still uses about 400,000 short tons of coal per year, presumably for heating.
The Energy Collective also included some other interesting information:
But wait, you must surely be thinking, how does all that coal get to all those power plants? Largely by rail, of course, and it’s a big chunk of the US railroad industry:
– According to the [US] Bureau of Transportation Statistics and this page, in 2002
coal accounted for 17% of all freight ton-miles (not just that traveling on railroads), for a total of 562 billion ton-miles.
– According to page 3 of this 2008 document [• small PDF] by the American Association of Railroads:
– Coal is the most important commodity carried by US railroads. In 2007, coal accounted for 44 percent of rail tonnage and 21 percent of rail revenue. …railroads handle more than two-thirds of all US coal shipments.
– A pie chart on the same page shows that the 21% of railroad revenue is the largest single source by a considerable margin.
Forty-four percent of all freight ton-miles??? Does anyone else here think the railroad industry has to be almost as unhappy over coal’s dim prospects as the mining companies are?Finally, and most obviously, there’s the environmental price we pay for burning that constant river of coal. In 2007 alone, the US emitted 2.16 billion metric tons of CO2 from just coal consumption.
Obviously, this flow chart is not an all-inclusive look at coal’s energy cycle. It doesn’t include toxic ash from coal-fired power plants, for example. What would a broader flow chart look like? Ideas?
Charleston Gazette “Coal Tattoo” blog
10:26 am, July 15, 2009
(click on image to enlarge)
What the heck is this? It’s a coal industry flow chart created by the good folks at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. The Energy Collective post pointed out these interesting bits of information from the chart:
– The sheer size of the US annual coal consumption, over 1.1 billion short tons.
– The US supplies all of its own demand, with a slight export surplus. Given the US’s large reserves, and how often we’re called “the Saudi Arabia of coal”, and how the reserves of those two fuels have been questioned lately, it’s true.
– 92.9% of US coal consumption goes for electricity. Think the coal industry is worried about a push to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation, given the cost and difficulty of widely implementing CCS (carbon capture and sequestration)?
– The US residential sector still uses about 400,000 short tons of coal per year, presumably for heating.
The Energy Collective also included some other interesting information:
But wait, you must surely be thinking, how does all that coal get to all those power plants? Largely by rail, of course, and it’s a big chunk of the US railroad industry:
– According to the [US] Bureau of Transportation Statistics and this page, in 2002
coal accounted for 17% of all freight ton-miles (not just that traveling on railroads), for a total of 562 billion ton-miles.
– According to page 3 of this 2008 document [• small PDF] by the American Association of Railroads:
– Coal is the most important commodity carried by US railroads. In 2007, coal accounted for 44 percent of rail tonnage and 21 percent of rail revenue. …railroads handle more than two-thirds of all US coal shipments.
– A pie chart on the same page shows that the 21% of railroad revenue is the largest single source by a considerable margin.
Forty-four percent of all freight ton-miles??? Does anyone else here think the railroad industry has to be almost as unhappy over coal’s dim prospects as the mining companies are?Finally, and most obviously, there’s the environmental price we pay for burning that constant river of coal. In 2007 alone, the US emitted 2.16 billion metric tons of CO2 from just coal consumption.
Obviously, this flow chart is not an all-inclusive look at coal’s energy cycle. It doesn’t include toxic ash from coal-fired power plants, for example. What would a broader flow chart look like? Ideas?
::BIG NEWS:: Proposed Suspension and Modification of Nationwide Permit 21-- Notice.
74 FR 34311 (7/15/2009)
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to take two actions concerning Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21, which authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities. First, the Corps proposes to modify NWP 21 to prohibit its use to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region of the following states: Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia until it expires on March 18, 2012. The proposed modification would enhance environmental protection of aquatic resources by requiring surface coal mining projects in the affected region to obtain individual permit coverage under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which includes increased public and agency involvement in the permit review process, including an opportunity for public comment on individual projects. The application of NWP 21 to surface coal mining activities in the rest of the United States would not be affected by this proposed modification.
Second, the Corps is proposing to suspend NWP 21 to provide an interim means of requiring individual permit reviews in Appalachia, while proposing to undertake the longer-term measure of modifying NWP 21 to prohibit its use to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region of these six States. The Corps is also proposing to suspend NWP 21 to provide immediate environmental protection while it evaluates the comments received in response to the proposal to modify NWP 21.
In accordance with the suspension and modification procedures provided in the NWP regulations, public comment is invited, and a public hearing may be requested. After evaluating all comments pertaining to the proposed suspension and modification that are received in response to this notice and any public hearings, the Corps will publish its decisions concerning the NWP 21 suspension and modification in the Federal Register. If NWP 21 is suspended, the suspension would remain in effect until NWP 21 is modified or expires, or until the suspension is lifted.
DATES: Written comments, including requests for a public hearing, must be submitted on or before August 14, 2009. Comments may be posted here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=COE-2009-0032 OR by snail mail:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Attn: CECW-CO (Attn: Ms. Desiree Hann),
441 G Street NW,
Washington, DC 20314-1000
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to take two actions concerning Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21, which authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities. First, the Corps proposes to modify NWP 21 to prohibit its use to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region of the following states: Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia until it expires on March 18, 2012. The proposed modification would enhance environmental protection of aquatic resources by requiring surface coal mining projects in the affected region to obtain individual permit coverage under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which includes increased public and agency involvement in the permit review process, including an opportunity for public comment on individual projects. The application of NWP 21 to surface coal mining activities in the rest of the United States would not be affected by this proposed modification.
Second, the Corps is proposing to suspend NWP 21 to provide an interim means of requiring individual permit reviews in Appalachia, while proposing to undertake the longer-term measure of modifying NWP 21 to prohibit its use to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region of these six States. The Corps is also proposing to suspend NWP 21 to provide immediate environmental protection while it evaluates the comments received in response to the proposal to modify NWP 21.
In accordance with the suspension and modification procedures provided in the NWP regulations, public comment is invited, and a public hearing may be requested. After evaluating all comments pertaining to the proposed suspension and modification that are received in response to this notice and any public hearings, the Corps will publish its decisions concerning the NWP 21 suspension and modification in the Federal Register. If NWP 21 is suspended, the suspension would remain in effect until NWP 21 is modified or expires, or until the suspension is lifted.
DATES: Written comments, including requests for a public hearing, must be submitted on or before August 14, 2009. Comments may be posted here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=COE-2009-0032 OR by snail mail:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Attn: CECW-CO (Attn: Ms. Desiree Hann),
441 G Street NW,
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
To accelerate the restoration of the Great Lakes, the President’s FY 2010 budget includesa new $475 million inter-agency initiative to address issues that affect the Great Lakes,such as invasive species, non-point source pollution, and toxics and contaminatedsediment. The Initiative builds upon five years of work of the Great Lakes InteragencyTask Force (IATF) and stakeholders, guided by the Great Lakes Regional CollaborationStrategy. The Initiative supports federal projects and over $250 million in grants andproject agreements, jump-starting achievement of long term goals: safely eating the fishand swimming at our beaches, assuring safe drinking water, and providing a healthyecosystem for fish and wildlife.
The Initiative was announced in May of 2009 as part of the President’s FY2010 budget.
Information about the Initiative, Agency-by-Agency funding allocations, and general
descriptions of the work they will do has been posted to
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/index.html
The Initiative was announced in May of 2009 as part of the President’s FY2010 budget.
Information about the Initiative, Agency-by-Agency funding allocations, and general
descriptions of the work they will do has been posted to
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/index.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
What Happens When You Don't Own the Land
Published on Daily Yonder http://www.dailyyonder.com/
July 13, 2009
The national broadcast media rarely grapples with the interplay of concentrated wealth and power and the functioning of democracy when it attempts to explain the widespread, stubborn poverty in rural Central Appalachia.
The recent ABC 20/20 program The Hidden America—Children of the Mountains which followed for two years four children growing up in poverty in Eastern Kentucky, drew 11 million viewers. According to ABC “thousands offered to get involved and make a difference.” This wasn’t the first network spotlight on Appalachia’s children to evoke a strong reaction. Charles Kuralt’s Christmas in Appalachia, which aired in December 1964 and focused on eastern Kentucky, lit up the CBS switchboard with offers of help.
Both of these documentaries attempted to interpret a piece of the poverty puzzle by putting faces on poverty and showing how poverty is lived at the level of individual and family relationships. Inevitably unemployment, lack of education, poor health care, drug addiction, and inadequate housing are the reasons given by the networks for why there is persistent poverty in Appalachia. What they don’t attempt to explain is the century-old political/economic famework in which this individual poverty plays out. University of New Hampshire sociologist Cynthia Duncan, who has spent her career studying rural poverty, refers to this context as “these larger histories of deliberate underinvestment for control, to maintain vulnerability.”
Appalachia’s rural poor have been put under sociological and psychological microscopes many times over the last 150 years. Basically, two theories have been offered for their poverty. The culture of poverty theory directs attention inward to the capacities and habits of the poor themselves. In contrast, a structural theory focuses attention on the relationship between poverty and the corporate economy within Appalachia – especially in its coal regions. Appalachian sociologist Helen Lewis drew a sharp dividing line between the two theories by stating, "In simple terms it [the cause of poverty] is either fatalism or the coal industry."
Read the entire article here.
July 13, 2009
The national broadcast media rarely grapples with the interplay of concentrated wealth and power and the functioning of democracy when it attempts to explain the widespread, stubborn poverty in rural Central Appalachia.
The recent ABC 20/20 program The Hidden America—Children of the Mountains which followed for two years four children growing up in poverty in Eastern Kentucky, drew 11 million viewers. According to ABC “thousands offered to get involved and make a difference.” This wasn’t the first network spotlight on Appalachia’s children to evoke a strong reaction. Charles Kuralt’s Christmas in Appalachia, which aired in December 1964 and focused on eastern Kentucky, lit up the CBS switchboard with offers of help.
Both of these documentaries attempted to interpret a piece of the poverty puzzle by putting faces on poverty and showing how poverty is lived at the level of individual and family relationships. Inevitably unemployment, lack of education, poor health care, drug addiction, and inadequate housing are the reasons given by the networks for why there is persistent poverty in Appalachia. What they don’t attempt to explain is the century-old political/economic famework in which this individual poverty plays out. University of New Hampshire sociologist Cynthia Duncan, who has spent her career studying rural poverty, refers to this context as “these larger histories of deliberate underinvestment for control, to maintain vulnerability.”
Appalachia’s rural poor have been put under sociological and psychological microscopes many times over the last 150 years. Basically, two theories have been offered for their poverty. The culture of poverty theory directs attention inward to the capacities and habits of the poor themselves. In contrast, a structural theory focuses attention on the relationship between poverty and the corporate economy within Appalachia – especially in its coal regions. Appalachian sociologist Helen Lewis drew a sharp dividing line between the two theories by stating, "In simple terms it [the cause of poverty] is either fatalism or the coal industry."
Read the entire article here.
OSU snags more than $300,000 for coal research
(From Business First of Columbus, July 10, 2009)
Ohio State University is getting more than $300,000 in grant money to pursue clean coal research projects at its Columbus campus.
The university this month was awarded two grants of $160,000 each for two different coal conversion projects by the Ohio Coal Development Office of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority The projects will focus on converting coal to power and chemicals with the goal of helping to reduce operating costs at the university.
The University of Cincinnati and Ohio University were also named recipients of grants by the coal development office.
The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority gave more than $1 million to fund seven different clean-coal programs throughout the state. With additional funding from participating universities, the overall funding amount for the seven projects totals close to $1.5 million.
The authority is a non-regulatory government agency that helps Ohio businesses comply with clean air regulations. The agency’s coal development office oversees statewide coal research, development and technology deployment efforts.
Ohio State University is getting more than $300,000 in grant money to pursue clean coal research projects at its Columbus campus.
The university this month was awarded two grants of $160,000 each for two different coal conversion projects by the Ohio Coal Development Office of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority The projects will focus on converting coal to power and chemicals with the goal of helping to reduce operating costs at the university.
The University of Cincinnati and Ohio University were also named recipients of grants by the coal development office.
The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority gave more than $1 million to fund seven different clean-coal programs throughout the state. With additional funding from participating universities, the overall funding amount for the seven projects totals close to $1.5 million.
The authority is a non-regulatory government agency that helps Ohio businesses comply with clean air regulations. The agency’s coal development office oversees statewide coal research, development and technology deployment efforts.
Court rejects suit seeking stricter black lung rules
By Ken Ward Jr, Charleston Gazette
July 8, 2009
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A federal appeals court has turned down a Kentucky coal miner's effort to force the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration to write tougher limits on coal dust that causes black lung.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Letcher County coal miner Scott Howard. In March 2008, Howard sued MSHA, alleging that the agency's failure to tighten dust limits left him working in unsafe conditions.
Howard argued that, under federal mine safety law, MSHA has a "plain legal duty to promulgate a respirable dust regulation that will eliminate respiratory illnesses caused by work in coal mines."
But a panel of 6th Circuit judges ruled that Howard could not successfully bring the lawsuit because he had not yet petitioned MSHA directly to write the regulations.
The Obama administration has said it is considering new rules on coal dust limits, but does not expect to publish a proposed rule until April 2011.
Howard filed suit against MSHA following a series of media reports and scientific findings that black lung, after years on the decline, is increasing among miners in the Appalachian coalfields.
Read more here.
July 8, 2009
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A federal appeals court has turned down a Kentucky coal miner's effort to force the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration to write tougher limits on coal dust that causes black lung.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Letcher County coal miner Scott Howard. In March 2008, Howard sued MSHA, alleging that the agency's failure to tighten dust limits left him working in unsafe conditions.
Howard argued that, under federal mine safety law, MSHA has a "plain legal duty to promulgate a respirable dust regulation that will eliminate respiratory illnesses caused by work in coal mines."
But a panel of 6th Circuit judges ruled that Howard could not successfully bring the lawsuit because he had not yet petitioned MSHA directly to write the regulations.
The Obama administration has said it is considering new rules on coal dust limits, but does not expect to publish a proposed rule until April 2011.
Howard filed suit against MSHA following a series of media reports and scientific findings that black lung, after years on the decline, is increasing among miners in the Appalachian coalfields.
Read more here.
"Coal Country" A Documentary
BY DEBRA McCOWN
BRISTOL HERALD COURIER
A Wise County, Va., woman is among the stars of a controversial film on mountaintop removal mining that premieres today in Charleston, W.Va.
The film, “Coal Country,” looks at the negative effects of surface coal mining on Appalachian residents and communities in four states.
Kathy Selvage, a Wise County activist opposed to mining practices used in the region, is among those featured in the documentary.
“I believe our hope is it brings international exposure to that and also that it furthers a conversation about where we go in energy policy in this country,” Selvage said of the film. “I hope it opens people’s minds to the problems that are the side effects of mountaintop removal coal mining.
I hope it opens people’s hearts to the suffering that goes on in communi¬ties where this mining occurs right where people live.”
After the premiere in Charleston, more screenings are planned at film festivals and in major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, said the film’s executive producer, Mari-Lynn Evans. The 90-minute movie also will be shown in thousands of smaller screenings around the country – including Bristol and Wise County, Va. – before it begins airing on public television.
Evans said she has worked to tell both sides of the story.
Read more here.
BRISTOL HERALD COURIER
A Wise County, Va., woman is among the stars of a controversial film on mountaintop removal mining that premieres today in Charleston, W.Va.
The film, “Coal Country,” looks at the negative effects of surface coal mining on Appalachian residents and communities in four states.
Kathy Selvage, a Wise County activist opposed to mining practices used in the region, is among those featured in the documentary.
“I believe our hope is it brings international exposure to that and also that it furthers a conversation about where we go in energy policy in this country,” Selvage said of the film. “I hope it opens people’s minds to the problems that are the side effects of mountaintop removal coal mining.
I hope it opens people’s hearts to the suffering that goes on in communi¬ties where this mining occurs right where people live.”
After the premiere in Charleston, more screenings are planned at film festivals and in major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, said the film’s executive producer, Mari-Lynn Evans. The 90-minute movie also will be shown in thousands of smaller screenings around the country – including Bristol and Wise County, Va. – before it begins airing on public television.
Evans said she has worked to tell both sides of the story.
Read more here.
Environmental Groups Back Sotomayor
(From Grist.org)
Green groups are throwing their weight behind Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, even though she doesn’t have much of a record on environmental decisions and hasn’t always ruled in favor of enviros.
More than 60 environmental and Native American groups—including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Greenpeace USA, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for Biological Diversity—have sent a letter [PDF] to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee offering unqualified support for her nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding confirmation hearings on Sotomayor this week.
“Despite her long tenure on the federal bench, Judge Sotomayor has sat on relatively few environmental cases,” the groups write in their letter. “Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims. Instead, it reflects intellectual rigor, meticulous preparation, and fairness. ... Her impeccable credentials, wealth of experience, and exceptional legal mind will benefit the Court and the nation.”
Sotomayor’s most significant environmental ruling was in the case Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2007. As Kate Sheppard explains in an examination of Sotomayor’s green record, the case centered on whether the U.S. EPA should be allowed to consider the cost-effectiveness of measures to protect fish and other aquatic life in rivers and lakes near power plants. Sotomayor sided with the enviros, writing what Earthjustice calls “a careful 80-page opinion upholding critical Clean Water Act safeguards.” The Supreme Court later reversed that ruling.
Read more here.
Green groups are throwing their weight behind Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, even though she doesn’t have much of a record on environmental decisions and hasn’t always ruled in favor of enviros.
More than 60 environmental and Native American groups—including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Greenpeace USA, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for Biological Diversity—have sent a letter [PDF] to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee offering unqualified support for her nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding confirmation hearings on Sotomayor this week.
“Despite her long tenure on the federal bench, Judge Sotomayor has sat on relatively few environmental cases,” the groups write in their letter. “Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims. Instead, it reflects intellectual rigor, meticulous preparation, and fairness. ... Her impeccable credentials, wealth of experience, and exceptional legal mind will benefit the Court and the nation.”
Sotomayor’s most significant environmental ruling was in the case Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2007. As Kate Sheppard explains in an examination of Sotomayor’s green record, the case centered on whether the U.S. EPA should be allowed to consider the cost-effectiveness of measures to protect fish and other aquatic life in rivers and lakes near power plants. Sotomayor sided with the enviros, writing what Earthjustice calls “a careful 80-page opinion upholding critical Clean Water Act safeguards.” The Supreme Court later reversed that ruling.
Read more here.
The people are willing; the money is there: Gov. Manchin can bring Deckers Creek to life
Charleston Gazette
July 11, 2009, Op-Ed
By Evan Hansen and Sarah Veselka
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. -- For the past 15 years in our state's Touchdown City, residents have volunteered tens of thousands of hours toward a long-term goal: making once-dead Deckers Creek healthy and fishable again through Morgantown.
Now, Gov. Joe Manchin has an opportunity to commit funds to the largest remaining acid mine drainage source to the creek, honoring hundreds of volunteers and capitalizing on the state's best opportunity to replace a painful environmental legacy with a vibrant recreational and economic resource....
Read the entire Op-ed here. If you are interested in signing a letter in support of the project, please visit www.deckerscreek.org or contact Jen Zimmerman at jen@deckerscreek.org.
July 11, 2009, Op-Ed
By Evan Hansen and Sarah Veselka
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. -- For the past 15 years in our state's Touchdown City, residents have volunteered tens of thousands of hours toward a long-term goal: making once-dead Deckers Creek healthy and fishable again through Morgantown.
Now, Gov. Joe Manchin has an opportunity to commit funds to the largest remaining acid mine drainage source to the creek, honoring hundreds of volunteers and capitalizing on the state's best opportunity to replace a painful environmental legacy with a vibrant recreational and economic resource....
Read the entire Op-ed here. If you are interested in signing a letter in support of the project, please visit www.deckerscreek.org or contact Jen Zimmerman at jen@deckerscreek.org.
Industry attack hardly lays a glove on WVU coal cost study
By Ken Ward Jr. of the Charleston Gazette
Over the last few weeks, there have been a lot of rumblings from folks in the coal industry about the big West Virginia University study that concluded the adverse health effects of coal mining in Appalachian far outweigh the industry’s economic contribution to the region.
Roger Nicholson, vice president and general counsel of International Coal Group, starts out in his Sunday Gazette-Mail commentary by saying Ward's initial coverage of the study ignored “some key facts” and held WVU researcher Michael Hendryx and his co-author, Melissa Ahern of Washington State University, to a “much lower standard of factual rigor than [the Gazette] would a pro-coal industry study.”
Ken Ward analyzes these and criticisms to the WVU study in his blog, Coal Tattoo. Read here.
Read the original study here
Over the last few weeks, there have been a lot of rumblings from folks in the coal industry about the big West Virginia University study that concluded the adverse health effects of coal mining in Appalachian far outweigh the industry’s economic contribution to the region.
Roger Nicholson, vice president and general counsel of International Coal Group, starts out in his Sunday Gazette-Mail commentary by saying Ward's initial coverage of the study ignored “some key facts” and held WVU researcher Michael Hendryx and his co-author, Melissa Ahern of Washington State University, to a “much lower standard of factual rigor than [the Gazette] would a pro-coal industry study.”
Ken Ward analyzes these and criticisms to the WVU study in his blog, Coal Tattoo. Read here.
Read the original study here
Friday, July 10, 2009
Obama nominates leaders for OSM, MSHA
By Ken Ward Jr.
Charleston Gazette
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- President Barack Obama on Monday nominated a longtime union safety director and a Pennsylvania regulator to run two key federal agencies that are charged with policing the nation's coal industry.
Obama nominated Joseph A. Main, a retired United Mine Workers safety and health director, to serve as assistant secretary of Labor in charge of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.
And the president nominated Joseph G. Pizarchik as director of the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
Main and Pizarchik were among 10 nominees for various administration posts announced by the White House late Monday afternoon.
Both nominees must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Since 2002, Pizarchik has been director of the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation within Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. Before that, he was assistant director and general counsel for the agency for 11 years.
The administration called Pizarchik "a pragmatic innovator" and cited as a top accomplishment his work on a Pennsylvania law that gives legal liability waivers to companies and other organizations that undertake voluntary environmental cleanups.
Main is a Waynesburg, Pa., native who began working in the mines in 1967 and quickly moved into a spot on a local union safety committee. He joined the UMWA staff in 1974 and served as the union's safety director for 22 years.
The administration cited his "vast mine health safety experience" in nominating Main to the MSHA post.
Read more here.
Charleston Gazette
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- President Barack Obama on Monday nominated a longtime union safety director and a Pennsylvania regulator to run two key federal agencies that are charged with policing the nation's coal industry.
Obama nominated Joseph A. Main, a retired United Mine Workers safety and health director, to serve as assistant secretary of Labor in charge of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.
And the president nominated Joseph G. Pizarchik as director of the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
Main and Pizarchik were among 10 nominees for various administration posts announced by the White House late Monday afternoon.
Both nominees must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Since 2002, Pizarchik has been director of the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation within Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. Before that, he was assistant director and general counsel for the agency for 11 years.
The administration called Pizarchik "a pragmatic innovator" and cited as a top accomplishment his work on a Pennsylvania law that gives legal liability waivers to companies and other organizations that undertake voluntary environmental cleanups.
Main is a Waynesburg, Pa., native who began working in the mines in 1967 and quickly moved into a spot on a local union safety committee. He joined the UMWA staff in 1974 and served as the union's safety director for 22 years.
The administration cited his "vast mine health safety experience" in nominating Main to the MSHA post.
Read more here.
Safety advocates pleased by Obama's choice to lead mine safety agency
By Halimah Abdullah - habdullah@mcclatchydc.com
Lexington Herald-Leader
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's choice to head the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration signals a dramatic shift from his predecessor on mine-safety issues.
The selection of Joseph Main, the retired longtime safety and health administrator for the United Mine Workers of America, to head MSHA drew praise from safety advocates and criticism from the coal industry.
"I don't think Obama could have chosen anyone better for the job," said Tony Oppegard, a Lexington lawyer and mine-safety advocate. "Joe has done more for mine safety in the U.S. than anyone in the past 25 to 30 years."
Oppegard said Main's nomination "signals a change of direction in terms of mine safety in this country. It's a 180-degree shift from the policies of the Bush administration and its favoring of coal-industry executives."
Indeed, coal industry executives were disappointed on Monday.
"It's going to be frustrating having somebody with an agenda that is pro-union," said Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. "We're not looking forward to it."
Main, a Pennsylvania native who now lives in Spotsylvania, Va., began working in coal mines in 1967 and quickly became an advocate for miners' safety as a union safety committeeman. He served in various local union positions in the United Mine Workers of America.
Main is now a mine safety consultant.
Obama also appointed Joseph Pizarchik on Monday to oversee the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Lexington lawyer Joe Childers had been under consideration to lead the office.
Pizarchik is director of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Mining and Reclamation.
Groups that oppose mountaintop removal mining, which involves blasting the tops off mountains to reveal the underlying coal seams, worry that as a career government bureaucrat, Pizarchik might not push for an outright ban on the practice.
Lexington Herald-Leader
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's choice to head the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration signals a dramatic shift from his predecessor on mine-safety issues.
The selection of Joseph Main, the retired longtime safety and health administrator for the United Mine Workers of America, to head MSHA drew praise from safety advocates and criticism from the coal industry.
"I don't think Obama could have chosen anyone better for the job," said Tony Oppegard, a Lexington lawyer and mine-safety advocate. "Joe has done more for mine safety in the U.S. than anyone in the past 25 to 30 years."
Oppegard said Main's nomination "signals a change of direction in terms of mine safety in this country. It's a 180-degree shift from the policies of the Bush administration and its favoring of coal-industry executives."
Indeed, coal industry executives were disappointed on Monday.
"It's going to be frustrating having somebody with an agenda that is pro-union," said Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. "We're not looking forward to it."
Main, a Pennsylvania native who now lives in Spotsylvania, Va., began working in coal mines in 1967 and quickly became an advocate for miners' safety as a union safety committeeman. He served in various local union positions in the United Mine Workers of America.
Main is now a mine safety consultant.
Obama also appointed Joseph Pizarchik on Monday to oversee the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Lexington lawyer Joe Childers had been under consideration to lead the office.
Pizarchik is director of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Mining and Reclamation.
Groups that oppose mountaintop removal mining, which involves blasting the tops off mountains to reveal the underlying coal seams, worry that as a career government bureaucrat, Pizarchik might not push for an outright ban on the practice.
WVDEP Seeks Public input on Water Quality Standards accepted until Aug. 14
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s DEP Water Quality Standards Program is providing an opportunity for the public to submit information and data concerning the agency’s triennial review of the state’s water quality standards.
In response to a request for public input discussed at a public meeting on May 18, the DEP is offering a 45-day public comment period to allow involvement from West Virginia citizens.
All correspondence will need to be received by Aug. 14, 2009, and should be mailed To: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
ATTN: Water Quality Standards Program
601 57th Street S.E.
Charleston, WV 25304
Comments and information may also be e-mailed to Linda.B.Keller@wv.gov.
In response to a request for public input discussed at a public meeting on May 18, the DEP is offering a 45-day public comment period to allow involvement from West Virginia citizens.
All correspondence will need to be received by Aug. 14, 2009, and should be mailed To: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
ATTN: Water Quality Standards Program
601 57th Street S.E.
Charleston, WV 25304
Comments and information may also be e-mailed to Linda.B.Keller@wv.gov.
Citizens divided over Obama OSM pick
By Erica Peterson
July 7, 2009 • Environmentalists say the nomination of Joe Pizarchik as the director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement isn't encouraging.
Now, Joe Pizarchik directs Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, but if the U.S. Senate confirms his nomination, he’ll oversee regulation of surface mining across the nation.
Pizarchik has an extensive resume. He’s been with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection since 1991. Both the Obama White House and the U.S. Department of the Interior sent out press releases citing one particular achievement.
Pizarchik helped author Pennsylvania’s Environmental Good Samaritan Act. In his current role, he also oversees the program, which protects landowners and groups that want to rehabilitate and reclaim abandoned mine lands from civil and environmental liability.
Tom Clarke is Pizarchik’s equivalent at the West Virginia DEP.
“I’ve known him for probably at least 12 years, maybe 13,” Clarke said. “I’ve always found him to be a dedicated professional. He’s done a good job for the state of Pennsylvania, and I believe he’s a good choice for OSM and I look forward to working with him in that capacity.”
But Pizarchik’s nomination has drawn mixed results from others.
Jeff Stant is the Director of the Environmental Integrity Project’s Coal Combustion Waste Initiative. He says Pizarchik is a poor choice.
The coal industry says Pizarchik is fair.
Read the entire story here.
July 7, 2009 • Environmentalists say the nomination of Joe Pizarchik as the director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement isn't encouraging.
Now, Joe Pizarchik directs Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, but if the U.S. Senate confirms his nomination, he’ll oversee regulation of surface mining across the nation.
Pizarchik has an extensive resume. He’s been with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection since 1991. Both the Obama White House and the U.S. Department of the Interior sent out press releases citing one particular achievement.
Pizarchik helped author Pennsylvania’s Environmental Good Samaritan Act. In his current role, he also oversees the program, which protects landowners and groups that want to rehabilitate and reclaim abandoned mine lands from civil and environmental liability.
Tom Clarke is Pizarchik’s equivalent at the West Virginia DEP.
“I’ve known him for probably at least 12 years, maybe 13,” Clarke said. “I’ve always found him to be a dedicated professional. He’s done a good job for the state of Pennsylvania, and I believe he’s a good choice for OSM and I look forward to working with him in that capacity.”
But Pizarchik’s nomination has drawn mixed results from others.
Jeff Stant is the Director of the Environmental Integrity Project’s Coal Combustion Waste Initiative. He says Pizarchik is a poor choice.
The coal industry says Pizarchik is fair.
Read the entire story here.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Feds: WVDEP should beef up mine flooding reviews
June 2, 2009
By Ken Ward Jr.
"Coal Tattoo" Blog, Charleston Gazette
Last week, West Virginia Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman told a U.S. Senate subcommittee what a great job his agency does making sure that mountaintop removal coal mining doesn’t contribute to flooding. Among a long list of changes Huffman said the state Department of Environmental Protection has made to ease federal regulators’ concerns about mountaintop removal, Huffman cited flood protections:
For the past several years the State has required every permit to include a Surface Water Runoff Analysis which is an engineered formula that assures no flooding potential from proposed mining operations. Additionally, West Virginia modified its valley fill construction rules to further assure no flooding potential in times of short, intense runoff from flash storms and thunderstorms.
Sounds great, right?
The U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement thinks so … well, kind of. OSMRE officials think the state’s so-called “SWROA” “concept is valid,” a reasonable method to try to limit the potential for large-scale mining to make flooding more likely or more damaging.
But is WVDEP doing a good job implementing this approach? Well, not so much, at least according to a new OSMRE oversight report.
Read more here.
By Ken Ward Jr.
"Coal Tattoo" Blog, Charleston Gazette
Last week, West Virginia Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman told a U.S. Senate subcommittee what a great job his agency does making sure that mountaintop removal coal mining doesn’t contribute to flooding. Among a long list of changes Huffman said the state Department of Environmental Protection has made to ease federal regulators’ concerns about mountaintop removal, Huffman cited flood protections:
For the past several years the State has required every permit to include a Surface Water Runoff Analysis which is an engineered formula that assures no flooding potential from proposed mining operations. Additionally, West Virginia modified its valley fill construction rules to further assure no flooding potential in times of short, intense runoff from flash storms and thunderstorms.
Sounds great, right?
The U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement thinks so … well, kind of. OSMRE officials think the state’s so-called “SWROA” “concept is valid,” a reasonable method to try to limit the potential for large-scale mining to make flooding more likely or more damaging.
But is WVDEP doing a good job implementing this approach? Well, not so much, at least according to a new OSMRE oversight report.
Read more here.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator Vacancy
Please see the attached Position Description for more details regarding the Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator vacancy.
Position Description: The Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator is a leadership position requiring the ability to manage volunteers and staff and to collaborate with multiple partners to achieve water quality goals in Sunday Creek as stated in the Sunday Creek Watershed Management Plan. The Coordinator must be able to understand and manage watershed reclamation projects as well as foster community partnerships and environmental education initiatives. The Coordinator must be able to work independently on technical reports and grants, and lead a team to achieve specific watershed outcomes. This fast paced and multi-faceted job requires an ability to foster partnerships and write and implement results-oriented plans.
Sunday Creek Watershed Group is housed within, and is a partner to, Rural Action, a regional sustainable development organization working on restoration, agriculture, forestry, energy, and environmental education. Rural Action brings together the region’s citizens to develop long term sustainable solutions for Appalachian Ohio’s communities.
The Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator will be responsible for implementing watershed plans, directing education and outreach activities and managing the watershed office. The Watershed Coordinator is responsible for networking with federal, state and local agencies; educational institutions, non-profit organizations and citizens both within and outside the watershed.
Application Procedure: Submit a letter of interest, resume responsive to position responsibilities, and three (3) references by 5:00 PM on July 24, 2009 to:
Shaw@sundaycreek.org
or
Kaabe Shaw, Sunday Creek Watershed
69 High St.
Glouster, OH. 45732
Position Description: The Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator is a leadership position requiring the ability to manage volunteers and staff and to collaborate with multiple partners to achieve water quality goals in Sunday Creek as stated in the Sunday Creek Watershed Management Plan. The Coordinator must be able to understand and manage watershed reclamation projects as well as foster community partnerships and environmental education initiatives. The Coordinator must be able to work independently on technical reports and grants, and lead a team to achieve specific watershed outcomes. This fast paced and multi-faceted job requires an ability to foster partnerships and write and implement results-oriented plans.
Sunday Creek Watershed Group is housed within, and is a partner to, Rural Action, a regional sustainable development organization working on restoration, agriculture, forestry, energy, and environmental education. Rural Action brings together the region’s citizens to develop long term sustainable solutions for Appalachian Ohio’s communities.
The Sunday Creek Watershed Coordinator will be responsible for implementing watershed plans, directing education and outreach activities and managing the watershed office. The Watershed Coordinator is responsible for networking with federal, state and local agencies; educational institutions, non-profit organizations and citizens both within and outside the watershed.
Application Procedure: Submit a letter of interest, resume responsive to position responsibilities, and three (3) references by 5:00 PM on July 24, 2009 to:
Shaw@sundaycreek.org
or
Kaabe Shaw, Sunday Creek Watershed
69 High St.
Glouster, OH. 45732
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
ECRR Resources
Wow! Something from Microsoft I Actually Like
From Water Words that Work
I’m still nursing a grudge against Microsoft about the whole Windows Vista fiasco, but I’m impressed with the collection of nonprofit “templates” they’ve posted on their Microsoft Office Online collection.
There are sample fundraising letters, press releases, petitions, membership questionnaires, and other useful templates for environmental writing and communication of most kinds. You might find a few “Foolproof Photos” in clip art in the collection that you could use in your next environmental advertising campaign.
Click the link for Microsoft templates that you can use for environmental communications!
Use the database to search for enforcement actions taken by federal or state authorities against municipal sewer authorities and sewage treatment plants between January 2003 and February 2008. Select a facility from the list to learn more about any enforcement actions taken against that plant or municipal authority .
———
Didymo Resources
Now that summer time is here and many recreational activities are underway, it is important to keep in mind the many issues associated with such activities. One particularly important issue for folks where recreational fishing occurs is the potential spread of an invasive species named Didymo. Didymospenia geminata Didymo, or “rock snot”, is native to cold, high altitude waters found in other continents but has spread to some streams in North America with devastating effects. Many scientists believe Didymo is primarily spread by fisherman with contaminated waders, particularly those with felt soles (which could include folks out monitoring streams with similar equipment).
Many of our streams are at risk of contracting Didymo if proper education, caution, and preventative measures are not provided to those using our waterways. This is a serious threat to water quality, aquatic species, and local economies! I encourage everyone who does not know about Didymo to learn more and start your own campaign to educate and help prevent the spread of this nasty invasive species. I have attached an article from the Nytimes on the spread of Didymo, a .pdf on how to construct a wader wash station to place at local fishing sites, and a Trout Unlimited explanation of Didymo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16invasive.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
http://midatlanticconservation.org/docs-pdf/WaderWashStation.pdf
http://www.tu.org/site/c.kkLRJ7MSKtH/b.4506175/k.BBC0/Didymo.htm
National Directory of Volunteer Monitoring Programs
A lot of time has passed since we published the National Directory of Volunteer Monitoring Programs on-line. Check it out at http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf/ or by clicking from the EPA volunteer monitoring website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/
While we continue to add new programs, much of the information on older programs is out of date, and many new programs are not listed.
Please help us make this a more useful networking tool for volunteer monitoring programs and for the growing number of people searching for opportunities for public service in their communities. Check the directory for your program; it's probably easiest to search by state. If the information posted is more or less still correct, no action is needed, or you can send in an "Update your volunteer monitoring info" email for minor corrections (such as new websites or contact telephone numbers). If the information is very wrong or if nothing is there for your program, please fill out a new form on-line (under "Add your program" in the left hand blue bar).
And, here is this season's edition of the Volunteer Water Monitor:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/newsletter/volmon20no1.pdf
If your watershed has or is threatened by Aquatic Invasive Species I recommend you read this. It provides a lot of information on the topic.
Environmental Education Materials
http://facweb.stvincent.edu/EEC/Lessons.htm
site has curriculum you can download for free plus they sell a grade school level workbook called "Goodbye orange water" which you can purchase for $1each or you can print out individual pages for free.
Webinar: Intro to GIS and ArcView
Sponsored by TechSoup, this webinar was recorded in February of this year but you can view the archive:
https://cc.readytalk.com/cc/schedule/display.do?udc=1e0a12wgb7t45
"An Economic Benefit Analysis for Acid Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna Watershed, Pennsylvania", West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition and Trout Unlimited. The report was produced by Downstream Stategies out of Morgantown, WV. A sample of their findings is quoted below. Though this is a watershed specific study, it provides a model that could be extended to other states and watersheds in order to make compelling arguements for investments in AMD remediation.
"Benefits from the low estimate of $110 million in remediation expenditures can conservatively be expected to generate $204 million in economic activity, not including the additional benefits that would accrue from restored streams. Benefits from the high estimate of $453 million in remediation expenditures would generate $817 million in additional spending within the Commonwealth.
In terms of employment, about 185 permanent jobs in Pennsylvania would be created based on the annual O&M expenditures. The initial capital expenditures would generate between 1,531 and 5,892 direct and indirect jobs in Pennsylvania. An estimated 52% of these jobs are likely to be green-collar jobs."
The full document is available at:
http://www.wbsrc.com/documents/economicbenefits/fulldocument.pdf (*warning this is a LARGE file)
You can also download the report in chunks by visiting http://www.wbsrc.com/economicbenefits.html
Or, for a free hardcopy mailed to you, e-mail Rebecca Dunlap at RDunlap@tu.org
EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Watershed News is now on-line at http://www.epa.gov/watershed/winnews/2009/0905.html.
It's a Wet, Wet, Wet, Wet World New Water Law Reading Room Water is at the heart of agriculture. Without water, crops and livestock would not be able to survive. Water used in agricultural production can come from surface waters, such as rivers, lakes, streams, and ponds, or from groundwater, such as an aquifer. The allocation of this important resource is left up to each state, with very little federal intervention. Each state has its own regulatory system to allocate boththe surface waters and the groundwater in the state.Many important legal issues are presented by the use of water in agriculture. The new Water Law Reading Room http://nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/waterlaw/ deals with issues such as allocation, irrigation, and other problems common to agriculture's use of water. The room contains specific information related to the interplay between water and agriculture and includes a comprehensive case law index, Center publications, an overview article, a federal statute compilation, and a compilation of each state's water laws and regulations. The room also contains valuable links to federal agencies, a listing of states' water offices, water organizations, and other resources. The Center thanks Professor Jesse Richardson, Associate Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning and Urban Affairs and Planning Coordinator at the Virginia Tech University, for his careful review of drafts of the reading room and for his insights and comments that insured the reading room would be the best it could be.
PA Wilds Greenways has a new website. Serves Clearfield, Jefferson, and Elk Counties. The Pennsylvania Wilds Greenways Partnership is a non-profit association of stakeholders aspiring to the stewardship of Gov. Ed Rendell and the Secretary of DCNR with a mission to:
· Create green jobs and sustainable economic growth through tourism and conservation in North Central PA.
· Connect and transport residents and visitors to regional communities, natural assets and PA Wilds signature projects.
· Transform PA Wilds communities into places where the economy and livability create a sense of place, a welcoming atmosphere and the right mix of services for residents and visitors.
Conserve wilderness and preserve rural areas.
http://www.pawildsgreenways.org/
From Water Words that Work
I’m still nursing a grudge against Microsoft about the whole Windows Vista fiasco, but I’m impressed with the collection of nonprofit “templates” they’ve posted on their Microsoft Office Online collection.
There are sample fundraising letters, press releases, petitions, membership questionnaires, and other useful templates for environmental writing and communication of most kinds. You might find a few “Foolproof Photos” in clip art in the collection that you could use in your next environmental advertising campaign.
Click the link for Microsoft templates that you can use for environmental communications!
Use the database to search for enforcement actions taken by federal or state authorities against municipal sewer authorities and sewage treatment plants between January 2003 and February 2008. Select a facility from the list to learn more about any enforcement actions taken against that plant or municipal authority .
———
Didymo Resources
Now that summer time is here and many recreational activities are underway, it is important to keep in mind the many issues associated with such activities. One particularly important issue for folks where recreational fishing occurs is the potential spread of an invasive species named Didymo. Didymospenia geminata Didymo, or “rock snot”, is native to cold, high altitude waters found in other continents but has spread to some streams in North America with devastating effects. Many scientists believe Didymo is primarily spread by fisherman with contaminated waders, particularly those with felt soles (which could include folks out monitoring streams with similar equipment).
Many of our streams are at risk of contracting Didymo if proper education, caution, and preventative measures are not provided to those using our waterways. This is a serious threat to water quality, aquatic species, and local economies! I encourage everyone who does not know about Didymo to learn more and start your own campaign to educate and help prevent the spread of this nasty invasive species. I have attached an article from the Nytimes on the spread of Didymo, a .pdf on how to construct a wader wash station to place at local fishing sites, and a Trout Unlimited explanation of Didymo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16invasive.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
http://midatlanticconservation.org/docs-pdf/WaderWashStation.pdf
http://www.tu.org/site/c.kkLRJ7MSKtH/b.4506175/k.BBC0/Didymo.htm
National Directory of Volunteer Monitoring Programs
A lot of time has passed since we published the National Directory of Volunteer Monitoring Programs on-line. Check it out at http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf/ or by clicking from the EPA volunteer monitoring website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/
While we continue to add new programs, much of the information on older programs is out of date, and many new programs are not listed.
Please help us make this a more useful networking tool for volunteer monitoring programs and for the growing number of people searching for opportunities for public service in their communities. Check the directory for your program; it's probably easiest to search by state. If the information posted is more or less still correct, no action is needed, or you can send in an "Update your volunteer monitoring info" email for minor corrections (such as new websites or contact telephone numbers). If the information is very wrong or if nothing is there for your program, please fill out a new form on-line (under "Add your program" in the left hand blue bar).
And, here is this season's edition of the Volunteer Water Monitor:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/newsletter/volmon20no1.pdf
If your watershed has or is threatened by Aquatic Invasive Species I recommend you read this. It provides a lot of information on the topic.
Environmental Education Materials
http://facweb.stvincent.edu/EEC/Lessons.htm
site has curriculum you can download for free plus they sell a grade school level workbook called "Goodbye orange water" which you can purchase for $1each or you can print out individual pages for free.
Webinar: Intro to GIS and ArcView
Sponsored by TechSoup, this webinar was recorded in February of this year but you can view the archive:
https://cc.readytalk.com/cc/schedule/display.do?udc=1e0a12wgb7t45
"An Economic Benefit Analysis for Acid Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna Watershed, Pennsylvania", West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition and Trout Unlimited. The report was produced by Downstream Stategies out of Morgantown, WV. A sample of their findings is quoted below. Though this is a watershed specific study, it provides a model that could be extended to other states and watersheds in order to make compelling arguements for investments in AMD remediation.
"Benefits from the low estimate of $110 million in remediation expenditures can conservatively be expected to generate $204 million in economic activity, not including the additional benefits that would accrue from restored streams. Benefits from the high estimate of $453 million in remediation expenditures would generate $817 million in additional spending within the Commonwealth.
In terms of employment, about 185 permanent jobs in Pennsylvania would be created based on the annual O&M expenditures. The initial capital expenditures would generate between 1,531 and 5,892 direct and indirect jobs in Pennsylvania. An estimated 52% of these jobs are likely to be green-collar jobs."
The full document is available at:
http://www.wbsrc.com/documents/economicbenefits/fulldocument.pdf (*warning this is a LARGE file)
You can also download the report in chunks by visiting http://www.wbsrc.com/economicbenefits.html
Or, for a free hardcopy mailed to you, e-mail Rebecca Dunlap at RDunlap@tu.org
EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Watershed News is now on-line at http://www.epa.gov/watershed/winnews/2009/0905.html.
It's a Wet, Wet, Wet, Wet World New Water Law Reading Room Water is at the heart of agriculture. Without water, crops and livestock would not be able to survive. Water used in agricultural production can come from surface waters, such as rivers, lakes, streams, and ponds, or from groundwater, such as an aquifer. The allocation of this important resource is left up to each state, with very little federal intervention. Each state has its own regulatory system to allocate boththe surface waters and the groundwater in the state.Many important legal issues are presented by the use of water in agriculture. The new Water Law Reading Room http://nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/waterlaw/ deals with issues such as allocation, irrigation, and other problems common to agriculture's use of water. The room contains specific information related to the interplay between water and agriculture and includes a comprehensive case law index, Center publications, an overview article, a federal statute compilation, and a compilation of each state's water laws and regulations. The room also contains valuable links to federal agencies, a listing of states' water offices, water organizations, and other resources. The Center thanks Professor Jesse Richardson, Associate Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning and Urban Affairs and Planning Coordinator at the Virginia Tech University, for his careful review of drafts of the reading room and for his insights and comments that insured the reading room would be the best it could be.
PA Wilds Greenways has a new website. Serves Clearfield, Jefferson, and Elk Counties. The Pennsylvania Wilds Greenways Partnership is a non-profit association of stakeholders aspiring to the stewardship of Gov. Ed Rendell and the Secretary of DCNR with a mission to:
· Create green jobs and sustainable economic growth through tourism and conservation in North Central PA.
· Connect and transport residents and visitors to regional communities, natural assets and PA Wilds signature projects.
· Transform PA Wilds communities into places where the economy and livability create a sense of place, a welcoming atmosphere and the right mix of services for residents and visitors.
Conserve wilderness and preserve rural areas.
http://www.pawildsgreenways.org/
How hazardous are coal ash waste dams?
By Jessica Lilly
West Virginia Public Radio
Just how much of a hazard are the EPA's "high hazardous potential" coal ash waste impoundments to West Virginians? It depends on how close you live to the site.
West Virginia Public Radio
Just how much of a hazard are the EPA's "high hazardous potential" coal ash waste impoundments to West Virginians? It depends on how close you live to the site.
Four coal ash waste impoundments in West Virginia recently made the EPA’s “high hazardous potential” list.
These special dams made the national news in December when an impoundment broke, spilling a billion gallons of coal ash waste across Tennessee land and into the Emory River.
On June 18, the environmental law firm Earthjustice, along with other environmental groups, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Environmental Protection Agency. The groups wanted to know where the “high hazard potential” coal ash waste impoundments in the United States were located.
At first, the US Department of Homeland Security didn't want to release the list. The office said the information could endanger local residents.
The debate ended Monday when the EPA released the information.
Read More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)